कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Pratāparudradeva

The Sarasvativilāsa was compiled by Pratāparudradeva, a king of the Gajapati dynasty who ruled at Cuttack (Katakanagari) in Orissa. The Dayabhāga portion of this work was published with an English translation by Rev. Thomas Foulkes in 1881. When the materials for the first volume were being collected, this work dealing with Vyavabāra was in the Press. It was edited by Dr. R. Sham Sastry and was published as a volume in the Oriental Library Publications of the University of Mysore. It is a large work containing 503 pages of the text with an Introduction of thirty-two pages containing an Index of the topics dealt with in it, errata and an account of the mss. on which the edition is based.

After invoking deities the work starts with the prasasti of the king and his family (pp. 2–11). Descent is traced to the Sun bim self through Dasaratha, Rāma and his sons. Rāma, his son Kuśa, his son Atithi and in this family of the Raghus was born Kapi lendra, founder of Gajapati dynasty, whose son was Purusottama. His queen was Rupāmbika. Pratāparudradeva or Vira-Rudra-deva was the son of Purusottama. He is spoken of as having given protection to Sultan (Suratrāṇa) Husanshah who threw himself on his mercy.1319 In the coloprions 320 the king is styled Gajapati, Gaudesvara (king of Gauda), lord of Kalubariga (modern Gulbarga ) in the Karnataka country of nine crores (probably of revenue ) and as the protector of Sultan Husanshah of Jamunapura. It is significant that the same titles are applied to Puruṣottamal321 in his Potavaram grant of sake 1412 (1490 A.

1321

1319 p. 11 ‘TTUTTE HT HEUTT109714F:1’. 1320 ta arsitasafa -119947-977 Taufempiga fit 27-57TUTTEGHATgtreft

S TAHITIIU-TCUTTETUT- sitatiaky-TT T12-ITETITTIE-ITS राजपरमेश्वर-वीरप्रतापरुद्रदेवमहाराजविरचिते स्मृतिसंग्रहे सरस्वतीविलासे व्यव

TATUS &. p. 503. Is Jamunāpura modern Jaunpura ? ANTITEITETIT 1797 fchigareta SHOE &c. E. I. vol. XIII p. 155; vide Dr. Rajendralal Mitra’s ‘Antiquities of Orissa’ vol. II, apdendix pp. 165-167, Ind. Ant. vol. I, p. 355 and M. M. Chakravarti’s article on · Uriya Inscriptions of 15th and lôch centuries’ in JASB vol. 62, part 1, pp. 88 104 for inscriptions of this dyasty. Vide the Velicharla grant of Pratāparudradeva Gajapati dated sake 1432 (1510 A, D.) in E. I. vol. 28 pp. 205 ff.

870

D.) and in other inscriptions. Prataparudradeva, while ruling his capital1323 Katakanagari, called together an assembly of Pandits and compiled an extensive digest of civil and religious law. The royal author feels qualms of conscience on the question of eulogising himself and his family but stifles them easily by saying that a poet can also be an appreciative critic of his own productions.1323 He boasts that he composed the work for saving scholars the trouble of bringing harmony among the conflicting dicta of Vijnanayogi, Aparārka, Bharuci and others, that there was no work that could equal his own and that his literary effort would make his predecessors’ works afford illu strations of the maxim that when a certain purpose is served by one the existence of others is superfluous. 1824 Then it is said that the Vyavahārakānda was first taken in hand even before the Ācārakānda following the special desire of the king Virarudra Gajapati,1325 But it appears from references in the Vyavahāra kānda itself that before that part was finished the Acārakanda had been completed.1328_The Sarasvativilasa, being a work composed under the express orders of a king for the benefit of his subjects, makes the nearest approach to the Austinian conception of law as a command addressed by political superiors to political inferiors and enforced by a sanction.

The principal topics dealt with in the Vyavabārakanda are: the hall of justice, the method of judicial procedure, the plaint, the reply, documents, possession, ļnādāna, dāyavibhāga, sāhasa

1322 ‘स चायं वीररुद्रो गजपतिरयोध्यामिवायोध्यां … भूकान्ताकटकं कटकनगरी

समानयन्’ P. 11. 1323 अत्र वर्णयितृवर्ण्ययोरभेदैकनियतयोरपि अवस्थाभेदेन भेदकथनमेकस्यैव कवेः कवि

सहृदयत्ववन्न विरुध्यते । p. 11. 1324 यथाविहितसभामण्डपान्तरे सभ्यप्राविवाकामात्यपुरोहितज्योतिर्विदादिसहितो

विज्ञानयोगि-भारुच्यपरार्क-मेधातिथ्यसहाय-चन्द्रिकादिबहुग्रन्थैकवाक्यतापर्यालोचन वशायाततत्केशो मा भूदिति सकलस्मृतिसमुच्चयमतिगम्भीरं नातिविस्तृतं प्रबन्ध प्रस्तौति ।… हीने गर्वमहो नैव नव गर्वमहोधिके । समे तु गर्व शङ्केत न समस्ति समस्तु नः॥ pp. 11-12 ; एकेन चरितार्थत्वादितरानर्थतानय: । पूर्वप्रबन्धैर्विषयी

भवेदिति ममोद्यमः ।। p. 14. 1325 ततश्चाचारकाण्डाद् व्यवहारकाण्ड: प्रथमारब्धः।… तथापि वीररुद्रगजपतिमहा

राजस्याकांक्षानुसारेण प्रथमं व्यवहारकाण्ड: प्रक्रम्यते || p. 15. 1326 अत्र यद् बहु वक्तव्यमस्ति तदस्माभिरपि आचारकाण्डे विवाहप्रकरण एव प्रपचित

मिति तत एवावधार्यम् । p. 343.104. Prataparudradeva

871

and other titles of law. In the beginning of the work he sets out at great length the views of ancient writers on politics about the constitution of the mandala, such as those of Parāśara, Usanas, Viṣṇu, Brhaspati, Visalaksa, Manu etc. He generally follows the views of Vijñānesvara on dayavibhāga, but here and there strongly criticizes bim e. g. he says that Vijñāneśvara gave a very far-fetched interpretation1327 of Yajnavalkya’s verse “rikthagrāba ļṇam dāpyah’. Another interesting example of of criticism of Vijnanesvara is found on p. 457 of Sar. V. ‘विज्ञानयोगिना यदुक्तं विवादपदानां परस्परसङ्गतिर्नास्ति तत्परास्तं वेदितव्यम्’. This passage has in view the Mitākṣarā passage at the beginning of Svāmipālavivada (taken up immediately after dealing with Simāvivada) ‘व्यवहारपदानां परस्परहेतुमद्भावाभावात् तेषामाद्यमृणादानमित्यादि पाठक्रमो न विवक्षित इति व्युत्क्रमेण स्वामिपालविवादोऽभिधीयते।’ for ‘तेषामद्य ’ vide Manu VIII. 4-7. Similarly another proposition associated with the

Mitaksara is attacked by the Sar. V. (p. 396) viz. यत्तु विज्ञानयोगिना स्वत्वं लौकिकं लौकिकक्रियासाधनत्वाद् ब्रीह्यादिवदित्युक्तं तदुग्रन्थं स्थूलमिव प्रतिभाति. On the other hand, Varadaraja refers to Vijõānesvara as ‘Brahmavit-pravara ’ (eminent or best among those who realized brahman on pp. 253 and 270 of Vyavaharanirṇaya). ___It may be noted that the Sar. V. names (on pp. 13–14)1388 41 Smrtikāras, some Upasmrtis, 18 Puranas and makes a distinc tion between Tikākāras (like Vijñāteśvara) and Nibandhanakāras (i. e. digest-writers ) like Lakṣmidhara. On p. 12 he quotes a

1328

1327 एतद्व्याख्यानक्रम (?) विज्ञानयोगिना पूर्वाचार्यच्छयानुगच्छता (०च्छायामनु

गच्छता ?) अधिक्षेपसमाधानाभ्यामतिलेशमाश्रित्य कृतम् । p. 262; vide p. 207 for another example of the criticism of faṣi . Should we not read एतद्व्याख्यानकम as the first word ? The page references are to the pages in the Mysore Univer sity edition of the Sarasvativilasa ( of 1927) indicated by the form Sar. V. मन्वहिरो-व्यास-गौतमात्रेय-यम-वसिष्ठ-दक्ष-संवर्त - शातातप-पराशर-विष्ण्वापस्म्ब हारीत-शङ्ख-कात्यायन-गुरुप्रचेतो-नारद-योगीश्वरबोधायन-पितामह-सुमन्तु कश्यप ब्रा-पैठीनसि-व्याघ्रपाद-सत्यव्रत-भरद्वाज-गार्ग-काष्णाजिनि-जाबालि-जमदग्नि-लो. काक्षि-वत्स-मरीचि-देवल-पारस्कर-लिखित-छागलेयात्रिभिःप्रणीताः स्मृतयःाजाबालि नाचिकेत-स्कन्द-लौगाक्षि-कश्यप-व्यास-सनत्कुमार-शन्तनु-जनक-च्याघ्र-कात्यायन जानकर्णि-कपिञ्जल-बोधायन-कणाद-विश्वामित्र (पैठीनसिगोभिल )प्रणीता उप स्मृतयः । जाबालिलौगाक्षिण्यासादयः पूर्वोक्ता न भवन्ति । पुराणानि तु-ब्राह्मपाम

(Continued on the next page )

872

verse containing names of sages like Manu, and Vasistha and Yogiśvara and Nibandhanakāras like Bhāruci, Kulārka and Yogiśvara.

The Sar. V., though a late work, is of great importance in some respects. In scores of places it cites the different views or explanations of Vijñāneśvara and Bhāruci on the same topic or verse. A few examples may be cited here. (1) On Yāj. I. 312 ( Sar. V. p. 23 on “sthirah’), Yāj. I. 313 ( Sar. V. p. 20 on the

• uditodita’), Yaj. I. 317 ( on ‘pātreșu ‘, Sar. V. p. 24), Yāj. I. 327 (no krama of the several acts is intended’ says Bhāruci in Sar. V. p. 30).

Differences of opinion between Bhāruci and Vijñāneśvara are pointed out by Sar, V. as to several matters, e. g. on p. 308 Sar. V. states that Vijñanayogin, Asahāya and Medhātithi allowed recourse to ordeal in the case of a dispute about sale by one who was not the owner of the property sold (asvāmivikraya ), while Bharuci, Aparārka and Smṛticandrikā did not allow such recourse to ordeals in that matter. Recently Dr. Derrett (of the London School of Oriental and African Studies) came across a ms, of Bharuci’s commentary on some chapters of the Manusmṛti found at Trivandrum and he is thinking of bringing out an edition of the part available. Here and there the Sar. V. cites Bharuci’s explanations of several passages of Manu and also explanations of Vijñānesvara. For example, on Manu VIII. 383 (Sahasram

(Continued from the previous page) वैष्णव-शैव-भागवत-नारदीय-मार्कण्डेयाग्नेय-भविष्यत्-ब्रह्मवैवर्त-लैङ्ग-वाराह-स्कान्द वामन-कौम-मत्स्य-गारुड-ब्रह्माण्डानि एतान्यष्टादशपुराणानि । सरस्वती विलास pp. 13–14. टीकाकारैर्विज्ञानयोगिप्रभृतिभिर्निबन्धकारैः कुलार्कलक्ष्मीधरप्रभृतिभि: लोकानुजिघृ क्षया स्मृतिव्याख्यानव्याजेन सर्वाः स्मृतया व्याख्याताः शिष्टानुगृहीतसर्वानुष्ठापक gefterlaluargary chlag i Franta p. 14. The word nibandhana’ or ’njbandhanakāra’ often occurs in the Sar, V.(e. g. pp. 52, 53, 149, 349, 451, 456, 468). It appears likely that Nibandhanakāra in these cases does not refer to one work only, but to different digests at different places, On p. 53 it is noted that a Nibandhanakāra followed Nārada as regards the order ( Krama ) of the 18 Vyavahūrapadas and

not the order given in the Manusmrti.

Pratāparudradeva

873

brāhmaṇo dandam &c.) he quotes the views of both Vijñāneśvara and Bhāruci;- vide also Sar. V. pp. 369-373 where Manu, Yaj. and Viṣṇu are quoted and the differing views of Bhāruci and Vijñāneśvara are pointed out. A few more cases, where Bbāruci’s coniments along with those of others on some verses of Manu are cited, may by pointed out. On p. 348 Manu IX. 103 is cited and the word ‘Dayadharmam’occurring therein is explained by Bhāruci as indicating both Dāyavibhāga and Dharmavibhāga. On p. 360 Manu IX. 118 ( svebhyo &c.) is explained by Sar. V. which points out that Asahāya, Medhātithi, Vijñānesvara hold views opposed to those of Bharuci and Aparārka. Vide also Sar, V. pp. 389-90 where are cited Manu V. 197 and 161 and the different explanations of Vijñānesvara and Bhāruci are set out.

Another interesting matter is that the Sar. V. cites in many places the explanations of certain sūtras and words of Viṣṇu and gives their interpretations by Bharuci; vide for example pp. 160, 314-15, 318-19, 422–23, 427-28, 430-32, 447-48, 487, 488-89. The question arises whether Bhāruci wrote a commentary on Viṣṇu as well as on Manu or whether he embodied many com ments on Viṣṇu in his commentary on Manusmīti. That question cannot be answered until Bharuci’s commentary on Manu is available in print,

It may be mentioned here that the Sarasvativilāsa paid high honour to Bhāruci, since on p. 428 it refers to Bhāruci as

bhagavat’ and it appears that Pratāparudra and his helpers possessed a copy of the commentary of Bhāruci on Manu.

On p. 457 Sar. V. quotes a verse of Viṣṇugupta for explaining a sūtra of Viṣṇu. Who this Viṣṇugupta is cannot be definitely stated. Kautilya, who also is called Viṣṇugupta in the Mudrā raksasa, has some of these terms (in II. 19. 2-9) but there is no such verse in the Kautiliya. It may be pointed out that the Bṛhaj-jātaka of Varāhamihira in VII. 7 and XXI. 3 mentions the views of Viṣṇugupta and that Utpala ( who comments on Bșhaj jātaka ) quotes two Aryā verses of Viṣṇugupta. So a Viṣṇugupta (writer on astrology ) flourished before 500 A, D Whether Cāpakya and Viṣṇugupta are identical is discussed by the present author in his paper on Varāhamihira and Utpala’ in JBBRAS New Series Vol. 24. 3 at p. 19.

H. D. 110

874

History of Dharamaśāstra

The Sarasvativilāsa quoted the views of Varadarāja in sevaral places (e. g. on pp. 135, 179, 268-69, 276, 319 )1329 his work must be earlier than about 1500 A. D., as Pratāparudra ruled from 1497 to 1538 A. D. and the king refers to him as an ādhunika (recent writer) on p. 325 ( of the Sarasvativilāsa under `Kritvā nusaya ‘). It is noteworthy that the Sarasvativilāsa, which quotes Aparārka many times (as on pp. 230, 262, 264, 308 ) and Smsti-candrikā dozens of times (as on pp. 212, 230, 235, 242, 264, 267, 275, 308, 350 ) does not speak of Aparārka or the Candrika (or Smsti-candrikā) as ‘ādhunika’. The Smsticandrikā would have to be placed between 1200 A. D. to 1240 A. D., as it quotes Aparārka and is very largely quoted by Hemadri. Therefore Varadaraja has to be assigned to a period between 1450 to 1500 A. D. in order that in a work like the Sarasvativilāsa composed in the first quarter of the 16th century he may be called *adhunika’ (recent, modern).

The Sarasvativilāsa is a work of authority in Soutbern India on matters of Hindu Law, though inferior to the Mitaksarā.1330 It informs us that, though the Snısticandrikā passed over the ordeals of water and poison on the ground that they had gone out of vogue, in Utkala the ordeal of water alone was resorted

1329 Some decisive references may be given here to the passages

in Varadarāja’s Vyavahāranirṇaya ( ed. by the late Prof. Rangaswami Aiyangar ), which are quoted in Pratāparudra’s Sarasvativilāsa ( on Vyavahāra ). 1. Op p. 135 of Pratāparudra’s work there is a long quota tion of the respective strength of title and mere possession in different circumstances, which repeats what Varadarāja says on p. 132 of the Vyavahāranirṇaya. 2. On pp. 275-76 of the Sarasvativilāsa a passage is quoted as cited from Kautilya by Varadarāja : 312 417 fasur: 1 3 ऋत्विजि मृते पश्चादन्यं वृणुयात् । पूर्ववृतस्यैव दक्षिणा ! पश्चादाहूतः यत्किंचिल्लमते चेति । यत्तिचिच्छब्दार्थमाह कौटिल्यः । अग्निष्टोमादिषु दीक्षणीयाया ऊर्व 9737STHT:, TÁTAZ 377 HT … 977:ATTEET TETTI HTETTHANE 5 warg Tourg Hautfa ATEIT: 1 This occurs in व्यवहारनिर्णय of वरदराज (pp. 284-85); it is found in Kautiliya

III. 14. 29-32 p. 120 ( ed. by Prof. Kangle). 1330 Vide 2 Mad-H. C, R. 206 at p. 217, 33 Mad, 439 at p. 441,

35 Mad. 152 at p. 156.

Prataparudradeva

875

to and in Śūrasena (Mathurā ) and Magadha ( Bihar ) the ordeal of poison alone was administered 1331

Besides the usual dharmasūtras and other smītis, the principal authors and works named in the Sarasvativilāsa are noted below.1332 The Sarasvativilāsa presents in the case of the dharmasūtras, particularly of Viṣṇu and Gautama, great varia tions from the printed texts of these works (vide sec. 10, p. 127 above ). The Sarasvativilāsa in scores of places gives the con flicting views of Bharuci and the Mitūksarā (for which see under Bhāruci, sec. 62). The Sarasvativilāsa also contains valuuable information about the views of such authors as Asahāya, Bhava deva and Srikara whose works have not yet come to light.

Burnell (introduction to Vamsa Brāhmaṇa p. VII took Pratāparudradeva to be the king of that name who belonged to the Kakatiya-Gapapati dynasty of Warangal and who was carried captive to Delhi in 1332 A. D. But in this he was wrong. It has been shown above that the king connected with the com position of the Sarasvativilāsa belonged to the Gajapati dynasty that ruled at Cuttack and not at Warangal. Pratāparudradeva ruled from 1497 to 1539 A. D. Therefore the Sarasvativilāsa must have been composed in the first quarter of the 16th cent ury. Foulkes thinks (Intro. p. XX) that the work was com posed about 1515 A. D. His argument is that though the commentary of Madhavācārya was written about two hundred years before the Sarasvativilāsa, the latter is entirely silent about it in his work and that the reason of this is to be sought for in the rivalry of the two dynasties of Prataparudra and Krṣparāya

1331 यथोक्तं चन्द्रिकाकारण जलविषयोरुत्सन्नानुष्ठानतत्वात्तद्विधिमनाख्याय कोशविधि

रुच्यत इति । उत्कलादिषु कचिद्देशेषु जलविधरेव प्रामाणिकत्वेन व्यवह्रियमाणत्वात् । KWATERO Tehy fagrauta GialloFirqa qfi detaatai p. 200. Vide Ffafigail (ateico ) p. 116 Gharpure’s ed, for its

opinion cited here. 1332 374 576p, 377014, 1154, ficfi, * (4718), FET (i. e. Fala

चन्द्रिका), देवरात, देवस्वामी, धारेश्वर, निबन्धनकार, प्रदीप, प्रदीपिकाकार, भवदेव, भवनाथ, भारुचि, मिताक्षरा, मेधातिथि, यज्ञपति, राजलासक, लक्ष्मीधर, वरद TFG ( called 319fak as contrasted with arafa ), fazia s7, fare (on 3140 Bita), aergaitcai, T16 1T1, sittit, #EFT, Fate

876

of Vijayanagara which was set at rest by a marriage alliance about 1516 A. D. Vide Prof. S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar’s ‘Sour ces of Vijayanagar History’ (p. 116), where we are told that the daughter of the Orissa king married to Krspadevarāja was named Jaganmohini (according to some) or Tukkā (according to others) and Sewell’s ’ A Forgotten Empire’ p. 320. Another argument advanced by Foulkes for 1515 A. D. as the date of the work is that during the latter part of his reigo Prataparu dradeva had come under the induence of the great Vaiśnavite saint Caitanya, who made Puri his residence during the last years of his life and that the Sarasvativilāsa has in the beginning an invocation of Śiva. Caitanya was born in sake 1407 Phālguna Full-moon (i, e. in 1486 A. D.); vide Bhandarkar’s “Vaiṣṇavism and saivism’ (p. 83) and Caitanya is said to have gone to Puri about 1510 A, D, and died in 1533 A. D. Beames in Ind. Ant. vol. II, p. 1 ff.). Both these arguments are not of much weight. As a matter of fact in some mss. there is an invocation of both Viṣṇu (Hayagriva ) and Śiva; vide Descriptive Cat, of Govern ment S. mss. at Madras vol. VI, p. 2426 No. 3221.

Among the latest works and authors of certain dates that the Sarasvativilāsa names are the Smṛticandrikā and Varadarāja. Some confusion has been caused by the fact that there were two kings called Pratāparudra viz. King Pratāparudra Gajapati (ruler of Orissa) and Pratāparudra Kakatiya (of Warangal). There is a work called Pratāparudra-Yaśobhūsana on Sanskrit Poetics (in cluding dramaturgy composed by Vidyānātha and published in the Bombay Sanskrit Series (in 1909) edited by K. P. Trivedi. In that work while dealing with dramaturgy a Sanskrit drama is put forward in which Pratāparudra Kakatiya is the hero (p. 135) (vide pp. 131-218 of that work). He ruled over Andhradeśa called Trilinga because that country has three famous lingas (Grisaila, Kaleśvara and Draksārāma) and he was also called Vira-rudra or Rudra. He was the son of Mahādeva and Mummudi or Mummudamba. It would be seen that the parents of the two Pratāparudras were different and that their capitals were different (Katakanagara of the Gajapati king and Ekasila of the Kakatiya king).

An interesting question about the authorship of the Sar. V. was raised by the late Dr. P. K. Gode in the Calcutta Oriental

Pratāparudradeva

877

Journal, Vol. II (1934–35 ) pp. 229-231 and he suggested that the real author of the Sarasvativilāsa was Lolla Laksmīdhara, who wrote a commentary on the Sundaryalahari of Sri Śhaṅkara cārya. In the journal of the Bihar Research Society (for 1950), Vol. 36 (parts 3-4 pp. 15-18 ) Mr. R. Subrahmanyam raises the same question and answers it by saying that the Sarasvativilāsa was really composed by Lolla Lakṣmidhara. The arguments advanced are iimsy and worth little. He boldly asserts that the author of the Sar. V. nowhere gives his own opinion or hazards his bonafides. One fails to understand what he means by the first part of his dictum. In dozens of places the author of Sar. V. gives his own opinions on the varying interpretations of Vijñāneśvara and of Bharuci and others. Vide above and notes for striking examples of the decisive conclusions reached by Pratāparudra (such as that on the question of Svatva cited above ).

I regret to say that Mr. Subrahmanyam has not made clear what he means hy saying that he (Pratāparudra ) nowhere gives his opinion and I am afraid that he has not read the original text carefully. In many cases he gives his opinions and pre fers one explanation to another. Vide p. 208; he employs the words tan-jiandam’ against Vijñānesvara and expressly says

asmad-uktaiva vyavasthì samyak’. On pp. 160-161 he refers to the differing explanations of the Smṣiicandrikā and Bharuci and expressly says Bharuci’s explanation is the proper one. For reasons of space it is not possible to dilate at length on this first charge against Pratāparudra. Only a few references to pages where he prefers one view to another are given here. Vide pp. 109 (Vijñāneśvaramatameva samyak ), 154 ( where the views of both Bhavadeva sad Apararka are declared as heya i. e. to be rejected); p. 384 (asahāya-vyākhyānamasahāyam), p. 458 ( Medhātithi-vyākhyānam svamatikalpitam iti mantavyam). The criticism against his reference to Ganapati, Sarasvati, Hanuman is to say the least worth little. Even a Vaiṣṇava king has to pay regard to the views of the subjects in his realm and when he comes forward as an author he may follow the usual pattern of his predecessors viz. of making obeisance to Ganapati and to Sarasvati. But even when making homage to Hanumat in introductory stanza he emphasizes that Hanumat learnt from his

878

Upadhyāya (ādyād-upādhyāyāt ) viz. Raghuvara (i. e. Rāma who was an incarnation of Vispu) and verse 6 refers to Krsna (who was a child of the Yadavas ). Therefore, there is hardly anything in the Introductory verses to detract from his being a staunch Vaiṣṇava. Further, Mr. Subrahmanyam is offended by the use of the words “Kāntānām Kāmadevah’ and remarks that nobody would write like this. All that is meant is that women looked upon the king as the paragon of beauty. Lastly Mr. Subrahmanyam complains that the king has overdone the permitted bounds of self-laudation. No limits have been set anywhere for self-laudation. But one example of another royal author several centuries earlier than Prataparudra may be cited for com parison viz. of Apararka who in the 5th Introductory verse of his commentary on Yāj. states that even God Śiva was astonished by the King’s bhakti and that Bṛhaspati himself was astonished by the king’s intellect and the Sun by his brilliance (svatva ).1333

Lolla Lakṣmidliara appears to have been a braggart. In his com, on the Saundaryalahari he gives at the end of his commentary a long list of his several ancestors and credits each of them with the authorship of works, hardly any one of which has been noticed so far in the numerous reports on Sanskrit Mss. It is possible that he might have been one of the Pandits called to help king Pratāparudra. He must have been paid for his tro uble and there the matter ended. This is like the case of Vśveśvarabhatti who helped Mandanapala in his works and whose name occurs as the author in the ms. of some of those works, It is known that Godavaramiśra was a learned court poet of Pratāparudra (vide Dr. Gode commemoration volume pp. 63-67 for him ).

Vide JBORS. vol. V, pp. 147-148 and Ind. Ant, for 1929, pp. 28-33 for information about the Empire of Orissa and its emperors, Kapilendra (who died in 1470 A. D.), Purusottama deva (1470-1497) and Pratāparudra-deva.

There is a ms. of a work called Pratāpamārtaṇḍa or Pra udhapratāpamārtaṇḍa (D. C. ms. No. 48 of 1872–73) which is

1333

a 279 Hah: nga arafalanteen farai mai fac तया भास्वान्क्षमित्वेन भूः ॥ 5th Intro. verse of टीका on या.

Prihvicanarodaya-Vyavahāraprakāśa

879

ascribed to Pratāparudra, ruler of Utkala, whose capital was Kataka on the banks of the Citrotpalā. It mentions Kapileśvara Gajapati, his son Purusottama, father of Pratāparudra. In the colophon the king is described as “Gajapati-Gaudeśvara-nava koti-kalabaragesvara-rūpa-nārāyaṇa’ &c. The work is divided into five Prakāsas on Padārthanirṇaya, Vatsarādinirūpaṇa, Tithi. njrūpana, Vratanirraya ( such as Navarātra &c.), Viṣṇubhakti. He expressly mentions as his authorities Hemādri, Kalpataru, Ratnākara, Mitākṣarā, Madhaviya, Anantabhatta, Smsticandrika Aparārka, Pārijāta, Kāladarsa, Devadāsa. Here there is an ex press mention of Madhava which refutes Foulkes’ theory set out above,