कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Anantadera

Anantadeva compiled a vast digest called Smrtikaustubha divided into several sections on suriskiras, ācāra, riadharma, dāna, utsarga, pratisthā, tithi and samvatsara. The section on sans kāras and that on rajadharma are also called Saniskāra-kaustu bha and Rajadharma-kaustele. Euch Kaustubha is subdivided into parts called didhiti. The Savskūra-haustubha is the most popular and most well-kaowo of his. It has been printed several times, the best editions being that of the Nirnayasagara Press (1913) and that issued at Baroda ( 1914) under the patron age of H. H. the Maharaja Gaikwad ( with a Marathi trans

1479 The Introductory verses of Bhaktiprkāśa are quoted bere :

एक एवेश्वरोऽनकरूपास्तनूः संप्रगृहालित्य, मुक्तिसिद्धये भजे ।। सकलभवनिवृत्तं चित्तमेतत्रयस्मात् । श्रवणमननकानुष्ठितिः स्यान्न तस्मात् ।। विषयकृनविषादो नापि सोढुमशक्यः । हरिपदभजनं तनिवृत्य कुर्मः ।। साधनभक्तिस्तु नवधा विहिता । " अब कीननं विष्णोः लरणं पादसेवनम् । अर्चन वन्दनं दास्यं सख्यमात्मनिवेदनम् । इति पुंसर्पिता विष्णोक्ताश्चेन्नवलक्षणा । क्रियते

HITTYT To setay 7441 p. 30 of uffit T. 1480 Vide I. O. cat. p. 356 No. 1224,

H. D. 120

954

History of Dharamaśāstra

lation by Sastri Venkatacarya Upadhyaya). The Saṁskāra-kau stubha was recognised as an authoritative work for India by the Privy Council and the Bombay High Court1481. It is a large work dealing with the samskāras from Garbhādhana to vivāha (marriage ) and is full of quotations and discussions. The following is a very brief summary of the contents :

The sixteen saṁskāras, the first being garbhādhāna, the astrological aspects of the first appearance of menses and the various propitiatory rites therefor; the proper times for garbhā dhāpa and the several rites connected therewith; punyāhavācana, nāndiśrāddha, mātskāpūjana; pārāyanabali and nāgabali; pañca gavya, kṛcchra and other prāyāscittas; cāndrayanavrata; adop tion, who is entitled to adopt, who can be adopted, rites of adoption, gotra and sāpind ya of the adopted son, mourning to be observed by the adopted, succession of the adopted; putra kāmesti; puisavana; anavalobhana; simantonnayana; rites on the birth of a child or son; impurity on birth; propitiatory rites for evil aspects at birth; nāmakarana; nișkramana; anna prāśana; piercing the ear; celebration of birth day; caula; upanayana, proper times for it, the necessary materials for it, the gāyatri, the vows of a brahmacārin; samāvartana; marriage, sāpiṇdya for it, gotras and prararas, proper times for marriage, forms of marriage, vāg-niscaya, simāntapujana, madhuparka, kanyādāna, vivāhahoma, saptapadi, homa on the entrance of the married couple etc.

The portion of the Samskara-kaustubha on the subject of adoption is frequently cited separately as Dattakadidhiti and is so entered in the catalogues of mss. It is a treatise of great import ance and deserves to be studied along with the Dattaka mimāmsā, the Vyavahāramayūkha and other similar works. The more important of his views are set out below. Like the Dattaka mimāṁsā he recommends that the nephew is the most suitable for adoption, then one may select any sagotra sapinda, then an asagotra sapinda, then a sagotra but asapinda, then any one of the same caste though not sagotra, but a daughter’s or sister’s son

1481 Vide Collector of Dadura v. Voutyo Ramulinya 12 V100. I.

A, 397 at p. 438; Sukharar v. Sitabai I, L, R. 3 Bom. 353 at p. 361.

Anantadeva

955

cannot be adopted nor can a brother, a paternal or maternal uncele be adopted. A Sudra may adopt a daughter’s or sister’s son. The person to be adopted must not be an only son or the eldest. A wife can adopt with the consent of her husband and a widow does not require the express perniission of her husband. The boy to be adopted may be below five or above five and may be taken before or after the cūdā ceremony is performed in the natural family. Anantadeva refers to the 452 view of some that the verses of the Kālikāpurāṇa on this subject are not found in several mss, and so are unauthoritative and tells us that others hold that the whole passage refers to the adoption of an asagotra boy. Anantadeva himself holds, like the Vyavahāramayukha, that even an asagotra boy may be adopted after his upanayana is performed in the natural family. When the ceremony of caula and the rest are performed in the family of the adopter, the adopted boy belongs to the gotrı of the adopter, but where

1482 एषां वचसां बहुषु कालिकापुराणपुस्तकेष्वदर्शनान्निर्मूलत्वादिति केचित् । अन्ये तु

समूलत्वेपि आद्यश्लोकत्रयस्यासगोत्रदत्तकविषयत्वात्तत्प्रायपठितत्वेनान्त्यश्लोकस्यापि तद्विषयत्वमेवोचितम् । अतः सगोत्रस्य दत्तकस्य नायं नियम इति परिणीतोपि दत्तको भवेदित्याहुः । वस्तुतस्तु नासगोत्रेप्युपनयनान्तसंस्कारोत्तरं दत्तकत्वसामान्य निषेधः कर्तुं शक्यः पुराणवचोभिवैदिकलिङ्गविरुद्धस्मृतिवचसां प्रामाण्यासंभवस्य बलाबलाधिकरणवातिकराणकसिद्धत्वात् । संस्कारकौस्तुभ PP. 47-48 of the oblong Nir. edition of 1937, pp. I69-170 : compare व्यवहारमयूख p. 114 the present author’s edition for remarks on the कालिका पुराण passage. The निर्णयसिन्धु quotes the Kalikipurana passages and adds ‘योऽपि नहि ग्रभायारणः सुशेवोऽन्योदर्यो मनसा मन्तव उ’ इति श्रुतौ दत्तकनिषेधः सोऽप्यौरसातिशयार्थः, अन्यथा शुनःशेपादिप्रतिग्रहश्रौत लिङ्गविरोधापत्तेः, उपेयो तव पुत्रतामित्युक्तेः । इदं च श्रीतलिङ्गं स्वयंदत्त क्रीतपरं न दत्तकपरं, द्वादश पुत्रमध्ये ‘दत्तात्मातुः स्वयंदत्तः क्रीतश्च ताभ्यां विक्रीत’ इति याज्ञवल्क्येन तयोर्दत्तकाद्भेदोक्तः, तयोश्च ‘दत्तौरसे तरेषां तु पुत्रत्वेन परिग्रहः’ इति कलौनिषेधात्, तेन संस्कारोत्तरं दत्तको न भव त्येवेति सिद्धम् । निर्णसिन्धु p. 250; ‘नहि ग्रभाया रणः’ is ऋ. VII. 4. 8. How bewildering are the differences among writers on ’ Dattake’ ( adopted son ) nty ie seen from the following passage on the Supindu relationship of the dailaka son from the Sāpiṇlyapradipa or - pirpaya of Nāyojibhatta (Prof. Devasthali’s Cat. No. 1193 p. 431 ‘दत्तकस्य प्रतिगृहीतृकुले त्रिपुरुष सापिण्ड्यं जनककुले साप्तपौरुषम् । तदिदं नन्दपण्डितोक्तिः । उभयकुलेऽपि साप्तपौ. रुषमिति शङ्करभट्टोक्तिः । तत्समानाऽनन्तदेवोक्तिश्च । तत्सजक-(? सृजक, जनक ) कुले पञ्चमपर्यन्तमिति गोविन्दार्णवोक्तिश्च । कुलदयेऽपि त्रिपुरुषमिति वासुदेव. भट्टोक्तिश्च।

956

the upanayana alone is performed in the adoptive family or the adoption is made after upgnayana the boy belongs to both gotras. But this holds good only as regards obeisance, sraddha etc, while for marriage every adopted boy has to avoid the gotra and prarara of both families. If a natural son be born to the adopter after he takes a boy in adoption, the adopted boy becomes an equal sharer with the aurasa, if all the sani: kāras up to ypanayana are performed by the adoptive father for the adopted boy, or he takes only a fuurth share if only some of the sanskaras ending with upanayana are performed by the adopter and he gets no inheritance but only provision for marriage if he was adopted after upanayana is performed in the natural family. Anantaceva, disagreeing with Nilakantha, holds that a girl may be adopted.1483

1.17

Like the Nimayasindhu and the mayūluas of Nilakantha, Anantadeva in the Sanskarakaustubha and elsewhere names several hundred authors and works. It is not necessary to set out the whole lot. His authorities are practically the same as those of the former. He principaily relies among nihandas uron the Mitūksarā, Aparāska, Hemādri, Madlara, Macanaratna, Madanapārijāta. The Smrtikaustubha was divided into several didhitis (rays, parts ). In the Smstıkaustubha published by the Nirnayasagara Press it is expressly stated that the tithididhiti has been already!4?+ expound ed. At the end also it is said that the work is only the complete abdadidhiti (i. e. portion dealing with samvatsaras of five kinds ). The year is said to be of five kinds, candra, soura, savana, bārhas patya and naksatr. The printed work treats of the several rites, observances, festivals and vratas on the important tithis of the twelve months of the ci.zdra year with the intercalary month and observances thereof, the rites proper to saura year and samkrāatis

CIT! uti

1483 दत्तकपुत्र्या अपि स्वीकार उक्तविधिना कार्य। वक्ष्यामि पुत्रसंग्रहमित्यादिगतपुत्रस्य

पुमान् पुत्र इत्यादिवैदिकप्रयोगमूलकन वृत्तिदुक्तन्यायेन पुत्रीसाधारण्यात् । दान प्रतिग्रह विधिपु उद्देश्यविशेषपुत्स्वाविवक्षाया । इतिहासपुराणेषु कुन्त्या दत्तक fatti I FATTITIH P. 118; confp-142TATE p. 108 ‘77

gatata 2564 7 firar dc.’ (my editiou, Puoda). 1484 योनन्तदेवकृतमन्थनसन्निबन्धीरायजोऽथ स तं हरिणा धृतो यः। नित्यं निजे

Eiz Hai T

e rari TTTT II Verse 3 at the end of the FitFTET H r. ed.). It may be noted that in the स्मृतिकौस्तुभ verse 2i is : तिथिदीधितिरुक्ता प्राग्वक्ष्यामोब्दोघ

दीधितिम् ।

Anantadeva

957

TILL

(the sun’s passage from one sign into another ), the rites of the sāvana year, the rules about rites when Jupiter is in the sign of Leo, the sites of the nāksatra year, the actions forbidden and allowed in Kali āge according to Anantadeva and discussion of the views of Heancāri, Madliava and the Madanapārijāta thereon.

In Introductory verses 10-14 of the Rajadharmakaustubha!486 edited by M. M. Kamalukssna Smrtitirtha and his son Mr. (now Dr.) Bhabatosh Bhattacharya in 1935 in Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, it is stated liat tiie work was composed for the greater glory of king Baj-Bahadur and is divided into several didhitis (rays, parts ) viz. four; the first diuiniti ( pp. 3-128 ) dealing with the founding of the cipral, the palace, temples with idols and lingas, villages, foris, construktion of wells and lakes, laying out parks; the 2nd part is pp 128-23?) treats Vāstupujā, vastu of various parts, the deities to be established thereon, vastu vāga-prayoga, Santi laid down by Asra?āvana &c., rules about constructing and viedicating wells, reservoirs of water, gardens, establishment of images of gods. The third didhiti culled Rājyāblisiku (pp. 233-380) is concerned with the crowning of the kli, characteristio qualities which a hing should possess, the characteristiws e qualities desirable in the chief queen (agraniahisi), of the mantrin! (such as being an expert in the four incans of royal policy viz. sama, dana, bheda and Danda, Yaj. I. 346), the Purohita ( Yāj. I. 313 ), Jyotirvit ( well-versed in astro logy and astronomy having 64 angas and upangas as described by Garga ); procedure of humas and santis (like Aindri); procedure of the abhiseka ( ceremonies of crowning the king ) as described in the Puranas ( pariicularly in the Viṣou-dharmottara ) pp. 346-63; actions and rites to be performed after the crowning of the king; Pusvibhiṣehit ( iri Atharia aparisista ); the 4th part (dichiti) is concerned witii prajapalana ( protecting and govern ing the subjects ), covers pp. 331-96 and deals with legal pro cedure (including orduals) and decisions of the various matters of dispute among the subjects. There is hardly anything new or

1465 बाजबाहदुर चन्द्र भूपतेस्तस्य भूरियशंस प्रतन्यते । राजधर्मविषयोऽत्र कौस्तुभोऽ

नेकदीधितियुतः सुधीर खः ।। दीधितिः कौस्तुभस्यास्य भविष्यति चतुविधा। प्रतिष्ठाविषयात्रा द्या तत्प्रयोगपसपरा ॥ राज्याभिषेकविपया तृतीया दीधितिस्ततः । 4511917- 19eTyf 7 40: 92T XI TFYÁRTECH I 10, 13-14.

958

striking in it and often it is very meagre as compared with even Yaj. smsti e g. on Sambhūyasanutthana’ it quotes only four verses (without a word of comment ) that are Yāj. II. 259-60, 263–265, while Yāj. devotes seven verses to the same topic viz. II. 259–2651186

The Rajadharmakaustubha quotes profusely from the Matsyapurāṇa, the Viṣṇudharmottara-purana and the Bșhatsa mhitā ( whole chapters being quoted semetimes from these ). Dr. Miss. Priyabala Shah published Khanda III of the Viṣṇudharmo ttara (chapters 1-118 ) in two parts in the Gaekwad Oriental Series. Vide also Studies in Dharmaśāstra’ by Dr. Bhabatosh Bhattacharya (1964), pp. 22–23 for Anantadeva.

The name Smṛtikaustubha (cf. the Nir. ed. of 1908) is misleading. It does not deal with all or many topics treated of in Smstis. It deals only with the religious rites to be performed in tbe Candra year in its several months and on several uthis and the religious rites to be performed in the other four kinds of years and their months. The Smṛtıkaustubha is really · Abdadidhiti’

1486

I would like to devote here a few lipes to the memory of the learned editor of the Rājadharmakaustubha, Mabāmaho padhyapa Kamalakrsna Smṛtitirthy. He was born in 1870 in a Pandit family at Bhatpara (well-krown as Bhattapalli) in West Bengal about 22 inįles north of Clacutta ) and was 11th in descent from Nārāyana, the original settler in the town. He accrmpanied M. JI, Haraprasad Shastri in his tour for search of Sanskrit Miss, in Nepal in 1897. He worked as Prof. of Sinrti in the Saṅkrit College at Bhatpara till his last day (1. e, 25th January 1931). He edited many works vīz, the Hiralalā noflairuditha, three Ratnākaras of Canile svari, in lintya, Grastha and Vivāda), the Tirthacintā mani of Vācaspati, four Kaumudīs of Govindānanda (on Varsakriyā, Dāna, Srāddhi and Suddhi); all the nine published in the B. I. Series Rājadharinakaustubha of Anantadeva, Danila viveka of Vardhamana , both published in the Gaekawad’s Oriental Series ). The Gurt. of India conferred on him the title of Mahāpahopadhyāya in 1926. He also edited some works in Bengali, e. v. he translated the Agastyasambitā in Bengali and publishad it in Bengali script; he translated into Bengali the latter half of Souadeva’s Katbāsarita sāgara (and it was published after his death ).

Anantadeva

959

or ‘Saṁ atsaradidhiti’ 1487 as Anantadeva expressly says in Introductory verse 20 of the Smṛtikaustubha that he is going to expatiate on ‘Abdadidhiti’.

In this work, while describing the religious rites to be per formed on certain tithis he frequently cites at some length the kathas ( stories ) connected with those tithis; vide, for examples, the Vata-$āvitrivratakathā on Jyestha Paurṇamāsi pp. 44-50, Mahā laksniikathā on pp. 148-150, Anantacaturdaśivratakatha (pp. 170-175), Śivaratrivratakathā (pp. 398-410 ).

Hemādri1488 deals only with three kinds of abdas or samvatsa ras viz. Lunar (cāndra), Saura ( solar) and Savana, while Madhava added two more viz. Bārhaspatya and Nāksatra. The Smṛtikaustubha ( pp. 462-63) quotes Yājñavalkya (1. 265–268) which set out the results of performing Sraddhas on the nakṣatras from Kșttikā to Bharaṇī. The Manusmști III. 277 provides what one secures by perforniing sraddhas on the even tithis (2nd, 4th &c. ) and even Naksatras ( Bharaṇī, Rohiri &c.) and on 1st, 3rd and other uneven t:this and naksutras ( Aśvinī, Kr̥ttikās etc.).

It is unnecessary to go into details about the other treatises on prayascitta, &c. It is said by Eggeling (1.0 Cat. No. 1475) that Anantadeva’s Smrtikaustubha comprised twelve parts. For Bhagavadbhaktinirraya vide Velankar’s Cat. of Iccharam Desai collection p. 49. Anantadeva also wrote several prayogas such as the Agnihotraprayoga, Cāturmāsyaprayoga. In the Bhadkamkar collection there is a ms. of a drama called Krsna

1487 In TFCHRIECH ( p. 94 of edition in Gaekwad series ) we

meet with the passage ‘कुण्डनिर्माण संवत्सरदीधितौ माघकृत्योक्तरीत्या वक्तव्यं तत्संवत्सरकृत्यदीधितौ वाजिनिराजनप्रकरणे उक्तमिति नेहोच्यते’. For वाजिनीराजनविधि vide pp. 2-45-250 of the स्मृतिकौस्तुभ ( Nir.

ed, of 1909), 1488 On p. 459 of the Fra FTH ( Nir. ed. of 1909) 37ga says :

‘यद्यपि हेमाद्रिणा चान्द्रसौरसावनात्मकमब्दत्रयमेवाङ्गीकृतं, … तथापि माधवेन सप्रमाणतया बार्हस्पत्यनाक्षत्रयोरपि प्रदर्शनान्न तदनादरणमुचितम्। उदाहृतं च तत्प्रमाणम् । न च तयोधमटाने सर्वथैवानुपयोगः । तदुपजीव्यविधिनिषेधाना मुपलम्भात् तत्र बृहस्पतेः संक्रमणादासंक्रान्तिकालो बार्हस्पत्यो वत्सरः । तत्कार्य स्कान्दे द्वारकामाहात्म्ये । … तंत्रक नक्षत्रं यावता कालेन चन्द्रमसा युज्यते ताव नाक्षत्रो दिवसः । तादृशसप्तविंशतिदिन क्षत्रो मास: । तादृशद्वादशमासनाक्षत्रो OTT: 1 p. 462.

960

bhakti-candrikā composed by Anantadeva in which the characters are a Śaiva, Vaiṣṇara, Minamsaka, Tarika &c.

In the Smartikaustubha (Nirnayasagara edition of 1909) Anantadeva gives a pedigreel458 of his patron’s family. The family claimed descent from the moon. Whether the first three kings, mentioned in the Smrtikaustubha, were related as father and son is doubtful. Laksmanacandra is said to have been the son of Rudracardra and it was lie who conquered several chiefs wielding sway over the Himalayan territories.1490 Trimallacardra, the successor (and probably the son) of Lakṣınararandra, is praised for his continual liberality to the learned men of Benares.74"] It was at the command of Baz Bahadursandra and for pleasing him that Anantadeva compiled his Sirtikaustubha.14 At the end Anantadeva tells us that Baz Babūdurcandra conquered secrii mountain forts in the Himalayas.!!3 After giving a pedigree of his patron’s family Anantadevi gives some information about himself. He was a descendant of the great Maratha Saint Ekanātha whom he describes as endowed with Vidic s:1c1ifices and as a devotee

1489 The pedigrer of the king ( patron of Anantadera ) who is

de:crilled as of th Candra-vari ka is as follows:–संज्ञानचन्द्र कल्याणचन्द्र-मद्रचन्द्र–(son) लश्मणचन्द्र-त्रिमल्लचन्द्र-नीलचन्द्र-बाज वहादुर. Tide Pref. L. V. Derasithali’s Cat. of the Sanskrit Viss, in the Librar, of the Dombay University ( 1944 ) No. 1212 pp. 437-138 for a long quotation from it, in which संज्ञानचन्द्र is the name of the first aucestor of Baz Bahadur (verse 2 ) and verse 7 shows पुरुषोत्तम as the son or successor

of Vīlacandra. 1490 तेनानेकहिमाचलम्थनृपतीन् दुष्टान्विजित्य स्वके

राज्ये वृद्धिरकारि तुष्टिमिता चाधायि विद्वदि !! verse 5. 1431 काशीविहृदादिभ्यो धनराशीनदात्सदा || verse 6. 1422 तस्मात्मजं वैदिकमात्रविज्ञं सन्तोसकृप्राहुरनन्तदेवम् ।

बाजाहराज्ञो वचमा विधेयं निबन्धसानेद्धरणं त्वयेति ॥ अनन्तदेवेन तदाज्ञयाथो मुदे हरः पूनिवन्धरूपम् ।

क्षीगम्बुधि बुद्धिगुणमपित्वा प्रकाश्यतेऽयं स्मृतिकौस्तुभ: कौ || verses 17-18. 1493 येनाजिनानि युधि सर्वरिपन् विजित्य दुर्गाणि दुर्घहतराणि धनैर्युतानि । श्रीबाज

बाहदुर चन्द्र नृपस्य तस्य वाचा हिमाचलगतावनिंदवतुष्टयै ।। योनन्तदेवकृतमन्थन सन्निवन्धक्षीरसब्धि जय सततं हरिणा धृतो यः । नित्यं निजे हृदि सतां प्रमुदेस्तु तस्य सब्ददीधितिरियं स्मृतिभास्करस्य | Terses 2 and 3 of the स्मृति कौस्तुभ ( Nir. ed. of 1:009).

.114.

Anantadeva .

961

of Kļṣṇa.1494 That this Ekanātha is the same as the great Maratha saint is vouchsafed by Kāśjoātha, author of Dharma sindhu, in another work of his.1495 Anantadeva was the great great-grand-son of Ekanātha and he was the grandson of Ananta and son of Āpadeva, the author of the Mimāṁsā nyāyaprakāśa alias À padevi. Mimāṁsā lore seems to have been a hereditary endowment in the family as in the case of the Bhattas of Benares. In all his works, particularly in the Samskārakaustubha, Anantadeva applies at every step the maxims and doctrines of the Pārvamīmāṁsā for the decision of doubtful points of Dharmaśāstra. Anantadeva had a younger brother Jivadeva whose Gotrapravaranirṇaya he draws upon in the Sanskārakaustubha after dealing with sāpindya for marriage in his own way. The quotation is a long one beginning with the words ‘314 07977faujant gritacasho Tal fenti ta’ on p. 179 (b) of HEFTTTH (oblong Nir. edition of 1913 ) and ending on p. 196 ( a ) with the verse: ita & gara पण्डितजनालङ्कारचूडामणिोदातीर जनिर्गुणोच्चयखनिनाम्नापदेवोग्रणीः । तत्सूनोरिह जीवदेवकृतिनः सद्धर्मशास्त्रे कृतो गोत्रागां प्रवरैः सहेयमभवनिणीतिरीशार्पणम् ॥. For account of the 19th of Jaza vide Prof. Devasthali’s Cat. No. 1029 p. 369 and Nos. 1210-12 pp. 436–38. Dr. Bhandar kar notices an Áśaucanirṇaya of Jivadeva in which the Nirṇayasindhu is cited as an authority. 1496

West and Būhler in their digest1497 thought that Ananta deva flourished about the same time as the author of the Nirṇayasindhu. But this requires some correction. Baz Baha dur, the patron of Anantadeva, seems to have been a scion of

1494 Thetarea cala Hifaa: 1 vitessuthfa H a a fasi: 11

verse 13 of langu. The pedigree of अनन्तदेव is :— एकनाथ I-son आपदेव I-son 3770 1-son 317469 II—sons feedice II and site. 9. 1929 II is the author of the famous work न्यायप्रकाश or मीमांसान्यायप्रकाश (vide Intro. verse 16 to the Smṛtikaustubha, Nir, ed. न्यायप्रकाशकर्ता निरवधिविद्यामृतप्रदःसततम् । मीमांसाहयनयवित्तनयस्तस्थाप

asa II. 1495 Vide his fas &#341777 folio 37 a (1).C. ms. No. 100 of

1869-70). 1496 Vide Bhandarkar’s Report, 1883–84, p. 53 ( for sitaaa ). 1497 Vide Digest p. 24 ( 3rd ed.) and p. 25 ( 4th ed.).

HD, 121

962

the Candra (or Chand ) family and ruled over Almora and Nainital from 1638 to 1678 A. D. It is said in the Imperial Gazetteerl498 that the first of the Chandrarājas was Somachand who hailed from Jhūsi near Allahabad and came to the Hima layan regions in the 10th century and that in 1563 the capital was transferred to Almora by Kalyancanda, whose son Rudra. candra was a contemporary of Akbar and made his obeisance to the latter in 1587 A. D. at Lahore. The Smrtikaustubha does mention the ancestors Kalyanacandra and Rudracandra of Baz Bahadur. Between Baz Bahadur and Rudracandra there are three names. Supposing that they are the three direct ascendants of Baz Bahadur and following a period of 25 years for each after Rudracandra’s known date of 1587 A. D., we get the year 1662 A. D. for Baz Bahadur. We are told in the Gazetteer that in 1672 Baz Bahadur introduced a poll tax, the proceeds of which he remitted to Delhi as tribute. Therefore Anantadeva must have been patronised by Baz Bahadur between 1645 and 1675 A. D. A greater approximation can be made in another way. The saint Ekanātha finished his Marathi Bhagavata at Benares in sake 1495 and 1630 of the Vikrama era on Kārtika full-moon day (i. e. 9th November 1573) as he himself tells us. 1499 Anantadeva was the fourth in descent from him (exclusive of Ekanātha ). Counting 25 years for each of the four generations, Anantadeva should have been a grown up man in 1673 A. D. There are controversies about the dates of the birth and death of Ekanātha, the commonly accepted dates being sake 1450–1521 (b. 1528–d. 1600 A. D.). The date of his death is sake 1521 Phālguna dark half 6th day

1498 Vide Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. XVIII. p. 324 and vol.

V. p. 245. 1499 arruret hele fitiet i fazhhaith TherHT 1

शके सोळाशें तिसोत्तर । टीका एकाकार जनार्दनकृपा ॥ महामंगळ कार्तिकमासी । शुक्लपक्ष पूर्णिमेसी। सोमवार शिवयोगेंसी । टीका एकादशी समाप्त झाली ॥ स्वदेशींचा शक संवत्सर । दण्डकारण्य श्रीरामक्षेत्र । प्रतिष्ठान गोदावरीतीर । येथील उच्चार तो ऐका। शालिवाहनशक वैभव । संख्या चौदाशें पंचाण्णव । श्रीमुख संवत्सराचें नांव । टीका अपूर्व ते जाहली ॥ verses 552-555 of the last 37214 (Nirnayasāgara Edition ).

Nāgojibhatta

963

( 25 February 1600). Others give 1548–1599 A. D. as the dates. Whichever date is correct, the literary activity of Anantadeva must be assigned to the third quarter of the 17th century. This date is confirmed by the fact that in the Asaucanirṇaya of Jivadeva, younger brother of Anantadeva, the Nirnayasindhu composed in 1611-12 A. D. is cited as an authority.

Doubts were expressed by some Marathi writers as to whether Ekanātha, mentioned as the ancestor of Anantadeva, is identical with the well-known Marathi poet and saint Ekanātha. It is unnecessary in this work to discuss that matter. The present author holds that they are identical. Those interested may read the contribution of Dr. P. K. Gode in ‘Studies in literary History’ vol. II (for 1954) pp. 39-41.

Anantadeva was a very learned man. He was at home in both Pūrvamimāṁsā and Dharmaśāstra. He wrote a learned commentary called Bhattālapkāra on Apadeva’s Mimamsanyāya prakāśa.

On p. 469 of the Smstikaustubha (Nir. ed.) Anantadeva refers to a work called Bhaktiviveka composed by his grand father (Anantadeva I, grandson of Ekanātha ).

Anantadeva wrote many works on Dharmaśāstra. A few may be mentioned here. He composed Antyeștipaddhati (vide Prof. Velankara’s Cat. No. 665 p. 209), Cāturmāsyaprayoga (the same cat. p. 184 No. 575), Bhagavadbhaktinirṇaya ( vide Velanakar’s Cat. of Iccharam Desai collection (No. 231 ). On भगवन्नामकौमुदी of लक्ष्मीधर he wrote a commentary called Prakāśa ( vide Velankar’s Cat. No. 115).