86. Smriticandrikā of Devannabhatta
Volume I: Part II pp. 737–741
The Smṛticandrikā of Devannabhatta stands as an extensive digest within the Dharmaśāstra tradition. Its printed text primarily addresses subjects such as saṁskāra, ācāra, vyavahāra, śrāddha, and āśauca, though the author is also known to have composed works on prāyaścitta. It is worth noting that the author's name appears with various spellings across different sources. This comprehensive digest is distinguished by its profound reliance on and extensive quotations from numerous Smṛtikāras. For example, it cites over 600 verses from Kātyāyana alone, specifically pertaining to vyavahāra, meticulously naming the various authors and works referenced throughout its discourse. Devannabhatta, the erudite author, is identified as a southerner. The work's contents further reveal specific points of divergence from the Mitākṣarā. Its probable period of composition is estimated to fall between 1150 and 1225 A. D. It is also crucial to recognise that several other distinct works also bear the title Smṛticandrikā, necessitating careful contextualisation.
— Synopsis by P.V. Kane, from History of Dharmaśāstra
86. Smriticandrikā of Devannabhatta
who flourished between 1150 and 1250 A. D. are identical. The views ascribed to Harihara by Hemādri in his section on śrāddha are not found in the bhāṣya on Pāṛaskara. Therefore Hemādri is referring to some other work of Harihara. From a passage of Hemādri it appears that Harihara wrote after the Mahārṇava1 (Prakāśa). Hemādri also tells us that Harihara refuted the views of Jayantasvāmi on a certain verse.2 The same Harihara who commented on Paraskara also wrote a commentary on Kātyāyana's Sānavidhisūtra wherein he mentions the Kalpatarukāra (vide D. C. mṣ No. 101 of 1891–95). Several Hariharas are knowṇ There is Hariharabhaṭṭācārya, the father of the great Bengal writer Raghunandana. A Hariharācārya composed an astrological work Samayapradipa in śake 1481 (1559-1560 A. D.).
86. The Smṛticandrikā of Devannabhaṭṭa
This is a well-known digest on Dharmaśāstra. An English translation of the portion of it which is concerned with dāyabhāga was published in 1867 by T. Krisnasvami Iyer at Madraṣ The text has been published by Mr. J. R. Gharpure (up to śrāddha) in Bombay and also in the Mysore Government Oriental Series (up to āśauca). In the following Mr. Gharpure’s edition has been used and the Mysore edition for āśauca sectioṇ
The Smṛticandrikā published by Mr. Gharpure is a huge work of large size covering about 736 pages on the topics of some saṁskāras (88 pages), Āhnika (144 pages), Vyavahāra (332 pages), and Śrāddha (172 pages). According to the colophons at the end of the sections, it appears that the author was called Devaṇṇa-bhaṭṭopādhyāya, son of Keśavāditya-bhaṭṭopādhyāya. The fifth introductory verse asserts that all that he writes is based on authoritative texts and that he has stated nothing purely relying on his own ideas (or imagination).3 The Smṛticandrikā is a very extensive digest. It is almost the earliest ( except the Kalpataru ) among digests on dharmaśāstra of which msṣ have yet been discovereḍ The printed text deals with the topics ( kāṇḍas ) of Saṁskāra, Āhnika, Vyavahāra, Śrāddha, Āśauca. It appears that he wrote on prāyaścitta also. In the colophons of msṣ of the work the name of the author is variously written as Devanna, Devana, Devananda or Devagaṇa ( vide I. O. Cat. pp. 405–406 ). He is also described therein as the son of Keśavādityabhaṭṭa and as a Somayājī. The Smṛticandrikā quotes most profusely from numerous smṛtikāras and affords valuable assistance in reconstructing some of the smṛtis and checking msṣ and editions thereof. For example, it quotes about 600 verses from Kātyāyana on vyavahāra and about the same number from Bṛhaspati. From Manu and Nārada more verses are quoted than even from Kātyāyana and Bṛhaspati. Among works, commentators and authors of digests named by it the following may be noted : Aparārka, Karmapradīpa which is the same as Gobhilasmṛti ( II. 126–127 ) with slight variations ( Ananḍ eḍ ), Devarāta, Devasvāmi, Āpastambakalpabhasyār-thakāra ( Āśauca p. 84 ), Dhareśvara, Dharmabhāṣya, Dhūrtasvāmi, Pradīpa, Bhavanātha, Bhāṣya on Āpastamba Dharmasūtra, Dharmadīpa or Pradīpa ( Āśauca p. 63 ), Bhāṣyārthasaṁgraha-kāra, Manuvṛtti, Medhātithi, Mitākṣarā, Rāmāyaṇa (four verses), and Varāhamihira (one verse), Vaijayantī (a lexicon), Viśvarūpa, Viśvadarśa ( Āśauca p. 164 ), Sambhu, Śrīkara, Śivasvāmī, Smṛti-bhāskara, Smṛtyarthasāra. He mentions a Bhaṭṭācārya on Āśauca ( p. 1, 2 ), probably Śrīnivāsa, the author of Śuddhidīpikā who wrote about 1159–60 A. D. ( JASB 1915 p. 334 ). He quotes a passage from the work of an author, whom he styles Guru (probably his own teacher or father ).4 The Smṛticandrikā often criti-cizes these works and authors and advances its own views after considering the positions of otherṣ Devannabhaṭṭa was a south-ern writer and his work is according to judicial decisions of great authority in southern India.5 But it has been held that in 86. The Smṛticandrikā of Devannabhaṭṭa spite of its high authority it cannot override the Mitākṣarā even in the Madras Presidency.6
The Smṛticandrikā quotes from 23 Purāṇas and Upapurāṇas i. e. from more Purāṇas than even Aparārka. They are set out in the note below.7
For the Āśauca-kāṇḍa of the Smṛ. C. I had to use the Mysore University's edition of 1921 (203 pages). It starts with the verse of Śańkha that the following religious acts are stopped while the āśauca (impurity on account of death) exists, viz. religious gifts and their acceptance, homa (worship of Fire), study of the Veda and rites for one's deceased ancestor (except the offering of piṇḍas to the recently dead person for whose sake āśauca is observed). It quotes immediate performance of purificatory rite for one day, three days, four days, six days, ten days, twelve days, a fortnight, a month and until death. It deals with impurity on birth also and concludes with the putting into the Ganges or some holy place the ashes of the dead and with Śrāddha at Gayā.
The contents of the Smṛticandrikā are : various Dharmas, such as those of varṇas, āśramas; usages of countries; saṁskāras, garbha-dhāna, puṁsavana, jātakarama, nāmakaraṇa, cūḍākaraṇa, upanayana, marriage, etc., duties of student-hood and holidays; daily duties such as śauca, ācamana, brushing the teeth, bath ing, saṁdhyā, śrauta and smārta rites; duties of householder; the five daily yajñas; rules about taking food, forbidden food; proce dure of law-courts, means of proof, ordeals, the various titles of law such as deposit, partnership, dāyabhāga; detailed rules about śrāddha, its various kinds, persons entitled to perform śrāddhas, the brāhmaṇas proper to be invited at śrāddha etc. The Smṛticandrikā refers to Vijñāneśvara with great respect.8 Yet there are several interesting points on which the Smṛticandrikā differs from the Mitākṣarā. The Smṛticandrikā questions (vide note 825 above) the statement of the Mit. that unequal distribu- tion by the father of ancestral property among his sons should not be resorted to, as it has come to be abhorred by the people. The Smṛticandrikā does not approve of the definition of dāya given by the Mit.9 The Smṛticandrikā does not accept Vijñāneśvara’s explanation of the word ‘apratiṣṭhitā’ occurring in the sūtra of Gautama, but upholds Aparārka’s explanation of it (vide note 1031 above). The Smṛticandrikā favours the theory of spiritual benefit in matters of succession and therefore among daughters prefers one that has sons over another daughter who is sonlesṣ10 It criticizes the reasons advanced by the Mit. for preferring the mother over the father as an heir to their deceased son and says that both parents succeed together.11 Though the Smṛticandrikā in this way in some cases criticizes the Mit., it generally follows its leaḍ It holds, just as the Mit. does, that sons acquire by birth ownership in ancestral property. The author asserts that he puts forward no imaginary views but only such views as are based on (authoritative) textṣ12
As the Smṛticandrikā names the Mit., Aparārka and Smṛtyar- thasāra, its upper limit cannot be placed earlier than 1150 A. D. Their Lordships of the Privy Council say in `Buddha`singh vs Laltu`singh`13 that Devanandabhaṭṭa is supposed to have been a contemporary of Aparārka. But this supposition is not quite correct. Since Aparārka is quoted several times as an authority to be preferred even to the Mit., it looks more probable that there is some distance of time between Aparārka and Devanṇa-bhaṭṭa. Hemādri quotes the views of the Smṛticandrikā probably oftener than those of any other `nibandhakāra`. In one place14 he does not approve of the explanation given by the Smṛticandrikā of a verse occurring in the `Mahābhārata` about a man with male issue performing `śrāddha` on the thirteenth `tithi`. In an-other15 place Hemādri refers to the view of the Smṛticandrikā on the question whether the `śrāddha` on `amāvāsyā` is optional with `śrāddha` in dark half. Therefore it follows that the Smṛticandrikā must have been composed at least a generation earlier than Hemādri i. e. before 1225 A. D. The Smṛticandrikā is frequently quoted by the Sarasvatīvilāsa, the Vīramitrodaya and other digestṣ
Several authors composed works styled Smṛticandrikā, e. g. there is a Smṛticandrikā of `Śukadeva-miśra` (`I. O. Cat.` p. 471 No. 1549), another by `Āpadevā` (`Mitra's Notices, vol. VI, p. 301`), another by `Vāmadevabhaṭṭācārya` (`Mitra's Notices, vol. IX. p. 137`).