According to their standardized treatment within the Indian legal tradition, ordeals are supposed to occur, under certain circumstances, when one person formally accused another of some crime in a court of law. While not disputing the general accuracy of this standardized treatment of ordeals, this article argues for the widespread practice in pre-modern India of another—hitherto unrecognized—type of ordeal that fails to fit this basic scenario, for such ordeals would occur when someone was widely believed to have committed some wrongdoing, (...) but was not forced to stand trial in a formal judicial court. In order to prove his innocence and, thereby, mitigate the damage caused by his suspected guilt, such an individual could—and sometimes did—arrange for himself to undergo an ordeal at his own expense and independently of any formal plaint. After establishing the practice of ordeals of this sort in pre-modern India, this article then examines some possible explanations for their development. (shrink)

It has long been recognized that the Indian subcontinent is home to two markedly different systems of kinship that broadly correspond to prominent linguistic and geographical divisions in the region: those of the Indo-Āryan North and the Dravidian South. Moreover, scholars have widely agreed that the most distinctive feature of Dravidian kinship is the widespread practice of cross-cousin marriage in its various forms. In the Indo-Āryan North, by contrast, a man is generally forbidden from marrying a woman to whom he (...) is biologically related in any way within a fairly large number of generations. Nevertheless, by the close of the first millennium CE, Brāhmaṇa intellectuals throughout India shared in common both a canon of scriptural sources and a complex tradition of jurisprudence known as Dharmaśāstra. Hence, this raises the question: How did classical Brāhmaṇical jurists of the North and the South deal with the controversial issue of cross-cousin marriage? It is this question that this article aims to address in comprehensive detail. In particular, it will trace the treatment of cross-cousin marriage within Dharmaśāstra from the earliest texts of the tradition up to the two earliest and most prominent juridical defenses of the custom, composed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. It will then conclude by drawing attention to a rare case where a particular Dharmaśāstra work can be seen to have influenced the marriage practices in a particular region of South India in the premodern past. (shrink)

The Purāṇas make a major contribution to Brahmanical writing on gifting, primarily because they contain descriptions of numerous specific gifting rites that texts of other genres generally fail to discuss. Although largely unstudied, these Purāṇic gifting rites provide unique evidence of a historically significant, yet hitherto ignored, development in gifting in medieval India, namely, the incorporation of the increasingly popular ethos of bhakti into the much older practice of dāna, wherein gods traditionally played no prominent role. This article will argue (...) that Purāṇic authors strove to incorporate bhakti into dāna via two fairly distinct strategies. The first and apparently more mainstream of these is the straightforward inclusion of rather superficial Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava elements in various gifting rites. The essence of the second strategy is a belief that donors should in some way offer their gifts as a sign of respect—in other words, dedicate their gifts—to certain major Hindu deities, even if in most cases they would actually give their gifts to ordinary human beings. This strategy appears to have been less popular, but to reflect an attempt to more thoroughly integrate bhakti into dāna. (shrink)

This article examines significant, yet apparently unnoticed sociolinguistic aspects of the common Sanskrit particle bhoḥ and its Prakrit equivalent bho, which are frequently used in respectful addresses in our literary sources. Its specific aim is to demonstrate the important connection between bhoḥ and members of the twice- born social classes, especially Brahmins, that pertained during a large period of early South Asian history. The major conclusion it draws is that, at least according to the normative Brahmanical view of this time, (...) both addressing others with the particle bhoḥ and being addressed by others with it marked a person as a member of an elite fraternity that was comprised exclusively of either twice-born men or speakers of Sanskrit. (shrink)