Manava Dharmashastra 3.26

3.26

pṛthakpṛthagityanuvādaḥ pūrveṇaiva siddhatvāt | miśrāviti vidhīyate, nirapekṣāṇāmitareṣāṃ gāndharvarākṣasayorvihitatvāt | vrīhiyavavadaprāpte miśraṇavacanamidam | vrīhibhiryajeta yavairvetyekayāgaprayogaviṣayatvenetaretarānapekṣadravyavidhānādvikalpo, na miśrībhāvaḥ | miśrībhāve hi na vrīhiśāstrārtho'nuṣṭhitaḥ syānna ca yavaśāstrārthaḥ | evamihaikasyāṃ kanyāyāṃ svīkarttavyāyāṃ yugapadupāyadvayamaprāptaṃ vidhīyate |
tasya viṣayaḥ – yadā pitṛgehe kanyā tatrasthena kumāreṇa kathañciddṛṣṭigocarāpannena dūtīsaṃstutena tadgatā'pi tathaiva, paravatī na ca saṃyogaṃ labhate, tadā vareṇa saṃvidaṃ kṛtvā 'naya māmito yena kenacidupāyene'tyātmānaṃ nāyayati, sa ca śaktyatiśayāddhatvā chittvā cetyevaṃ harati, tadā 'icchayā'nyonyasaṃyoga' ityetadapyasti gāndharvarūpaṃ, 'hatvā chittveti' ca rākṣasarūpam |
tāvetau vivāhau kṣatriyasyaiva bhavataḥ | dharmyau kṣatriyasya tau pūrvacoditāvityanuvādaḥ | anye tvāhuḥ—yaḥ kṣatriyo bahuvivāhānkurute sa kāṃcidgāndharveṇa vivāhena pariṇayate kāṃcidrākṣasenetyeṣa miśrapakṣaḥ | athavā sarvā evānyatareṇeti pṛthakpṛthak | anena caitajjñāyate | kṣatriyasthānayorevāniyamena pravṛttiḥ, prājāpatyādīnāṃ tu ya eva prathamaṃ kṛtastenaivānyā'pi vibāhyā |
idānīṃ svarūpameteṣāmāha |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Singly’—this is a inert re-iteration, each single form having been already prescribed in the foregoing verses. The ‘mixed’ form is what is prescribed here; where the ‘Gāndharva-Rākṣasa’ are prescribed independently of (apart from) the other forms. The notion derived from what has gone before being that each form stands apart by itself, just like the Vrīhi being used apart from the Yava,—the present verse lays down the combination (of two). When we have two such texts as ‘offer the Vrīhi’ and ‘offer the Yava? each of which prescribes a substance to be used at a sacrifice independently of the other,—we conclude that the two are meant to be optional alternatives, and they are not meant to be mixed tip; because, if the mixture of both were used, we would be obeying neither the injunction of Yava, nor that of Vrīhi. Similarly, in the present case, when only one girl is to be married, it being impossible to adopt any two forms of marriage, the present text proceeds to prescribe the combination of two of them.

Such a combination of the said two forms would be possible under the following circumstances:—A girl living in her father’s house, happens to see a boy living in the same house and having heard praises from messengers, falls in love with him, but not being mistress of herself she cannot meet him,—and then she enters into a compact with her lover, requests him to take her away by some means or other, and gets herself carried away: and the bridegroom, being possessed of great strength, carries her away after having ‘killed and wounded’ (her guardians): Now in this case, since there is ‘voluntary union between the two’ (verse 32), it fulfils the conditions of the ‘Gāndharva’ form: while, since he has carried her away, after ‘having killed and wounded’ (verse 33), the conditions of the ‘Rākṣasa’ form also become fulfilled.

These two forms are possible for the Kṣatriya only. These two are lawful for the Kṣatriya—says the Text.

Mentioned before—is a mere reiterative reference.

Others have offered the following explanation:—When a Kṣatriya marries several girls, he marries one by the ‘Gāndharva’ form, and another by the ‘Rākṣasa’ form:—and this is the ‘mixed form’ meant by the text. And when all are married by one or the other of these two forms, it is a case of ‘separately’ mentioned by the text. And from this we gather that it is only these two forms of marriage that the Kṣatriya might adopt promiscuously—sometimes the one and sometimes the other; while in the case of the ‘Prājāpatya’ and the rest, he should adopt the same form in all his marriages which he happens to adopt in the first.—(26)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The author now describes the exact nature of the several forms of marriage.