Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social Life in Ancient India: Studies in Vatsyayana's Kamasutra c8: Chapter IV. Marriage and Courtship

Social Life in Ancient India: Studies in Vātsyāyana's Kāmasūtra c8

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IV. Marriage and Courtship

c8.1

AS DEPICTED IN VÂTSYÂYANA'S KÂMASŪTRA

c8.2

II. MARRIAGE AND COURTSHIP

c8.3

With regard to marriage, Vātsyāyana is in general agreement with the *Dharmaśāstras*, both with reference to the ideals as well as the procedure to be followed in the preliminary pourparlers leading to a settlement between the parties and also the ceremonies with which the hymeneal knot was finally tied. We have already seen how he quotes Āpastamba with regard to the selection of a bride. The influence of Manu upon him must have been immense, in as much as we find that according to Vātsyāyana it was Manu that separated the Dharma portion from the all-embracing cyclopædia of Prajāpati.² Yājñavalkya, again, according to the generally accepted view of scholars, could not have been far removed from his time,³ and an agreement between the two may naturally be expected. In addition to the *Dharmaśāstra* rules, however, Vātsyāyana often looks at matters from the common sense point of view and delineates the actual state of things in his time.

c8.4

² तस्यैकदेशं स्वार्थभुवो मनुर्धर्माधिकारिकां पृथक् चकार । *KS.*, p. 4.

c8.5

³ Winternitz, *Geschichte*, p. 4982 says that he cannot be earlier than the third or fourth century A.D.

c8.6

In the society depicted by Vātsyāyana, no marriage could take place, as we have already seen, until a young man had completed his education¹, until he had passed through to the end of the Vedic lore, as Yājñavalkya asserts². Again, in his chapter on marriage, Vātsyāyana emphasises the point that it was an educated man (śrutavān) who was to look for a bride³. "It is only the educated man who is entitled to the householder's life," declares Medhātithi while expounding the corresponding passage of Manu and moreover, he affirms in the same connection, "Mere study of the Veda is not enough, its meaning also must have been mastered⁴." Even Siddhārtha, the Śākya prince was refused the hand of Gopā by her father, Daṇḍapāṇi the Śākya, who according to the Lalitavistara, thus made reply to the proposal for marriage offered by Śuddhodana: "His Highness the Prince has been nurtured amidst ease and comfort, while it is our family-custom that a girl is to be given away to one proficient in the arts and not to one ignorant of them. The Prince is neither skilled in the arts nor is he acquainted with the art of warfare with the sword and the bow. How then could I bestow my daughter upon one ignorant in the arts." The Prince, the same book informs us, had to exhibit his learning and prowess, his proficiency in the arts and sciences, before he could get the hand of the girl of his choice. When we bear in mind that the *Lalitaristara* was written about the same time as the *Kamasutra*¹, the above episode in the life of Buddha gives us an insight into the mentality of the people of the period with regard to the necessity of a liberal and technical education before marriage.

c8.7

¹ See *ante*, pp. 12-15.

c8.8

¹ See ante, pp. 110-11.

c8.9

² वेदं व्रतानि वा पारं नीत्वाप्युभयमेव वा । अविप्लुतब्रह्मचर्यो लक्षण्यां स्त्रियमुद्वहेत् । Yājñavalkya Saṃhitā, I. 51—52.

c8.10

³ श्रुतवान् शीलयेत् । KS. p. 184.

c8.11

⁴ विद्वानैव हि गार्हस्थ्येऽधिक्रियते ।...अतः स्थितमेतत् नाधीत्यैव विवाहो यावद-दार्थो नाधिगतः । Medhātithi on Manu, III, 2.

c8.12

⁵ दण्डपाणिराह । आर्यकुमारो गृहे सुखसंवृद्धः । अस्माकं चायं कुलधर्मः शिल्पज्ञस्य कन्या दातव्या नाशिल्पज्ञस्येति । कुमारश्च न शिल्पज्ञो नासिधनुष्कलापयुद्धसलक्ष्म-विधिज्ञः । तत् कथ मशिल्पज्ञायाहं दुहितरं दास्यामि । Lalitavistara, ed. Lefmann, p.143.

c8.13

¹ Winternitz, *Op. cit.*, ii, 200.

c8.14

The object of marriage, according to Indian ideals, was the obtainment of a son who would be competent to offer gifts and oblations after one is gathered to one's forefathers.² Vātsyāyana although mainly concerned with the physical side of marriage, relating to the pleasures and amenities of married life, yet is not unmindful of the other ideals of worldly gain, social position and the spiritual welfare of the couple. To him a good marriage secures the ends of *Dharma* and *Artha*,—that is, both spiritual as well as social and economic welfare and besides, progeny, increase of relatives and friends and also untarnished, genuine love. With this we may compare the five things that determine marriage according to the *Mānava Grhyasūtra*, viz. wealth, personal charms, learning, wisdom and friends³ The objects of marriage, says Vātsyāyana, can best be secured by a man by his acquisition, according to the laws sanctioned by the holy writ (*śāstra*), of a virgin not given to any one before, and coming from the same caste as himself.⁴

c8.15

² पुत्रार्थं क्रियते भार्या पुत्रः पिण्डप्रयोजनः ।

c8.16

³ पञ्च विवाहकारणानि भवन्ति—वित्तं रूपं विद्या प्रज्ञा बान्धवा इति । *Mānava-Grhyasūtra*, ed. Knauer, i.

c8.17

⁴ सवर्णायामन्त्यपूर्वां शास्त्रोचितायां धर्मार्थः पुत्रः सम्बन्धः पञ्चभिरित्यु-पकृता रतिश्च । *KS.*, p. 134.

c8.18

He further adds that with men of all the four *Varṇas* in society, when love is fixed upon a

c8.19

V's Ideals of Marriage both Secular and Spiritual

c8.20

Marriage only with a Girl of the same Caste virgin who belongs to the same caste and who has been won in accordance with the prescriptions of the sacred laws, then it provides the means of getting lawful progeny, secures a good name in the world and besides, obtains the approval of the public. The contrary practice, he goes on, of *Kāma* or love directed towards women of the higher castes, or towards those that have been married to others, even though belonging to the same caste, is prohibited.¹ Love only, and not marriage, may be offered to a woman of a higher caste, when she is a *svairiṇī*, that is, of unrestrained movements—a woman who has had many lovers before,² and in such a case, Vātsyāyana assures us, there will be no violation of *Dharma* or Law. Love with women of a caste lower than one’s own, but even then not excommunicated from their own castes, with public women or with the *Punar-bhūs*, that is, widows who, unable to lead a life of continence and restraint, sought for a lover, was neither approved of as decent conduct (*śiṣṭa*), nor was it prohibited, as the object in these cases was pleasure only.³ In this last case, Vātsyāyana means to say that while such practice was not favoured by the better section of the community, it was not absolutely condemned by the public as the object of such union was simply pleasure and the woman was not expected to partake with him, like the lawful wife (*patnī*), in the ceremonial rites, nor was she expected to give birth to lawful progeny as the Commentary explains¹. This is an important point to bear in mind as it serves to explain the mentality of the Indian law-givers. Offerings made by the progeny begot on such women would not be acceptable to the gods or the manes, therefore to take them to wife for having sons from them was unthinkable. Manu, though permitting *anuloma* marriage with a woman of a lower caste, including the Śūdra, proceeds, in the very same breath, most emphatically to condemn such marriage with a Śūdra woman and quotes a number of ancient authorities of whom even the most liberal would not permit a person of the twice born castes to have a son on a Śūdra woman. Thus says Manu, "According to A t r i and to (G a u t a m a ) the son of Utathya, he who weds a Śūdra woman, becomes an outcast, according to Ś a u n a k a, on the birth of a son and according to B h r g u, he who has ( male ) offspring from a (Śūdra female, alone). A Brāhmaṇa who takes a Śūdra wife to his bed, will ( after death) sink into hell; if he begets a child by her, he will lose the rank of a Brāhmaṇa. The manes and the gods will not eat the (offerings) of that man who performs the rites in honour of the gods, of the manes, and of guests chiefly with a (Śūdra wife's) assistance and such (a man) will not go to heaven."² Yājñavalkya condemns such marriage categorically : "What is said about the acquisition of a wife from the Śūdra caste, does not commend itself to me, for the reason that one's own self is born in her.”¹ At the present day, intermarriage between castes is not permitted by Hindu India under any circumstances, whether with superior or inferior castes, and we already notice a stiffness growing towards the question during the few centuries that intervened between Manu and Vātsyāyana. While Manu permits *anuloma* marriage, and that even with a Śūdra girl, though under protest, Yājñavalkya would exclude the Śūdra absolutely from its scope. Vātsyāyana who gives a nearer view of the actual condition of society, would not countenance anything but marriage inside one’s own caste, all connection with a woman of an inferior caste (*avaravarṇā*) is placed by him in the same category as love with public women, and he would not consider it as serious marriage at all.

c8.21

¹ कामश्चतुर्षु वर्णेषु सवर्णतः शास्त्रश्राभ्यपूर्वायां प्रयुज्यमानः पुत्रीयो यशस्यो लौकिकश्च भवति । तद्विपरीत उत्तमवर्णासु परपरिगृहीतासु च प्रतिषिद्धः । *Ibid.*, p. 59.

c8.22

² स यदा मन्यते स्वैरियीमन्यतोऽपि बहुशो व्यवसितचारित्रां तस्यां वेश्याया-मिव गमनमुत्तमवर्ण्यामपि न धर्मपीडां करिष्यति । *Ibid.*, p. 61.

c8.23

³ अवरवर्णास्वविनिवसितासु वेश्यासु पुनर्भूषु च न शिष्टो न प्रतिषिद्धः सुखार्थत्वात् । *Ibid.*, p. 59.

c8.24

¹ तादृ...प्रयुज्यमानो न शिष्टो न विहितः, परिगृहापि न प्रतिषिद्धः, सुखार्थत्वात्, तदानीं सुखार्थैव प्रवृत्तिः, न पुत्रार्थौ । *Ibid.* p. 60.

c8.25

² शूद्रावेदी पतत्यत्रेतस्त्यतनपस्य च । शौनकस्य सुतोत्पत्या तदपत्यतया भृगोः ॥ शूद्रां शयनमारोप्य ब्राह्मणो यात्यधोगतिम् । जनयित्वा सुतं तस्यां ब्राह्मण्यदेव हीयते ॥ दैवपित्र्यातिथेयानि तत्प्रधानानि यस्य तु । नाश्नन्ति पितृदेवास्तत्र च स्वर्गं स गच्छति ॥ *Manu*, III, 16--18. *Trans.* Buehler, *Manu*, pp. 78--9

c8.26

¹ यदुच्यते द्विजातीनां शूददारोपसंग्रहः । न तन्मम मतं यस्मात्तत्रात्मा जायते स्वयम् ॥ तिस्रो वर्णानुपूर्व्येण द्वे तथैका यथाक्रमम् । ब्राह्मणाक्षत्रियविशां भार्याः स्वाः शूद्रजन्मतः ॥ Yājñavalkya-Saṃhitā, I. 56–57.

c8.27

After laying down this first requisite about marriage connected with *Dharma*, Vātsyāyana next proceeds to speak of the purely secular circumstances about which a person thinking about marriage should be satisfied. He says that to obtain the full benefits of a marriage, one should seek for mate a girl satisfying the following conditions. She should have both her parents alive, she must be younger than himself by three years or more; she should come of a family of decent and approved conduct, possessed of wealth and rich in adherents, a family, the members of which are numerous and attached to one another, her relatives both on the father’s side as well as on the mother’s, should be large in number; and for herself, she must be a girl possessed of physical charms, of excellent conduct, with lucky marks on her body; she should have neither more nor less than the proper number of teeth, nails, ears, hair, eyes and breasts, nor should any of these limbs have been lost by her; she should be of a sound and healthy constitution; the young man should, of course, be possessed of all these qualities himself and must have completed his studies.¹ Vātsyāyana, perhaps feeling that a girl possessed of all these qualities would be rare indeed, quotes in the very next *sūtra* the opinion of an earlier writer on the subject, Ghoṭakamukha, who simplifies the whole thing by advising that a man should fix his affections on a girl when he would feel himself fortunate and happy in having her and at the same time would not incur the censure of his equals².

c8.28

¹ तस्मात्कन्यामभिजनोंपेतां मातापितृमतीं त्रिवर्षप्रभृति न्यूनवयसं श्लाघ्याचारे धनवति पञ्चवति कुले सम्बन्धिप्रिये सम्बन्धिभिराकुले प्रसूतां प्रभूतमातापितृपक्षां रूपशील-लक्षणसम्पन्नामन्यूनाधिकाविंशतदन्तनखकर्णकेशाक्षिस्तनीमरोगांप्रकृतिशरीरां तथाविध एव श्रुत्वाश्लीयेत् । *KS*, p. 184.

c8.29

² यां गृहीत्वा कृतिनमात्मानं मन्येत न च समानै निन्द्येत तस्यां प्रवृत्तिरिति घोटकमुखः । Ibid. p. 185.

c8.30

V. advises— "Marry the Girl that will make you happy"

c8.31

It is not to be understood, however, that Vātsyāyana advises a young man to seek for a bride of a social rank higher than his own; on the other hand, he specially sounds a distinct note of warning against all unequal unions, showing his intimate knowledge of the world.

c8.32

Marriage to be happy, must be between Equals in Social Status

c8.33

Here he quotes certain verses:—"Social games, such as, for example, filling up 'bouts rimes,' marriages, and intercourse generally, should be with a man's equals, not with those either above or below him. A man marries above him when he marries a girl only to be treated by her and her friends as a servant ever afterwards; no man of spirit will do that. He marries below him when he and his people lord it over the girl, that is a bad marriage; it too is censured by the good. When the love between husband and wife adds lustre to both, and is a source of joy to both families, that is the only marriage which is approved. Let a man, if he will, marry above him, and walk humbly among his wife's relations ever afterwards; but on no account let him do, what all good men disapprove of, marry beneath him."¹

c8.34

¹ Kāmasūtra, pp. 190-1. Trans. Peterson, JBBRAS., xviii, p. 117.

c8.35

With regard to the qualities of a desirable bride, Vātsyāyana again specifies certain physical and other defects which would render a girl unfit for selection. Here, as we have shown before, Vātsyāyana quotes from the G r h y . s ū t r a of Ā p a s t a m b a : thus he prescribes—"Let him give up a girl who, when the wooers come to woo, is found asleep, in tears, or out. Let him shun also these sixteen—1, a girl with a unlucky name; 2, one who has been kept in concealment; 3, one who is betrothed to another man; 4, one with red hair; 5, one with spots; 6, a masculine woman; 7, one with a big head; 8, a bandy-legged woman; 9, one with a broad forehead; 10, one ceremonially impure; 11, the fruit of an improper marriage; 12, one who has menstruated; 13, one who is or has been pregnant; 14, an old friend; 15, one who has a younger sister much handsomer than herself; and 16, one that hath a moist hand".²

c8.36

² Ibid., pp. 113-114.

c8.37

Many of the terms in which these short-comings are worded are technical expressions the meanings of which are doubtful, we having to depend upon the explanation offered by the commentators. The above translation is based upon the commentary to the Kāmasūtra, whereas the commentators of Āpastamba such as Haradatta and Sudarśanārya, interpret some of the words in a different way. As the terms, however, are not of any great importance, we need not be detained by them.

c8.38

Vātsyāyana also quotes another rule about the name of the girl—“A girl bearing the name of a constellation, a river, or of a tree is objectionable and besides a girl, the last letter but one of whose name is *l* or *r*, is to be avoided in wooing.” ¹ A woman who is too white or too dark in complexion, should be avoided even as a mistress and *pari passu* as a wife, and similar prohibition holds in the case of a woman afflicted with leprosy, insanity etc., ² It may be observed here that inspite of the insistence of law-givers and Vātsyāyana's support of them, the defects about names have never been considered in India as a serious disability, and they appear to have been more obeyed in their breach than in their observance. Thus in ancient times as at the present day, some of the most popular names are names, of constellations like Rohiṇī and Citrā, of rivers like Gaṅgā and Yamunā, or names with penultimate 'l' or 'r' like Apālā and Viśvavārā—authoresses of Ṛgvedic hymns ³, and Kamalā and Tārā of later days.

c8.39

¹ Defects in Names—never considered a Serious Disability

c8.40

² V.'s final Advice—'Marry the Girl on whom the Heart and the Eyes are set'

c8.41

³ 1 नक्षत्रख्यां नदीनाम्नीं वृक्षनाम्नीं च गर्हिताम् । लकाररेफोपान्तां च वरणे परिवर्जयेत् ॥ AS., p. 188.

c8.42

² अगम्यास्त्वेवैताः, कुष्ठिन्युन्मत्ता पतिता भिन्नरहस्या प्रकाशप्रार्थिनी गतप्राय-यौवनातिश्वेतातिकृष्णा दुर्गन्धा सम्बन्धिनी, सखी प्रव्रजिता सम्बन्धिसखिश्रोत्रियराजदाराश्च । Ibid. p. 67.

c8.43

³ RV. viii. 91, 7 a-d V. 28.

c8.44

Conscious that some of the many defects enumerated above are unavoidable and others are of a too technical character, Vātsyāyana, as in a previous case, when he quoted Ghoṭakamukha, quotes a simpler and more liberal rule from an ancient authority, in this case the Gṛhyasūtra of Āpastamba.

c8.45

“He will be a happy husband who marries the woman on whom his heart and his eye are set. Let a man not think of any other. So some say.” ¹ Here Vātsyāyana approves of a selection made not according to minute and detailed technical rules, but on the general impression produced by the whole appearence. As in the everyday world, people were likely to be guided by this impression at first sight. Hence Vātsyāyana advises the parents and relatives of a girl when she has reached the marriageable age, to array her in a smart dress, and thus dressed she should sport every afternoon with her girl friends; at festivities like sacrifices, marriage celebrations, and, in fact, wherever there is a concourse of people, care should be taken to show her to advantage in society, for the reason, Vātsyāyana asserts, that such a girl is of the nature of an article of trade. ²

c8.46

¹ यस्यां मनश्चक्षुर्निबन्धस्तस्यामुद्वितेतरामाद्रियेत्येके। Ibid. p. 188. Trans. Peterson, op. cit., p. 114. Āp. GrS. I. 3, 20.

c8.47

² नित्यं प्रसाधितायाः सखीभिः सह क्रीडा, यज्ञविवाहादिषु जनसन्द्रावेषु प्रायलिकं दर्शनं तथोत्सवेषु च पण्यधर्मत्वात् ॥ Ibid., p. 188.

c8.48

With regard to the comparative age of the couple to be married, Vātsyāyana prescribes that the bride should be younger by three years or more ³. In another passage which Vātsyāyana quotes from the *Grhyasūtra* of Āpastamba, an expression (s v a n u j ā) is taken by the Commentator ⁴ to mean “considerably less in age” and in support of his statement, he quotes a text, most probably from a *Dharma*- śāstra, which lays down that one should marry a girl who is in the fourth to the eighth year below him, that is, who is younger in age by three to seven years, neither more nor less. But the word *svanujā* is taken by others to mean a girl who has a fine younger sister ¹. The *Dharmaśāstras*, however, contemplate a far greater disparity in years, the correct ratio prescribed being generally one to three. Thus we have in the *Viṣṇu-Purāṇa*: "One should marry a wife whose age is a third of one's own", ² and the same rule is also laid down by the *Mahābhārata*—that a man of thirty years should marry a girl of ten³. Manu also prescribes the same thing, the relative proportion being either thirty and twelve or twenty-four and eight⁴. This seems to have been the ideal of the religious lawgivers, but Vātsyāyana seems to represent the actual state of things more closely. And it should be noticed that both Medhātithi and Kullūka in their comments on the passage of Manu quoted above, states that the rule about age was not absolute ⁵ but only shows the approximate relation between the ages of the couple.

c8.49

³ त्रिवर्षात् प्रभृति न्यूनवयसम् । KS. p. 181.

c8.50

⁴ स्वनुजामिति, त्रिवर्षात् प्रभृति न्यूनवयसमित्यस्य शेषः । स्फुटं पञ्चाज्जातामित्यर्थः । यथोक्तम्--'चतुर्थादष्टमं यावत्कनिष्ठां वत्सरे वरात् । कन्यां परिणयेद्धस्तां नेतरातित्रयाच्च या'॥ KS. pp. 187-188.

c8.51

¹ See Buehler, *S B E.* Vol. XXX. p. 257, and Peterson, *J B B R A S.* Vol XVIII. p. 114.

c8.52

² वषरकृष्यां भार्यामुद्वहेत् त्रिगुणाः स्वयम् । *Viṣṇu Purāṇa*, III. 10. 16.

c8.53

³ त्रिंशद्वर्षो दशवर्षां भार्यां विन्देत नग्निकाम् । एकविंशतिवर्षो वा सप्तवर्षांवा-प्नुयात् ॥ *Mbt.* XIII 44. 14

c8.54

⁴ त्रिंशद्वर्षो वहेत् कन्यां हृद्यां द्वादशवार्षिकीम् । आष्टवर्षोऽष्टवर्षां वा धर्मे सीदति सत्वरः ॥ *Manu*, IX. 94.

c8.55

⁵ इयता कालेन यवीयसी कन्या वोढव्या न पुनरेतावद्वयस एव विवाह इत्युपदेशार्थः । अथापि न यथाश्रुतवर्षसङ्ख्यैव किं तर्हि बहुना कालेन यवीयसी वोढव्या । *Medhātithi*. एतच्च योग्यकालप्रदर्शनपरं न तु नियमार्थं प्रायेणैतावता कालेन गृहीतमेदो भवति । *Kullūka*.

c8.56

Though Vātsyāyana in the rule quoted from Āpastamba prohibits the marriage of a rākā or a phalinī¹, that is, a girl who has reached the age of puberty, yet many other passages in his book seem to show that he is speaking of virgins who have passed that age and were considerably advanced in youth; for example, he speaks of a wife just after marriage as Vigādha-yauvanā or advanced in youth² and many passages in his chapter on courtship presuppose a virgin who is of sufficient age to respond to offers of love. The rule of Āpastamba quoted by Vātsyāyana also appears to suggest that the bride has passed the age of puberty³—and again the rule held in common by Baudhāyana and Vātsyāyana that the gāndharva was the best form of marriage⁴, seems to indicate that both the parties had passed the age of puberty. It is impossible to conceive of Gāndharva marriage before the couple could feel mutual love.

c8.57

¹ KS. p. 187 sūtra 12; Āp. Gṛ. Sū. 1. 3. 11. 2 विगाढयौवनायाः पूर्वसंस्तुतायाः । KS. p. 193. 3 संगतयोस्त्रिरात्रमधःशय्या ब्रह्मचर्यं क्षारलवणवर्जमाहारस्तथा सप्ताहं सत्यमन्नस्- स्नानं प्रसाधनं सहभोजनं च ज्ञातासम्बन्धिनाम् पूजनमिति सावर्णिकम् । KS. p. 191 sūtra 1; Āp. Gṛ. Sū. III. 8. 8. 4 See ante., p. 15, foot-notes 1 and 2. 5 दीपालोके विगाढयौवनायाः पूर्वसंस्तुताया, बालाया अपूर्वायाश्चकारे । KS. p. 193.

c8.58

Marriage of a girl before puberty, also appears to have been equally, if not more prevalent, as is evidenced by Vātsyāyana's section on Bālopakrama, that is, the courtship of a bālā or a girl of tender years. Similarly in a passage that we have already referred to above, he contrasts a wife who is of tender years, with one of advanced youth.⁵ This is also supported by the Gṛhyasūtras which speak of the marriage of a *nagnikā*, technically, a girl of ten years of age, as the most approved.¹

c8.59

¹ समानवर्णासमानप्रवरां यवीयसीं नग्निकां श्रेष्ठाम् । *Mānava Gṛ. Sū.*, 1. 7. 8. Edn. by Knauer, p. 9.

c8.60

The truth seems to be that marriage took place of both tender girls before puberty as well as of those more advanced in years. In the earlier Vedic times, including the *Ṛgvedic* age, both these forms of marriage seem to have been in vogue. While on the one hand, there were virgins considerably advanced in years like Ghoṣā, there were others like Romāśā for example, who were evidently married before puberty. In a hymn addressed to the Aśvins, the father of Ghoṣā, Kakṣīvat who is supposed to have been the author, says, "You bestowed, Aśvins, a husband upon Ghoṣā growing old, and tarrying in her father's dwelling".² Ghoṣā in a hymn of her own also says addressing the Aśvins, "You Nāsatya, are the good fortune of a damsel growing old in (her father's) mansion"³ and the *Bṛhaddevatā* adds that "in the days of old she remained in her father's house for sixty years, when she in two hymns⁴ praised the Aśvins who gave her a husband."⁵ Romāśā was jeered at by her husband, the king Bhāvayavya for her immaturity in years.⁶ The story of Uṣasti Cākrāyaṇa who lived in a village with his child-wife when there was a great famine, is also well-known.¹ Girls that were given away at the svayaṃvara must have reached youth. Sāvitrī is spoken of as Yauvanasthā at the time of marriage and Damayantī as Prāptayauvanā. Yaśodharā is said to have been born on the same day as Prince Siddhārtha.³

c8.61

² युवं नरा स्तुवते कृष्वायाय विष्वाप्मं दधुर्विश्वकाय । घोषांय चित् पितृषदे दुरोणे पतिं जूर्यन्त्या अश्विनावदत्तम् ॥ *Ṛv.* i. 117. 7. Trans. Wilson, 1. 315.

c8.62

³ अमाजुरश्रिद्धवयो युवं भगोनाशोश्रिदवितारापमस्य चित् । अन्यस्य विश्वा-सत्या कृशस्य चित् वामिदाहुर्भिषजा ह्यस्य चित् ॥ *Ṛv.* X. 39, 3. Trans. Wilson, vi. 104.

c8.63

⁴ *Ṛv.* X. 39 and 40.

c8.64

⁵ आसीत् काजवती घोषा पापरोगेन दुर्भगा । उवास षष्टि वर्षाणि पितुरेव गृहे पुरा ॥ चिन्तयन्तीति सूक्ते द्वे यो वां परि ददर्श सा । भर्तारं ददतुस्तस्यै सहस्त्यं च सुतं मुनिम् ॥ *Bṛhaddevatā*, vii 41. 46 and 17. Mac Donell's Trans. pp 262—263.

c8.65

⁶ *Ṛv.* 1. 126, 7 and *Bṛhaddevatā*. III, 156.

c8.66

³ यस्मि पन समये अस्माकं बोधिसत्तो लुम्बिनीवने जातो तस्मि येव समये राहुलमाता देवी...च जाता । *Introduction to the Pāli Jātakas* in Fausböll's *Jātaka*, Vol. 1. p 54.

c8.67

Vātsyāyana sums up the whole thing in a verse in his section on courtship where he says that a maiden of tender years should be won over with the help of childlike sports and playthings, a damsel come of age by skill in the arts, and a spinster of more advanced years—vatsalā—with the help of persons in whom she confides.⁴

c8.68

⁴ बालक्रीडनकैर्बाला कलाभिर्यौवने स्थिता । वत्सला चापि संप्राह्या विश्वास्यजन-संग्रहात ॥ *KS.* p. 207.

c8.69

We may now pass on to Vātsyāyana's description of Varaṇa or choice of the bride. The selection was generally made and the marriage settled by the parents and other relatives and friends, and not by the parties to the marriage themselves, unless under exceptional circumstances. In the Vedic age too, the Vara or the wooer was often a friend

c8.70

1 मटचीहतेषु कुरुष्वाटिकया सह भार्ययोपस्तहं चाक्रायण इभ्यग्रामे प्रद्रावाक उवास । *Chāndogya Up.* I. 10. 1.

c8.71

2 सा विग्रहवतीव श्रोर्यवर्द्धत नृपात्मजा । कालेन चापि सा कन्या यौवनस्था बभूव ह ॥ यौवनस्थां तां दृष्ट्वा स्वां सुतां देवरूपिणीम् । श्रयाच्यमानाञ्च वरैर्न पतिः खितोऽभवत ॥ क्वगताममृत सुतेयं ते कुतश्चैवागता नृप । किमर्थं युपतीं भर्त्रे न चमां सम्प्रयच्छसि ॥ *Mbh.* III. 262, 25; 31; 293, 4. स समीक्ष्य महीपालः स्वां सुतां प्राप्तयौवनाम् । अपश्यदात्मना काव्यं दमयन्त्याः स्वयवरम् । *Mbh.* III. 54. 8.

c8.72

of the bridegroom. We are told in a hymn of the *Ṛgveda* that when the god Soma was desirous of getting a bride, the two Aśvins became his *varas* or wooers, and presented the suit before *savitṛ*, the father of the bride,¹ and we are assured by another verse in the same hymn that when the Aśvins went in their three-wheeled car, soliciting the marriage of Sūryā, all the Gods signified their assent.² The *Gṛhya-Sūtras* also prescribe that *Varas* or wooers are to be sent for selecting the girl.³

c8.73

¹ सोमो बधूयुरभवदश्विनास्तामुभा वरा । सूर्या यत्पत्ये शंसंती मनसा सवित्रावदात् ॥ *Rv.* x. 85. 9.

c8.74

² यदश्विना पृच्छमानाययात त्रिचक्रया वहतुं सूर्यायाः । विश्वे देवा अनु तद्वामजानन्पुत्राः पितराववृणीत पूषा ॥ *Rv.* x. 85, 14.

c8.75

³ वरान् प्रहिणुयात् । *Āp. Gṛ.* 1. 4. 1, *Śāṅkh. Gṛ* 1. 6. 1 ff *Ās. Gṛ* 1. 5.

c8.76

Vātsyāyana says, that for the selection of the girl, the father, mother and relatives of the young man should stir themselves and besides, mutual friends of the two parties should carry on messages between them.⁴ Vātsyāyana gives the advice that those charged with the *varaṇa* should exaggerate the defects present and prospective, of other suitors and should expiate on the qualifications of their *Nāyaka*, both personal and hereditary, as well as such qualities as are likely to further their object; besides, they should enlarge upon such advantages possessed by him at the time, or likely to accrue to him in subsequent years, as would commend themselves to the girl's mother.⁵ The advantage of winning the favour of the girl's mother⁶ is emphasised upon and clever tricks also are recommended by Vātsyāyana for assuring success in the endeavour. Some of the friends of the youngman should drive the mother wild by enumerating to her his chances of winning girls from other desirable parties.¹ One of the youngman's friends, again, may get himself up as an astrologer and give an account of the wealth and prosperity that would come to the *Nāyaka* in after years as promised by omens and portents, by the position of the planets and also by marks on his body.²

c8.77

⁴ तस्या वरणे मातापितरौ संबन्धनश्च प्रयतेरन् मित्राणि च गृहीतवाक्याभ्युपायसंबन्धानि । *KS.* p. 185.

c8.78

⁵ तान्यन्येषां वरयितॄणां दोषान् प्रत्यक्षानागमिकांश्च श्रावयेयुः । कौशलान् पौरुषेयानभिप्रापसंवर्धकांश्च नायकगुणान् विशेषतश्च कन्यामातुरनुकूलास्तदात्वायतियुक्तन्दर्णयेयुः । *KS.* pp. 185-186.

c8.79

⁶ विशेषतश्च कन्यामातुरनुकूलान्; *KS.* pp. 185-186.

c8.80

¹ अपरे तु पुनरन्यतो विशिष्टेन कन्यालाभेन कन्यामातरमुन्मादयेयुः । KS. p. 186.

c8.81

² दैवचिन्त्करूपश्च, शकुननिमित्तग्रहलक्षणदर्शनेन नायकस्य भविष्यन्तमर्थ-संयोगं कल्याणमनुवर्णयेत् ॥ KS. p. 185.

c8.82

Vātsyāyana, though he speaks above of sham astrologers yet gives it as his decided opinion that a girl should be sought for, and also given away, when signs and omens, and portents and voices (*upasruti*), are favourable³, and to support himself, he also quotes the earlier authority of Ghoṭakamukha, who says that marriages should not be contracted on human choice alone⁴, that is, *daiva* or superhuman tests should be applied by both the parties, in order to be satisfied that happiness and prosperity would result from the match. We must remember that the age of Vātsyāyana was the age of the growth and development of Indian astronomy which was hardly ever dissociated from astrology, when as a result of this alliance between science and pseudo-science grew up that large body of *Siddhānta* works culminating in the great books of Varāhamihira—the *Pañcasiddhāntikā*, the *Brhatsamhita*, and the *Brhajjātaka*.⁵ Though faith in extra-human tests in marriage had been in favour since the time of the *Gṛhyasūtras* as the *Mānava Gṛhyasūtra*, the *Kausikasūtra* and the others testify,¹ yet they seem to have been more popular than ever before in the age of Vātsyāyana who presses into service even *upaśrutis*—supernatural oracular voices heard as a result of mystic invocations of Gods or sometimes miraculous utterances heard specially at night, as the Commentary explains².

c8.83

³ दैवनिमित्तशकुनोपश्रुतीनामानुलोभ्येन कन्यां वरयेद्याच्च । KS. p. 185.

c8.84

⁴ न यदृच्छया केवलमानुषयेति घोटकमुखः । KS. p. 187.

c8.85

⁵ See Thibaut, *Astronomie, Astrologie und Mathematik*. pp. 4 and 20.

c8.86

¹ *Mānava Gṛ. Sū.* Edu. by Knauer, p. 9.

c8.87

² निशीथे चोपश्रु तिग्राहा । *KS.* p. 187.

c8.88

The signs observed at the time of *varaṇa*, that is, when the bridegroom's party went to the parents of the girl to formally present their suit, were considered as very important factors in the final choice and hence Vātsyāyana quotes from Āpastamba the rule that at the time of *varaṇa*, a girl who is found sleeping or weeping or has gone out of the house should be given up,³ these being considered as inauspicious portents; then follow rules about the name borne by the girl and similar other things that we have already referred to before⁴. However, many of these defects are insignificant, artificial or accidental and Vātsyāyana was too astute an observer of the world to be led merely by such meaningless portents, and he at last quotes a simple rule, as we have seen before,⁵ from the same legal authority, that happiness and prosperity attend the choice of a girl in whom the heart and the eyes are pleased and none other should be favoured. To capture the heart and the eyes of the wooers therefore, Vātsyāyana prescribes that the parents and relatives of a marriageable girl would be best advised to show her off in beautiful dress and ornaments and that thus got up, she should sport with her playmates every afternoon, and attend all festive gatherings¹.

c8.89

³ सुप्तां रुदतीं निष्क्रान्तां वरणे परिवर्जयेत् । *KS.* p. 17. Sūtra 11 = *Ap. Gṛ. Sū.* 1. 3, 10.

c8.90

⁴ See *ante*, pp. 21-2.

c8.91

⁵ See *ante*, p. 123

c8.92

¹ See ante, p. 123.

c8.93

He next proceeds to give an account of the way in which the girl's parents and relatives are to receive the suitors. He thus goes on: "When men fair to look on, courteous in speech, and accompanied by their connexions, come to propose marriage, the parent of the girl should receive them hospitably, and on same pretext or other show the girl in all her ornaments. They should come to no decision as to giving the girl before they have consulted the oracles. The wooer's party will be asked to bathe and take their meal and so forth. They should say, 'All that will come later.' They should not that day accept such attentions"². The *varaṇa* is to fructify, says Vātsyāyana, in one of the four approved forms of marriage, *viz*, *Brāhma*, *Prājāpatya*, *Ārṣa* or *Daiva*, or according to the forms in vogue in one's own country³.

c8.94

² Trans. by Peterson, *J B B R A S*, XVIII, pp 115 and 117. KS. p. 189.

c8.95

³ देशप्रवृत्तिसात्म्याद्वा ब्राह्मप्राजापत्यार्षदैवानामन्यतमैन विवाहेन शाखतः परि- यायेदिति । KS. p. 189.

c8.96

It would be seen that this ceremony of *varaṇa* is not exactly courtship as Peterson takes it to be, because, here the actual parties to the marriage have very little to do. They have no choice to exercise, the whole matter is settled by the parents and relatives, including the selection of the bride. Personal courtship by the young people themselves has a secondary importance only with Vātsyāyana; it was to be resorted to when other means failed. Hence he does not describe courtship first and marriage afterwards, but he first of all deals with the acquisition of a wife in the method approved of by society and by ancient tradition as contained in the sacred literature, and when this fails, a man may try to win over a girl by honest courtship, and even that failing, he may use tricks and even violence to secure his end. A girl also, under certain circumstances, though rather rare, may according to Vātsyāyana, take up the task of getting her husband in her own hands as we shall presently see.

c8.97

A young man is to give up the idea of preferring his suit (varaṇa) in the approved method and think of winning the affections of a girl by his own personal exertions when he finds himself placed under certain unfavourable circumstances: thus, he may be poor though otherwise fully qualified as a suitor; or when possessed of mediocre qualifications (madhyastha-guṇa), he may be of rather mean birth; or though rich, he may be a neighbour and therefore would not be liked on account of his high pretensions, or he may be disliked because of the possibility of quarrels springing up over boundaries etc., as the Commentary observes;¹ or though possessing parents and brothers, he may be dependent on others; or he may be considered a mere boy;—in all such cases when he cannot hope for a favourable response to his suit, he should try to gain the love and esteem of the girl on whom his heart is set from her childhood.²

c8.98

¹ स्वगृहसमीपवासी सीमासम्बन्धेन कलहादिजनकत्वात् । KS. p. 200.

c8.99

² धनहीनस्तु गुणयुक्तोऽपि, मध्यस्थगुणो हीनापदेशो वा, सधनो वा प्रातिवेश्यो, मातापिताभ्रातृषु च परतन्त्रा, बालवृत्तित्वचितप्रवेशो वा कन्यामलभ्यत्वाच्च वरयेत् । वात्स्यात्. प्रभृति चैनां स्वयमेवासुरञ्जयेत् । KS. p. 200.

c8.100

Vātsyāyana gives an example here from the people of the south : thus, for example, says he, in the Dakṣiṇāpatha, one separated from one's mother when a child, and living in a subordinate position in the family of his maternal uncle, should try to gain over the daughter of the uncle when beyond his reach on account of her wealth, ever if she may have been provisionally betrothed to another.¹ He may attempt to win over other girls also from childhood, for Ghoṭakamukha, who is Vātsyāyana's great authority for all matters appertaining to nuptials, declares that this courtship from childhood is unexceptionable as union is brought about by honest and honourable means (dharma).² Here Vātsyāyana confirms what Baudhāyana says about the irregular practice of the people of the south, that they marry the daughter of a maternal uncle.³ Kumārila Bhaṭṭa also casts a fling at the Dākṣiṇātya who, he says, is overjoyed to get the daughter of his maternal uncle.⁴ "The marriages between cousins," as Bühler points out, "occur among the Karhāḍa Brāhmaṇas of the Dekhan."⁵ The existence of this custom in high circles in the South, receives historical confirmation from the inscriptions of the powerful royal house of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa sovereigns of Malkheḍ. Thus the Rāṣṭrakūṭa monarch Kṛṣṇa II, who reigned during the last part of the ninth and the beginning of the tenth century, had as his *mahādevī* or chief queen, a daughter of the Haihaya Cedi king Kokkalla, and from them was born Jagattunga II who married Lakṣmī, the daughter of his maternal uncle Raṇavigraha, a son of Kokkalla. From this union sprang up Indra III, who again married Vijāmbā, the daughter of Ammaṇadeva, who himself was the son of Arjuna, another son of Kokkalla.¹

c8.101

¹ तथायुक्तश्च मातुलकुलानुवर्ती दक्षिणापथे बाल एव मात्रा च वियुक्तः परिभूत-कल्पो धनोत्कर्षालभ्यां मातुलदुहितरमन्यस्मै वा पूर्वदत्तां साधयेत् । KS., p. 200.

c8.102

² अन्याम्पि बालां स्पृहयेद् बालायामेवं सति धर्माधिगमे संबननं श्लाघ्यमिति घोटकमुखः । KS. p. 200.

c8.103

³ पञ्चधा विप्रतिपत्तिर्दक्षिणतस्तथोत्तरतः । यानि दक्षिणतस्तानि व्याख्यास्यामः ...मातुलपितृष्वसृदुहितृगमनमिति । Baud. Dh. Śāst. 1, 1, 2, 1-3. Edn. by Hultzsch. p.2.

c8.104

⁴ स्वमातुलसुतां प्राप्य दाक्षिणात्यस्तु तुष्यति । Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, quoted by Govindasvāmin in his Commentary on the Baud. Dh. Śāst. Mysore edn. p. 8.

c8.105

⁵ SBE. vol XIV, p. 146.

c8.106

¹ Cambay Plates of Govindarāja IV, verses 14-20, *Ep. Ind.* vii, p. 38.

c8.107

Vātsyāyana gives detailed instructions about the methods of courtship, varying according to age. A mere girl (*bālā*) is to be wooed by sharing in her child-like sports and occupations, a damsel who is come of age (*yauvanasthitā*), by an exhibition of skill in the arts or *kalās*, and a woman more advanced in years is to be courted through the help of those in whom she places her confidence.² Thus the young swain is advised to collect flowers and make garlands in company with the maiden whose heart he wishes to win and to carry on with her games befitting their age or the degree of familiarity between them, or only such as are agreeable to her disposition.³ He should form the acquaintance of and propitiate her female friends, specially the daughter of her nurse, by little acts of kindness and service—as she would be very helpful in his quest.⁴ The man should get for the girl things that she takes a fancy to.⁵ Vātsyāyana then gives a fairly long list of presents that would be prized by her especially such as would show her off on days of public and private festivities.¹ When he has won the confidence to some extent then he may amuse her by relating agreeable stories or entertain her with music². He himself must always be faultlessly dressed and never be offensive to sight, because, Vātsyāyana argues, when maidens reach youth they get to love men whom they frequently see³. He should now carefully take note of her movements and see if he can detect any signs of growing partiality for him.⁴

c8.108

² See *ante*, p. 127.

c8.109

³ तया सह पुष्पावचयं प्रथमं गृहकं दुहितृकाक्रीडायोजनं झषपाककरयामिति कुर्वीत परिचयस्य वयस्यानुरूप्यात् । *KS.* p. 201.

c8.110

⁴ धात्रेयिकां चास्याः प्रियहिताभ्यामिकमुपगृह्णीयात्, सा हि प्रीयमाणा विदिता-काराऽप्यप्रत्यादिश्यन्ती तं तां च योजयितुं शक्नुयादनभिताऽपि प्रत्याचार्यकम् । *KS.* p. 202.

c8.111

⁵ क्रीडनकद्रव्याणि यान्यपूर्वाणि यान्यन्यासां विरलशो विध्येरंस्तान्स्यात् प्रयत्नेन संपादयेत् । *KS.* p. 202.

c8.112

¹ *KS.* pp. 202-203.

c8.113

² वर्धमानानुरागं वाख्यानकै मनः कुर्वतोमन्त्रथोभिः कथाभिश्चिहारिणीभिश्च रञ्जयेत् । *KS.* p. 203 .

c8.114

³ उदात्तवेषश्च स्वयममुपहतदर्शनश्च स्यात् । युवतयो हि संसृष्टमभीक्ष्णदर्शनं च पुरुषं प्रथमं कामयन्ते । *KS.* p. 203.

c8.115

⁴ भावं च कुर्वतीमिङ्गितकारैः सूचयेत् । *KS.* p. 203.

c8.116

Vātsyāyana here enumerates the outward signs and actions by which a budding affection may be discovered, such as, she cannot look the man in the face, casts side-long glances at him and so on, all of which are quite true to nature.⁵ When the outward signs and movements leave no doubt about her love, he should grow less timid gradually, take greater and greater liberties with her without giving any offence⁶ and try to gain her over entirely by means of various tricks and devices that recommend themselves to young lovers in every clime. Vātsyāyana takes pains to describe them at some length and at last he again quotes Ghotakamukha to warn the young swain that he must be quick to read the signs that betray her passion, because even when love is far advanced success cannot be achieved with maidens by sloth and despondence and he can never expect a damsel to confess her love.¹

c8.117

⁵ संमुखं न वीक्षते. तं तु वीक्षिता व्रीडां दर्शयति । etc. etc. *KS.* p. 206.

c8.118

⁶ दृशितेङ्गितकारां कन्यामुपायतोऽभियुञ्जीत । *KS.* p. 208

c8.119

¹ अन्याभिरपि सह विश्वासनाथमधिकमधिकं चाभियुञ्जीत न तु वाचा निवदत् । दूरगतभावोऽपि हि कन्यासु न निवेदन सिध्यतीति घोटकमुखः । *KS.* pp. 211-212.

c8.120

Placed in unfavourable circumstances similar to those from which a young man suffers, a maiden may also have to look for a husband herself and Vātsyāyana takes her case also in hand. When a girl though possessed of excellent qualities, is born in a humble family, or even when well-born, is destitute of wealth and is therefore not sought after by her equals, or has been deprived of her parents and is dependent upon her relatives and if she has come of age (*prāpta-yauvanā*), then she should stir herself to arrange her marriage herself.² Here we are reminded of the rule advocated by Manu himself and supported by other sacred books including the *Mahābhārata*, that a damsel should wait three years after reaching puberty, and after that period she may choose for herself a husband befitting her.³ Such a maiden should try to gain over a young man of ability possessed of virtues, and of a handsome look, whose affections she had shared in childhood; or, when she feels assured that a man owing to his passion for her would not hesitate to unite with her even against the consent of his parents, then she may win him over by endearing herself to him and by meeting him often.¹ She may show her skill in the arts, and various other devices² are recommended by Vātsyāyana, who, however, warns a girl against presenting her suit to a man herself, even when she is deeply in love with him, because such conduct brings ruin unto a damsel, so declare the teachers (*ācāryas*) of the *Kāmaśāstra*.³ In another connection also he forbids a man to have anything to do with a woman who herself makes overtures of love openly.⁴ Vātsyāyana also tries to press upon a girl the sage advice that in choosing a husband, she should look for love and not money; "It is better," says he, 'to love a husband who is devoted to her though poor, than a rich man, or one endowed with many virtues, when his affections she would have to share with others'.⁵ When there are several eligible suitors of equal quality, the real suitor is he with whom there is a mutual reciprocation of love⁶.

c8.121

² मन्दापदेशा गुणावत्यपि कन्या धनहीना कुलीनापि समानैरयाच्यमाना मातापितृ-वियुक्ता वा ज्ञातिकुलवर्तिनी वा प्राप्तयौवना पाणिग्रहणम् स्वयमभीप्सेत । *KS.* p. 218.

c8.122

³ त्रीणि वर्षाण्युदीक्षेत कुमाप्युतुमती सती । ऊर्ध्वं तु कालादेतस्माद्विन्देत सदृशं पतिम् ॥ *Manu* IX 90. त्रीणि वर्षाण्युदीक्षेत कन्या ऋतुमती सती । चतुर्थ्यथ सम्प्राप्ते स्वयं भर्तारमर्जयेत् । *Mht.* XIII, 44, 16.

c8.123

¹ सा तु गुणवन्तं शर्क सुदूर्यन बालप्रीत्याभियोजयेत्। यं वा मन्येत माता-पित्रोरसमीक्षया स्वयमप्ययमिन्द्रियदौर्बल्यान्मयि प्रवर्तिय्यत इति प्रियहितोपचारैरभीक्ष्ण-सन्दर्शनेन च तमावजयेत्। KS. p. 214.

c8.124

² कलाकौशलप्रकाशने वा ..। KS. p. 214.

c8.125

³ न चैवातुरऽपि पुरुषं स्वयमभियुञ्जीत, स्वयमभियोगिनी हि युवतिः सौभाग्यं जहातोत्याचार्याः। KS. p. 215

c8.126

⁴ प्रकाशप्रार्थिनी अगम्या। IAS. p. 67.

c8.127

⁵ वरं वध्यो दरिद्रोऽपि निगुणोऽप्यात्मधराः। गुणोयुक्कोऽपि म त्वेवं बहु-साधारयाः पतिः॥ KS. p. 217.

c8.128

⁶ गुयासाम्येऽभियोक्तृणामेको वरयिता वरः। तत्राभियोक्तरि श्रेष्ठमनुरागात्मको हि सः॥ KS. p. 217.

c8.129

Vātsyāyana next proceeds to describe the forms of marriage that would cement the union brought about by courtship between the parties themselves, without the permission of the parents or relatives, and the details furnished by Vātsyāyana are interesting as illustrating the definitions given in the *Grhyasūtras* and the *Dharmasūtras*. After perfect unity of sentiment is established between the parties and all the scruples of the maiden overruled by persuasions, the time and place of meeting should be arranged with the help of friends. When the girl has been brought to a secret place, sacred fire should be brought from the house of a *Śrotriya* Brahmin who maintains a perpetual fire for the performance of his daily sacrificial rites, *kuśa* grass should be spread before it upon the earth, oblations offered in the fire in accordance with the prescriptions of the sacred law (*smṛti*), and then they should thrice go round the fire, and after this is completed, the parents of the girl should be informed¹; "A marriage performed before fire as witness to the transaction, can never be set aside, this is the rule approved by all teachers" (*ācārya-samaya*), says Vātsyāyana². By and by the relatives on both sides should be informed and be persuaded to confirm the marriage by bestowing the girl upon her lover in the formal way, by representing to them that otherwise the king might punish the bridegroom's side for the violence, and on the other side, the fair name of the girl's family may be tarnished, and then both sides may be reconciled by an exchange of presents. This is the Gāndharva form of marriage³.

c8.130

¹ प्रतिपन्नामभिप्रेतावकाशवर्तिनीं नायकः श्रोत्रियागारादग्निमानाय्य कुशानास्तीर्य यथास्मृति हुत्वा च त्रिः परिक्रमेत् । ततो मातरि पितरि च प्रकाशयेत् । KS. pp. 219.-220.

c8.131

² अग्निसाक्षिका हि विवाहा न निवर्तन्त इत्याचार्यसमयः । KS. p. 220.

c8.132

³ KS. p. 220. Thus explains the Commentary. But the text has गान्धर्वेण विवाहेन वा चेष्टेत which seems to show that *Gāndharva* was an alternative form of marriage. However, MM. Durgaprasad's edition (p. 229) gives a variant where "ca" is read in the passage in place of "vā".

c8.133

Vātsyāyana considers several other cases also: if the girl cannot make up her mind, then the man should, with the help of another lady of good family, have the maiden brought to a secret place on some pretext, and have the rites performed as before¹. When the marriage of the girl has been settled with some other person and the date of the nuptial ceremony draws near, then he should by all means turn her mother against the match, by having recounted to her the faults and defects of the prospective bridegroom, and with her consent have the girl brought to a neighbour's house and get the nuptials celebrated; or he may place the brother of the girl under great obligation to himself, and with his help get the girl brought to a secret place and married to him as described above². All these are supposed to represent the Gāndharva form of marriage.

c8.134

¹ अप्रतिपद्यमानायामन्तश्चारिणीमन्यां कुलप्रमदां पूर्वसंस्थां प्रोयमाणां चोपगृह्य तथा सह विषमवकाशमेनामन्त्यकार्योपदेशानानयेत् । ततः श्रोत्रियागारादप्रिमिति समानं पूर्वैः । KS. p. 220.

c8.135

² आसन्न च विवाहे मातरस्त्यास्तदभिमतान्यवरदोषैरनुशयं ग्राहयेत् । ततस्तदनुमतेन प्रातिवेश्याभवने निशि नायकामागत्य श्रोत्रियागारादप्रिमिति समानं पूर्वैः । KS. p. 221.

c8.136

Then Vātsyāyana gives two illustrations of the Paiśāca form. At public festivities the man may make the daughter of her nurse administer to the girl some intoxicating substance and then have her brought to a secret place when she is senseless under the drug. Afterwards he would inform her relatives of it and persuade them to bestow her on him, or he may do the like when she is asleep³.

c8.137

³ अष्टमीचन्द्रिकादिषु धात्रियिका मद्यीयमेनां पाययित्वा किंचिदात्मनः कार्यमुद्दिश्य नायकस्य विष्वङ् देशमानयेत् । तत्रैनां मदात्संज्ञामप्रतिपद्यमानां तूष्णीयेतेति समानं पूर्वैः । सुप्तां चेकचारिणीं धात्रियिकां वारयित्वा संज्ञामप्रतिपद्यमानां तूष्णीयेतेति समानं पूर्वैः । KS. p. 221-222.

c8.138

Last of all he describes the Rākṣasa form. Coming to know beforehand that the girl would be going on a journey to another village, or to the gardens, the man may lie in ambush with a sufficient number of friends, then frighten away or kill her guards and forcibly carry her off⁴.

c8.139

⁴ ग्रामान्तरमुद्यानं वा गच्छन्तीं विदित्वा सुसंृतसहायो नायकस्तदा रक्षिणो विद्राव्य हत्वा वा कन्यामपहरेदिति विवाहयोगाः । KS. p. 222.

c8.140

In all these marriages celebrated without the consent of the parents, Vātsyāyana advises, as we have seen, that particular care should be taken to have some nuptial ceremonies performed in sacred fire, so that they may not run the risk of being cancelled. This is to provide against the contingency of the girl's parents overlooking the secret union and bestowing her upon another man, such as is authorised by Baudhāyana and Vasiṣṭha, both of whom prescribe that if a girl has been abducted by force, but the due nuptial rites have not been performed with the recitation of the sacred texts (mantras), then she may be lawfully given away with the proper rites, to another person, she is as good as a virgin¹. Even when the parents agree, it will be necessary to have the marriage ratified, by a formal performance of the rites. Devala declares that in the forms of marriage beginning with the Gāndharva, that is, in the Gāndharva, Paiśāca and Rākṣasa forms, the rites should again be performed by the three higher castes in the regular method, before the fire as witness². There is a difference of opinion among law-givers as to whether this second performance of the nuptial rites is in order, Manu declaring against it, as in such cases the girls are no longer virgins³.

c8.141

¹ बलाच्चेत प्रहृता कन्या मन्त्रैर्यदि न संस्कृता । अन्यस्मै विधिवद्देया यथा कन्या तथैव सा ॥ *Baudh. Dh. Śāst.* IV. 1, 15; *Vasiṣṭha*, xvii. 73.

c8.142

² गान्धर्वेषु विवाहेषु पुनर्विवाहितो विधिः । कर्तव्यश्च त्रिवर्णैः समयेनाग्निसाक्षिकः ॥ *Devala*, quoted by Kullūkabhaṭṭa on *Manu*, viii. 226.

c8.143

³ पाणिग्रहिका मन्त्राः कन्यास्वेव प्रतिष्ठिताः । नाकन्यासु क्वचिन्नां लुप्तधर्मक्रिया हि सा ॥ *Manu*, viii. 226. See Buehler, *SBE*, xxv. p. 291.

c8.144

Vātsyāyana has mentioned before⁴ four forms of marriage, approved in genteel society, in the order Brāhma, Prājāpatya, Ārṣa and Daiva, but he has not delineated their distinctive characteristics, taking it for granted perhaps that their connotations were all known to his readers, and he might very well do so, inasmuch as they were exhaustively dealt with in the *Grhyasūtras*, the *Dharmaśāstras*, the Great Epic and the *Purāṇas* and similar other literature. Now he describes the Gāndharva, Paiśāca and Rākṣasa forms; of these, the first he mentions by name, and of the last two forms, he only gives the description and leaves the names to be supplied by the reader. However, thus we see that he mentions altogether seven forms, leaving out the Āsura marriage in which "the bridegroom receives a maiden, after having given as much wealth as he can afford, to the kinsmen and the bride herself, according to his own will"¹. It is rather striking that Vātsyāyana does not advise a young man to purchase his bride by money, though he does not shrink from recommending the adoption of meaner and more violent forms like the Paiśāca and the Rākṣasa. Most probably, it was very much looked down upon in cultured society in his days. Yājñavalkya², however, mentions the Āsura marriage along with the other seven. Now, applying Vātsyāyana's dictum that in his list of the seven forms, one that precedes is superior to one that follows, on account of its being more in accordance with *dharma* or the sacred law³, we arrive at a graded series which is not quite in agreement with the *Dharmaśāstras*. For instance, Manu gives the series thus—Brāhma, Daiva, Prājāpatya, Ārṣa⁴. The other three he has not graded, but taking them in the order in which he enumerates them, they are to be graded as Āsura, Gāndharva, Rākṣasa and Paiśāca the last of which he definitely characterises as the eighth and the worst¹. Yājñavalkya also agrees with Manu with only the slight difference that he places the Ārṣa and the Prājāpatya in the same category². Kauṭilya also mentions all the eight forms of marriage but what is remarkable, is that he, unlike Manu and others, enumerates the first four forms in exactly the same order as Vātsyāyana,³ showing here a point of agreement with the latter, as in many other respects. Most of the authors of the law codes differ from Vātsyāyana in condemning the Paiśāca as the worst, worse than even the Rākṣasa, but the Commentator of Vātsyāyana explains the position of his author by saying that the Paiśāca, though not lawful (adharmya), yet is better than the Rākṣasa, as the latter involves violence⁴.

First 144 of 457 passages. Read on

Linked texts (42)