Social Life in Ancient India: Studies in Vatsyayana's Kamasutra c8.161

c8.161

If a person could not afford to live in a city and was forced to shut himself up in a village by the exigencies of earning his livelihood, even then he should, according to Vātsyāyana, look upon civic life as the ideal and by giving to his fellow villagers glowing descriptions of the pleasant life led by the *nāgaraka*, he should inspire those among his own class who show any special cleverness or curiosity, with a desire to imitate the conduct of the city-people and he should give them a taste of the amenities of city-life by starting clubs and social gatherings as in the city, by himself gratifying his friends with his company, by favouring them with his assistance and by introducing the spirit of mutual help and cooperation.³ A village-wife is spoken of as a simpleton and village-women generally are spoken of as very light and fickle; such rustic women (*cārīaṇis*) are regarded with scant courtesy by Vātsyāyana.⁴ The life of a round of pleasures in the city was naturally very expensive and many ran through their fortunes. Such a nāgaraka who had eaten up his fortune (bhukta-vibhavah) might, however, if clever, earn a living by placing himself at the service of the clubs and pleasure-houses where he would be respected on account of his skill in the arts, and then he would be called a viṭa.¹ Even if a man had no fortune of his own he might enjoy the pleasures of life as a pīṭhamarda; he might acquire skill in the arts and go about as an itinerant professor of these at the clubs of citizens and the abodes of gaṇikās; such a man was marked by his peculiar seat (mallikā) which he hung on his back, by his dyed clothes and by some kind of soap (phenaka) which he always carried about in order to keep himself clean.² Or he might, if he was skilled in only a few of the arts, attach himself to a wealthy nāgaraka as his companion and confidential friend and then he was called a vidūṣaka or a vaihāsika, a professional jester.³