Social Life in Ancient India: Studies in Vatsyayana's Kamasutra c8.s6: The Position of Women

Social Life in Ancient India: Studies in Vātsyāyana's Kāmasūtra c8.s6

Language: English

The Position of Women

The Nāgaraka's Wife

c8.s6.t1.1

While the life of a *nāgaraka* has been painted by Vātsyāyana as a round of pleasures, that of his wife presents a striking contrast and is a round of duties. The picture presented by him of a wife is in no way inferior to the ideal held up in the *Dharmaśāstras* and in many respects he gives greater details.¹ She attends on her husband with all the love and devotion a devotee shows to the deity he worships. She ministers to his personal needs, looks after his food and drink, as well as his toilet and his amusements; she tries to appreciate his likes and dislikes, welcomes his friends with proper presents, respects and loves his parents and relatives and is liberal to his servants; when she finds that he is coming home, she hastens to meet him and waits upon him herself; in his games and sports she follows him; even when offended, she does not speak too bitterly to him. She may attend a festive assembly only with his permission and in the company of her friends. She does not even give away anything without his knowledge. She should do nothing that might rouse his suspicion against her fidelity; she should avoid the company of women of questionable character such as female ascetics, actresses, fortune-tellers, or women given to the practice of black art (mūlakārikā), nor should she loiter about in solitary parts of the house. She might take lessons in the Kāmasūtra or in the subsidiary arts, if her husband so wishes, and he may occasionally himself give these lessons.¹ One is here reminded of Bhāsa's Udayana who calls his beloved queen "his dear disciple,"² and of the beautiful line of Kālidāsa (with whom our author has so many points of contact) where Aja mourns the loss of Indumatī, his "beloved pupil in the fine arts."³

c8.s6.t1.2

¹ For the section of the *Kāmasūtra* dealing with the character of the virtuous wife see pp. 224-46. This section has not been dealt with here in detail as the whole of it has been translated by Prof. P. Peterson in his paper on "Vātsyāyana on the Duties of a Hindu Wife," read before the Anthropological Society of Bombay (16th December, 1891) and published in the *Journal of the Anthro. Soc. of Bom.* 1892, pp. 459-66. The same learned Professor has written upon "Courtship in Ancient India," as given in the section of the *Kāmasūtra* dealing with it (*Jour. Bom. Br. R.A.S.* xviii), and hence, we have omitted a consideration of that section including the rules of marriage.

c8.s6.t1.3

¹ Kāmasūtra, p. 28 (sūtras 2 and 3); p. 197 (sūtra 36), and चतुःषष्टी विशलम् | p. 310 (sūtra 9).

c8.s6.t1.4

² Bhāsa's Svapnavāsavadattam, Act V, हा प्रिये, हा प्रियशिष्ये etc.

c8.s6.t1.5

³ प्रियशिष्या ललिते कलाविधौ |—Raghuvamśa, viii. 57.

c8.s6.t1.6

There is an atmosphere of control and restraint about her. In her talk she is moderate and never speaks or laughs aloud; she does not return an answer when reproved by her husband's parents. She does not give herself airs when she enjoys great good fortune. In her dress she practises moderation: when going out on festive occasions, she wears a few ornaments and only a few garments of fine and soft texture, uses perfumes and ointments very moderately and adorns herself only with white flowers. But when she is going to meet her husband, she takes the greatest care with her toilet; then she makes herself tidy, sweet and clean, she puts on many ornaments, wears flowers of various hues and smells, uses perfumes and in every way makes herself attractive. Flowers were worn in garlands hanging from the neck (sraj), or in chaplets (āpīḍa) on the head, or were simply put in the hair,⁴ or in elaborate ornaments for the ears (karṇapūra or karṇapatra). Another item of a woman's toilet was the paint or the dots and patches on the forehead and cheeks, put on in various designs (*viśeṣaka*). Sometimes leaves of such plants as *tamāla* were used with it, as we find in the *Saundarananda-Kāvya*.¹ Vātsyāyana advises a wife never to present herself before her husband without some ornaments on her person even when alone with him.² This idea is found in Indian literature as early as the time of Yāska, who says, "to the man who understands her meaning, the Veda shows herself as a loving wife shows herself to her husband in all her rich apparel." As Yāska here is quoting a verse of the *Ṛgveda* where it occurs at least four times, the idea belongs to the very earliest period of Indian thought.³ But when the husband is away from home the wife goes, as it were, into mourning; she puts away all her ornaments and finery with the exception of those that mark her married condition, such as the bangles of shells, only one on each wrist.⁴ At that time she also practises fasts and austerities in honour of the gods and does not go to visit even the near relatives except in very urgent cases when they are in some danger, or when there are some festivities there, and even then, she must not change her quiet dress indicating the separation (*pravāsa-veṣa*); and she should never go there but in the company of her husband's people and must not stay there long. When the husband returns home she goes to meet him as she is, then she worships the gods, specially Kāmadeva, the god of love, and offers gifts of food to men and birds.

c8.s6.t1.7

⁴ प्रकीर्णकमेककुसुमा—Kāmasūtra, p. 152 (sūtra 3); केशेषु कुसुमवासैः Bhāsa, Cārudatta, Act I.

c8.s6.t1.8

¹ *Kāmasūtra*, p. 124 (*sūtra* 19); p. 206 (*sūtra* 32); also *Saundarananda Kāvya*, chap. iv.

c8.s6.t1.9

² नायकस्य च न विमुक्ताभूषणं विजने संदर्शने तिष्ठेत् तु।—*Kāmasūtra*, p. 226 (*sūtra* 13)

c8.s6.t1.10

³ Quoted by Prof. Peterson in *Journal of the Anth. Soc. of Bom.*, 1891, p. 463. The Vedic passage is जायेव पत्य उशती सुवासाः, *Ṛv.* i. 124. 7; see also iv. 3. 2; x. 71. 4 and x. 91. 13. Cf. also जाया पतिमिव वाससा *Av.* xviii. 2. 51.

c8.s6.t1.11

⁴ *Kāmasūtra*, p. 231 (*sūtra* 43), also एवं शंखवलय वा धारयेत्, pp. 315-16 (*sūtra* 44).

c8.s6.t1.12

Ordinarily also it is the wife who looks after the performance of the daily worship of gods at the household temple and the due performance of rites and the offering of gifts at the three fixed periods in the day—morning, mid-day and evening. She takes upon herself the observance of the vows and fasts that fall to the share of her husband. Sometimes the lady vowed gifts and offerings to the gods, and when her lord acquired some wealth, or obtained success in any venture, or regained his health after some illness, she carried out her vow.¹ To institute the worship of some deity was one of the dear desires of the women.² The qualities enumerated by Suddhodana as requisite for a bride for the young Siddhartha³ are very much the same as those in the picture given above by Vātsyāyana of a virtuous and devoted wife.

c8.s6.t1.13

¹ ततश्चाधिगम्यैभिर्मे तसिद्धि शरीरोपचये वा पूर्वसभावित इष्टदेवतोपचारः।—Ibid, p. 341 (sūtra 20).

c8.s6.t1.14

² देवतातां पूजोपचारप्रवसनम्।—Ibid, p. 340 (sūtra 25).

c8.s6.t1.15

³ Lalita-vistara, chap. xii, 138ff.

c8.s6.t1.16

With the permission of her husband the wife takes upon herself the whole care and management of the family. She prepares a budget for the whole year and regulates the expenditure in proportion with the annual income. She must also know how to keep the daily accounts and total up the daily receipts and expenditure; Manu also lays down that the husband should appoint the wife to receive and spend the wealth, by keeping accounts, as Medhātithi explains.⁴ When the husband is inclined to spend beyond his means, or to run into improper expenditure, she remonstrates with him in secret. She lays in a stock of all articles necessary for consumption and replenishes her stores at the proper season. She knows how to calculate and pay the wages and salaries of the servants, has to look after agriculture and cattle, and also to take care of the animals and birds kept for sport by the master of the house. We have seen that the garden also is a special charge of the lady of the house. When the husband is absent from home she also looks after his affairs and tries to administer them carefully so that they may not suffer by his absence; on such occasions she endeavours to minimise the expenditure to the best of her power and to increase the resources of the family by sales and purchases carried on through trusty servants. She has to attend to the kitchen, and besides, she employs her leisure in spinning cotton and also in doing some weaving.

c8.s6.t1.17

⁴ साम्प्रत्सरिकं आयं संख्याय तदनुरूपं व्ययं कुर्यात्। दैवसिकाव्ययपियीकरषमिति च विधात्—Kāmasūtra, p. 229 (sūtras 32-33); अर्थस्य संग्रहं चैनां व्यये चैव नियोजयेत्।—Manu x. 11 where Medhātithi explains संग्रहं, संख्यादिना परिच्छिद्य र्चार्यं वेश्मनि विधानम्।

Poor Women

c8.s6.t2.1

Many of the poorer women,—widows, helpless women, or those who had adopted the ascetic's vow (pravrajitā), earned a living by spinning and weaving as at the time of Kauṭilya, and got their wages from a government officer, the Sūtrādhyakṣa, "the Superintendent of Yarn," and the sales and purchases were made with the Paṇyādhyakṣa, "the Superintendent of Manufactures." In the villages, the peasant women did various kinds of work under the control of the government officer (Ayuktaka) in charge of the village or the headman who lived upon a share of the agricultural produce. Under his orders these women perform unpaid work (viṣṭi) for him, they fill up his granaries, take things in or out of his house, clean and decorate his residence, or work in his fields; they also take from him cotton, wool, flax or hemp for spinning yarn and the bark of trees, or thread, for preparing wearing apparel; moreover, they made with him transactions of sale, purchase or exchange of various articles. Similarly the women in dairy settlements (vrajas) transacted business with the gavādhyakṣa, "the Superintendent of Cattle."¹

c8.s6.t2.2

¹ Kāmasūtra, pp. 282-83 (sūtras 5-10).

The Joint-Family

c8.s6.t3.1

The joint family system seems to have obtained in Vātsyāyana’s age. The wife of the householder has to wait upon his parents and to obey them implicitly as we have already seen, and moreover, she has to show proper regard to all senior relations (gurus) and to his sisters as well as to their husbands. But nowhere are her duties to his brothers mentioned, though a woman with many younger brothers of her husband is referred to in one place¹ showing probably that sometimes the brothers lived together, but more often they established separate households when they got married, as it was prescribed in some of the Dharma-śāstras, in Manu for example, that after the death of the parents the brothers might live jointly or they might separate for the sake of increasing the dharma, for, if they lived separate, their spiritual merit would increase and hence separation was sanctioned by dharma: the meaning is that if they lived apart “each of them had to kindle the sacred fire, to offer separately the agnihotra, to perform the five great sacrifices and so forth, and hence each gains merit separately.” This principle had been recognised from very early times as we have it clearly laid down by Gautama, the author of the earliest of the extant Dharmasūtras.²

c8.s6.t3.2

¹ व्युत्थाप्या बहुदेवरिका—Ibid, p. 254 (sūtra 52).

c8.s6.t3.3

² Note by Prof. Bühler on Manu ix. 111, S.B.E. xxv, p. 347. Cf. also सर्वं वा पूर्वजस्य तरां विभयात् पितृवत् । विभागे तु धर्महविः ।—Gautama, xxviii. 3 and 4.

Polygamy

c8.s6.t4.1

Polygamy appears to have been prevalent in Vātsyāyana’s days among the wealthy. Kings generally considered it a privilege to have a crowded harem, a harem “with a thousand spouses” is spoken of by Vātsyāyana.³ This is in line with what the *Lalita-vistara* says about Māyādevī that she was the best and greatest of the thousands of women of Śuddhodana. The *Buddhacarita* mentions the same fact though not in such extravagant terms.¹ Princes, high officials and the rich also married more than one wife. Vātsyāyana says that the wealthy people had generally a plurality of spouses who, outwardly no doubt, appeared to enjoy many objects of pleasure, but in reality, were very miserable indeed, as the husband was but one and the claimants to his affection were many; and he gives the sage advice that it is better to have a poor husband even though he may not have many qualities to recommend him than to have a clever man whose favours have to be shared with many.² A single wife for a wealthy man, however, was not unknown: we read in Vātsyāyana of a *nāgaraka* who may be devoted to one wife (*ekacārin*).³ Prince Nanda of the *Saundarananda-Kāvya* was such a person. The majority of the people appeared to have only one wife; but if she had no child, or if she bore only daughters and the continuity of the family was in danger, then the husband might marry again. In case of barrenness, Vātsyāyana counsels the wife herself to induce the husband to marry again and look upon the newly married bride as a younger sister.⁴ He advises a man with many wives not to be partial, neither to show any disregard towards any one in particular, nor to allow any offence on the part of any one of them to pass unnoticed.⁵

c8.s6.t4.2

³ Kāmasūtra, p. 41 (sūtra 22) ; also pp. 289-98.

c8.s6.t4.3

¹ शुद्धोदनस्य प्रमदा प्रधाना नारीसहस्रेष्वथ साप्रमाता—*Lalita-vistara* (ed. by Lefmann) 328. समग्रदेवीनिवस्र्यदेवी बभूव मायापगतेव माया—*Buddhacarita*, i. 15.

c8.s6.t4.4

² *Kāmasūtra*, p. 217 (*sūtras* 55, 56).

c8.s6.t4.5

³ Ibid, p. 55 (*sūtra* 43).

c8.s6.t4.6

⁴ Ibid, pp. 233-4 (*sūtras* 1-5).

c8.s6.t4.7

⁵ Ibid, p. 245 (*sūtras* 85-89).

Antahpura

c8.s6.t5.1

We have already seen that every house had an *antahpura*, or inner suite of apartments where the ladies resided in seclusion, guarded against intrusion from any stranger; not even women except those of approved character, were admitted within.¹ Bhāsa's *Vasantasenā* complains that she had the misfortune of not being entitled to enter into the inner courtyard of Cārudatta's house.² It was not considered decent for the wife of a *nāgaraka* to stand at the door and look out or to observe people in the street from her windows; even when she hastens to meet her husband coming home, she does not go out into the street or to the door but waits for him inside the house.³ Nevertheless, on the occasion of religious festivities and processions, she could accompany the images of the gods with the permission of her husband. The inability of women to protect themselves against temptations as compared with men, is recognised by Vātsyāyana and he like Manu, condemns the absence of a restraining guardian (*niraṅkuśatva*) for a woman.⁴

c8.s6.t5.2

¹ Ibid, p. 244 (*sūtra* 83).

c8.s6.t5.3

² अभागिनी अहं भवन्त्यप्रवेश्या ।—Bhāsa, (Trivandrum Sanskrit series), Act I, p. 26.

c8.s6.t5.4

³ *Kāmasūtra*, p. 227 (*sūtra* 22); and p. 226 (*sūtra* 12); also हारदेशवासिनी प्रासादाग्रमार्गावलोंकिनी ।—p. 254 (*sūtra* 52).

c8.s6.t5.5

⁴ Ibid, p. 249 (*sūtras* 10 and 13); also pp. 296-97 (*sūtras* 43-52); cf. *Manu*, v. 147-149 and ix. 2 and 3.

c8.s6.t5.6

The kings having a large number of wives took greater care than the ordinary *nāgaraka* in confining them in seraglios guarded by officers of proved honesty and purity. No man was allowed to enter into the royal harem except relatives and servants and in some provinces, artisans; Brāhmaṇas were allowed to get into the harem for supplying flowers to the ladies, with whom they conversed separated by a screen. There were in the harem female officers, the *kañcukiyā* and the *mahattarikā* who carried presents of garlands, perfumes and garments from the ladies to the king who also sent gifts in return. In the afternoon, the king paid a visit to the harem and met all the ladies assembled together and conversed with them in accordance with their rank and position.¹

c8.s6.t5.7

¹ Ibid, pp. 289-298 and pp. 242-44.

Education of Women

c8.s6.t6.1

The fact that the mistress of the house was expected to keep the daily accounts, to prepare the annual budget of receipts and expenditure, and supervise in general over the purse, proves, beyond a doubt, that women ordinarily were literate. Besides, from what Vātsyāyana says, it is apparent that an ordinary woman could receive and reply to love letters smuggled into ear ornaments, chaplets or garlands made of flowers carried by female messengers (*patrahāridūtī*). Such love letters not infrequently contained verses and songs having special reference to the beloved and replies were obtained from her.² Unless women had some education, this would be without meaning.

c8.s6.t6.2

² Ibid, p. 274 (*sūtras* 38-40); p. 276 (*sūtra* 51) : p. 279 (*sūtra* 60); also यत्र संप्राप्तस्यास्य...दद्यानां गीतवस्तुकानो...च निधानम्। प्रत्युत्तरं तथा दतं प्रपद्यत् ।—p. 292, (*sūtras* 20, 21).

c8.s6.t6.3

Higher education (*śastragrahaṇa*), however, was not so common among them, as Vātsyāyana himself says that women did not ordinarily get any education in the *śastras*, but our author avers that the daughters of kings and nobles, as also the *gaṇikās*, were highly educated and "had their intelligence trained and sharpened by the *śastras*," and he advises that a woman might learn either the whole or a part of the work (*śastra*) composed by himself from a person who by character and attainments could be trusted.³ The sixty-four subsidiary sciences that had to be studied along with the *Kāmasūtra*, included many that required, as we have seen, no inconsiderable proficiency in *belles lettres*, in the humanities in general. Such accomplishments as extempore composition of verses (*mānasi-kāvyakriyā*) and the completion of fragmentary verses (*kāvyasamasyāpūraṇam*) required a ready facility in versification that could be acquired only by a highly educated girl; and such sports as *pratimālā* required the memorising of a large mass of verses and good literature. In Vātsyāyana's opinion a knowledge of the *Kāmasūtra* with its subsidiary sciences would be useful to all women, both high and low, rich and poor. A poor woman who on account of the absence of her husband, finds herself in great distress and difficulty, might earn a decent living even in a foreign country by means of the knowledge of these sciences. A woman whose husband has been away from home without making provision for her, is advised by Manu also to live by the arts, by such *śilpas* as have nothing reprehensible in them. On the other hand, Vātsyāyana affirms that, a daughter of wealthy parents, if accomplished in the arts, might win the affection of her husband even if he happens to have a large number of wives. We see, moreover, from Vātsyāyana's work, as well as from contemporary literature, that a knowledge of the arts was considered necessary for all women.¹ The bride for Prince Siddhārtha was required, according to his father, to be "versed in the sacred literature (*śāstra*) and skilled in the arts, even like a Gaṇikā."² The carama-buddha could be born only of a mother "versed in many sciences," and Māyādevī satisfied this requirement; besides, she was well skilled in the arts.³

c8.s6.t6.4

³ Ibid, pp. 28-30.

c8.s6.t6.5

¹ Ibid, pp. 32-41, cf. प्रोषितलविधायं व जीविच्छस्त्रैर्विहितैः ।—Manu, ix. 75.

c8.s6.t6.6

² शास्त्रे विचित्रा कुशला गणिका यथैव ।—Lalitavistara (ed. by Lefmann), xii.

c8.s6.t6.7

³ वद म तायाः पण्डितायाः ।—Ibid, iii. 25, कलाश्चचपा ।—iii. 27.

Widow Re-marriage

c8.s6.t7.1

The position of a widow who wished for a second husband, has been clearly defined by Vātsyāyana. There was no regular marriage for a widow; but if a woman who had lost her husband, was of weak character and was unable to restrain her desires, she might ally herself for a second time to a man who was a seeker after pleasures (*bhogin*) and was desirable on account of his excellent qualities as a lover, and such a woman was called a *punarbhū*. Vātsyāyana quotes the opinions of several teachers as to how far, in the selection of her second master, the *punarbhū* should be swayed by the excellence of the qualities of the man of her choice or by the chances of participating in the joys of life, and he concludes that in his opinion it was best for her to follow the natural inclinations of her own heart. The connection with her was of a loose character and she enjoyed a degree of independence unknown to the wife wedded according to sacramental rites. When the *punarbhū* seeks her lover's house, she assumes the role of a mistress, patronises his wives, is generous to his servants and treats his friends with familiarity; she chides the lover herself if he gives any cause for quarrel. She shows greater knowledge of the arts than his wedded wives and seeks to please the lover with the sixty-four *Kāmakalās*. She takes part in sports and festivities, drinking parties, garden picnics, and other games and amusements. She might leave her lover (*nāyaka*), but if she did so of her own accord, she had to restore to him all presents given by him, except the tokens of love, mutually exchanged between them; if she is driven out, she does not give back any thing.¹

c8.s6.t7.2

¹ *Kāmasūtra*, pp. 238-40 (*sūtras* 39-59). विधवा विन्दियदोर्व्यादातुरा भोगिनं गुणसंपन्नं च या पुनर्विन्येत सा पुनर्भुः (*sūtra* 39); सौख्यार्थिनी सा किलान्त्यं पुनर्विन्येत (*sūtra* 41); सा प्रभवितुरेव तस्य भवनमाप् यात् (*sūtra* 48); समाज्ञापानकीयानयाविहारमीलता चेति पुनर्संज्ञपम् (*sūtra* 59), etc.

c8.s6.t7.3

The position of the *punarbhū* is therefore quite distinct from that of the wedded wife who participated with her husband in all religious observances and had to live with decency in the *antaḥpura*; the position of the *punarbhū* approaches nearer to that of a mistress than that of a wedded wife. In the king's harem where there were separate quarters and suites of chambers for the various types of women, the *punarbhūs* occupied a position midway between the *devīs* or queens who were quartered in the innermost apartments, and the *gaṇikās* and actresses in the outermost, and this exactly indicates also the position occupied by them in society. Vātsyāyana indicates this in another place where he places the *punarbhū* between the virgin (*kanyā*) and the courtesan (*veśyā*)¹ and says that the establishment of sexual relations with either the courtesans or the *punarbhūs* was not considered as right, neither was it absolutely condemned, because pleasure was the guiding motive in all such connections.² It is clear that in Vātsyāyana's opinion there could not be any second marriage of the widow. Manu, whose code must have received its present from about that time, declares in unmistakable terms that in the sacred texts concerning marriage, the re-marriage of widows was nowhere prescribed.³ Vātsyāyana's attitude towards the question of widow-remarriage shows that in his days, public opinion allowed the widow to live with the man of her choice as his mistress, just as public opinion was not particularly nice or fastidious about making love to courtesans, but she could never receive the same regard, nor acquire the same position, as the married wife.

c8.s6.t7.4

¹ Ibid, p. 243, (*sūtra* 78); and तत्र नायिकास्त्रिः, कन्या पुनर्भू श्च — p. 60 (*sūtra* 4).

c8.s6.t7.5

² वेश्याः पुनर्भुश्च न शिष्टं न प्रतिषिद्धः सुखार्थत्वात् — Ibid, p. 59 (*sūtra* 3).

c8.s6.t7.6

³ न विवाहविधावुक्तं विधवावेदनं पुनः — *Manu*, ix. 65.

c8.s6.t7.7

About the question of marriage in general, Vātsyāyana gives it as his considered opinion that for a man of any of the four *varṇas* or castes, *kāma* or desire should be provided its scope in the acceptance, according to the prescriptions of the holy writ, of a maiden who belongs to the same caste as himself and who had no contact with any one before, and this, he says, leads to progeny and to fame and is also sanctioned by popular usage; and again, he affirms, in another connection, that when a maiden of the same caste, not given to any one before, is married in accordance with the prescriptions of the holy writ, then one secures *dharma* and *artha*, offspring, high connection, an increase of friends and partisans, and also genuine, untarnished love. He further adds definitely that the contrary procedure of marrying girls of higher castes or of those who had previously been accepted by others, was absolutely prohibited, but that public opinion was indifferent with regard to connection with women of the lower castes (if not actually outside the pale of Aryan society), as also with widows and courtesans, for such relations were not considered as amounting to marriage at all, but entered into merely for pleasure for its own sake.¹

c8.s6.t7.8

¹ *Kāmasūtra*, p. 59 (*sūtras* 1-3); and p. 184 (*sūtra* 1).

Anumaraṇa

c8.s6.t8.1

Vātsyāyana once refers to the *anumaraṇa*² of a woman upon the death of her lover; perhaps it has a reference to the practice of *sahamaraṇa* or dying with the husband, that is, burning herself on the same funeral pyre, but we cannot be sure about it upon such meagre evidence.

c8.s6.t8.2

² सक्तस चातुमरणं म्रयान् ।—*Ibid*, p. 316 (*sūtra* 53).

Female Ascetics

c8.s6.t9.1

Some women also took the monastic vow like men and lived upon the charity of the people. Nuns of the three main religions of India at that time are referred to in the *Kāmasūtra*. We have the Buddhist nun *śramaṇā*, and her Jaina sister, *kṣapaṇā* or *kṣapaṇikā*; and associated with them we find the *tāpasī* whom I take to be the woman who belonging to the Brahmanic faith, has renounced the world. Besides, we read of women who had their heads shaven (*muṇḍāḥ*). All of them are generally spoken of as *pravrajitās* or *bhikṣukīs*, *i.e.*, female ascetics or mendicants. It appears, from what Vātsyāyana says, that these female mendicant orders did not enjoy a high reputation for morality: they are included among those who are declared to be company unfit for decent married ladies.¹ Some of the mendicant women were proficient in the arts and their help was often sought by the nāgaraka in affairs of love; the house of the bhikṣukī often formed the rendezvous for lovers; she was often employed to carry messages of love and was regarded as a go-between who could easily create confidence and succeed in her mission.² Vātsyāyana, however, positively asserts that the love of the female ascetic was never to be sought for by a nāgaraka, though a former teacher had expressed a contrary view.³ All this does not imply that female ascetics were in general considered as depraved but that some of them abused the confidence of the public and thus forfeited the respect with which they had previously been regarded, just like some of the male ascetics and mendicants who erred from the right path,⁴ and we learn from Kauṭilya that the respect which the parivrājikā or bhikṣukī commanded in society was made use of in order to fish out political secrets.⁵ In Bhavabhūti's Mālatīmādhava we find the parivrājikā, Kāmandakī, represented as a highly respectable lady who took great interest in the love affair between the hero and the heroine and worked hard for its fruition. This drama is an illustration, as it were, of the Kāmasūtra, and Bhavabhūti in this drama shows himself very well-versed in Vātsyāyana's writings.⁶

Linked texts (12)

Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
*Buddhacarita — Sanskrit
Gautamadharmasūtra — Gautama (dharmasūtrakāra), Sanskrit
Raghuvaṃśa — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit
Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Atharvavedasaṃhitā — Atharvan & Aṅgiras, Sanskrit
Saundarananda — Aśvaghoṣa, Sanskrit
Svapnavāsavadatta — Bhāsa, Sanskrit
Cārudatta — Bhāsa, Sanskrit
Kāmasūtra — Vātsyāyana Mallanāga, Sanskrit
Mālatīmādhava — Bhavabhūti, Sanskrit