Social Life in Ancient India: Studies in Vatsyayana's Kamasutra c8.s6.t7.3

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.