The World of Courtesans c7.24

c7.24

It is significant that though the *ganikas* were not free persons legally, they had full authority over their assets which consisted of jewelry, income from salary and the gifts received from their lovers. Jewelry was considered one of the tools of their profession, and its possession added much to their prestige, for even the king could not confiscate it. This inviolability of private property, however, runs contrary to the translation of a passage from the *Arthashastra* by Shamasastry which reads that a *ganika* was punished with a fine of 50-1/4 *panas* if she sold or mortgaged her property. Sternbach, however, gets over the difficulty by translating the word *svapateya* as "wealth, riches" and not "property", as Shamasastry does. In the opinion of the former the word *svapateya* means the wealth or riches given to *ganikas* by the Superintendent on a usufructual basis so that they could live in grand style and discharge better their duties as government servants. As a matter of fact, high living was a characteristic feature of a courtesan's life, and was not calculated merely to satisfy their personal vanity, but was a trade trick to attract wealthy merchants and officers. In the free institution of *ganika*, the courtesans, or at least the leading ones, earned a great deal of money and could live in luxury. But since prostitution was a state-managed institution there is every likelihood that their palatial establishments and gardens were state property with life interest. Sternbach places the same interpretation on the mention of a fine of 4-1/4 *panas* on a *ganika* if she entrusted her jewelry to a person other than her mother. It seems possible that though she had a right over her own jewelry, the jewelry received from the Superintendent on a usufructual basis could not be entrusted to anybody except the bawd who looked after her welfare. Kautilya also throws some light on the laws of inheritance among the ganikas. After the death of a *ganika* her daughter, or in her absence her sister, inherited her personal household effects, but in the absence of these relations, her personal property went to the state. The mother of a *ganika* could also give it to a substitute (pratiganika) as well, though in any case the inheritance was in the maternal line