Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c13.s11: 11. Institution of Marriage

The Mauryan Polity c13.s11

Language
English

11. Institution of Marriage

c13.s11.1

Discussion then centres around the forms and the institution of marriage.² Megasthenes says³: "They marry many wives, whom they buy from their parents, giving in exchange a yoke of oxen. Some they marry hoping to find in them willing helpmates; and others for pleasure and to fill their houses with children." The system of polygamy and the longing for children which are referred to by Megasthenes are in conformity with the prescriptions of the *Dharmaśāstras* and the *Arthaśāstra*. Kautalya says⁴ the giving in marriage of a girl for two cows is called the *Ārṣa* form of marriage, and this is what Megasthenes means by giving in exchange a yoke of oxen. The motives for marriage, such as securing helpmates, etc., is, in other words, an incorrect report of what he had heard about the eight accepted forms of marriage, of which four were popular. While the *prājāpatya*, and the *daiva*, aim at the higher ideal of the woman being the helpmate and life-partner in weal and woe, the *gāndharva* aims merely at the enjoyment of pleasure. As regards the longing for many children it is a fundamental principle of the ancient Hindus that the real aim of marriage is to secure offspring. With their belief of life after death, and the existence of awards and punishments in the other world as a consequence of actions in this world, they developed the idea of feeding the departed ancestors (*śrāddha*) and thus invoking their blessings and goodwill. It is only the son who could perform various religious ceremonials due to his ancestors without any grudge, and the idea was further developed that a man who had no issues would suffer eternal hell in spite of all his other good actions and pure conduct. The idea was that a sonless person must at least adopt a son who would be able to propitiate his spirit. Thus the religious element entered into the social institution and marriage became a sacrament on that account. Hence giving birth to a son came to be considered a sacred duty to the family and to the departed manes and ultimately to God. So Megasthenes must have been told of this complex principle, at once religious and biological, and he was not able to distinguish the significance attached to sons in the Hindu family.

c13.s11.2

² Stein, p. 64.

c13.s11.3

³ Fg. 27.

c13.s11.4

⁴ Bk. III, ch. 2. See Mookerjee, *Intro.*, p. xl.

c13.s11.5

It is amusing to find the remark of Megasthenes who says "since they have no slaves they have more need to have children around them to attend to their wants."¹ This is only an assumption of the Greek visitor but not a fact. It is not correct to state that there were no slaves in those days. Megasthenes had apparently confused slaves and servants. He has taken servants to be slaves attributing the ideas of his own country. Every family could not afford to have servants, and absence of servants in certain families must have obviously driven Megasthenes to this conclusion, or his statement in this respect is incorrect as many others are. But what is more important is that we find coincidences between the two versions as regards the institution of marriage.¹

c13.s11.6

¹ Fg. I.

c13.s11.7

¹ *Meg. und. Kaut.*, pp. 64-69.

Cites (3)