History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c19.114.1

v2.c19.114.1

One important question is whether the theory of anuloma or pratiloma castes presupposes a marriage or only a union (outside marriage) of a man and a woman. The Āp. Dh. S. (II. 6. 13. 1, 3-4) lays down¹²³ that a man must marry a virgin of his own *varṇa* with the rites prescribed by the *śāstras* and only the son born of such a marriage is entitled to the privileges and occupation of his father, that sexual intercourse with a woman who has been married by another or on whom the proper ceremonies of marriage are not performed or who belongs to another caste is condemned and that the son (and not the daughter) born of such an union is condemned (through the sin of the parents). So Āpastamba looked with disfavour even on marriages called *anuloma*. He is entirely silent about anuloma and pratiloma castes. It is no doubt true that most ancient writers like Gautama (IV. 1), Vasiṣṭha (I. 24), Manu (III. 12-13), Yāj. (I. 55 and 57) prescribe that a person should by preference marry a girl of his own varṇa but also allow the marriage of a person with a girl of another varṇa lower than his own. Yāj. (I. 92) expressly says that the six *anuloma* castes, mūrdhāvasikta, ambaṣṭha, niṣāda, māhiṣya, ugra, and karaṇa are so called only when they are the offspring of women married by men of higher varṇas. Manu (X. 41) says that the six anuloma castes are entitled to the rites (saṁskāras like upanayana) performed for *dvijas*, but that the pratiloma castes are like śūdras (i. e.