Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c26: Chapter IX. Marriage

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c26

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IX. Marriage

v2.c26.2

This is the most important of all saṃskāras. Throughout the ages for which literary tradition is available in India marriage has been highly thought of. The several words that are employed to denote the idea of marriage indicate one or more of the elements of the saṃskāra of marriage. Such words are *udvāha* (taking the girl out of her parental home), *vivāha* (taking the girl away in a special way or for a special purpose i. e. for making her one's wife), *pariṇaya* or *pariṇayana* (going round i. e. making a pradakṣiṇā to fire), *upayama* (to bring near and make one's own), and *pāṇigrahaṇa* (taking the hand of the girl). Though these words express only one component element of the rite of marriage they are all used in the śāstras¹⁰¹² to indicate the totality of the several acts that go to make up the ceremony of marriage. The word '*vivāha*' occurs in the Tai. S. VII. 2. 87 and Ait. Br. (27. 5). In the Tāṇḍya¹⁰¹³ Mahābrāhmaṇa VII. 10. 1 it is said that "heaven and earth were once together but they became separate'; then they said 'let us bring about a marriage, let there be a co-operation between us'."

v2.c26.3

¹⁰¹² एवमुपयमनपाणिग्रहणशब्दवत्परिणयनशब्दोऽपि दण्डिन्यायेनैव कर्मसमुदाये शास्त्रेषु प्रयुज्यते । अपरार्क p. 91.

v2.c26.4

¹⁰¹³ इमौ वै लोकौ सहास्तां तौ वियन्तावब्रूतां विवाहं विवहावहै सह नावस्त्विति । ताण्ड्य. VII. 10. 1.

v2.c26.5

Before dwelling upon the various aspects of marriage, the question, whether our authorities point to a state of society when there was no institution of marriage, but there was only promiscuity, requires to be considered. The Vedic works contain no indications about a society in which the relations of the sexes were promiscuous and unregulated. In the Mahābhārata,¹⁰¹⁴ however, Pāṇḍu is made to state to his queen Kuntī that women in former ages were under no control, indulged themselves as they liked and that they left off one man and went after another, that this state of things continued to his (Pāṇḍu's) day in the country of Uttara Kuru, that it was Śvetaketu, son of Uddālaka, who for the first time stopped all this license and laid down the rule that if a woman proved false to her husband or if a husband was false to a chaste wife, very grave sin would be incurred. In the Sabhāparva (31. 37-38) it is said that through the favour of Agni women in Māhiṣmatī did what they liked and could not be restrained. These passages cannot be relied upon for proving promiscuity of intercourse. In the first place, the country of Uttara Kuru is more or less mythical. This passage rather gives expression to what the poet imagined about remotest ages and not what he knew was the real state of society thousands of years before him. The theory of an original state of promiscuity once advanced by several sociologists has now ceased to be respectable (vide Mrs. M. Cole in 'Marriage, past and present' p. 10.

v2.c26.6

¹⁰¹⁴ Vide आदिपर्व chap. 122 (chap. 113 of cr. ed. Poona). Some of the verses may be quoted 'अनावृताः किल पुरा स्त्रिय आसन् वरानने । कामचारविहारिण्यः स्वतन्त्राश्चारुहासिनि ॥ 4 ... उत्तरेषु च रम्भोरु कुरुष्वद्यापि वर्तते । 7; सभापर्व 31. 37-38 'बभूवुरनतिग्राह्या योषितश्छन्दतः किल। एवमग्निवरं प्रादात् स्त्रीणामप्रतिवारणे ॥.'

v2.c26.7

The purpose of marriage, even according to the Ṛgveda, was to enable a man, by becoming a householder, to perform sacrifices to the gods and to procreate sons. The verse in Ṛg. X. 85. 36 shows that the husband took a woman as a wife for 'gārhapatya'. Ṛg. V. 3. 2., V. 28. 3 speak of the co-operation of husband and wife in the worship of gods. Ṛg. III. 53. 4 contains the emphatic assertion 'the wife herself is the home' (jāyed-astam). In later literature also the same statement occurs. A wife was called 'jāyā', because the husband was born in the wife as a son (Ait. Br. 33. 1). The Śat. Br. V. 2. 1. 10 says 'the wife¹⁰¹⁵ is indeed half of one's self; therefore as long as a man does not secure a wife so long he does not beget a son and so he is till then not complete (or whole); but when he secures a wife he gets progeny and then he becomes complete'. The Ait. Ār. (I. 2. 4) says 'therefore a man, after securing a wife, regards himself as more complete'. When Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 11. 12 forbids taking a second wife if the first is endowed with progeny and the performance of religious rites, it indicates that the main purposes of marriage are two,¹⁰¹⁶ viz. the wife enables a man to perform religious rites and is the mother of a son or sons who were supposed to save a man from hell. Manu (IX. 28) states that on the wife depend the procreation of sons, the performance of religious rites, service, highest pleasure, heaven for oneself and for one's ancestors. So these three viz. *dharmasampatti*, *prajā* (and consequent freedom from falling into hell) and *rati* (sexual and other pleasures) are the principal purposes of marriage according to the smṛtis and nibandhas. Yāj. I. 78 is to the same effect. Jaimini (VI. 1. 17 ff) establishes that husband and wife have to perform sacrifices together and not separately and Āp. Dh. S.¹⁰¹⁷ II. 6. 13. 16-17 emphatically says that there can be no separation between husband and wife, for since marriage they have to perform religious acts jointly.

v2.c26.8

¹⁰¹⁵ अर्धो ह वा एष आत्मनो यज्जाया तस्माद्यावज्जायां न विन्दते नैव तावत्प्रजायते असर्वो हि तावद्भवति । अथ यदैव जायां विन्दतेऽथ प्रजायते तर्हि हि सर्वो भवति । शतपथ ब्रा. V. 2. 1. 10. Vide शतपथ VIII. 7. 2. 3. also. The words अर्धो वा एष आत्मनो यत्पत्नी occur in तै. सं. VI. 1. 8. 5. तस्मात् पुरुषो जायां वित्त्वा कृत्स्नतरमिवात्मानं मन्यते । ऐ. आ. I. 2. 5. न गृहं गृहमित्याहुर्गृहिणी गृहमुच्यते । शान्तिपर्व 144. 66; अर्धं भार्या मनुष्यस्य भार्या श्रेष्ठतमः सखा । भार्या मूलं त्रिवर्गस्य भार्या मूलं तरिष्यतः ॥ आदिपर्व 74. 40; आम्नाये स्मृतितन्त्रे च लोकाचारे च सूरिभिः। शरीरार्धं स्मृता भार्या पुण्यापुण्यफले समा ॥ बृहस्पति quoted by अपरार्क p. 740.

v2.c26.9

¹⁰¹⁶ धर्मप्रजासंपन्ने दारे नान्यां कुर्वीत। आप. ध. II. 5. 11. 12; the मिता० on या. I. 78 quotes this and remarks 'तथा चापस्तम्बेन धर्मप्रजासंपत्तिः प्रयोजनं दारसंग्रहस्योक्तं धर्मे...कुर्वीतेति वदता। रतिफलं तु लौकिकमेव'।

v2.c26.10

¹⁰¹⁷ जायापत्योर्न विभागो विद्यते। पाणिग्रहणाद्धि सहत्वं कर्मसु। आप. ध. सू. II. 6. 13. 16-17.

v2.c26.11

Marriage is a composite rite comprising several subordinate elements which have to be done in a certain order and the last of which is seeing the constellation of the seven sages; it (rite) brings about the status of a woman as a person's wife.¹⁰¹⁸

v2.c26.12

¹⁰¹⁸ कः पुनरयं विवाहो नाम। उपायनः प्राप्तायाः कन्याया दारकरणार्थः संस्कारः सेतिकर्तव्यताङ्गः सप्तर्षिदर्शनपर्यन्तः पाणिग्रहणलक्षणः। मेधा० on मनु III. 20; तेन भार्यात्वसंपादकं ग्रहणं विवाहः। रघुनन्दन in उद्वाहतत्त्व.

v2.c26.13

The first consideration is: how to choose a bridegroom and what qualifications make a person a very desirable bridegroom. Āśv. gṛ. (I. 5. 2) says 'one should give a maiden¹⁰¹⁹ (in marriage) to a man endowed with intelligence'. The Āp. gṛ. (3. 20) remarks "the accomplishments of a bridegroom are that he must be endowed with good family, a good character, auspicious characteristics, learning and good health". Baud. Dh. S. IV. 1. 12 states 'a maiden should be given in marriage to one who is endowed with good qualities and who is a celibate (till then)'. Even the Śākuntala (IV) echoes the words of Baudhāyana 'the best idea is to give one's daughter to a man endowed with good qualities'. Yama quoted in the Sm. C. (I. p. 78) says 'one should seek for seven qualities in a bridegroom viz. good family, good character, bodily appearance, fame, learning, wealth and support (of relatives and friends); the other matters need not be considered'. Bṛhat-parāśara (p. 118 Jīv. ed.) enumerates eight qualities in a bridegroom viz. caste, learning, youth, strength, health, support of many (friends &c.), ambitions (arthitva), and possession of wealth. Āśv. gṛ. (I. 5. 1) and others place kula (a good family) in the forefront in the case of both the bride and the bridegroom.¹⁰²⁰ 'One should first examine the family (of the intended bride or bridegroom) as it has been said above (in the Āśv. Śrauta sūtra IX. 3).' The Āśv. Śrauta reads 'those who on their mother's as well as their father's side through ten generations are endowed with learning, austerity and meritorious works or whose pure brāhmaṇa lineage can be traced on both sides (for ten generations) or according to some on the father's side.' Manu regarded a good family as the most important from the eugenic point of view. In IV. 244 he says 'one who desires to raise his family to excellence and eminence should always enter into marriage alliances with the best and avoid alliance with the low'; and adds (III. 6-7) that ten kinds of families even though richly endowed with cattle, wealth &c. should be avoided in marriage viz. in which the saṃskāras are not performed, in which there is no male progeny, which are devoid of Veda (study), which have hairy members, that suffer from piles or consumption or indigestion or epilepsy, white or black leprosy. Manu (III. 63-65) explains under what circumstances good families are reduced to a bad state. Hārīta states that the offspring is in accordance with the (qualities of the) family of the parents. The Harṣacarita (IV) gives expression to the view that generally the wise look to good family first even though there may be other qualities in the bridegroom. Manu II. 238, however, allows a man to marry a girl even from an inferior or bad family provided she is a jewel among women.

v2.c26.14

¹⁰¹⁹ बुद्धिमते कन्यां प्रयच्छेत्। आश्व. गृ. I. 5. 2; दद्याद्गुणवते कन्यां नग्निकां ब्रह्मचारिणे। बौ. ध. IV. 1. 20; बन्धुशीललक्षणसंपन्नः श्रुतवानरोग इति वरसंपत्। आप. गृ. I. 3. 20; गुणवते कन्यका प्रतिपादनीयेत्ययं तावत्प्रथमः संकल्पः। शाकुन्तल IV (said by अनसूया); कुलं च शीलं च वपुर्यशश्च विद्यां च वित्तं च सनाथतां च। एतान्गुणान्सप्त परीक्ष्य देया कन्या बुधैः शेषमचिन्तनीयम्॥ यम in स्मृतिच. I. p. 78.

v2.c26.15

¹⁰²⁰ कुलमग्रे परीक्षेत ये मातृतः पितृतश्चेति यथोक्तं पुरस्तात् । आश्व. गृ. I. 5. 1; आश्व. श्रौ. सू. IX. 3. is 'ये मातृतः पितृतश्च दशपुरुषं समनुष्ठिता विद्यातपोभ्यां पुण्यैश्च कर्मभिर्येषामुभयतो वा ब्राह्मण्यं निनयेयुः पितृतश्चैके।' These qualifications were laid down for those who were to partake of the camasa offering in Rājasūya. कुलानुरूपाः प्रजाः संभवन्ति। हारीत quoted in संस्कारप्रकाश p. 589; प्रायेण च सत्स्वप्यन्येषु वरगुणेष्वभिजनमेवानुरुध्यन्ते धीमन्तः। हर्षच. IV.

v2.c26.16

Yāj. (I. 54-55) emphasizes the importance of a good family famed for ten generations and freedom from diseases that are hereditarily transmitted and adds that the bridegroom must be young, intelligent, a favourite among the people and his virility must be carefully tested. The Mit. on Yāj. 1. 55 quotes Nārada (strīpuṁsa) who mentions some characteristics of the virile man and enumerates fourteen varieties of impotent persons (verses 11-13). Kātyāyana¹⁰²¹ mentions what defective bridegrooms are to be avoided viz. the lunatic, one guilty of grave sins, leprous, impotent, one of the same *gotra*, one bereft of eyesight or hearing, an epileptic and adds that these defects are to be avoided even among brides. The Mahābhārata observes 'friendship and marriage should take place between those alone whose wealth is similar and whose learning (i. e. the learning in whose families) is of equal status, not between opulent (well-off) and the poverty-stricken'.¹⁰²²

v2.c26.17

¹⁰²¹ उन्मत्तः पतितः कुष्ठी तथा षण्ढः स्वगोत्रजः । चक्षुःश्रोत्रविहीनश्च तथापस्मारदूषितः । वरदोषाः स्मृता ह्येते कन्यादोषांश्च कीर्तिताः । स्मृतिच० I. p. 59; the text of नारद (ed. by Jolly, स्त्रीपुंसयोग v. 37) is उन्मत्तः पतितः क्लीबो दुर्भगस्त्यक्तबान्धवः ॥ कन्यादोषो च यो पूर्वावेष दोषगणो वरे ॥

v2.c26.18

¹⁰²² ययोरेव समं वित्तं ययोरेव समं श्रुतम् । तयोर्मैत्री विवाहश्च न तु पुष्टविपुष्टयोः ॥ आदिपर्व 131. 10; compare उद्योगपर्व 33. 117 समैर्विवाहं कुरुते न हीनैः समैः सख्यं व्यवहारं कथां च ।

v2.c26.19

Though Manu and Yāj. indicate that impotent persons are not eligible for marriage, yet such persons rarely married. Their marriages were held valid by Manu, Yāj. and others and their sons (by niyoga) took property as if they were *aurasa* sons. Vide Manu IX. 203 and Yāj. II. 141-142.

v2.c26.20

The Saṁskāraprakāśa (pp. 752-754) contains a long discussion on the question how from bodily characteristics one can find whether a man will live long or what his prospects would be. These are passed over for want of space.

v2.c26.21

Rules for the selection of the bride are far more elaborate than those for selecting a bridegroom, though in some respects they are the same (such as about the necessity of good family, about the absence of diseases &c.). Vide Vas I. 38, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 24. 11, Kāmasūtra III. 1. 2.¹⁰²³ Even the Śat. Br. (I. 2. 5. 16)

v2.c26.22

¹⁰²³ तस्मात्कन्यामभिजनोपेतां मातापितृमतीं त्रिवर्षात्प्रभृतिन्यूनवयसं श्लाघ्याचारे धनवति पक्षवति कुले संबन्धिप्रिये संबन्धिभिराकुले प्रसूतां प्रभूतमातापितृपक्षां रूपशीललक्षणसंपन्नामन्यूनाधिकानिषदन्त नख कर्ण केशाक्षिस्तनीमरोगां प्रकृतशरीरां तथाविध एव श्रुतवान् शीलंयेत् । कामसूत्र III. 1. 2.

v2.c26.23

gives expression to the then view that broad hips and slender waists make women attractive. Āśv. gṛ. I. 5. 3 says¹⁰²⁴ 'one should marry a girl who is endowed with intelligence, beauty, a good character and auspicious characteristics and who is healthy'. Śāṅ. gṛ. I. 5. 6 and Manu III. 4 and Yāj. I. 52 also require that the girl should be possessed of auspicious characteristics (or indications). These (lakṣaṇas) are of two kinds, bāhya (visible or bodily characteristics) and ābhyantara (invisible). Āp. gṛ.¹⁰²⁵ (III. 21) states a commonsense rule: 'a girl on whom his mind and eyes are riveted will bring him happiness (or prosperity), he should pay no heed to other things; this is the view of some'. The Kāmasūtra quotes the view of Ghoṭakamukha 'he should proceed to marry a girl on taking whom as his wife he would regard himself as blessed and would not be blamed by his friends (or persons in a similar station in life)'¹⁰²⁶. Manu III. 8 and 10, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 24. 12-16 say that one should not marry a girl having tawny hair or having an excessive limb (such as a sixth finger) or a deficient limb, who is hairless or very hairy, who is talkative and has yellowish eyes; but should marry a girl who has limbs void of any defect, whose gait is like that of a swan or an elephant, the hair on whose head or body is of slight growth and whose teeth are small, whose body is delicate. The Viṣṇu-purāṇa (III. 10. 18-22) adds that the girl must not have a marked growth of hair on her chin or lip, her voice must not be hoarse or like that of a crow; her legs and ankles must not be very hairy, there should be no dimples on her cheeks when she laughs, she should not be very dwarfish or very tall &c. Manu III. 9 and Āp. gṛ. (III. 13) say that the girl to be married must not bear names of the lunar mansions (such as Revatī, Ārdrā &c.), trees or rivers, she must not bear a mleccha name or that of a mountain, of a bird, of a snake or of a slave or a name that is terrific. Āp. gṛ. (III. 14) and Kāmasūtra III. 1. 13 mention that a girl should not be chosen, the penultimate letter of whose name is r or l (such as Gaurī, Śālī, Kamalū). Nārada¹⁰²⁷ (strī-puṁsayoga 36) says that defects of girls are as follows:—when they suffer from long-standing or disgusting diseases, when they are devoid of a limb or have already had connection with another man, when they are wicked or have their minds fixed on another; and Āp. gṛ. (III. 11-12) states other defects of girls viz. one should not choose a girl who is asleep or weeps or has left the house when persons come to see whether she can be chosen. Vide Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa 34. 76-77 for guṇas and defects of girls as 'brides'.

v2.c26.24

¹⁰²⁴ बुद्धिंरूपशीललक्षणसंपन्नामरोगामुपयच्छेत । आश्व. गृ. I. 5. 3; बन्धुशील . . . . . सुपंयच्छेत । आप. गृ. III. 20.

v2.c26.25

¹⁰²⁵ यस्यां मनश्चक्षुषोर्निबन्धस्तस्यामृद्धिनेतरदाद्रियेतेत्येके । आप. घ. III. 21. This is quoted by the मिता० on याज्ञ. I. 52. The Kāmasūtra III. 1 .14 has the same rule in the same words. The भारद्वाजगृह्य I. 11 quotes a verse to the same effect श्लोकं तु लाक्षणा उदाहरन्ति । यस्यां मनोऽनुरमते चक्षुश्च प्रतिपद्यते । तां विद्यात्पुण्यलक्ष्भीकां किं ज्ञानेन करिष्यति॥ This makes attractiveness more important in a woman even than knowledge. In the Mālatīmādhava (Act. II) Kāmandakī ascribes the words यस्यां मनश्च० to Aṅgiras 'इतरेतरातुरागो हि द्वारकर्मणि पराध्यै मङ्गलं गीतश्चायमर्थोऽङ्गिरसा यस्यां मनश्चक्षुषोरनुबन्धस्तस्यामृद्धिरिति'.

v2.c26.26

¹⁰²⁶ यां गृहीत्वा कृतिनमात्मानं मन्येत न च समानैर्निन्द्येत तस्यां प्रवृत्तिरिति घोटकमुखः । कामसूत्र III. 1. 3.

v2.c26.27

¹⁰²⁷ दीर्घकुत्सितरोगार्ता व्यङ्गा संसृष्टमैथुना । दुष्टान्यगतभावा च कन्यादोषाः प्रकीर्तिताः ॥ नारद (स्त्रीपुंसयोग 36).

v2.c26.28

Bhār. gṛ. I. 11 says that there are four inducing reasons¹⁰²⁸ for marrying a particular girl viz. wealth, beauty, intelligence and family. If all four cannot be secured, wealth may be neglected (as the least important of all); then beauty may be neglected if there is intelligence and good family, but there is a difference of view as to the latter two, some preferring intelligence to family and others family to intelligence. Mānava gṛ. (I. 7. 6-7) adds a fifth inducement for marriage, viz. vidyā (learning) after beauty and before prajñā. Vide also Vārāha gṛ. 10.

v2.c26.29

¹⁰²⁸ चत्वारि विवाहकारणानि वित्तं रूपं प्रज्ञा बान्धवमिति। तानि चेत्सर्वाणि न शक्नुयाद्वित्तमुदस्येत्ततो रूपं प्रज्ञायां च तु बान्धवे च विवदन्ते । बान्धवमुदस्येदित्येक आहुरप्रज्ञेन हि कः संवासः । भारद्वाजगृह्य I. 11.

v2.c26.30

Some of the gṛhyasūtras propose a peculiar mystical method of selecting a bride. The Āśv. gṛ. (I. 5. 3) after stating that one should select a girl endowed with good characteristics (lakṣaṇas) proceeds 'lakṣaṇas are very difficult to discern' and therefore prescribes (I. 5. 5-6) that eight lumps of different kinds of earth should be taken respectively from a field that yields two crops a year, from a cow-stable, from a vedi (sacrificial altar, after sacrifice is performed), from a pool of water that does not dry up, from a gambling place, from a place where four roads meet, from a barren spot, and from a burial ground; then he should recite over the lumps the formula 'ṛta (right) has been born first in the beginning; truth is founded (or fixed) in ṛta; may this girl attain here that for which she is born; may what is true be visible;' then he says to the girl 'take one of these'. According as she chooses the lump, it may respectively be deemed that she will have offspring rich in food (if she chooses the lump of the earth taken from the field of two crops a year &c.), or rich in cattle, or rich in spiritual lustre or rich in everything, or addicted to gambling, or wandering in different directions or poor, or that she will bring death to her husband (if she takes the lump of the earth from the burial ground). The Gobhila gṛ. II. 1. 4-9 speaks of these lumps and adds that a ninth lump may be formed by mixing up the earths of all eight varieties and that if she takes up any one of the four lumps of earth from an altar, furrow, a pool or a cow-stable or (according to some) the ninth lump, she may be selected. The Laugākṣi gṛ. 14. 4-7 contains the same rules as in Gobhila. Āp. gṛ.¹⁰²⁹ (III. 15-18) prescribes a somewhat different method. If both sides agree, the bridegroom (or his friends) should place in one lump of earth several kinds of seeds (such as rice, barley &c.); he should take (a lump having in it) the dust from an altar, a third having a clod from a ploughed field, a lump having cowdung inside and (a fifth having) a clod of earth from a cemetery and keeping them before the girl ask her to touch one of them (the five). If she touches any one of the first four, that is an indication of future prosperity (of the nature of the object touched), but the last (viz. clod of earth from cemetery) is objectionable. The Vārāha gṛ. 10 and Bhār. gṛ. I. 11 speak of only four lumps of earth viz. from a field, from an altar, from a cow-stable, and from a cemetery and say that one should not marry a girl who takes up the lump of cemetery earth. Mānava gṛ. (I. 7. 9-10) speaks of eight lumps but substitutes a lump of earth where dūrvā grows and a lump from under a tree filled with fruit for earth from a pool of water and one from a gambling place and adds that the eight lumps should be placed in a temple and if the girl takes up the lump from a cemetery or from a barren spot or from where four roads meet she should not be married. Many digests like the Gṛ. R. (pp. 13-22) contain long quotations which dilate upon the indications about the auspiciousness or otherwise of girls from their several physical features.

v2.c26.31

¹⁰²⁹ शक्तिविषये द्रव्याणि प्रतिच्छन्नान्युपनिधाय ब्रूयादुपस्पृशेति । नानाबीजानि संसृष्टानि वेद्याः पांसून् क्षेत्रालोष्टं शकृच्छ्मशानलोष्टमिति । पूर्वेषामुपस्पर्शने यथालिङ्गसमृद्धिः। उत्तमं परिचक्षते । आप. गृ. 3. 15-18.

v2.c26.32

Gaut. IV. 1, Vas. 8. 1, Mānava gṛ. I. 7. 8, Yāj. I. 52 and several others say that the girl must be younger (yavīyasī)

v2.c26.33

than the bridegroom and the Kāmasūtra (III. 1. 2) recommends that she must be younger than the bridegroom by at least three years. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 52 explains ‘yavīyasī’ as meaning ‘younger in age and smaller in stature’ (than the bridegroom). What the age of marriage was will be discussed a little below.

v2.c26.34

Gaut. IV. 1,¹⁰³⁰ Vas. 8. 1, Yāj. I. 52, Manu (III. 4 and 12) and others say that one should marry only a girl who is a virgin and of the same caste. How far widow-marriages and intercaste marriages were allowed would be discussed later on.

v2.c26.35

¹⁰³⁰ गृहस्थः सदृशीं भार्यां विन्देतानन्यपूर्वां यवीयसीम् । गौ. IV. 1; गृहस्थो विनीतक्रोधहर्षो ...... अस्पृष्टमैथुनामवरवयसीं सदृशीं भार्या विन्देत । वसिष्ठ VIII. 1.

v2.c26.36

The Mānava gṛ. I. 7. 8, Manu III. 11 and Yāj. I. 53 require that the girl to be chosen must not be brotherless. This requirement which has been not in force for centuries has a long history behind it. In Ṛg. I. 124. 7 it is said¹⁰³¹ ‘as a brotherless maiden comes back towards her male relations (her father’s family)...so the dawn reveals objects (or her beauty).’ In the Atharvaveda I. 17. 1 we read ‘like brotherless women let them sit still with their splendour gone’. Both these passages are quoted and explained in the Nirukta III. 4–5. In ancient times when a man had no son, he could make his daughter do for a son (i. e. she herself became putrikā) and stipulate with the person marrying her that the son born of her would be his (i. e. the girl’s father’s) son and would offer piṇḍas as a son to his maternal grandfather. The result would be that the son of such a girl would not offer piṇḍas to his father and would not continue the line of his father. Ṛg. III. 31. 1 (a very obscure and difficult verse) has been explained by the Nirukta (III. 4) as referring to the practice of declaring a daughter to be one’s son¹⁰³². Therefore, brotherless maidens were not chosen as brides and the Ṛg. speaks of spinsters growing old in their parental home (Ṛg. II. 17. 7). Vas. Dh. S. 17. 16 refers¹⁰³³ to Ṛg. I. 124. 7 and quotes a verse about a brotherless girl. Such a daughter at whose marriage the father made the stipulation stated above was called putrikā and according to Gaut. 28. 17 some ¹⁰³⁴ teachers went so far as to say that a daughter became a putrikā by the mental resolve of the father alone (without there being an express agreement with the bridegroom). It is therefore that Manu (3. 11) ordains that one should not marry a girl that has no brother, as there is the danger of her being a putrikā. The Nirukta (III. 5) quotes another ¹⁰³⁵ Vedic passage 'one should not marry a brotherless woman, for she becomes the son of him (her father)' and remarks that in this passage there is a direct prohibition against marrying a brotherless maiden (while in the passage of the Atharvaveda it is indirect, being involved in a simile) and it is also expressly said that she becomes the son of her father. In medieval times this prohibition against marrying a brotherless girl gradually was ignored and in modern times the pendulum has swung the other way, a brotherless girl being a coveted prize if her father be rich. In course of time popular feeling changed and no girl could remain unmarried if she wanted heavenly worlds. There is an interesting story in the Śalyaparva chap. 52 of the daughter of Kuṇigarga who, when told by Nārada that an unmarried woman could not secure heaven, married for one day Śṛṅgavat and then went to heaven.

v2.c26.37

¹⁰³¹ अभ्रातेव पुंस एति प्रतीची गर्त्तारुगिव सनये धनानाम् । जायेव पत्य उशती सुवासा उषा हस्रेव निर्णीते अप्सः । ऋ. I. 124. 7. The संस्कारप्रकाश p. 747 quotes this Vedic verse, Yāska's Nirukta thereon and Vas. also. अभ्रातर इव जामयस्तिष्ठन्तु हतवर्चसः । अथर्व I. 17. 1. The निरुक्त (III. 4) reads अभ्रातर इव योषास्तिष्ठन्ति हतवर्त्मानः and explains अभ्रातर इव योषास्तिष्ठन्ति संतानकर्मणे पिण्डदानाय हतवर्त्मानः .

v2.c26.38

¹⁰³² प्रशास्ति वोढा संतानकर्मणे दुहितुः पुत्रभावम् । निरुक्त III. 4.

v2.c26.39

¹⁰³³ तृतीयः पुत्रिका । विज्ञायते अभ्रातृका पुंसः पितॄनभ्येति प्रतीचीनं गच्छति पुत्रत्वम् । तत्र श्लोकः । अभ्रातृकां प्रदास्यामि तुभ्यं कन्यामलंकृताम् । अस्यां यो जायते पुत्रः स मे पुत्रो भवेदिति । वसिष्ठ 17. 15–17. The sūtra विज्ञायते is an echo of the explanation of the Nirukta III. 5 and the verse quoted also occurs in the विष्णुधर्मसूत्र 15. 5.

v2.c26.40

¹⁰³⁴ अभिसंधिमात्रात्पुत्रिकेत्येकेषाम्। गौ. 28. 17.

v2.c26.41

¹⁰³⁵ ना भ्रात्रीमुपयच्छेत तोकं ह्यस्य तद्भवति इति अभ्रातृकाया उपयमनप्रतिषेधः प्रत्यक्षः पितुश्च पुत्रभावः। निरुक्त III. 5. Prof. Rajvade in his translation of the Nirukta in Marathi regards this passage (Nir. III. 5) as interpolated, but his reasons are quite unconvincing. विश्वरूप on या. I. 53 quotes ना भ्रा... भवति as a text of the Bhāllavins.

v2.c26.42

There are further restrictions about choosing a girl for marriage. The rule was that a man should marry a girl of the same caste. So far there is what is called endogamy (i. e. rule requiring marriage within a certain large community). But within this large community there were certain groups which were prohibited for marriage to a person belonging to another group of the same caste or community (i. e. the principle of exogamy. operated within the large community itself). The Hir. gṛ. I. 19. 2, Gobhila gṛ. III. 4. 4, Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 11. 15 require that the bride to be chosen must not belong to the same gotra as that of the bridegroom. They are all silent about the sameness of pravara. Gaut. IV. 2., Vas. Dh. S. VIII. 1, Mānava gṛ. I. 7. 8, Vārāha gṛ. 9, Śaṅkha¹⁰³⁶ Dh. S. forbid marriage with a girl whose *pravara* (or *ārṣeya*) is the same as that of the bridegroom; but they say nothing about the prohibition against the sameness of gotra. It is somewhat remarkable that some of the gṛhyasūtras like Āśv. and Pār. say not a word about sameness of *gotra* and *pravara*. Viṣṇu Dh. S. 24. 9, Vaik. III. 2, Yāj. I. 53, Nārada (*strīpuṁsa*, verse 7), Vedavyāsa II. 2 and many others prohibit sameness of gotra as well as of pravara. Gobhila gṛ. III. 4. 5, Manu III. 5, Vaik. III. 2 and Āp. Dh. S. II. 5. 11. 16 require that the bride must not be a *sapiṇḍa* or blood relation of the mother of the bridegroom; while Gaut. IV. 2, Vas. VIII. 2, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 24. 10, Vārāha gṛ. 9, Śaṅkha Dh. (quoted above), Yāj. I. 53 and others restrict the prohibition against marrying a sapiṇḍa girl to seven degrees on the father's side and five degrees on the mother's side. There were others like the Vedavyāsa-smṛti which not only prohibited marriage with a girl who had the same gotra as the bridegroom's, but prohibited marriage with a girl whose mother's gotra was the same as the bridegroom's.

v2.c26.43

¹⁰³⁶ हरदत्त on आप. ध. सू. II. 5. 11–16 quotes शङ्ख ‘दारानहरेदसपृष्टानसमानार्षेयानसंवन्धानां सप्तमपञ्चमात्पितृमातृबन्धुभ्यः’।. The words ārṣeya, ārṣa and pravara mean the same thing. Manu is silent about the prohibition against marrying a sapravara girl.

v2.c26.44

All these prohibitions against marrying a *sagotra*, *sapravara* or *sapiṇḍa* girl are extremely important, as the following considerations will show. It is a canon of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā that if there is a seen (*dṛṣṭa*) or easily perceptible reason for a rule stated in the sacred texts, it is only recommendatory and a breach of such a rule does not nullify the principal act. But if there is an unseen (*adṛṣṭa*) reason for a rule and there is a breach of such rule, the principal act itself is rendered invalid and nugatory thereby. The rule about not marrying a woman who is diseased or who has superfluous or deficient limbs has a seen reason viz. marriage with such a girl causes unhappiness (if she is diseased) or comment (if she has deficient limbs). Therefore, if a person marries such a girl the marriage is perfectly valid. But there is no seen or easily perceptible reason for the prohibition against marrying a *sagotra* or *sapravara* girl. Therefore, such rules go to the root of the matter and are obligatory and, if there is a breach of them, the marriage is no marriage, it is null and void. So even if a person goes through a ceremony of marriage with a girl who is a sagotra or sapravara or sapiṇḍa (within prohibited degrees) she does not in law become his wife at all. These principles are very lucidly set¹⁰³⁷ forth by Medhātithi on Manu III. 11, by the Mit. on Yāj. I. 53, the Madanapārijāta and other works. Therefore, these questions of sagotra, sapravara and sapiṇḍa will be dealt with at some length later on.

v2.c26.45

¹⁰³⁷ अस्मिन् प्रकरणे यत्र नास्ति दृष्टगतः प्रतिषेधः, यथा 'असपिण्डा च' इत्यत्र श्लोके, तदतिक्रमे विवाहस्वरूपानिर्वृत्तिरेव । अतः सगोत्रादिविवाहः कृतोऽप्यकृत एव।...... एवं सगोत्राया न भार्यात्वम् । यस्तु हीनक्रियादिप्रतिषेधः (मनु ३-७), तस्य दृष्टदर्शनमूलत्वान्निर्वर्तते विवाहः, भवत्यसौ भार्या । मेधा० on मनु III. 11; सपिण्डा-समानगोत्रा-सप्रवरासु भार्यात्वमेव नोत्पद्यते । रोगिण्यादिषु तु भार्यात्व उत्पन्नेपि दृष्टविरोध एव। मिता० on या. I. 53; vide also मदनपारिजात pp. 140-141, गृहस्थरत्नाकर p. 28. Compare what St. Paul says 'the things that are seen are temporary, but the things that are not seen are eternal' 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians chap. IV. 18.

v2.c26.46

The question of the age of marriage for men and women will now be considered. This is a very interesting and instructive study. The age of marriage for both sexes has varied considerably from age to age, from province to province and also from caste to caste even at the same time.¹⁰³⁸ As regards men there is no special rule as to the age before which a man was obliged to marry. A man could remain celibate all his life, while at least in medieval and modern times marriage has been absolutely necessary for every girl. A man was to marry after he had finished his Vedic studies; but the period of Vedic study was fluctuating (i. e. it could be 12, 24, 36, 48 years or as much time as was necessary to master one Veda or a portion of it). Usually twelve years were devoted to brahmacarya in ancient times and as upanayana ordinarily took place in the 8th year (for brāhmaṇas) a man would ordinarily be 20 years old or more at the time of marriage. It is therefore that Manu (IX. 94) remarks that a man of thirty may marry a girl of twelve years or a man of 24 who is in a hurry to become a householder may marry a girl of eight. Basing on this the Viṣṇupurāṇa¹⁰³⁹ (III. 10. 16) says that the ages of the bride and bridegroom should be in the ratio of 1 to 3. Aṅgiras says that the bride should be two, three, five or more years younger. In the Mahābhārata¹⁰⁴⁰ Gautama is prepared to give his daughter in marriage to Uttaṅka if he could be a youth of 16 years. In another place the Mahābhārata (Sabhā 64. 14 and Vanaparva 5. 15) uses the simile of a maiden not liking a husband of 60 years. That shows that girls were sometimes married to even old men of 60 in those days as rarely in modern times also. In the Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana 44. 14) the respective ages of the bridegroom and bride are recommended as 30 and 10 or 21 and 7; while the Udvāhatattva (p. 123) and S. Pr. p. 766 quote a verse from the Mahābhārata that a man of 30 should marry a girl of 16 (but from the metre and context it appears that ‘ṣoḍaśa-varṣām’ as printed should be ‘daśa-varṣām)’.

v2.c26.47

¹⁰³⁸ In Z. D. M. G. vol. 46 pp. 413-426 (Dr. Jolly) and vol. 47 pp. 143-154 (Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar's reply) there is an interesting discussion about the marriageable age of girls in ancient India.

v2.c26.48

¹⁰³⁹ वर्षैरेकगुणां भार्यामुद्वहेत् त्रिगुणः स्वयम् । विष्णुपुराण III. 10. 16; वयोधिकामोपयच्छेद् दीर्घा कन्यां स्वदेहंतः । स्ववर्षाद् द्वित्रिपञ्चाब्दिन्यूनां कन्यां समुद्वहेत् ॥ अङ्गिरस् quoted in स्मृतिमुक्ताफल (वर्णाश्रमधर्म p. 125).

v2.c26.49

¹⁰⁴⁰ युवा षोडशवर्षो हि यद्यद्य भविता भवान् । ददानि पत्नीं कन्यां च स्वां ते दुहितरं द्विज ॥ आश्वमेधिकपर्व 56. 22-23.

v2.c26.50

In the Ṛgveda there are no clear statements about the exact age when girls were married. But there are indications that many girls were married at a sufficiently mature age (at least they were not married at the tender age of eight). We have already seen (p. 435) that brotherless girls often remained unmarried till old age. One of the benevolent deeds¹⁰⁴¹ of the Aśvins is that they bestowed a husband on Ghoṣā who was growing old in her father's house. Vide also Ṛg. I. 124. 7, II. 17. 7, and Atharvaveda I. 17. 1. In Ṛg. X. 27. 12 it is said ‘when a bride is fine looking and well adorned, she by herself seeks her friend from among men’. That shows that girls were grown-up enough to select their husbands. Some of the verses in the marriage hymn (such as Ṛg. X. 85. 26-27, 46) indicate¹⁰⁴² that married girls could not have been child-wives, but must have been grown-up. On the other hand in Ṛg. I. 116. 1 it is said that the Nāsatyas (Aśvins) bestowed a wife on Vimada who was an *arbhaga* (of tender age).¹⁰⁴³ But all that is meant seems to be that Vimada was a mere boy as compared with his rival kings who had come as suitors. The two verses Ṛg. I. 126. 6-7 (which are rather too naive) indicate that girls were married before they had attained puberty. In Ṛg. I. 51. 13 Indra is said to have given to old Kakṣīvat a wife named Vṛcayā who is styled ‘*arbhā*’ (young). But that word is only used in contradistinction to the word ‘mahate’ (grown old) applied to Kakṣīvat and conveys no idea of her exact age.¹⁰⁴⁴ On the whole one may conclude that in the period of the Ṛgveda girls were probably married at any age (either before puberty or after puberty) and sometimes remained spinsters all their life. The other Saṁhitās and the Brāhmaṇas do not shed much light on the question of the age of marriage for girls. In the Chān. Up. Uṣasti Cākrāyaṇa is described as dwelling in the Kuru country with his wife, who is said to have been ‘āṭikī’ which Śaṁkara explains as ‘a mere undeveloped girl’.¹⁰⁴⁵

v2.c26.51

¹⁰⁴¹ घोषा यै चित्पितृषदे दुरोणे पतिं जूर्यन्त्या अश्विनावदत्तम् ॥ ऋ. I. 117. 7.

v2.c26.52

¹⁰⁴² सम्राज्ञी श्वशुरे भव सम्राज्ञी श्वश्र्वां भव । ननान्दरि सम्राज्ञी भव सम्राज्ञी अधि देवृषु ॥ ऋ. X. 85. 46.

v2.c26.53

¹⁰⁴³ यावर्भगाय विमदाय जायां सेनाजुवा न्यूहत् रथेन ॥ ऋ. I. 116. 1.

v2.c26.54

¹⁰⁴⁴ अदूदा अर्भा महते वचस्यवे कक्षीवते वृचयामिन्द्र सुन्वते । ऋ. I. 51. 13.

v2.c26.55

¹⁰⁴⁵ मटचीहतेषु कुरुष्वार्टिक्या सह जाययोषस्तिर्ह चाक्रायण इभ्यग्रामे प्रद्राणक उवास । छान्दोग्य I. 10. 1. शंकर explains 'आटिक्या अनुपजातपयोधरादिख्रीव्यञ्जनया'.

v2.c26.56

Coming to the ancient gṛhya and dharma sūtras, it will be seen from several considerations that girls were married just before the time of puberty or immediately after it. Among the several requirements of the bride to be chosen several gṛhya sūtras lay down that she must be a ‘*nagnikā*’. Vide Hir. gṛ. I. 19. 2, Gobhila gṛ. III. 4. 6, Mānava gṛ. I. 7. 8, Vaik. VI. 12.¹⁰⁴⁶ The word *nagnikā* is variously explained by the commentators. Mātṛdatta on Hir. gṛ. explains that nagnikā means ‘one whose menstrual period is near’ i. e. one who is fit for intercourse. Aṣṭāvakra, the commentator of the Mānava gṛ., explains nagnikā as ‘one who has not yet experienced the impulses and emotions of youth’ or ‘one who looks pretty even without clothes’ (taking the word along with ‘śreṣṭhām’ that follows). The Gṛhyāsaṁgraha¹⁰⁴⁷ (which is much later than the Gobhila gṛ.) explains ‘nagnikā’ as one who has not yet reached puberty. These varying explanations of the word ‘nagnikā’ are due to the fact that when some smṛtis and commentators wrote child marriages were not in vogue, while they were in vogue when and where others flourished. Vas. Dh. S. 17. 70 says ‘the father should give away his daughter while she is still nagnikā through fear of her attaining puberty (while unmarried).' This shows that according to Vas. nagnikā must have been a girl of tender years or one that had not attained puberty.

v2.c26.57

¹⁰⁴⁶ ताभ्यामनुज्ञातो भार्यामुपयच्छेत् सजातां नग्निकां ब्रह्मचारिणीमसगोत्राम् । हिरण्य. गृ. I. 19. 2; ‘नग्निकामासन्नार्तवाम् । ... तस्माद्वस्रविक्षेपणार्हा नग्निका मैथुनार्हेत्यर्थः’ मातृदत्त; ‘बन्धुमतीं कन्यामस्पृष्टमैथुनामुपयच्छेत ... यवीयसीं नग्निकां श्रेष्ठां ।’ मानवगृह्य I. 7. 8. Dr. Bhandarkar shows that in many Mss. of the Hir. gṛ. and as handed down by oral tradition among the vaīdikas of the Hir. śākhā the reading is सजातानग्निकां (i. e. the girl should be of the same caste and not a nagnikā). Vide ZDMG vol. 47. pp. 143-46.

v2.c26.58

¹⁰⁴⁷ नग्निका तु वदेत्कन्यां यावन्नर्तुमती भवेत् । ऋतुमती त्वनग्निका तां प्रयच्छेत्तु नग्निकाम् ॥ अप्राप्ता रजसो गौरी प्राप्ते रजसि रोहिणी । अव्यञ्जिता भवेत्कन्या कुचहीना च नग्निका । गृह्यसंग्रह quoted by com. on गोभिलगृह्य III. 4. 6.

v2.c26.59

There is another very important indication. Most of the gṛhyasūtras prescribe that the married couple should be celibate for at least three nights after marriage (if not for a longer period). For example, the Pār. gṛ. (I. 8) says¹⁰⁴⁸ 'the married pair should (after marriage) not partake of *kṣāra* and *lavaṇa* for three nights, should sleep on the ground (and not on a cot, for the same period) and should not have intercourse for a year, twelve nights, six nights, three nights in the last resort'. Vide for a similar rule Āśv. gṛ. I. 8. 10, Āp. gṛ. 8. 8-9, Śāṅ. gṛ. I. 17. 5, Mānava gṛ. I. 14. 14, Kāṭhaka gṛ. 30. 1, Khādira gṛ. I. 4. 9 and others. Such an injunction against intercourse for three nights after marriage would have been uncalled for and extremely inappropriate if girls had been usually married when they were only eight to ten years old. Such injunctions by so many authors presuppose that girls must have generally been very near puberty or past puberty at the time of marriage. Haradatta who belongs to about the 12th century A. D. expressly says ¹⁰⁴⁹ that (in his days) in certain countries intercourse was commenced immediately after marriage and that such a usage being opposed to Āśv. gṛ. I. 8. 10 should not be followed (but continence should be observed at least for three days after marriage). This shows that so late as 1200 A. D. in several countries the marriageable age of girls must have been at least about 14.

v2.c26.60

¹⁰⁴⁸ त्रिरात्रमक्षारालवणाशिनौ स्यातामधः शयीयातां संवत्सरं न मिथुनमुपेयातां द्वादशरात्रं...त्रिरात्रमन्ततः। पारस्करगृह्य I. 8.

v2.c26.61

¹⁰⁴⁹ केषुचिद्देशेषु सद्यः समावेशनं दृष्टं वक्ष्यमाणेन त्रिरात्रं द्वादशरात्रमिति ब्रह्मचर्येण बाध्यते। हरदत्त on आश्व. गृ. I. 7. 2, on which नारायण also says 'वैदेहेषु सद्य एव व्यवायो दृष्टः। गृह्ये तु ब्रह्मचारिणौ त्रिरात्रमिति ब्रह्मचर्यं विहितं तत्र गृह्योक्तमेव कुर्यान्न देशधर्ममिति सिद्धम्।'.

v2.c26.62

In most of the gṛhyasūtras there is a rite called 'caturthīkarma' (rite on 4th day after marriage). Vide Gobhila II. 5, Śāṅ. gṛ. I. 18-19, Khādira gṛ. I. 4. 12-16, Pār. gṛ. I. 11, Āp. gṛ. 8. 10-11, Hīr. gṛ. I. 23-24 &c. This rite has been described above (pp. 203-204) and corresponds to the garbhādhāna of later writers (e. g. Yāj. I. 11). As cohabitation is expressly mentioned in connection with this rite performed on the fourth day after marriage it follows that girls must have generally been quite grown-up at the time of marriage.

v2.c26.63

In some of the gṛhyasūtras and smṛtis a slight prāyaścitta (purificatory ceremony) is prescribed if the bride has menstruation during the progress of the marriage ceremonies. Vide Baud. gṛ. IV. 1. 10, Kauśika sūtra 79. 16, Vaik. VI. 13, Atri (ed. by Jiv. part I. p. 11).

v2.c26.64

Gaut.¹⁰⁵⁰ (18. 20-23) says 'a girl should be given in marriage before she attains the age of puberty. He who neglects it commits sin. Some declare that she should be given in marriage before she begins to wear clothes. A marriageable girl (who is not given in marriage by her father &c.) should allow three monthly periods to pass and afterwards unite herself to a blameless man of her own will and give up the ornaments received from her father (or her family)'. This passage establishes that even before Gautama (i. e. 500 or 600 B. C.) there were people who advocated marriages of infant girls that did not care to put on clothes (i. e. who had no sense of shame if they went about without clothes), that Gautama disapproved of this view, that he only prescribed that the marriage of girls should take place before puberty and he was not horrified if girls got themselves married sometime after puberty. But it is clear that no blame attached to the girl married after puberty or to the husband; the idea, however, had arisen even then that the father or guardian incurred blame or sin by not getting a girl married before puberty. Manu (IX. 89-90) goes so far as to say 'A maiden may rather stay in her father's house even till her death, though she may have attained puberty; but the father should never give her to one who is devoid of good qualities. A maiden after attaining puberty may wait for three years (to see if she is given away by her father or brother &c.) but after this period she should seek a husband who is similar to her.' Anuśāsanaparva 44. 16 is to the same effect. Baud. Dh. S. IV. 1. 14 and Vas. V. Dh. S. 17. 67-68 give the same rule as in Manu IX. 90. But both add (Vas. 17. 70-71 and Baud. Dh. S. IV. 1. 12) that the father or guardian incurs the sin of destroying an embryo at each appearance of menses as long as the girl is unmarried. Yāj. I. 64 and Nārada (strīpuṁsa, verses 25-27) state the same rule.

v2.c26.65

¹⁰⁵⁰ त्रीन्ऋतूनतीत्य स्वयं युज्येतानिन्दितेनोत्सृज्य पित्र्यानलंकारान्। प्रदानं प्रागृतोः। अप्रयच्छन् दोषी। प्राग्वाससः प्रतिपत्तेरित्येके। गौ. 18. 20-23.

v2.c26.66

On account of this change in popular beliefs and sentiments it came to be recommended that a girl must be married early and may be given even to one¹⁰⁵¹ who is devoid of qualities (in spite of Manu IX 89). Vide Baud. Dh. S. IV. 1. 12 and 15.

v2.c26.67

¹⁰⁵¹ दद्याद्गुणवते कन्यां नग्निकां ब्रह्मचारिणीम् । अपि वा गुणहीनाय नोपरुन्ध्याद्रजस्वलाम् ॥ अविद्यमाने सदृशे गुणहीनमपि श्रयेत् ॥ बौ. ध. सू. IV. 1. 12 and 15.

v2.c26.68

So we see that from about 600 B. C. to about the beginning of the Christian Era it did not matter at all if a girl was married a few months or few years after puberty. But by about 200 A. D. (when the Yāj. smṛti was composed) popular feeling had become insistent on pre-puberty marriages. The reasons for this change are not quite clear. But it is possible to hold that it was due to the following circumstances. Buddhism had spread far and wide during these centuries with its encouragement of the institution of monks and nuns. There was laxity of morals among nuns. A further reason may be adduced viz. that girls had generally ceased to study anything, though some of them certainly did study in the times of Pāṇini and Patañjali, and so society did not like girls to remain doing nothing. From the times of the Ṛgveda (X. 85. 40-41) there was a mystical belief that Soma, Gandharva and Agni were the divine guardians of a girl and the Gṛhyāsaṁgraha (quoted in the com. on Gobhila gṛ. III. 4. 6) says that Soma enjoys a girl first, then Gandharva enjoys her when her breasts develop and fire when she menstruates. Therefore, a feeling arose that a girl must be married even before she develops any distinct signs of femininity. Saṁvarta¹⁰⁵² (verses 64 and 67) gives expression to this idea. Further, since marriage came to be looked upon as the upanayana in the case of women, naturally the age for upanayana (8th year) came to be looked upon as the proper age for marriage. Vide Saṁskārakaustubha quoted below. It came to be believed that there was no hope of heaven for a woman who died unmarried.

v2.c26.69

¹⁰⁵² रोमकाले तु संप्राप्ते सोमो भुङ्क्तेथ कन्यकाम् । रजो दृष्ट्वा तु गन्धर्वाः कुचौ दृष्ट्वा तु पावकः । ...तस्माद् विवाहयेत्कन्यां यावन्नर्तुमती भवेत् । विवाहो ह्यष्टवर्षायाः कन्यायास्तु प्रशस्यते ॥ संवर्त verses 64 and 67, quoted by Sm. C. I. p. 79 and Gṛ. R. p. 46. स्त्रीणामुपनयनस्थानापन्नो विवाह इति तदुचितावस्थायां विवाहस्योचितत्वात् । संस्कारकौस्तुभ p. 699; विवाहं चोपनयनं स्त्रीणामाह पितामहः । तस्माद्गर्भाष्टमः श्रेष्ठो जन्मतौ वाष्टवत्सरः ॥ यम quoted in स्मृतिमु. (वर्णाश्रमधर्म) p. 136.

v2.c26.70

In the Śalyaparva¹⁰⁵³ chap. 52 we have the story of a girl, daughter of Kuṇi Garga, who practised severe penance till she reached old age and yet was told by Nārada that if she died unmarried she would not go to heaven. The woman induced Śṛṅgavat of the Gālava family for a day previous to her death to marry her by the promise of giving him half of her merit (puṇya). The Vaik.¹⁰⁵⁴ (V. 9), while describing the ceremony of funeral rites in cases of distress, mentions the curious practice of finding out a male of the same caste for a girl, who dies unmarried though of the age of puberty, with whom a sort of marriage is gone through and the girl is then cremated. Whatever the reasons may be, this tendency to bring down the age of marriage for girls was accentuated in the first five or six centuries of the Christian era. The Laugākṣi¹⁰⁵⁵ gṛ. (19. 2) says 'brahmacarya for girls lasts till the 10th or 12th year'. The Vaik. (VI. 12) says that a brāhmaṇa should marry a brāhmaṇa girl who is a *nagnikā* or *gaurī* and defines nagnikā as a girl over eight years but less than ten and gaurī as one who is between ten and twelve and has not had menstruation. Aparārka (p. 85) quotes the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa to the effect that nagnikā is one who is ten years old. Vide Sm. C. quoting Saṁgraha. Parāśara, Yāj. and Saṁvarta go even beyond this. Parāśara¹⁰⁵⁶ (VII. 6-9) says 'a girl of eight is called gaurī, but one who is nine years old is a rohiṇī; one who is ten years old is a kanyā; beyond this (i. e. after 10 years) she is a *rajasvalā*. If a person does not give away a maiden when she has reached her 12th year, his pitṛs have to drink every month her menstrual discharge. The parents and also the eldest brother go to hell on seeing (an unmarried) girl reaching the state of a rajasvalā'. Parāśara adds that the brāhmaṇa who marries such a girl should not be spoken to or admitted to dinner in the same row (as other brāhmaṇas) and that he becomes the husband of a vṛṣalī. On the other hand the Vāyupurāṇa (83. 44) extols the marriage of a gaurī by remarking that her son purifies 21 ancestors on his father's side and 6 male ancestors on his mother's side. Saṁvarta (verse 65-66) has the same two verses as Parāśara (VII. 6 and 8) and winds up (verse 67) by saying that the marriage of a girl of eight is highly commended. The same four verses (Parāśara VII. 6-9) occur in Bṛhad-Yama (Ānan. ed.) chap. 3. 19-22, but the order is different. Aṅgiras (vv. 126-128, Ānan. ed.) has the same verses. Kaśyapa as quoted in the Gṛ. R. (p. 46) says that a girl is called gaurī when she is seven, a kanyakā when she is ten and kumārī when she is twelve. It will be noticed that the smṛtis of Vaikhānasa and Kaśyapa differed from Parāśara as to the definition of gaurī. Further the three smṛtis make marriage of a girl after puberty an extremely sinful act and condemn not only the parents but also the husband, while Baud. prescribed only a slight prāyaścitta for the father alone even if there was menstruation during the marriage rites. Marīci¹⁰⁵⁷ (quoted in Par. M. I. 2. p. 177) said that choosing a bride who was five years old was best. Even Manu (9.88) recommended an early marriage if a very desirable bridegroom was available. Rāma and Sītā are said to have been respectively 13 and 6 at the time of marriage (Araṇyakāṇḍa 47. 10-11). But this passage appears to be an interpolation. In the Bālakāṇḍa¹⁰⁵⁸ it is expressly stated that Sītā and her sisters enjoyed in private dalliance with their respective husbands immediately after marriage. If this is true then Sītā could not have been only 6 at the time of marriage.

v2.c26.71

¹⁰⁵³ असंस्कृतायाः कन्यायाः कुतो लोकास्त्वानघे । शल्यपर्व 52. 12.

v2.c26.72

¹⁰⁵⁴ तथैव कन्यां च मृतां प्राप्तयौवनां तुल्येन पुंसा प्राप्तगृहवत्त्वां दहेत् । वैखानसस्मार्तसूत्र V. 9.

v2.c26.73

¹⁰⁵⁵ दशवार्षिकं ब्रह्मचर्यं कुमारीणां द्वादशवार्षिकं वा । लौगाक्षिगृह्य 19. 2. ब्राह्मणो ब्राह्मणीं नग्निकां गौरीं वा कन्यां ...... वरयेत् । अष्टवर्षादा दशमान्नग्निका । रजस्यप्राप्ते दशवर्षाद्वा द्वादशाद्वा गौरीत्यामनन्ति । बैखानस VI. 12; संग्रहकारोपि । यावन्नैवं न गृह्णाति यावत्क्रीडति पांसुभिः। यावद् दोषं न जानाति तावद् भवति नग्निका ॥ स्मृतिच I. p. 80.

v2.c26.74

¹⁰⁵⁶ माता चैव पिता चैव ज्येष्ठो भ्राता तथैव च । त्रयस्ते नरकं यान्ति दृष्ट्वा कन्यां रजस्वलाम् ॥ यस्तां समुद्वहेत्कन्यां ब्राह्मणोऽज्ञानमोहितः । असंभाष्यो ह्यपाङ्क्तेयः स विप्रो वृषलीपतिः ॥ पराशर VII. 8-9. The स्मृतिच. (I. pp. 73 and 81) quotes पराशर VII. 6-9 as from यम.

v2.c26.75

¹⁰⁵⁷ जन्मतॊ गर्भाधानाद्वा पञ्चमाब्दात्परं शुभम् । कुमारीवरणं दानं मेखलाबन्धनं तथा ॥ मरीचि quoted in परा. मा. I. part 2 p. 177.; सप्तवर्षा भवेद्गौरी दशवर्षा तु नग्निका । भविष्यपुराण quoted by सं. प्र. p. 768.

v2.c26.76

¹⁰⁵⁸ अभिवाद्याभिवाद्यांश्च सर्वा राजसुतास्तदा । रेमिरे मुदिताः सर्वा भर्तृभिः सहिता रहः ॥ बालकाण्ड 77. 16-17 (in 3 vol. with गोविन्दराज's com.).

v2.c26.77

The rule that brāhmaṇa girls were to be married between 8 to 10 years became general from about the 6th or 7th century and continued down to modern times. During the last two or three decades the marriageable age of girls owing to several causes, particularly the ravages of plague and the economic condition of the middle classes, has risen very high and marriages of girls even of poor brāhmaṇas hardly ever take place before 16 and have to be postponed to the age of 20 and beyond. Besides the Child Marriage Restraint Act (XIX of 1929, as amended by Act 19 of 1938) has fixed the minimum age limit for girls at 14 and persons getting their daughters married before the completion of 14 years are liable to be punished in a criminal court under the Act. There is no reason to laugh at ancient Indian writers for the low age of marriage they advocated. Child marriages were common in all countries of Europe. Even in England the age limits for boys and girls were recognised by the law only at 14 and 12 respectively until 1929, when the lowest marriageable age for both was fixed at 16 (19 and 20 Geo. V. Chap. 36). Besides it must be remembered that when marriages of girls of tender years took place they were purely a sacrament. There was no question of consummation which took place only after puberty. Sages condemned intercourse even with one's wife before she attained puberty.¹⁰⁵⁹ Winternitz in 'Die Frau.' p. 135 refers to a work of F. J. Furnivall on 'Child Marriages, Divorces &c' between 1560-66 A. D. in England from which it is clear that marriages of children of 9 or 10 (and rarely of even 2 or 3 years) took place in England only about 300 years ago.

First 76 of 483 passages. Read on

Linked texts (99)