Sexual Life in Ancient India: A Study in the Comparative History of Indian Culture v2.c16.8

v2.c16.8

The old law writings, which are, however, meant above all for the twice-born, that is, the three higher castes, likewise give quite another picture than the well-known mournful one. They can tell of quite a number of cases where a fresh marriage of the woman already married is allowed or ordained. If the husband has gone away on a journey, and not come back, then the grass-widow according to Nārada, xii, 98 ff. must first wait—the Brahman woman with children eight years, the childless one four, the Kshattriyā woman with children six years, the childless one three, the Vaiçyā woman blessed with children four, the childless one two; for the Çūdrā woman no time is laid down. Then the woman can marry any other man. On the other hand Vasisṭha, xvii, 78 ff. says emphatically that she must be given only to a member of the family, so long as there is one such. In him the time of waiting is for the Brahman woman five and four years, according as there are children or not, for the Kshattriyā woman five and three, for the Vaiçyā woman four and two, for the Çūdrā woman three years and one. See also MBh., iii, 71.6-7. If there is tidings of the traveller, then the grass-widow must let twice as long an interval go by. Manu, ix, 76 says in general that she must wait eight years if her husband is gone abroad on holy works (dharmakāryārtham), six years, if for the sake of knowledge or renown, and three, if it is on the hunt after pleasure (kāmārtham, as several commentators say, on love adventures). Gautama, xviii, 17 lays down for the second of these cases twelve years; as to the others he says nothing. Furthermore we are taught five cases where the wife may marry without more ado: when the husband is missing (naṣṭa), or dead, or has become an ascetic, or is impotent, or has lost his caste. Nārada, xii, 97; Parāçara, iv, 28; Agnipur., 154.5-6 (= Garuḍapur., 107.29b-30a, and Nārada, xii, 97). Parāçara, indeed, in what follows promises the widow the highest of rewards in the world beyond, if she leads a life of strictest chastity, or even lets herself be burnt with the body—certainly a late interpolation. If a spotless maid (nirdoṣā) has been unwittingly wedded to a man who is afflicted with a lasting or hateful sickness (dīrghakutsitarogārta), misshapen (vyaṅga), out of his mind, fallen from his caste, homeless, persecuted by misery (or: repulsive, durbhaga), or rejected by his kinsfolk, then not only may she, but she must leave him, and choose another. Nārada, xii, 36-37 and 96; cp. 31. So also Mahānirvāṇatantra, xi, 66 emphatically declares: She that has been wedded to one that cannot beget shall be separated and married again. For the field must be given to him that has the seed. Nārada, xii, 19. Cp. espec. Meyer, Kauṭilya, 244.18 ff.; addit. 244.17-21; 254.18 ff., 45 ff.; 254.3-17; addit. 254.3-17; also 296.16-297.4; addit. 296.47; Agnipur., 227.15b-16a. Hence also Yājñav., i, 55 ordains that the bridegroom is to be examined carefully as to his manhood before the wedding (yatnāt parīkṣitaḥ pumstve); and