Vedic Index of Names and Subjects v2.c4.s7.288

v2.c4.s7.288

3. Restrictions on Intermarriage.—Arrian, in his Indica,⁸⁷ probably on the authority of Megasthenes, makes the prohibition of marriage between γένη, no doubt ‘castes,’ a characteristic of Indian life. The evidence of Pāli literature⁸⁸ is in favour of this view, though it shows that a king could marry whom he wished, and could make his son by that wife the heir apparent. But it equally shows that there were others who held that not the father’s but the mother’s rank determined the social standing of the son. Though Manu⁸⁹ recognizes the possibility of marriage with the next lower caste as producing legitimate children, still he condemns the marriage of an Āryan with a woman of lower caste. The Pāraskara Gṛhya Sūtra⁹⁰ allows the marriage of a Kṣatriya with a wife of his own caste or of the lower caste, of a Brahmin with a wife of his own caste or of the two lower classes, and of a Vaiśya with a Vaiśya wife only. But it quotes the opinion of others that all of them can marry a Śūdra wife, while other authorities condemn the marriage with a Śūdra wife in certain circumstances, which implies that in other cases it might be justified.⁹¹ The earlier literature bears out this impression: much stress is laid on descent from a Ṛṣi, and on purity of descent;⁹² but there is other evidence for the view that even a Brāhmaṇa need not be of pure lineage. Kavaṣa Ailūṣa is taunted with being the son of a Dāsī, ‘slave woman,’⁹³ and Vatsa was accused of being a Śūdra’s son, but established his purity by walking unhurt through the flames of a fire ordeal.⁹⁴ He who is learned (śuśruvān) is said to be a Brāhmaṇa, descended from a Ṛṣi (ārṣeya), in the Taittirīya Saṃhitā;⁹⁵ and Satyakāma, son of Jabālā, was accepted as a pupil by Hāridrumata Gautama, though he could not name his father.⁹⁶ The Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā⁹⁷ says that knowledge is all-important, not descent. But all this merely goes to show that there was a measure of laxity in the hereditary character of caste, not that it was not based on heredity. The Yajurveda Saṃhitās⁹⁸ recognize the illicit union of Ārya and Śūdra, and vice versa: it is not unlikely that if illicit unions took place, legal marriage was quite possible. The Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa,⁹⁹ indeed, recognizes such a case in that of Dīrghatamas, son of the slave girl Uśij, if we may adopt the description of Uśij given in the Bṛhaddevatā.¹⁰⁰