०३ विवाहप्रकाराः

Understand briefly these (following) eight forms of marriage of girls, among the four castes,—which are beneficial and not-beneficial here (in this life) and also after death.—(20)

वक्ष्यमाणस्य संक्षेपोपन्यासः । हिताश् चाहिताश् च । केचिद् धिताः केचिन् न । अष्टाव् इति संख्यानिर्देशः । समासः संक्षेपः । स्त्रीसंस्कारार्था विवाहाः स्त्रीविवाहाः । कह् पुनर् एवं विवाहो नाम । उपायतः प्राप्ताया कन्याया दारकरणार्थः संस्कारः सेतिकर्तव्यताङ्गः सप्तर्षिदर्शनपर्यन्तो पाणिग्रहणलक्षणः ॥ ३.२० ॥

This is a brief re-capitulation of what is going to be described in detail.

‘Beneficial and not-beneficial’—Some marriages are beneficial, while others are not so.

‘Eight’—this mentions the number.

‘Marriage of girls’—i.e., marriage which serves as the sacramental rite for girls.

“What is it that is called Marriage?”

It is the name given to a sacramental rite performed for the girl, obtained by certain means, which serves to make her a wife.

A girl having been obtained by certain means, one performs for her, for the purpose of making her a wife, a sacramental rite, which ends with the seeing of the constellation of Ursa Major, and is marked by the holding of hands; and it is this rite, along with its entire procedure and subsidiary details, that is called ‘Marriage.’—(20).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 485) as introducing the examination of the different kinds of marriage;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 846) to the same effect;—in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 082);—and in Vyāvahāra-bālambhaṭṭī (p. 757).

**(verses 3.20-21)
**

Baudhāyana (1. 11. 1).—‘There are eight marriages.’

Vasiṣṭha (1.28-29).—‘There are six marriages,—Brāhma, Daiva, Ārṣa, Gāndharva, Kṣātra, and Mānuśa.’

Śaṅkha (4. 2).—‘Brāhma, Daiva, Ārṣa, Prājāpatya, Āsura, Gāndharva, Rākṣasa, and Paiśāca, the lowest is the eighth.’

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 846).—‘Eight forms of marriage have been laid down as a sacrament for several castes: among these the Brāhma is the first, then comes the Prājāpatya, the Ārṣa, the Daiva, the Gāndharva, and the Āsura; then come the Rākṣasa and the Paiśāca; the eighth is the lowest.’

Hārīta (Do.).—‘There are eight marriages; Brāhma, Daiva, Gāndharva, Āsura, Rākṣasa, Paiśāca, Mānuṣa and Kṣātra.’

Arthaśāstra (Part II, p. 12).—‘When the girl is adorned and given away, it is the Brāhma form of marriage;—when the pair perform religious rites together, it is the Prājāpatya; when a pair of cows is received in exchange, it is the Ārṣa; when the girl is given away to the Priest within the altar, it is the Daiva; that which is accomplished by mutual consent is the Gāndharva; when the giver receives a fee, it is the Āsura; when the girl is taken away by force, it is the Rākṣasa; when the girl is taken away while asleep, it is the Paiśāca.’

Nārada (12. 38-53).—[38-39 as in the above-mentioned quotation from Vīramitrodaya; then]—‘In the Brāhma form, a maiden decked with ornaments is given to the bridegroom, after he has been invited and honourably received by the father. When he has been received with the words—“Carry on your sacred duties together with her,” it is called the Prājāpatya form. When the father receives from the bridegroom, a dress, a bull and a cow, it is called the Ārṣa form. When she is given before the altar, to a priest officiating at a sacrifice, it is called the Daiva form. The union of a willing maiden with her lover is the fifth form called Gāndharva. When a price is asked for the bride by her father and received by him, it is the form called Āsura. The Rākṣasa form is declared to consist of the forcible abduction of a maiden. Sexual intercourse with a woman during her sleep, or while she is unconscious, constitutes the eighth form, the basest of all. Of these, the first four, beginning with the Brāhma, are declared to be lawful; the Gāndharva form is common to all castes; the three forms that come after it are unlawful. Besides the lawful wives, seven other kinds of wives are mentioned, who have been previously enjoyed by another man. Among those, the Punarbhū is of three kinds and the Svairiṇî of four kinds. A maiden, not actually deflowered, but only joined in wedlock to a former husband by the hand, is the first kind of Punarbhū. She is required to have the marriage-ceremony performed once more, with her second husband. One who, after having left her husband, and betaken herself to another man, returns to her husband, is called the second kind of Punarbhū. When a woman, on the failure of brothers-in-law, is delivered by her relations to a Sapiṇḍa of the same caste, she is called the third Punarbhū. When a woman, with or without children, goes to live with another man, through love, while her husband is alive, she is called the first Svairiṇī. When the woman, after the death of her husband, rejects her brother-in-law or other relations, and unites herself with a stranger, through love, she is called the second Svairiṇī. One who, having come from a foreign country, or having been purchased with money, or being oppressed with hunger or thirst, gives herself up to a man, saying “I am thine,” is called the third Svairiṇī. When a woman, after having been given in marriage, by her elders, in accordance with the custom of her country, becomes forcibly united with another man, she is called the fourth Svairiṇī.’

020 Now listen to (the) brief (description of) the following eight marriage-rites used by the four castes (varna) which partly secure benefits and partly produce evil both in this life and after death.

(1) The Brāhma, (2) the Daiva, (3) the Ārṣa, (1) the Prājāpatya, (5) the Āsura, (6) the Gāndharva, (7) the Rākṣasa and (8) the Paiśāca, which is the eighth and the lowest.—(21)

संख्ययाष्टव् इत्य् उद्दिष्टानां¹ नामधेयानीमानि । अधमग्रहणं पैशाचस्य निन्दार्थम् ॥ ३.२१ ॥

These are the names of the eight forms of Marriage that were referred to in the preceding verse by the number ‘eight.’

‘Lowest’— this has been added with a view to deprecate the Paiśāca form of marriage.—(21)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 846) as enumerating the different forms of marriage;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 155);—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 485);—in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 758);—in Saṃskāra-ratnamālā (p. 479);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 61a);—in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 682)—in Vyāvahāra Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 175);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 99);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 227);—and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 152).

**(verses 3.20-21)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.20].

021 (They are) the rite of Brahman (Brahma), that of the gods (Daiva), that of the Rishis (Arsha), that of Pragapati (Pragapatya), that of the Asuras (Asura), that of the Gandharvas (Gandharva), that of the Rhashasas (Rakshasa), and that of the Pisakas (Paisaka).

Which (of these) is lawful for which caste, what are the good and bad points of each, the good and bad effects of each upon the offspring,—all this I shall explain to you.—(22)

धर्माद् अनपेतो धर्म्यः शास्त्रविहित इत्य् अर्थः । यस्य च विवाहस्य यौ गुणदोषौ इष्टानिष्टफलहेतुत्वाद् गुणदोषौ । प्रसवे ऽपत्यजन्मनि । गुणा गुणाह् अगुणाः दोषाः² । वोडुर् एव स्वर्गनरकादिलक्षणौ गुणदोषौ, तत्प्रयोजनम् अर्थात् स्वर्गादिकम् । या ईदृशा एव भवन्ति । गतार्थम् अपि भूयः प्रतिपत्तये कथयन्ति ॥ ३.२२ ॥

‘Lawful’—that which is not fallen from the law; i.e., prescribed by the scriptures.

‘What are the good and bad points of each form’—i.e., which points in each are conducive to desirable and which to undesirable results.

‘Offspring’—i.e., in the birth of children.

‘Good effects’—good qualities. ‘Bad effects’—defects. In reality, the ‘good and bad effects,’ in the form of Heaven and Hell, pertain to the bridegroom; but here they stand for that which brings about these effects.

Though this is already implied in what has gone before (in the first line), yet it is mentioned again for the purpose of making the idea clearer.—(22)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 155) as introducing the enumeration of the different forms of marriage.

Āpastamba (2. 12. 4).—‘As the marriage so the offspring.’

Baudhāyana (1. 11. 17).—‘It is well known that the offspring is in keeping with the form of marriage.’

022 Which is lawful for each caste (varna) and which are the virtues or faults of each (rite), all this I will declare to you, as well as their good and evil results with respect to the offspring.

One should know the first six in the order stated as lawful for the Brāhmaṇa, the last four for the Kṣatriya and those same, excepting the “Rākṣasa,” for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra.—(23).

षड् विवाहा ब्राह्मणस्य्आनुपूर्व्या । आनुपूर्वी क्रमः³, नामोद्देशः क्रेमेण⁴ । क्षत्रस्य । क्षत्रियवचनः क्षत्रशब्दः । तस्य चतुरो ऽवरान् उपरितनान् आसुरगान्धर्वराक्षसपैशाचान् विद्यात् । वैश्यशूद्रयोस् तान् एवार्आक्षसान् राक्षसं वर्जयित्वा ॥ ३.२३ ॥

The first six forms of marriages, in the order in which they have been named above, are lawful for the Brāhmaṇa.

The term ‘Kṣatra’ stands for the Kṣatriya. For him ‘the last four;’ i.e., the ‘Āsura,’ the ‘Gāndharva,’ the ‘Rākṣasa,’ and the Paiśāca.’

For the Vaiśya and the Śūdra, ‘those same, excepting the Rākṣasa,’ i.e., leaving off the ‘Rākṣasa’ form.—(23)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 987), which adds the following explanation:—The six forms of marriage, from the beginning, are lawful for the Brāhmaṇa, the four beginning with ‘Āsura’ and ending with ‘Paiśāca’ for the Kṣatriya; these latter, with the exception of the ‘Rākṣasa’ are lawful for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra.

Aparārka (p. 91) quotes this and adds that those beginning with Brāhma and ending with Gāndharva are lawful for the Brāhmaṇa; and the ‘avarān’—those named last are lawful for the Kṣatriya; and for the Vaiśya and Śūdra also these same, excepting the Rākṣasa.

Madanapārijāta (p. 158) quotes the verse and explains it to mean that the first six—i. e., ‘Brāhma’, ‘Daiva’, ‘Ārṣa’, ‘Prājāpatya’, ‘Āsura’ and ‘Gāndharva’ are, in the order stated, ‘lawful’—i.e., not contrary to law—for the Brāhmaṇa.

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 858) quotes the verse and having offered the same explanation as the above, adds that four of these are the principal forms recommended, and the other two are only secondary substitutes.

Nirṇayasindhu (p. 223) quotes the verse and explains that the ‘four’ meant are Āsura, Gāndharva, Rākṣasa and Paiśāca; these, excepting the Rākṣasa, are lawful for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra.

It is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 100), which adds the following explanation:—For the Brāhmaṇa, only six forms are commended, beginning with the Brāhma and ending with the Gāndharva, the other two are not commended;—the four beginning with the Āsura are lawful for the Kṣatriya,—these same four, excepting Rākṣasa, for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra;—thus Rākṣasa is lawful for the Kṣatriya only; so that for the Brāhmaṇa there are only six, for the Kṣatriya all the eight;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 231), which also adds that only the first six. are lawful for the Brāhmaṇa, the latter four for the Kṣatriya, and for the Vaiśya, and the Śūdra also, all these with the exception of the Rākṣasa.

**(verses 3.23-24)
**

Baudhāyana (1.11.10-14).—‘Of these, four are commended for the Brāhmaṇa, of these the preceding being more commendable than the succeeding; and of the remaining four, the succeeding is more reprehensible than the preceding; of these again, the sixth and the seventh are in keeping with the character of the Kṣatriya,—and the fifth and the eighth for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra; because Vaiśyas and Śūdras have no restrictions regarding their wives.’

Śaṅkha (4.3).—‘Among these the four mentioned first are lawful; the Gāndharva and the Rākṣasa are commended for the Kṣatriya.’

Gautama (4.14, 15).—‘The first four are lawful; six, according to some.’

Viṣṇu (24.27, 28).—‘Among these, the first four are lawful; the Gāndharva also, for Kṣatriyas.’

Āpastamba (2. 12. 3).—‘Of these, the first three are commended, the preceding being more commendable than the succeeding.’

Mahābhārata (Ādi-parva, 73, 12).—‘The Gāndharva and the Rākṣasa are lawful for the Kṣatriya.’

Mahābhārata (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 859).—‘O Yudhiṣṭhira, for the good Brāhmaṇas, the Brāhma form is the lawful one.’

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 859).—‘The first four are commended for the Brāhmaṇa; the Gāndharva and the Rāksasa for the Kṣatriya, the Āsura for the Vaiśya, and the Śūdra; the last one has been condemned.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 860).—‘The first four forms of marriage are lawful, and conducive to water-libations; being free from fees and fit for Brāhmaṇas, they save both families.’

Smṛtyantara (Parāśaramādhava, p. 487).—‘The first four are commended for the Brāhmaṇa; the Gāndharva and the Rākṣasa for the Kṣatriya, the Āsura for the Vaiśya and for the Śūdra; the eighth one is entirely condemned.’

Saṃvarta (Parāśaramādhava, p. 487).—‘If a good girl be unobtainable by any means, than she may be married even by theft, while she may be alone.’

Arthaśāstra (Part 11, p. 13).—‘Of these the first four are righteous, as authorised by the Father; the remaining (which are unrighteous) may be authorised by the Father and the Mother (who accept the fees).’

023 One may know that the first six according to the order (followed above) are lawful for a Brahmana, the four last for a Kshatriya, and the same four, excepting the Rakshasa rite, for a Vaisya and a Sudra.

The wise ones have regarded the first four as commended for the Brāhmaṇa, the Rākṣasa alone for the Kṣatriya and the Āsura for the Vaiśva and the Śūdra.—(24).

आसुरगान्धर्वयोर् अयं निषेधो ब्राह्मणस्य पुनर् ब्राह्मादिविधानेन । एवं क्षत्रियस्य राक्षसम् एवैको न गान्दर्वासुरौ । आसुर एव वैश्यशूद्रयोः । विहितप्रतिषिद्धानां विकल्पः । ततश् च नित्यवद् विहिताभावे विकल्पितेषु प्रवृत्तिः । यस्य च यो विहितः स तद्विवाहाभावम् अनपेक्ष्य प्रथमत एव यदि विहितप्रतिषिद्धेषु प्रवर्तेत, तत्र पुरुषो दुष्येद् अपत्यं चानभिप्रेतम् उत्पद्येतेति शास्त्रकारेण दर्शितं “प्रसवे च गुणागुणान्” (म्ध् ३.२२) इत्यादिना न तु सपिण्डादिपरिणयनवत्⁵ विवाहस्वरूपानिवृत्तिः ॥ ३.२४ ॥

The further recommendation of the ‘Brāhma’ and other three forms for the Brāhmaṇa, means that the ‘Āsura’ and the ‘Gāndharva’ are prohibited for him.

Similarly, for the Kṣatriya, it is the ‘Rākṣasa’ alone, not the ‘Āsura’ and the ‘Gāndharva.’

For the Vaiśya and the Śūdra, it is the ‘Āsura’ alone.

Among those that have been sanctioned (before) and prohibited now, there is to be option; so that one may have recourse to the optional forms only when those that have been sanctioned absolutely in all cases are not possible. If a man were to have recourse to those forms of marriage that have been sanctioned in one place and interdicted in another, without considering the possibility or otherwise of those that are absolutely sanctioned,—he would be committing a wrong, and his offspring would be defective;—this is what the law-giver has indicated under verse 23 above by the phrase, ‘the good and bad effects upon the offspring.’ But such an act would not nullify the marriage itself in the way in which the fact of the bride being the bridegroom’s ‘sapiṇḍa’ does.—(24)

‘For the Vaiśyas and Śūdras are not particular about their wives’ (Baudhāyana, 1.20.14). Cf. the following passages for the different rules in this respect. Vaśiṣṭha 1.27-28 gives six equivalents to these eight; so Āpastamba (2.12.3), who admits three as good. Baudhāyana 1.20.10 gives eight and permits but four; so Viṣṇu (24.27). Gautama gives the eight, admits four, and says some admit six. “The Mahābhārata (1.73.8 ff.) ascribes descending virtue to each ‘according to Manu’, and mixing up the sense of verse 23 and verse 27, allows four for a Brāhmaṇa and six for a Kṣatriya.”—Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 487), as selecting out of the eight, those that are specially commended;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 858), which adds that of the form specially commended for the Brāhmaṇa, two are still more important

Madanapārijāta (p. 159), adds the following note:—The Brāhma, Daiva, Ārṣa and Prājāpatya forms have been declared to be commended for the Brāhmaṇa; for the Kṣatriya, the Rākṣasa alone has been commended; and for the Vaiśya and Śūdra, the Āsura only. For the Brāhmaṇa the first four, ending with the Prājāpatya are the primary forms, and the Rākṣasa must be a secondary substitute for him, because it is lawful for the next lower caste, Kṣatriya. For the Kṣatriya, the Rākṣasa, is the primary form; and as according to the preceding verse, the Āsura, Gāndharva, Rākṣasa and Paiśāca are commended for him, the three, besides the Rākṣasa, must be regarded as secondary substitutes. According to others, however, the phrase ‘last four’ (of verse 23) stands for the four beginning with ‘Prājāpatya and according to this, the Rākṣasa being directly mentioned in the present verse as specially commended for the Kṣatriya, the secondary substitutes for him would be the Prājāpatya, the Gāndharva and the Āsura. For the Vaiśya and the Śūdra, the Āsura is the primary, and the Gāndharva and the Paiśāca,—or the Gāndharva and the Prājāpatya—secondary substitutes.

Smṛtitattva (II, p. 140) quotes this verse and explains that even though this text mentions among the ‘commended’ forms, the Āsura, where the bride’s father receives wealth from the bridegroom, yet it must be understood to sanction the payment of only so much of wealth as may be required for the decking of the bride.—It is quoted in Hemādri (Dana, p. 683);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 100), which adds that for the Kṣatriya, the Rākṣasa is the principal form, and for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra, the Āsura.

Aparārka (p. 91) quotes this verse and adds that for the Brāhmaṇa, the Brāhma, Daiva, Ārṣa and Prājāpatya are commended; the Āsura and Gāndharva are neither commended nor forbidden;—for the Kṣatriya, the Rākṣasa alone is commended; the Āsura and the Gāndharva are neither commended nor forbidden;—for the Vaiśya and Śūdra, the Āsura alone is commended; the Gāndharva is neither commended nor forbidden;—the Paiśāca is forbidden for all castes.

It is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, pp. 190 and 231), which adds that though the first four are ‘commended,’ it does not mean that the next two are forbidden; all that is meant is that these two are not commended.

**(verses 3.23-24)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 3.23].

024 The sages state that the first four are approved (in the case) of a Brahmana, one, the Rakshasa (rite in the case) of a Kshatriya, and the Asura (marriage in that) of a Vaisya and of a Sudra.

Of the five, three have been declared to be lawful and two unlawful, in this treatise; the Paiśāca and the Āsura forms should never be adopted.’—(25)

क्षत्रियादिविषयेयं स्मृतिर् न ब्राह्मणविषया, राक्षसे विरोधात् । न हि वधभेदने ब्राह्मणः कर्तुम् अर्हति, अस्याचरणस्य क्षत्रियादिविषयतयोपपत्तेः ।

• पञ्चानां तु विवाहानां प्राजापत्यात् प्रभृति त्रयो विवाहा धर्म्याः⁶ । द्वौ न कर्तव्यौ पैशाचश् चासुरश् च । प्राजापत्यः क्षत्रियादीनाम् अप्राप्तो ऽपि विधीयते, राक्षसो ऽपि वैश्यशूद्रयोः । आसुरपैशाचयोः प्रतिषेधः ।

• इदम् अत्र व्यवस्था । ब्राह्मणस्य षड् विवाहाः । तत्र ब्राह्मः सर्वतः श्रेष्ठस् ततो न्यूनौ दैवप्राजापत्यौ ताभ्याम् अप्य् आर्षस् ततो ऽपि गान्धर्वस् ततो ऽप्य् आसुरः ।

• येषाम् अयं श्लोको ब्राह्मणविषयो ऽपि तेषां राक्षसो ऽपि ब्राह्मणस्य क्षत्रियवृत्ताव् अवस्थितस्य भवति । विकर्मस्थस्यापि वधभेदनाभ्यां प्रायश्चित्तियतो न तु⁷ राक्षसो न विवाह इति ते मन्यन्ते ।

• तत्र⁸ ब्राह्मस्य श्रैष्ठ्यं फलेनैव दर्शितम् । निषेधाभावेन चेतरेषां त्रयाणां न्यूनता फलापचयवचनाद् एव । आसुरस्य पुनर् वैश्यशूद्रयोर् विधानेन परिसंख्या ब्राह्मणक्षत्रिययोः प्रतीयते । षड् इति च विधानम् । अतो विकल्पः । स च व्यवस्थया । इतरासंभवेन तस्याश्रयणं तुल्यम् । विकल्पो हि व्रीहियवद् अनेकविवाहविधानेन च समुच्च्यासंभवाद् एव सिद्धः । सति वा संभवे क्रियेत चेत् तथापि धर्मापत्ययोर् न्यूनफलो ऽसौ ।

• अथ क्षत्रियस्य राक्षसो मुख्यश् चतुर्भिः श्लोकैर् विकल्पेन विधानात् । चतुर इत्य् अनेनासुरगान्धर्वपैशाचा अपि, “राक्षसं क्षत्रियस्यैकम्” (म्ध् ३.२४) इत्य् अनेन ते प्रतिषिद्धः । अतो विकल्पिताः, न मुख्याः । प्रकृतापेक्षत्वाच् च राक्षसैकविधिः । प्राजापत्ये नास्ति परिसंख्यानम् । अतः प्राजापत्यो ऽपि क्षत्रियस्य राक्षसतुल्यः ।

• एवं वैश्यशूद्रयोर् अपि प्राजापत्यो नित्यवद् आम्नातो न प्रतिषिद्धः । आसुरपैशाचौ तु तयोर् विहितप्रतिषिद्धौ । राक्षसो ऽप्य् “अराक्षसान्” (म्ध् ३.२३) इत्य् अनेन प्रतिषिद्धः, त्रयो धर्म्या इत्य् अनेन विहितः ।

• ब्राह्मणस्य पैशाचो नैवास्ति, क्षत्रियादीनां ब्राह्मदैवार्षा इति स्थितम् ॥ ३.२५ ॥

The law laid down in this verse pertains to the Kṣatriya and the rest, not to the Brāhmaṇa; for if it referred to the latter, there would be an inconsistency regarding the ‘Rākṣasa’ forms; as the Brāhmaṇa can never do the ‘killing and wounding’ (which are inevitable in that form), which acts are possible only for the Kṣatriya and others.

‘Of the five’— Forms of marriage, beginning with the ‘Prājāpatya’—three are lawful, and two—i.e., the Paiśāca and the Āsura—should never be adopted.

Though the ‘Prājāpatya’ has not been mentioned in connection with the Kṣatriya and others, yet it is here specially enjoined for them; so also the ‘Rākṣasa’ for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra. It is the Āsura and the Paiśāca that are interdicted.

The conclusion on this point is as follows:—For the Brāhmaṇa there are six forms of marriage; of these the ‘Brāhma’ is the best of all; inferior to that are the ‘Daiva’ and the ‘Prājāpatya;’ inferior to these is the Ārṣa, then the ‘Gāndharva,’ then the ‘Āsura.’

There are some people who regard this verse as pertaining to the Brāhmaṇa also. According to these, the ‘Rākṣasa’ form is permissible for that Brāhmaṇa who may have adopted the profession of the Kṣatriya. They argue that, even though the Brāhmaṇa may have abandoned his own functions and taken to those of other castes, if they do some ‘killing and wounding’ in connection with marriage, he may become liable to the performance of expiatory rites for doing those acts; but that would not deprive the ‘Rākṣasa marriage’ of the character of ‘marriage.’

That the ‘Brāhma’ is the best form of marriage has been shown by its results (described in versus 37, et seq.). As for the other three, though they have not been interdicted under any circumstances, yet their inferiority is deduced from the fact that the results following from them are of an inferior type. As regards the ‘Āsura’ form, since it has been specifically prescribed for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra, it implies the exclusion of the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya from it. And yet we have the distinct injunction of six forms as permitted for the Brāhmaṇa (in 23 above). From all which it follows that there is option; but it is an option with the restriction that one is to have recourse to the second option only in the event of the first option being impossible. Fur-ther, that an option is intended, is clearly established by the fact that several forms of marriage are permitted, and yet a combination of all is impossible; just as, in the case of Vrīhi and Yava, we admit an option, because both are sanctioned, and yet they cannot be combined. Thus, then, when other forms are possible, if one were to adopt the ‘Āsura’ form, its results, in regard to spiritual merit and the character of the offspring, would be inferior.

As regards the Kṣatriya, the ‘Rākṣasa’ form is the best; as it had been enjoined absolutely without any option by all the four verses. Verse 23 permits four forms for the Kṣatriya, which means that the ‘Āsura,’ the ‘Gāndharva,’ and the ‘Paiśāca’ also are permitted; while those latter have been interdicted by the assertion that the Rākṣasa alone is for the ‘Kṣatriya,’ (24). Hence it follows that these latter forms are optional, not primary. In consideration of the context, it is clear that the injunction is for the ‘Rākṣasa’ form only. But, since there is no definite exclusion of the ‘Prājāpatya’ form, this latter also is equal to the ‘Rākṣasa,’ for the Kṣatriya.

Similarly, for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra also, the ‘Prājāpatya,’ which has been mentioned as permitted in all cases, is not prohibited. The ‘Āsura’ and the ‘Paiśāca’ are both ‘permitted’ and ‘prohibited’ for them; the ‘Rākṣasa’ also has been interdicted by the phrase, ‘excepting the Rākṣasa’ (23), while it is permitted by the assertion that ‘three are lawful’ (25).

It is for the Brāhmaṇa only that the ‘Paiśāca’ is not permitted, and for the Kṣatriya and the rest, the ‘Brāhma,’ the ‘Daiva’ and the ‘Ārṣa’ are not permitted at all.—(25)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 860) in support of the view that certain forms of marriage are permissible for the, Brāhmaṇa under abnormal circumstances; and adds the following explanation:—From among the five—Prājāpatya, Āsura, Gāndharva, Rākṣasa and Paiśāca,—the Āsura having been singled out as fit for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra only, and the Paiśāca being deprecated for all, the remaining three alone are lawful for the Brāhmaṇa; i. e., the Prājāpatya, the Gāndharva and the Rākṣasa. This conclusion is based on the analogy of the livelihood recommended for the next lower caste being permissible for the higher caste in abnormal times; so that the marriages commended for the Kṣatriya are permitted for the Brāhmaṇa under abnormal circumstances.

The same work on page 859 quotes the second half of the verse, to the effect that the Paiśāca is not lawful for any caste.

Madanapārijāta (p. 159) quotes it, and offers the following explanation:—From among the five—Prājāpatya, Āsura, Gāndharva, Rākṣasa and Paiśāca,—three are ‘lawful viz, Prājāpatya, Gāndharva and Rākṣasa. The second half indicates two of these—i.e., the Āsura and Paiśāca—as unlawful.—Even though the Prājāpatya has been enumerated in verse 24 among the primary forms recommended for the Brāhmaṇa, yet, the same is here mentioned only as ‘lawful under abnormal circumstances,’ with a view to indicate that it is inferior to the Ārṣa.

Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra p. 487) quotes this verse and adds the following explanation—From among the forms beginning with the Brāhma and ending with the Āsura, three—i. e., the Brāhma, the Daiva and the Prājāpatya are lawful; while Ārṣa and the Āsura are unlawful, on account of their involving the purchase of a wife; as between these two also, one should never adopt the Āsura, which should be avoided as carefully as the Paiśāca, It goes on to add that here Manu has set forth only a view that has been held by ‘some one’; according to his own view, there is no ‘purchase’ involved in the Ārṣa marriage, where the ‘pair of cows’ given are not by way of a ‘price’ for the girl; as has been clearly declared in verse 53 below. So that, according to Manu, the Ārṣa is as lawful as the other three.

It is quoted in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 683);—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 479), which adds the following explanation:—Among the five, beginning with the Brāhma and ending with the Āsura, the first three are ‘righteous,’ as not involving any form of selling;—the Ārṣa and the Āsura are ‘unrighteous,’ as involving bartering, and lienee, like the Paiśāca, they should not be adopted even in abnormal circumstances.

Mahābhārata (Ādi-parva, 73.11).—[Reproduces Manu.]

Nārada (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 859).—‘The last one has been condemned.’

Kaśyapa (Parāśaramādhava, p. 488).—‘The woman got by purchase is not called Patnī; she is not fit to participate in rites either to gods or to Pitṛs; Kaśyapa has called her a slave.’

Devala (Parāśaramādhava, p. 488).—‘The first four marriages are conducive to spiritual merit and help also in the water-offerings; that is, those in which no price is paid, and which alone are fit for the Brāhmaṇa; these save both families.’

025 But in these (Institutes of the sacred law) three of the five (last) are declared to be lawful and two unlawful; the Paisaka and the Asura (rites) must never be used.

The two forms of marriage mentioned before—i.e., the Gāndharva and the Rākṣasa—have been declared, whether separately or mixed, to be lawful for the Kṣatriya.—(26)

पृथक् पृथग् इत्य् अनुवादः, पूर्वेणैव सिद्धत्वात् । मिश्राव् इति विधीयते, निरपेक्षाणाम्⁹ इतरेषां गान्धर्वराक्षसयोर् विहितत्वात् । व्रीहियववद् अप्राप्ते मिश्रणवचनम् इदम् । व्रीहिभिर् यजेत यवैर् वेत्य् एकयागप्रयोगविषयत्वेनेतरेतरानपेक्षद्रव्यविधानाद् विकल्पो, न मिश्रीभावः । मिश्रीभावे हि न व्रीहिशास्त्रार्थो ऽनुष्ठितः स्यान् न च यवशास्त्रार्थः । एवम् इहैकस्यां कन्यायां स्वीकर्तव्यायां युगपद् उपायद्वयम् अप्राप्तं विधीयते ।

• तस्य विषयः- यदा पितृगेहे कन्या तत्रस्थेन¹⁰ कुमारेण कथंचिद् वृष्टिगोचरापन्नेन दूतिसंस्तुतेन तद्रतापि¹¹ तथैव, परवती न च संयोगं लभते, तदा वरेण संविदं कृत्वा “नय माम् इतो येन केनचिद् उपायेन” इत्य् आत्मानं नाययति, स च शक्त्यतिशयाद् धत्वा छित्त्वा चेत्य् एवं हरति, तदा “इच्छयान्योन्यसंयोगः” (म्ध् ३.३२) इत्य् एतद् अप्य् अस्ति गान्धर्वे रूपम्, “हत्वा छित्त्वा” (म्ध् ३.३३) इति च राक्षसरूपम् ।

• ताव् एतौ विवाहौ क्षत्रियसैव भवतः । धर्म्यौ क्षत्रियस्य तौ पूर्वचोदिताव् इत्य् अनुवादः ।

• अन्ये त्व् आहुः- यः क्षत्रियो बहुविवाहान् कुरुते स कांचिद् गान्धर्वेन विवाहे परिणयते कांचिद् राक्षसेणेत्य् एष मिश्रपक्षः । अथ वा सर्वा एवान्यतरेणेति पृथक् पृथक् । अनेन चैतज् ज्ञायते । क्षत्रियस्यानयोर् एवानियमेन प्रवृत्तिः, प्राजापत्यादीनां तु य एव प्रथमं कृतस् तेनैवान्यापि विवाह्या ॥ ३.२६ ॥

इदानीं स्वरूपम् एतेषाम् आह ।

‘Singly’—this is a inert re-iteration, each single form having been already prescribed in the foregoing verses. The ‘mixed’ form is what is prescribed here; where the ‘Gāndharva-Rākṣasa’ are prescribed independently of (apart from) the other forms. The notion derived from what has gone before being that each form stands apart by itself, just like the Vrīhi being used apart from the Yava,—the present verse lays down the combination (of two). When we have two such texts as ‘offer the Vrīhi’ and ‘offer the Yava? each of which prescribes a substance to be used at a sacrifice independently of the other,—we conclude that the two are meant to be optional alternatives, and they are not meant to be mixed tip; because, if the mixture of both were used, we would be obeying neither the injunction of Yava, nor that of Vrīhi. Similarly, in the present case, when only one girl is to be married, it being impossible to adopt any two forms of marriage, the present text proceeds to prescribe the combination of two of them.

Such a combination of the said two forms would be possible under the following circumstances:—A girl living in her father’s house, happens to see a boy living in the same house and having heard praises from messengers, falls in love with him, but not being mistress of herself she cannot meet him,—and then she enters into a compact with her lover, requests him to take her away by some means or other, and gets herself carried away: and the bridegroom, being possessed of great strength, carries her away after having ‘killed and wounded’ (her guardians): Now in this case, since there is ‘voluntary union between the two’ (verse 32), it fulfils the conditions of the ‘Gāndharva’ form: while, since he has carried her away, after ‘having killed and wounded’ (verse 33), the conditions of the ‘Rākṣasa’ form also become fulfilled.

These two forms are possible for the Kṣatriya only. These two are lawful for the Kṣatriya—says the Text.

Mentioned before—is a mere reiterative reference.

Others have offered the following explanation:—When a Kṣatriya marries several girls, he marries one by the ‘Gāndharva’ form, and another by the ‘Rākṣasa’ form:—and this is the ‘mixed form’ meant by the text. And when all are married by one or the other of these two forms, it is a case of ‘separately’ mentioned by the text. And from this we gather that it is only these two forms of marriage that the Kṣatriya might adopt promiscuously—sometimes the one and sometimes the other; while in the case of the ‘Prājāpatya’ and the rest, he should adopt the same form in all his marriages which he happens to adopt in the first.—(26)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 860), where the following notes are added:—This lays down the forms.permissible for the Kṣatriya under abnormal circumstances.—‘Pṛthak’ means unmixed, and ‘Miśra,’ mixed; we have the latter form in a case where the marriage having been previously settled by mutual understanding between the bride and the bridegroom, if the bride’s people oppose it, the bridegroom takes her away by force, as happened in the case of Kṛṣṇa’s marriage with Rukmiṇī (described in the Bhāgavata). A further distinction has got to be made here: the ‘mixed’ form is permissible only under abnormal conditions, while the ‘unmixed’ one is a secondary form permissible for all time; and hence the mention of this latter in the present verse is merely reiterative (as remarked by Medhātithi also),—the reiteration being made for the purpose of indicating the utter inferiority of the ‘mixed’ to the ‘unmixed’ form. This implies that for other castes also, in the event of an ‘unmixed’ form being not possible, the ‘mixed’ form becomes permissible.—Even though the Paiśāca has been prohibited for all, yet it has been mentioned among the forms of marriage only for the purpose of its being permitted for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra under exceptionally abnormal circumstances.

Madanapārijāta (p. 160) also quotes this verse as laying down what is permissible for the Kṣatriya under abnormal conditions. īt adds the following notes:—‘Pṛthak pṛthak’ means the primary and the secondary forms, laid down as alternatives; and the second half quotes an example of the ‘mixed’ form; there is a ‘mixture’ of the Gāndharva and Rākṣasa forms when after a mutual understanding has been arrived at between the bride and the bridegroom, if the bride’s people raise objections to the marriage, the bridegroom fights with them and takes away the bride by force.—This is to be understood only as an illustration; on the same analogy, other ‘mixtures’ may be permissible for other castes also.—Even though very much deprecated, the Paiśāca form is permitted under abnormal circumstances for the Vaiśya and the Śūdra,—as also for such twice-born persons as have adopted the living of the Vaiśya or the Śūdra.

This verse is quoted in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 682).

Mahābhārata (Ādi-parva, 73. 12-13).—‘The Gāndharva and the Rākṣasa are lawful for the Kṣatriya: the two may be performed either separately or jointly.’

Baudhāyana (1. 11. 16).—‘Some people commend the Gāndharva for all,—since it is accompanied by love.’

026 For Kshatriyas those before-mentioned two rites, the Gandharva and the Rakshasa, whether separate or mixed, are permitted by the sacred tradition.

When one himself invites a man endowed with learning and character and gives to him his daughter, after having dressed and worshipped (them),—this is called the “Brāhma” form.—(27)

आच्छाद्येति । आच्छादनविशेषो ऽभिप्रेतः, अन्यस्यौचित्येनैव प्राप्तत्वात् । उत्कृष्टेनाच्छादनेन यथादेशं यथासंभवं यथायोग्येन वाससा परिधाप्य । अर्हयित्वा । अनेनालंकरणकटककणिकादिना प्रीतिविशेषसत्कारविशेषैर् अर्चनं कृत्वा । एतेनाच्छादनार्हणेन कन्याया वरस्य चान्यतरसंबन्धे प्रमाणाभावाद् उभयोपयोगः कार्यः । श्रुतशीलवते । अन्ये ऽपि स्मृत्यन्तरोक्ता वरगुणा द्रष्टव्याः “युवा धीमाञ् जनप्रियः । यत्नात् परीक्षितः पुंस्त्वे” इति (य्ध् १.५५) । स्वयं प्रागयाचितः । स्वपुरुषप्रेषणैर् आहूय अन्तिकदेशम् आनाय्य वरम् । यद् दानं स ब्राह्मो धर्मो विवाहः । अविशेषवचनो ऽपि धर्मशब्दः पूर्वापेक्षितत्वात्¹² तत्पर एव द्रष्टव्यः । अयाचितलाभो ऽभ्यर्हणापूर्वको ब्राह्मो विवाह इति लक्षणार्थः ।

• ननु चेदम् अयुक्तं स्त्रीस्वीकारार्थो विवाह इति ।

• यावद् विवाहपर्यन्तं चैतद् दानम् । नाकृते विवाहे दानार्थनिवृत्तिः । स हि तस्याः प्रतिग्रहकालः । न चासति परिग्रहे दानं परिसमाप्यते । न स्वत्वनिवृत्तिमात्रं दानम् । परस्वत्वापत्तिपर्यन्तं हि तत् । तथा च वक्ष्यति “तेषां तु निष्ठा विज्ञेया विद्वद्भिः सप्तमे पदे” इति (म्ध् ८.२२७) । एवं विवाहकाल एव कन्या दातव्या । तथा च गृह्यकारस् तस्मिन्न् एव काले ब्राह्मविवाहे काण्डिकधर्मं दर्शयति ।यत् तु प्राग् विवाहाद् दानं तदुपसंवादनवचनमात्रम्¹³ । न हि तस्मिन्न् अक्रियमाणे ऽभिप्रेतकाले ऽवश्यं विवाहनिर्वृत्तिः । कश्चित् प्राग्निरूपिते न दद्याद् अपि, इतरो वा कदाचिन् न प्रतिगृह्णीयात् । तस्मात् प्राग्विवाहाद् उपसंवादः कर्तव्यः- तदा त्वयेयं देया मया चेयं वोढव्येति । यथैवान्तःक्रतुः सोपक्रियो¹⁴ ऽचोदिततत्सिद्धार्थो ऽर्थाद् बहिष्क्रियते ।

• ये तु मन्यन्ते यथैव गवादेर् द्रव्यस्यादृष्टार्थतया दीयमानस्य मन्त्रपूर्वकेण प्रतिग्रहेण दानम् अपि निर्वर्तते, तेनैवेदम् उक्तं ददातिषु चैवं धर्मेष्व् इति । एवं चेह प्रतिग्रहमन्त्रस्थानीयो विवाह इति । तथा च उपयमनं विवाह इत्य् एको ऽर्थः । उपयमनं च स्वकरणम् । एवं ह स्म भगवान् पाणिनिः स्मरति “उपाद् यमः स्वकरणे” इति (पाण् १.३.५६) । अतो विवाहः कन्यास्वीकारार्थः ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । स्वीकृताया विवाहो भार्याकरणार्थः । नानेन कर्मणा प्रतिगृह्णीयाद् इति विधिर् अस्ति । न च वैवाहिका मन्त्रा प्रतिग्रहप्रकारकाः, यथा “देवस्य त्वा प्रगृह्णामि” इति मन्त्राः । यत् तु स्वकरण इति तन् न विरुद्धम् । विवाहस्याप्य् अस्ति स्वकरणरूपता । दानेन स्वत्वमात्रे प्रतिपन्ने विवाहेन विशिष्टं स्वत्वं क्रियते । नेयं गवादिद्रव्यवत् स्वं यथेष्टविनियोज्यतया, अपि तु जायात्वेन । विशिष्ट एव हि स्वस्वामिभावो जायापतिलक्षणसंबन्धः । तथा च दर्शयिष्यति- “मङ्गलार्थं स्वस्त्ययनं । । । विवाहेषु प्रदानं स्वाम्यकारणम्” इति (म्ध् ५.१५२) ॥ ३.२७ ॥

The author now describes the exact nature of the several forms of marriage.

‘After having dressed.’—What is meant is a particular form of dressing, ordinary dressing being absolutely necessary (and hence implying no special regard). Hence the. meaning is—‘After having dressed with nice and suitable clothes, such as might be available at the place.’

‘Having worshipped;’—i.e., having done worship with bracelets, armlets and other ornaments, and also special modes of honouring, indicative of great affection.

There is nothing to indicate the connection of the ‘dressing’ and ‘worshipping’ with either the bride only or with the bridegroom only: hence they should be taken as relating to both.

‘Endowed with learning and character.’—This implies also the other qualifications of the bridegroom, mentioned in other law-books; such as ‘intelligent, loved by the people, having his virility carefully tested’ (Yājñavalkya, Ācītra, 55).

‘Himself;’—i.e., not previously requested by him.

‘Invites’ him;—i.e., gets the bridegroom to come, by sending bis own man.

This giving away of the daughter is the ‘Brahma form’ of marriage. Though the term ‘form’ is a general one, yet, in consideration of the context, it has to be taken as standing for marriage.

The upshot of this definition comes to be that ‘when a man obtains a wife without asking for it, and with due honour, it is the Brahma form of marriage.’

“The definition provided in the text cannot be right; as, in reality, ‘marriage’ is for the purpose of accepting a wife [so that the mere ‘giving’ by the father cannot be marriage.]”

The ‘giving’ spoken of in the text is meant to extend right up to the end of the marriage-ceremony; in fact, until the marriage has been performed, the ‘giving’ is not complete; it is at the time of ‘marriage’ that there is ‘acceptance’ of the girl by the bridegroom; and until this acceptance, the ‘gift’ is not complete. Specially, ‘giving’ here does not consist merely in the renouncing of one’s proprietary right; it extends up to the creating of the proprietary right of another person (the recipient). It is in view of this that the author is going to declare later on—‘the learned should regard the seventh step as the final stage of the marriage’ (5.152). Thus, then, it is at the time of marriage that the maiden should be given away; it is for this reason that the author of the Gṛhyasūtra has laid down the rites in connection with the Brāhma marriage as to be performed at the time of the marriage itself.

As for the ‘giving’ before the marriage, this is merely a verbal compact; and if no such compact has been entered into, it is just possible that at the desired time the marriage may not be actually performed; for in the absence of formal agreement, the father of the bride may not give her, or the bridegroom may not accept her. Hence it is necessary that before the actual marriage, a regular contract should be entered into, in some such form, ‘she is to be given by you and accepted by me.’ [Just as an internal sacrifice becomes naturally excluded when it is deficient in some essential factor and does not fulfil the conditions of the injunction.?]

Some people argue as follows:—“When the cow and such other things are given away for the purpose of obtaining a transcendental result, the giving is accomplished merely by the recepient accepting it with the proper texts and the same should be the case with all acts of giving. So that, in the case in question also, marrying occupying the same position as accepting, ‘marriage’ should be regarded as synonymous with acceptance; and the act of accepting consists in making the thing one’a own; as says the revered Pāṇini in Sūtra 1. 3. 56—‘The root yama with the prefix upa in the sense of making one’s own takes the Ātmanepada.’ From this it is clear that marriage is done only for the purpose of receiving the maiden.”

This, however, is not right. In fact, the ‘marriage’ is of the maiden that has been accepted, and it is for the purpose of making her a wife. The Injunction bearing upon marriage is not in the form that—‘one should accept the maiden by means of this rite;’ nor are the sacred texts recited at marriage such as signify the act of accepting; as is the case with such mantras as—‘devasya tvā pratigṛhṇāmi, etc.’

As for what has been said regarding the sense of making one’s own, such a sense is not incompatible with our view. The act of ‘marrying’ also is of the nature of making one’s own. The act of ‘giving’ only brings about the ownership of the recipient; and the act of ‘marrying’ creates a particular form of ownership. Further, the wife is not a ‘property’ in the same sense that the cow and other things are; the latter are property’ in the sense that they may be used in any way one likes, while the maiden married by one can be used only as ‘wife so that the relation between husband and wife is of that of a peculiar kind of ownership; as will be shown later on, under 5. 152.—(27).

‘Arcayitvā’—Medhātithi and Kullūka take this as well as ‘ācchādya’ as referring to both the bride and the bridegroom;—Nārāyaṇa and Rāghvānanda refer ‘urcayitvā’ to the bridegroom only.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 847), where the following explanatory notes are added:—‘Ācchādya,’ ‘having dressed,’ with clothes;—‘arcayitvā’ ‘having worshipped’ with garlands, sandal-paint and so forth;—both these are to be done to the bridegroom, not to the bride; since both these are related to ‘āhūya’ ‘having invited,’ which cannot refer to the bride;—‘Svayam,’ ‘himself,’ should not be taken (as Medhātithi and Kullūka take it) as precluding the possiblity of the request for the girl coming from the bridegroom; as such preclusion would be inconsistent with the rule laying down the ‘selection’ of the bride by the bridegroom.—Further Baudhāyana says—“After ascertaining his Śrutaśīle, learning and character, one gives the girl to the Student who seeks for her,”—and here we find it distinctly laid down that there should be a seeking for the girl by the bridegroom;—in this passage ‘Student,’ Brahmacāri, stands for one whose observance of studentship has not suffered in any way.—‘The seeing’ spoken of by Baudhāyana consists in selecting the bride. That the father should ‘himself’ invite the bridegroom has been laid down as the peculiar characteristic of the ‘Brāhma’ form of marriage. Such also is the custom among the people of the south.

This verse is quoted also in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 106) in connection with a somewhat subtle discussion. The author holds the view that ‘marriage,’ ‘vivāha,’ is the act of taking a wife, and hence the ‘giving’ of the bride cannot be called ‘marriage,’ as the giving is done by the Father, while the taking of a wife is done by the Bridegroom. On this ground, he argues, the definition of the Brāhma form of marriage provided in the present text of Manu should not be explained as consisting in the ‘giving of the girl’; the word ‘Dānam’ has, therefore, to be explained differently, in its etymological sense ‘yasmai dīyate tat dānam’ i.e., ‘dānam’ means ‘that for the sake of accomplishing which the giving is done’;—and as it is the Student’s ‘taking of a wife’ that is accomplished by giving, it is this ‘taking of the wife’ which should be taken as expressed by the word ‘dānam.’ He argues further that if the ‘marriage consisted in the giving of the girl, then the agent, person marrying, would be the bride’s Father, and not the Bridegroom. The author is conscious of the syntactical difficulty involved in his explanation, in connection with the participle ‘āhūya’, ‘having invited,’ which, as it stands, must have the same nominative agent as the ‘giving.’ But he brushes it off with the remark that the derivation of the verbal root in ‘āhūya’ being only a secondary factor, may be ignored, or we may supply some such word as ‘sthitaḥ’;—the meaning thus being—‘the man who takes the wife when he comes after being invited.’

It is interesting to note that the question raised by Raghunandana in Smṛtitattva has been anticipated and satisfactorily explained by Medhātithi (see Translation, p. 58).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 88);—in Dānakriyākaumudī (p. 9) as laying down the necessity of clothing the girl properly;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 61a);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 227), which explains ‘arcayitvā’ as ‘having worshipped him with offerings of ornaments and other tilings.’

Gautama (4. 6).—‘One should give away his daughter, dressed and adorned, to a man who is endowed with learning, character, good conduct, and relations;—this is the Brāhma form.’

Baudhāyana (1. 11. 2).—‘The Brāhma form consists in giving the girl to a man who has kept the vows of the Religious Student seeking for wife, after having tested his learning and character.’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2. 11. 17).—‘In the Brāhma form of marriage, one should find out all about the relations, the character, the learning and the health of the man and then give to him the girl after having adorned her to the best of his power, for the purpose of hearing children and for companionship.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.30).—‘That is the form of marriage in which the father gives away the girl to a person desirous of having a wife, after having made to him an offering of water.’

Viṣṇu (24.19).—‘The Brāhma form consists in inviting the qualified man and giving the girl to him.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 58).—‘When the girl, adorned to the best of one’s power, is given to a man who has been invited for the purpose, it constitutes the Brāhma form of marriage; the son born of these marriages purities twenty-one generations on both sides.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (1. 6. 15).—‘Having adorned the girl one should give her away, preceded by the water-offering; the son born thereof purifies twelve future generations and twelve past generations on both sides.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 847).—‘One should give away the girl, endowed with auspicious qualities, dressed and adorned, wearing now bangles, to a deserving man; this constitutes the Brāhma form of marriage.’

Saṃvarta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 847).—‘One should give away—by the Brāhma form of marriage—his daughter, endowed with good qualities, after having adorned her with excellent ornaments, to a suitable bridegroom.’

Vyāsa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 847).—‘One should give away the girl, dressed and adorned, after going round the fire thrice and pronounced the name and gotra; this is the Brāhma form.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 848).—‘The girl that is given away with water, they regard as Brahmadeyā.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 848).—‘When one offers a pair of clothes to a man and gives his girl to him, without deprecating or discussing him, directing him to jointly carry on Dharma, this is the Brāhma form of marriage.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 848).—‘When one gives to a man of his own caste, who is well known to him, the girl who has not reached puberty,—this is the Brāhma marriage.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 848).—‘One should give away the girl adorned with gold, before she has reached puberty.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 848).—‘To a qualified bridegroom, you give the girl, with proper faith and confidence, after having adorned her to the best of your power and endowed her with wealth.’

027 The gift of a daughter, after decking her (with costly garments) and honouring (her by presents of jewels), to a man learned in the Veda and of good conduct, whom (the father) himself invites, is called the Brahma rite.

While a sacrifice is being performed, if one gives away his daughter, after having decked her, to the priest who is officiating at it,—this they call the “Daiva” form.—(28).

वितते प्रारब्धतन्त्रे¹⁵ ज्योतिष्टोमादौ यज्ञे तत्कर्मकारिण ऋत्विजे ऽध्वर्यवे सुताय दुहितुर् दानम् । अलंकृत्येत्य् अनुवादः, कन्यादानस्य सर्वस्यैवंरूपत्वात् । “आच्छाद्यालंकृतां विवाहयेत्” इति सामान्यो ऽयं विधिः ।

• ननु गौश् चाश्वश् चाश्वतरश् चेत्याद्य् ऋत्विग्भ्यो दक्षिणात्वेन श्रुतम् । न क्वचित् कन्यादानं क्रत्वर्थतया चोदितम् ।

किम् अत्र क्रत्वर्थतया । प्रवृत्ते यज्ञ ऋत्विजे यां ददाति स दैवो विवाहः । अस्ति चोपकारगन्धस् तदीयकरणम् । अकर्मोद्देशेनापि दीयमानं तत्कर्मकरणप्रवृत्तस्य जनयत्य् एवानुमानविशेषम् । एतावतोपकारसंबन्धेन ब्राह्माद् दैवो न्यूनः ॥ ३.२८ ॥

‘Being performed;’—i.e., when a sacrifice, such as the Jyotiṣṭoma and the like, has been commenced; if one gives away his daughter to the ‘priest’—the Adhvaryu—‘who is officiating’—working—‘at it;’—‘after having decked her;’—this is a mere re-iteration; this forming an essential condition in every form of giving one’s girl in marriage; that ‘one should give the girl in marriage after having decked her’ being a general injunction.

“The cow, the house, the mule and other things have been mentioned as the fee for priests, the giving of the daughter has not been found laid down anywhere as helping in the fulfilment of sacrificial performances.”

What has ‘helping in the fulfilment of sacrificial performances’ got to do with the subject under consideration? All that is meant is that, when a sacrifice has begun to be performed, if one gives his daughter to the priest, this constitutes the ‘Daiva’ form of marriage.

In this case, there is some slight return made by the bridegroom in the form of services rendered in connection with the sacrifice. Even though the daughter is not given in consideration of any sacrificial services rendered, yet when she is given to him while he is engaged in a certain act, it does give rise to the inference (that she has been given as a reward for those services). And it is in view of this fact that the ‘Daiva’ form has been regarded as inferior to the ‘Brāhma’ form (in which latter, there is not the slightest suspicion of any kind of return).—(28).

Hopkins is not quite right when he says that ‘the priest receives the maiden as part of the fee.’ It is not so, as has been made clear by Medhātithi. Further the ‘fee’ is always given after the completion of the rite, and not only when ‘it has begun’, or while the priest is still ‘doing his work.’

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 849), where the explanation is added—Samyak sauṣṭhavena karma kurvate ṛtvije ityanvayaḥ; the construction is that the girl is given ‘to the priest who is doing the work efficiently, in a proper manner’;—in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 684);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 228.).

Gautama (4. 4).—‘The Daiva consists in giving the girl to the Priest within the sacrificial altar.’

Baudhāyana (1. 11. 5).—‘At the time that the sacrificial fees are being given, if the girl is given to the Priest within the sacrificial altar,—this the Daiva.’

Āpastamba Dharmasūtra (2. 11. 19).—‘In the Daiva form, the girl is to be given to the Priest, in course of the sacrificial performance.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1. 31).—‘In course of a sacrificial performance, if one gives his girl, after having decked her, to the Priest carrying on his sacrificial duties,—this they call the Daiva marriage.’

Viṣṇu (24.20).—‘The Daiva is that offered to the Priest engaged in a sacrifice.’

Āpastamba-Gṛhyasūtra (1.6.2).—‘When a sacrifice is being performed, if one gives the girl duly decked to the Priest therein engaged, this is called the Daiva marriage; the son bora thereof purifies ten past and ten future generations on both sides.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 849).—‘When one brings into the sacrificial altar the girl decked in gold and gives her to the Priest, this is the marriage called Daiva.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 849).—‘The marriage of the Priest is called Daiva.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 849).—‘When the girl is given within the altar, to the bridegroom after having presented to him a pair (of cow and bull), this is the Daiva marriage.’

028 The gift of a daughter who has been decked with ornaments, to a priest who duly officiates at a sacrifice, during the course of its performance, they call the Daiva rite.

‘When the maiden is given away in due accordance with rule, after taking, in odedience to law, from the bridegroom, one or two pairs of cow and bull,—this is called the “Ārṣa” form.’—(29).

स्त्री गवी पुङ्गवश् च मिथुनम् । एकं द्वे वा वराद् गृहीत्वा कन्याया दानम् आर्षो धर्मः । धर्मत इति । धर्म एवायम्, नात्र विक्रयबुद्धिः कर्तव्या, उच्चनीचर्णापाकरणाभावाद् इत्य् अभिप्रायः ॥ ३.२९ ॥

“Pair;”—i.e., the cow (female) and the bull (male).—‘one or two,’—‘after taking’—receiving—‘from the bridegroom, ’—when the maiden is given away’—this is the ‘Ārṣa’ form.

‘In obedience to law;’—i.e., with the idea that such receiving is sanctioned by law, and hot with the idea of receiving it in exchange for (price for) the girl. The sense is that what is received cannot be regarded as the price; as there is no possibility of any higher or lower demand being made (as there would be if it were a question of price).—(29)

Burnell is not right in remarking that ‘this is the most common form now.’ Among the better classes of the Brāhmaṇas the ‘Brāhma’ still continues to be the most common form; and among others, the form most common now is the Āsura.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 849), where ‘dharmataḥ’ is explained as meaning ‘according to family-custom’; or ‘in obedience to the law governing the Ārṣa marriage, not by way of a price for the girl.’

It is quoted also in Madanapārijāta (p. 155) as showing that it is not necessary that the number of ‘cows given should be always ‘two’ as mentioned in other Smṛtis;—it adds that if the Father of the Bride accept this ‘pair of cow and bull’ it becomes a ‘selling’ of the girl;—in Hemādri (Dana, p. 684);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, p. 62a);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 228), which explains ‘Gomithunam’ as ‘a milch cow and a bull.’

Gautama (4. 8).—‘In the Ārṣa form the bridegroom should present to the bride’s guardian a pair of cow and bull.’

Baudhāyana (1. 11).—‘After having made the first two offerings of fried grains, the bridegroom should present a pair of cow and hull to the bride’s guardian and then marry her; this is the Ārṣa form.’

Āpastamba- Dharmasūtra (2. 11. 18).—‘In the Ārṣa form, two pairs of cow and bull should be given to the bride’s father.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.32).—‘The Arṣa is accomplished by means of a pair of cow and bull.’

Viṣṇu (2. 4. 21).—‘The Ārṣa is accomplished by the acceptance of a pair of cow and bull.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 59).—‘By accepting a pair of cows, it is the Ārṣa.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (1. 6. 4).—‘If one marries the girl after presenting a pair of cow and bull, it is the Ārṣa marriage: it purifies seven future and seven past generations on both sides.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 851).—‘That wherein there is giving away of the girl, along with a pair of cow and bull, to a bridegroom, praiseworthy and not. belonging to the same gotra,—this they know as the Ārṣa marriage.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do.).—‘The Ārṣa is accomplished by means of a pair of cow and bull, or of a pair of clothes; but in every case ornaments and dowry should be given.’

029 When (the father) gives away his daughter according to the rule, after receiving from the bridegroom, for (the fulfilment of) the sacred law, a cow and a bull or two pairs, that is named the Arsha rite.

When the Father, having decked them, gives away the daughter with the words, “may you both together perform your duty,” making them also repeat them,—this is called the “Prājāpatya” form.—(30).

“सह धर्मो युवाभ्यां कर्तव्यः” इति वचनेन परिभाषां कृत्वा नियम्य यद् दानं स प्राजापत्यः । धर्मग्रहणम् उपलक्षणार्थम् । धर्मे चार्थे च कामे च तुल्ययोगक्षेमतेति मिथो ऽस्य परिभाषावचनस्यार्थः । धर्मशब्द एवोच्चार्यते- “सह धर्मश् चर्यताम्” इति, न तु धर्मार्थकामाः सहेति । स तु धर्मशब्दः स्मृत्यन्तरवशाद् अर्थकामयोर् उपलक्षणार्थो व्याख्यातः । “यद्य् एनां नातिचरसि धर्मार्थकामेषु तदा तुभ्यम् इयम् दीयते” इति कृतसंवित्कायाभ्युपगततदर्थाय विवाहकाले यद् दानं तत्रैवं समुच्चारयितव्यं सह धर्मं चरताम् इति । अर्थकामयोर् अभिप्रेते ऽपि सहत्वे तदप्रक्र्तत्वाद् अनुच्चारणम् । तथा च गौतमः- “प्राजापत्ये सह धर्मं चरताम् इति मन्त्रः” (ग्ध् ४.७) । मन्त्रग्रहणेन चैतद् दर्शयत्य् अधिकृतरूपम् एव प्रयोक्तव्यम्, मन्त्रवत् । न हि महासत्वानाम् अर्थकामविषये सहितत्वं परिभाषितुं युक्तम्, गम्यते तु स्मृत्यन्तरेभ्यः ।

• अनयैव संविदा दोषेणास्य न्यूनता । अस्ति ह्य् अत्र दातुर् वराद् उपकारलिप्सा ।

• स्वशब्देनैतद् वचनं वाच्यते, न पुनर् अयं दातुर् एव वचननियमः । अनुभाष्येत्य् अनेनैव सिद्धत्वाद् वाचेत्य् अनर्थकं स्यात्, अनुभाषणे वागिन्द्रियस्य साधनत्वात् । तथा च गृह्यकारः- “एतद् वः सत्यम् इत्य् उक्त्वा वरं वाचयेद् एतन् नः सत्यम्” इति । अनुशब्दश् च प्राप्तार्थस्यैव वाचा निश्चयम् आह ॥ ३.३० ॥

The ‘Prājāpatya’ form of marriage is that in which the girl is given away on the clear undertaking having been taken in so many words that “you both together shall duly Fulfil your duties.”

‘Duty’ has been mentioned only by way of illustration; the undertaking refers to ‘duty,’ ‘property’ and ‘pleasure’ also; as, in all these three, the interests of the husband and the wife are common. In reality, what is actually uttered is the word duty’ only, the expression used being ‘may duty be performed by you both,’ and not that ‘may duty, property and pleasure he accomplished:’ but, in consideration of what has been said in other law-books, the term ‘duty’ in the said expression has been explained as standing for ‘property’ and ‘pleasure’ also. Hence the conclusion is that the expression ‘may duty be performed by you both together is to be pronounced at the time that the girl is being given away to the person upon whom the condition has been imposed that ‘this girl is to be given to you only if you fulfil your duty, property and pleasure along with her,’ and who has accepted the condition at the time of marriage. Thus, then, even though⁽property’ and ‘pleasure’ also are meant to be included, yet they are not actually mentioned, because they are not of sufficient importance. Says Gautama (4. 7)—‘In the Prājāpatya form of marriage, the mantra used is may you together perform your duty;’ and the use of the term ‘mantras’ clearly shows that the words to be used should be precisely as they are laid down here, Just as in the case of mantra-texts. Further, in the case of very powerful men, it would not be right to make it a condition that the wife shall partake of all their properties and pleasures; and yet that these also are meant we learn from other law-books.

This form of marriage is inferior to the preceding ones only by reason of this condition being imposed; as this shows that there is a desire on the part of the giver for some sort of return from the recipient.

The bridegroom also is made to repeat in his words the condition that he accepts; and the exact form laid down is not for the giver only. For ‘having made to repeat’ would have been enough if only one of them were to say it, the phrase, ‘with the words,’ would have been superfluous; the act of repeating being always by means of words only. Says the author of the Gṛhyasūtra—‘Having said this is true for you, he should make the bridegroom say this is true for us.’ In fact, the prefix in ‘anubhāṣya’ (‘having made to repeat’) clearly indicates the confirmation of what has been said before.—(30).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 851);—in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 685);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 228).

Gautama (4. 7).—‘The Prājāpatya consists in merely bringing them together, with the exhortation—may you together perform your duty.’

Baudhāyana (l. 11. 3).—‘Having dressed and adorned her, if she is given away, with the exhortation, may this girl cooperate with you in the performance of duty,—this constitutes the Prājāpatya form.’

Viṣṇu (24.22).—‘The Prājāpatya form consists in the giving away of the girl when she has been asked for.’

Yājñavalkya (1.60).—‘When a girl is given to a man who has asked for her, with the words—may she co-operate with you in the performance of duty—this is the Prājāpatya form, and the son horn of this purifies six generations on each side along with the giver himself.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (1.6.1.3.).—‘The Prājāpatya is accompanied by the exhortation—may you both co-operate in the performance of duty; this purifies eight past and eight future generations on both sides.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 851).—‘When the girl is decked and given away on the clearly expressed understanding that the couple is to co-operate in the performance of duty,—this is the Prājāpatya marriage.’

030 The gift of a daughter (by her father) after he has addressed (the couple) with the text, ‘May both of you perform together your duties,’ and has shown honour (to the bridegroom), is called in the Smriti the Pragapatya rite.

When one carries away the maiden, after having given, of his own will, as much wealth as the (he?) can to the kinsmen, as well as to the bride herself, this is called the “Āsura” form.—(31).

ज्ञातिभ्यः कन्याया एव पित्रादिभ्यः कन्यायै च स्त्रीधनं दत्वा कन्याया आप्रदानम् आनयनम् आसुरो विवाहः । स्वाच्छन्द्यात् स्वेच्छातः, न शास्त्रत इत्य् आर्षाद् भेदम् आह । तत्र हि शास्त्रं नियामकम् अस्ति “एकं गोमिथुनम्” इति । इह तु कन्याया रूपसौभाग्यादिगुणापेक्षं छन्दः ॥ ३.३१ ॥

‘Kinsmen.’—the father and other relations of the bride.

‘As well as to the bride;’—i.e., by way of ‘dowry.’

The compound ‘Kanyāpradāna’ is to be expounded as ‘Kanyāyāḥ āpradānam’—the meaning being ‘the carrying away of the maiden.’ This constitutes the ‘Āsura’ form of marriage.

Of his own will;—i.e., in any manner he may chose; not according to rules laid down in the scriptures. This is what distinguishes this from the ‘Ārṣa’ form. In the latter, the scripture restricts the gift to ‘a cow and a bull’ only; while in the present case, the ‘wish’ of the giver shall depend upon the beauty, the character and such other qualities of the bride.—(31).

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 852), where it explains ‘Āpradānam’ as ādānam grahaṇamiti yāvat, i.e., ‘taking’;—and ‘Svācchandyāt’ as ‘of his own free will, not in obedience to the wish of the bride’s father,’ his right over her having been created by purchase.

Smṛtitattva (I, p. 593) quotes the verse and refers to Kullūka Bhaṭṭa as explaining ‘āpradānam’ as ‘taking of the girl’; and it explains ‘svācchandyāt’ as ‘by his own will.’

It is quoted in Hemādri (Dana, p. 685);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 229), which explains ‘āpradānam’ as ‘ādānam’, ‘taking’, and ‘svācchandyāt’ as ‘at one’s will’, irrespectively of the willingness or otherwise of the gill, thus differing from the ‘Gāndharva’ in which both are willing.

Gautama (4. 11).—‘When the acquiescence of the bride’s guardians is secured by means of wealth, it is the Āsura form.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.7).—‘It is the Āsura which is performed after satisfying with wealth (the girl and her guardians).’

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.12.1).—‘When one takes away the bride after having given as much wealth as he can, it is the Āsura form.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.35).—‘When one obtains a girl who has been purchased with wealth after staking, it is the Mānuṣa form.’ [Manuṣa is another name for ‘Āsura,’ says the Vīramitrodaya Saṃskāra, p. 853.]

Viṣṇu (24.24).—‘Marriage by purchase is Āsura.’

Yājñavalkya (1.61).—‘The Āsura is that which is brought about by the acceptance of wealth.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (16.1.6.).—‘When one marries a girl after having satisfied her with wealth, it is the Āsura form.’

Paiṭhīnasi (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 853).—‘When the parents give away the girl, selling her for a fee, it is ṭhe Āsura form.’

Hārīta. (Do.).—‘When the girl is given away to a man who is suspected, by other people, of hypocrisy and deceit,—it is the Āsura form.’

031 When (the bridegroom) receives a maiden, after having given as much wealth as he can afford, to the kinsmen and to the bride herself, according to his own will, that is called the Asura rite.

The mutual union of the bride and bridegroom, through love is to be known as the “Gāndharva” form; it has sexual intercourse for its end and it has its source in lust.—(32).

इच्छया च वर्स्य कुमार्याश् च प्रीत्या परस्परसंयोग एकप्रदेशे संगमनम् । तस्येयं निन्दा मैथुन्यः कामसंभवः । मिथुनप्रयोजनो मैथुनः, तस्मै हितो मैथुन्यः । एष एवार्थो विस्पष्टीकृतः कामसंभव इति । संभवत्य् अस्माद् इति संभवः । कामः संभवो ऽस्येति ॥ ३.३२ ॥

The ‘union’—coming together at one place—‘of the bride and bridegroom, through love’—through mutual longing.

In deprecation of this form of marriage it is added—‘It has sexual intercourse for its end’—it serves the purpose of sexual intercourse only. This is made clearer by the next clause—‘it has its source in lust;’—‘source’ is that from which a thing springs; and it is from lust that this union springs.—(32).

Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa raise the question as to the prescribed offerings and wedding ceremonies being performed in the cage of the Gāndharva, Rākṣasa and Paiśāca forms of marriage; and on the strength of a text of Devala’s and another of Śaunaka (Bahvṛca Gṛhyapariśiṣṭa) they declare that the offerings must be made, but that no Vaidika mantras should be recited; this latter reservation being based on Manu’s text (8.226). Medhātithi discusses this at great length under verse 34 below, from which it appears that the opinion on this subject has always been divided. In support of the view that the subsequent rites are essential, several texts are quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, pp. 861-862).

This verse is quoted in ‘Vīramitrodaya’ (Saṃskāra, p. 855), where the ‘Anyonyasaṃyogaḥ’ is explained as ‘mutual agreement’,—‘Maithunyaḥ,’ ‘conducive to all acts accomplished by means of sexual intercourse’,—and ‘Kāmasambhavaḥ,’ as ‘originating from excessive lust’;—in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 685);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 229), which explains ‘Maithunyaḥ’ as ‘favourable to sexual intercourse.’

Gautama (4. 10).—‘When the girl loves a man and herself becomes united to him, it is the Gāndharva form.’

Baudhāyana (1. 11. 6).—‘The Gāndharva consists in the mutual union of the loving bride and the loving bridegroom.’

Āpāstamba-Dharmasūtra (2. 11. 20).—‘When the couple become united through mutual love, it is the Gāndharva.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1. 33).—‘It is the Gāndharva when the man loving the girl who loves himself, and is similar to himself, marries her.’

Viṣṇu (24. 23).—‘When ṭhe couple in love with one another, become united, independently of the parents,—it is the Gāndharva.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 61).—‘The Gāndharva is accomplished by mutual agreement.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (1. 6. 1. 5).—‘It is Gāndharva when the man marries the girl after coming to a mutual agreement.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 855).—‘When in a sacred place, the man and the woman become united by mutual agreement, through love, it is the fifth form of marriage, the Gāndharva.’

Hārīta (Do., p. 856).—‘When the girl herself selects the bridegroom, it is Gāndharva.’

032 The voluntary union of a maiden and her lover one must know (to be) the Gandharva rite, which springs from desire and has sexual intercourse for its purpose.

The forcible abduction of the maiden from her home, while she is crying out and weeping, after having beaten and wounded and pierced,—is called the “Rākṣasa” form.—(33).

प्रसह्य अभिभूय कन्यापक्षाद् बलात्कारेण कन्याया हरणं राक्षसो विवाह इत्य् एतावद् अत्र विवक्षितम् । हत्वेत्याद्य् अनुवादः । प्रसह्यापजिहीर्षतो यदि कश्चित् प्रतिबन्धो वर्तते तदा प्राप्तम् एव हननादि । हन्तुः शक्त्यतिशयं ज्ञात्वा स्वात्मभयाद् उपेक्षेरंस् तदा भवत्य् एव राक्षसो न वधाद्यवश्यं कर्तव्यम् ।

• हत्वा दण्डकाष्ठादिना ताडयित्वा । छित्त्वा खड्गादिप्रहारेणाङ्गानि खण्डशः कृत्वा । भित्त्वा प्राकारदुर्गादि¹⁶ । क्रोशन्तीं रुदन्तीं कन्याम् अनिच्छाम् । अयं गान्धर्वाद् विशेषः । “अनाथापह्रिये परित्रायद्वम्” इत्याद्य् उच्चैः शब्दकरणं क्रोशनम् । रोदनम् अश्रुकणमोक्षः । उद्विजितायाः स्त्रिया धर्मो ऽयम् ॥ ३.३३ ॥

‘Forcibly;’—i.e., having subdued the guardians of the girl, if one carries her away by force, this is called the ‘Rākṣasa’ form. This is all that is meant to be stated here. ‘Having beaten,’ etc., is a mere descriptive re-iteration; for it is always understood that, while the bridegroom is forcibly taking away the girl, if some one seeks to stop him, he shall beat them and do the rest of it. But if, knowing the great strength of the abductor, her guardians, through fear, let her go,—then also it is a Rākṣasa form of marriage; and it is not a necessary condition of this form that the beating, etc., must be done.

‘Having beaten’—by means of sticks, etc.

‘Wounded’— cutting limbs by strokes of the sword and other weapons.

‘Pierced’—walls and forts.

‘Crying out and weeping;’—i.e., unwilling girl. This is what distinguishes this from the ‘Gāndharva’ form. ‘Crying out’ stands for such loud wailings as—‘there is none to protect me, I am being taken away, save me,’ and so forth: while ‘weeping’ stands for shedding tears, which is the characteristic of all frightened women.—(33)

This verse is quoted in ‘Vīramitrodaya’ (Saṃskāra, p. 856), where the following explanation is given—‘Hatvā’—‘having beaten, those obstructing him’;—‘Chittvā’—having cut off, the heads of the obstructors’;—‘Bhittvā’—‘having pierced, with strokes of weapons’;—‘Krośantīm’—calling for her relations;—all this indicates fighting.

The second half is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 129) in support of the view that what distinguishes the Rākṣasa form is forcible abduction.

The verse is quoted in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 685);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra,:p. 229), which explains ‘prosahya’ as ‘by force’.

Gautama (4. 12).—‘When there is taking away by force, it is the Rākṣasa.’

Baudhāyana (1. 11. 8).—(Same as above.)

Āpastamba-Dharmasūtra (2.12.2).—‘When the girl is taken away after attacking her guardians, it is the Rākṣasa.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1. 34).—‘When they suddenly attack with force and take away the girl, it is the Kṣātra form of marriage.’

Viṣṇu (24.24).—‘Taking away by fighting constitutes the Rākṣasa.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 61).—‘It becomes the Rākṣasa, if there is taking away by fight.’

Āśvalāyana- Gṛhyasūtra (6.15).—‘When one wrests the crying girl from her crying guardians after having killed and maimed them, it is the Rākṣasa.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 856).—‘It is the Rākṣasa form of marriage when, with the king’s support, the girl is obtained by attacking and chastising her guardians.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 857).—‘It is th e Kṣātra form when the decked girl is won in battle.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 857).—‘If the girl is taken away by force, it is Rākṣasa, the seventh form of marriage, based upon bravery.’

033 The forcible abduction of a maiden from her home, while she cries out and weeps, after (her kinsmen) have been slain or wounded and (their houses) broken open, is called the Rakshasa rite.

When the man approaches the girl by stealth, while she is asleep, or intoxicated or unconscious,—it is the “Paiśāca” form, the wickedest and the basest of marriages.—(34).

राक्षसपैशाचयोर् अनिच्छा तुल्या । राक्षसे हननम्, पैशाचे वञ्चनम् । सुप्तां निद्रयाभिभूताम् । मत्तां क्षीबां मद्यपरवशाम् । प्रमत्तां वातसंक्षोभेण नष्टचेतनाम् । रहो ऽप्रकासम् उपगच्छति मैथुनधर्मे प्रवर्तते स पैशाचो विवाहः सर्वविहाहानां पापिष्ठः पापहेतुः । धर्मापत्यं न ततः संपद्यते ।

• इह गान्धर्वराक्षसपैशाचानां प्रकृतविवाहसामानाधिकरण्यात् संयोगहरणोपगमा एव पाणिग्रहणसंस्कारनिरपेक्षा विवाहा इति मन्यन्ते ।

• तेषां ब्राह्मादिष्व् अपि दानविवाहयोः सामानाधिकरण्यात् संस्कारो विनिवर्तते । यथा च न निवर्तते तथा दर्शितम् । लक्षणया विवाहप्रयोजनदाने विवाहशब्दः ।

• गान्धर्वे तु भगवता कृष्णद्वैपायनेन दुष्यन्तशकुन्तलासंगमने वर्णितम्- “अनग्निकम् अमन्त्रकम्” इति, तद्दर्शनेन पाणिग्रहणसंस्कारो ऽस्ति, मन्त्रादि वर्जितस् तु¹⁷ ।

• पैशाचे¹⁸ पुनर् विवदन्ते- मुख्यं चोपगमनं । न¹⁹ च कन्यात्वम् अपैति, संस्कारैस् तद्विनिवर्तनात् । अतश् च “पाणिग्रहणिका मन्त्राः कन्यास्व् एव प्रतिष्ठिताः” (म्ध् ८.२२६) इति प्रतिषेधस्याप्रवृत्तेर् अस्त्य् एव मन्त्रवत् संस्कारसंबन्धः । स च प्रतिषेधः कृतः संस्कारप्रतिषेधार्थः । सा हि मन्त्रैः संकृतत्वाद् व्यपगतकन्याभावा । अत एव भवतु प्रथमम् उपगमस् ततो ऽकन्यादोषो नास्ति । तथा च कानीनः कर्ण इति दर्शनम् । यदि तु पुरुषप्रयोगेण कन्यात्वम् अपेयात् कथम् इयं वाचोयुक्तिः “कन्यायाः पुत्रः कानीनः” इति । अथ त्व् असंस्कृता कन्योच्यते ततो युक्तम् “कर्णादयो ह्य् अनूढायाः पुत्राः” इति । मुख्ये ऽभ्युपगमने कन्याया अपत्योत्पत्तेः संभवः । वर्ण्यते चेतिहासादिषु तथाभूताया विवाहः ।अथ मद्यमदादिना निर्वृत्ते रतिसंबन्धे किमर्थः संस्कार इति ।

• अत्रोच्यते । यद्य् अपि स्त्रीपुंसधर्मो निवृत्तो ऽतिक्रान्तश् च कन्यागमनप्रतिषेधस् तथापि तया सहाधिकारार्थं पुनश् च गमने कन्यागमनं मा भुद् इति तदर्थं संस्कारकरणम् । कन्यागमनप्रतिषेधातिकर्मसंबन्धेन पुरुषार्थतयापि निन्द्यते विवाहो ऽयम् ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । यतो ऽयं लोके कन्याशब्दः पुंसासंप्रयुक्तां स्त्रियम् आचष्टे, न संस्कारभावसापेक्षाम् । अकृतसंस्कारा अपि पुरुषैः क्षतयोनयो न कन्या इति व्यवह्रियन्ते । तासां च वेशश्रितानां गमने न कन्यागमनदोषः । यद्य् अपि कुमारीकन्याशब्दौ प्रथमवयोवचनाव् इष्येते, तथापि विवाहविधाव् अनुपभुक्तपुर्वाम् एव स्त्रियम् आचक्षते । तथा च कुमारवेशधारिणीं नातिप्रकाशप्रवृत्तपुंसंप्रयोगां भार्यात्वेनार्थयमानो ऽन्यैर् अवबोध्यते “नैषा कुमारी नष्टो ऽस्याः कौमारो भावः” ।

• संस्कारपरिलोपश् च स्यात् । गर्भाधानं हि मन्त्रवत् कर्तव्यम् “विष्णुर् योनिं कल्पयतु” (र्व् १०.१८४.१) इति कॢप्तायाश् च कल्पनम् अशक्यम् । तत्रायथार्थो मन्त्रप्रयोगः स्यात् । न चानूढायाः पैशाचधर्मे मन्त्रप्रयोगः, ऊढायास् तच्छ्रवणात् । न च²⁰ पैशाचवर्जम् अन्येषु विवाहेषु तत्कल्पयितुं उक्तं युक्तम् अविशेषश्रवणात् ।

• तस्मान् मुख्योपगमपक्ष एवमादयो बहवो दोषाः प्राप्नुवन्ति । अत आलिङ्गनोपगूहनपरिचुम्बनादिषूपगमनार्थेषु व्यापारेषु साहचर्यात् तादर्थ्याच् चोपपूर्वो गमिर् द्रष्टव्यः । यत् तु “कानीनः पुत्रः” इति तत्र मुख्यार्थासंभवाल् लक्षणया संस्काराभावप्रतिपत्तिः²¹ । यत् तु संस्कारदर्शनं तत् तु क्वचिद् एव । यद्य् अपि “या गर्भिणी संस्क्रियते ज्ञाताज्ञतापि वा सती” (म्ध् ९.१७३) इति तत्र य एवोपगन्ता स एव न²² संस्कर्ता । न त्व् असौ पैशाचो विवाहः । पैशाचे हि येनैव समुपभुक्ता तस्मा²³ एव दीयते, स एवैनां संस्करोतीति । गर्भिण्यास् तु संस्कारो वाचनिकः । एतच् च सर्वं निपुणतरं पुनर् नवमे वक्ष्यते ।

• अपरे मन्यन्ते- “सत्यं मुख्यम् उपगमनम् अमुख्यत्वे तु गमनप्रतिषेधानुपपत्तिः” इति ।

• यदि हि मुख्यम् उपगमस् तदा स एव विवाहो ऽन्यस्यानन्तरोक्तेन न्यायेनाभावात् । ततश् च नास्ति तस्य प्रतिषेधस्य विषयः, यतः इच्छया गान्धर्वो हठाद् राक्षसो ऽन्यथा पैशाचः । न चान्यः प्रकारो ऽस्ति येन स विषयः प्रतिषेधः²⁴ स्यात् । अस्ति त्व् अस्य विषयः- यत्र हठाद् रहसि गमनम्, या वा पितृभ्यां दीयते न चोपसंस्क्रियते । न²⁵ चासौ²⁶ गान्धर्वः, कन्येच्छाया अभावात् । अत एव भर्तुर् अपि न कन्यागामित्वम्, विषयान्तरस्य संभवात् ।

• तस्मात् क्षतयोन्याः संस्कारनिषेधाद् ब्राह्मादिवद् उपायत्वात् तद्वच् च विवाहशब्दोपपत्तेः प्रकरणसामर्थ्याड् गौण एवोपगमार्थः ।

• एषाम् च भेदः- अप्रार्थितोपनतो भूमिहिरण्यादिवद् ब्राह्मः । ऋत्विक्त्वेन विशेषेण दैवः । गोमिथुनेनार्षः । याच्ञयायच्ञया वा “सहोभौ चरतां धर्मम्” इति वचनव्यवस्थया प्राजापत्यः । शेषाः सुबोधभेदाः ।

• ब्राह्मादीनाम् इदम् अर्थे तद्धितः । ब्रह्मादिसंबन्धिता च स्तुत्यारोप्यते । एवं सर्वेषु । पैशाचः पिषाचानाम् अयं युक्त इति निन्दा ॥ ३.३४ ॥

The unwillingness of the girl is the condition common to the ‘Rākṣasa’ and the ‘Paiśāca’ forms: the difference is that in the former there is beating, while in the latter there is stealth.

‘Asleep’—overpowered by sleep.

‘Intoxicated’—senseless, under the influence of wine, &c.

‘Unconscious’—who has lost consciousness on account of the disorders of the wind-humour.

‘By stealth’—not openly.

‘Approaches’— has sexual intercourse with.

This is the Paiśāca marriage, of all marriages the ‘wickedest’—the most sinful. That is to say, the issue of such a marriage does not become the rightful child.

In connection with this subject, some people think that the ‘Gāndharva’ form of marriage is accomplished by mere ‘intercourse,’ the ‘Rākṣasa’ by mere ‘abduction’ and the ‘Paiśāca’ by mere ‘approach,’—irrespective of the sacramental rites relating to the ‘taking of the hand’ and the rest. And they base this idea upon the fact that all these three are mentioned in apposition to ‘marriage’ which forms the subject-matter of the context.

But, according to these people, in the ‘Brāhma’ and other forms also, since the ‘giving’ is mentioned in apposition to ‘marriage,’ the sacramental rites would cease (to be necessary factors in the marriage). But we have shown above, how. these rites cannot be omitted. The fact of the matter is that it is only figuratively that the term ‘marriage’ has been applied to that act of ‘giving’ which is done for the purpose of ‘marriage.’

As regards the ‘Gandharva’ form, the revered Kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana has described it, in connection with the union of Duṣyanta and Śukuntalā, as being ‘without fire and without sacred texts;’ and this shows that there are certain sacramental rites of ‘taking the hand,’ etc., but they are done without sacred texts etc.

As regards the ‘Paiśāca’ form, there is a difference of opinion:—In this form (it is argued) ‘approaching’ is the prime factor; but that does not deprive the girl of her ‘maidenhood;’ as this can be put an end to only by the sacramental rites attendant upon marriage; so that the girl still continuing to be a ‘maiden,’ the prohibition of rites in connection with ‘non-maidens’—which we find in the statement that ‘the sacred texts relating to marriage are restricted to maidens only’ (8. 226)—does not apply to this form of marriage; and hence its connection with the sacramental rites remains undisturbed. The prohibition just referred to is for the purpose of precluding the sacramental rites (from the case of non-maidens); while the girl married by the ‘Paiśāca’ form has her maidenhood destroyed only when she has gone through the rites. Thus, then, even though the ‘approaching’ may take place first, yet the taint of ‘non-maiden-hood’ does not apply to her. It is only in accordance with this view that Karṇa can be called ‘maiden-born;’ for if mere intercourse with man were to deprive the girl of her maidenhood, how could we have such a statement as ‘the son born of a maiden is called maiden-born.’ If, on the other hand, the name ‘maiden’ be applied only to such girls as have not had the sacramental rites performed for them, then the said statement would be all right, Karṇa and others of his kind, being sons of unmarried girls. It is only if ‘approaching’ be the prime factor that it is possible for a child being born from a ‘maiden.’ In fact, we find in stories the description of the ‘marriage’ of girls who had been previously ‘approached’ by the ‘Paiśāca’ form.

It might be asked—“when sexual intercourse has been already accomplished with the help of intoxicants, etc., what would be the use of the sacramental rites?”

The answer to this is as follows:—Though the act of copulation has been accomplished, and the man. has transgressed the prohibition of intercourse with a ‘maiden,’ yet the performance of the rites is necessary,—firstly, for the purpose of making her entitled to share in the religious acts of her husband, and, secondly, for the purpose of avoiding the sin of repeating the act of having intercourse with a ‘maiden.’ This form of marriage is thus deprecated by reason of its involving a transgression of the prohibition of having intercourse with a maiden, and also because it subserves the purely physical purposes of the man (and not any religious purpose).

The above view, however, is not right; because, in ordinary parlance, the term ‘maiden’ denotes the girl who has had no intercourse with man, and not one for whom the sacramental rites have not been performed. In fact, even though her sacramental rites have not been perforated; if a girl happens to have sexual intercourse with man,-she ceases to be regarded as a ‘maiden;’ and when such girls have taken to the profession of prostitutes, intercourse with them does not involve the sin of having intercourse with a ‘maiden.’ It is true that the words ‘virgin’ and ‘maiden’ have beeu regarded as referring to a female in the earlier years of her age; but, in connection with rules relating to marriage, they are always used in the sense of one who has had ho intercourse with man. It is for this reason that when a man is found to be seeking marriage with a girl who maintains the appearance of a virgin, and does not openly go in for sexual intercourse,—he is warned by people with such words as—‘she is no longer a virgin, her virginhood has been destroyed.’

Further, in the case of marrying such a girl, there would be a serious deficiency in the sacramental rites themselves. E.g., the rite of ‘conception’ has to be done with sacred texts, such as ‘Viṣṇuryoniṅkalpayatu, etc. (Ṛgveda, 10.184. 1),—which means ‘May Viṣṇu generate upon your generative organ;’ and there can be no ‘generation’ (by Viṣṇu) of what has already been generated’ (by another man); so that the use of the sacred text in this case would be meaningless. Nor could, any such text be used when an unmarried girl would be ‘approached’ in the ‘Paiśāca’ form; as it has been definitely declared that it is to be used only in the case of ‘married’ girls. Nor would it be right to hold that the ‘generation’ (spoken of in the said text) refers to the case of marriages other than the ‘Paiśāca;’ for the use of the text has been prescribed without any restriction at all.

The above and several other difficulties crop up if ‘approaching’ is regarded as the principal factor. The term ‘Upagamana,’ ‘approach,’ then, should be taken as standing for the acts of embracing, kissing and such other concomitants of actual ‘intercourse;’—such use of the term being due to the fact that the said acts are concomitants of, and lead up to, the act of ‘intercourse.’ As regards the expression, ‘the maiden-born son,’ inasmuch as the direct meaning of the term ‘maiden’ is not applicable, it is taken in its indirect meaning of ‘one who has not gone through the sacramental rites.’ As for the case where the sacramental rites are performed even after ‘intercourse,’ such cases are very rare. Then, as regards the statement—‘when the sacrament is performed for a pregnant girl, with or without the knowledge of her being so, etc.’ (9. 173),—this refers to cases where the person performing the sacramental rites is not the same that has had the previous intercourse with her; so that this would not be a case of ‘Paiśāca’ marriage at all; as in this latter, the girl is given in marriage to that same person who has had intercourse with her (during sleep, etc.), and that same person would be performing the rites for her. Then again, so far as the performance of rites for the pregnant girl is concerned, it has been directly laid down by scriptural texts. All this we shall explain in full detail under Discourse IX.

Others, again, have held the view that—“in reality, the intercourse itself is the principal factor; for, if it were not so, there would be no point in the prohibiting of intercourse (with maidens).”

But if ‘intercourse’ were the principal factor, then that itself would constitute ‘marriage;’ none other being possible, according to the reasoning just put forward; so that there would be no object for the prohibition, as ‘intercourse,’ when voluntary, would constitute the ‘Gāndharva’ marriage; when ‘forcible,’ it would be ‘Rākṣasa’ marriage; and in other cases it would be ‘Paiśāca;’ and no other ‘intercourse,’ without rites is possible, whereby the prohibition could apply to all forms of ‘intercourse.’ As a matter of fact, however, there certainly is an object for the prohibition,—in the shape of such cases where there is forcible intercourse by stealth, or where the girl is given away by her parents, but no sacramental rites are performed. This latter cannot come under the ‘Gāndharva’ marriage; as it is not ‘voluntary’ on the part of the girl. It is for this reason that in such a case the husband does not incur the sin of having intercourse with a ‘maiden;’ as this latter contingency happens under totally different circumstances.

Thus, then, since the performance of sacramental rites has been interdicted in the case of girls who have already had sexual intercourse,—and since the ‘Paiśāca’ also is, like the ‘Brāhma’ and the rest, a means (of acquiring a wife),—and since, therefore, this form also is capable of being culled ‘marriage,’—it follows that what is denoted by the term ‘approach,’ ‘upagama’ (‘intercourse’) is only a secondary factor.

The differentiating characteristics of the eight forms of marriage are as follows (1) that marriage which comes without asking, just like landed property, gold and the rest, is ‘Brāhma;’ (2) that which comes by virtue of one’s priestly character is ‘Daiva;’ (3) that which is accompanied by the present of a cow and a bull is ‘Ārṣa;’ (4) that which is accompanied by the condition, ‘may you together perform your duties,’ and which comes either by or without asking, is ‘Prājāpatya;’ the characteristics of the others are easily discerned.

In the words, ‘Brāhma,’ etc., the nominal affix denotes relation; and the relationship of Brahma and the rest is ascribed to the marriage, with a view to eulogising it. So also in the rest. In the case of the term ‘Paiśāca,’ the meaning is ‘that which is fit for Piśācas,’ and it connotes deprecation.—(34).

Medhātithi (P. 206, l. 20)—‘Varṇyate chetihāsādiṣu &c.’;—e.g. the case of Kunti, who was married to Pāṇḍu, after she had given birth to Karṇa.

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 129);—in Aparārka (p. 91);—and in Hemādri (Dāna, p. 685).

Gautama (4.13).—‘When there is intercourse without the girl’s knowledge it is the Paiśāca form.’

Bodhāyana (1.11.9).—‘When one marries a girl while she is asleep, or unconscious, or mad, it is the Paiśāca.’

Viṣṇu (24.26).—‘It is Paiśāca when one approaches a girl while she is asleep or unconscious.’

Yājñavalkya (1.61).—‘It is Paiśāca when the girl is won by stratagem.’

Āśvalāyana-Gṛhyasūtra (1.6.6).—‘The carrying away of girls, asleep or unconscious, constitutes the Paiśāca.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 858).—‘The carrying away of a girl who is asleep, unconscious or mad, or in distress,—is the Paiśāca, the eighth form of marriage, based upon want of care.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 858).—‘it is the Paiśāca form when the girl is won by the employment of women, drinks, wine, and presents.’

034 When (a man) by stealth seduces a girl who is sleeping, intoxicated, or disordered in intellect, that is the eighth, the most base and sinful rite of the Pisakas.

‘For the chief of twice-born men the giving away of one’s daughter with water alone is commended; but for the other castes it is with mutual desire.’—(35)

द्विजाग्र्याणां ब्राह्मणानां कन्यादानं कन्यां ददताम् अद्भिर् एव दानं शस्यते । ब्राह्मणाय यदा कन्यां ददाति तदाद्भिर् एव दद्यात् । कथं पुनर् आपोदानकरणम् । न हि ताभिर् विना दानम् अस्ति “अद्भिर् वाच्यं नमःपूर्वं²⁷ भिक्षा दानं ददाति वै । एवं धर्मेषु” इति नियमात् । अथ वा अद्भिर् एवेत्य् अवधारणेनार्षासुरप्राजापत्यान् अपवदति । तत्र हि न केवला आपः कारणम्, गोमिथुनादिद्रव्यग्रहणम् अपि संविद्व्यवस्था च । तेनैतद् उक्तं भवति । यथा गोहिरण्यादि द्रव्यं दीयते, न किंचित् परिभाष्यते- “इयं गौस् त्वयैव संवाहनीयेदृशानि तृणान्य् अपि देयानि,” एवं कन्यापि देया, न दुहितृस्नेहेन जामात परिभाषणं कारयितव्यः । न च तस्माद् धनं ग्रहीतव्यम् इति ।

• क्षत्रियादीनां तु इतरेतरकाम्यया परस्परेच्छया²⁸ यदि कन्यावरयोः परस्परम् अभिलाषो भवति तदा दानं कर्तव्य, नेतरथा ब्राह्मविवाहवत् ।

• अन्ये तु व्याचक्षते । धनं वा गृहीत्वाद्भिर् एव वेत्य्²⁹ एष इतरेतरकाम्यार्थः । अस्मिन् पक्षे ब्राह्मणस्य सर्वविषयता ज्ञापिता भवति ॥ ३.३५ ॥

‘For the chief of twice-born men;’—i.e., for Brāhmaṇas.

‘Giving away of the daughter—when one is giving away his daughter, the giving away ‘with water,’ ‘is commended.’ That is, when one is giving his daughter to a Brāhmaṇa, he should give her ‘with water’ only.

“How can water be the instrument (means) of giving?”

What is meant is that without water, there can be no ‘giving;’ since we have the law—‘alms and gifts should be given with water, after the uttering of the syllable namaḥ, and so also in all religious acts.’

Or, by the restriction expressed by the phrase, ‘with water alone,’ the text means to exclude the ‘Ārṣa,’ the ‘Āsura’ and the ‘Prājāpatya;’ as in these latter, water is not the only instrument used; other instruments also being used; such as ‘a cow and a bull,’ as also the compact (that ‘you should perform your duty together’).

What is really meant (by the girl being given ‘with water alone’) is as follows:—Just as when a cow, or gold or such other things are given, the giver does not impose any conditions,—such as ‘this cow should be thus tended by you, she should be fed upon such and such grass,’ and so forth,—in the same manner should the girl also be given; and the father shall not, through his great love for his daughter, impose upon his son-in-law any conditions; nor should he receive from him any presents.

As for the Kṣatriya and other castes, there should be ‘giving’ of the girl, when there is mutual desire on the part of the bride and the bridegroom; and not otherwise, as it is done in the ‘Brāhma’ form of marriage.

Others explain this as follows—what is meant by ‘mutual desire’ is that the father may either receive presents or give her ‘with water’ only.

According to this explanation, it becomes indicated that the ‘Brahma’ form of marriage pertains to all castes.—(35).

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 138), where it is explained as meaning that in the case of Brāhmaṇas, that marriage is considered most commendable in which water is the only substance used as the instrument; while in that of the Kṣatriya and others, it may bo accomplished, even without the pouring of water, simply by mutual consent, the father of the bride agreeing to give, and the bridegroom to receive, the girl. This does not mean, however, that in the latter case water should never be used.

035 The gift of daughters among Brahmanas is most approved, (if it is preceded) by (a libation of) water; but in the case of other castes (it may be performed) by (the expression of) mutual consent.