Chapter 44

“Yudhishthira said, “Tell me of that, O grandsire, which is the root ofall duties, which is the root of kinsmen, of home, of the Pitris and ofguests. I think this should be regarded as the foremost of all duties,(viz., the marriage of one’s daughter). Tell me, however, O king, uponwhat sort of a person should one bestow one’s daughter?’

“Bhishma said, ‘Having enquired into the conduct and disposition of theperson, his learning and acquirements, his birth, and his acts, goodpeople should then bestow their daughter upon accomplished bridegrooms.All righteous Brahmanas, O Yudhishthira, act in this way (in the matterof the bestowal of their daughters). This is known as the Brahmamarriage, O Yudhishthira! Selecting an eligible bridegroom, the father ofthe girl should cause him to marry his daughter, having, by presents ofdiverse kinds, induced the bridegroom to that act. This form of marriageconstitutes the eternal practice of all good Kshatriyas. When the fatherof the girl’, disregarding his own wishes, bestows his daughter upon aperson whom the daughter likes and who reciprocates the girl’ssentiments, the form of marriage, O Yudhishthira, is called Gandharva bythose that are conversant with the Vedas. The wise have said this, Oking, to be the practice of the Asuras, viz., wedding a girl afterpurchasing her at a high cost and after gratifying the cupidity of herkinsmen. Slaying and cutting off the heads of weeping kinsmen, thebridegroom sometimes forcibly takes away the girl he would wed. Suchwedding, O son, is called by the name of Rakshasa. Of these five (theBrahma, the Kshatra, the Gandharva, the Asura, and the Rakshasa), threeare righteous, O Yudhishthira, and two are unrighteous. The Paisacha andthe Asura forms should never be resorted to.[277] The Brahma, Kshatra,and Gandharva forms are righteous, O prince of men! Pure or mixed, theseforms should be resorted to, without doubt. A Brahmana can take threewives. A Kshatriya can take two wives. As regards the Vaisya, he shouldtake a wife from only his own order. The children born of these wivesshould all be regarded as equal.[278] Of the three wives of a Brahmana,she taken from his own order should be regarded as the foremost.Similarly, of the two wives permitted to the Kshatriya, she taken fromhis own order should be regarded as superior. Some say that personsbelonging to the three higher orders may take, only for purposes ofenjoyment (and not for those of virtue), wives from the lowest or theSudra order. Others, however, forbid the practice.

The righteous condemn the practice of begetting issue upon Sudra women. ABrahmana, by begetting children upon a Sudra woman, incurs the liabilityof performing an expiation. A person of thirty years of age should wed agirl of ten years of age called a Nagnika.[279] Or, a person of one andtwenty years of age should wed a girl of seven years of age. That girlwho has no brother nor father should not be wed, O chief of Bharata’srace, for she may be intended as Putrika of her sire.[280] After theappearance of puberty, the girl (if not married) should wait for threeyears. On the fourth year, she should look for a husband herself (withoutwaiting any longer for her kinsmen to select one for her). The offspringof such a girl do not lose their respectability, nor does union with sucha girl become disgraceful. If, instead of selecting a husband forherself, she acts otherwise, she incurs the reproach of Prajapatiherself. One should wed that girl who is not a Sapinda of one’s mother orof the same Gotra with one’s father. Even this is the usage (consistentwith the sacred law) which Manu has declared.'[281]

“Yudhishthira said, ‘Desirous of marriage someone actually gives a dowerto the girl’s kinsmen; someone says, the girl’s kinsmen consentingpromises to give a dower; someone says, ‘I shall abduct the girl byforce;’ someone simply displays his wealth (to the girl’s kinsmen,intending to offer a portion thereof as dower for her); someone, again,actually takes the hand of the girl with rites of wedding. I ask thee, Ograndsire, whose wife does the girl actually become? Unto its that aredesirous of knowing the truth, thou art the eye with which to behold.’

“Bhishma said, ‘Whatever acts of men have been approved or settled inconsultation by the wise, are seen to be productive of good. Falsespeech, however, is always sinful.[282] The girl himself that becomeswife, the sons born of her, the Ritwiks and preceptors and disciples andUpadhyayas present at the marriage all become liable to expiation if thegirl bestow her hand upon a person other than he whom she had promised towed. Some are of opinion that no expiation is necessary for such conduct.Manu does not applaud the practice of a girl living with a person whomshe does not like.[283] Living as wife with a person whom she does notlike, leads to disgrace and sin. No one incurs much sin in any of thesecases that follow. In forcibly abducting for marriage a girl that isbestowed upon the abductor by the girl’s kinsmen, with due rites, as alsoa girl for whom dower has been paid and accepted, there is no great sin.Upon the girl’s kinsmen having expressed their consent, Mantras and Homashould be resorted to. Such Mantras truly accomplish their purpose.Mantras and Homa recited and performed in the case of a girl that has notbeen bestowed by her kinsmen, do not accomplish their purpose. Theengagement made by the kinsmen of a girl is, no doubt, binding andsacred. But the engagement that is entered into by the wedder and wedded,with the aid of Mantras, is very much more so (for it is this engagementthat really creates the relationship of husband and wife). According tothe dictates of the scriptures, the husband should regard his wife as anacquisition due to his own acts of a previous life or to what has beenordained by God. One, therefore, incurs no reproach by accepting for wifea girl that had been promised to another by her kinsmen or for whom dowerhad been accepted by them from another.’

“Yudhishthira said, ‘When after the receipt of dower for a girl, thegirl’s sire sees a more eligible person present himself for herhand,–one, that is who is endued with the aggregate of Three injudicious proportions, does the girl’s sire incur reproach by rejectingthe person from whom dower had been received in favour of him that ismore eligible? In such a case either alternative seems to be fraught withfault, for to discard the person to whom the girl has been promised cannever be honourable, while to reject the person that is more eligible cannever be good (considering the solemn obligation there is of bestowingone’s daughter on the most eligible person). I ask, how should the sireconduct himself so that he might be said to do that which is beneficial?To us, of all duties this seems to demand the utmost measure ofdeliberation. We are desirous of ascertaining the truth. Thou, indeed,art our eyes! Do thou explain this to us. I am never satiated withlistening to thee!’

‘Bhishma said, ‘The gift of the dower does not cause the status of wifeto attach to the girl. This is well-known to the person paying it. Hepays it simply as the price of the girl. Then again they that are goodnever bestow their daughters, led by the dowers that others may offer.When the person desirous of wedding happens to be endued with suchqualities as do not go down with the girl’s kinsmen, it is then thatkinsmen demand dower from him. That person, however, who won over byanother’s accomplishments, addresses him, saying, ‘Do thou wed my girl,adorning her with proper ornaments of gold and gems,’–and that personwho complies with this request, cannot be said to demand dower or giveit, for such a transaction is not really a sale. The bestowal of adaughter upon acceptance of what may strictly be regarded as gifts (ofaffection or love) is the eternal practice. In matters of marriage somefathers say, ‘I shall not bestow my daughter upon such and such aperson;’ some say, ‘I shall bestow my daughter upon such a one.’–Someagain say with vehemence, ‘I must bestow my daughter upon such anindividual.’ These declarations do not amount to actual marriage. Peopleare seen to solicit one another for the hands of maidens (and promise andretreat). Till the hand is actually taken with due rites, marriage cannotbe said to take place. It has been beard by us that’ even this was theboon granted to men in days of old by the Maruts in respect ofmaidens[284]. The Rishis have laid the command upon all men that maidensshould never be bestowed upon persons unless the latter happen to be mostfit or eligible. The daughter is the root of desire and of descendants ofthe collateral line. Even this is what I think.[285] The practice hasbeen known to human beings from a long time,–the practice, of sale andpurchase of the daughter. In consequence of such familiarity with thepractice, thou mayst be able, upon careful examination, to findinnumerable faults in it. The gift or acceptance of dower alone could notbe regarded as creating the status of husband and wife. Listen to what Isay on this head.

“Formerly, having defeated all the Magadhas, the Kasis, and the Kosalas,I brought away by force two maidens for Vichitravirya. One of those twomaidens was wedded with due rites. The other maiden was not formallywedded on the ground that she was one for whom dowry had been paid in theform of valour. My uncle of Kuru’s race, viz., king Valhika, said thatthe maiden so brought away and not wedded with due rites should be setfree. That maiden, therefore, was recommended to Vichitravirya for beingmarried by him according to due rites. Doubting my father’s words Irepaired to others for asking their opinion. I thought that my sire wasexceedingly punctilious in matters of morality. I then went to my sirehimself, O king, and addressed him these words from desire of knowingsomething about the practices of righteous people in respect of marriage,’I desire, O sire, to know what in truth the practices are of righteouspeople.’ I repeated the expression of my wish several times, so great wasmy eagerness and curiosity. After I had uttered those words, thatforemost of righteous men, viz., my sire, Valhika answered me, saying,’If in your opinion the status of husband and wife be taken to attach onaccount of the gift and acceptance of dowry and not from the actualtaking of the maiden’s hand with due rites, the father of the maiden (bypermitting his daughter to go away with the giver of the dowry) would sohimself to be the follower of a creed other than that which is derivablefrom the ordinary scriptures. Even this is what the accepted scripturesdeclare. Persons conversant with morality and duty do not allow thattheir words are at all authoritative who say that the status of husbandand wife arises from the gift and acceptance of dowry, and not from theactual taking of the hand with due rites. The saying is well-known thatthe status of husband and wife is created by actual bestowal of thedaughter by the sire (and her acceptance by the husband with due rites).The status of wife cannot attach to maidens through sale and purchase.They who regard such status to be due to sale and the gift of dowry arepersons that are certainly unacquainted with the scriptures. No oneshould bestow his daughter upon such persons. In fact, they are not mento whom one may marry his daughter. A wife should never be purchased. Norshould a father sell his daughter. Only those persons of sinful soul whoare possessed, besides, by cupidity, and who sell and purchase femaleslaves for making serving women, regard the status of wife as capable ofarising from the gift and acceptance of a dowry. On this subject somepeople on one occasion had asked prince Satyavat the following question,’If the giver of a dowry unto the kinsmen of a maiden happens to diebefore marriage, can another person take the hand of that maiden inmarriage? We have doubts on this matter. Do thou remove these doubts ofours, for thou art endued with great wisdom and art honoured by the wise.Be thou the organ of vision unto ourselves that are desirous of learningthe truth.’ Prince Satyavat answered saying, ‘The kinsmen of the maidenshould bestow her upon him whom they consider eligible. There need be noscruples in this. The righteous act in this way without taking note ofthe giver of the dower even if he be alive; while, as regards the giverthat is dead, there is not the slightest doubt. Some say that the virginwife or widow,–one, that is, whose marriage has not been consummatedwith her husband by actual sexual congress in consequence of his absenceor death,–may be allowed to unite herself with her husband’s youngerbrother or such other relation. The husband dying before suchconsummation, the virgin-widow may either surrender herself to herhusband’s younger brother or betake herself to the practice of penances.In the opinion of some, the younger brother of the husband or such otherrelation may thus use the unused wife or widow, though others maintainthat such practice, notwithstanding its prevalence, springs from desireinstead of being a scriptural ordinance. They that say so are clearly ofopinion that the father of a maiden has the right to bestow her upon anyeligible person, disregarding the dowry previously given by another andaccepted by himself. If after the hand of a maiden has been promised allthe initial rites before marriage be performed, the maiden may still bebestowed upon a person other than the one unto whom she had beenpromised. Only the giver incurs the sin of falsehood: so far, however, asthe status of wife is concerned, no injury can occur thereto. The Mantrasin respect of marriage accomplish their object of bringing about theindissoluble union of marriage at the seventh step. The maiden becomesthe wife of him unto whom the gift is actually made with water.[286] Thegift of maidens should be made in the following way. The wise know it forcertain. A superior Brahmana should wed a maiden that is not unwilling,that belongs to a family equal to his own in purity or status, and thatis given away by her brother. Such a girl should be wed in the presenceof fire, with due rites, causing her, amongst other things, tocircumambulate for the usual number of times.”