Slike stranica
PDF
ePub

these arts.

support herself, even in a foreign country, by skill in In a word, every one is the better for possessing accomplishments.

Chapter iv. describes the life of an Indian, which appears to have been anything but monotonous and dull. Having acquired learning, the young man should set up housekeeping with the wealth that he may have gained by gift (if a Brahman), by conquest (if a Kṣatriya), or by purchase or deposit (if a Vaiçya), or by inheritance from his ancestors. The house should be spacious, convenient, and well furnished with various articles, e.g. a 'toy-cart.' The day should be spent in enjoying, in the company of dependent friends, parasites and buffoons,' various amusements, such as cock-fighting, ram-fighting, and the like; and (occasionally) in holding musical festivals in honour of different Deities, in social gatherings of both sexes, in drinking-parties, in picnics, and in other social diversions. After various observations we have the following:-'A citizen discoursing not entirely in the Sanscrit language, nor wholly in the dialects of the country, on various topics in society, obtains great respect. The wise should not resort to a society dis

I have thus roughly translated the three terms used here, pitamardha, vită, and vidūşaka. These are well-known characters in the drama. Wilson states that the first of them is the friend and confidant of the hero, and sometimes the hero of a secondary action interwoven with the principal. The vita is generally represented as being on familiar and easy, and yet dependent, terms with some prince or courtesan, and seems to differ from the parasite in that he is never rendered contemptible. He is always accomplished in the sixty-four sciences of kāma. The vidūṣaka is the humble companion, not the servant, of a man of rank, and though a buffoon like Sancho Panza, curiously enough is always a Bralıman. Thus Maitreya (see above, p. 67) is the vidūşaka in the Mricchakaṭikā.

liked by the public, governed by no rules, and intent on the destruction of others. But a learned man, living in a society which acts according to the wishes of the people, and which has pleasure for its only object, is highly respected in this world.'

The fifth chapter teaches what kinds of women may be enjoyed without sin by men of the four classes. In the first instance, kama should be practised according to the çastras (i.e. in marriage) with a virgin of one's own caste, for the purpose of acquiring progeny and good fame. Commerce with a woman of a higher caste, or with one of one's own caste who has been enjoyed by another, is prohibited. But to take pleasure with (1) women of the lower castes, (2) with outcasted women, (3) with public women, and (4) with twice-married women, is neither enjoined nor prohibited. Properly speaking, Nayikās,' or women to be enjoyed without sin, are (1) maids, i.e. in marriage, (2) women twice-married (see below, p. 143), and (3) public women.

But, in addition to these classes, who are enjoyed for pleasure's sake, Gonikaputra thinks, and our author agrees, that a fourth class may be resorted to, even though married, 'on some special occasion.' The special occasions set forth are thirteen in number. For these and similar other reasons the wives of

1 In the drama (see Wilson's Theatre of the Hindus) the Nāyikā is the heroine; and where the play is one of pure fiction, usually is a princess or a courtesan, as in the Mricchakotikā. And women are distinguished, as in the Kāma-sūtra, as being Svakiyā (the man's own wife), or Parakiya (the wife of another), or Samanya (independent). The Parakiyā is never to be made the object of a dramatic intrigue.

other men may be resorted to, but it must be distinctly understood that it is only allowed for special reasons, and not for mere carnal desire.' Other writers add more Nayikās, but Vatsyayana disapproves.

Certain women are not to be enjoyed, as lepers, lunatics, outcasted women, and others, and the wife of a relation, of a friend, of a learned Brahman, and of the King. Various opinions about adultery are then given, including that of Charayana, that' citizens form friendships with washermen, barbers, cowherds, florists, druggists, betel-leaf sellers, tavern-keepers, beggars, Pitamardhas, Vitas, and Vidūsakas, as also with the wives of all these people.' (Compare Manu VIII. 362, 363.)

Part II., on sexual union, consists wholly of minute technical details, upon which comment of any kind is impossible.

Parts III. and IV. show how a wife is to be wooed and won, and how a wife should behave. First, as to the choosing of a wife, it is remarkable that the parents of the young man are not represented as being necessarily concerned in this matter, but he should fix his affections upon a girl who is of good family, whose parents are alive, and who is three years or more younger than himself. She should be born of a highly respectable family, possessed of wealth, well connected, and with many relations and friends. She should also be beautiful, of a good disposition, with lucky marks on her body, with good hair, nails, tecth, ears, eyes, and breasts, neither more

nor less than they ought to be, and no one of them entirely wanting, and not troubled with a sickly body.' Above all she should be a virgin: to marry one who is not such would be blameworthy. And the girl should be the man's equal in rank; neither higher nor lower.

Elaborate directions about wooing follow. And it is distinctly declared that a young fellow will do well, although under the control of his father, mother, or brothers, in endeavouring 'to gain over a girl from her childhood to love and esteem him.' Thus, a boy separated from his parents, and living with his uncle, 'should try to gain over his uncle's daughter, or some other girl, even though she be previously betrothed to another.' And by his doing so dharma will be accomplished, as well as by any other way of marriage. A girl, too, should choose for herself, and marry the man that she likes, as a marriage for love is more likely to ensure happiness than one of convenience arranged by parents.

If possible, the girl (betrothed to another) should be got to consent to a runaway or secret marriage, to be performed in due course by a Brahman Fleetparson. If this cannot be done, the young man must marry the object of his affections in any one of six described ways, of which 'the one that precedes is better than the one that follows it, on account of its being more in accordance with the commands of religion, and therefore it is only when it is impossible to carry the former into practice that the latter should be resorted to.' The first three of these modes are modes of deceit, and (comparatively) unobjectionable;

the fourth is by intoxicating and ravishing; the fifth by abduction during sleep and ravishing; the sixth by overpowering guards and forcibly abducting.

These six forms may profitably be compared with the disapproved forms in Manu III., on which they throw very considerable light, inasmuch as it is quite clear that in each of them the one object is marriage, which cannot otherwise be accomplished; and the girl is supposed to have been fairly wooed and won, though she may be unwilling to incur the risk of offending her family by throwing over the man to whom she is betrothed. The secret marriage seems to correspond to the Gandharva marriage of Manu, whilst in the fourth and sixth we have obviously the Paiçāka and Rākṣasa forms respectively, of which the former is held by Manu to be 'the most sinful of unions.'

As I understand Vatsyayana, however, all the six forms, together with the mere secret marriage, are considered by him to be Gandharva, with regard to which he quotes laudatory verses: As the fruit of all good marriages is love, the Gandharva form of marriage is respected, even though it is formed under unfavourable circumstances, because it fulfils the object sought for. Another cause of the respect accorded to the Gandharva form of marriage is, that it brings forth happiness, causes less trouble in its performance than the other forms of marriage, and is above all the result of previous love.'1

It is amusing to compare the opinion of Vatsyayana with Mr. Mayne's sentiments thus expressed in § 79 of his Hindu Law: The

« PrethodnaNastavi »