143
History of Child-Marriage.
By- B. G. Bhandarkar.
In his article on the History of Child-Marriage, published
in Vol. XLVI of this Journal (pp. 413—426) Prof. Jolly discusses
from the historical standpoint the question which agitated Hindu
Society in the beginning of 1891 and was discussed by us in India
from the legal point of view. In the course of his treatment of
the subject he expresses his disagreement with my views on some
of the points sought to be made out by me in my 'Note on the
age of marriage". I deem it necessary in the interests of the
history of the Institution to notice his remarks on those points.
I have read and understood Prof Jolly's article; but as I have
had no practice whatever in speaking and writing German, I beg
the permission of the Editor of this Journal to write my reply
in English.
As to the Smrititexts adduced by Prof. Jolly which prescribe
marriage before puberty and lay down the limits of the age of
the girl between which the ceremony should be solemnized I have
nothing to say. But he takes the text from Manu 9, 89 to be
intended simply for emphasizing the choice of a good bridegroom.
If it were so and the text had no significance whatever as to the
law and usage on the point and it was considered a sin at the
time when the text was written to delay marriage till after puberty,
Manu's language would certainly not be so strong as it is : —
"Better that she should remain unmarried in a state of puberty
till her death than that she should be wedded to an unworthy
husband". Again the force of api in the preceding verse 9, 88
should not be lost sight of "When a good husband is to be had
one should give away the girl eoen {api) if she has not arrived
apräptä [at the condition]'. This shews that usuaUy a girl should
not be given away imless she has arrived [at the condition] , but
this rule may be broken when a good bridegroom is available.
The word apräptä is vague and variously interpreted; but if it is
vague it must be so for the reason that the implied accusative
pointed to an event ordinarily well known There is therefore no
144 Bhandarkar, History of Child-Marriage.
objection in taking tbe implied condition to be that of maturity ;
so that the sense will be that the rule, that a girl should be
married after she becomes mature, may be violated if a good hus¬
band is to be had. Again verse 9, 90 allows of the girl remaining
unmarried for three years after puberty. From all this one would
not I think be far wrong in inferring that at the time when the
Manusamhitä was written, delaying marriage till after puberty
was not considered such a sin as it was afterwards. The direction
to wait for, three years occurs in Vasishtha and Baudhäyana also.
In giving the views of the commentators Prof Jolly assures
us as regards Mandliki's edition and the Mss. of Medhätithi's Manu¬
bhäshya that they are highly untrustworthy and that kanyäyä
na dänam in the sentence from Medhätithi quoted by me (präg
ritoh kanyäyä na dänam) must be a mistake for some such
expression as kanyäyäh jyradänam. Why it should be considered
a mistake, I fail to see. Kanyäyäh pradänam makes no sense
whatever here. Medhätithi is here commenting on verse 9, 89
which I have translated above. His interpretation of ritumatyapi
tishthet is rititdai-sanepi na dadyäd yävad gunavän varo na
präptah , 'she should not be given away , even when she is in a
condition of puberty as long as a good husband has not become
available*. Now this expression "even when', skr. api, presupposes
another condition in which she is certainly not to be given away,
and that is the condition before puberty. Hence prdgritoh kan¬
yäyä na dänam is appropriate ; for the sense is , 'as long as a
worthy bridegroom is not available she should of course be not
given away before puberty, but she should not be given away
even after puberty'. Here "she should be given before puberty
as long as a worthy bridegroom is not available' which is the
translation of Prof Jolly's proposed reading will certainly not
do. In the translation of the passage given by me in my Note
(pag. 3) which is 'A maiden is not to be given [in marriage]
before puberty; and she is not to be given even after puberty as
long as a meritorious bridegroom is not to be had', the semicolon
after 'puberty', which was put in before mature consideration, is
misleading. I have therefore corrected it in p. 25 to a comma and
added a comma after the 'puberty' in the next line, in order to
connect "as long as a meritorious &c." with both the clauses. There is therefore no mistake whatever here; the sentence is appropriate
and Prof Jolly's emendation spoils the sense entirely. It will be
seen from this that Medhätithi interprets Mann 9, 89 not as simply
emphasizing the choice of a good husband which is the sense put
on it by Räghavänanda and accepted by Prof Jolly, but as posi¬
tively enjoining that a girl should not be married before puberty
or after puberty as long as a good husband is not to be had.
Medhätithi therefore is not such an enemy of late marriages as
Prof Jolly supposes. In his comment on 9, 93 he only follows
Bhandarlcar, History of Child-Marriage. 145
Manu and the case they speak of is different from that mentioned
in 9, 89. As to the comment on 9, 88, I will not discuss it on
account of the hopelessly corrupt reading, though I think Medhätithi
there also takes apräptä in the sense of one who has not arrived
at maturity.
The next point I am concerned with is the time of the garbhä¬
dhäna ceremony. That it should be performed on the occasion of
the first course is laid down in a Smriti attributed to Asvaläyana
which however is not the Smriti that is quoted by the authors of
the Nibandhas under that name. In the last the text does not
occur and is quoted by none but Änantadeva. In one manuscript
of Anantadeva's work however it does not occur. Still Prof. Jolly
thinks the injunction contained in it is confirmed by Sankha's
precept garbhasya spashtatäjnäne nishekah parikirtitah and
Vishnu's garbhasya spa^shtatäjnäne nishekakarma. Now even
taking garbha in the sense of ritu, the meaning is "after the clear
observation of ritu the garbhädhäna should be performed". This
prescribes that the ceremony should be perfonned on the occasion
of a course from the fifth to the sixteenth night after the occurrence.
We have got nothing corresponding to the word 'first' here. Nanda¬
pandita quotes in his comment on the latter passage, as the Professor
observes, the passage from Asvaläyana Grihyaparisishta , athartu¬
matyäh präjäpatyam ritau prathame. But this ritau prathame
or 'on the occasion of the first course* refers only to the präjä¬
patyä ceremony which is intended, as remarked by Nandapandita
also, for the consecration of the woman. The garbhädhäna ceremony
is mentioned further on in the Parisishta in the words atha gar-
bhalambhanam ritäv anuküläyäm nisi &c., where the word prathame
does not occur and we have ritau generally. So that we have no
authority ■here for the necessary performance of the ceremony on the
first occasion. Prof Jolly admits that in other Smritis we have the
word ritau generally. But he says that the texts in which it occurs may
refer to the repetition of the ceremony every month. They may, and
they may also simply show that the ceremony should be performed
during the ritukdla (5*— lö"" nights) and not on a later day;
and consequently they involve no implication as to its being gone
through necessarily on the occasion of the first course. Again
some later writers reject the doctrine of the repetition of garbhä-
d/iäna and according to these. Prof Jolly thinks, the time for
its performance is the first course ; and even according to the
others the first of the repeated ceremonies must take place during
the first ritu. The reason given by Prof Jolly for the first state¬
ment is the observation of Nandapandita quoted above. But I
have shown that what the Parisishta directs to be done at the
first ritu is the präjäpatyä and not garbhädhäna. Again, in
this matter what one scholar says ought not to be considered as
ihe view of all. In support of the second statement Prof Jolly
Bd. XLVII. 10
146 Bhandarlcar, History of Child-Marriage.
refers to the doctrine of the sin incurred at each ritu of the
daughter when her marriage is delayed. But this sin is in¬
curred by the father according to the text, and once he gives
his daughter in marriage the provision ceases to be operative on
him, and cannot operate on any other. Its only object is to
compel the father to marry before puberty, and evidently not to
compel the husband to begin intercourse on the first occasion;
and it is just on this account that the text is nowhere quoted in
support of garbhädhäna at the first ritu. If in the Smyitis we have
got the word ritau generaUy, we ought to understand ritu generally
i. e. any ritu and not ritu specificaUy i. e. the first. If however we
discuss the point from the legal and scholastic and not scholarly point
of view, we have to go through all that I have stated in my Note.
And of the fourteen or fifteen Nibandhas and Prayogas that I consulted on the occasion of the controversy, a great many, foUowing the Smritis
prescribe ritu generally for the garbhädhäna ceremony, one states
that the first ritu is better than any other, one that it is allowable
to perform it at the first ritu and one or two only that it should
be performed on the first occasion*). Nandapandita in his work
on the Samskäras does not prescribe the first ritu only as the
proper time, and it is doubtful whether he does so in the passage
referred to by Prof Jolly. He quotes the Parisishta only to show
that the garbhädhäna is intended to consecrate the woman. .\nd
supposing even that he does so, stiU to draw a general conclusion
from what one or two say is not warrantable. So that the first
ritu is not and cannot be compulsory.
Prof Jolly brings in here an argument used by one of
my opponents. The opponent quoting from Madanapäla tatra
garbhädhdnopayuJctatvena prathamartukälo nirüpyate and trans¬
lating it as 'We now explain the time of the first ritu as it is
of use for the garbhädhäna'' sought to make out that Madanapäla
lays down the first ritu as the time of the garbhädhäna; and
stated generally that 'a host of well known authorities begin the
description of the garbhädhäna ceremony" in that way. I pointed
out that the reading praüiamartukälo was absolutely wrong, because
it did not occur in the Mss. I consulted , and the context was
entirely opposed to it. What Madanapäla gives in the section so
introduced is the ritukdla generally i. e. the sixteen nights ; and
nothing special with reference to the first ritu. So that what
according to him is of use for the garbhädhäna is the ritukdla
and not the first ritu. The true reading is prathamam ritukalo
nirüpyate i. e. 'We first explain the ritukdla'^. And as to "the
host of well known authorities' , which he spoke of, I said that
some began the section on garbhädhäna as Madanapäla did by
explaining the ritukdla consisting of the sixteen nights, while others
*) See my Note pp. 32, 33, 48, 49.
Bhandarkar, History of Child-Marriage. 147
did so by giving the good and evil conjunction of stars on the
occasion of the first occurence of the physical event and the paci¬
ficatory ceremonies if it took place in an evil conjuncture. His
quotation was not atha garbhddhdnam, tatra prathamarajodardane
as Prof Jolly takes it. The argument of the opponent based as
it was on the misreading prathamartukälo will thus be seen to
have no bearing whatever on the question whether the garbhädhäna
must be performed on the occasion of the first ritu or course.
Still Prof Jolly takes it up without showing the connection, without
giving any reason, and without even knowing what his quotation
was. The quotation however attributed to my opponent Prof. Jolly
brings forward from the Nirnayasindhu. But what is the connection?
Does the mere occurrence of the expression tatra praihamarajo-
darsane without context , without connection , show that the gar¬
bhädhäna must be performed on the first occasion? What we
have in the Nirnayasindhu is this: — taträdau samskäreshu gar-
bhädkänam : tatra prathamarajodardane dushta-mäsa-graharia-
sarnkramädiphalarn tatra däntyädi ca Pitrikrita - Bhattakrita
prayogaratne jfieyam : "Among samskäras we have first garbhä¬
dhäna. The effect of the first appearance of the physical pheno¬
menon in an inauspicious month, and on the occasion of an eclipse
or the sun's transit and the pacificatory ceremonies consequent on
that should be known from the Prayogaratna composed by my
father and the Bhatta i. e. Näräyanabhatta". Now Kamaläkara
here speaks of the evil affects of the first appearance of the physical
phenomenon at an inauspicious juncture and of the pacificatory
ceremonies in consequence of it. What possible bearing can the
words "first appearance" have on the question whether the gar¬
bhädhäna should be performed on the occasion of the first appea¬
rance? Yet Prof Jolly thinks that the expression does support
the view that it should be performed on that occasion. As a
matter of fact the säntis on account of the first occurrence at an
inauspicious juncture are independent ceremonies independently per¬
formed and are omitted when the juncture is not inauspicious.
And what the Smritis and the authors of the Nibandhas and
Prayogas say is confirmed by the actual practice. Garbhädhäna
is unknown in Gujarat and some other parts of India. Prof. Jolly
is misinformed when he says that it is regularly performed in the
whole of Bengal. In a pamphlet published in the course of
the controversy, Mr. Mohinimohan Chatterji M. A. B. L. says, "but
it is a matter of public notoriety that the highest class among
the Brahmans of Bengal — the Kulins — disregard the obligation (of
performing garbhädhäna) every day without incurring any social
penalty". Another writer says, "We find that the ceremony is not
performed by the great majority of the Hindus of India. In half
of Bengal it is unknown". But in Mahäräshtra it is generally per¬
formed; but nobody considers it obligatory to perform it on the
148 Bhandarkar, History of Child-Marriage.
first occasion and often, especially when the girl's health is not
good or the husband a mere boy, it is delayed for a year or longer
after the first appearance of the physical phenomenon , and no
prdyadchitta or atonement is done for the delay. Thus we practi¬
cally act as if the Smritis and the Nibandhas which have the
expression rüau generally mean by it any ritu that suits our
convenience. In the face of this to say that they all mean to
prescribe the first ritti as obligatory is hazardous. And there is
an inherent improbability in the circumstance that the authors of
the older Smritis should mean this when we find, as is acknowledged
by Prof Jolly, that Vätsyäyana the author of the Kämasütra speaks
of late marriages, and the medical authorities includmg Vägbhata
prohibit intercourse till the girl is sixteen years old. The Smritis
when they give new rules i. e. rules inconsistent with those laid
down in older books must be supposed to have an eye at or to
sanctify the prevailing usage or opinion, and if Vätsyäyana, the
medical authorities, and even poets represent the prevailing opinion
to be unfavourable to early intercourse though not quite to early
marriage, we must suppose the older Smriti writers to represent
or sanction the same opinion.
The last point I shall notice is about the age of marriage in¬
dicated in the Gfihya Sütras. Prof Jolly says: "Although the
Gfihya literature has the rule about nagnikä in common with
the Smritis, still distinct indications that the ceremonies of viväha
have reference rather to a grown up bride are not wanting". One
of these indications and the rules concerning it noticed by me in
my Note are not appropriate , he says , in the case of a nagnikä.
Now if the marriage ceremonies have reference to a grown up
bride, how is it possible that the Grihya literature in which those
ceremonies are given should lay down the rule about the marriage
of a girl when she is nagnikä or immature ? He says : 'In those
few passages in the Grihyasütras which have reference to the age
of marriage, a nagnikä only is spoken of". Here too Prof Jolly
seems to have generalized the statement in some of the Sütras
and made it applicable to all, just as he has generalized that about
the performance of the garbhädhäna at the first ritu. But in
the case of those Sütras which give the ceremonies that befit
grown up girls only and are silent as regards the age, ought not
one to suppose that they mean that grown up girls only should
be married, and that their silence is due to the fact that there
was in their time no question about marrying immature girls?
The marriage of grown up girls was the prevailing custom and
therefore it was not neccessary to say anything about the mature
or immature age of the girls. But let us examine the sütras in
which the marriage of a nagnikä is enjoined. Gobhila (3, 4) has
nagnikä tu sreshthä, which means "but a nagnikä is the best".
The word tu "but" shows a quaUfication of the previous statement 1 *
Bhandarlcar, History of Child-Marriage. 149
which is "He should after being permitted marry a wife, who is
not of the same gotra with him and is not a kinswoman of his
mother". The previous statement is general having reference to
both, a grown up and an immature girl ; but this qualifies it and is
to the effect that "an immature girl is the best". Prof Jolly thinks
the original reading was nagnikäms ta dreshthän and observes
that the object of the sütra is not to recommend nagnikä as "the
best" but to direct that he should marry a nagnikä and the best.
Even supposing the reading was as he takes it, the only difference
is that we have an accusative in the place of a nominative; and
consequently instead of our having an independent statement, we
have to bring on kurvUa and därän from sütra 3, a process known
to grammarians by the name of anuvritti. Bnt the sense is exactly
the same, and the process of anuvritti does not and cannot deprive
tu of its sense of "but" and confer upon it the sense of "and".
When there is anuvritti of the two words, the sentence means,
'but he should marry a nagnikä as the best". The word tu is
fatal to Prof Jolly's interpretation. Besides he seems to connect
the words äreshthän vdth därän taking it away from nagnikän,
as if it had no connection with it, and to understand the whole
to mean 'he should marry a wife who is the best and nagnikä''.
But what is the propriety of the comparison involved in the word
Sreshtha? 'A wife who is the best". The best of whom? Of
womankind generally? If so, the comparison is purposeless, unless
Gobhila were a poet; 'a good woman" would have quite served
the purpose. But when you say "but marry a nagnikä as the
best", i. e. when the word dreshfha is connected with nagnikä,
the "but" shows this — you have told a man before to marry one
of several kinds of women , and now you correct your precept and
say "not one of several kinds but one of the nagnikä kind as
the best of all those". Here the word dreshfha as involving com¬
parison is proper. So that it appears to me that the plain, direct,
and appropriate sense of the sütra is "he should marry a nagnikä as the best" or "a nagnikä is the best'. And hence Gobhila does
not prohibit marriage with a grown up girl but recommends an
immature one as the best; i. e. he first goes on in the same
manner as the authors of other sütras, mentioning no age and
thus leaving the old custom of marrying grown up girls undisturbed,
but afterwards adds something new, viz. that it is best to marry
an immature girl. Here he does iu effect what he does more
formally in his precepts about intercourse after marriage i. e. give
the views of others first and afterwards his own, with the difference
however that in the latter case he teaches his own doctrine in
supersession of that of others, while in the other, he does not
supersede the other doctrine but recommends his own as the best.
It thus appears to me that Gobhila wrote his Sütra when the old
custom of marrying grown up girls was falling into disrepute but
150 Bhandarkar, History of Child-Marriage.
had not become obsolete, and the new one of marrying immature
girls which we find generally prevalent in the times of the metrical
Smritis was coming in.
The next passage to be examined is that in the Gribyasam¬
graha of Gobhilaputra in which he directs the marriage of
anagnikä or a grown up girl {tdm prayacchet tvanagnikäm II. 17).
Prof. Jolly conjectures that the true reading here must be tdm
prayacchet tu nagnikäm "he should give a nagnikä in marriage" ;
i. e. changes anagnikä to nagnikä. And one of the two reasons
he gives is that thus only can the passage be rendered consistent
with II. 20 in which the author directs the giving away in
marriage of an immature girl ; and the other is that in this way
the inconsistency between the teaching of the father and of the
son is removed. Now this last inconsistency is due to Prof Jolly's
having neglected the sense of tu in Gobhila's nagnikä tu dre.shthä
and deprived ireshthä of its comparative sense, as we have seen;
and now to explain away the inconsistency thus created, he pro¬
poses to change the reading of the son's text. The first inconsistency
also is due to Prof Jolly's having changed the kanyakärn tu
pradasyate to dadyäd duhitaram pitä and in my opinion does not
exist. In II. 20 Gobhilaputra does not command the giving away
of an immature girl, but simply says it is to be commended
(kanyakäm tu prasasyate), and in II. 17 he gives the general rule
that a grown up girl should be given in marriage. There is thus
no inconsistency between the two texts, and it will be seen that
this is what the father says also. Por we have seen that Gobhila
in nagnikä tu ireshthä only says that the best course is to marry
an immature girl, and the implication in the three preceding sütras
is that a grown up girl should be married according to custom,
since the marriage-ceremonies are such as to befit a grown up
girl only. The son by his II. 17 only develops what is involved
in the fathers sütras. Thus then there is no inconsistency any¬
where ; Gobhilaputra must be regarded as enjoining the marriage
of a grown up girl, though according to him as to his alleged father,
an immature girl is to be preferred. Now kanyakäm tu pra-
dasyate violates the rules of grammar and makes no sense. It is
on that account that Prof JoUy instead of that reading adopts
that which he finds in his old Nepalese Ms. of the Närada smriti
where also this text occurs; and that is dadyad duhitaram pita.
Now if this sloka is found elsewhere it must be common property;
it must be one of those floating texts or verses of which we have
so many in Sanskrit but the original authorship of which is
unknown and which are appropriated by any writer. It is quite
possible that Gobhilaputra in appropiating it for himself, meant to
change the reading so as to bring out the sense that such a girl
is to be commended. Hence we have pradasyate in the text as
we find it in his book. Now the accusative must be changed to
Bhandarkar, History of Child-Marriage. 151
the nominative and we ought to have kanyakä tu prasasyate.
Probably it was so changed and somebody afterwards knowing
what the words in other books were restored the original without
looking to the grammar. Or Gobhilaputra means this to be a
quotation up to the word kanyakäm, and then without completing
the verse by giving the remaining words, puts in his own to
express that what is stated in the verse so quoted is commendable.
Such a supposition, howsoever unusual it may appear, is not im¬
probable in the varied fate to which our old literature bas been
subject. At any rate this supposition or any other that will meet
the case is better than that we should reject the reading of a
whole päda, and with it the peculiar sense "is commendable" in¬
tended to be conveyed, and adopt that found in another book and
having a different sense, and to remove the inconsistency thus
caused between II. 20 and II. 17, change the negative anagnikä
into the positive nagnikä. This is a very responsible proceeding
and no scholar ought to resort to it unless there is the clearest
evidence for it and no other recourse is to be had. I must here
enter my humble protest in the interests of true scholarship against
the practice which has recently come into vogue of changing
the readings of original texts in a lighthearted manner. Such
changes only are allowable as at once fully satisfy one's sense of
propriety and admit of explanation on the natural or historical
processes of transition from one form to another.
The third passage to be discussed is that in Hiranyakesin's
Gri. S. which is bhäryäm upayacchet sajätänagnikärn brahma¬
cärinim. Another reading which is found in three of the six Mss.
collated by Dr. Kirste for his edition is sajätäm nagnikäm. This
Prof Jolly accepts as the correct reading; while I accepted in
my Note the first. My grounds are that it is the reading of three
of Dr. Kirste's Mss.; and now it appears it is the reading of a
Grantha Ms. also which he bas got since. It is the reading of
two more Mss. consulted by me here in Poona, and it is the
reading of the Poona Hiranyakesin Brahmans, that is to say,
those who as a religious duty have got the whole of the Taittiriya
Samhita and Brähmana and Hiranyakesin's Sütra by heart, repeat
this particular sütra with sajätänagnikä as the reading. Again
I have stated that this is the correct reading, because, we have
in the sütra the epithet brahmacärinim; and as a nagnikä or
immature girl is necessarily a brahmacärini , it is not necessary
to add this condition; and since it is added, a nagnikä must be
the correct reading. As to this Prof Jolly has in the first place
got Prof. Kirste to give his reasons for choosing sajätdrn nagni¬
käm. Prof Kirste says he was guided by the analogy of the
following sütra from Mänavagri. bandhumatirn kanyäm asamsrish¬
tamaithunäm upayacchet samänavarnäm asamänapravaräni ya-
viyasim nagnikäm dreshthäm. That analogy "speaks for the
1 4 «
152 Bhandarlcar, Hütory of Chüd- Marriage.
Separation of sajätäm and nagnikäm and allows no scope for the
choice of a maiden not naked any longer". His remaining reason
is that it is the reading of Mätridatta. As to this I have to
observe that because you have got nagnikä in another book with
certain epithets, therefore you must have nagnikä in this book
also containing as it does similar epithets ; and because you are
told to marry a nagnikä there, therefore you are told to marry
a nagnikä here also, is no good reasoning. If we follow reasoning
of this nature we shall have to give up all idea of a historical
development. And as against the evidence of so many Mss. and
of the Veda-repeating Brahmans of Poona, and the impropriety
of the use of the epithet brahmacärinim , this reasoning has no
value whatever. As to Mätridatta, I have already said in my
Note that he gives the sense that the context requires, but had
a bad reading before him. Prof JoUy also adopts Prof Kirste's
reasoning against all evidence to the contrary when he says "the
above passages speak decidedly for the latter reading' {sajutdm
nagnikäm), and adds "especially as the epithet asarnsrishtamai-
thunäm in Mänavagrihya stands by the side of nagnikä as brah-
macdririim does in Hiranyakesin' ; — that is , Prof Jolly accounts
for one impropriety by bringing forward another of the like nature.
But two improprieties cannot constitute one propriety; both are
improprieties and must be removed in both the places. And I
cannot here refrain from expressing my surprise that while Prof.
Jolly would alter na dänam to pradänam and anagnikä to
nagnikä i. e. turn the negative into positive, and make such other
changes in the readings of texts without any authority from Mss.,
to remove fancied improprieties , he should not accept a reading
occurring in good Mss. and in the mouths of Vaidika Brahmans
to remove an impropriety admitted to be so by himself But the
impropriety in Hiranyakesin is removed by adopting the reading
sajätänagnikä ; and the way to remove it in the Mänavagrihya
is as follows : — The passage quoted as one sütra must be divided
into three or at least two sütras. The first ends with upayacchet
or yaviyasim and means: 'He should marry a virgin who has
brothers and has had no intercourse with a man, who is of the
same caste but of different pravaras and is younger". Here what
the author requires is that she should not have had intercourse
with a man, which implies its possibility i. e. her being a
grown up girl; so that his command hei'e is that he should
marry a grown up girl. The next sütra is nagnikäm s'reshihäm
in which he adds that "one should marry a nagnikä as the
best". In this sütra anuvritti should be made of the verb
upayacchet. Now the impropriety disappears; asamsrishtamai¬
thunäm is not an adjective of nagnikäm but of kanyäm , and
this result we arrive at simply by a division of the sütra different
from that which has been made in Prof. Jolly's quotation by
1 4 *
Bhandarlcar, History of Child-Marriage. 153
somebody whom I do not know; and not by violent changes of
reading. And this division of mine bears a close analogy to the
sutras of GobhUa discussed above, the last of which is nagnikä
tu sreshthä; only we have not got tu here, but simply the super¬
lative degree of comparison. The evidence of analogy having thus
diasappeared , there is no question that sajätänagnikä is the true
reading in Hiranyakesin. And the transition of this expression to
sajiUam nagnikäm is a matter that admits of an easy explanation,
since it is a question of the addition of a mere dot, and since
later readers of the sütra among whom child-marriages only pre¬
vailed would consider the dot as proper. Thus then Hiranyakesin
requires one to marry a grovra up girl expressly as probably in
his time the practice of child-marriages was coming into vogue,
because he is going to prescribe intercourse on the fourth night.
Apastamba and the rest go upon the supposition of the bride
being a grown up girl, as they enjoin intercourse after marriage ;
and it was not necessary to name anagnikä then, because chUd-
marriages were not thought of or were rare when they wrote.
Prof Jolly's change of rätd to räkä in Apastamba is of a piece
with his other changes ; and the sense of rdtä given- by the
commentator (ratidild) shows that that author also contemplates
a grown up girl.
I have said enough to show the nature of the evidence brought
forward and of the arguments used by Prof Jolly to prove that
the Smritis contain nothing that is favourable to late marriages,
that the garbhädhäna ceremony should be performed on the
occasion of the first appearance of signs of puberty, and that the
nagnikä rule is common to the Sütra literature with the Smritis.
My own view as regards the history of child-marriages as gathered
from the religious literature beginning with the Grihyasütras is,
it vfiU have been seen from the foregoing pages, this: — In the
time of Asvaläyana and many other authors of Gfihyasütras mar¬
riages after puberty were a matter of course, the evidence being
the nature of the ceremonies prescribed and their silence about
the age of the bride. In the time of Hiranyakesin child-marriages
were coming into practice, and therefore he teUs his followers that
they are absurd since the ceremonies require the bride to be in
a condition of maturity. When Gobhila and the author of the
Mänavagrihya flourished, late marriages were falling into disrepute
though they were in practice, and hence they lay down marriage
before puberty as the best course. When the Smritis of Manu
sind Baudhäyana were written, child-marriages were in frdl vogue
but late marriages were not rare. And in the time of the authors
of the later Smfitis the custom of late marriage became entirely
obsolete as it is at the present day. StUl however it was not
the custom when the latter flourished to begin intercourse neces¬
sarily on the first appearance of signs of puberty as it is not
154 Bhandarkar, History of Child Marriage.
now. It was entirely optional, some people following the practice,
others not. I ^would therefore arrange these authors chronologi¬
cally thus: 1. Aävaläyana and others; 2. Hiranyakesin; 3. Gobhila,
Gobhilaputra and the author of the Mänavagrihya; 4. Manusam¬
hitä, Vasishtha, Baudhäyana; 5. the rest.
Note I.
Since I wrote and despatched my article on Prof Jolly's
paper I met K. Rangächärya the Panditaratna in the service of
the Mahäräja of Mysor, who is one of those employed to form a
library for the Mahäräja , and had conversation with him on this
as on many other subjects. He told me tbat he had seen a passage
in the Jaiminigrihyasutra in which marriage with an anagnikä
was enjoined and that the commentator had taken that as the
correct reading. I told him to send me a copy of the passage
after his return to Mysor; and this he has done. The passage is
as follows: —
No. 7 of the Mahäräja's Library — Jaiminigrihyasutra with
a commentary entitled Subodhini.
Fol. 7. — WTfU f^T^TTf^Tlit ^mwnfV^TR.
'arr» — . . . . '^Rfnrat *ir<*i«<«ftr ^r^rai
^w. ^fK^ynfTf <re[^iWTfl[ ....
Trans. — S. He should marry a wife of the same caste with
himself who is not a nagnikä.
Com. "Not a nagnikd'^ i. e. of that age at which through bash-
fulness she wears a piece of cloth of her own accord.
Now I think this text will amply corroborate tbe arguments
which I contend are in themselves conclusive for regarding sajä¬
tänagnikä as the true reading of Hiranyakesin. It will show
that the nagnikä rule is certainly not common to the Sütras
with the Smritis as is laid down so positively by Prof Jolly,
and when taken in conjunction with Hiranyakesin's precept, it will
indicate the existence of a condition of society in which its religious
leaders found it necessary to direct their followers expressly not
to marry little undeveloped girls ; while there was another when
the leaders did not find it necessary to do so, as nobody did it
against the spirit of the ceremonies which required that the bride
should be a grown up woman. And all this will necessitate our
giving to tbe words sreshthä and tu in Gobhila, lireshthäm in the
Mänavagrihya, and praiasyate in Gobhilaputra their proper legitimate
sense which the Professor has entirely neglected, and to infer the
existence of a third condition of society in which the religious
leaders recommended, not enjoined, marriage with an undeveloped
girl. These three conditions might be synchronous if we supposed
Bhandarlcar, History of Child-Marriage. 155
the countries in which the legislators lived were different and far
distant from each other, or the sects for which tliey legislated
were unamenable to each others influence; while they will have to
be regarded as existing at different periods of time if we do not
make these suppositions. This last view is the only one that is
reasonable. And thus the Grihyasutras, when properly understood
and compared with each other, place before us vividly the different
stages by which late marriages fall into disrepute and present to
our view the new custom of early marriages in the very process,
as it were, of formation. In early times girls were married only
when they were fully developed; but after some time marriage be¬
fore puberty began to find favour. Still the feeling against it was
strong; and hence Hiranyakesin and Jaimini expressly prohibit it.
But the downward movement gradually became more powerful;
and we find the authors of some Grihyasütras recommending Child-
marriage as the best course. But they do not prohibit late mar¬
riage. That was reserved for the metrical Smritis to do. But
eveu among these we may discover different stages. Manu's attitude
towards late marriages is not so decidedly hostile as that of some
later writers. He allows girls to remain unmarried till the age
of 12, or for three years after puberty if not given away till
then, and permits marriage being deferred if a good bridegroom
is not to be had. And in all tbis, we find, it will be seen, fresh
evidence for the view that all metrical Smritis are later than the
Grihyasütras. This, I humbly contend is the way to arrive at
the true social history of past times, and not by resorting to
objectionable processes and reducing all texts to a dull uniformity
so as to bring out one sense only which no Grihya text hitherto
discovered can bear viz. a positive and unconditional command
to many a nagnikä or an undeveloped girl. This procedure of
making all Gfihyas and all Smritis tell the same tale forcibly re¬
minds me of the eJcaväkyatd of the Pandits who in all cases make
the texts of the Vedas, the Sütras, the Smritis, and the Puränas
mean the same thing viz. that which is in keeping with the custom
of the day. If it is not the mission of European and especially
German critical scholarship to check this spirit of elcaväkyatä,
I have greatly misunderstood it.
Note II.
When in December 1892 I wrote the above article, I had
no idea that I had two Mss. of the Mänavagrihya close to my
writing table. The title they bear on the wrapper is Maiträyaniya-
grihyasütra. They form Kos. 94 and 95 of our collection of
1880—81. Now the sütras which are joined into one in Prof.
Jolly's quotation are thus given in No. 95: f'T^^ «fwnft
156 Bhandarkar, Hütory of Child-Marriage.
wr I 4<<^g^^MI I *<M<<^fl I WPr^ I *44<*<1»IH^<>1-
'O^IRR' 1 afM^t^Bt I No. 94 joins the second and third of
these into one, and after *i«n»iq<ji has no stop in about three
lines. Thus it is perfectly evident that ■*i«Ma*l«i»nn, is an adjective
of occurring in the first sutra, or ^««ll*!, understood, if
that sütra is to be independently interpreted as the verb Hi^^nj
would show, and the sense is complete with ^as^j-^rt ; while iIm-
is an independent sütra. The author thus does not
bring together two inconsistent conditions, viz. that she should be
an undeveloped or immature girl, and that she should at the same
time have had no intercourse with a man; but lays down that
one should marry a girl (fully developed) who has had no inter¬
course; but it is best to marry an undeveloped girl.
157
Zum Namen der syrischen Bibelübersetzung Peschitta.
Von Eberhard Nestle.
In der Einleitung in das Alte Testament . . . von Eduard
König (Bonn, 1893) lese ich S. 119 f. zum Namen der syrischen
Bibelübersetzung :
,Hier lassen sich einige sprachliche Vorbemerkungen zur Ver¬
ständigung nicht umgehen. Auszusprechen ist Pesch[ittä] wahr¬
scheinlich mit Doppel-f; denn es giebt meines Wissens
keine Beispiele (auch Nöldeke, Syr. Gramm. 1880, § 26 er¬
wähnt keins) , in denen der stärkere emphatische Laut
t beim Zusammentreffen mit t ebenso verklungen wäre,
wie das t, wenn es mit anderem t, oder wie das schwächere d,
wenn es mit t zusammenstiess. Ohne sicheren Grund hat also
Buhl [Kanon und Text des A. T. 1891] S. 186 die Aussprache
mit verschlucktem t als die absolut gewisse hingestellt.'
Ich nehme dabei an, dass Buhl wirklich das meinte, was man
bei ihm liest:
,gespr. p"ktä ohne t; mit deutschem Artikel : die p°sitä [sie]',
(nach der letzteren Form könnte man auch meinen, dass er drucken
wollte „gespr. p'Sltä ohne t');
ich kann nun aber nicht verstehen, warum König Buhl's Angabe
bezweifelt, noch weniger wie er zu seiuer Bemerkung über Nöldeke
kommt, welch letzterer in dem angezogenen § doch ausdrück¬
Uch schreibt:
„Ein ^ [t] j [d] fällt vor dem L [t] eines Suffixes
weg in Fällen wie lK. \.-s\ 'abbitä (oder'abbitta?, westsyrisch
" * " s>
wohl 'abbitö) „dichte'; j K ^ . » oi „einfache"; ^fc^^^jt „verachtet', jj^^jS. „verfluchtest"; v.O)ü.^^Ajl/ »gabst ihm Gewalt".
Also fünf Beispiele bei Nöldeke statt „keines" ! Und das letzte
derselben wird ganz ebenso schon von Bar-Hebräus angeführt, der
in seiner grössern Grammatik (bei Martin I, 197 f.) die Regel
folgendermassen formulirt :
