"'Yudhishthira said, "Desirous of marriage someone actually gives a dower to the girl's kinsmen; someone says, the girl's kinsmen consenting promises to give a dower; someone says, 'I shall abduct the girl by force;' 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, O grandsire, whose wife does the girl actually become? Unto its that are desirous of knowing the truth, thou art the eye with which to behold."
"'Bhishma said, "Whatever acts of men have been approved or settled in consultation by the wise, are seen to be productive of good. False speech, however, is always sinful.[282] The girl herself that becomes wife, the sons born of her, the Ritwiks and preceptors and disciples and Upadhyayas present at the marriage all become liable to expiation if the girl bestow her hand upon a person other than he whom she had promised to wed. 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 whom she does not like.[283] Living as wife with a person whom she does not like, leads to disgrace and sin. No one incurs much sin in any of these cases that follow. In forcibly abducting for marriage a girl that is bestowed upon the abductor by the girl's kinsmen, with due rites, as also a 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 Homa should be resorted to. Such Mantras truly accomplish their purpose. Mantras and Homa recited and performed in the case of a girl that has not been bestowed by her kinsmen, do not accomplish their purpose. The engagement made by the kinsmen of a girl is, no doubt, binding and sacred. 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 engagement that really creates the relationship of husband and wife). According to the dictates of the scriptures, the husband should regard his wife as an acquisition due to his own acts of a previous life or to what has been ordained by God. One, therefore, incurs no reproach by accepting for wife a girl that had been promised to another by her kinsmen or for whom dower had been accepted by them from another."
"'Yudhishthira said, "When after the receipt of dower for a girl, the girl's sire sees a more eligible person present himself for her hand,--one, that is who is endued with the aggregate of Three in judicious proportions, does the girl's sire incur reproach by rejecting the person from whom dower had been received in favour of him that is more eligible? In such a case either alternative seems to be fraught with fault, for to discard the person to whom the girl has been promised can never be honourable, while to reject the person that is more eligible can never be good (considering the solemn obligation there is of bestowing one's daughter on the most eligible person). I ask, how should the sire conduct 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 of deliberation. We are desirous of ascertaining the truth. Thou, indeed, art our eyes! Do thou explain this to us. I am never satiated with listening to thee!"
"'Bhishma said, "The gift of the dower does not cause the status of wife to attach to the girl. This is well-known to the person paying it. He pays it simply as the price of the girl. Then again they that are good never bestow their daughters, led by the dowers that others may offer. When the person desirous of wedding happens to be endued with such qualities as do not go down with the girl's kinsmen, it is then that kinsmen demand dower from him. That person, however, who won over by another's accomplishments, addresses him, saying, 'Do thou wed my girl, adorning her with proper ornaments of gold and gems,'--and that person who complies with this request, cannot be said to demand dower or give it, for such a transaction is not really a sale. The bestowal of a daughter upon acceptance of what may strictly be regarded as gifts (of affection or love) is the eternal practice. In matters of marriage some fathers say, 'I shall not bestow my daughter upon such and such a person;' some say, 'I shall bestow my daughter upon such a one.'--Some again say with vehemence, 'I must bestow my daughter upon such an individual.' These declarations do not amount to actual marriage. People are seen to solicit one another for the hands of maidens (and promise and retreat). Till the hand is actually taken with due rites, marriage cannot be said to take place. It has been heard by us that even this was the boon granted to men in days of old by the Maruts in respect of maidens[284]. The Rishis have laid the command upon all men that maidens should never be bestowed upon persons unless the latter happen to be most fit or eligible. The daughter is the root of desire and of descendants of the collateral line. Even this is what I think.[285] The practice has been known to human beings from a long time,--the practice, of sale and purchase of the daughter. In consequence of such familiarity with the practice, thou mayst be able, upon careful examination, to find innumerable faults in it. The gift or acceptance of dower alone could not be regarded as creating the status of husband and wife. Listen to what I say 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 two maidens was wedded with due rites. The other maiden was not formally wedded on the ground that she was one for whom dowry had been paid in the form of valour. My uncle of Kuru's race, viz., king Valhika, said that the maiden so brought away and not wedded with due rites should be set free. That maiden, therefore, was recommended to Vichitravirya for being married by him according to due rites. Doubting my father's words I repaired to others for asking their opinion. I thought that my sire was exceedingly punctilious in matters of morality. I then went to my sire himself, O king, and addressed him these words from desire of knowing something about the practices of righteous people in respect of marriage, 'I desire, O sire, to know what in truth the practices are of righteous people.' I repeated the expression of my wish several times, so great was my eagerness and curiosity. After I had uttered those words, that foremost of righteous men, viz., my sire, Valhika answered me, saying, 'If in your opinion the status of husband and wife be taken to attach on account of the gift and acceptance of dowry and not from the actual taking of the maiden's hand with due rites, the father of the maiden (by permitting his daughter to go away with the giver of the dowry) would so himself to be the follower of a creed other than that which is derivable from the ordinary scriptures. Even this is what the accepted scriptures declare. Persons conversant with morality and duty do not allow that their words are at all authoritative who say that the status of husband and wife arises from the gift and acceptance of dowry, and not from the actual taking of the hand with due rites. The saying is well-known that the status of husband and wife is created by actual bestowal of the daughter 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 are persons that are certainly unacquainted with the scriptures. No one should bestow his daughter upon such persons. In fact, they are not men to whom one may marry his daughter. A wife should never be purchased. Nor should a father sell his daughter. Only those persons of sinful soul who are possessed, besides, by cupidity, and who sell and purchase female slaves for making serving women, regard the status of wife as capable of arising from the gift and acceptance of a dowry. On this subject some people on one occasion had asked prince Satyavat the following question, "If the giver of a dowry unto the kinsmen of a maiden happens to die before marriage, can another person take the hand of that maiden in marriage? We have doubts on this matter. Do thou remove these doubts of ours, 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 learning the truth." Prince Satyavat answered saying, "The kinsmen of the maiden should bestow her upon him whom they consider eligible. There need be no scruples in this. The righteous act in this way without taking note of the giver of the dower even if he be alive; while, as regards the giver that is dead, there is not the slightest doubt. Some say that the virgin wife or widow,--one, that is, whose marriage has not been consummated with her husband by actual sexual congress in consequence of his absence or death,--may be allowed to unite herself with her husband's younger brother or such other relation. The husband dying before such consummation, the virgin-widow may either surrender herself to her husband's younger brother or betake herself to the practice of penances. In the opinion of some, the younger brother of the husband or such other relation may thus use the unused wife or widow, though others maintain that such practice, notwithstanding its prevalence, springs from desire instead of being a scriptural ordinance. They that say so are clearly of opinion that the father of a maiden has the right to bestow her upon any eligible person, disregarding the dowry previously given by another and accepted by himself. If after the hand of a maiden has been promised all the initial rites before marriage be performed, the maiden may still be bestowed upon a person other than the one unto whom she had been promised. Only the giver incurs the sin of falsehood: so far, however, as the status of wife is concerned, no injury can occur thereto. The Mantras in respect of marriage accomplish their object of bringing about the indissoluble union of marriage at the seventh step. The maiden becomes the wife of him unto whom the gift is actually made with water.[286] The gift of maidens should be made in the following way. The wise know it for certain. 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 that is given away by her brother. Such a girl should be wed in the presence of fire, with due rites, causing her, amongst other things, to circumambulate for the usual number of times."'"'"
SECTION XLV "'Yudhishthira said, "If a person, after having given dowry for a maiden, goes away, how should the maiden's father or other kinsmen who are competent to bestow her, act? Do tell me this, O grandsire!"
"'Bhishma said, "Such a maiden, if she happens to be the daughter of a sonless and rich father, should be maintained by the father (in view of the return of him who has given the dowry). Indeed, if the father does not return the dowry unto the kinsmen of the giver, the maiden should be regarded as belonging to the giver of the dowry. She may even raise offspring for the giver (during his absence) by any of those means that are laid down in the scriptures. No person, however, can be competent to wed her according to due rites. Commanded by her sire, the princess Savitri had in days of old chosen a husband and united herself with him. This act of hers is applauded by some; but others conversant with the scriptures, condemn it. Others that are righteous have not acted in this way. Others hold that the conduct of the righteous should ever be regarded as the foremost evidence of duty or morality.[287] Upon this subject Sukratu, the grandson of the high-souled Janaka, the ruler of the Videhas, has declared the following opinion. There is the well-known declaration of the scriptures that women are incompetent to enjoy freedom at any period of their life. If this were not the path trodden by the righteous, how could this scriptural declaration exist? As regards the righteous, therefore, how can there be any question or doubt in respect of this matter? How can people condemn that declaration by choosing to conduct themselves otherwise? The unrighteous dereliction of eternal usage is regarded as the practice of the Asuras. Such practice we never hear of in the conduct of the ancients.[288] The relationship of husband and wife is very subtile (having reference to the acquisition of destiny, and, therefore, capable of being understood with the aid of only the inspired declarations in scriptures). It is different from the natural relationship of male and female which consists only in the desire for sexual pleasure. This also was said by the king alluded to of Janaka's race."[289] "'Yudhishthira said, "Upon what authority is the wealth of men inherited (by others when they happen to have daughters)? In respect of her sire the daughter should be regarded the same as the son."
"'Bhishma said, "The son is even as one's own self, and the daughter is like unto the son. How, therefore, can another take the wealth when one lives in one's own self in the form of one's daughter? Whatever wealth is termed the Yautuka property of the mother, forms the portion of the maiden daughter. If the maternal grandfather happens to die without leaving sons, the daughter's son should inherit it. The daughter's son offers pindas to his own father and the father of his mother. Hence, in accordance with considerations of justice, there is no difference between the son and the daughter's son. When a person has got only a daughter and she has been invested by him with the status of a son, if he then happens to have a son, such a son (instead of taking all the wealth of his sire) shares the inheritance with the daughter.[290] When, again, a person has got a daughter and she has been invested by him with the status of a son, if he then happens to take a son by adoption or purchase then the daughter is held to be superior to such a son (for she takes three shares of her father's wealth, the son's share being limited to only the remaining two). In the following case I do not see any reason why the status of a daughter's son should attach to the sons of one's daughter. The case is that of the daughter who has been sold by her sire. The sons born of a daughter that has been sold by her sire for actual price, belong exclusively to their father (even if he do not beget them himself but obtain them according to the rules laid down in the scriptures for the raising of issue through the agency of others). Such sons can never belong, even as daughter's sons, to their maternal grandfather in consequence of his having sold their mother for a price and lost all his rights in or to her by that act.[291] Such sons, again, become full of malice, unrighteous in conduct, the misappropriators of other people's wealth, and endued with deceit and cunning. Having sprung from that sinful form of marriage called Asura, the issue becomes wicked in conduct. Persons acquainted with the histories of olden times, conversant with duties, devoted to the scriptures and firm in maintaining the restraints therein laid down, recite in this connection some metrical lines sung in days of yore by Yama. Even this is what Yama had sung. That man who acquires wealth by selling his own son, or who bestows his daughter after accepting a dower for his own livelihood, has to sink in seven terrible hells one after another, known by the name of Kalasutra. There that wretch has to feed upon sweat and urine and stools during the whole time. In that form of marriage which is called Arsha, the person who weds has to give a bull and a cow and the father of the maiden accepts the gift. Some characterise this gift as a dowry (or price), while some are of opinion that it should not be regarded in that light. The true opinion, however, is that a gift for such a purpose, be it of small value or large, should, O king, be regarded as dowry or price, and the bestowal of the daughter under such circumstances should be viewed as a sale. Notwithstanding the fact of its having been practised by a few persons it can never be taken as the eternal usage. Other forms of marriage are seen, practised by men, such as marrying girls after abducting them by force from amidst their kinsmen. Those persons who have sexual intercourse with a maiden, after reducing her to subjection by force, are regarded as perpetrators of sin. They have to sink in darkest hell.[292] Even a human being with whom one has no relationship of blood should not form the subject of sale. What need then be said of one's own issue? With the wealth that is acquired by doing sinful deeds, no action leading to merit can be performed."'"
SECTION XLVI "'Bhishma said, "They that are conversant with ancient history recite the following verse of Daksha, the son of Prachetas: That maiden, in respect of whom nothing is taken by her kinsmen in the form of dowry cannot be said to be sold.[293] Respect, kind treatment, and everything else that is agreeable, should all be given unto the maiden whose hand is taken in marriage. Her sire and brothers and father-in-law and husband's brothers should show her every respect and adorn her with ornaments, if they be desirous of reaping benefits, for such conduct on their part always leads to considerable happiness and advantage. If the wife does not like her husband or fails to gladden him, from such dislike and absence of joy, the husband can never have issue for increasing his race. Women, O king, should always be worshipped and treated with affection. There where women are treated with respect, the very deities are said to be filled with joy. There where women are not worshipped, all acts become fruitless. If the women of a family, in consequence of the treatment they receive, grieve and shed tears, that family soon becomes extinct. Those houses that are cursed by women meet with destruction and ruin as if scorched by some Atharvan rite. Such houses lose their splendour. Their growth and prosperity cease. O king, Manu, on the eve of his departure for Heaven, made over women to the care and protection of men, saying that they are weak, that they fall an easy prey to the seductive wiles of men,[294] disposed to accept the love that is offered them, and devoted to truth. There are others among them that are full of malice, covetous of honours, fierce in disposition, unlovable, and impervious to reason. Women, however, deserve to be honoured. Do ye men show them honour. The righteousness of men depends upon women. All pleasures and enjoyments also completely depend upon them. Do ye serve them and worship them. Do ye bend your wills before them. The begetting of offspring, the nursing of children already born, and the accomplishment of all acts necessary for the needs of society, behold, all these have women for their cause. By honouring women, ye are sure to attain to the fruition of all objects. In this connection a princess of the house of Janaka the ruler of the Videhas, sang a verse. It is this: Women have no sacrifices ordained for them. There are no Sraddhas which they are called upon to perform. They are not required to observe any fasts. To serve their husbands with reverence and willing obedience is their only duty. Through the discharge of that duty they succeed in conquering heaven. In childhood, the sire protects her. The husband protects her in youth. When she becomes old, her sons protect her. At no period of her life does woman deserve to be free. Deities of prosperity are women. The person that desire affluence and prosperity should honour them. By cherishing women, O Bharata, one cherishes the goddess of prosperity herself, and by afflicting her, one is said to afflict the goddess of prosperity."'"
SECTION XLVII "'Yudhishthira said, "Thou art fully conversant with the ordinances of all the scriptures. Thou art the foremost of those that are acquainted with the duties of kings. Thou art celebrated over the whole world as a great dispeller of doubts. I have a doubt, do thou explain it to me, O grandsire! As regards this doubt that has arisen in my mind, I shall not ask any other person for its solution. It behoveth thee, O thou of mighty arms, to expound as to how a man should conduct himself who is desirous of treading along the path of duty and righteousness. It has been laid down, O grandsire, that a Brahmana can take four wives, viz., one that belongs to his own order, one that is a Kshatriya, one that is a Vaisya, and one that is a Sudra, if the Brahmana wishes to indulge in the desire of sexual intercourse. Tell me, O best of the Kurus, which amongst those sons deserves to inherit the father's wealth one after another? Who amongst them, O grandsire, shall take what share of the paternal wealth? I desire to hear this, viz., how the distribution has been ordained amongst them of the paternal property."
"'Bhishma said, "The Brahmana, the Kshatriya, and the Vaisya are regarded as the three regenerate orders. To wed in these three orders has been ordained to be the duty of the Brahmana, O Yudhishthira. Through erroneous judgment or cupidity or lust, O scorcher of foes, a Brahmana takes a Sudra wife. Such a wife, however, he is not competent to take according to the scriptures. A Brahmana, by taking a Sudra woman to his bed, attains to a low end in the next world. He should, having done such an act, undergo expiation according to the rites laid down in the scriptures. That expiation must be twice heavier or severer if in consequence of such an act, O Yudhishthira, the Brahmana gets offspring. I shall now tell thee, O Bharata, how the (paternal) wealth is to be distributed (among the children of the different spouses.) The son born of the Brahmana wife shall, in the first place, appropriate from his father's wealth a bull of good marks, and the best car or vehicle. What remains of the Brahmana's property, O Yudhishthira, after this should be divided into ten equal portions. The son by the Brahmana wife shall take four of such portions of the paternal wealth. The son that is born of the Kshatriya wife is, without doubt, possessed of the status of a Brahmana. In consequence, however, of the distinction attaching to his mother, he shall take three of the ten shares into which the property has been divided. The son that has been born of the wife belonging to the third order, viz., the woman of the Vaisya caste, by the Brahmana sire, shall take, O Yudhishthira, two of the three remaining shares of the father's property. It has been said that the son that has been begotten by the Brahmana sire upon the Sudra wife should not take any portion of the father's wealth, for he is not to be considered an heir. A little, however, of the paternal wealth should be given to the son of the Sudra wife, hence the one remaining share should be given to him out of compassion. Even this should be the order of the ten shares into which the Brahmana's wealth is to be divided. All the sons that are born of the same mother or of mothers of the same order, shall share equally the portion that is theirs. The son born of the Sudra wife should not be regarded as invested with the status of a Brahmana in consequence of his being unskilled (in the scriptures and the duties ordained for the Brahmana). Only those children that are born of wives belonging to the three higher orders should be regarded as invested with the status of Brahmanas. It has been said that there are only four orders, there is no fifth that has been enumerated. The son by the Sudra wife shall take the tenth part of his sire's wealth (that remains after the allotment has been made to the others in the way spoken of). That share, however, he is to take only when his sire has given it to him. He shall not take it if his sire does not give it unto him. Some portion of the sire's wealth should without doubt, be given, O Bharata, to the son of the Sudra wife. Compassion is one of the highest virtues. It is through compassion that something is given to the son of the Sudra wife. Whatever be the object in respect of which compassion arises, as a cardinal virtue it is always productive of merit. Whether the sire happens to have children (by his spouses belonging to the other orders) or to have no children (by such spouses), unto the son by the Sudra wife, O Bharata, nothing more than a tenth part of the sire's wealth should be given. If a Brahmana happens to have more wealth than what is necessary for maintaining himself and his family for three years, he should with that wealth perform sacrifices. A Brahmana should never acquire wealth for nothing.[295] The highest sum that the husband should give unto the wife is three thousand coins (of the prevailing currency). The wealth that the husband gives unto the wife, the latter may spend or dispose of as she likes. Upon the death of the childless husband, the wife shall enjoy all his wealth. (She shall not, however, sell or otherwise dispose of any portion of it). The wife should never take (without her husband's knowledge) any portion of her husband's wealth. Whatever wealth, O Yudhishthira, the Brahmana wife may acquire by gift from her father, should be taken (after her death) by her daughter, for the daughter is like the son. The daughter, O king, has been ordained in the scriptures, to be equal to the son, O delighter of the Kurus. Even thus hath the law of inheritance been ordained, O bull of Bharata's race. Remembering these ordinances about the distribution and disposal of wealth, one should never acquire wealth uselessly."
"'Yudhishthira said, "If the son born of a Sudra woman by a Brahmana father has been declared in the scriptures to be disentitled to any wealth, by what exceptional rule then is a tenth part of the paternal property to be given to him? A son born of a Brahmana wife by a Brahmana is unquestionably a Brahmana. One born of a Kshatriya wife or of a Vaisya wife, by a Brahmana husband, is similarly invested with the status of a Brahmana. Why then, O best of kings, are such sons to share the paternal wealth unequally? All of them, thou hast said, are Brahmanas, having been born of mothers that belong to the three higher orders equally entitled to the name of regenerate."
"'Bhishma said, "O scorcher of foes, all spouses in this world are called by the name of Data. Although that name is applied to all, yet there is this great distinction to be observed. If, having married three wives belonging to the three other orders, a Brahmana takes a Brahmana wife the very last of all yet shall she be regarded as the first in rank among all the wives, and as deserving of the greatest respect. Indeed, among all the co-wives, she shall be the foremost in consideration. In her apartments should be kept all those articles that are necessary in view of the husband's baths, personal decorations, washing of teeth, and application of collyrium to the eyes. In her apartments should be kept the Havya and the Kavya and all else that the husband may require for the performance of his religious acts. If the Brahmana wife is in the house, no other wife is entitled to attend to these needs of the husband. Only the Brahmana wife, O Yudhishthira, should assist in these acts of the husband. The husband's food and drink and garlands and robes and ornaments, all these should be given by the Brahmana wife to the husband, for she is the foremost in rank and consideration among all the spouses of the husband. These are the ordinances of the scriptures as laid down by Manu, O delighter of the Kurus! Even this, O monarch, is seen to be the course of eternal usage. If a Brahmana, O Yudhishthira, led by lust, acts in a different way, he shall come to be regarded as a Chandala among Brahmanas.[296] The son born of the Kshatriya wife has been said to be equal in status to the son born of the Brahmana wife. For all that, a distinction attaches to the son of the Brahmana wife in consequence of the superiority of the Brahmana to the Kshatriya in respect of the order of birth. The Kshatriya cannot be regarded as equal to the Brahmana woman in point of birth. Hence, O best of kings, the son born of the Brahmana wife must be regarded as the first in rank and superior to the son born of the Kshatriya wife. Because, again the Kshatriya is not equal in point of birth to the Brahmana wife, hence the son of the Brahmana wife takes one after another, all the best things, O Yudhishthira, among his father's possessions. Similarly, the Vaisya cannot be regarded as the equal of the Kshatriya in point of birth. Prosperity, kingdom, and treasury, O Yudhishthira, belong to the Kshatriya. All these have been ordained for the Kshatriya. The whole earth, O king, with her belt of seas, is seen to belong to him. By following the duties of his own order,