Verse 8.362

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

नैष चारणदारेषु विधिर्नात्मोपजीविषु ।
सज्जयन्ति हि ते नारीर्निगूढाश्चारयन्ति च ॥ ३६२ ॥

naiṣa cāraṇadāreṣu vidhirnātmopajīviṣu |
sajjayanti hi te nārīrnigūḍhāścārayanti ca || 362 ||

This rule does not apply to the case of the wives of dancers and singers, or of those who make a living of themselves; for these men secretly bring their women into contact (with other men), and tempt them on.—(362)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The aforesaid prohibition regarding conversing with women does not apply to the case of ‘wives of dancers and singers’;—the term ‘cāraṇa’ standing for dancers, singers and other actors.

So also in the case of those ‘who make a living of themselves,’—i.e., those wives who live upon their own beauty;—the term ‘jīviṣu’ qualifying the masculine noun ‘dārāḥ’ (wives). Or ‘themselves’ may stand for ‘wives,’—the wife being half the self of the man; and the term stands for those who live upon their wives;—i.e., those who condone the presence of paramours for their wives.

‘Bring into contact,’—unite their wives with other men.

‘Secretly,’—i.e., not in the open market-place. These women differ from public prostitutes in this that they carry on their intrigues within their own homes.

‘Tempt them on,’—eg g them on to actual sexual intercourse; enticing the men by means of glances and jokes.

‘Bringing into contact’ implies connivance, while ‘tempting’ implies leading on to the actual act.

Or, the meaning may be that ‘they bring into contact, unite, their own wives, and seduce, through their wives, the wives of other men’; i.e., they make their wives act as prostitutes as well as go-betweens.—(362)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 387), which adds the following notes:—In the case of the wives of Cāraṇas and other people of that class, and also in that of the wives of those who make a living by ‘their own’ (wife’s beauty),—the aforesaid rule prohibiting conversation, or that prescribing the punishment for conversing, does not apply,—because it is the business of these people to help their wives to come in contact with other men, and themselves to bring about their intercourse in secret.’

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.285), where Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes:—‘The said rule is not applicable to cases where conversation is held with the wives of actors, singers and people of that class who make a living by the beauty of their own (wives), i.e., those who permit other men to have intercourse with their wives,—the wife being called ‘ātman,’ in accordance with the dictum that ‘the wife and son of a man are his very self,’—‘for the purpose of making money, and help their wives to meet other men, and even connive secretly—showing as if they did not see it—at other men coming to their wives.’

It is quoted in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 174), which has the following notes:—‘Cāraṇa,’ dancer,—‘ātmopajīvin’ is the professional actor, who makes a living by his ‘ātman,’ i.e., his wife,—these two clashes of men deck up their wives for the purpose of entrapping young men, and hence conversation with their wives is not to be penalised, though intercourse with these also is to be punished;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 156a).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.362-363)

Baudhāyana (2.4.3).—‘Corporal punishment shall not be inflicted for adultery with the wives of minstrels and play-actors; for their husbands themselves either actually lead them to other men, or concealed at home, permit them to hold culpable intercourse.’

Yājñavalkya (2.293).—‘For approaching a female ascetic, the fine is twenty-four Paṇas.’