Verse 3.14

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

न ब्राह्मणक्षत्रिययोरापद्यपि हि तिष्ठतोः ।
कस्मिंश्चिदपि वृत्तान्ते शूद्रा भार्यौपदिश्यते ॥ १४ ॥

na brāhmaṇakṣatriyayorāpadyapi hi tiṣṭhatoḥ |
kasmiṃścidapi vṛttānte śūdrā bhāryaupadiśyate || 14 ||

Under no circumstance whatsoever has a Śūdra wife been ordained for the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya,—even though these be placed in peril.—(14)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Even when the Śūdra girl is extremely handsome, and the Brāhmaṇa or Kṣatriya bridegroom is in the ‘tenth stage’ of his life,—he should never marry the Śūdra girl.

On this point, a descriptive phrase is added—‘under no circumstance whatsoever’—i.e., in no story at all—‘has been ordained’— described.

‘In peril’—Even in the greatest distress.

In the preceding verse, the Śūdra wife has been permitted, and here she is prohibited. Hence there should be option.

“Option is permissible only when there is possibility of the two courses being adopted at one and the same time, and both courses are equally sanctioned by scriptural injunctions; and it cannot be permitted when a course of action is open to one only under the influence of passion, while it is prohibited by scripture. In the case in question, the taking of a Śūdra wife is not sanctioned by scripture, it is possible only under the influence of passion; and all that the foregoing verse means is that the marriage of a Śūdra girl under the influence of passion is not entirely prohibited; the prohibition, on the other hand (contained in the present verse), is purely scriptural. Hence the conclusion is that the Śūdra girl should not be married at all. It is in view of this that Yājñavalkya (Ācāra, 56) has declared.—‘It is said that twice-born persons may take Śūdra wives; but that is not my opinion.”’

Our answer to the above is as follows:—In all cases, option is admitted only in view of the likely futility of the injunction (of one or the other coarse of action). If the Śūdra-wife were absolutely prohibited, then the Kṣatriya and Vaiśya girls alone would have been mentioned as permitted (to the Brāhmaṇa) in times of peril; and in that case, the counter-exception (mentioned in 13), as also the prohibition (contained in 14), would both be superfluous; as the marrying of the girl of one’s own caste would have been already secured by the restrictive rule. Thus, then, since there is a clear incompatibility between the sanction (in 13) and the prohibition (in 14), the two should be regarded as optional alternatives.

“The presence of an option means that the agent may do what he likes; and, as the marrying of the Śūdra girl (if one wishes to do so) would be already secured by the counter-exception (in 13), there would be no need for putting forward the prohibition (in 14) [as the not-marrying of the Śūdra girl is already deduced, from the general rule of marrying within one’s own caste].”

But the marrying of the Śūdra girl has not been left entirely to the wish of the agent, in the way in which the marrying of Kṣatriya and Vaiśya girls has been; in fact, it has not been permitted, except in times of very great distress.

From all this the following conclusion appears the right one to adopt:—The general rule regarding marrying a girl of one’s own caste having already indicated, by implication, the impropriety of marrying girls of other castes,—that the Śūdra girl should have been prohibited again (in 14), already shows that the rule regarding not marrying girls of other castes is not absolute; and since this rule is not absolute, it follows that in times of difficulty, or in the event of not finding a girl of his own caste, while the Śūdra girl shall never be married, those of the other two castes may be married.—(14).

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 495) as countenancing the view that it is better by far that the Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya should avoid a Śūdra wife altogether, even though he he overpowered by lust;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 144), where the prohibition herein contained is explained as referring to the first, marriage;—and ‘āpat’ is explained as ‘the contingency of not finding a girl of the same caste’;—and it adds, on the strength of the next verse, that what is here said is applicable to the Vaiśya also.

Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 749) quotes the verse and explains ‘vṛttante’ as ‘in a story.’

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 87), which adds that though the verse mentions only the ‘Brāhmaṇa and the Kṣatriya’ it does not mean that it is permissible for the Vaiśya; all thaí is meant is that for the two higher castes it is specially reprehensible;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 205), which says that this prohibition is meant for the first marriage, as is clear from the foregoing verses.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 3.13-19)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.13.