पतिः, पुं, (पाति रक्षतीति । पा ल रक्षणे + डतिः ।) मूलम् । गतिः । इति विश्वः ॥ पाणिग्रहीता । भातार इति भाषा । तत्पर्य्यायः । धवः २ प्रियः ३ भर्त्ता ४ । इत्यमरः । २ । ६ । ३५ ॥ कान्तः ५ प्राणनाथः ६ गुरुः ७ हृदयेशः ८ जीवितेशः ९ जामाता १० सुखोत्सवः ११ नर्म्मकीलः १२ रतगुरुः १३ स्वामी १४ रमणः १५ । इति शब्दरत्नावली ॥ वरः १६ परिणेता १७ गृही १८ । इति राजनिर्घण्टः ॥ तस्य लक्ष- णम् । विधिवत्पाणिग्राहकः । अनुकूलदक्षिण- धृष्टशठभेदात् पतिश्चतुर्धा । सार्व्वकालिकपरा- ङ्गनापराङ्मुखत्वे सति सर्व्वकालमनुरक्तोऽनु- कूलः । १ । सकलनायिकाविषयसमसहजानु- रागो दक्षिणः । २ । भूयो निःशङ्कः कृतदोषो- ऽपि भूयो निवारितोऽपि भूयः प्रश्रयपरायणो धृष्टः । ३ । कामिनीविषयकपटपटुः शठः । ४ । इति रसमञ्जरी ॥ * ॥ पतिसेवादिफलं यथा, -- “कथं मे सुव्रते ! साध्वि ! निद्राभङ्गः कृतस्त्वया । व्यर्थं व्रतादिकं तस्या या भर्त्तुश्चापकारिणी ॥ तपश्चानशनञ्चैव व्रतं दानादिकञ्च यत् । भर्त्तुरप्रियकारिण्याः सर्व्वं भवति निष्फलम् ॥ यया प्रियः पूजितश्च श्रीकृष्णः पूजितस्तया । पतिवताव्रतार्थञ्च पतिरूपी हरिः स्वयम् ॥ सर्व्वदानं सर्व्वयज्ञः सर्व्वतीर्थनिषेवणम् । सर्व्वं व्रतं तपः सर्व्वमुपवासादिकञ्च यत् ॥ सर्व्वधर्म्मञ्च सत्यञ्च सर्व्वदेवप्रपूजनम् । तत् सर्व्वं स्वामिसेवायाः कलां नार्हन्ति षोडशीम् ॥ सुपुण्ये भारते वर्षे पतिसेवां करोति या । वैकुण्ठं स्वामिना सार्द्धं सा याति ब्रह्मणः शतम् ॥ विप्रियं कुरुते भर्त्तुर्विप्रियं वदति प्रियम् । असत्कुलप्रजाता या तत्फलं श्रूयतां सति ! ॥ कुम्भीपाकं व्रजेत् सा च यावच्चन्द्रदिवाकरौ । पुत्त्रो वापि पिता वापि बान्धवो वा सहोदरः । योषितां कुलजातानां न कश्चित् स्वामिनः समः ॥” इति ब्रह्मवैवर्त्ते गणेशखण्डे ४४ अध्यायः ॥ * ॥ पतिदक्षिणादि यथा, -- “निरूपितश्च वेदेषु स्वशब्दो धनवाचकः । तद्यस्यास्तीति स स्वामी वेदज्ञ ! शृणु मद्बचः ॥ तस्य दाता सदा स्वामी न च स्वं स्वामिनो भवेत् । अहो व्यवस्था भवतां वेदज्ञानमबोधताम् ॥ धर्म्म उवाच । पत्नीं विना न स्वं साध्वि ! स्वामिनं दातुमक्षमम् । दम्पती ध्रुवमेकाङ्गौ तयोर्द्दाता च द्वौ समौ ॥ निरूपिता पुण्यके च व्रते स्वामी च दक्षिणा । श्रुतौ श्रुतो यः स्वधर्म्मो विपरीतो ह्यधर्म्मकः ॥” इति ब्रह्मवैवर्त्ते गणेशखण्डे ७ अध्यायः ॥
पतिः, त्रि, (पाति रक्षति पालयतीति वा । “पते- र्डतिः ।” उणां । ४ । ५७ । इति डतिः ।) अधिपतिः । तत्पर्य्यायः । स्वामी २ ईश्वरः ३ ईशिता ४ अधिभूः ५ नायकः ६ नेता ७ प्रभुः ८ परिवृढः ९ अधिपः १० । इत्यमरः । ३ । ११० । ११ ॥ (यथा, मनुः । ७ । ११५ । “ग्रामस्याधिपतिं कुर्य्यात् दशग्रामपतिं तथा । विंशतीशं शतेशञ्च सहस्रपतिमेव च ॥”)
ज्ञातेयं बन्धुता तेषां क्रमाद्भावसमूहयोः। धवः प्रियः पतिर्भर्ता जारस्तूपपतिः समौ॥
पत्नी : पत्नी
पदार्थ-विभागः : , द्रव्यम्, पृथ्वी, चलसजीवः, मनुष्यः
गुणैः प्रतीते तु कृतलक्षणाहतलक्षणौ। इभ्य आढ्यो धनी स्वामी त्वीश्वरः पतिरीशिता॥
पदार्थ-विभागः : , द्रव्यम्, पृथ्वी, चलसजीवः, मनुष्यः
पति¦ पु॰ पा--डति।
३ स्वामिनि च तत्स्त्रियां
“प-त्युर्नो यज्ञसम्बन्घे” पा॰ न ङीप् च पत्नी। पतिकृतयज्ञ-फलभागिन्याम् स्त्रियां
“विभाषा सपूर्वस्य” पा॰ गृहस्यपतिः गृहपतिः गृहपत्नी वा। बहुब्रीहावपि शूद्रःपतिर्यस्याः शूद्रपत्नी शूद्रपतिः। पतिशब्दस्य समास एवघिसंज्ञा श्रीपतये श्रीपतेः इत्यादि असमासे तु न घिसंज्ञापत्या पत्ये इत्यादि आर्षे क्वचित् असमासेऽपि घित्वम्
“क्लीवे वा पतीते पतौ” पराशरः
“सीतायाः पतयेनमः” इत्यादि पतिसेवनप्रकारादिकं यथा
“व्यर्थं व्रतादिकं तस्या या भर्त्तुश्चापकारिणी। तप-श्चानशनञ्चैब व्रतं दानादिकञ्च यत्। भर्तुरपियकारिण्याःसर्वं मवति निष्फलम्। यया प्रियः पूजितश्च श्रीकृष्णःपूजितस्तया। पतिव्रताव्रतार्थञ्च पतिरूपी हरिःस्वयम्। सर्वदानं सर्वयज्ञः सर्वतीर्थनिषेवणम्। सर्वंव्रत तपः सर्वमुपवासादिकञ्च यत्। सर्वधर्मश्च सत्यञ्चसर्वदेवप्रपूजनम्। तत्सर्वं स्वामिसेवायाः कलां नार्हन्तिषोडशीम्। सुपुण्ये भारते वर्षे पतिसेवां करोति या। वैकुण्ठं स्वामिना स्वार्द्धं सा याति ब्रह्मणः शतम्। विप्रियं कुरुते मर्त्तुर्विप्रियं वदति प्रियम्। असत्कुलप्रयाता या तत्फलं श्रूयतां सति!। कुम्भीपाकं व्रजेत्सा च यावच्चन्द्रदिवाकरौ। ततो भवति चाण्डालीपतिपुत्रविवर्जिता” ब्रह्म॰ वै॰ प्र॰
४३ अ॰। पतिसेवा-प्रकारस्तु भा॰ व॰
२ अ॰ द्रौपद्या सत्यभामां प्रतिउक्तस्तत्र दृश्यः। अघिकम् उक्तं पतिव्रताशब्देदृश्यम्। [Page4216-b+ 38]
पति¦ m. (-तिः)
1. A master, an owner.
2. A husband.
3. A root.
5. Going, motion. E. पा to nourish, Una4di aff. डति, or पत् to go, with the same aff.
पतिः [patiḥ], [पा-डतिं]
A master, lord; as in गृहपतिः.
An owner, possessor, proprietor; क्षेत्रपतिः.
Governor, ruler, one who presides over; ओषधीपतिः, वनस्पतिः, कुलपतिः &c.
A husband; प्रमदाः पतिवर्त्मगा इति प्रतिपन्नं हि विचेतनैरपि Ku.4.33.
Going, motion, fight. -f.
A female possessor, a mistress.
Comp. घातिनी, घ्नी a woman who murders her husband.
a line on the hand showing that a woman will be faithless to her husband. -देवता, -देवा one who regards her husband as a divinity, a woman loyally devoted to her husband, a chaste woman; कः पतिदेवतामन्यः परिमार्ष्टुमुत्सहते Ś.6; तमलभन्त पतिं पतिदेवताः शिखरिणामिव सागरमापगाः R.9.17; धुरिस्थिता त्वं पतिदेवतानाम् 14.74. -धर्मः duty (of a wife) towards a husband.-प्राणा a chaste wife. -लङ्घनम् disregarding a former husband by marrying another; cf. Ms.5.151. -वेदनः N. of Śiva. (-नम्) procuring a husband (by magical means); धातुर्देवस्य सत्येन कृणोमि पतिवेदनम् Av.2.36.2.-लोकः the world of husbands in a future life; पतिलोक- मभीप्सन्ती नाचरेत् किंचिदप्रियम् Ms.5.156. -व्रता a devoted, faithful and loyal wife, a chaste and virtuous wife; ˚त्वम् fidelity to a husband. -सेवा devotion to a husband; वैवाहिको विधिः स्त्रीणां संस्कारो वैदिकः स्मृतः । पतिसेवा गुरौ वासो गृहार्थो$ग्निपरिक्रिया ॥ Ms.2.67.
पति m. (See. 1. पत्; when uncompounded and meaning " husband " instr. पत्या; dat. पत्ये; gen. abl. पत्युर्; loc. पत्यौ; but when meaning " lord , master " , and ifc. regularly inflected with exceptions ; See. Pa1n2. 1-4 , 8 ; 9 )a master , owner , possessor , lord , ruler , sovereign RV. etc.
पति m. a husband ib. (in comp. either with the stem or with the gen. , e.g. दुहितृ-प्or तुः-प्Pa1n2. 6-3 , 24 ; when mfn. f. = m. e.g. -जीवत्-पत्या त्वयाR. ii , 24 , 8 , or पतिकाe.g. प्रमीत-पतिकाMn. ix , 68 )
पति m. one of the 2 entities (with पाशुपतस्) RTL. 89
पति m. a root L.
पति f. a female possessor , mistress Pa1n2. 4-1 , 33 Sch.
पति f. a wife( वृद्ध-प्= -पत्नी, the -wwife of an old man ib. 34 Sch. )([ cf. Gk. ? , " husband " ; Lat. potis , पोस्-सुम्for पोतिस्-सुम्; Lith. patis , " husband " ; Goth. (bruth-) faths , " bridegroom "])
Vedic Index of Names and Subjects[सम्पाद्यताम्]
Pati, Patnī.--Under these words denoting primarily, as the evidence collected in the St. Petersburg Dictionary shows, ‘lord’ and ‘lady,’ and so ‘husband’ and ‘wife,’ it is convenient to consider the marital relations of the Vedic community.
Child Marriage.--Marriage in the early Vedic texts appears essentially as a union of two persons of full development. This is shown by the numerous references to unmarried girls who grow old in the house of their fathers (amā-jur), and who adorn themselves in desire of marriage, as well as to the paraphernalia of spells and potions used in the Atharvavedic tradition to compel the love of man or woman respectively, while even the Rigveda itself seems to present us with a spell by which a lover seeks to send all the household to sleep when he visits his beloved. Child wives first occur regularly in the Sūtra period, though it is still uncertain to what extent the rule of marriage before puberty there obtained. The marriage ritual also quite clearly presumes that the marriage is a real and not a nominal one: an essential feature is the taking of the bride to her husband's home, and the ensuing cohabitation.
Limitations on Marriage.--It is difficult to say with certainty within what limits marriage was allowed. The dialogue of Yama and Yamī in the Rigveda seems clearly to point to a prohibition of the marriage of brother and sister. It can hardly be said, as Weber thinks, to point to a practice that was once in use and later became antiquated. In the Gobhila Gṛhya Sūtra and the Dharma Sūtras are found prohibitions against marriage in the Gotra (‘family’) or within six degrees on the mother's or father's side, but in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa marriage is allowed in the third or fourth generation, the former being allowed, according to Harisvamin, by the Kāṇvas, and the second by the Saurāṣṭras, while the Dākṣiṇātyas allowed marriage with the daughter of the mother's brother or the son of the father's sister, but presumably not with the daughter of the mother's sister or the son of the father's brother. The prohibition of marriage within the Gotra cannot then have existed, though naturally marriages outside the Gotra were frequent. Similarity of caste was also not an essential to marriage, as hypergamy was permitted even by the Dharma Sūtras, so that a Brāhmaṇa could marry wives of any lower caste, a Kṣatriya wives of the two lowest castes as well as of his own caste, a Vaiśya a Śūdrā as well as a Vaiśyā, although the Śūdrā marriages were later disapproved in toto. Instances of such intermarriage are common in the Epic, and are viewed as normal in the Bṛhaddevatā.
It was considered proper that the younger brothers and sisters should not anticipate their elders by marrying before them. The later Saṃhitās and Brāhmaṇas present a series of names expressive of such anticipation, censuring as sinful those who bear them. These terms are the pari-vividāna, or perhaps agre-dadhus, the man who, though a younger brother, marries before his elder brother, the latter being then called the parivitta; the agre-didhiṣu, the man who weds a younger daughter while her elder sister is still unmarried; and the Didhiṣū-pati, who is the husband of the latter. The passages do not explicitly say that the exact order of birth must always be followed, but the mention of the terms shows that the order was often broken.
Widow Remarriage.--The remarriage of a widow was apparently permitted. This seems originally to have taken the form of the marriage of the widow to the brother or other nearest kinsman of the dead man in order to produce children. At any rate, the ceremony is apparently alluded to in a funeral hymn of the Rigveda; for the alternative explanation, which sees in the verse a reference to the ritual of the Puruṣamendha (‘human sacrifice’), although accepted by Hillebrandt and Delbrück, is not at all probable, while the ordinary view is supported by the Sūtra evidence. Moreover, another passage of the Rigveda clearly refers to the marriage of the widow and the husband's brother (devṛ), which constitutes what the Indians later knew as Niyoga. This custom was probably not followed except in cases where no son was already born. This custom was hardly remarriage in the strict sense, since the brother might--so far as appears--be already married himself. In the Atharvaveda, a verse refers to a charm which would secure the reunion, in the next world, of a wife and her second husband. Though, as Delbrück thinks, this very possibly refers to a case in which the first husband was still alive, but was impotent or had lost caste (patita), still it is certain that the later Dharma Sūtras began to recognize ordinary remarriage in case of the death of the first husband. Pischel finds some evidence in the Rigveda to the effect that a woman could remarry if her husband disappeared and could not be found or heard of.
Polygamy.--A Vedic Indian could have more than one wife. This is proved clearly by many passages in the Rigveda; Manu, according to the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, had ten wives; and the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa explains polygamy by a characteristic legend. Moreover, the king regularly has four wives attributed to him, the Mahiṣī, the Parivṛktī, the Vāvātā, and the Pālāgalī. The Mahiṣī appears to be the chief wife, being the first one married according to the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. The Parivṛktī, ‘the neglected,’ is explained by Weber and Pischel as one that has had no son. The Vāvātā is ‘the favourite,’ while the Pālāgalī is, according to Weber, the daughter of the last of the court officials. The names are curious, and not very intelligible, but the evidence points to the wife first wedded alone being a wife in the fullest sense. This view is supported by the fact emphasized by Delbrück, that in the sacrifice the Patnī is usually mentioned in the singular, apparent exceptions being due to some mythological reason. Zimmer is of opinion that polygamy is dying out in the Rigvedic period, monogamy being developed from pologamy; Weber, however, thinks that polygamy is secondary, a view that is supported by more recent anthropology.
Polyandry.--On the other hand, polyandry is not Vedic. There is no passage containing any clear reference to such a custom. The most that can be said is that in the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda verses are occasionally found in which husbands are mentioned in relation to a single wife. It is difficult to be certain of the correct explanation of each separate instance of this mode of expression; but even if Weber's view, that the plural is here used majestatis causā, is not accepted, Delbrück's explanation by mythology is probably right. In other passages the plural is simply generic.
Marital Relations.--Despite polygamy, however, there is ample evidence that the marriage tie was not, as Weber has suggested, lightly regarded as far as the fidelity of the wife was concerned. There is, however, little trace of the husband's being expected to be faithful as a matter of morality. Several passages, indeed, forbid, with reference to ritual abstinence, intercourse with the strī of another. This may imply that adultery on the husband's part was otherwise regarded as venial. But as the word strī includes all the ‘womenfolk,’ daughters and slaves, as well as wife, the conclusion can hardly be drawn that intercourse with another man's ‘wife’ was normally regarded with indifference. The curious ritual of the Varuṇapraghāsās, in which the wife of the sacrificer is questioned as to her lovers, is shown by Delbrück to be a part of a rite meant to expiate unchastity on the part of a wife, not as a normal question for a sacrificer to put to his own wife. Again, Yājñavalkya's doctrine in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, which seems to assert that no one cares if a wife is unchaste (paraḥ-puṃsā) or not, really means that no one cares if the wife is away from the men who are sacrificing, as the wives of the gods are apart from them during the particular rite in question. Monogamy is also evidently approved, so that some higher idea of morality was in course of formation. On the other hand, no Vedic text gives us the rule well known to other Indo-Germanic peoples that the adulterer taken in the act can be killed with impunity, though the later legal literature has traces of this rule. There is also abundant evidence that the standard of ordinary sexual morality was not high.
Hetairai.--In the Rigveda there are many references to illegitimate love and to the abandonment of the offspring of such unions, especially in the case of a protégé of Indra, often mentioned as the parāvṛkta or parāvṛj. The ‘son of a maiden’ (kumārī-putra) is already spoken of in the Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā. Such a person appears with a metronymic in the Upaniṣad period: this custom may be the origin of metronymics such as those which make up a great part of the lists of teachers (Vaṃśas) of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. The Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā refers to illicit unions of Śūdra and Ārya, both male and female, besides giving in its list of victims at the Puruṣamedha, or ‘human sacrifice,’ several whose designations apparently mean ‘courtesan’ (atītvarī) and ‘procuress of abortion’ (atiṣkadvarī), while the ‘dyeing woman’ (rajayitrī) is dedicated to sensuality. Pischel and Geldner also see many references to Hetairai in other passages of the Rigveda, especially where mention is made of Uṣas, the goddess of Dawn, who in their view is the characteristic Hetaira. At any rate, there is little doubt that the ‘dancer’ (nṛtū) referred to in one passage of the Rigveda was a Hetaira. When women are referred to as going to the Samana, or ‘place of meeting,’ Hetairai are probably also meant. Grave cases of immorality are alluded to in the Rigveda. The love of father and daughter, as shown in the myth of Prajāpati, is evidently censured, but the actual existence of this form of incest is recognized in the Atharvaveda. Girls who had lost their natural protectors--father or brother --were apt to be reduced to live by immorality.
Forms of Marriage.--The state of society revealed in the Vedic age seems to point to considerable freedom on the part of both man and woman in selecting a wife or a husband. At any rate, it is not clear that either the father or the mother controlled the marriage of son or daughter of mature age, though no doubt the parents or parent often arranged a suitable match. The marriage was frequently arranged through an intermediary, the ‘wooer’ (vara), presumably after those concerned had in effect come to an agreement. The sale of a daughter was not unknown, but a certain amount of discredit would seem to have attached to it, and sons-in-law in such cases were sometimes stingy. On the other hand, dowries were not infrequently given, especially no doubt when damsels Suffered from bodily defects. Occasionally marriages by capture may have taken place, but only as knightly feats, as when Vimada carried off Purumitra's daughter against her father's wish, but very possibly with her own consent. The later law-books and the Epic describe in much detail various forms of marriage, but they all seem reducible to three types: (a) that which is based on mutual consent, the prājāpatya (‘connected with Prajāpati’); (b) that in which a price is paid for the bride, the āsura (‘Asura-like’), ārṣa (‘connected with the Ṛṣis’), brāhma (‘relating to Brahman’), or daiva (‘divine’); (c) those which consist in stealing the bride, the kṣātra (‘warrior-like’) or the rākṣasa (‘demon-like’) mode, of all of which traces are found in Vedic literature. For instance, the gift of a maiden for services rendered or other object is exemplified in the story of Cyavana in the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa, and in that of Śyāvāśva in the Bṛhaddevatā.
Wedding Ceremony.--In normal marriages the bridal was celebrated by an elaborate ceremony which bears in essentials and details the strongest resemblance to the form observed by other Indo-Germanic as well as non-Indo-Germanic peoples, and which was destined to secure the stability and fruitfulness of the union. The ceremony commenced at the bride's house, to which the bridegroom with his friends and relations repaired, and in which he met the friends and relations of the bride. A cow or cows were slain for the entertainment of the guests. The bridegroom having caused the bride to mount a stone, formally grasped her hand, and led her round the household fire. This act constituted the marriage, the husband hence being called ‘he who takes by the hand’ (hasta-grābha). The festivities being over, the bridegroom took the bride to his home on a car in a marriage procession, all to the accompaniment of suitable stanzas. Then followed cohabitation.
Wife's Property and Status.--We have very little information as to the legal relations of wife and husband after marriage. It may be assumed that the husband appropriated the wife's dowry, if any, as well as her earnings, if any: even in the Epic the rise of the recognition of women's property as their own (strī-dhana) is only slow. That the husband was absolute master of a wife as of a slave is not probable, though he doubtless exercised the same power of correction as was expressly allowed in the eighteenth century by English law. The poetical ideal of the family was decidedly high, and we have no reason to doubt that it was often actually fulfilled. Moreover, the wife on her marriage was at once given an honoured position in the house; she is emphatically mistress in her husband's home, exercising authority over her fatherin-law, her husband's brothers, and her unmarried sisters. No doubt the case contemplated is one in which the eldest son of a family has become its head owing to the decrepitude of the parents, his wife then taking the place of the mistress of the joint family while the brothers and sisters are still unmarried. It is not inconsistent with the great stress elsewhere laid on the respect due to a father-in-law, who then is probably regarded as still in full possession of his faculties, and controls the house while his son continues to live with him. The respect would no doubt equally apply if the son had set up a separate family of his own.
Moreover, the wife was a regular participator in the offerings of the husband. In this connexion the term Patnī regularly applies to her in the Brāhmaṇas, where Jāyā designates her in her conjugal capacity, not in that of sharer in the sacrifice. In this respect her position gradually deteriorated: thus the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa describes a certain ceremony in which the wife (jāyā) alone offered the oblation in former times, while later a priest might do so instead. The same Brāhmaṇa shows other traces of a lowering in the position of women, probably due to the growing sense of the importance of ceremonial priority. So in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā women generally are classed with dice and drink as three chief evils, and woman is declared to be ‘untruth,’ and connected with Nirṛti, ‘calamity.’ A woman too, according to the Taittirīya Saṃhitā, is inferior even to a bad man, and a sarcastic reference is made in the Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā to her power of getting things from her husband by cajolery at night. On the other hand must be set the encomia on woman: a woman is half her husband, and completes him; and in the Rigveda attacks on women mingle with the general assumption of their good qualities. None the less, the Brāhmaṇas clearly indicate a gradual decline in their position, which is evident from the rule that requires the wife to eat after her husband. Scolds were also known: the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa praises the wife ‘who does not answer back’ (aprativādinī). Women bore no part in political life: men go to the assembly, not women, the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā expressly says. On the other hand, with the advance of education, women shared in the intellectual interests of the day, as is exemplified by Yājñavalkya's two wives, of whom one was interested in his philosophical discussions, the other not. Other women are also referred to in the Upaniṣads as teachers, but whether they were married is not certain.
But the main object of a woman's marriage was the production of children, this being repeatedly asserted in the Rigveda and later. The desire for offspring, as was natural in a society which mainly counted relationship through the father, took the form of a wish for a son to perform the necessary funeral rites for the father, and to continue his line. It was no doubt possible to adopt a son, but in the Rigveda this custom is plainly viewed as unsatisfactory. The practice is recognized, as we have seen above of Niyoga, in the appointment of a brother to beget children with the wife of a dead man, or perhaps of a man who is childless. ‘Sonlessness’ (avīratā) is placed on the same level as lack of property (amati), and Agni is besought to protect from it. The birth of a daughter was certainly not specially welcome: the Atharvaveda in one hymn distinctly invokes the birth of a son, and deprecates that of a daughter, while the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa contains an old verse which says that a daughter is a misery (kṛpaṇam), while a son is a light in the highest heaven (jyotir ha putraḥ parame vyoman). But there is no proof that the Vedic Indians practised the exposure of female children. This conclusion, deduced from certain passages in the later Saṃhitās by Zimmer and Delbrück, has been disproved by Bo7htlingk.
Child Life.--No doubt the care of a child was left to the mother, but we learn little from the earlier literature of the life of the young. The length of the period of pregnancy is frequently placed at ten (doubtless lunar) months. On birth the child was first fed with milk or ghee, and then given the breast. On the eighth day after birth the infant was washed. The cutting of the teeth was also a solemn occasion, and is the subject of a hymn in the Atharvaveda. Reference is also made to children's learning to speak, which the Taittirīya Saṃhitā ascribes to the end of the first year of life. The Aitareya Āraṇyaka asserts that the words Tata and Tāta, onomatopoetic words like ‘dada,’ are the first words of a child's speech, giving therein perhaps an unfair prominence to the father. The Atharvaveda further contains at least one hymn for the ceremony of the first shaving of the young man's beard. The giving of a name was also an occasion of importance, a second one being often added.
Satī.--On the death of her husband, in some cases the widow burned herself or was burned by his relations. This is clearly implied in the reference to this ancient custom in the Atharvaveda. On the other hand, the Rigveda does not contemplate the custom anywhere, but on the contrary considers the widow as married apparently to the brother of the dead man. The custom of Suttee would therefore appear buring the Vedic age to have been in abeyance, at least as a general rule. At all times the practice seems to have been mainly usual among families of the warrior class, to judge from the other Indo-Germanic parallels. In other classes the survival of wives was more necessary, and the remarriage of widows, whether prohibited or allowed in the texts, is proof that there were widows who could be remarried.
Pati, 1, 489, note 145, line 7, after ‘ritual’ delete ‘of.’
- Cf. Rv. i. 117, 7;
ii. 17, 7;
x. 39, 3;
40, 5. Ghoṣā is the chief example of this condition. The Atharvaveda (i. 14) also refers to such a case (see Bloomfield, Hymns of the Atharvaveda, 253). The ornaments of maidens, especially at seasons of festival, are referred to in Rv. i. 123, 11;
vii. 2, 5;
Av. ii. 36, 1;
xiv. 2, 59 et seq.
- Cf. Av. iii. 18 (= Rv. x. 145);
38. Similarly there are many references to the love of the youth for the maiden, and his seeking her--e.g., Rv. i. 115, 2;
Av. ii. 30;
to their mutual affection--e.g., Rv. i. 167, 3;
ix. 32, 5;
x. 34, 5;
and to jealousy and love philtres for the purpose of recalling wandering affections -e.g., Av. vi. 18;
vii. 45. The gifts of the lover are referred to in Rv. i. 117, 18. Some of these passages may, of course, refer to Hetairai, but not all.
- vii. 55, 5. 8. Cf. Rv. i. 134, 3;
Aufrecht, Indische Studien, 4, 337 et seq. A different view of the passage is taken by Pischel, Vedische Studien, 2, 57 et seq. The Atharvaveda (iv. 5) shows that the view of Aufrecht was that early adopted in India.
- Cf. Jolly, Recht und Sitte, 59;
Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 13, 340 et seq.;
Risley, People of India, 179 et seq. There is a possible reference to a child-wife in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, i. 10, 1. For the Sūtra evidence, see Bhandarkar, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlāndischen Gesellschaft, 47, 143-156;
Jolly, ibid., 46, 413-426;
- Rv. x. 85, especially verse 29 et seq.
- x. 10.
- Proceedings of the Berlin Academy, 1895, 822. Cf. also Indische Studien, 5, 427;
10, 76, n.;
Pischel, Hermes, 18, 465-468;
Max Müller, Science of Language, 2, 507;
Herodotus, iii. 19. Crawley's Mystic Rose gives strong reasons against the early prevalence of such marriages.
- iii. 4, 5.
- Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra, ii. 5, 15, 16, etc. Cf. Mānava Dharma Śāstra, iii. 5;
Yājñavalkya Dharma Śāstra, i. 52, 53.
- i. 8, 3, 6.
- On Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, loc. cit.
- Cf. Weber, Indische Studien, 10, 75, 76;
Max Müller, Ancient Sanskrit Literature, 387;
Schrader, Prehistoric Antiquities, 392;
Geiger, Ostiranische Kultur, 246;
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 43, 308-312;
Jolly, Recht und Sitte, 62, 63;
Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 13, 345 et seq.
- Cf. Oldenberg, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 51, 279.
- Gautama Dharma Sūtra, iv. 16;
Baudhāyana Dharma Sūtra, i. 16, 2-5;
Vasiṣṭha Dharma Sūtra, i. 24;
Pāraskara Gṛhya Sūtra, i. 4, etc.;
Risley, People of India, 156 et seq. Cf. Varṇa.
- See Hopkins, cited in note 12;
Bṛhaddevatā, v. 79;
- See Delbrück, Die indogermanischen Verwandtschaftsnamen, 578 et seq.
- Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, iv. 1, 9, and Kāṭhaka and Kapiṣṭhala Saṃhitās, cited by Delbrück, 579, 580;
Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā, xxx. 9. In Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra, ii. 5, 12, 22, the expression is paryāhita.
- Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, iv. 1, 9, according to Delbrūck, 581. But, as pari-vividāna follows, it seems very doubtful;
the reading is probably wrong, especially in view of the Kāṭhaka and Kapiṣṭhala parallels, which have agre-didhiṣau and agre-dadhiṣau.
- See passages cited in note 17;
also Av. vi. 112, 3;
Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, iii. 2, 8, 11. Āpastamba Śrauta Sūtra, ix. 12, 11, and Dharma Sūtra, ii. 5, 12, 22, add parivinna to parivitta, but probably the two words should be identical in sense.
- Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā (see note 17) has agre-didhiṣu;
Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, iii. 2, 8, 11, agra-didhiṣu. The Dharma Sūtras adopt agre-didhiṣu.
- Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā has didhiṣū-pati;
and so the Dharma Sūtras. Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā, xxx. 9, has the corrupt edidhiṣuḥ-pati.
- x. 18, 8.
- Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 40, 708.
- Die indogermanischen Verwandtschaftsnamen, 553. Cf. also Lanman, Sanskrit Reader, 385;
for the other view, see Whitney, Translation of the Atharvaveda, 848;
Roth, Siebenzig Lieder, 151, n.;
Zimmer. Altindisches Leben, 329.
- Āśvalāyana Gṛhya Sūtra, iv. 2, 18. Cf. Lanman in Whitney, op. cit., 849.
- x. 40, 2.
- Cf. Yāska, Nirukta, iii. 15, with Roth's note;
Geldner, Ṛgveda, Kommentar, 160;
Weber, Indische Studien, v, 343, n.;
Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 13, 355, n., 367;
Jolly, Ṛecht und Sitte, 71;
Muir, Sanskrit Texts, 5, 459;
von Schroeder, Indiens Literatur und Cultur, 429. The custom died out in later times, is seems.
- ix. 5, 27. 28.
- Die indogermanischen Verwandtschaftsnamen, 553-555. Cf. Jolly, Rechtund Sitte, 59;
Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 13, 371, n.
- This is certainly the case in Av. v. 17, 8, which, however, merely exalts the sanctity of the Brāhmaṇa, and does not necessarily imply remarriage at all.
- E.g., Baudhāyana Dharma Sūtra, ii. 2, 3, 27.
- Vasiṣṭha Dharma Sūtra, xvii. 19. 20. 72-74;
Baudhāyana Dharma Sūtra, iv. 1, 16;
Mānava Dharma Śāstra, ix. 175. Cf. also Muir, Sanskrit Texts, 1^2, 281;
- Vedische Studien, 1, 27.
- vi. 49, 8. Cf. Mahābhārata, iii. 70, 26.
- Rv. i. 62, 11;
vi. 53, 4;
vii. 18, 2;
x. 43, 1;
101, 11. Cf. Av. iii. 4;
Taittirīya Saṃhitā, vi. 5, 1, 4, etc. See Muir, Sanskrit Texts, 5, 455 et seq.;
Schrader, Prehistoric Antiquities, 387;
Jolly, Recht und Sitte, 64;
von Schroeder, Indiens Literatur und Cultur, 430, 431;
Delbrück, Die indogermanischen Verwandtschaftsnamen, 539, 540;
Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 13, 353;
Bloomfield, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 48, 561.
- i. 5, 8.
- ix. 1, 4, 6.
- Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, iii. 9, 4, 4;
Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, v. 3, 1, 4;
vi. 5, 3, 1;
vii. 5, 1, 1;
xiii. 2, 6, 4;
4, 1, 8;
5, 2, 2. 5. 9;
Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, xix. 1, 4. Cf. Rv. v. 2, 2;
Av. ii. 36, 3;
Taittirīya Saṃhitā, i. 8, 9, 1;
Weber, Indische Studien, 5, 220.
- Pari-vṛktā occurs in Rv. x. 102, 11;
Av. vii. 113, 2;
xx. 128, 10. 11;
Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xiii. 2, 6, 6;
4, 1, 8;
5, 2, 7;
parivṛktī in Taittirīya Saṃhitā, i. 8, 9, 1;
Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, i. 7. 3, 4;
iii. 9, 4, 4;
Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, x. 10;
Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, v. 3, 1, 13.
- Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, iii. 22;
Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, i. 7, 3, 3;
iii. 9, 4, 4;
Av. xx. 128, 10. 11;
Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xiii. 2, 6, 5;
4, 1, 8;
5, 2, 6. Cf. Weber, Indische Studien, 5, 308, n.;
Bloomfield, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 48, 553, 554.
- Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, i. 7, 3, 3 et seq.;
iii. 9, 4, 5;
Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xiii. 4, 1, 8;
Śāṅkhāyana Śrauta Sūtra, xvi. 4, 4.
- vi. 5, 3, 1.
- Indische Studien, 10, 6.
- Vedische Studien, 2, 199. Cf. Geldner, ibid., 2, 38.
- Indogermanische Verwandtschaftsnamen, 539. Cf. Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, 325. Yājñavalkya had, however, two apparently equal wives (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, iii. 1, and cf. Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, i. 3, 10, 3).
- E.g., Taittirīya Saṃhitā, ii. 5, 6, 4;
Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, iii. 3, 1.
- Altindisches Leben, 323.
- Indische Studien, 5, 222. Weber's theory that sapatna cannot be derived from sapatnī is, however, quite untenable.
- See, e.g., Westermaarck, Origin and Development of Marriage;
Crawley, Mystic Rose.
- Mayr, Indisches Erbrecht, Wien, 1873, contends in favour of its existence. But see Weber, Indische Studien, 5, 191, 207;
10, 83, 84;
Jolly, Recht und Sitte, 48;
Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 13, 354 et seq.;
von Schroeder, Indiens Literatur und Cultur, 431, n. 2;
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 44, 340342;
Delbrück, Die indogermanischen Verwandtschaftsnamen, 541-545.
- x. 85, 37. 38.
- Av. xiv. 1, 44. 52. 61;
2, 14. 27.
- Indische Studien, 5, 191. So Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, 326, who, however, suggests that the plural is generic.
- Op. cit., 543.
- Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, ii. 6, 2, 14. Cf. the plural śvaśurāḥ, ‘fathers-in-law,’ in Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xii. 12. The Niyoga has, of course, nothing to do with polyandry.
- Indische Studien, 10, 83. Cf. Ludwig, Translation of the Rigveda, 5, 573, and cf. Dharma.
- Taittirīya Saṃhitā, v. 6, 8, 3;
Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, iii. 4, 7.
- Cf. above, p. 396.
- Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, i. 10, 11;
Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, ii. 5, 2, 20;
Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, i. 6, 5, 2.
- Op. cit., 550.
- i. 3, 1, 21. Cf. Eggeling, Sacred Books of the East, 12, 76, n. 2;
Bo7htlingk, Dictionary, s.v. paraḥpuṃsā (cf. above, p. 397). Delbrück, op. cit., 551, shows also that neither the Dīkṣā (‘consecration’) nor the Pravara (‘invitation’ to Agni, as described by the names of the mythical ancestors of the invoker) gives any countenance to the theory of doubt as to the parentage of the Vedic Indians.
- Rv. i. 124, 7;
iv. 3, 2;
x. 71, 4, etc.
- Leist, Altarisches Jus Gentium, 276 et seq. Cf. Schrader, Prehistoric Antiquities, 388, 389;
Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 13, 366, 367.
- Cf. above, p. 396.
- Rv. i. 134, 3;
iii. 53, 8;
viii. 17, 7. Mahānagnī, Av. xiv. 1, 36;
xx. 136, 5;
Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, i. 27, denotes a courtesan. Cf. Av. v. 7, 8. So also puṃścalī, Av. xv. 2;
Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā, xxx. 22;
puṃścalū, Taittirīyā Brāhmaṇa, iii. 4, 15, 1.
- Rv. ii. 29, 1 (raha-sūḥ, ‘one who bears in secret.’ Cf. Max Müller, Ancient Sanskrit Literature, 26;
Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, 333, 334).
- Rv. ii. 13, 12;
iv. 19, 9;
Zimmer, op. cit., 335. The child, when exposed, was in danger of being consumed by ants (vamrī). Cf. below, p. 493.
- xxx. 6.
- Cf. Jābāla Satyakāma.
- Cf. Pāṇini, iv. 1, 116. But the custom may be due simply to polygamy (Keith, Aitareya Āraṇyaka, p. 244, n. 2).
- xxiii. 30. 31: Taittirīya Saṃhitā, vii. 4, 19, 2. 3.
- xxx. 15.
- xxx. 15;
Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, iii. 4, 11, 1, has apaskadvarī.
- xxx. 12;
Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, iii. 4, 7, 1.
- Cf. Vedische Studien, 1, xxv, 196, 275, 299, 309;
2, 120, 154, 179, etc.;
Jolly, Recht und Sitte, 48.
- i. 92, 4.
- Rv. iv. 58, 8;
vi. 75, 4;
x. 168, 2. Perhaps also vrā in i. 124, 8;
- x. 162, 5 (brother and sister: cf. above, p. 397).
- Rv. x. 61, 5-7;
Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, viii. 2, 10;
Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, iii. 33;
Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, i. 7, 4, 1.
- viii. 6, 7.
- Rv. i. 124, 7. Cf. Putrikā.
- Cf. Delbrück, op. cit., 574. Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, 309, asserts that the consent of parent or brother was needed, but no clear evidence of this can be adduced. The later custom is not conclusive, since it is bound up with the usage of child marriage, which deprived both son and daughter of anyfree choice. Cf. ibid., 315;
Kaegi, Der Rigveda, 15.
- This is so natural as not to need express evidence. Cf., e.g., the marriage proposals of Śyāvāśva Ātreya, as detailed in the Bṛhaddevatā, v. 49 et seq.;
Sieg, Die Sagenstoffe des Ṛgveda, 51 et seq.
- Rv. x. 78, 4;
85, 15. 23. Zimmer, op. cit., 310, exalts this into a universal practice, and compares the use of aryaman, ‘friend,’ as ‘bride-wooer.’ In Śyāvāśva's case, his father acted for him.
- Cf. Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, i. 10, 11;
Taittirīya Saṃhitā, ii. 3, 4, 1;
Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, i. 1, 2, 4;
Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xx. vi. 5. See also Mānava Dharma Śāstra, iii. 53;
Megasthenes in McCrindle's translation, p. 70;
Weber, Indische Studien, 5, 407;
Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 13, 345 et seq.;
Schrader, Prehistoric Antiquities, 381;
Pischel, Vedische Studien, 2, 78 et seq.;
Hillebrandt, Vedische Mythologie, 3, 86, n.;
Jolly, Recht und Sitte, 52.
- Rv. i. 109, 2, refers to the gods Indra and Agni as more generous than a vijāmātṛ, ‘son-in-law,’ or a syāla, ‘brother-in-law.’ The force of vi in the former word must be unfavourable, and the sense, as indicated by Pischel, is no doubt, that a son-in-law who was not in other respects altogether suitable might have to buy his bride at a heavy cost. The vijāmātṛ is, in fact, the aśrīro jāmātā, the ‘ignoble son-in-law,’ of Rv. viii. 2, 20. Cf. Yāska, Nirukta, vi. 9;
Bloomfield, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 15, 255.
- Cf. Rv. vi. 28, 5;
x. 27, 12;
Av. v. 17, 12. Possibly in Rv. i. 109, 2, there is a reference to a generous brother giving his sister a dowry in order to get her a husband. Cf. Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 13, 345;
Muir, Sanskrit Texts, 5, 459;
Kaegi, Der Rigveda, n. 352;
Zimmer, op. cit., 310, n. It is doubtful whether anudeyī in Rv. x. 85, 6, means ‘dowry’ or not. See Whitney, Translation of the Atharvaveda, 741.
- Cf. Rv. i. 112, 19;
x. 39, 7;
65, 12. Sāyaṇa's view that Kamadyū was daughter of Purumitra seems certain, though Zimmer, loc. cit., is doubtful.
- Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 13, 361, 362;
Jolly, Recht und Sitte, 50 et seq.;
Pischel, Vedische Studien, 1, 29;
Schrader, Prehistoric Antiquities, 383.
- iii. 122.
- v. 49 et seq.
- The older ritual is described with considerable detail in Rv. x. 85 and Av. xiv. 1 and 2. The later ritual, as elaborately traced in the Gṛhya Sūtras, is set out by Weber and Haas, Indische Studien, 5, 177-411. See also Leist, Altarisches Jus Gentium, 144 et seq.;
von Schroeder, Die Hochzeitsgebräuche der Esten, Berlin, 1888;
Schrader, Prehistoric Antiquities, 384 et seq.;
Hopkins, op. cit., 13, 355 et seq.;
Winternitz, Das altindische Hochzeitsrituell, 1892;
Whitney, Translation of the Atharvaveda, 739 et seq.;
Lanman, Sanskrit Reader, 389 et seq.
- x. 17, 1.
- Rv. iv. 58, 9;
Av. vi. 60;
xiv. 2, 59.
- Rv. x. 85, 13.
- Cf. Rv. x. 85, 36. 38;
Av. xiv. 1, 47. 48. Before the bride mounted the stone, the groom repeated, according to the Gṛhya Sūtras (Āśvalāyana, i. 7. 3;
Śāṅkhāyana, i. 13, 4;
Pāraskara, i. 6, 3, etc.), the words, ‘I am he, thou art she;
I the Sāman, thou the Ṛc;
I the heaven, thou the earth;
here will we unite ourselves and produce offspring,’ for which see Av. xiv. 2, 71;
Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xxxv. 18;
Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, viii. 27;
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, vi. 4, 19 (Mādhyaṃdina).
- x. 18, 8. Cf. Av. xiv. 1, 51.
- Av. xiv. 2, 59 et seq.
- Rv. x. 85, 7. 8. 10. 24, 25. 26. 27. 42 et seq.;
Av. xiv. 1, 60.
- See for the purification of the bride's garment, Rv. x. 85. 28-30. 35.
- ‘They own neither themselves nor an inheritance’ (nātmanaś caneśate na dāyasyed), says the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, iv. 4, 2, 13. Cf. Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, iv. 6, 4;
Taittirīya Saṃhitā, vi. 5, 8, 2;
Nirukta, iii. 4. Cf. for the Epic, Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 13, 368. For compulsory obedience of the wife, cf. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, vi. 4, 7. In the same Upanīṣad Yājñavalkya, on retiring from the ordinary life, divides his goods between his two wives.
- Rv. viii. 31, 5-9;
x. 34, 11;
85, 18. 19. 42 et seq.;
Av. iii. 30;
xiv. 2, 32.
- Rv. x. 85, 46. Cf. as regards the bridegroom's sisters, Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, iii. 37. In Av. xiv. 2, 26, the daughter-in-law is to be ‘wealful’ (śambhūḥ) to her father-in-law, and ‘pleasant’ (syonā) to her mother-in-law, which is correct on either theory of her position as a daughter or a mistress.
- Cf. Rv. i. 70, 5, where an old fatḥer's goods are divided by his sons, and Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, 327. Cf. also the possible case of a father who recovers after giving over all his goods to his son, Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad, iv. 15.
- Av. viii. 6, 24;
Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, ii. 4, 2;
Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xii. 12 (Indische Studien, 5, 260);
Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, ii. 4, 6, 12;
Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, iii. 22;
Delbrück, Die indogermanischen Verwandtschaftsnamen, 514, 515.
- No doubt it might also apply even if the father-in-law were decrepit;
but it is hardly likely that, in these circumstances, the strong sense of respect evident in Av. viii. 6, 24, which implies fear, would have developed.
- Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, i. 9, 2, 14;
Pāṇini, iv. 1, 33;
Delbrück, op. cit., 510, 512.
- i. 1, 4, 13. For the older practice, cf. Rv. i. 122, 2;
iii. 53, 4-6;
viii. 31, 5 et seq.;
x. 86, 10, etc.
- E.g., i. 3, 1, 9. 12. 13. Cf. Lévi, La doctrine du sacrifice, 157, 158.
- iii. 6, 3.
- i. 10, 11.
- vi. 5, 8, 2. Cf. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, i. 3, 1, 9.
- xxxi. 1. Cf. Aitareva Brāhmana, iii. 22.
- Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, v. 2, 1, 10.
- Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, i. 4, 17.
- In viii. 33, 17, Indra is credited with a poor opinion of woman's intelligence, and Purūravas in x. 95, 15, frankly calls them hyenas. They are defended in v. 61, 6-8, but only against mean men (Paṇi). Cf. Kaegi, Der Rigveda, n. 351.
- Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, i. 9, 2, 12;
x. 5, 2, 9. Cf. Vāsiṣṭha Dharma Sūtra, xii. 13;
Baudhāyana Dharma Sūtra, i. 1, 2, 2;
Weber, Indische Studien, 5, 330, n.;
Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 13, 365, n.
- iii. 24, 7. Cf. Gopatha Brāhmaṇa, ii. 3, 22;
Bloomfield, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 19, 14, n. 2.
- iv. 7, 4. Cf. Av. vii. 38, 4.
- Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, iii. 4, 1;
iv. 5, 1.
- Cf. the epithet gandharva-gṛhitā, Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, v. 29;
Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa, ii. 9;
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, iii. 3, 1;
and see Āśvalāyana Gṛhya Sūtra. iii. 4, 4;
Śāṅkhāyana Gṛhya Sūtra, iv. 10.
- Rv. i. 91, 20;
iii. 1, 23;
x. 85, 25. 41. 42. 45;
Av. iii. 23, 2;
v. 25, 11;
vi. 11, 2, etc.
- vii. 4, 7. 8. Cf. Nirukta, iii. 2.
- x. 18, 8;
- Rv. iii. 16, 5.
- vi. 11, 3. Cf. viii. 6, 25.
- vii. 15. Cf. Max Müller, Ancient Sanskrit Literature, 409.
- Taittirīya Saṃhitā, vi. 5, 10, 3;
Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, iv. 6, 4;
Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xxvii. 9;
Nirukta, iii. 4;
Śāṅkhāyana Śrauta Sūtra, xv. 17, 12.
- Altindisches Leben, 319. Cf. Weber, Naxatra, 2, 314, n., who cites Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, xi. 8, 8, as evidence of the exposure of two boys, but the sense is doubtful.
- Die indogermanischen Verwandtschaftsnamen, 575. See also Weber, Indische Studien, 5, 54, 210;
Ludwig, Translation of the Rigveda, 6, 142;
Kaegi, Der Rigveda, n. 49;
Schrader, Prehistoric Antiquities, 389, 390. Bo7htlingk's view is given in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 44, 494-496, and cf. Pischel, Vedisehe Studien, 2, 48, who compares iv. 18, 5.
- The later literature is full of details of the ceremonies before and after birth (see Delbrück, op. cit., 573 et seq.). Weber, Naxatra, 2, 314, n., gives the Vedic embryology;
twins were disliked, Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, vii. 9, etc.
- Rv. v. 78, 9;
x. 184, 3;
Av. i. 11, 6;
iii. 23, 2;
Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, vii. 13, 9;
Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, iv. 5. 2, 4;
Chāndogya Upaniṣad, v. 9. 1;
Weber, Naxatra, 2, 314, n. There are in the Av. many spells concerned with birth (i. 11, etc.), and miscarriages are mentioned (avatokā, avasū, Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā, xxx. 15;
Av. viii. 6, 9, etc.).
- Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, i. 3, 4 (Mādhyaṃdina = i. 5, 2 Kāṇva). Cf. also vi. 4, 24 et seq.;
Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, ii. 5, 1, 6. After being weaned the child is ati-stana (Kauṣitaki Brāhmaṇa, xiii. 2).
- Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, xiv. 7, 2 (on Sāmaveda, ii. 525 = Rv. ix. 96, 17). The first ten days were the dangerous period (Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, vii. 14;
Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, xxii. 14, 3).
- Av. vi. 140.
- vi. 1, 6, 7. Cf. Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, vii. 4, 2, 38;
xi. 1, 6, 3 5.
- i. 3, 3.
- Cf. Delbrück, op. cit., 449, 596.
- vi. 68, Cf. ii. 13, according to Kauśika Sūtra, 53. 54, and cf. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xi. 4, 1, 6.
- Cf. Aitareya Āraṇyaka, i. 3, 3, with Keith's note;
Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, vi. 1, 3, 9, and Nāman.
- Cf. Schrader, Prehistoric Antiquities, 391;
von Schroeder, Indiens Literatur und Cultur, 41;
Jolly, Recht und Sitte, 67-69;
Weber, Proceedings of the Berlin Academy, 1896, 254 et seq.;
Roth, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 8, 468;
Wilson, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 16, 202;
Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, 329;
Geldner, Rigveda, Kommentar, 154.
- Av. xviii. 3, 1.
- x. 18, 7. 8.
- Cf. Herodotos, v. 5 (of the Thracians);
iv. 71 (of the Scythians);
Procopius, De Bello Gothico, ii. 14 (of the Heruli). So in Germany Brynhild and Nanna are instances (cf. Weinhold, Altnordisches Leben, 476 et seq.). The universality of the custom must not be exaggerated, as Zimmer, 331, is inclined to do. To burn all the wives of a king would, in primitive ages, have been a wasteful action;
even the chief wife would often have had to be spared on one ground or another. The Rigveda already reveals a state of society in which the actual burning of the wife was avoided by a semblance of it in the funeral ritual of (cf. Macdonell, Sanskrit Literature, 126). The reward of a good wife was to go to the world of her husband (pati-loka) after death (cf. Av. xiv. 1, 64;
xviii. 3, 1;
Rv. x. 85, 43). A Vedic citation in the scholiast on Pāṇini, iii. 2, 8, Vārttika, 2, says that a Brahmin woman who drinks Surā, an intoxicating liquor, does not go to the world of her husband after death.
- Cf. perhaps the gartāruh of Rv. i. 124, 7, as explained by Yāska, Nirukta, iii. 5;
Geldner, Rigveda, Kommentar, 22.