[INDOLOGY] Manusmriti ... (Olivelle, J P)

[Donald R Davis]

The context at the beginning of Chapter 9 is the law or duties between a man and wife. However, the misogyny of the text is unmistakeable (though hardly out of line with nearly all texts in antiquity) and 9.14-15 seem to (mis-)characterize females generally. However, I would add is that pauṃścalya here denotes lust or an innate sexual desire for men. While it may sometimes refer to a prostitute, the primary meaning of “prostitute” (at least in American English) is one who has sex in exchange for money. Granted, there are other meanings, but the money piece matters, I think, because the condemnation in Manu is about women’s temptations and attributed inclinations toward adultery, not prostitution in a strict sense. The passage is exhorting husbands to control their wives (or, more deviously, keep women hyper-occupied, 9.10-12) in order to prevent their adultery. It then justifies this control on the false grounds of women’s innate lechery, fickleness, and general inconstancy.

The question might be asked whether the English distinction of adultery and prostitution maps on precisely and consistently to Sanskrit terms, but it would seem important to keep the two distinct at the outset.

Best, Don

Don Davis
Dept. of Asian Studies
University of Texas at Austin




From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info> on behalf of "indology at list.indology.info" <indology at list.indology.info>
Reply-To: rajam <rajam at earthlink.net>
Date: Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 1:54 PM
To: DIEGO LOUKOTA SANCLEMENTE <diegoloukota at ucla.edu>
Cc: "indology at list.indology.info" <indology at list.indology.info>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Manusmriti ... (Olivelle, J P)

Thank you very much for the explanation!

Could you please also verify if these specific ślokas refer to “all women” in general or only certain women?

Thanks again,
V.S. Rajam




On Oct 29, 2020, at 10:21 AM, DIEGO LOUKOTA SANCLEMENTE via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info<mailto:indology at list.indology.info>> wrote:


   Dear all,

   With regard to Manu and "women being prostitutes," and with respect and utter admiration for Prof. Olivelle, I would like to suggest that some ślokas of the passages already mentioned suggest something beyond a simple "need to guard [women] from even the slightest attachment to sensual pleasure":

naitā rūpaṃ parīkṣante nāsāṃ vayasi saṃsthitiḥ
surūpaṃ vā virūpaṃ vā pumān ity eva bhuñjate

pauṃścalyāc calacittāc ca naisnehyāc ca svabhāvataḥ
rakṣitā yatnato 'pīha bhartṛṣv etā vikurvate

   In Prof. Olivelle's own translation ("they"=women, caps for emphasis mine):

"They pay no attention to beauty, they pay no heed to age; whether he is good looking or ugly, they make love to him with the single thought, "He's a man!" Because of the lechery, fickleness of mind, and hard-heartedness that are innate in them, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE CAREFULLY GUARDED IN THIS WORLD, they become hostile towards their husband"

   I would remark here that although "lechery" is of course entirely adequate, pauṃścalya>puṃś-calī is literally "one who runs after men," idiomatically and unequivocally a "prostitute," so perhaps something like "whorishness" or "sl at ttiness" may convey more directly the flavour of the Sanskrit word.

   On a personal note, I feel the venerable Manu to be, without much exegesis or word-bending, pretty antagonistic to a modern feminist agenda, which I support.

   namaskaromi,

   Diego
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY at list.indology.info<mailto:INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20201029/477d70f1/attachment.htm>