Dear colleagues,

If I may, although it is important that we have a deep and thorough understanding of textual claims, simply compiling textual authorizations for how young girls can or ought to be "married" doesn't really answer the question of how female adulthood is understood and constituted in any real way. I would argue that the category of adulthood has not really applied to women in many historical and social contexts -- or only in a way that is so gendered as to be a different concept altogether. In particular, reproductive viability is often constitutive of female "adulthood" in a way that is not true of male "adulthood". And obviously the measure of reproductive viability mentioned in legal texts is highly androcentric to the point of fantasy. No 10-12-year-old is ready to be a mother in any real way -- physically or in terms of maturation, no matter what epoch we are speaking of. 

best,

apl

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 5:25 PM Walter Slaje <walter.slaje@gmail.com> wrote:

> girls married at very young ages were often not sent to live with their husbands until after menarche

As far as my recollection goes - I am not in a position to cite sources as I have no access to the relevant files at the moment -, the consummation of marriage could also take place on the occasion of a so-called 'second' marriage (punar-vivāha) after the ritual wedding of a prepubescent girl. Immediately after she had reached a childbearing age (i.e. after her first menstruation), the girl was brought from her parents' house to her husband's house. This practice corresponds more or less to the garbhādhāna saṃskāra (the rite of "impregnation") and had the sole purpose of making the optimum use of her fertility. 

Best wishes,

WS

Am Sa., 5. Sept. 2020 um 22:28 Uhr schrieb Sundari Johansen Hurwitt <sundari.johansen@gmail.com>:

Thank you to everyone for these very helpful responses.

Amy, you have a very good question, and it's certainly part of what is driving my initial query. I think Patrick Olivelle's earlier response here is relevant, which quoted Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra 3.3.1 (his translation): 

"A woman 12 years old has reached the age for legal transactions (vyavahāra), as also a man 16 years old." 

To Walter Slaje's point, a marriage is a legal contract, and being able to enter into legal contracts has long been established as the marker of legal adulthood. For me that begs the question: what other binding legal contracts were girls and women allowed to enter besides marriage? For example, do we know if they were able to bring grievances to have them resolved via the legal system? (And this may be further complicated by caste/class/etc.)

Another pertinent question for me: was it age, marriage, or consummation of marriage that marked a girl's legal adulthood? The marriage age dropped over time, and girls married at very young ages were often not sent to live with their husbands until after menarche. (It's a modern example, but here in the US several states have no minimum age for marriage, parental and/or judicial consent is all that's required. Girls as young as 10 have been married to men in their mid-late 20s and early 30s, fairly recently, and it most frequently happens in evangelical communities in the rural South. If married at 16 or older, they are legally an adult. But 15 or under, they're not, and can't even hire a lawyer or seek a divorce without permission of their guardian... which is their spouse.)

All of the (very) helpful responses so far reminded me of a book I read a long while back. Narendra Nath Bhattacharyya has some interesting information on all of this in Indian Puberty Rites (p. 37-38):

“In the Dharmasūtra of Gautama it is stated that the girl should be given in marriage at puberty; she is allowed to remain a virgin until her third menstruation. [citation: XVIII.20-23] Parāśara says:

‘A girl of eight is called Gaurī; but one who is nine years old is a Rohinī; one who is ten years old is a Kanyā; beyond this one is Rajasvalā (i.e. one who has the experience of menstruation). If a person does not give away a maiden when she has reached her twelfth year, his Pitṛs (ancestors) will have to drink every month her menstrual discharge. The parents and also the eldest brother go to hell on seeing an unmarried girl becoming Rajasvalā.’ [citation: Parāśara Smṛti, VII.6-9]

“The same is also stated in other Smṛtis. [citation: Samvarta, 65-66; Bṛhad-yama, III.19-22, Aṅgiras, 126-28] The Vāyu Purāṇa [citation: LXXXIII.44] extols the marriage of a Gaurī by remarking that her son purifies 21 ancestors on his father’s side and six male ancestors of his mother’s side. In a later work it is stated that a Brāhmaṇa should marry a Brāhmaṇa girl who is a Nagnikā or Gaurī, the former being a girl over eight years but less than ten, and the latter being one who is between ten and twelve and has not had menstruation. [citation: Vaikhānasa, VI.12] As the marriageable age of the girls came down, the rite of Caturthīkarma naturally became irrelevant and it was performed when the girls attained maturity long after the marriage and it accordingly came to be known as Garbhādhāna.”

Just as a final thought, legal "adulthood" has for quite a large part of human history in most cultures been very different for women than for men, with differing ages, privileges, responsibilities, and legal implications. For that matter, both the idea of a "child" or "childhood" as well as what marks the boundary between "child" and "adult" have also changed.

Speaking of... if anybody is still reading this—not to hijack my own thread, but I'm reminded that I'm also looking for references on children, children's bodies, and rules around children's participation in ritual and public life. Especially on girls, but I'm also interested in the similarities and differences as ideals represented in the texts. But that may be another post!

Thank you all so far! 

-s

--

Sundari Johansen Hurwitt | sundari.johansen@gmail.com | she/her

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:58 AM Amy Langenberg <langenap@eckerd.edu> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

It would be helpful to know in these contexts what "marriage" means and whether attaining adulthood refers to sexual maturity, or a legal/ritual status, or whether the two are conflated in theory and/or in practice.

These are very young female bodies we are talking about. I'm sure this needs no mentioning, but I will mention it anyway.

Listening in with interest!

Amy Langenberg

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 12:31 PM Walter Slaje <walter.slaje@gmail.com> wrote:

Another recommendation:

Harry Falk, Die Kurus und ihre jungen Frauen. Studia Orientalia Electronica, 110 (2014): 93-101.

Retrieved from https://journal.fi/store/article/view/45354

Am Sa., 5. Sept. 2020 um 18:10 Uhr schrieb Martin Straube via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>:

One small addition: On kaumārī cf. P. Thieme, "Jungfrauengatte", 
Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 78 (1963); reprinted 
in: Kleine Schriften, 2nd ed., Wiesbaden 1984, pp. 426ff.

Regards
Martin Straube

Zitat von Walter Slaje via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>:

> Below are some additional indications that could be followed up in the
> course of your research.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> WS
>
>
>
> 1) See *Richard Schmidt* (*Beiträge zur indischen Erotik*. 3. Aufl. Berlin
> 1922: 645–649) with source quotes on marriage age and also marks of
> pubescence).
>
>
>
> 2) See moreover *Ram Gopal*, *India of Vedic Kalpasūtras*. Delhi 21983: 212
> with relevant quotes (p. 220, n. 59) also on the important term *nagnikā*
> („naked“) in the context of the ideal marriage age:
>
> *nagnikām* [=] *aprāptastrībhāvām* *ayauvanarasām* *upayaccheta* (“let him
> approach a *nagnikā* girl for intercourse in whom the sexual
> characteristics of a woman are not yet developed and in whom the menstrual
> fluid (*yauvanarasa*) has not yet emerged.”).
>
> *nagnikā*, defined as the “best” (*śreṣṭhā*) in the above passage of
> *Mānavagṛhyasūtra* as cited by Gopal, seems actually to refer to the
> absence of pubic hair (*ajātalomnī*) as also discussed, e.g., by
> Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa on *Gobhilagṛhyasūtra* 2.5.7. According to the latter’s
> testimony there were Ācāryas who stipulated intercourse with prepubescent
> married girls lacking pubic hair, if these girls themselves desired so:
>
> *yady ajātalomny evātīva puruṣābhogārthinī syāt, tathā sati, *[…] *maithunaṃ
> kartavyam ity eke ācāryā manyante*.
>
>
>
> 3) The Kashmirian *Kāṭhakagṛhyasūtra* determines the age of marriage of
> girls at 10, at the very latest at 12 years (*daśavārṣikaṃ** brahmacaryaṃ
> kumārīṇāṃ dvādaśavārṣikaṃ vā *KGS 19.2), on which Devapāla comments:
> *varṣadaśakād
> ūrdhvaṃ **brahmacarye kumārī **na** sthāpayitavyā pitrā **।* *agatyā **vā
> dvādaśa **varṣāṇi nātikramaṇīyāni* ॥ (Devapālabhāṣya *ad* 19.2. ||
>
>
>
> 4) *Manusmṛti*
>
>
> *triṃśadvarṣo vahet kanyāṃ hṛdyāṃ dvādaśavārṣikīm | tryaṣṭavarṣo 'ṣṭavarṣāṃ
> vā dharme sīdati satvaraḥ* || MDhŚ 9.94 ||
>
>
>
> “A 30-year-old man should marry a charming girl of 12 years, or an
> 18-year-old, *a girl of 8 years* - *sooner, if* his fulfilling the Law
> would suffer.” (Olivelle 2005, p. 194).
>
>
>
> There is a wider range of evidence for an ideal marriage age for girls aged
> 8 (*a**ṣṭ**avar**ṣ**ā*): To start with Pārvatī, Śiva’s wife, it is said
> that she was married at the age of eight (8), i.e. before puberty, the
> technical term for which is *gaurī* (significantly also used as an epithet
> for her):
>
>
>
> 5) Jayadratha’s *Haracaritacint**ā**ma**ṇ**i*
>
> *dev**ī** himavata**ḥ** putr**ī** k**ā**l**ī** n**ī**lotpalacchavi**ḥ** | *
>
> *a**ṣṭ**avar**ṣ**ā** tapoyukt**ā** bhart**ā**ra**ṃ** pr**ā**pa dh**ū**rja*
> *ṭ**im* || Hc 22.3 ||
>
> *sā krīḍantī pitṛgehe śambhunā saha pārvatī* |
>
> *dṛṣṭvā dṛṣṭvā vapuḥ śyāmaṃ nāhaṃ gaurīty alajjata* || Hc 22.4 ||
>
>
>
> 6) *gaurī* = *aṣṭavarṣā* = prepubescent:
>
> *Brhadyamasmrti* (= *Parāśarasmṛti* 7.4):
>
> *aṣṭavarṣā** bhaved gaurī navavarṣā ca rohiṇī |*
>
> *daśavarṣā bhavet kanyā  ata ūrdhvaṃ rajasvalā* || YS 182v 3.21 ||
>
>
>
> 7) *Aṣṭavarṣā* marriage in the *Revākhaṇḍa* of the *Vāyupurāṇa*:
>
> *puṇyāham adya saṃjātam ahaṃ tvaddarśanotsukaḥ |*
>
> *kanyā** madīyā rājendra hy aṣṭavarṣā vyajāyata* || RKV 142.18 ||
> […]
>
>
> *caturbhujo mama sutas triṣu lokeṣu viśrutaḥ | tasyeyaṃ dīyatāṃ kanyā
> śiśupālasya bhīṣmaka* || RKV 142.20 ||
>
>
>
> 8) *Rāmāyaṇa*
>
> Sītā, too, was married before the age of puberty as a “*kaumārī*”:
>
> *svayaṃ tu bhāryāṃ kaumārīṃ ciram adhyuṣitāṃ satīm |*
>
> *śailūṣa iva māṃ rāma parebhyo dātum icchasi* || Rām 2.27.8 (CE)||
>
>
>
> The Gītā Press translates from an emic insight point of view: „who was
> married to you before puberty”.
>
> The commentaries *Rāmāyaṇaśiromaṇi* und *Bhūṣaṇa* on this passage (Rām
> 2.30,8) confirm *kaumārī* as “*kumārāvasthāyāṃ eva vivāhitā*” (“married
> already in the period of life of a ten to twelve years old maiden”).
>
> *kumārī* = 1. “A young girl, one from 10 to 12 years old“ (Apte)
>
>
> 9) A significant term for a a sexually mature, fully developed girl is
> *prauḍhā* (cp., eg., *Bhāgavatapurāṇa *4.25.21 (*a-prauḍhā* – “not yet
> fully developed”), or *ūḍhā* (cp. *nava-ūḍhā* – “having just attained
> puberty”, as in *Brahmavaivartap*., ch. 112).
>
> Am Sa., 5. Sept. 2020 um 03:08 Uhr schrieb Madhav Deshpande via INDOLOGY <
> indology@list.indology.info>:
>
>> Hello Sundari,
>>
>>      I see these quotations from various texts embedded in the commentary
>> Tattvabodhinī on Bhaṭṭoji's Siddhānta-Kaumudī, on rule 3168 of SK [p. 531,
>> edition of SK with Tattvabodhinī, edited by Wasudev Laxman Shastri
>> Panshikar, 7th edition, Nirnaya Sagara press, Mumbai, 1933]:  These are
>> comments on the word *gaurī:*
>>
>> "गौरी त्वसञ्जातरज:कन्याशङ्करभार्ययो:" ... इति मेदिनी ।..."अष्टवर्षा तु या
>> दत्ता श्रुतशीलसमन्विते । सा गौरी तत्सुतो यस्तु स गौर: परिकीर्तित: ।।" इति
>> ब्रह्माण्डवचनं श्राद्धकाण्डे हेमाद्रिणोद्धृतम् । एतेन "गौर: शुच्याचार:"
>> इत्यादि भाष्यं व्याख्यातम् ।
>>
>>    The end of the above passage uses the quote fromthe Brahmāṇḍa-Purāṇa to
>> argue that the word *gauraḥ *used by Patañjali in defining a Brāhmaṇa
>> does not refer to the skin color, but it has a Dharmaśāstric significance
>> as "the son of a woman who was given at her age of eight to a learned and
>> righteous Brahmin."  The same quote is used by the great Nāgeśabhaṭṭa in
>> one of his commentaries. I have cited that in one of my publications, and I
>> have to hunt down that reference.  But it is exactly the same argument.
>>    On a personal level, the history of my own family shows the gradual
>> change from that old standard for the age of marriage.  My grandmother was
>> married when she was 9.  My two paternal aunts were married at the age of
>> 14 or 15, and since that was considered rather too late, they were married
>> to widowers.  My own mother was married at her age of 16.  This is an
>> interesting trajectory of history within a single family.
>>     With best wishes,
>>
>> Madhav M. Deshpande
>> Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics
>> University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
>> Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies
>>
>> [Residence: Campbell, California, USA]
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 5:09 PM Olivelle, J P via INDOLOGY <
>> indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
>>
>>> The most straightforward statement in Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra 3.3.1:
>>>
>>> A woman 12 years old has reached the age for legal transactions
>>> (vyavahāra), as also
>>> a man 16 years old.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 4, 2020, at 5:23 PM, Sundari Johansen Hurwitt via INDOLOGY <
>>> indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I am looking for sources that explore the age at which a girl
>>> traditionally becomes an adult woman (meaning, she transitions into defacto
>>> adulthood by the standards of the time) in Hindu culture, prior to the 19th
>>> century. I'm already aware of the Indian Penal Code setting the age of
>>> consent for marriage for girls at 10 years old in 1860, and the history
>>> following that.
>>>
>>> In particular I'm looking for primary and/or secondary literature that
>>> mention bodily processes, rites of passage, age, or other markers of that
>>> transition to adulthood.
>>>
>>> Many thanks!
>>> -sundari
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Sundari Johansen Hurwitt
>>> sundari.johansen@gmail.com
>>> sjohansen@ciis.edu
>>> she/her
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>> INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
>>> indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
>>> committee)
>>> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
>>> unsubscribe)
>>>
>>> This message is from an external sender. Learn more about why this <<
>>> matters at https://links.utexas.edu/rtyclf.                        <<
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>> INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
>>> indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
>>> committee)
>>> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
>>> unsubscribe)
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
>> indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
>> committee)
>> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
>> unsubscribe)
>>



--
Martin Straube
Research Fellow in Pali Lexicography
Pali Text Society

Philipps-Universität Marburg
Indologie und Tibetologie
Deutschhausstrasse 12
35032 Marburg
Germany


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

_______________________________________________
PLEASE post to this list ONLY from an email account that has been subscribed.
PLEASE use a signature with your full name and institutional affiliation.

RISA-L mailing list
RISA-L@lists.sandiego.edu
https://lists.sandiego.edu/mailman/listinfo/risa-l

_______________________________________________
PLEASE post to this list ONLY from an email account that has been subscribed.
PLEASE use a signature with your full name and institutional affiliation.

RISA-L mailing list
RISA-L@lists.sandiego.edu
https://lists.sandiego.edu/mailman/listinfo/risa-l

_______________________________________________
PLEASE post to this list ONLY from an email account that has been subscribed.
PLEASE use a signature with your full name and institutional affiliation.

RISA-L mailing list
RISA-L@lists.sandiego.edu
https://lists.sandiego.edu/mailman/listinfo/risa-l

_______________________________________________
PLEASE post to this list ONLY from an email account that has been subscribed.
PLEASE use a signature with your full name and institutional affiliation.

RISA-L mailing list
RISA-L@lists.sandiego.edu
https://lists.sandiego.edu/mailman/listinfo/risa-l

_______________________________________________
PLEASE post to this list ONLY from an email account that has been subscribed.
PLEASE use a signature with your full name and institutional affiliation.

RISA-L mailing list
RISA-L@lists.sandiego.edu
https://lists.sandiego.edu/mailman/listinfo/risa-l