CHAPTER IV SOCIAL GRADES PERHAPS the most ERHAPS the most important of these in their own eyes were the customs as to the holding and distribution of lands and property. But those as to religion on the one hand, and as to connubium and commensality on the other, had probably a greater effect on their real well-being and national progress. We have learnt in recent years that among primitive peoples all over the world there exist restrictions as to the connubium (the right of intermarriage), and as to commensality (the right of eating together). Customs of endogamy and exogamy, that is, of choosing a husband or wife outside a limited circle of relationship, and inside a wider circle, were universal. A man, for instance, may not marry in his own family, he may marry within his own clan, he may not marry outside the clan. Among different tribes the limits drawn were subject to different customs, were not the same in detail. But the limits were always there. There were customs of eating together at sacred tribal feasts from which foreigners were excluded; customs of not eating together with persons outside certain limits of relationship, except under special circumstances; customs by which an outsider could, by eating with men of a tribe, acquire certain rights of relationship with that tribe. Here again the details differ. But the existence of such restrictions as to commensality was once universal. In India also in the seventh century B.C. such customs were prevalent, and prevalent in widely different forms among the different tribes,-Aryan, Dravidian, Kolarian, and others,-which made up the mixed population. We have unfortunately only Aryan records. And they, of course, take all the customs for granted, being addressed to people who knew all about them. We have therefore to depend on hints; and the hints given have not, as yet, been all collected and sifted. But a considerable number, and those of great importance, have been already observed; so that we are able to draw out some principal points in a sketch that requires future filling in. The basis of the social distinctions was relationship; or, as the Aryans, proud of their lighter colour, put it, colour. Their books constantly repeat a phrase as being common amongst the people,—and it was certainly common at least among the Aryan sections of the people,-which divided all the world, as they knew it, into four social grades, called Colours (Vanna). At the head were the Kshatriyas, the nobles, who claimed descent from the leaders of the Aryan tribes in their invasion of the continent. They were most particular as to the purity of their descent. through seven generations, both on the father's and the mother's side; and are described as "fair in colour, fine in presence, stately to behold." Then came the brahmins, claiming descent from the sacrificing priests, and though the majority of them followed then other pursuits, they were equally with the nobles distinguished by high birth and clear complexion. Below these were the peasantry, the people, the Vaisyas or Vessas. And last of all came the Sudras, which included the bulk of the people of non-Aryan descent, who worked for hire, were engaged in handicraft or service, and were darker in colour. In a general way this classification corresponded to the actual facts of life. But there were insensible gradations within the borders of each of the four Colours, and the borders themselves were both variable and undefined. And this enumeration of the populace was not complete. Below all four, that is below the Sudras, we have mention of other "low tribes" and "low trades" — hina-jātiyo and hīna-sippāni. Among the first we are told of workers in rushes, bird-catchers, and cart-makers-aboriginal tribesmen who were hereditary craftsmen in these three ways. Among the latter-mat-makers, barbers, potters, weavers, and leather-workers-it is implied that there was no hard and fast line, determined by birth. People could, and did, change their vocations by adopting one or other of these "low trades." Thus at Jāt. 5. 290, foll., a love-lorn Kshatriya works successively (without any dishonour or penalty) as a potter, 1 Dialogues of the Buddha i. 148; Vin. 11. 4. 160. basket-maker, reed-worker, garland-maker, and cook. Also at Jāt. 6. 372, a seṭṭhi works as a tailor and as a potter, and still retains the respect of his highborn relations. Finally we hear in both Jain and Buddhist books of aboriginal tribes, Chandālas and Pukkusas, who were more despised even than these low tribes and trades.' Besides the above, who were all freemen, there were also slaves: individuals had been captured in predatory raids and reduced to slavery,' or had been deprived of their freedom as a judicial punishment'; or had submitted to slavery of their own accord." Children born to such slaves were also slaves; and the emancipation of slaves is often referred to. But we hear nothing of such later developments of slavery as rendered the Greek mines, the Roman lati fundia, or the plantations of Christian slave-owners, scenes of misery and oppression. For the most part the slaves were household servants, and not badly treated; and their numbers seem to have. been insignificant." Such were the divisions of the people. The three upper classes had originally been one; for the nobles and priests were merely those members of the third class, the Vessas, who had raised themselves into a higher social rank. And though more difficult probably than it had been, it was still possible for analogous changes to take place. Poor men 1 Anguttara, 1. 162. Jacobi, Jaina Sutras, 2. 301. 2 Jāt. 4. 220. 3 Jāt. 1. 200. 4 Vinaya Texts, I. 191; Sum. 1. 168. could become nobles, and both could become brahmins. We have numerous instances in the books, some of them unconsciously preserved even in the later priestly books which are otherwise under the spell of the caste theory. And though each case is then referred to as if it were exceptional, the fact no less remains that the line between the Colours" was not yet strictly drawn. The members of the higher Colours were not even all of them white. Some, no doubt, of the Kshatriyas were descended from the chiefs and nobles of the Dravidian and Kolarian tribes who had preserved, by conquest or by treaty, their independence or their social rank. And others of the same tribes were, from time to time, acquiring political importance, and with it an entry into a higher social grade. That there was altogether a much freer possibility of change among the social ranks than is usually supposed is shown by the following instances of occupation': 1. A Kshatriya, a king's son, apprentices himself successively, in pursuance of a love affair, to a potter, a basket-maker, a florist, and a cook, without a word being added as to loss of caste when his action becomes known." 2. Another prince resigns his share in the kingdom in favour of his sister, and turns trader.' 3. A third prince goes to live with a merchant and earns his living "by his hands.' 1 Collected in the 7. R. A. S., 1901, p. 868. Jāt. 11. 5. 290. 3 Jāt. 4. 84. 4 Jāt. 4. 169. |