one of the several steps by which Golaks ultimately became a caste. Besides these we have evidence that there were several pretenders who laid claim to being Brāhmanas, as there are now (viii, 20; vii, 85). The Brāhmanas called Vrātyas by our writer also must have been actually regarded as Brāhmanas by the public among whom they lived; but their claims to being Brāhmanas may only be denied by our writer and his sympathizers, just as the claim of the Brāhmanas of Bengal is sometimes denied to-day. The classification of Brāhmanas by locality, like Pancha-Gauda and Pancha-Dravida, does not appear to have arisen.
Our writer regards the son of a Brāhmana by a Kshatriya woman as a Brāhmana, but whether it was so or not is doubtful. From what I have said before regarding the nature of dharma it would not be difficult to estimate the value of our author's statement and to discover the facts at the basis of it. Our writer intended to refuse to recognize as valid the existing conditions when there was no Vedic authority. All that he meant by making the above remarks was that the son of a Kshatriya woman by a Brāhmana ought to be classed as a Brāhmana. The statement itself, unless supported by outside evidence, throws no light on the fact. The dubious way in which the writer has made the statement makes me feel very great doubt regarding the possibility of a Kshiatriya woman's son being a Brāhmana. He writes (x, 6): "Sons begotten by twice-born men on wives of the next lower castes are declared to be similar to their fathers, but blamed on account of the fault inherent in their mothers."
