A timid statement of this kind[1] reveals a doubt felt by the author in the matter, and such a doubt is very natural. Let us examine the causes which induced our writer to make such an indefinite statement. For this purpose a glimpse at certain other facts regarding the condition of the Brāhmana caste becomes necessary. The Brāhmanas were not organized into a regular corporation which controlled the admission of persons to Brāhmanahood, but the recognition or nonrecognition of any person rested with individuals or groups who might have occasion to deal with him. For this reason the status of a man who pursued conduct that was supposed to be irregular was never definite. Some persons might admit à man of their company who committed an irregularity; others, might not; and the same course must have been followed in the case of persons born of mixed marriages. Marriages of persons outside the varna must have been of comparatively rare occurrence. The princes, even those who would admit the superiority of a Brāhmana, would hardly have cared to give their daughters to Brāhmanas excepting in cases where the Brāhmanas may have been landlords or high officers in the state. In the cases of sons by such marriages their claim to Brāhmanaship might have been admitted by some as it was denied by some. The main reason why our writer is inexact regarding the status of these sons is, in my opinion, the inexactness of the status itself.
- ↑ Timid because supported by "ahus" (they declare), yet it must be admitted that this distinction between "similar" and "Co-equal" sons is said by the author to be "the ancient rule," and that the corresponding passages from Yajnavalkya I. 90 and Ushanas, cited by the commentator, show that the distinction was generally received.
