Elsewhere he says, Even a Sudra ought not to take a nuptial fee,
when he gives away his daughter; for he who takes a fee sells his daughter, covering the
transaction by another name. 45 He further declares emphatically that such a
thing, is unheard of. 46 But, against the above argument, a verse occurs in support of the
This is, in all probability, an interpolation of later writers; for it
cannot consistently come from the pen of the same writer after such an emphatic
declaration against even the fee of a cow at the Arsha wedding where he says Even
the acceptance of a bovrice pair is designated as a dowry by certain authoritiesa
dowry whether costly or insignificant in value constitutes the sale of a daughter.
But when the relatives do not appropriate for their use the
gratuity given, it is not a sale; in that case the gift is only a token of respect and of
kindness towards the maiden. 48 This is evidently the plea of a certain section of
the people who wanted to re-institute in society the custom of taking dowry.
It is in all probability, later than Manus time. Kautilya, in his
Artha Sastra puts forth rules in support of accepting a, fee for a daughter. So it seems as
though this antipathy to taking the fee, as reflected in Mann, is a new development that
came into existence, after Kautilyas time, i.e., it developed between the 4th
century B.C. and the 1st century A.D.