Now, of these passages, 8 the one giving legal recognition to six kinds of
marriages agrees only with Vasishtha, and the next, 9 which ordains the first four kinds
of marriages as proper for a Brahmana and Rakshasa proper for a Kshatriya and Asura for a
Vaisya and Sudra, agrees with the systems of Gautama and Baudhayana, and the next verses
declaring the first three kinds Prajapatya, Asura and Gandharva lawful and the two,
Paisacha an Rakshasa as sinful and unlawful and the one declaring that pure Gandharva,
pure Rakshasa or a combination of both of them is lawful for Kshatriya,10
agree with the
institutes of Vishnu.
Vishnus treatise, as has been agreed by scholars, is a later
composition than that of Manu. But the way in which Manu introduces the first dictum
11
shows that he agreed with the opinion of Vasishtha and recognized as legal the six kinds
of marriages. Vasishtha was the earliest lawgiver of the Rig-Vedic school.
Manu followed him in this respect as in many others. If this represents
the opinion of Manu, then the last two verses, restricting their scope and declaring
them as unlawful, are later developments, and it can be asserted on logical grounds that
they are interpolations of later writers, who handled the script, and included them in
Manu, so as to give an authoritative position to these laws. 12