The Laws of Manu — SBE Vol. 25 (trans. Georg Bühler, 1886)
English·1879–1910·trans. Georg Bühler·567 passages
The text · part 18 of 27
99. Neither ancients nor moderns who were good men have done such (a deed) that, after promising (a daughter) to one man, they gave her to another ;
100. Nor, indeed, have we heard, even in former creations, of such (a thing as) the covert sale of a daughter for a fixed price, called a_nuptial fee.
tor. ‘Let mutual fidelity continue until death,’ this may be considered as the summary of the highest law for husband and wife.
102. Let man and woman, united in marriage, constantly exert themselves, that (they may not be) disunited (and) may not violate their mutual fidelity.
103. Thus has been declared to you the law for a husband and his wife, which is intimately connected with conjugal happiness, and the manner of raising offspring in times of calamity; learn (now the law concerning) the division of the inheritance.
104. After the death of the father and of the mother, the brothers, being assembled, may divide among themselves in equal shares the paternal (and the maternal) estate; for, they have no power (over it) while the parents live.
contradiction between this and the next verses, see note on VII, 204.
99. Nand. places this verse after the next.
104. Gaut. XXVIII, 1; Baudh. II, 3, 8; Vag. Il, 117. The father’s estate is to be divided after the father’s death, and ‘the mother’s estate after the mothers death (Kull. Nar., Ragh., Nand.). The mother’s estate devolves on the sons only on failure of daughters (N4r.). The word firdhvam, ‘after,’ indicates by implication that the rule holds good in the case of the (father’s)
346 LAWS OF MANU. IX, ros.
105. (Or) the eldest alone may take the whole paternal estate, the others shall live under him just as (they lived) under their father.
106. Immediately on the birth of his first-born a man is (called) the father of a son and is freed from the debt to the manes; that (son), therefore, is worthy (to receive) the whole estate.
107. That son alone on whom he throws his debt and through whom he obtains immortality, is begotten for (the fulfilment of) the law; all the rest they consider the offspring of desire.
108. As a father (supports) his sons, so let the eldest support his younger brothers, and let them also in accordance with the law behave towards their eldest brother as sons (behave towards their father).
109. The eldest (son) makes the family prosperous or, on the contrary, brings it to ruin; the eldest (is considered) among men most worthy of honour, the eldest is not treated with disrespect by the virtuous.
110. If the eldest brother behaves as an eldest brother (ought to do), he (must be treated) like a turning ascetic (R4gh.). The equal division takes place if the eldest does not desire to receive an additional share (Kull.). The last clause shows that a division of the property may take place with the parents’ permission during their lifetime (Kull., Nar., Ragh.).
The equal division takes place if the eldest does not desire to receive an additional share (Kull.). The last clause shows that a division of the property may take place with the parents’ permission during their lifetime (Kull., Nar., Ragh.).
105. Gaut. XXVIII, 3; Baudh. II, 3, 13. Le. if the eldest son is virtuous (Kull., Ragh.), or possesses particularly eminent qualities, while the others are less distinguished (N4r.).
106. Regarding the debt, see Vas. XI, 48.
107. This verse alludes to the Vedic text quoted, Vas. XVII, 1;
Vi. XV, 45.
108. I.e. if they make no division and the eldest takes the whole estate (Kull.). Nand. places this verse after the next.
110. ‘Behaves as an eldest brother (ought to do), i.e. ‘duly protects and educates the younger ones’ (Medh., Kull., Nar., Ragh.).
p. 347
mother and like a father; but if he behaves in a manner unworthy of an eldest brother, he should yet be honoured like a kinsman.
111, Either let them thus live together, or apart, if (each) desires (to gain) spiritual merit; for (by their living) separate (their) merit increases, hence separation is meritorious.
112. The additional share (deducted) for the eldest shall be one-twentieth (of the estate) and the best of all chattels, for the middlemost half of that, but for the youngest one-fourth.
113. Both the eldest and the youngest shall take (their shares) according to (the rule just) stated; (each of) those who are between the eldest and the youngest, shall have the share (prescribed for the) middlemost.
114. Among the goods of every kind the eldest shall take the best (article), and (even a single chattel) which is particularly good, as well as the best of ten (animals).
‘Like a kinsman,’ i.e. ‘like a maternal or paternal uncle’ (Medh., Kull, Ragh.); see also below, verse 213.
111. Gaut. XXVIII, 4. ‘(Their) merit increases,’ i.e. ‘each of them has to kindle the sacred fire, to offer separately the Agnihotra, the five great sacrifices and so forth, and hence each gains separately merit’ (Medh., Kull.).
112. Gaut. XXVIII, 5-7; Baudh. II, 3, 9; Vi. XVIII, 37; Yagi. Il, 114. ‘The remainder shall be divided equally,’ see verse 116 (Medh., Kull., Nar., Ragh.). Medh. says that ‘some’ declare that the rules on the unequal partition refer to past times, and have no authority for the Kaliyuga. But he rejects this view.
113. The object of the verse is to show that no difference shall be made between sons intervening between the eldest and the youngest, however great their number may be (Kull., Ragh.).
114. Gaut. XXVIII, 11-13; Baudh. II, 3, 6. ‘(Even a single chattel) which is particularly good,’ i.e. ‘a dress or an ornament’ (Medh.), or ‘something impartible like an idol’ (Nand.).
p. 115
115. But among (brothers) equally skilled in their occupations, there is no additional share, (consisting of the best animal) among ten; some trifle only shall be given to the eldest as a token of respect.
p. 115
115. But among (brothers) equally skilled in their occupations, there is no additional share, (consisting of the best animal) among ten; some trifle only shall be given to the eldest as a token of respect.
116. If additional shares are thus deducted, one must allot equal shares (out of the residue to each); but if no deduction is made, the allotment of the shares among them shall be (made) in the following manner.
117. Let the eldest son take one share in excess, the (brother) born next after him one (share) and a half, the younger ones one share each; thus the law is settled.
118, But to the maiden (sisters) the brothers shall severally give (portions) out of their shares, each out of his share one-fourth part; those who refuse to give (it), will become outcasts.
‘The best of ten animals,’ thus Kull., Nar. Ragh., according to Gaut. XXVIII, 12, where they read dasatak pastin4m, instead of dasatam. Medh. gives the same explanation, but applies the rule also to clothes and ornaments. He adds, that ‘others’ explain the text in accordance with Vas. XVII, 43, ‘And a tithe (of the cattle and horses).’ Nand. nearly agrees with Medh.’s opinion, as he says that everything shall be divided into ten shares, and the eldest shall take one in excess. All the commentators agree that this additional share belongs to an eldest brother only, ifhe is endowed with particularly good qualities and the rest are inferior to him.
115. Ap. II, 13, 13. ‘Their occupations,’ i. e. ‘reciting the Veda and so forth’ (Kull., Ragh.). According to N&r., the phrase ‘no additional share (consisting of the best animals) among ten’ indicates that none of the other additions, mentioned in verse 11 4, shall be given. Nand. omits this verse.
116, Gaut. XXVIII, 8.
117. Gaut. XXVIII, 9-10; Vas. XVII, 42. ‘One share in excess,’ i.e. ‘two shares’ (Medh., Kull., Nar., Ragh., Nand.). The latter four point out that this division is to be made when the eldest and the second brothers are more eminent than the rest.
118. Vi. XVIII, 35; YAgi. Il,124. According to all the coma
p. 349
119. Let him never divide (the value of) a single goat or sheep, or a (single beast) with uncloven hoofs; it is prescribed (that) a single goat or sheep (remaining after an equal division, belongs) to the eldest alone.
120. If a younger brother begets a son on the wife of the elder, the division must then be made equally; thus the law is settled.
120. If a younger brother begets a son on the wife of the elder, the division must then be made equally; thus the law is settled.
mentators the meaning is that, if a man leaves children by wives of different castes, the brothers are to provide for the dowry of the unmarried sisters of the same caste, i.e. a Brahmana’s sons by a Brahmaaa wife for the daughters of the latter, the sons by a Kshatriya wife for the daughters of the latter, &c. This meaning is more clearly expressed by Medh.’s reading, svabhyad svabhyas tu kanyAbha4, ‘ But the brothers shall give (portions) to the maiden (sisters), each to those of his own (caste).’ Kull. adds, that the duty of providing for sisters devolves in the first instance on brothers of the full blood, and in default of such on half-brothers.
As regards the expression ‘a fourth share,’ Medh. says that a brother shall receive three-fourths and the sister one-fourth, and that, if there are many sisters, they shall receive one-fourth of the share of a brother of equal caste. Kull. agrees with the first part of the explanation, but adds,‘ Hence it must be understood that even if there are many brothers and sisters of the same caste, but born of different mothers, one-fourth part must be given to the sisters of the full blood’ (i.e. by their full brothers). Na4r. says, ‘ They shall give each one-fourth part of their share, and take three parts; and the same division must be made if there are many daughters. But if there are many sons and one daughter, they must deduct from their several shares as much money as will be equal to a fourth part of one brother’s share and give that.’ Medh. censures those commentators who think that one-fourth share need not be actually given, but only as much as will suffice to defray the marriage expenses.
119. I.e. such an animal is not to be sold and the proceeds to be divided; nor shall its value be made good to the other brothers by giving them other objects (Medh.. Kull., Nar., Ragh.).
120. I.e. the Kshetraga receives no preferential share, as his father would have done. Kull. infers from this verse that, though
p. 121
121. The representative (the son begotten on the wife) is not invested with the right of the principal (the eldest brother to an additional share); the principal (became) a father on the procreation (of a son by his younger brother); hence one should give a share to the (son begotten on the wife of the elder brother) according to the rule (stated above).
122. If there be a doubt, how the division shall be made, in case the younger son is born of the elder wife and the elder son of the younger wife,
123. (Then the son) born of the first wife shall above, verse 104, brothers (i.e. sons of the deceased) only are named, grandsons inherit, also according to Manu, just like sons and with sons; see also below, verse 186.
(Then the son) born of the first wife shall above, verse 104, brothers (i.e. sons of the deceased) only are named, grandsons inherit, also according to Manu, just like sons and with sons; see also below, verse 186.
121. Thus Kull.; Nand. agrees with respect to the first halfverse, but explains the second as follows, ‘The father is the principal in the procreation of children; hence one must give a share to the (son begotten on the wife of the eldest) according to the law (declared above).’ Nar. also differs, ‘The subsidiary (son) does not by law take the place of the principal, (and cannot for that reason receive an additional share); his father (the eldest was) the principal for continuing the line ; hence one should give a share (to his subsidiary son) in accordance with the law.’ Ragh. goes off still further, ‘The principal (the eldest) must according to the law not be treated like the substitute (i.e. not be deprived of an additional share, yet as) the father is the chief person in the procreation (of children), one should give a share to the (son of the wife) in accordance with the law (applicable to his real father)’ Medh. has a similar explanation, ‘(To say) that the substitute (i.e. the Kshetraga) is equal to the principal is not proper according to the sacred law ; the father (i.e. the begetter) is the principal in the procreation of children, hence one must give a share (to the Kshetraga) in accordance (with the law declared above).’
122. The point to be decided is, if the seniority is to be according to the mothers or according to actual birth. The eldest wife is, of course, the one married first.
123. Gaut, XXVIII, 14.
p. 351
take as his additional share one (most excellent) bull; the next best bulls (shall belong) to those (who are) inferior on account of their mothers.
124. But the eldest (son, being) born of the eldest wife, shall receive fifteen cows and a bull, the other sons may then take shares according to (the seniority of) their mothers; that is a settled rule.
125. Between sons born of wives equal (in caste) (and) without (any other) distinction no seniority in right of the mother exists ; seniority is declared (to be) according to birth.
126. And with respect to the Subrahmamzyé (texts) also it is recorded that the invocation (of Indra shall be made) by the first-born, of twins likewise, (conceived at one time) in the wombs (of their mothers) the seniority is declared (to depend) on (actual) birth.
124. Gaut. XXVIII, 1g. ‘May take shares,’ i. e. ‘may divide the (other) cows’ (Medh., Kull.), or ‘shall each receive one bull, a very good one, a less excellent one, in due order, according to the seniority of their mothers’ (N4r.).
124. Gaut. XXVIII, 1g. ‘May take shares,’ i. e. ‘may divide the (other) cows’ (Medh., Kull.), or ‘shall each receive one bull, a very good one, a less excellent one, in due order, according to the seniority of their mothers’ (N4r.).
125. As this verse and the following one contradict the rules given in verses 123-124, the commentators try to reconcile them in various ways. Medh. thinks that verses 123-124 are an arthavada and have no legal force, and R4gh. inclines to the same opinion. N4r. and Nand. hold that the seniority according to the mother’s marriage is of importance for the law of inheritance (verses 123-124), but that it has no value with respect to salutations and the like or to prerogatives at sacrifices (verses 125-126). Kull., finally relying on Gov.’s opinion, thinks that the rules leave an option, and that their application depends on the existence of good qualities and the want of such. It is, however, probable that, according to the custom of Hindu writers, the two conflicting opinions are placed side by side, and that it is intended that the learned should find their way out of the difficulty as they can.
126. The Subrahmany4 texts contain an invitation, addressed to Indra, to partake of the Soma; see Aitareya-brahmama VI, 3. Nand. reads yamayos faikagarbhe ’pi.
p. 352
127. He who has no son may make his daughter in the following manner an appointed daughter (putrika, saying to her husband), ‘The (male) child, born of her, shall perform my funeral rites.’
128, According to this rule Daksha, himself, lord of created beings, formerly made (all his female offspring) appointed daughters in order to multiply his race.
129. He gave ten to Dharma, thirteen to Kasyapa, twenty-seven to King Soma, honouring (them) with an affectionate heart.
130. A son is even (as) oneself, (such) a daughter is equal to a son; how can another (heir) take the estate, while such (an appointed daughter who is even) oneself, lives ?
131. But whatever may be the separate property of the mother, that is the share of the unmarried daughter alone; and the son of an (appointed) daughter shall take the whole estate of (his maternal grandfather) who leaves no son.
127. Gaut. XXVIII, 18; Vas. XVII, 17; Baudh. II, 3,15; Vi. XV, 5.
128, The story of Daksha’s fifty, sixty, or twenty-four daughters occurs in the Mahabharata and the Purd#as. The twenty-seven given to King Soma, the moon, are the lunar mansions or Nakshatras.
130. ‘A son is even (as) oneself ;’ see the verse quoted, Baudh. II, 3,14. The commentators state that the word duhitA, ‘ daughter,’ means here putrik4, ‘an appointed daughter.’ Medh. adds that in accordance with this verse, an appointed daughter who has no son, when her father dies, does not inherit his property (?).
II, 3,14. The commentators state that the word duhitA, ‘ daughter,’ means here putrik4, ‘an appointed daughter.’ Medh. adds that in accordance with this verse, an appointed daughter who has no son, when her father dies, does not inherit his property (?).
131. Gaut. XXVIII, 24; Vi.XVII,21. The correctness of the translation of the term yautakam by ‘separate property’ (Medh.), follows from its being used below, verse 214, to denote the separate hoard made by an elder brother. According to Medh., Kull., and Nar. all stridhana is meant; according to ‘others’ mentioned by Medh., Nand., and Ragh., the so-called saud4yikam or property derived from the
p. 353
132. The son of an (appointed) daughter, indeed, shall (also) take the estate of his (own) father, who leaves no (other) son; he shall (then) present two funeral cakes to his own father and to his maternal grandfather.
133. Between a son’s son and the son of an (appointed) daughter there is no difference, neither with respect to worldly matters nor to sacred duties; for their father and mother both sprang from the body of the same (man).
134. But if, after a daughter has been appointed, a son be born (to her father), the division (of the inheritance) must in that (case) be equal; for there is no right of primogeniture for a woman.
135. But ifan appointed daughter by accident dies without (leaving) a son, the husband of the appointed daughter may, without hesitation, take that estate.
father’s family. Kuméri, ‘an unmarried daughter’ (Medh., Kull.), means according to Nar. ‘a daughter who has no sons.’ Dauhitrah, literally ‘the son of a daughter,’ means according to the commentators ‘the son of an appointed daughter,’ putrik4putraA. The first rule is, according to Kull., Nar., and Nand., a general maxim, which refers not merely to the case of a putrika. The second rule shows, according to Nand., that the appointed daughter herself does not inherit her father’s estate, if she has a son.
132. Medh. mentions a var. lect., aputrasya hared yadi, ‘If the son of an (appointed) daughter takes the entire estate of (his maternal grandfather), &c.,’ which is also found in Gov.’s text, but considers it to be wrong.
133. Yagn. II, 128. Loke dharmatad, ‘neither with respect to worldly affairs nor to sacred duties’(Kull.), means according to Ragh. and Nand. ‘with respect to sacred duties, according to the law.’
135. ‘That estate,’ i.e. ‘what the appointed daughter received from her father either during his lifetime or after his death’ (Nar.). Kull. adds that the verse is intended to forbid the father’s inheriting his pre-deceased daughter’s property, on the plea that she was like a son (see verse 185). Nand. says that the paternal uncles &c. shall not take the putrika’s estate.
[25] Aa
p. 136
Kull. adds that the verse is intended to forbid the father’s inheriting his pre-deceased daughter’s property, on the plea that she was like a son (see verse 185). Nand. says that the paternal uncles &c. shall not take the putrika’s estate.
[25] Aa
p. 136
136. Through that son whom (a daughter), either not appointed or appointed, may bear to (a husband) of equal (caste), his maternal grandfather (has) a son’s son; he shall present the funeral cake and take the estate.
137. Through a son he conquers the worlds, through a son’s son he obtains immortality, but through his son’s grandson he gains the world of the sun.
138. Because a son delivers (trayate) his father from the hell called Put, he was therefore called put-tra (a deliverer from Put) by the Self-existent (Svayambhd) himself.
139. Between a son’s son and the son of a daughter there exists in this world no difference ; for even the son of a daughter saves him (who has . no sons) in the next world, like the son’s son.
136. Kull. explains akrit& v4 kritd vapi by ‘(a daughter) either appointed not (explicitly but by a mental reservation), or appointed (explicitly, at the betrothal, according to verse 127).’ He adds that Gov. takes the word akrzt4 in its usual sense, and asserts that the verse allows the son of a daughter not appointed to inherit his maternal grandfather’s estate. The latter opinion is held also by N4r., who remarks that the son of a daughter not appointed inherits on failure of a wife or of daughters of his grandfather; and by Nand. Ragh. and Medh. side with Kull., whose explanation is supported by Gaut. XXVIII, 20, and still more by Vi. XV, 6. The latter passage clearly prescribes that the daughter of a man who has no sons is in every case ‘an appointed daughter.’
137. Vas. XVII, 5; Vi. XV, 46; Yagv. 1, 78. ‘The worlds,’ i.e. ‘the ten, called visoka (free from sorrow), the first of which is svarga’ (Medh.). ‘Immortality, i.e. a very long residenee in those same (worlds), (Medh., Kull.) ‘The sun,’ i. e. ‘ Hiranyagarbha’ (Nar.). The verse shows that sons and grandsons inherit, though a wife and the rest may be living (Kull.).
138. Vi. XV, 44.
139. Vi. XV, 47. According to Medh. and Kull., dauhitra4, ‘ the
p. 355
140. Let the son of an appointed daughter first present a funeral cake to his mother, the second to her father, the third to his father’s father.
141. Of the man who has an adopted (Datrima) son possessing all good qualities, that same (son) shall take the inheritance, though brought from another family.
142. An adopted son shall never take the family (name) and the estate of his natural father; the funeral cake follows the family (name) and the estate, the funeral offerings of him who gives (his son in adoption) cease (as far as that son is concerned).
son of a daughter,’ means here also ‘the son of an appointed daughter.’ Nand. reads putravat, ‘like a son;’ Gov. pfrvagan, ‘(and) the ancestors.’
son of a daughter,’ means here also ‘the son of an appointed daughter.’ Nand. reads putravat, ‘like a son;’ Gov. pfrvagan, ‘(and) the ancestors.’
140. Baudh. IJ, 3, 16. Medh. mentions a var. lect., pitus tasya, ‘the second to his father,’ which he, however, justly considers to be bad.
141. Vas. XV, 9-10; Baudh. Parisishfa 16. Medh., Kull., and RAgh. refer this rule to the case where a man has a legitimate son and an adopted son, and think that in such a case the latter, being eminently virtuous, shall receive, like a Kshetraga (see verse 146), a fifth or sixth part of the estate. Medh. remarks that some think he is to have half, but that their opinion is improper, and finally that Upadhyaya, i.e. his teacher, allots to the adopted son less than to the Kshetraga. Kull. and Ragh. state that Gov. took the verse to mean ‘that an eminently virtuous adopted son shall inherit on failure of a legitimate son and of the son of the wife, but that this explanation is inadmissible on account of verse 165. Nevertheless Ragh. reproduces Gov.’s opinion. N§Ar. says, ‘It has been declared that an adopted son receives a share like the chief son, when he is eminently virtuous.’ Nand. reads at the end of the second line, samprapto ’sya na putrakad, ‘shall take the inheritance, (provided) the (adoptive father) has no son.’
142. Medh. mentions another ‘improper’ explanation, according to which haret, ‘shall take,’ is to mean h4rayet, ‘shal! allow to be taken,’ and the purport of the verse is that ‘he is to benefit both (fathers) like a Dvyamushy4yaza.’
Aa2
p. 143
143. The son of a wife, not appointed (to have issue by another), and he whom (an appointed female, already) the mother of a son, bears to her brother-in-law, are both unworthy of a share, (one being) the son of an adulterer and (the other) produced through (mere) lust.
144. Even the male (child) of a female (duly) appointed, not begotten according to the rule (given above), is unworthy of the paternal estate; for he was procreated by an outcast.
145. A son (legally) begotten on such an appointed female shall inherit like a legitimate son of the body; for that seed and the produce belong, according to the law, to the owner of the soil.
146. He who takes care of his deceased brother's estate and of his widow, shall, after raising up a son for his brother, give that property even to that (son).
147. If a woman (duly) appointed bears a son to her brother-in-law or to another (Sapizda), that (son, if he is) begotten through desire, they declare (to be) incapable of inheriting and to be produced in vain.
148. The rules (given above) must be understood (to apply) to a distribution among sons of women of the same (caste); hear (now the law) concerning
144. ‘The rule (given above),’ i.e. that given above, verse 60. Nand. omits this verse.
148. The rules (given above) must be understood (to apply) to a distribution among sons of women of the same (caste); hear (now the law) concerning
144. ‘The rule (given above),’ i.e. that given above, verse 60. Nand. omits this verse.
145. Medh. and Kull. state that the object of this verse is to teach that a Kshetraga, if endowed with good qualities, may even receive (against verse 120) the additional share of an eldest.son, because it is said that he inherits ‘like a legitimate son.’ N§r. says, ‘(the expression) like a legitimate son (is used) in order to establish (the title to) an equal share.’ Nand. omits this verse.
146. ‘This rule refers to the case where the two brothers are divided, while verse 120 refers to those who live in union’ (Medh., Kull., Ragh.). Nand. places this verse after 147.
p. 357
those begotten by one man on many wives of different (castes).
149. If there be four wives of a Brahmava in the direct order of the castes, the rule for the division (of the estate) among the sons born of them is as follows :
150. The (slave) who tills (the field), the bull kept for impregnating cows, the vehicle, the ornaments, and the house shall be given as an additional portion to the Brahmaza (son), and one most excellent share.
151. Let the son of the Brahmamt (wife) take three shares of the (remainder of the) estate, the son of the Kshatriy4 two, the son of the Vaisy4 a share and a half, and the son of the Sddr4 may take one share.
152. Or let him who knows the law make ten shares of the whole estate, and justly distribute them according to the following rule:
149-156. Gaut. XXVIII, 35-39 ; Vas. XVII, 48-50; Baudh. IT, 3, 10; Vi. XVIII, 1-33, 38-40; Y4gh. Il, 125. .
150. ‘The ornaments,’ i.e. ‘the ring which the father used to wear, and the like’ (Medh., Kull.). ‘The house,’ i.e. ‘the principal mansion’ (Medh., Kull. Ragh.). Ekamsas ka pradhdnataA, ‘ one most excellent share’ (Medh., Kull.), means according to Nar., with whom Nand. agrees, ‘and one share consisting of the chief, i. e. best property’ (pradhanato mukhyadhan4d utkrishAd ity arthaA), and according to R4gh. ‘and one share, because he is the chief person.’ According to Nar. this ‘one share’ must be equal in value to one of the three shares mentioned in the next verse.
151. Medh. and Kull. remark that the rule holds good also if there are more sons than one in each class.
152. According to N4r. this rule refers to the case when each of the wives has several sons, while the preceding one is applicable when each wife has one son only. R4gh. thinks that the first rule shall be followed when the son of the Brahmaaf possesses good qualities, the second when he is destitute of them.
p. 153
153. The Brahmaza (son) shall take four shares, the son of the Kshatriy4 (wife) three, the son of the Vaisy4 shall have two parts, the son of the Sddra may take one share.
p. 153
153. The Brahmaza (son) shall take four shares, the son of the Kshatriy4 (wife) three, the son of the Vaisy4 shall have two parts, the son of the Sddra may take one share.
154. Whether (a Brahmama) have sons or have no sons (by wives of the twice-born castes), the (heir) must, according to the law, give to the son of a Sadra (wife) no more than a tenth (part of his estate).
155. The son of a Brahmamza, a Kshatriya, and a Vaisya by a Sddra (wife) receives no share of the inheritance ; whatever his father may give to him, that shall be his property.
156. All the sons of twice-born men, born of wives of the same caste, shall equally divide the estate, after the others have given to the eldest an additional share.
157. For a Saidra is ordained a wife of his own caste only (and) no other; those born of her shall have equal shares, even if there be a hundred sons.
153. Medh. points out that according to other Smr¢tis the Brahmava son alone receives land, given to his father, and that the SQdra son receives no share in land, if there is other property.
154. Hence on failure of other sons the other heirs, the Sapindas (Medh.), or the widow and the rest (N4r.), shall take the rest of the estate. N&r. adds that he may obtain more than a tenth, if his father give it to him.
155. The son of a Sfidra wife receives no share of his father’s estate in case the mother was not legally married (Medh. ‘others,’ Kull.), or in case he is destitute of good qualities (Kull., Ragh.). According to Medh. and Na4r., na rikthabhak, ‘receives no share of the inheritance,’ means ‘receives no (larger) share (than one-tenth, except if the father himself has given more to him).’ But it seems more probable, that the verse is intended to inculcate the maxim that a son by a Sfidra wife cannot claim any fixed portion of the inheritance from his father who divides his estate.
156. Medh., Gov., and K. read v4, ‘or,’ instead of ye (gAt44), but this gives no good sense, as Medh. remarks.
p. 359
158. Among the twelve sons of men whom Manu, sprung from the Self-existent (Svayambhd), enumerates, six are kinsmen and heirs, and six not heirs, (but) kinsmen.
159. The legitimate son of the body, the son begotten on a wife, the son adopted, the son made, the son secretly born, and the son cast off, (are) the six heirs and kinsmen.
160. The son of an unmarried damsel, the son received with the wife, the son bought, the son begotten on a re-married woman, the son self-given, and the son of a Sfdra female, (are) the six (who are) not heirs, (but) kinsmen.
161. Whatever result a man obtains who (tries to) cross a (sheet of) water in an unsafe boat, even that result obtains he who (tries to) pass the gloom (of the next world) with (the help of) bad (substitutes for a real) son.
158. Ie. the first six inherit the family estate and offer the funeral oblations, the last six do not inherit, but offer libations of water and so forth as remoter kinsmen (Kull., Nar., Ragh., Nand. ‘some’). Medh., N&r., and Nand. take aday4dabandhavaé to mean ‘not heirs nor kinsmen.’ But Kull. rightly objects that the parallel passage of Baudh. proves this explanation to be wrong. Nér. finally interprets bandhud4y4d44, ‘ heirs and kinsmen,’ as ‘ heirs to the kinsmen,’ i.e. ‘inheritors of the estate of kinsmen, such as paternal uncles, on failure of sons, wives, and so forth.’ Nar. and Nand., as well as Medh. in his commentary on verse 166, add that the son of an appointed daughter is not mentioned, because he has been declared above to be equal to a legitimate son.
161. Medh. mentions another explanation of the expression kuputraif, ‘ by bad (substitutes for a real) son,’ according to which ‘sons of a wife or widow not duly appointed’ are meant.
162. According to Medh. and Gov. (quoted by Kull. and Ragh.),p. 163 son of his body and a son begotten on his wife, each (of the two sons), to the exclusion of the other, shall take the estate of his (natural) father.
163. The legitimate son of the body alone (shall be) the owner of the paternal estate; but, in order to avoid harshness, let him allow a maintenance to the rest.
164. But when the legitimate son of the body divides the paternal estate, he shall give one-sixth or one-fifth part of his father’s property to the son begotten on the wife.
the rule refers to the case where a legitimate son and the son of a wife not appointed both claim the inheritance. But ‘ others,’ quoted by Medh., Kull., and Ragh., think that it applies to the case where a wife. first was appointed by her husband to procreate a son with his brother, and afterwards a legitimate son was born. The difficulty which under this explanation arises with respect to verse 164, is removed by assuming that the latter applies to the case where the natural father of the Kshetraga has likewise sons, while verse 162 presupposes that he has none. Nér. and Nand. say that the case which the rule contemplates, is that two brothers were undivided, and when the one died, the other, who himself had sons, begat with the widow a Kshetraga son. On the death of the second brother, the Kshetraga is entitled to receive only the share of the husband of his mother, not to claim a portion of the estate of his natural father. Under this supposition the translation would be, ‘If a legitimate son (of one brother) and the son of the wife (of another) have a claim to one (undivided) estate, each shall receive the share of his father.’
163-165. Vi. XV, 28-30; YAgzn. II, 132.
Under this supposition the translation would be, ‘If a legitimate son (of one brother) and the son of the wife (of another) have a claim to one (undivided) estate, each shall receive the share of his father.’
163-165. Vi. XV, 28-30; YAgzn. II, 132.
163. This rule refers to the case where one man leaves several substitutes for sons and a legitimate son (Medh., Kull., Nar., Ragh.). ‘To the rest,’i.e.‘to all except the son begotten on the wife’ (which latter is exempted by verses 164-165 ; Medh., Kull., Ragh., Nand.). ‘He who does not maintain them, commits sin’ (Medh., Kull.); butnot, if they have other meansofsubsistence(Nand.).
164. This rule refers to the case where a Kshetraga was begotten before the legitimate. son, and received no property from his natural father (Righ.); see also Kull,’s notes on verses 162-163. According
IX, 168. INHERITANCE. 361 ;
165. The legitimate son and the son of the wife (thus) share the father’s estate; but the other ten become members of the family, and inherit according to their order (each later named on failure of those named earlier).
166. Him whom a man begets on his own wedded wife, let him know to be a legitimate son of the body (Aurasa), the first in rank.
167. He who was begotten according to the peculiar law (of the Niyoga) on the appointed wife of a dead man, of a eunuch, or of one diseased, is called a son begotten en a wife (Kshetraga).
168. That (boy) equal (by caste) whom his mother or his father affectionately give, (confirming the gift)
to Nar. it refers, however, to the case where a man died, leaving several widows, and one was appointed to bear a son by her brotherin-law, while another afterwards proved to be pregnant and bore a legitimate son. ‘The Kshetraga receives one-fifth, if he is endowed with good qualities, else one-sixth’ (Medh., Kull, Nar., Ragh., Nand.).
165. Vas. XVII, 39. Gotrarikthamsabhaginah, ‘become members of the family (i.e. succeed to the family rights and duties) and inherit’ (Medh., Kull., Nand.), may also be translated, ‘share the family estate,’ as Nar. proposes. But his suggestion that the family estate is here mentioned ir order to exclude them from their father’s self-acquired property is doubtlessly wrong. Equally inadmissible seems another explanation, mentioned by N4r. and Nand., according to which amsabhaginaé, ‘they share,’ is to mean ‘they obtain (such) a Share (as will suffice for their maintenance).’
166. Ap. II, 18,1; Vas, XVII, 13; Baudh. II, 3,14; Vi. XV, 2; Yaga. Il, 128. I read prathamakalpikam with Medh., Gov., Nar., and K. R4agh. gives prathamakalpikam. Kull. and Nar. think that the wife must be of equal caste, while Medh. says that sva means ‘his own,’ not ‘of his own caste.’ Medh. mentions Kull.’s opinion as that of ‘others.’
167. Vas. XVII, 14; Baudh. II, 3,18; Vi. XV, 3; Yagi. I, 69, II, 127-128.
168. Vas. XVII, 29; Baudh. II, 3, 20; Vi. XV, 18-19; Yagi.
p. 169
,
says that sva means ‘his own,’ not ‘of his own caste.’ Medh. mentions Kull.’s opinion as that of ‘others.’
167. Vas. XVII, 14; Baudh. II, 3,18; Vi. XV, 3; Yagi. I, 69, II, 127-128.
168. Vas. XVII, 29; Baudh. II, 3, 20; Vi. XV, 18-19; Yagi.
p. 169
, with (a libation of) water, in times of distress (to a man) as his son, must be considered as an adopted son (Datrima).
169. But he is considered a son made (Kyvttrima) whom (a man) makes his son, (he being) equal (by caste), acquainted with (the distinctions between) right and wrong, (and) endowed with filial virtues.
170. If (a child) be born in a man’s house and his father be not known, he is a son born secretly in the house (Gddhotpanna), and shall belong to him of whose wife he was born.
171. He whom (a man) receives as his son, (after he has been) deserted by his parents or by either of them, is called a son cast off (Apaviddha).
II, 130. Sadrrsam, ‘ equal (by caste),’ (Kull., Nar., Ragh., Nand.), means according to Medh. ‘equal by virtues, not by caste.’ ‘ His mother or his father,’ i.e. ‘after mutually agreeing’ (Kull.), ‘the mother, if there is no father’ (Ragh.). Medh. and Nand. read mata pita 4a, ‘his mother and his father,’ but Medh. adds that va is the proper reading. ‘ Affectionately,’ i. e.‘not out of avarice’ (Medh.), or ‘not out of fear and so forth’ (Kull., Nand.), or ‘not by force or fraud’ (Ragh.). ‘In times of distress,’ i.e. ‘if the adopter has no son’ (Kull., Ragh.), or ‘if the adoptee’s parents are in distress’ (N4r.).
169. Baudh. II, 3, 21; Yag#. II, 131. Medh. again says, ‘ equal by qualities.’ ‘Acquainted with (the distinctions between) right and wrong,’ i.e.‘ by performing or not performing Sraddhas and other sacred rites merit or sin will follow’ (Kull.), or ‘I am now the son of so and so, and if I do not serve him I shall become an outcast’ (R4gh.), or ‘not an infant’ (Medh. ‘some,’ Nar.). Nar. adds that some read gunadoshavi4akshaaaf, and refer the adjective to the adopter, who is thereby warned not to take an outcast or the like.
170. Vas. XVII, 24; Baudh. II, 3, 22; Vi. XV, 13-14; Yagi. II, 129. According to the commentators the condition is that there is no suspicion that the wife had intercourse with a man of lower caste. Nar. says that the case contemplated is, that a wife had intercourse with several men of equal caste.
171. Vas. XVII, 37; Baudh. Il, 3, 23; Vi. XV, 24-25; Y4gi.
IX, 176. INHERITANCE,
172. A son whom a damsel secretly bears in the house of her father, one shall name the son of an unmarried damsel (K4nina, and declare) such offspring of an unmarried girl (to belong) to him who weds her (afterwards).
173. If one marries, either knowingly or unknowingly, a pregnant (bride), the child in her womb belongs to him who weds her, and is called (a son) received with the bride (Sahodha).
173. If one marries, either knowingly or unknowingly, a pregnant (bride), the child in her womb belongs to him who weds her, and is called (a son) received with the bride (Sahodha).
174. If a man buys a (boy), whether equal or unequal (in good qualities), from his father and mother for the sake of having a son, that (child) is called a (son) bought (Kritaka).
175. If a woman abandoned by her husband, or a widow, of her own accord contracts a second marriage and bears (a son), he is called the son of a re-married woman (Paunarbhava).
176. If she be (still) a virgin, or one who returned (to her first husband) after leaving him, she is worthy to again perform with her second (or first deserted) husband the (nuptial) ceremony.
II, 132. The reason of the desertion may be either extreme distress of the parents, or the commission of some fault on the part of the boy (Medh.). ‘Provided the father of the child was of equal caste’ (Nar., Nand.)
172. Vas. XVII, 22-23; Baudh. II, 3, 24; Vi. XV, 10-11; Yagi. II, 129. ‘Provided the lover was of equal or higher caste’ (N4r.).
173. Vas. XVII, 26-27; Baudh. II, 3, 25 ; Vi. XV, 15-16; Yagi. II, 131. Medh.’s commentary on verses 173-178 is missing in the
I. O. copies.
174. Vas, XVII, 30-32 ; Baudh. II, 3, 26; Vi. XV, 20-21 ; Yagi. II, 131. ‘Equal or unequal,’ i. e. ‘by good qualities, not by caste’ (Kull, Ragh. ), means according to N4r. ‘whether of equal or of lower caste.’
175. Was. XVII, 18; Baudh. II, 3, 27; Vi. XV, 1-9; Yagi. II, 130.
176. Vas. XVII, 74. ‘Hence a re-married woman, who is not a
p. 177
177. He who, having lost his parents or being abandoned (by them) without (just) cause, gives himself to a (man), is called a son self-given (Svayamdatta).
178. The son whoma Brahmaza begets through lust ona Stdra female is, (though)alive (p4rayan),a corpse (sava), and hence called a Parasava (a living corpse).
179. A son who is (begotten) by a Sfdra on a female slave, or on the female slave of his slave, may, if permitted (by his father), take a share (of the inheritance); thus the law is settled.
180. These eleven, the son begotten on the wife and the rest as enumerated (above), the wise call substitutes for a son, (taken) in order (to prevent) a failure of the (funeral) ceremonies.
181. Those sons, who have been mentioned in connection with (the legitimate son of the body), virgin, is unworthy of the sacrament’ (Nar.). R4gh., relying on Yagi. II, 130, expresses the contrary view, and thinks that the word v4, ‘or,’ at the end of the first half-verse, permits the insertion of ‘or not a virgin.’
177. Vas. XVII, 33-35 ; Baudh. II, 3, 28; Vi. XV, 22-23; Yagi. II, 131.
R4gh., relying on Yagi. II, 130, expresses the contrary view, and thinks that the word v4, ‘or,’ at the end of the first half-verse, permits the insertion of ‘or not a virgin.’
177. Vas. XVII, 33-35 ; Baudh. II, 3, 28; Vi. XV, 22-23; Yagi. II, 131.
178. Vas. XVII, 38; Baudh. II, 3, 30; Vi. XV, 27. ‘Ona Sfdra-female’ i. e. ‘one married to him’ (Kull.). The designation “a corpse’ indicates that his father derives imperfect benefits from his offerings (Kull., Nar., Ragh.), or that he is blameable (Ragh.). The term Braéhmama includes Kshatriyas by implication (Nar.).
179. YAgh. II, 133. ‘A share,’ i.e.‘a share equal to that of a legitimate son’ (Kull.), in case the division is made in the father’s lifetime, else half a share according to Yagi. (Medh.).
180. Kriyalop4t, ‘in (order to prevent) a failure of the (funeral) ceremonies,’ means according to Medh. ‘in (order to prevent) a failure of the duty (to beget offspring).’ Kull. mentions this explanation also. Nand. says, ‘ when there is no legitimateness in consequence of the absence of the action of begetting one.’
181. Ap. II, 13, 7; Baudh. II, 3, 34-35. Hence they should not
IX, 18g. INHERITANCE. 365
being begotten by strangers, belong (in reality) to him from whose seed they sprang, but not to the other (man who took them).
182. If among brothers, sprung from one (father), one have a son, Manu has declared them all to have male offspring through that son.
183. If among all ‘the wives of one husband one have a son, Manu declares them all (to be) mothers of male children through that son.
184. On failure of each better (son), each next inferior (one) is worthy of the inheritance; but if there be many (of) equal (rank), they shall all share the estate.
185. Not brothers, nor fathers, (but) sons take the paternal estate; but the father shall take the inheritance of (a son) who leaves no male issue, and his brothers.
be taken, if there is a legitimate son (Medh.), or an appointed daughter (Kull.).
182. Vas. XVII, 10; Vi. XV, 42. Hence no subsidiary sons (Kull., Ragh.), or no Kshetragas (N4r.), are necessary in such a case. Kull. and R4gh. add that the brother will take estate and give the funeral offerings on failure of a wife, daughters, and so forth (Yagi. II, 135).
183. Vas. XVII, 11; Vi. XV, 41. Hence no adoption or other substitution (Kull., Ragh.), or no appointment (N4r.), shall be made in such a case.
184. ‘Each better (son),’ i.e.‘each earlier named among the ‘twelve’ (Kull., Nar., Ragh., Nand.). Kull. and Ragh. add that, as the son of a Sfidra wife is enumerated among the twelve, and not considered like the son of Kshatriya and Vaisya wives a legitimate son, he inherits only on failure of all other subsidiary sons. ‘Many (of) equal rank,’ i.e. ‘many Paunarbhavas and so forth’ (Kull., Ragh.).
and Ragh. add that, as the son of a Sfidra wife is enumerated among the twelve, and not considered like the son of Kshatriya and Vaisya wives a legitimate son, he inherits only on failure of all other subsidiary sons. ‘Many (of) equal rank,’ i.e. ‘many Paunarbhavas and so forth’ (Kull., Ragh.).
185. Kull. and R4gh. insert after ‘who leaves no son,’ ‘nor widow and daughters,’ and before ‘brothers,’ ‘who leaves no parents.’ N4&r., who (as also Gov., Nand., and K.) reads eva va, ‘or brothers,’ says that the father inherits the estate of an undivided
p. 186
186. To three (ancestors) water must be offered, to three the funeral cake is given, the fourth (descendant is) the giver of these (oblations), the fifth has no connection (with them).
187, Always to that (relative within three degrees) who is nearest to the (deceased) Sapizda the
TX, 186.
186. To three (ancestors) water must be offered, to three the funeral cake is given, the fourth (descendant is) the giver of these (oblations), the fifth has no connection (with them).
187, Always to that (relative within three degrees) who is nearest to the (deceased) Sapizda the son, leaving no male issue, or the brothers with his permission, and that the estate of a divided son descends to his wife, and other heirs mentioned by Y4g7. I, 135-136. All these interpolations are most probably improper, as Manu nowhere mentions the right of a wife or a daughter, not appointed, to the estate. The verse can only refer to a divided coparcener or to the separate property of an undivided one, and Manu’s opinion seems to be that on failure of sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons, whose rights are indicated by verse 137, the father shall inherit, and after him the brothers. 186. ‘ To three,’ i.e. ‘to the father, the grandfather, and the greatgrandfather’ (Kull., Nar., Ragh., Nand.). To these same three the cakes are offered(Kull., Ragh.). Kull. and Ragh. state that the object of the verse is to indicate the right of Kshetragas and other subsidiary sons to inherit the estate of a grandfather and so forth deceased without leaving issue. Kull. adds that the right of sons and grandsons of a legitimate son is indicated by verse 137. Nand., however, thinks that the verse serves to prove the right of grandsons and great-grandsons to inherit before ‘ brothers and the rest.’ 187. Vas. XVII, 81-82; Gaut. XXVIII, 33; Ap. I, 14, 2-3. The above translation does not fully agree with any of the explanations given by the four commentators. On philological grounds it seems to me improbable that anantarak sapind4t can mean anything else than ‘ nearest to the Sapiada,’ and that this Sapinda can be anybody else than the deceased. Further, as verse 186 apparently contains a definition of the term, limiting Sapinda-relationship. to three degrees, and as in the second half of verse 184 the Sakulyas, ‘those belonging to the same family,’ are mentioned as the next heirs, it seems certain that ‘the nearest’ here meant is ‘the nearest Sapinda or relative within three degrees.’ Practically the proposed translation is not much different from that extracted by Kull. and others by the grammatically inadmissible expedient of taking sapindat for sapisdamadhy&t, ‘among the Sapiadas.’ The correctness of the above explanation is also attested by the closely allied parallel passage of Baudhfyana I, 11, 9-13, the first Sfitra ofp. 367 estate shall belong; afterwards a Sakulya shall be (the heir, then) the spiritual teacher or the pupil.
p. 367
estate shall belong; afterwards a Sakulya shall be (the heir, then) the spiritual teacher or the pupil.
which corresponds to verse 186, while the other four express the same sense as verse 187. There too the term Sakulya occurs, which Gimftav4hana takes to denote the three descendants beyond the great-grandson and the three ascendants beyond the greatgrandfather, while others explain it as a general term, ‘members of one family.’ What Manu’s precise acceptation of the word was cannot be said with certainty. But, as no technical definition is given by him, it will be safest to take it in its etymological and widest sense, ‘the (remoter) members of the family, and to assume that the principle of nearness to the deceased regulated the succession.
As regards the explanations of the commentators, Kull. says, ‘As this general rule would be meaningless, if it were referred to the legitimate son and those other Sapindas alone, who have already been mentioned, its object must therefore be (to teach) that the wife and the rest, who have not been mentioned, shall inherit. To that Sapiada who is the nearest among the Sapindas, be he a male or a female, the estate of the deceased shall belong.’ He then goes on to enumerate the heirs in the following order: 1. the legitimate son, sharing with a Kshetraga (verse 164), and a virtuous adoptive son (verse 141); 2. the appointed daughter and her son; 3. the Kshetraga and the other ten subsidiary sons, each on failure of the earlier named, with the proviso that the son of a Sfdra wife receives one-tenth of the estate only (verse 154); 4. the widow (on this point a great many passages are quoted, and Medh. is censured, because in his commentary, which is missing in the I. O. MSS,., like the whole passage 182~201, he denied her right to inherit); 5. the daughter, not appointed; 6. the father and the mother; 7. full brothers; 8. sons of full brothers; 9. the paternal grandmother (verse 227); 10. any other near Sapinda, (a) of the grandfather's line, (b) of the great-grandfather’s line, and so forth; 11. the Sam4nodakas, or relatives allied by libations of water (Kull. considering Sakulya as equivalent to Samanodaka) ; 12. the teacher ; 13. the pupil. According to Kull. the translation should be, ‘To the nearest among the Sapindas (male or female) the estate shall belong; afterwards (on failure of Sapindas) a Sam4nodaka shall be (the heir), next the teacher, and (then) the pupil.’ Ragh. in substance agrees with this explanation, but in order to make the rule still more fully agree with Yag#. II, 135-136, he asserts that the
p. 188
188. But on failure of all (heirs) Brahmazas (shall) share the estate, (who are) versed in the three Vedas, pure and self-controlled; thus the law is not violated.
II, 135-136, he asserts that the
p. 188
188. But on failure of all (heirs) Brahmazas (shall) share the estate, (who are) versed in the three Vedas, pure and self-controlled; thus the law is not violated.
Bandhus or cognates are also implied by the term Sakulya. His explanation of the first words also differs from Kull.’s, and is more in accordance with the rules of grammar, ‘ He who is the nearest to the Sapinda, i.e. to the legitimate son and the son of the daughter —{viz.) the five, the wife and the rest (mentioned by Y4g#. II, 135-136).’ RAgh. and Kull. are clearly under the spell of Yag%., and most improperly transfer into Manu’s text the ideas of the latter. N4r.’s short disjointed remarks are not very clear. He explains the first words by esham madhye sapizdindm ato tho[yo]nantaro yath4 putrasya pit& tasya tatpitetyddi tasya tasya taddhanam, ‘Among those Sapindas the nearest to him, i.e. the father to his son, his father to him, and so forth; always to him that estate (shall belong).’ He then enumerates, on failure of the father, the brother and his son, the grandfather, the Samanodaka, the Sagotra, and the ‘ Bandhu, i.e. the maternal uncle and the rest,’ as successive heirs, and explains Sakulya by Bandhu.
Nand., whose text has a faulty reading sapindarhah, asserts that pinda (sapinda?) means ‘the deceased,’ and explains the first line by saying, ‘ Always to him who is the Sapinda nearest to the deceased the wealth, the estate, shall belong—the repetition (of the word tasya) shows the successive order.’ The Sakulyas are, according to him, the Samanodakas. He reads sakuly4’ syud, ‘ Sakulyas shall be the heirs.’
188. Gaut. XXVIII, 41; Vas. XVII, 84-86 ; Baudh. I, 13, 14; Vi. XVII, 13-14. ‘Fhe phrase ‘on failure of all (heirs),’ i.e. ‘ of those mentioned’ (R4gh.), or ‘ of all males and females, related in any way (to the deceased),’ (Nand.), indicates according to Kull. that other unnamed persons, such as fellow-students, are also entitled to inherit. ‘Brahmagas,’ i.e. ‘such as live in the same village’ (N4r.). ‘Pure,’ i.e. ‘careful of external and internal purity’ (Kull.), or better ‘who are of good conduct’ (N4r.). According to Kull. and Ragh., the meaning of the last clause is that the Brahmanas who inherit the estate will offer the funeral sacrifices, and thus no violation of the law regarding the Sraddhas will occur. NAr. points out that this rule, as the following verse shows, refers solely to the property of a Braéhmaaa.
IX, rox. INHERITANCE. 369
189. The property of a Brahmam#a must never be taken by the king, that is a settled rule; but (the property of men) of other castes the king may take on failure of all (heirs).
190. (If the widow) of (a man) who died without leaving issue, raises up to him a son by a member of the family (Sagotra), she shall deliver to that (son) the whole property which belonged to the (deceased).
190. (If the widow) of (a man) who died without leaving issue, raises up to him a son by a member of the family (Sagotra), she shall deliver to that (son) the whole property which belonged to the (deceased).
191. But if two (sons), begotten by two (different men), contend for the property (in the hands) of their mother, each shall take, to the exclusion of the other, what belonged to his father.
189. Ap. Il, 14,5; Gaut. XXVIII, 42; Vas. XVII, 83; Baudh. I, 13, 15-16. According to Kull. and RAgh., the repetition of the prohibition to take the property of a Brahmana shows that, if no learned and virtuous Brahmazas are to be found, the king shall give the estate of a Brahmana deceased without heirs, even to men who have nothing but the name of the Brahmama caste.
1go. According to Kull. and Ragh., this verse refers to the case in which a duly authorised widow bears a son to a relative of her husband, and repeats the rule given above, verse 146, which here however is made imperative on the widow. Kull. adds that the object of the repetition is to show that not only a brother-in-law or a Sapizda, as stated above, verse 59, but also a remoter relative, a Sagotra, may beget a son for a man deceased without issue. Nar., on the other hand, thinks that in accordance with this verse a child which a widow bears, even without authorisation, to a Sagotra shall inherit the estate of the widow's deceased husband (sagotrad yadi tantum samténam 4hared aniyukt4pi strf tada golakatve ’pi tasya giiatyantarbhave kshetrapatidhanaharitvam ity arthak). He adds that some apply this rule to Sidra females only, and that in the opinion of these persons Giidhagas, Kaninas, and Sahodhas also are considered as sons in the case of Sfidras only, not in the case of Aryans.
1gt. Kull. and Nand. think that the verse refers to the case in which a woman married successively two husbands and bore a son to either. If the two husbands died and their property remained in
[25] Bb
p. 192
192. But when the mother has died, all the uterine brothers and the uterine sisters shall equally divide the mother’s estate.
193. Even to the daughters of those (daughters) something should be given, as is seemly, out of the estate of their maternal grandmother, on the score of affection.
194. What (was given) before the (nuptial) fire, what (was given) on the bridal procession, what was
193. Even to the daughters of those (daughters) something should be given, as is seemly, out of the estate of their maternal grandmother, on the score of affection.
194. What (was given) before the (nuptial) fire, what (was given) on the bridal procession, what was the hands of the wife, she is to make over the entire property of her first husband to his son, and the property of the second husband to the son of the latter. Ragh. gives the same explanation, but proposes as an alternative, ‘If two (sons), begotten by two (different men), contend for the separate property of their mother, &c.’ For a twice-married woman will have received nuptial and other presents from both husbands. After her death her sons shall each receive what came to her from his father. N&r. finally holds that the verse refers to a contention between a legitimate son and a Golaka or a Paunarbhava for the estates of their respective fathers which their mother holds. He construes striya4 with g4tau, ‘begotten by two (different men) on one woman.’
192. Kull. and RA&gh. restrict this rule, in accordance with a passage of Brihaspati, to unmarried daughters, and hold that married daughters receive merely ‘a token of respect.’ The latter amounts according to Kull. to ‘one-fourth of a share ;’ see above, verse 118, N@4r. says that the term ‘the mother’s estate’ refers to ‘other property than stridhana or separate property,’ and adds to the expression ‘the sisters’ aputra/, ‘those who have no sons.’ He, however, gives the opinion, held by Kull. and Ragh. also, stating that it belongs to ‘some.’
193. Kull. holds that the granddaughters should be unmarried. Nar. says, ‘When the married daughters are dead, their daughters shall be presented at will by their maternal uncles with the share which their mothers would have received as a token of respect.’ R4gh., too, thinks that ‘on the score of affection’ means ‘at the pleasure (of the heirs).’ But Nand. deduces from the same term the absolute necessity of the gift.
194. Vi. XVII, 17; YAgi. II, 143. ‘What was given in token of love,’ i.e. ‘by the husband’ (ratikale, Nar.).
p. 371
given in token of love, and what was received from her brother, mother, or father, that is called the sixfold property of a woman.
195. (Such property), as well as a gift subsequent and what was given (to her) by her affectionate husband, shall go to her offspring, (even) if she dies in the lifetime of her husband.
196. It is ordained that the property (of a woman married) according to the Brahma, the Daiva, the Arsha, the GAandharva, or the PragApatya rite (shall belong)to her husband alone, if she dies without issue.
197. But it is prescribed that the property which may have been given to a (wife) on an Asura marriage or (one of the) other (blamable marriages, shall go) to her mother and to her father, if she dies without issue.