Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1348 LAWS OF MANU. IX, 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 com- a IX, 120. INHERITANCE. 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.
2120. 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 350 LAWS OF MANU. IX, 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.
3(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. IX, 126. INHERITANCE, 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.).
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1348 LAWS OF MANU. IX, 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 com- a IX, 120. INHERITANCE. 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.
2120. 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 350 LAWS OF MANU. IX, 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.
3(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. IX, 126. INHERITANCE, 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.).
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.