Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1162. If the two heirs of one man be a legitimate 158-159. Gaut. XXVIII, 31-33; Vas. XVII, 25, 38; Baudh. Il, 3) 31-32. 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.), 360 LAWS OF MANU. IX, 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.
2Under 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. 362 LAWS OF MANU. IX, 169. ,
3says 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. 362 LAWS OF MANU. IX, 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).
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.
1162. If the two heirs of one man be a legitimate 158-159. Gaut. XXVIII, 31-33; Vas. XVII, 25, 38; Baudh. Il, 3) 31-32. 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.), 360 LAWS OF MANU. IX, 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.
2Under 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. 362 LAWS OF MANU. IX, 169. ,
3says 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. 362 LAWS OF MANU. IX, 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).
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.