Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1TX, 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 of TX, 187. INHERITANCE. 367 estate shall belong; afterwards a Sakulya shall be (the heir, then) the spiritual teacher or the pupil.
2INHERITANCE. 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 368 LAWS OF MANU. TX, 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.
3II, 135-136, he asserts that the 368 LAWS OF MANU. TX, 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).
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.
1TX, 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 of TX, 187. INHERITANCE. 367 estate shall belong; afterwards a Sakulya shall be (the heir, then) the spiritual teacher or the pupil.
2INHERITANCE. 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 368 LAWS OF MANU. TX, 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.
3II, 135-136, he asserts that the 368 LAWS OF MANU. TX, 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).
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.