Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1190. (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 370 LAWS OF MANU. , IX, 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
2193. 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.). TX, 198. . INHERITANCE. 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.
3197. 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. 198. Whatever property may have been given by her father to a wife (who has co-wives of different castes), that the daughter (of the) Brahmamt (wife) shall take, or that (daughter’s) issue. 195. Yagn. II, 144. Kull. and Nar. state that both the separate property of a woman, enumerated in verse 194, and that named in verse 195, descend to her children, i.e. ‘to her sons and the rest’ (Ragh.), or ‘to her sons or daughters’ (Nand.). N4&r. remarks that ‘a gift subsequent’ and ‘the husband’s affectionate gift’ are not stridhana, or separate property, and that hence the wife has no right of free disposal with respect to these two. 196-197. Vi. XVII, 19-20; Y4gi. II, 145. 196. Nar. adds to the term ‘property,’ stridhanastridhanarfipam, ‘whether separate property or not.’ 198. I. e. if a Braéhmana has wives of the Brahmana and Kshatriya castes, property given in any way to the Kshatriya wife by her own family, goes to the daughter of the Brahmama wife, or if that daughter of the Brahmama wife is dead and has left issue, to the latter. ‘Thus the sons of the Brahmana wife are excluded’ (Kull., Nar.). ' Nar. states expressly that the term ‘issue’ refers to daughters alone. Bb2 372 LAWS OF MANU. ° IX, 199. 199. Women should never make a hoard from (the property of) their families which is common to many, nor from their own (husbands’ particular) property without permission. 200. The ornaments which may have been worn by women during their husbands’ lifetime, his heirs shall not divide; those who divide them become outcasts. 201. Eunuchs and outcasts, (persons) born blind or deaf, the insane, idiots and the dumb, as well as those deficient in any organ (of action or sensation), receive no share. 199. Kull. and Ragh., whose explanation the translation given above follows, take the first clause to refer to the property of a united family, and the second to the separate property of the husbands. But according to Nar. and Nand. the translation should be as follows, ‘ Wives should never take anything (for their private expenses) from (their husbands’ property, destined for the support of) their families, on which many have a claim, nor from their own property (which is not stridhana), without the consent of their husbands.’ Nér.’s explanation of nirh4ram kuryuA, ‘should (never) take anything,’ seems preferable to that given by Kull. and R4gh.
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.
1190. (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 370 LAWS OF MANU. , IX, 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
2193. 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.). TX, 198. . INHERITANCE. 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.
3197. 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. 198. Whatever property may have been given by her father to a wife (who has co-wives of different castes), that the daughter (of the) Brahmamt (wife) shall take, or that (daughter’s) issue. 195. Yagn. II, 144. Kull. and Nar. state that both the separate property of a woman, enumerated in verse 194, and that named in verse 195, descend to her children, i.e. ‘to her sons and the rest’ (Ragh.), or ‘to her sons or daughters’ (Nand.). N4&r. remarks that ‘a gift subsequent’ and ‘the husband’s affectionate gift’ are not stridhana, or separate property, and that hence the wife has no right of free disposal with respect to these two. 196-197. Vi. XVII, 19-20; Y4gi. II, 145. 196. Nar. adds to the term ‘property,’ stridhanastridhanarfipam, ‘whether separate property or not.’ 198. I. e. if a Braéhmana has wives of the Brahmana and Kshatriya castes, property given in any way to the Kshatriya wife by her own family, goes to the daughter of the Brahmama wife, or if that daughter of the Brahmama wife is dead and has left issue, to the latter. ‘Thus the sons of the Brahmana wife are excluded’ (Kull., Nar.). ' Nar. states expressly that the term ‘issue’ refers to daughters alone. Bb2 372 LAWS OF MANU. ° IX, 199. 199. Women should never make a hoard from (the property of) their families which is common to many, nor from their own (husbands’ particular) property without permission. 200. The ornaments which may have been worn by women during their husbands’ lifetime, his heirs shall not divide; those who divide them become outcasts. 201. Eunuchs and outcasts, (persons) born blind or deaf, the insane, idiots and the dumb, as well as those deficient in any organ (of action or sensation), receive no share. 199. Kull. and Ragh., whose explanation the translation given above follows, take the first clause to refer to the property of a united family, and the second to the separate property of the husbands. But according to Nar. and Nand. the translation should be as follows, ‘ Wives should never take anything (for their private expenses) from (their husbands’ property, destined for the support of) their families, on which many have a claim, nor from their own property (which is not stridhana), without the consent of their husbands.’ Nér.’s explanation of nirh4ram kuryuA, ‘should (never) take anything,’ seems preferable to that given by Kull. and R4gh.
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.