Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1and R4gh. 200. Vi. XVII, 22. ‘His heirs,’ i.e.‘ the sons and the rest’ (Kull., N&r.). Nand., who differs from the above explanation, says, ‘Since the ornaments are the husband’s property, because they have not been mentioned as stridhana, the object of this utterance is to forbid their going to the heirs, while the husband lives’ (alamk4rasya stridhane ’nudish/atvad bhartridhanatvena bhartribhave day4diném praptyapavadartho ’yam 4rambhak). Nand. appears, therefore, to construe patyau givati with bhageran, just as Nandapazd.ta does in the parallel passage of Vishnu (see Professor Jolly’s note). 201-203. Ap. II, 14,1,15 3 Gaut. XXVIII, 23, 40, 43; Vas. XVII, 52-53 ; Baudh. II, 3, 37-40; Vi. XV, 32-37 ; Vag. II, 140-141. 201. ‘Eunuchs,’ i.e. ‘those who are incurable ;’ ‘ outcasts,’ i.e. ‘those guilty of a mortal sin (mah4p&taka) before they perform a penance ;’ ‘the insane,’ i.e. ‘those who are incurable’ (Nar.). ‘Those deficient in any organ, i.e. of action’ (Nand.), such as lame men (Kull, Nand.), such as men without hands (R4gh.), or IX, 204. . INHERITANCE. 373 202. But it is just that (a man) who knows (the law) should give even to all of them food and raiment without stint, according to his ability; he who gives it not will become an outcast. 203. If the eunuch and the rest should somehow or other desire to (take) wives, the offspring of such among them as have children is worthy of a share. 204. Whatever property the eldest (son) acquires (by his own exertion) after the father’s death, a share of that (shall belong) to his younger (brothers), provided they have made a due progress in learning. also ‘of sensation,’ such as men who have lost the faculty of touch (Na4r.). "202. Medh.and Kull. take atyantam, ‘without stint,’ in the sense of ‘for life.’ Ndr. construes the word with adadat, and explains ‘he who does not give it at all.’ Nand. reads abhyangam, ‘ointments,’ for atyantam, ‘ without stint.’ 203. Medh. is of opinion that some of the persons disqualified from inheriting, the vataretas kliba, those born blind and the lame, may marry, while outcasts, madmen, and the rest cannot do so. Hence the conditional clause may be taken in the sense adopted above in the translation. He, however, adds that the rule may also refer to cases in which the cause of the disqualification arose after marriage. N4r.’s explanation is substantially the same. But he considers that a eunuch and an outcast cannot contract a legal marriage, and that the expression klibidaya4, literally ‘ those among whom the eunuch is the first,’ refers to ‘men born blind and the rest.’ He admits also the rights of the Kshetraga sons of eunuchs and outcasts who contracted a marriage before their disqualification arose. Kull. says, ‘By the employment of the term ‘somehow or other” it is indicated that a eunuch and the rest are not worthy to marry.’ In the sequel he explains the word ‘offspring’ by Kshetraga. R4gh.and Nand. follow him with respect to the latter point.
2Kull. says, ‘By the employment of the term ‘somehow or other” it is indicated that a eunuch and the rest are not worthy to marry.’ In the sequel he explains the word ‘offspring’ by Kshetraga. R4gh.and Nand. follow him with respect to the latter point. 204. The rule refers of course to a united family only (Kull.). Medh. infers from the expression vidydnupalina4, ‘ provided they have made a due progress in learning,’ that ‘persons subsisting by learning, mechanics and artisans, such as physicians, actors, singers,’ 374 LAWS OF MANU. TX, 205. 205. But if all of them, being unlearned, acquire property by their labour, the division of that shall be equal, (as it is) not property acquired by the father; that is a settled rule. 206. Property (acquired) by learning belongs solely to him to whom (it was given), likewise the gift of a friend, a present received on marriage or with the honey-mixture. are meant. N4r..and Nand. hold that no part of an acquisition, made under the same circumstances by the youngest brother, can be claimed by the eldest, because this verse specifies the eldest alone, and because the next verse declares that the acquisitions only made by any member of an unlearned family, shall be partibie. 205. Gaut. XXXVIII, 31. This rule refers to acquisitions by trace (Medh., Kull, Nar.), by agriculture (Medh., Kull. Nand.), or by royal service (Medh.), ‘As the division is to be equal, the eldest receives no preferential share’ (Medh., Kull., Nand.). Medh. adds that, since the expression ‘as it is not property acquired by the father,’ gives the reason for the equal division, the same rule holds good for the division of the estate of any other person deceased without issue. Nand. takes apitrya iti for apitryad iti and explains it by ‘since (the division) has not been made by the father.’ 206. Yagi. II, 118-119. ‘Property acquired by learning,’ i.e. ‘a fee for teaching or money received for proficiency in an art’ (Medh., Nand.), includes according to a text of Katyayana, quoted by Kull. and Ragh. (see Colebrooke V, Digest CCCXLVII), gifts from pupils, gratuities for performing a sacrifice, a fee for answering a difficult question in casuistry, or for ascertaining a doubtful point in law, rewards for displaying knowledge or for victory in a learned contest, or for reciting the Veda with transcendent ability. Instances in which land was given as vidyadhana occur in the inscriptions, see e. g. Indian Antiquary, XII, p.195b, 16. ‘A present received on marriage,’ i.e. ‘ what (the bridegroom) receives from the relatives of his wife’ (Medh., N4r.), or ‘from any other person’ (Medh. ‘ others’), means according to Nand., ‘stridhana received at the time of marriage’(?). ‘A present received with the honey-mixture’ is explained by Medh. and, as Kull. asserts, by Gov. also, by ‘the fee given for the performance of a sacrifice.’ But the explanation given by Kull., Nar., Ragh., and Nand., ‘any IX, 209. INHERITANCE. 375
3‘A present received with the honey-mixture’ is explained by Medh. and, as Kull. asserts, by Gov. also, by ‘the fee given for the performance of a sacrifice.’ But the explanation given by Kull., Nar., Ragh., and Nand., ‘any IX, 209. INHERITANCE. 375 207. But if one of the brothers, being able (to maintain himself) by his own occupation, does not desire (a share of the family) property, he may be made separate (by the others) receiving a trifle out of his share to live upon. . 208. What one (brother) may acquire by his labour without using the patrimony, that acquisition, (made solely) by his own effort, he shall not share unless by his own will (with his brothers). 209. But if a father recovers lost ancestral pro- present received, in token of respect, with the honey-mixture,’ e. g. a silver vase (R4gh.), is preferable. Regarding the persons worthy of the honey-mixture, see above, III, 119-120. Kull. points out that this rule is a restriction of that given above, verse 204. RAgh. adds that, as the parallel passage of Yagi. shows, such acquisitions become the private property of the donee, only if they were obtained ‘without detriment to the paternal estate ;’ see also below, verse 208. 207. Yagi. II,116. The translation given above follows the second explanation offered by Medh., and the glosses of Kull. and N&ér. According to Medh.’s first explanation, with which Nand. agrees, the translation would agree with Sir W. Jones’s, ‘he may debar himself from his share.’ The reason why a trifle should be given is, according to all commentators, that future disputes may be prevented. 208. Yagf. I],118; Vi. XVIII, 42. ‘By his labour,’ i.e. ‘by agriculture and the like’ (Medh., Kull., Nand.), or ‘by any occupation entailing trouble’ (sramaganyakarman4, Na&r.). Anupaghnan, ‘without using’ (Nand.), or ‘ without living upon’ (R4gh.), is explained by Kull. ‘without detriment to, and Nand. mentions this interpretation also. Ndr. remarks that acquisitions made without labour or trouble are liable to partition. Nand. says that the rule, given in this verse, may be reconciled with that contained in verse 205, by assuming that the latter presupposes that all brotl.ers exert themselves according to their ability (pirvam sarveshu yath4s4marthyam fham4neshu bhratr:shu labdhasya samavibhaga ukta ity avirodho ’nusamdheyaA). 209. Yagt-II, 119; Vi. XVIII, 43. The translation of paitrikam, lit.‘ paternal,’ by ‘ ancestral,’ is based on Nar.’s gloss svapitr?- 376 LAWS OF MANU. IX, 210. perty, he shall not divide it, unless by his own will, with his sons, (for it is) self-acquired (property). 210. If brothers, (once) divided and living (again) together (as coparceners), make a second partition, the division shall in that case be equal; in such a case there is no right of primogeniture. 211. If the eldest or the youngest (brother) is deprived of his share, or if either of them dies, his share is not lost (to his immediate heirs).
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.
1and R4gh. 200. Vi. XVII, 22. ‘His heirs,’ i.e.‘ the sons and the rest’ (Kull., N&r.). Nand., who differs from the above explanation, says, ‘Since the ornaments are the husband’s property, because they have not been mentioned as stridhana, the object of this utterance is to forbid their going to the heirs, while the husband lives’ (alamk4rasya stridhane ’nudish/atvad bhartridhanatvena bhartribhave day4diném praptyapavadartho ’yam 4rambhak). Nand. appears, therefore, to construe patyau givati with bhageran, just as Nandapazd.ta does in the parallel passage of Vishnu (see Professor Jolly’s note). 201-203. Ap. II, 14,1,15 3 Gaut. XXVIII, 23, 40, 43; Vas. XVII, 52-53 ; Baudh. II, 3, 37-40; Vi. XV, 32-37 ; Vag. II, 140-141. 201. ‘Eunuchs,’ i.e. ‘those who are incurable ;’ ‘ outcasts,’ i.e. ‘those guilty of a mortal sin (mah4p&taka) before they perform a penance ;’ ‘the insane,’ i.e. ‘those who are incurable’ (Nar.). ‘Those deficient in any organ, i.e. of action’ (Nand.), such as lame men (Kull, Nand.), such as men without hands (R4gh.), or IX, 204. . INHERITANCE. 373 202. But it is just that (a man) who knows (the law) should give even to all of them food and raiment without stint, according to his ability; he who gives it not will become an outcast. 203. If the eunuch and the rest should somehow or other desire to (take) wives, the offspring of such among them as have children is worthy of a share. 204. Whatever property the eldest (son) acquires (by his own exertion) after the father’s death, a share of that (shall belong) to his younger (brothers), provided they have made a due progress in learning. also ‘of sensation,’ such as men who have lost the faculty of touch (Na4r.). "202. Medh.and Kull. take atyantam, ‘without stint,’ in the sense of ‘for life.’ Ndr. construes the word with adadat, and explains ‘he who does not give it at all.’ Nand. reads abhyangam, ‘ointments,’ for atyantam, ‘ without stint.’ 203. Medh. is of opinion that some of the persons disqualified from inheriting, the vataretas kliba, those born blind and the lame, may marry, while outcasts, madmen, and the rest cannot do so. Hence the conditional clause may be taken in the sense adopted above in the translation. He, however, adds that the rule may also refer to cases in which the cause of the disqualification arose after marriage. N4r.’s explanation is substantially the same. But he considers that a eunuch and an outcast cannot contract a legal marriage, and that the expression klibidaya4, literally ‘ those among whom the eunuch is the first,’ refers to ‘men born blind and the rest.’ He admits also the rights of the Kshetraga sons of eunuchs and outcasts who contracted a marriage before their disqualification arose. Kull. says, ‘By the employment of the term ‘somehow or other” it is indicated that a eunuch and the rest are not worthy to marry.’ In the sequel he explains the word ‘offspring’ by Kshetraga. R4gh.and Nand. follow him with respect to the latter point.
2Kull. says, ‘By the employment of the term ‘somehow or other” it is indicated that a eunuch and the rest are not worthy to marry.’ In the sequel he explains the word ‘offspring’ by Kshetraga. R4gh.and Nand. follow him with respect to the latter point. 204. The rule refers of course to a united family only (Kull.). Medh. infers from the expression vidydnupalina4, ‘ provided they have made a due progress in learning,’ that ‘persons subsisting by learning, mechanics and artisans, such as physicians, actors, singers,’ 374 LAWS OF MANU. TX, 205. 205. But if all of them, being unlearned, acquire property by their labour, the division of that shall be equal, (as it is) not property acquired by the father; that is a settled rule. 206. Property (acquired) by learning belongs solely to him to whom (it was given), likewise the gift of a friend, a present received on marriage or with the honey-mixture. are meant. N4r..and Nand. hold that no part of an acquisition, made under the same circumstances by the youngest brother, can be claimed by the eldest, because this verse specifies the eldest alone, and because the next verse declares that the acquisitions only made by any member of an unlearned family, shall be partibie. 205. Gaut. XXXVIII, 31. This rule refers to acquisitions by trace (Medh., Kull, Nar.), by agriculture (Medh., Kull. Nand.), or by royal service (Medh.), ‘As the division is to be equal, the eldest receives no preferential share’ (Medh., Kull., Nand.). Medh. adds that, since the expression ‘as it is not property acquired by the father,’ gives the reason for the equal division, the same rule holds good for the division of the estate of any other person deceased without issue. Nand. takes apitrya iti for apitryad iti and explains it by ‘since (the division) has not been made by the father.’ 206. Yagi. II, 118-119. ‘Property acquired by learning,’ i.e. ‘a fee for teaching or money received for proficiency in an art’ (Medh., Nand.), includes according to a text of Katyayana, quoted by Kull. and Ragh. (see Colebrooke V, Digest CCCXLVII), gifts from pupils, gratuities for performing a sacrifice, a fee for answering a difficult question in casuistry, or for ascertaining a doubtful point in law, rewards for displaying knowledge or for victory in a learned contest, or for reciting the Veda with transcendent ability. Instances in which land was given as vidyadhana occur in the inscriptions, see e. g. Indian Antiquary, XII, p.195b, 16. ‘A present received on marriage,’ i.e. ‘ what (the bridegroom) receives from the relatives of his wife’ (Medh., N4r.), or ‘from any other person’ (Medh. ‘ others’), means according to Nand., ‘stridhana received at the time of marriage’(?). ‘A present received with the honey-mixture’ is explained by Medh. and, as Kull. asserts, by Gov. also, by ‘the fee given for the performance of a sacrifice.’ But the explanation given by Kull., Nar., Ragh., and Nand., ‘any IX, 209. INHERITANCE. 375
3‘A present received with the honey-mixture’ is explained by Medh. and, as Kull. asserts, by Gov. also, by ‘the fee given for the performance of a sacrifice.’ But the explanation given by Kull., Nar., Ragh., and Nand., ‘any IX, 209. INHERITANCE. 375 207. But if one of the brothers, being able (to maintain himself) by his own occupation, does not desire (a share of the family) property, he may be made separate (by the others) receiving a trifle out of his share to live upon. . 208. What one (brother) may acquire by his labour without using the patrimony, that acquisition, (made solely) by his own effort, he shall not share unless by his own will (with his brothers). 209. But if a father recovers lost ancestral pro- present received, in token of respect, with the honey-mixture,’ e. g. a silver vase (R4gh.), is preferable. Regarding the persons worthy of the honey-mixture, see above, III, 119-120. Kull. points out that this rule is a restriction of that given above, verse 204. RAgh. adds that, as the parallel passage of Yagi. shows, such acquisitions become the private property of the donee, only if they were obtained ‘without detriment to the paternal estate ;’ see also below, verse 208. 207. Yagi. II,116. The translation given above follows the second explanation offered by Medh., and the glosses of Kull. and N&ér. According to Medh.’s first explanation, with which Nand. agrees, the translation would agree with Sir W. Jones’s, ‘he may debar himself from his share.’ The reason why a trifle should be given is, according to all commentators, that future disputes may be prevented. 208. Yagf. I],118; Vi. XVIII, 42. ‘By his labour,’ i.e. ‘by agriculture and the like’ (Medh., Kull., Nand.), or ‘by any occupation entailing trouble’ (sramaganyakarman4, Na&r.). Anupaghnan, ‘without using’ (Nand.), or ‘ without living upon’ (R4gh.), is explained by Kull. ‘without detriment to, and Nand. mentions this interpretation also. Ndr. remarks that acquisitions made without labour or trouble are liable to partition. Nand. says that the rule, given in this verse, may be reconciled with that contained in verse 205, by assuming that the latter presupposes that all brotl.ers exert themselves according to their ability (pirvam sarveshu yath4s4marthyam fham4neshu bhratr:shu labdhasya samavibhaga ukta ity avirodho ’nusamdheyaA). 209. Yagt-II, 119; Vi. XVIII, 43. The translation of paitrikam, lit.‘ paternal,’ by ‘ ancestral,’ is based on Nar.’s gloss svapitr?- 376 LAWS OF MANU. IX, 210. perty, he shall not divide it, unless by his own will, with his sons, (for it is) self-acquired (property). 210. If brothers, (once) divided and living (again) together (as coparceners), make a second partition, the division shall in that case be equal; in such a case there is no right of primogeniture. 211. If the eldest or the youngest (brother) is deprived of his share, or if either of them dies, his share is not lost (to his immediate heirs).
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.