166. Ap. II, 18, 1; Vas. XVII, 13; Baudh. II, 3, 14; Vi. XV, 2; Y&gii. II, 128. I read prathamakalpikam with Medh., Gov., Nar., and K. Ragh. 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; Yzgii. I, 69, 168. Vas. XVII, 29; Baudh. II, 3, 20; Vi. XV, 18-19; Ya#w.
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 (KWtrima) whom (a man) makes his son, (he being) equal (by caste), acquainted with (the distinctions between) right and wrong, (and) endowed with filial virtues.
1 70. 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 (Gudhotpanna), 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. Sadmam, ' 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 £a, ' 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' (Nar.).
169. Baudh. II, 3, 21; Yagn. 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' (Ragh.), or 'not an infant' (Medh. 'some,' Nar.). Nar. adds that some read gu#adoshavi/£aksha»a/$, 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; Yagn. 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. II, 3, 23; Vi. XV, 24-25; Yagn.
IX, 176. INHERITANCE. 363 i 72. A son whom a damsel secretly bears in the house of her father, one shall name the son of an unmarried damsel (Kanina, and declare) such off- spring of an unmarried girl (to belong) to him who weds her (afterwards).
173. If one marries, either knowingly or un- knowingly, a pregnant (bride), the child in her womb belongs to him who weds her, and is called (a son) received with the bride (Sahod7/a).
174. If a man buys a (boy), whether equal or unequal (in good qualities), from his father and mother for the sake of having a son, that (child) is called a (son) bought (Krttaka).
175. If a woman abandoned by her husband, or a widow, of her own accord contracts a second mar- riage and bears (a son), he is called the son of a re-married woman (Paunarbhava).
176. If she be (still) a virgin, or one who returned (to her first husband) after leaving him, she is worthy to again perform with her second (or first deserted) husband the (nuptial) ceremony.
II, 132. The reason of the desertion maybe either extreme dis- tress of the parents, or the commission of some fault on the part of the boy (Medh.). ' Provided the father of the child was of equal caste' (Nar., Nand.).
172. Vas. XVII, 22-23 5 Baudh.II, 3, 24; Vi. XV, 10-n; Yagn. II, 129. 'Provided the lover was of equal or higher caste ' (Nar.).
173. Vas. XVII, 26-27; Baudh.II, 3, 25; Vi. XV, 15-16; Ysign. II, 131. Medh.'s commentary on verses 173-178 is missing in the I. O. copies.
174. Vas. XVII, 30-32; Baudh. II, 3, 26; Vi. XV, 20-21; Yagri.
II, 131. ' Equal or unequal,' i. e. 'by good qualities, not by caste' (Kull., Ragh.), means according to Nar. ' whether of equal or of lower caste.'
175. Vas. XVII, 18; Baudh. II, 3, 27; Vi. XV, 7-9; Yagn.
176. Vas. XVII, 74. ' Hence a re-married woman, who is not a t 177. He who, having lost his parents or being abandoned (by them) without (just) cause, gives himself to a (man), is called a son self-given (Sva- yawdatta).
178. The son whom a Brahma/za begets through lust j\ on a 6"udra female is, (though) alive (parayan), a corpse (5a va), and hence called a Parasava (a living corpse).
179. A son who is (begotten) by a.Sudra on a female slave, or on the female slave of his slave, may, if permitted (by his father), take a share (of the inheritance); thus the law is settled.
180. These eleven, the son begotten on the wife and the rest as enumerated (above), the wise call substitutes for a son, (taken) in order (to prevent) a failure of the (funeral) ceremonies.
181. Those sons, who have been mentioned in connection with (the legitimate son of the body), virgin, is unworthy of the sacrament' (Nar.). Ragh., relying on Y§gn. II, 130, expresses the contrary view, and thinks that the word vei, ' or/ at the end of the first half- verse, permits the insertion of ' or not a virgin.'
178. Vas. XVII, 38; Baudh. II, 3, 30; Vi. XV, 27. ' On a -Sudra-female ' i. e. 'one married to him' (Kull). The designation ' a corpse ' indicates that his father derives imperfect benefits from his offerings (Kull., Nar., Ragh.), or that he is blameable (Ragh.). The term Brahmawa includes Kshatriyas by implication (Nar.).
179. Y&gn. II, 133. 'A share/ i.e. 'a share equal to that of a legitimate son' (Kull.), in case the division is made in the father's lifetime, else half a share according to Yagii. (Medh.).
180. Kriyalopat, 'in (order to prevent) a failure of the (funeral) ceremonies/ means according to Medh. 'in (order to prevent) a failure of the duty (to beget offspring).' Kull. mentions this explanation also. Nand. says, ' when there is no legitimateness in consequence of the absence of the action of begetting one.'
181. Ap. II, 13, 7; Baudh. II, 3, 34—35. Hence they should not IX, 185. INHERITANCE. 365 being begotten by strangers, belong (in reality) to him from whose seed they sprang, but not to the other (man who took them).
182. If among brothers, sprung from one (father), one have a son, Manu has declared them all to have male offspring through that son.
183. If among all the wives of one husband one have a son, Manu declares them all (to be) mothers of male children through that son.
184. On failure of each- better (son), each next inferior (one) is worthy of the inheritance; but if there be many (of) equal (rank), they shall all share the estate.
185. Not brothers, nor fathers, (but) sons take the paternal estate; but the father shall take the in- heritance of (a son) who leaves no male issue, and his brothers.
be taken, if there is a legitimate son (Medh.), or an appointed daughter (Kull.).
182. Vas. XVII, 10; Vi. XV, 42. Hence no subsidiary sons (Kull., Ragh.), or no Kshetra^-as (Nar.), are necessary in such a case. Kull. and Ragh. add that the brother will take estate and give the funeral offerings on failure of a wife, daughters, and so forth ( Yagn.
183. Vas. XVII, 11 j Vi. XV, 41. Hence no adoption or other substitution (Kull., Ragh.), or no appointment (Nar.), shall be made in such a case.
184. 'Each better (son)/ i.e. 'each earlier named among the twelve' (Kull., Nar., Ragh., Nand.). Kull. and Ragh. add that, as the son of a -Sudra wife is enumerated among the twelve, and not con- sidered like the son of Kshatriya and Vaiyya wives a legitimate son, he inherits only on failure of all other subsidiary sons. ' Many (of) equal rank/ i.e. 'many Paunarbhavas and so forth' (Kull., Ragh.).
185. Kull. and Ragh. insert after 'who leaves no son/ 'nor widow and daughters/ and before 'brothers/ 'who leaves no parents.' Nar., who (as also Gov., Nand., and K.) reads eva va, 'or brothers/ says that the father inherits the estate of an undivided 1 86. 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 de- grees) who is nearest to the (deceased) Sapi/zda 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 Yagri. II, 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 great- grandfather' (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 Kshetra^as and other sub- sidiary 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 grand- sons and great-grandsons to inherit before ' brothers and the rest.'
187. Vas. XVII, 81-82; Gaut. XXVIII, 33; Ap. II, 14, 2-3. The above translation does not fully agree with any of the explan- ations given by the four commentators. On philological grounds it seems to me improbable that anantara^ sapi/z<?at can mean any- thing else than ' nearest to the Sapi^a,' and that this Sapiw^a can be anybody else than the deceased. Further, as verse 186 apparently contains a definition of the term, limiting Sapi#da-relationship to three degrees, and as in the second half of verse 187 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 Sapiw^a 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 sapi#</at for sapifldamadhyat, ' among the Sapiw^as.' The correctness of the above explanation is also attested by the closely allied parallel passage of Baudhayana I, n, 9-13, the first Sutra of IX, 187. INHERITANCE. 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 £imutavahana takes to denote the three descendants beyond the great-grandson and the three ascendants beyond the great- grandfather, 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 Sapiwdas 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 SapMa who is the nearest among the Sapi/z^as, 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 Kshetra^a (verse 164), and a virtuous adoptive son (verse 141); 2. the appointed daughter and her son; 3. the Kshetrag-a and the other ten subsidiary sons, each on failure of the earlier named, with the proviso that the son of a ^udra 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 SapiWa, (a) of the grandfather's line, (b) of the great-grandfather's line, and so forth; 1 1. the Samanodakas, or relatives allied by libations of water (Kull. con- sidering Sakulya as equivalent to Samanodaka); 12. the teacher; 13. the pupil. According to Kull. the translation should be, 'To the nearest among the Sapiw^as (male or female) the estate shall belong; afterwards (on failure of Sapi^as) a Samanodaka shall be (the heir), next the teacher, and (then) the pupil.' Ragh. in sub- stance agrees with this explanation, but in order to make the rule still more fully agree with Yagft. II, 135-136, he asserts that the 368 LAWS OF MANU.
1 88. But on failure of all (heirs) Brahma^as (shall) share the estate, (who are) versed in the three Vedas1pure 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 Sapi«fi?a, i.e. to the legitimate son and the son of the daughter — (viz.) the five, the wife and the rest (mentioned by YSgn. II, 135-136).' Ragh. and Kull. are clearly under the spell of Y&gw., and most improperly transfer into Manu's text the ideas of the latter. Nar.'s short disjointed remarks are not very clear. He explains the first words by eshazrc madhye sapManam ato tho[yo]nantaro yatha putrasya pita tasya tatpitetyadi tasya tasya taddhanam, 'Among those Sapiwdas 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 sapi^arha^, asserts that pmda (sapi«dfo?) means ' the deceased,' and explains the first line by saying, ' Always to him who is the Sapi«</a nearest to the deceased the wealth, the estate, shall belong — the repetition (of the word tasya) shows the successive order.' The Sakulyas are, accord- ing to him, the Samanodakas. He reads sakulya^ syu^, ' Sakulyas shall be the heirs/ 188. Gaut. XXVIII, 41; Vas. XVII, 84-86; Baudh. I, 13, 14; Vi. XVII, 13-14. The phrase 'on failure of all (heirs),' i.e. 'of those mentioned' (Ragh.), 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. 'Brahma^as,' i.e. ' such as live in the same village' (Nar.). 'Pure,' i.e. 'careful of external and internal purity' (Kull.), or better 'who are of good conduct' (N&r.). According to Kull. and Ragh., the meaning of the last clause is that the Brahmawas 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 Brahma/za.
IX, 191. INHERITANCE. 369 189. The property of a Brahma/za 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).
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. II, 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 Brahmawa shows that, if no learned and virtuous Brahma«as are to be found, the king shall give the estate of a Brahmawa deceased without heirs, even to men who have nothing but the name of the Brahmawa caste.
190. 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 Sapiw^a, 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 tantu/rc sa/Tztanam ahared aniyuktapi stri tada golakatve 'pi tasya gwatyantarabhave kshetrapatidhanaharitvam ity artha^). He adds that some apply this rule to -Sudra females only, and that in the opinion of these persons Gu^a^as, Kaninas, and Saho^as also are considered as sons in the case of -Sudras only, not in the case of Aryans.
191. 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 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 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 hus- band 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. Nar. 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 striya/$ with g-atau, ' be- gotten by two (different men) on one woman.'
192. Kull. and Ragh. restrict this rule, in accordance with a passage of Brzhaspati, to unmarried daughters, and hold that mar- ried daughters receive merely 'a token of respect/ The latter amounts according to Kull. to ' one-fourth of a share; ' see above, verse 118. Nar. 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.' Ragh., 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; Y&gn. II, 143. 'What was given in token of love,' i.e. ' by the husband' (ratikale, Nar.).
given in token of love, and what was received from her brother, mother, or father, that is called the six- fold property of a woman.
195. (Such property), as well as a gift subsequent and what was given (to her) by her affectionate hus- band, 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 Gandharva, or the Pra^apatya 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 mar- riage 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) Brahma^i (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.). Nar. 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. Nar. adds to the term 'property,' stridhanastridhanarupam, 1 whether separate property or not.'
198. I. e. if a Brahma/za has wives of the Brahma^a and Ksha- triya castes, property given in any way to the Kshatriya wife by her own family, goes to the daughter of the Brahmarca wife, or if that daughter of the Brahmawa wife is dead and has left issue, to the latter. ' Thus the sons of the Brahmawa wife are excluded' (Kull., Nar.). Nar. states expressly that the term * issue' refers to daughters alone.
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 hus- bands. 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 hus- bands/ Nar.'s explanation of nirharaw kuryu^, * should (never) take anything/ seems preferable to that given by Kull. and Ragh.
200. Vi. XVII, 22. 'His heirs/ i. e. ' the sons and the rest' (Kull., Nar.). 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' (alawkarasya stridhane 'nudish/atvad bhartrz'dhanatvena bhar- tnbhave dayadandm praptyapavadartho 'yam arambha^). Nand. appears, therefore, to construe patyau ^ivati with bha^eran, just as NandapawJita does in the parallel passage of Vishwu (see Professor Jolly's note).
2ci. ' Eunuchs/ i. e. 'those who are incurable;' ' outcasts/ i. e. ' those guilty of a mortal sin (mahapataka) 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 (Ragh.), 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 rai- $ ment 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 (Nar.).
202. Medh. and Kull. take atyantam, 'without stint,' in the sense of ' for life.' Nar. construes the word with adadat, and explains ' he who does not give it at all.' Nand. reads abhyahgam, ' oint- ments/ 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. Nar.'s explanation is substantially the same. But he considers that a eunuch and an outcast cannot contract a legal marriage, and that the expression klibadaya^, literally ' those among whom the eunuch is the first,' refers to ' men born blind and the rest.' He admits also the rights of the Kshetra^a sons of eunuchs and outcasts who contracted a marriage before their dis- qualification 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 ' off- spring' by Kshetrag-a. Ragh. 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 vidyanupalina^, 'provided they have made a due progress in learning/ that ' persons subsisting by learning, mechanics and artisans, such as physicians, actors, singers/ 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. Nar. 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 partible.
205. Gaut. XXXVIII, 31. This rule refers to acquisitions by trade (Medh., Kull., N&r.), 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 de- ceased without issue. Nand. takes apitrya iti for apitrya^ iti and explains it by 'since (the division) has not been made by the father.'
206. Y&gri. II, 1 1 8-1 1 9. '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 answer- ing 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. 195 b, 1. 6. 'A present received on marriage,' i. e. 'what (the bridegroom) receives from the relatives of his wife' (Medh., Nar.), 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