०९

I shall now expound the eternal duties of the man and woman, who keep to the righteous path, during union and separation.—(1)

स्त्रीसंग्रहणानन्तरं विवादपदनिर्देशः “स्त्रीपुंधर्मो विभागश् च” (म्ध् ८.७) इति । तद् इदानीम् उच्यते । अत्यन्त ************** द्युपसृष्टेन¹ भर्त्रा कथंचिद् अपि बाध्यमानया तेन सह राजनि विवदितव्यम् इति ********** विध एव न्यायानुवर्तिनि न द्वेषमत्सरादिमतिभार्यायां तथा च विशील *********** ति तथाविधस्य पत्युर् उपचर्योक्ता । न भार्यां प्रति प्रभुत्वम् । उपचारश् च भृत्यवच् छुश्रूषा पादसंवाहनादि ********** । स्त्रीपुरुषशब्दौ च यद्य् अपि लिङ्गविशेषावच्छिन्नमनुष्यजातिवचनौ² तथापीह संबन्धिनि जायापत्या ******** “अस्वतन्त्राः स्त्रियः कार्याः पुरुषैः स्वैर् दिवानिशम्” इति (म्ध् ९.२) स्वग्रहणेन संबन्धितां लक्षयति । वर्तमानप्रतिज्ञावचन ** प्रयोजन ***** भर्तुः स्त्रियाश् च जायायाः संयोग एकत्र संनिधाने³ तथा विप्रयोगे प्रवासप्र्याणे⁴ ****** धर्मे या वृत्तिः प्रसाधनं शरीररक्षा हि ********** तान् वक्ष्यामि । शाश्वतग्रहणं स्तुतिः⁵ । धर्म्ये वर्त्मनि तिष्ठतोः । अनुवादो ऽयम् । न्याय्यो धर्मशास्त्राचारनिरूढो मार्गः ॥ ९.१ ॥

In course of the enunciation of the ‘heads of dispute’, after ‘adultery’ comes ‘the determining of the duties of husband and wife’, it is this therefore that is now going to be set forth.

When the husband is very much harassed by his wife, or the wife is very much persecuted by her husband, the dispute is to be brought up before the king.

It has been laid down that the wife shall attend upon her husband who behaves in the right manner, who is not beset with hate and jealousy and who is well-disposed towards his wife; and the husband has no sort of ‘sovereignty’ over his wife; and the (attending) is to consist in shampooing his feet and rendering such service as behoves a servant

Though the words used in the text are ‘man’ and ‘woman—which only denote the human genus in its two sexes,—yet in the present context they are relative terms, connotative of the husband and wife; specially as in the next verse, the term ‘sva’ (svaiḥ) clearly indicates that the ‘man’ and ‘woman’ bear a distinct relationship to one another.

The present verse contains the author’s declaration as to what he is going to do in the coming discourse.

Of the husband and wife ,—‘during union’—while they are together,—and ‘during separation’,—when the husband has gone away from home.

‘The righteous path’— regarding toilet, the care of the body and so forth.

All this ‘I am going to expound’.

The epithet ‘eternal’ is only by way of praise.

‘Who keep to the righteous path—this is purely reiterative of the fact that it is the path laid down in the legal scriptures that is the most righteous.—(1).

This verse is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 1034).

धर्म्ये वर्त्मनीत्य् अन्योन्याव्यभिचारलक्षणे तिष्ठतोर् दम्पत्योः संयोगे जीवति पत्यौ संनिहिते वा विप्रयोगे च मृते प्रोषिते वा तयोर् धर्मान् वक्ष्यामि नियोगवृत्तिनियमादीन् । शाश्वतग्रहणं चानयोर् अनुष्ठानस्तुत्यर्थम् । इदं तावत् प्राक् प्रसिद्धम् एव ॥ ९.१ ॥

यथा ।

001 I will now propound the eternal laws for a husband and his wife who keep to the path of duty, whether they be united or separated.

During the day and the night women should not be left to themselves by their men. If they become addicted to sensual objects, they should be kept under one’s control.—(2).

स्वेच्छया स्त्रीणां धर्मार्थकामेषु व्यवहर्तुं न देयम् । यत् किंचन धनं धर्मादौ विनियुज्यते तत्र यथावयः स्वपुरुषाः पत्यादयो ऽनुज्ञापनीयाः । स्वपुरुषाः रक्षाधिकृताः⁶ “पिता रक्षति” (म्ध् ९.३) इत्यादिनिर्दिष्टाः । विषयेषु हि गीतादिषु सज्जन्त्यः⁷ प्रसङ्गं कुर्वन्त्य आत्मनो वशे स्थाप्यास् ततो निवारणीयाः । यद्य् अप्य् अस्वतन्त्रा इत्य् अनेनैव सर्वक्रियाविषया स्वातन्त्र्यनिवृत्तिर् उपदिष्टा भवति, तथापि पुनर् विषयव्यावृत्तिवचनं यत्नतः परिहारार्थम् । मा विज्ञायि यत् तेभ्य⁸ एव परपुरुषसंपर्कादिभ्यो निवारणीयाः, गृहावस्थितास् तु मद्यपानादिसक्ता न दुष्यन्ति ।

• चशब्देन तावद् अयं धर्मः पुरुषाणाम् उक्तः । स्वातन्त्र्यं स्त्रीणां तावन् न देयम्, अर्थात् तु ताभिर् अपि स्वतन्त्राभिर् न भवितव्यम् इत्य् उक्तं भवति । एवं च “पुरुषस्य स्त्र्याश् चैव” (म्ध् ९.१) इति चशब्देन⁹ इतरेतरविषयोर् ये स्त्रीपुंसयोर् धर्मास् त एवोच्यन्ते । न तु यागादय इति समन्वयो भवति ॥ ९.२ ॥

Women should not be left free to act as they like, in regard to morality, wealth and pleasure. Whenever they desire to employ their wealth in acts of righteousness and the like, they should obtain the permission of their ‘men’, the husband or other male relations, according to her age.

‘Their men’—Guardians, indicated in the following verse.

‘Sensual objects’—Singing and the like; they become ‘addicted to’ having recourse to—these,—‘they should be kept under one’s control,’—should be cheeked.

Though the phrase ‘not left to themselves’ indicates the propriety of depriving them of independence in regard to all actions, yet the text specifically mentions the ‘sensual objects’ with a view to point out that in regard to latter special care should be taken; so that people may not be led to think that all that is necessary is to prevent the women from associating with other men, and it does not matter if they become addicted to drink and other evils, while keeping confined to their homes.

The particle ‘ca’ indicates that, though what the words directly declare is the duty of the man, yet it also follows that the woman also should not be independent; it is in this manner that the duties of both ‘man and woman’ in relation to one another become expounded, as promised in verse (1),—and not those duties that consist of sacrificial performances and the like.—(2).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.195), which adds the following notes:—As a matter of fact, this appearing of husband and wife before the king as plaintiff and defendant is forbidden, and as such there is no room for this subject under the present head; but what is meant is that if, from other sources, the king should happen to hear of the misbehaviour of the one or the other of the party, he should interfere, and by means of judicious punishment bring them back to the path of righteousness; otherwise he becomes involved in sin.—Bālambhaṭṭī has the following explanatory notes:—‘Svaiḥ’, the women’s own brother and other relations,—‘divāniśam,’ always,—‘viṣayesu’, even such objects of enjoyment as are not actually forbidden, such as beautiful things, tasty food, and so forth,—‘sajjantyaḥ’ addicted,—they should be kept under control.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 322); in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 330), which adds that ‘though a regular law-suit between husband and wife has been prohibited, yet if the king happens to learn from other sources, of quarrels between them, he should intervene and make them keep to the right path,’—in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 98) which explains ‘sajjantyaḥ’ as becoming ‘addicted’—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 31b).

[[See also Manu, 5.147-148 and the texts under them.]]

Gautama (18.1).—‘A wife is not independent with respect to the sacred Law.’

Baudhāyana (2.3.44).—‘Women do not possess independence.’

Vaśiṣṭha( 5.1).—‘A woman is not independent; the males are her masters.’

Viṣṇu (25.12).—‘Not to act by herself in any matter.’

Yājñavalkya (1.85).—‘There is no independence for woman at any time.’

Bṛhaspati (24.2).—‘A woman must be restrained from even slight transgressions by her relations,—by night and by day she must be watched by her mother-in-law and other ladies of the family.

Śukranīti (4.4.11, 23).—‘Women have no separate right to the employment of the means of realising the three ends of spiritual merit, wealth and pleasure. The wife should be pure in mind, speech and action; she should abide by the instructions of her husband, and follow him like his shadow, and be a friend in all his activities and servant in all his commands.’

सत्यम् । स्त्रीधर्मा एव ते । इमे तु वक्ष्यमाणाः स्त्रीपुंसयोः । तथा च सति प्रतिज्ञेयं पुरुषस्य् स्त्रियाश् चैवेति । शास्त्रानुक्रमण्यां चैवम् एवोक्तम् । “साक्षिप्रश्नविधानं च धर्मः स्त्रीपुंसयोस् तथा” इति । पुनश् च व्यवहारानुक्रण्याम् अष्टमे ऽध्याये समस्तयोर् एव निर्देशः । “स्त्रीपुंधर्मो विभागश् च” इति । अथ वोत्तरार्थम् एतत् स्यात् । एवं च सति यद् उक्तम् आसां स्त्रीधर्मेषु पारतन्त्र्यं तत् कुतः स्याद् इत्य् अत इदं तत्संबन्धेनोच्यते ॥ ९.२ ॥

002 Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control.

The father guards her during virginity, the husband guards her in youth, the sons guard her in old age; the woman is never fit for independence.—(iii).

रक्षा नामानर्थप्रतीघातः । अनर्थस् त्व् अनाचरवृत्तातिक्रमेणाप्रवृत्तिपरेण चान्यायतो¹⁰ धनहरणादिना परिभवः । तस्य प्रतीघातो निवारणम् । तत्पित्रादिभिः कर्तव्यम् । रक्षतीति भवन्तिर् लिङर्थे छान्दसत्वात् । ततो रक्षेद् इति विधेयप्रत्ययः । वयोविभागश्रवणं चाधिकतरदोषार्थम्¹¹ । सर्व एव तु सर्वदा रक्षार्थम् अधिक्रियन्ते । कौमारग्रहणं दानात् पूर्वकालोपलक्षणार्थम् । एवं यौवनं जीवद्भर्तृकायाः प्रदर्शनम् । अतश् च नित्यानुवाद एवायम् । यदा यदा यदधीना तदा तदा तेनावश्यं रक्षितव्या । तथा च जीवत्य् अपि भर्तरि पितुः पुत्रस्य चाधिकारः । तथादर्शितं मानवे । सर्व एते सर्वदा तत्संरक्षणम् कुर्युः¹² । कथ्यमानं तु ग्रन्थगौरवं करोति ।

• ननु च “बालया वा युवत्या वा” (म्ध् ५.१४५) इत्य् अनेनोक्तम् एवैतत् ।

• मैवम् । अन्यद् एवास्वातन्त्र्यम्¹³ अन्या च रक्षा । तत्र चास्वातन्त्र्यम्¹⁴ उपदिष्टम्, इह तु रक्षोच्यते ।¹⁵ अन्यतन्त्राया अपि शक्यो ऽनर्थः¹⁶ प्रतिहन्तुम् ।

• ननु चेहापि पठ्यते न स्त्री स्वातन्त्र्यम् अर्हतीति ।

• उच्यते । नानेन सर्वक्रियाविषयम् अस्वातन्त्र्यं विधीयते । किं तर्हि, नास्वतन्त्रान्यमनस्का¹⁷ स्वात्मसंरक्षणाय प्रभवति शक्तिविकलत्वात् स्वतः । पञ्चमे तु वचनम् अस्वातन्त्र्यार्थम् अर्थान्तरस्य तत्रोक्तत्वात् ॥ ९.३ ॥

‘Guarding’ here stands for averting of trouble,—‘trouble’ consisting in suffering caused by the transgression of the right course of conduct, by illegal appropriation of property and so forth; and the ‘averting’ of this consists in warding it off. This should be done by the father and others.

The Present tense in ‘guards’ has the force of the Injunctive; such use being a Vedic idiom; hence the word ‘guards’ should be taken to mean ‘should guard’.

The mention of the three stages of her life separately is only meant to show on whom lies the greater responsibility during a certain period of the woman’s life. In reality all the male relatives are equally responsible for her safety.

‘Virginity’—stands for the period preceding her being given away in marriage.

Smilarly ‘youth’ stands for the period during which her husband is alive.

Thus the words of the text are only reiterative of the actual state of things; the sense being that the woman shall be guarded by that man under whose tutilage she may he living at the time. It is for this reason that even during her husband’s life-time, the responsibility for the woman’s protection rests upon her father and her son also. This is what has been declared in the laws of Manu; which means that all of them shall guard her at all times; and this has not been stated in so many words, as that would have made the text prolix.

“What is asserted here has been already declared above, under 5. 147.”

Not so; ‘independence’ is one thing and ‘guarding’ is another. 5.147 has declared that woman shall not be ‘independent’, while the present text lays down that she shall be ‘guarded’, as a matter of fact even while the woman is ‘dependent’ upon some one else, she may be open to danger, which has got to be averted.

“But in the present text also it is said that ‘the woman is not fit for independence.”

Our answer to this is that the present text does not lay down that she shall not be independent in regard to anything at all; all that it means is that her mind being not quite under her control, she is not capable of guarding herself, specially as she does not possess the requisite strength. Under discourse V on the other hand, the absence of ‘independence’ laid down is in regard to something totally different (i.e. her property).—(3).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 286);—in Vivādaratnākara (p. 410);—in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 608);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra 66b);—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 674).

Mahābhārata (13.46.14).—(Same as Manu.)

Baudhāyana (2-3.45).—‘They quote the following:—“Their father protects them in childhood, their husband protects them in youth, and their sons protect them in old age; a woman is never lit for independence.”’

Vaśiṣṭha (5.3).—‘They quote the following:—“Their fathers protect them in childhood; their husbands protect them in youth; and their sons protect them in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.”’

Viṣṇu (25.13).—‘To remain subject, in her infancy to her father, in her youth, to her husband, and in her old age to her sons.’

Yājñavalkya (1.85-86).—‘The father shall guard her while she is a maiden, her husband, when she has been married, and her son in old age; in the absence of these, her relations; there is no independence for the woman at any time. When deprived of her husband, she shall never live apart from her father, mother, son, brother, father-in-law, mother-in-law, or maternal uncle.’

Smṛtyantara (Aparārka, p. 109).—‘When there is no one left in the two families (of her father and of her husband), the King becomes the master and supporter of the woman; he shall support her and punish her if she deviates from the path of duty.’

Nārada (Vivādaratnākara, p. 410).—‘Women, even though born of noble families, become ruined by independence; that is why Prajāpati has ordained that they shall not be independent.’

Nārada (Vivādaratnākara, p. 111).—‘On the death of her husband, if the widow is without a son, the members of her husband’s family shall be her masters; they shall take it upon themselves to protect and support her. If the husband’s family has perished, and not a single member of it is left, her father’s family shall be her master. When there is no one left in either of the two families, the King becomes her lord and protector; it is for him to protect her and punish her if she deviates from the right path.’

एवं च सति [न] राजनि भर्तर्य् एव वासाम् अस्वातन्त्र्यम्, किं तर्हि यथावयः पित्रादिषु । तत्संरक्षणपरे च वाक्ये न पित्रादयो वयोविभागाश्रयेण हित्रादिस्त्रीणां रक्षितारो नियम्यन्ते । एवं च सति सर्वदा सर्वेषां तद्रक्षणोपदेशो ऽयं सामर्थ्याद् विज्ञेयः । सर्वत्र लड् द्रष्टव्यो विध्यर्थे रक्षेद् इत्य् एवं छान्दसत्वाविशेषात् । स्मृतेर् युक्तं तल्लक्षणम् अत्र । यतश् चैतद् एवम् अतः ॥ ९.३ ॥

003 Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.

Censurable is the father who gives her not away at the right time; censurable the husband who approaches her not; and censurable the son who, on the death of her husband, does not take care of her—(4).

दानकाले प्राप्ते यदि पिता न ददाति ********* यः । कः पुनः कन्याया दानकालः । “अष्टमाद् वर्षात् प्रभृति प्राग् ऋतोः” (च्ड़्। ग्ध् १८.२१) इति स्मर्यते । इहापि लिङ्गम् अस्ति **** तिः । अनुपयन्न्¹⁸ अनुपगच्छन्न् अरमयन् भार्याभिर् निघ्नः । उपगमने कालश् ऋतुः¹⁹ पर्ववर्ज्यम् इत्य् उक्तः (म्ध् ३.४५) ॥ ९.४ ॥

If, at the approach of the right time for giving her away, the father does not give her away, (he becomes censurable).

“What in the right time for the girl to be given away?”

It has been laid down that such time begins from her eighth year and extends to the time.previous to her puberty. We have indications of this in the present work also.

‘Who does not approach her’—Who does not have intercourse with her. The ‘right time’ for such approach is the period of her ‘course’.—(4).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 412);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 158a), which has the following notes:—‘Kāle’ at the time suitable for giving away the girl:—‘vācyam’ is to be blamed,—‘anupayan,’ not approaching.

Gautama (18.22).—‘He who neglects the marriage of girls commits sin.’

Baudhāyana (4.1.12, 17-19).—‘He who does not give away a marriageable daughter within three years of her puberty doubtlessly contracts a guilt equal to that of killing an embryo. He who does not approach, during three years, a wife who is marriageable, incurs, without doubt, a guilt equal to that of killing an embryo; but if a man does not approach his wife after she has bathed after her temporary uncleanliness, though he dwells near her,—his ancestors lie, during that month, in the menstrual excretions of the wife. They declare that the guilt of the husband who does not approach his wife in due season,—of him who approaches her during her temporary uncleanliness,—and of him who commits an unnatural crime, is equally heinous.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.69-70).—‘They quote the following:—“If through the father’s negligence, a maiden is given away after the suitable age has passed, she, who was waiting for a husband, destroys him who gives her away………… Out of fear of the appearance of menses, let the father marry his daughter while she still goes about naked; for if she stays in the house after the age of puberty, sin falls upon the father.”’

Yājñavalkya (1.64).—‘If one does not give away the girl, he incurs the guilt of killing an embryo, at each of her menstrual periods.’

Kāśyapa (Aparārka, p. 93).—‘If a girl perceives her menstrual blood while she is still in her father’s house, unmarried, her father becomes the killer of an embryo, and the girl herself a cāṇḍālī. If any Brāhmaṇa, through folly, marries such a girl, he is to be known as the husband of a

Vṛṣali, unfit to be invited at a Śrāddha and to dine with Brāhmaṇas.’

Nārada (Do.).—‘The girl shall not ignore the appearance of her menstrual flow; she shall inform her relations of it; if after this, they do not give her away, they become equal to Brāhmaṇa-killers.’

Saṃvarta (Do.).—‘Father, mother, and brother, all these three go to hell, if they see a maiden in puberty.’

Bṛhaspati (24.3, Vivādaratnākara, p. 412).—‘If the father does not give her away in time,—or if the husband does not approach her during her periods,—or if the son does not supply his mother with food,—all these three become legally reprehensible and deserving of punishment.’

सर्वदा तत्संरक्षणम् अकुर्वन्तः कन्यादानादि च यथासंभवं वाच्या वचनीयाः स्युः । यत एतद्दोषपरिहारार्थम् एभिः ॥ ९.४ ॥

004 Reprehensible is the father who gives not (his daughter in marriage) at the proper time; reprehensible is the husband who approaches not (his wife in due season), and reprehensible is the son who does not protect his mother after her husband has died.

Women should be specially guarded against even small attachments; for, if not guarded, they would bring grief to both families.—(5).

प्रसङ्गः कुसंपर्कः । यया कदाचिद् अविज्ञानशीलया ********* ण बालेन वा गृहद्वारावस्थानदिनोज्वलवेषपुरुषदर्शनशीलयेत्य् एवमादय उच्च्यन्ते । अर्थाच् चित्तचलने **********क्ष्यत्वं चैषाम् । नैते किल साक्षाद् दोषरूपाः । न हि साक्षात् स्त्रीसंपर्कः स्त्रियो दोषरूपाः ************ सूक्ष्माद् इत्य् उच्यते । ततो रक्ष्याः निवारणीयाह् । विशेषतः प्रयत्नेन निवारणे दारदः ******** तश् च । सर्वैस्²⁰ तत्कुलीनैर् भ्रातृपितृव्यदेवराद्यै रक्षितव्या इति सिद्धं भवति । न तत्रा ********** ॥ ९.५ ॥

‘Attachment’— association, with a woman of unknown character,—one who is in the habit of standing at the doorway, looking at gaily dressed young men passing by, and so forth.

The meaning is that they should be guarded against temptations. Even though the acts mentioned above,—i,e. gazing at young men and so forth are not wrong in themselves, nor is the association of women with women wrong in itself.

* * *
* *
*

Against these they should be ‘guarded’; they should be checked.

‘Specialty’ with particular care.

* * *
* *
*

Thus the meaning is that the woman should be guarded by all the men of the family, her brother, father, brother-in-law, and the rest.

* * *
* *
* (5)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 412);—Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 323), which adds the following notes:—‘If they are not guarded, they bring grief to the families of their husbands and fathers; hence for the sake of both families, special care is to be taken of them’;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, 66b);—in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 674);—in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 98);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 158a).

**(verses 9.5-7)
**

Mahābhārata (3.12.68).—

Hārīta (Vivādaratnākara, p. 410).—‘One must guard one’s wife against sensual contact, as the ruin of the wife involves the ruin of the family; the ruin of the family involves the ruin of the line; the ruin of the line involves the ruin of all offerings to gods and Pitṛs; the ruin of offerings involves the ruin of Dharma; the ruin of Dharma leads to the ruin of the soul; and the ruin of the soul means the loss of all things.’

Paiṭhīnaśi (Do., p. 411).—‘For these reasons, one must guard one’s wife: lest there he a confusion of castes.’

Bṛhaspati (24-2).—(See under 2.)

सूक्ष्मप्रसङ्गाश् चासां व्यभिचारहेतवो लोके प्रसिद्धाः परिव्राजिकादिसंसर्गाख्याः अननुशिष्टा अपि ॥ ९.५ ॥

005 Women must particularly be guarded against evil inclinations, however trifling (they may appear); for, if they are not guarded, they will bring sorrow on two families.

Looking upon this as the highest duty of all castes, even weak husbands strive to guard their wives—(6).

चातुर्वर्ण्यस्य एष उत्तमो²¹ ********** पश्यन्तो जानानाः दुर्बला अपि भर्तारो भार्यां रक्षितुं यतेरन् प्रयत्नं कुर्युः । लिङर्थे भवन्ती यत ********** वस्त्वनिजगुप्तीतमतरेयत् तत्र मणापरिवृतं बहिर् आविरोद्भिजातं वधूवपुरहोरतये ऽतिरागात् । अ ********* क्षाभाय कियंचिन् नियमेनवतिद्युमानाराजकुलम् आश्रयादिना रक्षितव्या ॥ ९.६ ॥

This is the highest duty of all the four castes.

‘Looking upon this’—Knowing it as such.

‘Even weak husbands’—should ‘strive’, make due effort. The Present tense ending in ‘guards’, has the force of the Injunctive.

* * *
* *
* (6)

The verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 411);—in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 323) Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 32a);—in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 98);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 158a).

**(verses 9.5-7)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.5].

किं पुनर् इतरे । तच् च धर्मोत्तमत्वं स्त्रीरक्xअणस्य यथा भवति तथेदम् अधुनोच्यते सर्वर्थम् ॥ ९.६ ॥

006 Considering that the highest duty of all castes, even weak husbands (must) strive to guard their wives.

He who carefully protects his wipe preserves his offspring, his character, his family, his own self, and also his religion.—(7).

न केवलं शास्त्रोपदेशाद् एव स्त्रीरक्षा कर्तव्या । यावद् इमानि बहूनि प्रयोजनानि । प्रसूतिर् अपत्यं पुत्रदुहितृलक्षणम् । संकरो न भवतीत्य् अर्थः । चरित्रं शिष्टसमाचारः । कुलं पूर्वोक्तम् । कस्यापि सत्कुलस्य भ्रष्टशीलायां भार्यायां दोषः²² सर्वं कुलम् उपतिष्ठतीति, न साध्व्यः स्त्रिय²³ एतेषाम् इति । अथ वा पितृपितामहादीनां संततिशुद्ध्यभावाद् और्ध्वदैहिकस्यानिवृत्ते रक्षा²⁴ स्यात् । आत्मानम् । प्रसिद्धम् उपपतिनावश्यं²⁵ हन्यते भार्ययैव वा विषादिना । **स्वं च धर्मम् **। व्यभिचारिण्या धर्मानधिकारात् । अतो जायां रक्षिता सर्वम् एतद् रक्षति²⁶ ॥ ९.७ ॥

The wife has to be protected, not only because the scriptures prescribe it as a duty; but also because it serves many useful purposes, such as the following.

‘Offspring’—Progeny, in the shape of sons and daughters. The ‘preservation’ of this means that one’s progeny is kept pure, free from the amalgam of castes. ‘Character’—cultured habits.

‘Family’—described above. If a single woman of a family loses her chastity, the ill-fame attaches to the whole family, the idea among the people being that ‘the women of such and such a family are not chaste’.

Or, the meaning may be that the said guarding is necessary in view of the fact that, if the purity of the progeny were not secured, there would be no proper fulfilment of the after-death rites performed in honour of one’s ancestors.

‘His own self’.—It is well known that men are often murdered by their wife’s paramours, or poisoned by their wives.

‘His religion’—An unchaste woman not being entitled to being associated in the performance of religious rites.

For these reasons, if a man guards his wife, he preserves all these—(7).

‘Kulam’—‘Ancestors who can obtain offerings only from legitimate descendants’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka);—‘relatives, who are dishonoured by ladies of the family misbehaving’ (Medhātithi, alternatively, and Rāghavā nanda);—‘position of the family’ (Nārāyaṇa);—‘property’ (Rāghavānanda).

‘Ātmānam’—‘Himself,’ ‘as only legitimate children can offer Śrāddhas’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘because an adultress and her paramour may attempt his life’ (Medhātithi).

‘Dharmam’—‘Tending of the sacred fires, to which the husband of an adultress is not entitled’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘the duties of the Householder’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 411);—in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 323);—in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 987);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 32a).

**(verses 9.5-7)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.5].

स्वां प्रसूतिम् अपत्यशुद्धिं जायां रक्षन् हि रक्षति यथा तथैव । चरित्रम् आचारम् । भार्या संरक्षणियेत्य् एवम् । कुलं च पूर्वपुरुषान् । आत्मानं च, प्रेतं सन्तम् असंकीर्णापत्यपिण्डोदकरियया, जीवन्तं चापत्यसंकरपरिहारेण । तथा च स्मृत्यन्तर-

007 He who carefully guards his wife, preserves (the purity of) his offspring, virtuous conduct, his family, himself, and his (means of acquiring) merit.

The husband, entering the womb of his wife, becomes the embryo and is then born; the wife-hood of the ‘wife’ consists in this that the husband is re-born of her.—(8).

अर्थवादो ऽयम् । न च पत्युः²⁷ पत्न्या उदरे प्रवेशदर्शनम्²⁸ । अतः शरीरसारभूतशुक्रद्वारेण²⁹ गुणवादतः प्रवेशो ऽयम् उच्यते । “आत्मा वै पुत्रनामासि” (श्ब् १४.९.४.२६) इति एतद् एव जायाशब्दस्य भार्यावचनत्वे³⁰ प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तम् । यतो ऽस्यां पतिर् जायते । अपत्यजन्मनिमित्ते जायाशब्दे जारस्यापि जायोच्यते ॥ ९.८ ॥

This is a purely declamatory passage. As a matter of fact, the husband is never found to enter the womb of his wife; and it is the entrance of the semen, the very essence of his body, into the wife’s womb, which is figuratively called his own ‘entering’. The Mantra also says—‘You are my own self, called by the name of son’.

The real basis of the denotation of the term ‘wife’, ‘jāyā’, is that the husband is re-born of her.

The application of the name^(‘)jāyā’, ‘wife’ being based upon the fact of the woman giving birth to the child, she comes to be spoken of as the ‘wife’ of her paramour also.—(8).

Cf. Aitareya Brāhmaṇa 7.13.6.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 417).

Yājñavalkya (1.56).—‘One’s own self is born in one’s wife (as the son).’

वेदस्मृतिशास्त्रन्यायविरोधश् चायम् अर्थवादो भार्यासंरक्षणार्थः । तथा च प्रकरणम् । दृष्टश् चायं लोकप्रवादस् तत्संरक्षणार्थः । अपरो ऽर्थवाद उच्यते ॥ ९.८ ॥

008 The husband, after conception by his wife, becomes an embryo and is born again of her; for that is the wifehood of a wife (gaya), that he is born (gayate) again by her.

As the man to whom the woman clings, so the offspring that she brings forth; hence for the sake of the purity of the offspring one should carefully guard the woman.—(9).

“स्वां प्रसूतिम्” (म्ध् ९.७) इति यद् उक्तं तद् दर्शयति । न चैवं मन्तव्यम्- यादृशं द्वितीयं पुरुषं सेवेत सुतं सूते पुत्रं जनयति तथाविधजातीयम् । नापि गुणसादृश्यम् अभिप्रेत । यतः शूद्रादिजातस्य चण्डालादिजातित्वम् । समानजातीयजातस्यापि³¹ नैव तज्जातीयत्व, “पत्नीष्व् अक्षतयोनिषु” (म्ध् १०.५) इति वचनात् । गुणसादृश्ये ऽपि विशीलदरिद्रपतिकाया उत्कृष्टपुरुषगमनम् अनुज्ञातं³² स्यात् । यदा त्व् अयम् अर्थवादस् तदा यादृशं तथाविधम् इत्य् अकुलानुरूपम् इति नीयते ॥ ९.९ ॥

The present text proceeds to explain what has been said in verse 7.

One should not entertain the idea that what is meant is—either (1) that ‘the woman brings forth a child of the same caste as that of the other man to whom she clings’, or (2) that ‘the child born resembles that man in his qualities’; because the child born of a Śūdra is a caṇḍāla’ and so forth. Even in the case of the parties belonging to the same caste, the caste of the child is not the same as that of the father; since it has been declared that ‘the child should be born of a woman of untouched womb’. If again, the child were to resemble the father in qualities, it would mean that the text permits the woman whose husband is poor and of bad character to have recourse to another man possessed of better qualities.

If, on the other hand, the text is taken as purely declamatory, the sense of the assertion, ‘as the man so the child’ comes to be that ‘the child born is not endowed with the qualities of the family’.—(9).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 414);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 159a).

Yājñavalkya (1.81).—‘It has been ordained that women should be protected.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p. 414).—‘The woman brings forth a son partaking of the character of that man on whom she has her affections fixed during her period.’

तत्संरक्षणाच् चापत्यशुद्ध्या सर्वकर्माधिकारो ऽत्यन्तोत्कर्षप्रयोजनो यस्मात् । अतश् चायम् उक्तो मुहुर् मुहुर् आदरेण तत्संरक्षणे ॥ ९.९ ॥

009 As the male is to whom a wife cleaves, even so is the son whom she brings forth; let him therefore carefully guard his wife, in order to keep his offspring pure.

No man can guard women forcibly; they can however be guarded by the employment of these expedients.—(10)

वक्ष्यमाणोपायप्रशंसार्थः श्लोकः । प्रसह्य बलेनावष्टभ्य शुद्धान्तावरोधादिना परपुरुषादिनिष्कासनादिना³³ न शक्या रक्षितुम् । किं त्व् एतैर् उपाययोगैः शक्याः । योगाः प्रयोगाः । उपायैः प्रयुज्यमानैर् इत्य् अर्थः ॥ ९.१० ॥

This verse serves to eulogise the expedients going to be described.

‘Forcibly’—by shutting them up by force in a harem or by banishing other men, and so forth—they cannot be guarded.

But they can be guarded by the employment of expedients;—i.e., by employing, making use of, these ‘expedients’, means.—(10)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 416);—in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 323), which adds the explanation;—‘Inasmuch as it is not possible to guard them

by force, they should be employed in such work as will not leave them time for thinking of other men;—thus would they be guarded against evil;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 192);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 32a);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 158b), which explains ‘prasahya’ as ‘by force, by keeping cooped up’; it adds that what is meant is that even though by forcible detention you can guard her body from misbehaviour, yet that cannot guard against the uṅcleanliness of her mind.

पूर्वापरविरोधः शास्त्रे न न्याय्यो भिन्नप्रकरणे ऽपि, किं पुनर् एकप्रकरणे । यत एव[ं न कश्चिद्] योषितः शक्तः प्रसह्य परिरक्षितुम् इतीदं वक्ष्यमाणोपय(?)स्तुत्यर्थम् । एवं च पूर्वं स्त्रीसंरक्षणोपदेशो न विरुध्यते ॥ ९.१० ॥

के पुनस् तद्रक्षणोपायाः । यतस् तान् दर्शयति ।

010 No man can completely guard women by force; but they can be guarded by the employment of the (following) expedients:

He shall employ her in the accumulation and disbursement of wealth, as also in cleanliness, in religious acts, in the cooking of food and in taking care of the household furniture.—(11)

अर्थो धनम् । तस्य संग्रहः संख्यादिना परिच्छिद्य रक्षार्थम् वेश्मनि निधानं रज्ज्वायसबन्धादिना संयम्य स्थापनं मुद्राङ्कम् इत्येवमादि । व्ययो विसर्गस् तस्यैव- इदम् एतावद् भक्तार्थम् इदं च सूपार्थम् एतावच् छाकार्थम् इति । शौचं दर्विपिठरादिशुद्धिर् भूमिलेपनादिश् च । धर्म आचमनोदकतर्पणादिदानं स्त्रीवासगृहकादौ बलिकुसुमविकारैर् देवार्चनम् । अन्नपक्तिः प्रसिद्धा । पारिणाह्यं यत् स्याद् आसन्दीखट्वादि³⁴ । तत्प्रत्यवेक्षणे नियोक्तव्या ॥ ९.११ ॥

‘Wealth’—riches.

‘Accumulation’—Counting and storing in the house; tying up with ropes eta., and keeping in a safe place, dealing them and so forth.

‘Disbursement’—Expenditure of the wealth: so much for rice, so much for curry, so much for vegetables, and so forth.

‘Cleanliness’—Cleaning of utensils and ladles and washing the floor etc., etc.

‘Religious acts’—rinsing the mouth, offering oblations of water and other things, and the worshipping of deities with flowers and offerings, in the women’s apartments.

‘Cooking of food’—well known.

‘Taking care of the household furniture’—Such as stools and couches.

In all this the husband shall employ his wife.—(11)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 416), which explains ‘pāriṇāhyasya’ as ‘ear-rings, bracelets, and so forth’;—in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 323);—in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 147), which explains ‘pāriṇāyya’ (which is its reading for ‘pāriṇāhya’) as ‘bed-stead and other household furniture’;—and in Madanapārijāta (p. 191).

Śukranīti (4.4.12-32).—‘She should get up before her husband and purify her body, then raise the beddings and clean the house by sweeping and washing…… should then cleanse the vessels used in sacrifices and keep them at the proper places; empty out the vessels and fill them with water; should wash the cooking utensils, cleanse the hearth and place therein fire with fuel;—should scrutinise the vessels to be used and the various articles of food…… She should then dress and cook the food, inform her husband and feed those who have to be fed with the offerings made to gods and Pitṛs;—again in the evening, as in the morning, she should clean the house, cook the food and feed her husband and the servants.’

Bṛhaspati (24.4).—‘Employing the woman in looking after income and expenditure, in the preparation of food, in looking after household furniture, in purifications and in the care of the fires, is declared to he the best way of guarding her.’

Yajñavalkya (1.83).—‘Keeping the household articles in order, expert in work, happy, averse to expensive ways, devoted to her husband, she shall how to the feet of her parents-in-law.’

Viṣṇu (25.1 et seq.).—‘The duties of a woman are to keep household articles in good array, to maintain saving habits, to be careful with her domestic utensils,’

पारीणह्यम् आसनशयनोपधानास्त्रणादि “पत्नी हि पारीणह्यस्येशे” इति श्रुतेः ॥ ९.११ ॥

011 Let the (husband) employ his (wife) in the collection and expenditure of his wealth, in keeping (everything) clean, in (the fulfilment of) religious duties, in the preparation of his food, and in looking after the household utensils.

Women confined in the house under trusted servants are not well guarded; really well guarded are those who guard themselves by themselves.—(12)

आप्तं प्राप्तं काले तं कुर्वन्त्य् आप्तकारिणो ऽवधानवन्त उच्यन्ते शुद्धान्ताधिकारिणः कञ्चुकिनः । तैः स्वे³⁵ गृहे रुद्धाश् चास्वतन्त्रीकृता यथेष्टविहारनिषेधेन³⁶ रक्ष्यमाणा न रक्षिता भवन्ति । किं त्व् आत्मनात्मानं रक्षन्ति । ताः कथं रक्षन्ति । यद्य् एतेषु कर्येषु नियुज्यन्ते । उक्तोपायप्रशंसा नोपायान्तरनिषेधः ॥ ९.१२ ॥

‘Trusted servants’—Those who would act in the right manner at the right moment; i.e., persons ever on the alert; and hence considered fit for being employed in the harem, as chamberlains.

Women who are ‘confined’—not allowed to go about freely—in the house under such men, are not really well-guarded; but those are ‘who guard themselves by themselves.’

And how are they to guard themselves?

Just when they are employed as above.

This verse is meant to be a praise of the method laid down in the preceding verse, and it does not exclude other methods.—(12)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 416), which explains ‘āptakāribhiḥ’ as ‘trustworthy and alert.’

अनन्तरश्लोकोतेन चोपायेनैता आत्मानम् आत्मना रक्षन्ति तस्मात् तत्स्तुतिपरम् एवेदम् । न तु गृहोपरोधाप्तपुरुषोपग्रहलक्षणयोस् स्त्रीरकषणहेत्वोर् अयं प्रतिषेधः, सामर्थ्यात् प्रकरणाच् चेति । अथ वा नारीसंदूषणपरिवर्जनस्तुतिपरम् एतत्, आत्मानम् आत्मना यास् तु रक्षेयुस् ताः सुरक्षिता इति । यतस् तत्परिवर्जनार्थं तानि दर्शयति ॥ ९.१२ ॥

012 Women, confined in the house under trustworthy and obedient servants, are not (well) guarded; but those who of their own accord keep guard over themselves, are well guarded.

Drinking, associating with wicked people, separation from her husband, rambling, sleeping and residence at other’s house are the six corrupters of women.—(13)

अटनम् आपणभूमिषु अन्नशाकादिक्रयार्थम्,³⁷ देवतायतनेषु च । ज्ञातिकुले बहूनि दिनान्य् अप्य् अवस्थानम् **अन्यगेहवासः **। नारीसंदूषणानि । स्त्रीणाम् एते चित्तसंक्षोभहेतवः । एते हि श्वशुरादिभयं जनापवादभयं च त्यजन्ति ॥ ९.१३ ॥

‘Rambling’—in the market place, for purchasing vegetables etc. and also in temples and such places.

‘Residence in other’s houses’—Living for several days in the houses of relatives.

‘Corrupters of women.’—These contaminate the minds of women, and they come to lose all fear of their father-in-law and others, as also all regard for public opinion.—(XIII).

‘Durjanasaṃsargaḥ’—‘Associating with wicked people, e.g., other unfaithful wives’ (Nārāyaṇa);—‘with adulterers’ (Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 108);—and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 430), which adds that what are mentioned here are only by way of a few illustrations of what leads to the deterioration of a woman’s character.

Śukranīti (3.30-5.3).—‘Living with other men, speaking with them even in public and freedom even for a moment, should not be granted to women, by their husband, father, King, son, father-in-law and other relatives; nor time for anything besides domestic duties.’

Do. (4.4.40-42).—‘The good wife should give up words that indicate senselessness, lunacy, anger, or envy; also the contemptible vices of meanness, jealousy, excessive attachment to worldly things, vanity and boastfulness, ungodliness, adventurousness and thieving.’

Bṛhaspati (24.5, 7).—‘Let not a woman reside in another man’s house separated from her father, husband or sons; by giving way to malicious propensities, she is sure to lose her reputation. Drinking wine, roaming about, sleeping during the day, and neglect of daily duties are the faults disgracing a woman.’

Viṣṇu (25.3, 9, 10-12).—‘To show reverence to her mother-in-law, father-in-law, elders, divinities and to guests; not to decorate herself with ornaments while her husband is absent from home; not to resort to the houses of others; not to stand at the door or at windows; not to act by herself in any matter.’

Śaṅkha (Aparārka, p. 108).—‘Without permission, she should not go out of the house; nor without an upper garment; she should not walk very fast; nor converse with men, except with traders, renunciates, the aged and physicians; she should not expose her navel; she should wear clothes hanging down to the ankles; should never uncover her breasts; should never laugh without covering her face; should never bear ill-will towards her husband or his relations; should never sit with a prostitute or other such bad women; as one’s character becomes besmirched by associating with bad characters.’

Vyāsa (Do., p. 108).—‘Sitting at the door, peeping out of the window, improper conversation and laughing go to disgrace women of noble families.’

Hārīta (Vivādaratnākara, p. 432).—‘She should avoid looking at and conversing with other men and associating with wicked ascetics and others; should never go to the house of strangers, to the public road or road-crossings or lanes, or to the abode of ascetics; should avoid standing on the path to the wells and roaming in the morning and in the evening; she should never think of using the bed, seat, clothes and ornaments belonging to others, until they have been cleansed and repaired, etc., etc., etc.’

परिवर्जनार्थ एषाम् उपदेशस् तत्पुरुषाणाम् । यतश् च पानादिव्यभिचारकरणेषु वर्तमानाः ॥ ९.१३ ॥

013 Drinking (spirituous liquor), associating with wicked people, separation from the husband, rambling abroad, sleeping (at unseasonable hours), and dwelling in other men’s houses, are the six causes of the ruin of women.

They care not for beauty; they have no regard for age; be he handsome or ugly, they enjoy the man simply because he is a male.—(14)

नायम् अभिमानो वोढव्यः- “सुभगः स्वाकृतिस् तरुणो ऽहं माम् हित्वा कथम् अन्यं कामयिष्यते” । यतो नैता दर्शनीयो ऽयं शूराकृतिर् अयम् इत्य् एव³⁸ विचारयन्ति । पुमान् अयम् इत्य् एतावत्ऐव बुञ्जते संयुज्यन्ते तेन ॥ ९.१४ ॥

The husband should not labour under the vain hope—‘I am well favoured, handsome and young, how can my wife desire any other man, having me?’;—because women do not take into consideration the fact of a man being ‘handsome’ or ‘brave’; simply because he happens to be a male, they have recourse to him.—(14)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 412);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 158b).

**(verses 9.14-16)
**

Dakṣa (Vivādaratnākara, p. 413).—‘Women are like the leech; but while the poor leech draws blood only, the woman draws your riches, your property, your flesh, your virility and your strength. During adolescence, she is in fear of the man, during youth, she demands excessive pleasure, and when her husband becomes old, she does not care a straw for him.’

Rāmāyaṇa (Vivādaratnākara, p. 414).—‘For women there is no one loved or hated; they betake themselves to all men; just as creepers growing in a thick forest hang themselves on all trees.’

एतास्व् अवस्थासु वर्तमाना विसंज्ञाः सत्यः । यतः पानादीन् वर्जयेयुः ॥ ९.१४ ॥

014 Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking), ‘(It is enough that) he is a man,’ they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly.

Even though carefully guarded, they injure their husbands, on account of their passion for males, of ficklemindedness and of innate want of tenderness.—(15).

यस्मिन् कस्मिंश् च पुंसि दृष्टे धैर्याच् चलनम् — कथम् एतेन संप्रयुज्येयेति — चेतसो विकारः स्त्रीणां तत् पौंश्चल्यम् । अन्यत्रापि धर्मादौ कार्ये ऽस्थिरता चलचित्तत्वात् । य एव द्वेष्यः स एव स्पृह्यत इति भ्रातृपुत्रादिर् यो दृष्टस् तस्मा एव कामुकत्वेन स्पृहयन्ति । स्नेहो रागस् तृष्णा च भर्तरि पुत्रादौ मानविबद्धहृदया³⁹ भवन्ति । एतैर् दोषैर् योगाद् विकुर्वते विक्रियां भर्तृषु गच्छन्ति ॥ ९.१५ ॥

तस्मात् ।

‘Passion for males’—At the sight of any and every man, women lose their firmness of mind and there arises in their minds an extreme desire for meeting him somehow or other, followed by a liquid exudation; this is what is called ‘passion for males.’

‘Fieklemindedness’—The mind not being steady, even when applied to religious and other acts. It is llnough this that the object of hatred becomes the object of love and persons who have been looked upon as brothers and sons come to be looked upon as lovers.

‘Tenderness’ is love, longing, towards the husband, the son and other relations. Women are without such feelings.

On account of these defects, they ‘injure their husbands’—become disloyal towards them.—(15)

‘For this reason—

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 412);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 158b).

**(verses 9.14-16)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.14].

आसु पानाद्यवस्थासु । अतो न पूर्वविश्वासात् पानादिषुपेक्ष्याः (?) ॥ ९.१५ ॥

015 Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through their natural heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this (world).

Knowing this disposition to be innate in them, from the very creation of the lord, the man should make the highest effort to guard them.—(16)

प्रजापतिर् हिरण्यगर्भः । तदीये निसर्गे सृष्टिकाले⁴⁰ जातम् । शिष्टं स्पष्टम् ॥ ९.१६ ॥

‘Lord’, ‘Prajāpati’, is Hiraṇyagarbha; the disposition was born with them at the time of creation of the world by him.

The rest is clear.—(16)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 413), which adds the following notes:—‘Prajāpatinisargajam,’ ‘Prajāpati is Brahmā, what comes about, jāyate,’ at the time of creation by him (nisarge) is ‘prajāpati nisargajam’;—in Kṛtyasārasamuccaya (p. 99);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 158b).

**(verses 9.14-16)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.14].

व्यभिचारात्मकत्वम् आसां स्वभावतः । अतस् तं विदित्वा नित्यम् एता रक्ष्याः । न विश्वासाद् उपेक्षणीयाः गृहीतविनया इति कृत्वा ॥ ९.१६ ॥

यतश् च ।

016 Knowing their disposition, which the Lord of creatures laid in them at the creation, to be such, (every) man should most strenuously exert himself to guard them.

Manu assigned to women sleep, sitting, ornament, lust, anger, dishonesty, malice and bad conduct.—(17)

शय्या शयनं स्वप्नशीलत्वम् । आसनम् अनभ्युत्थानशीलता । अलंकारः शरीरमण्डनम्⁴¹ । कामं पुरुषोपभोगस्पृहा । क्रोधो द्वेषः । अनार्यता स्निग्धे ऽपि द्वेषो द्विष्टे ऽपि स्नेहः आकारसंवरणं निर्द्धर्मता । द्रोग्धृभावः । द्रोग्धृत्वं भर्तृपित्रादेः, पुरुषव्यसनीयतयाधर्मात्मकत्वं भर्त्रादीनाम्⁴² । द्रुहेः कर्तरि तृचा भावशब्देन समासः । कुचर्या नीचपुरुषसेवनम् । एष स्वभावः स्त्रीणां मनुना सर्गादौ कल्पितः । शय्यासणालंकारा द्रोहकुचर्ययोर् दृष्टान्तत्वेनोपदीयन्ते । यथैते पदार्थाः स्वभावभूता अविचालिता एवं कुचर्यादयो ऽपि ॥ ९.१७ ॥

‘Sleeping’—Proneness to too much sleep.

‘Sitting’— Indolence, want of energy.

‘Ornament’—Bodily adornment.

‘Lust’—Desire for carnal association with men.

‘Anger’—Hatred.

‘Dishonesty’—Consisting in hating those who love, loving those who hate, concealing one’s real feelings, immorality.

‘Malice’—Maliciousness. ‘Drogdhṛ’ is derived from the root ‘druh’ and the affix ‘tṛch’, and it is then compounded with ‘bhāvam’.

‘Bad conduct’—Association with wicked people.

Such was the nature allotted to women by Manu, at the beginning of creation; the sense is that just as the characters here set forth cannot be eradicated, so bad conduct also cannot be dissociated from women.—(17)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 412);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 158b).

Mahābhārata (13.40.12-13).—‘Bed, seat, ornament, food, drink, meanness, harshness of speech, and love,—these Prajāpati gave to women.’

अतश् च युक्तास् ताः प्रयत्नतो रक्षितुम् एवं स्वभावत्वात् । तत्र तु शय्या भावो नाधिकरणं सुप्यते ऽस्याम् इति । एवम् आसनालंकारकामक्रोधाः, माक्ये भावप्रत्ययाभावे ऽपि । अनार्यता द्रोहभाव इत्य् अत्र स्वशब्देनैव भाव उपदिष्टः । चरणं चर्या कुचर्या उत्सिता चर्या । सर्व एते भावाः । एवम् “स्वभावं ज्ञात्वासाम्” इति प्रकृतत्वाद् अस्य । एवं च सति तन्निन्दावचनं रक्षार्थम् ॥ ९.१७ ॥

यतश् च ।

017 (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct.

For women there is no dealing with the sacred texts; such is the rule of law; the fact is that, being destitute of organs and devoid of sacred texts, women are ‘false’—(18)

• तन् न । न हि स्त्रीणां मन्त्रैः क्रिया जपो ऽप्य् अस्ति । येन वृत्तव्यतिक्रमे ऽप्रख्यातौ⁴³ स्वत एव वैदुषाच् छुद्धिम् आप्नुवन्ति । तस्माद् यत्नतो रक्ष्या इत्य् (म्ध् ९.१५) एतच्छेषम् एवैतत् ।

• अतो ये केचिद् अविशेषेण⁴⁴ मन्त्रप्रतिषेधो ऽयम् इति वर्णयन्ति, ततश् च प्रतिषेधं मन्यमाना यत् किंचित् स्रीसंबन्धि कर्म येन केन चित् क्रियते⁴⁵ — यत्र⁴⁶ स्त्रियः कर्तृतया संबध्यन्ते सायंबलिहरणादौ, तथा संस्कार्यतया चूडादिषु, संप्रदानतया श्राद्धादौ — तत्र सर्वत्र मन्त्रप्रतिषेधाद् अमन्त्रकं स्त्रीणां श्राद्धादि कर्यम् इति ।

• ते⁴⁷ ऽयुक्तवादिनो⁴⁸ ऽन्यपरत्वाद् अस्य । अर्थवादतया⁴⁹ यद् अस्ति तदालम्बनन्यायेन⁵⁰ विहितप्रतिषेधमन्त्रसंबन्धमन्त्रचूडासंस्कारापेक्षं व्याख्येयम् एतत् । अध्ययनाभावाच् च प्रायश्चित्तमन्त्रजपाभावः प्रेक्षया⁵¹ ।

• निरिन्दिर्याः । इन्द्रियं वीर्यं धर्यप्रज्ञाबलादि तासां नास्त्य् अतो ऽनिच्छन्त्यो ऽपि कदाचित् पापाचारैर् बलेनाक्रम्यन्ते । ततो रक्षितुं युक्ताः । स्त्रियो ऽनृतम्⁵² इति शीलस्नेहयोर् अस्थिरत्वाद्⁵³ अनृतवचनेन⁵⁴ निन्द्यते ॥ ९.१८ ॥

Some people entertain the following notion;—“Even though woman may misbehave, she may, with the help of Vedic texts, perform some rites in the shape of secret Expiatory Rites and thus become pure; so that there cannot be much harm in her misbehaving”

But this is not true; because ‘for women there is no dealing with sacred texts’; so that there can be no repeating of the texts; which, with the help of her own learning, she might do whenever she transgressed and thereby regain her purity. For this reason also they should be carefully guarded;—this is the injunction to which the statement in the present verse is a declamatory supplement.

Some people have held that the present verse contains the absolute prohibition of the use of sacred texts in connection with all kinds of rites for women; and holding this opinion, they declare that whatever rites may be performed, by whomsoever, for the sake of women,—that is, (a) in rites where women figure as the performers, as in the making of offerings, or (b) in those where they figure as the object to be sanctified, as in the tonsure-ceremony, or (c) in those where they figure as recipients, us in śrāddhas offered to them,—at all these the use of sacred texts being forbidden by the present text, no such texts should be used at the śrāddhas offered to women.

But these people say what is not reasonable; because the present text refers to a totally different matter, and is a purely hortatory supplement. And it still remains to be explained what there is in the text to indicate either injunction or prohibition regarding such rites as the Tonsure and the like. As for the inability of women to recite the expiatory texts, this follows from the fact of their not learning the Vedas.

‘Destitute of Organs’—‘Organ’ here stands for strength;—courage, patience, intelligence, energy and so forth are absent in women; that is why they are prone to become over-powered by sinful propensities. Hence it is that they have to be carefully guarded.

‘Women are false’;—on account of the inconstancy of their character and affections, they are deprecated as being ‘false’—(18)

The second half of this verse has been taken as a corruption of the line “nirindriyā adāyādāḥ sthiyo (?) nityamiti sthitiḥ”. Hopkins remarks:—“This is supported by the sūtras; cf. the text and quotations given by Mandlik, Mayūkha, 2.366-367; also Baudhāyana, 2.3.46.”

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 412), which adds the following notes ‘Nirindriyāḥ,’ devoid of the faculties conducive to steadiness, truthfulness and so forth;—“strīyonṛtam,” women are called ‘untruth’ in the sense of bang addicted to lying,— and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 158b).

[See Manu ?.66.]

Mahābhārata (13.40.11-12).—(Same as Manu, but reading ‘Kāścit’ for ‘mantraiḥ,’ and ‘aśāstrāḥ’ for ‘amantrāḥ.’)

Baudhāyana (1.11.7).—‘Women are considered to have no business with the sacred texts.’

Do. (2.3.56).—‘The Veda declares that women are considered to be destitute of strength and portion.’

Śukranīti (4.4.9-10).—‘The woman and the Śūdra shall never recite mantras.’

“अमन्त्रिका तु कार्येयं स्त्रीणाम् आवृद् अशेषतः” इत्य् उक्तम् यद् तद् इदम् उच्यते- “नास्ति स्त्रीणां क्रिया मन्त्रैः” इति । विवाहसंस्कारश् च मन्त्रतः पुरुषसंबन्धापेक्षया न स्वातन्त्र्येण साधारणो वा । यतो न व्याघातः । अर्थवादार्थं चैतन् निन्दावचनम् । इन्द्रियं प्रज्ञाधैर्यादि । तदभावात् स्त्रियो ऽनिन्द्रिया इत्य् उच्यन्ते, नान्यथा । एवं चाबला इत्य् एवम् एताः प्रसिद्धाः । यतो निरिन्द्रिया अमन्त्राश् च स्त्रियः अतस् तासां स्ववीर्यस्याभावात् स्वयम् आत्मसंरक्षणे सामर्थ्यं नास्ति । अमन्त्रत्वाच् च पुरुषवन् मन्त्रवता संस्कारेण शुद्धिर् नास्ति । अमन्त्रत्वाच् च पुरुषवन् मन्त्रवता संस्कारेण शुद्धिर् नास्ति । आत्मसंयमने त्व् आसां सुद्धिर् एषितव्या । अतश् चैता निरिन्द्रिया निर्वीर्या निस्संज्ञत्वान् निर्विज्ञानाः सत्यो ऽनृतशब्देन निन्द्यन्ते । व्यभिचारात्मकत्वेन वा प्रकृतेन ॥ ९.१८ ॥

018 For women no (sacramental) rite (is performed) with sacred texts, thus the law is settled; women (who are) destitute of strength and destitute of (the knowledge of) Vedic texts, (are as impure as) falsehood (itself), that is a fixed rule.

So also there are many texts sung in the vedas with a view to indicate the true character of women. from among these listen to those texts that are meant to be expiatory.—(19)

स्वभावतो ऽशुद्धहृदयाः स्त्रिय इत्य् अस्मिन्न् अर्थे वैदिकानि मन्त्रार्थवादरूपाणि वाक्यानि साक्षित्वेनोपन्यस्यति । तथा च । यथा मयोक्तम् “स्त्रियो ऽनृतम्” इति तथैव निगमेषु वेदेषु श्रुतयः सन्ति । निगमशब्दो वेदपर्यायो दृष्टप्रयोगश् च । “बभूथाततन्थ इत्यादि निगमे”⁵⁵ (पाण् ७.२.६४) ।⁵⁶ वेदार्थव्याख्यानाङ्गवचनो ऽप्य् अस्ति । निगमनिरुक्तव्याकरणान्य् अङ्गानीति । निरुक्ते हि प्रयोगः “निगमा इमे भवन्ति” (निर् १.१) इति । तस्येह श्रुतिग्रहणाद् वा वक्ष्यमाणोदाहरणाच् चासंभवः⁵⁷ । अतो वेदवचनो निगमशब्द इह गृह्यते । समुदायावयवभेदाच् चाधाराधेयभावः । तेषु निगमेषु श्रुतय एकदेशभूता⁵⁸ वाक्यानि निगीता अधीताः संशब्दिताः पठ्यन्त इति यावत् । नित्यप्रवृत्ते च कालाविभागादि निरुक्तम्⁵⁹ ।

• पाठान्तरं “निगदा”⁶⁰ इति । निगदा मन्त्रविशेषाः । श्रुतयो ब्राह्मणवाक्यानि । मन्त्रेषु ब्राह्मणेषु चायम् अर्थो दर्शितो यद् अनृता स्त्रिय इति । बह्व्यस् ताः सन्तीत्य् अस्मिन् पक्षे ऽध्याहारः । तासां श्रुतीनां या या निष्कृतिरूपा व्यभिचारप्रायश्चित्तभूतास् ताः⁶¹ शृणुत । किम् अर्थम् उदाह्रियन्त इति चेत्, स्वालक्षण्यपरीक्षार्थम् । स्वलक्षणं नित्यसंनिहितस्वभावस् तत्प्रतिपादनार्थम् । अङ्गदकुण्डलादि यल् लक्षणं⁶² तत्परिभूतम् इदं स्वलक्षणं स्वभाव इत्य् अर्थः । एतद् आसां स्वलक्षणं यद् व्यभिचारात्मकम्⁶³ ॥ ९.१९ ॥

The author now puts forward, in support of the assertion that ‘by their nature women are impure in their hearts’, Vedic texts and declamatory passages.

[The author says]—I have declared that ‘women are false’; and this same fact is assorted in the texts of the Vedas also.

The term ‘nigama’ is synonymous with ‘veda’, and is found to be used as such. The term ‘nigama’ is also found to be used as a name for that subsidiary science which explains the meaning of vedic texts,—i.e. in such statements as ‘Nigama Nirukta and Vyākaraṇa are the subsidiary sciences.’ In the Nirukta also in found the expression—‘These are nigamas’; and the term ‘nigama’ here cannot be taken as standing for anything else but ‘Vedic texts’, as is dear from the examples cited. Thus it is only right that in the present text the term ‘nigama’ should be taken as standing for the Veda.

The texts are spoken of as ‘in the Veda’, which presupposes the relation of constainer and contained, on the understanding that there is some sort of difference between the whole and its parts.

In the Nigama, Veda, there are ‘texts’, sentences, forming part of it, which are ‘sung’— recited, repeated, read there. In fact no limitation of time (part, present or future) is applicable to the case of the Veda, which is ever present.

‘Nigadāḥ’ is another reading for ‘nigītā’. In this case ‘nigada’ would mean the mantra-texts; and the term ‘śruti’ would mean the Brāhmaṇa texts’, and the meaning would be that ‘this fact that women are false is stated in both Mantra and Brāhmaṇa texts.’

In this latter leading the construction would be—‘bahvyaḥ santi’, ‘there are many such texts’,—the verb ‘santi’, ‘are’, being added.

From among these texts listen to those that are meant to be ‘expiatory’ of the sin of unchastity.

“Why are the said texts put forth?”

‘For the purpose of indicating the true character of women.’ True character means the permanent feature of their nature, and the texts are meant to expose this.

‘Character’ means disposition; and the disposition meant here is proneness to unchastity.—(19)

This verse, is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 158b), which has the following notes:—‘Śrutayaḥ,’ Vedic texts,—‘nigameṣu,’ in the Vedas,—‘listen to those rites that are referred to in the Vedas as expiatory of the misbehaviour of women,—and these will give you an idea of the character of women.’

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 412), which adds the following notes:—‘Śrutayaḥ’, Vedic texts;—‘nigameṣu,’ in the Vedas;—‘svālakṣaṇyam,’ characterestic;—‘tāṣām etc,’ listen to that Vedic text, from among the said texts, which is in the form of an expiation for the sin of unchaste thoughts, this text being indicative of the character of women in general.

**(verses 9.19-20)
**

The same Vedic text is referred to and prescribed for reciting—in Śāṅkhāyana-Yama-Gṛhyasūtra (3.13.5), and also in Āpastamba-Śrauta-Sutra (1.9.9).

स्वालक्षण्यम् आसां व्यभिचारः । यतस् तासां व्यभिचार्आकृतिम् इमां शृणुत ॥ ९.१९ ॥

019 And to this effect many sacred texts are sung also in the Vedas, in order to (make) fully known the true disposition (of women); hear (now those texts which refer to) the expiation of their (sins).

‘If my mother, unfaithful unto her lord, became enamoured while roaming about,—may my father’s semen remove that from me’;—this is an example of this.—(20)

इतिकारणान्तेन⁶⁴ पादत्रयेण मन्त्रैकदेशो ऽनुकृतः । यन् मे माता अपतिव्रता- पत्युर् अन्यपुरुषे न कामश् चेतसापीति यस्या व्रतं नियमः सा पतिव्रता । तद्विपरीता अपतिव्रता । विचरन्ती परगृहान् गच्छन्ती । तत्रोज्वलवेषं दृष्ट्वा प्रलुलुभे । लोभं स्पृहाम् अन्यपुरुषं प्रति कृतवती । तत् पापं ममोत्पत्त्या मत्पितुः⁶⁵ संबन्धि यद् रेतः शुक्रं तद् वृङ्क्ताम् अपनुदतु । तद्रेतसा स दोषो ऽपमृज्यताम् । पितेति षष्ठीस्थाने प्रथमा व्यत्ययेन । अथ वा रेत एव पितृत्वेन परिकल्प्यते⁶⁶ । अपरित्यक्तस्वलिङ्ग एव रेतसा सामानाधिकरण्यम् अनुभवति । “द्यौर् मे पिता” (र्व् २.३.२०) इति यथा । अथ वा मातृबीजम् अप्य् उच्यते रेतः⁶⁷ । तद् रेतः पिता जनको वृङ्क्तां शोधयताम् ।⁶⁸ पितृजबीजप्रभावेन मातृदोषो ऽपनुद्यताम् इत्य् अर्थः । अस्य व्यभिचारात्मकस्य्ऐतन् निदर्शनं दृष्टान्तः । सर्वे जपमाना⁶⁹ एतं मन्त्रम् उच्चारयन्ति । यदि च सर्वाः स्त्रियो दुष्टस्वभावास् ततो मन्त्रस्य नित्यवत् प्रयोगोपपत्तिर् इतरथा पाक्षिकः स्यात् । चातुर्मास्येष्व् अयं मन्त्रो विनियुक्तः पाद्यानुमन्त्रणे च श्राद्धे ॥ ९.२० ॥

The particle ‘iti’ at the end of the third quarter of the verse indicates that up to that point we have the part of an original Vedic text.

‘If my mother, unfaithful unto her lord’,—she who observes the vow ‘may I never, even in my mind, conceive love for any man other than my husband’ is called ‘faithful unto her lord’; the opposite of that is ‘unfaithful unto her lord’:—‘roaming about’— in the houses of other people,—seeing a gaily dressd (dressed?) person—‘became enamoured’—conceived a desire for that other man;—‘that’— impurity or evil in my birth, ‘may the semen of my fatter remove’; i.e., may that impurity be washed off by that semen. The nominative ending in ‘pitā’ has the force of the genetive. Or the semen itself may be taken in apposition to the ‘father’; which it can be without having its gender altered, just as we have in other phrases: ‘dyaurme pita’, ‘the heaven, my father’ (where ‘dyauḥ’ in the feminine, is in apposition to ‘father’).

Or ‘semen’ may be taken as standing for the mother’s seed; and in that case the meaning would be—‘may my father purify that seed of my mother’; i.e., may the impurity of the mother’s seed be removed by the force of the father’s seed.

‘This is an example’— instance—‘of this’—i.e., of the proneness of women to unchastity.

All men when reciting sacred texts recite the one here quoted; and the reciting of such a text by all men would be justified only if all women were prone to unchastity; otherwise, if only some were so, the use of the text would not be universal.

The text here quoted has been prescribed as to be recited during the ‘Cāturmāsya’ sacrifice, as also at śrāddhas, during the ‘Padyānumantraṇa’ rite.—(20)

“This verse is a slightly altered mantra which occurs in Śāṅkhāyana Gṛhyasūtra’ 3.13.5, and in the Cāturmāsya portion of the Kaṭhaka rescension of the Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda. According to the former, it has to be recited by the ‘son of a paramour.’ But the Kaṭhas prescribe its use by every sacrificer who offers a Cāturmāsya sacrifice.”—Buhler.

‘Retaḥ’—(a) ‘The semen of the legitimate husband, or (b) the husband himself, or (c) the secretions of the mother herself’ (Medhātithi). [In the case of (c) the word is in the accusative case];—‘secretions of the mother on her sexual desires being aroused’ (Kullūka, Govindarāja, Rāghavānanda, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

See also Āpastamba, Śrauta-sūtra 1.99 and Viṣṇu Smṛti 73.12.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 412), which adds the following notes:—This quotes the Vedic text referred to in the preceding verse; ‘tat,’ is the sin of desiring; aṇother man; the meaning thus is as follows:—“Inasmuch as my mother entertained a longing for another man, the sin due to this—may the ‘seed’ of my father remove; in ‘pita’ the nominative ending has the force of the genitive;”—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 158b).

**(verses 9.19-20)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.19].

कस्मिंश्चित् किल कर्मणि यजमान इदम् आह- यद्य् अपि मे माता परपुरुषलोभा व्यभिचारिणी भवेत् तथापि तद् रेतः पितैव मे वृङ्क्ता[म् इति । अस्य]इतन् निदर्शनम्- वेदे ऽपि च स्वभावव्यभिचारित्वं स्त्रीणां दृश्यते । ततस् तत्संरक्षणार्थम् अयं वैदिको निगम उदाहृतः ॥ ९.२० ॥

अन्यच् चाह ।

020 ‘If my mother, going astray and unfaithful, conceived illicit desires, may my father keep that seed from me,’ that is the scriptural text.

What is said here is the proper expiation for whatever ill she thinks in her mind of her husband.—(21)

पाणिग्राहो भर्ता । तस्य चेतसा यद् अनिष्टम् अप्रियं परपुरुषसंपर्कादिकं स्त्री चिन्तयति तस्य मानसस्य व्यभिचारस्य निह्नवः शुद्धिर् अनेन मन्त्रेण कर्मणि नियुक्तेनोच्यते । प्रसङ्गान् मन्त्रप्रयोजनं दर्शितम् । यद्य् अपि कर्मगुणतैव कर्माङ्गमन्त्रप्रयोजनं तथापि जपादौ विनियोगान् मानसव्यभिचारनिवृत्त्यर्थताप्य्⁷⁰ उच्यते ॥ ९.२१ ॥

‘Pāṇigrāha’ is husband;—of him ‘whatever ill’— disagreeable, in the form contact with other men—‘she’—the woman—‘thinks of;’—of that mental transgression, the ‘expiation’— purification—is expressed by the aforesaid text, if used in the right manner at the proper rite.

By the way the author has indicated the use of the particular text. Even though the use of such texts lies in forming part of the ritual, yet what is meant is that when the particular text is laid down as to be recited, it serves the purpose of expiating the sin of transgression.—(21)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 413);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 158b).

एवं च मनोव्यभिचारे एतद् विज्ञेयम् । “यादृग्गुणेन भर्त्रा स्त्री संयुज्येत यथाविध्”, तादृग्व्यभिचारस्य निह्नवः प्रमार्जनं प्रायश्चित्तम् अस्य मन्त्र[द्वारेण] । न केवलं मनोव्यभिचारप्रदर्शकम् एतत्, किं तर्हि कर्मव्यभिचारप्रायश्चित्तम् एव विज्ञेयम् ॥ ९.२१ ॥

021 If a woman thinks in her heart of anything that would pain her husband, the (above-mentioned text) is declared (to be a means for) completely removing such infidelity.

When a woman is united in one form with a man possessed of certain qualities, she becomes herself endowed with similar qualities,—like a river united with the ocean.—(22)

भार्यासंरक्षणकामेन दौःशील्याद् आत्मा रक्षितव्यः । नाप्य् एतयैव केवलया । यतो⁷¹ दुःशीलस्य भार्यापि तथाविधैर् भवति, गुणवतः शीलवती । यथा समुद्रेण निम्नगा नदी संयुज्यमाना क्षारोदका भवति मधुररसापि सती ॥ ९.२२ ॥

If a man wishes to guard his wife, he should guard himself also against evil habits; and it is not the woman that should preserve her chastity. Since if the man has a bad character, his wife also becomes the same; just as the wife of a man possessed of good character becomes good. For instance the river, though herself sweet-watered, becomes saline like the Ocean, when she joins this latter.—(22)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 416).

आत्मसंयमनेनाप्य् एताः शक्या रक्षितुं मनुष्येणेत्य् उपायान्तरनिर्देशः । न केवलम् असंयततयात्मानम् एवोपहन्ति मनुष्याः, किं तर्हि स्त्रिया अप्य् उपघात एवंवृत्तो वर्तत इत्य् अस्यार्थस्य निदर्शनम् ॥ ९.२२ ॥

022 Whatever be the qualities of the man with whom a woman is united according to the law, such qualities even she assumes, like a river (united) with the ocean.

The low-born Akṣamālā united with Vaśiṣṭha, and the doe united with Mandapālū, became worthy of worship.—(23)

हीनजातीयाप्य् अक्षमाला वसिष्ठभार्या तत्संयोगाद् अभ्यर्हणीयतां प्राप्ता । शारङ्गी तिर्यग्जातिः चटका मन्दपालेन मुनिना संयुक्ता तथैव पूज्या । अतो हीनजातीयाः कनीयस्यो ऽपि भूयो भर्तृवत् पूज्याः । तथा चोक्तम् “वयसि स्त्रियः” इति ॥ ९.२३ ॥

Even though born of a low caste, Akṣamālā, the wife of Vaśiṣṭha, became, through that union, ‘worthy of worship’.

Similarly the ‘doe’ though an animal, on becoming united with the sage Mandapāla, ‘became worthy of worship.’

Thus it is that even low-born women, belonging to the lower castes, came to be honoured like their husbands; as it has been said that ‘women are honoured by their age’.—(23).

“The story of Mandapāla is told in the Mahābhārata 1.8335, adhyāya 229”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 416), which reads ‘śārṅgī’, with Medhātithi.

यस्माच् च ।

023 Akshamala, a woman of the lowest birth, being united to Vasishtha and Sarangi, (being united) to Mandapala, became worthy of honour.

These as well as other women, of low birth, have attained eminence in the world, through the good qualities of their respective husbands.—(24).

अवकृष्टा निकृष्टा प्रसूतिर् उत्पत्तिर् यासां ता अवकृष्टप्रसूतयः । अन्याश् च गङ्गाकालीप्रभृतयः । द्वयोः प्रकृतत्वाद् एता इति बहुवचनं चशब्देन तृतीयाम् आक्षिप्य । द्विर्वचनं वा “एते च” ॥ ९.२४ ॥

‘Low’-inferior-‘birth’— origin: these who have this are said to be ‘of low birth’.

‘Others’—Gaṅgā, Kālī, and others.

Though the preceding verse has named only two, yet here we have ‘these,’ ‘etāḥ,’ in the plural, which may be explained as including a third, indicated by the particle ‘ca’. Or, we may read the Dual form ‘ete’ instead of ‘etāḥ’.—(24)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 416).

अतश् चात्मसंयमे यत्नः कर्तव्यः, स्त्रीरक्षणार्थतः तस्येति ॥ ९.२४ ॥

024 These and other females of low birth have attained eminence in this world by the respective good qualities of their husbands.

Thus has been declared the common practice, as between husband and wife, which is always happy; now understand the laws relating to children, which are conducive to happiness here as well as after death.—(25)

लोकयात्रा लोकवृत्तं लोकाचारः । लोकसिद्धम् एतत् । नायं विधिलक्षणो ऽर्थो यद् एवं शक्यते रक्षितुं नान्यथेति । अपरिरक्षिताभिश् च ताभिः प्रसूत्यादिदोषो⁷² भवतीति । इदानीं प्रजाधर्मान् निबोधत । कस्य प्रजा बीजिनो वा क्षेत्रिणो वेति । उदर्क आगामीकालः, स सुखो येषाम् । सर्वे हि वस्त्ववसाने विरमन्ते । ते तु नैवम् इति प्रशंसा ॥ ९.२५ ॥

ननु च का सुखोदर्कता प्रजाधर्मस्य । या च प्रजास्याधीना स्त्रियश् च बहुभिर् दोषैर् आवृतत्वात् त्यागार्हाः⁷³_ ।_ को⁷⁴_ हि “गृहे सर्वान् बिभृयात्” इत्य् एतन्निवृत्त्यर्थम् आह ।_

‘Commonpractice’— ordinary usage; what has been stated here is the ‘common practice’ obtaining in the world; and when it is said that ‘women are to be guarded in such and such a manner, and not otherwise’, or ‘if women are not guarded, the progeny becomes defiled,’—it is not by way of injunction.

‘Now listen to the laws relating to children’;—i.e., to whom does the child belong?—to the owner of the seed, or to the owner of the field?

‘Udarka’ stands for ‘futurity’; and that whose ‘future is happy’ is called ‘sukhodarka’, conducive to happiness. The praise is that while all things perish in the end, these do not perish.—(25)

कस्य प्रजा, किं क्षेत्रिणो, बीजिन, उभयोर् वेति ॥ ९.२५ ॥

025 Thus has been declared the ever pure popular usage (which regulates the relations) between husband and wife; hear (next) the laws concerning children which are the cause of happiness in this world and after death.

There is no difference whatever between the goddess of fortune and the women who secure many blessings for the sake of bearing children, who are worthy of worship and who form the glory of their household—(26)

शक्यप्रतिविधानत्वाद् दोषाणां पूजार्हाः । यद् एतद् दोषप्रपञ्चनं⁷⁵ तन् नावज्ञानार्थं परिवर्जनार्थं वाभिशस्तपतितादिवत्⁷⁶ । किं तर्हि, रक्षार्थं दोषेभ्यः⁷⁷ । न हि भिक्षुकाः सन्तीति स्थाली नाधिश्रियते । न च मृगाः सन्तीति यवा नोप्यन्त इति । प्रजनं⁷⁸ गर्भग्रहणात् प्रभृत्य् अपत्यपरिपोषणपर्यन्तो व्यापारो ऽभिप्रेतः । तथा च वक्ष्यति “उत्पादनम् अपत्यस्य जातस्य परिपालनम्” (म्ध् ९.२७) इति । गृहे दीप्तय इव । न हि गृहे सेवा स्त्रीभिर् विना काचिद् अस्तीति सुप्रसिद्धम् एतत् । सत्य् अपि श्रीविभवे भार्यायाम् असत्यां सुहृत्स्वजनादिष्व् आगतेषु न गृहस्थाः प्रतिपुरुषं भोजनादिभिर् आवर्जयितुं समर्थाः । यथा दरिद्रे न भवति शक्तिर् अतः स्त्रियाः श्रियश् च न विशेषो गृहेष्व् इति ॥ ९.२६ ॥

Question.—“In what way is the duty towards children conducive to happiness, since children are dependent upon the man himself, and women, being beset with many defects, deserve to be abandoned? And who is there who would be willing to maintain all these in his house?”

It is with a view to set aside such notions that we have the present verse.

In as much as the defects of women are capable of rectification, they are ‘worthy of worship’. When the above-mentioned verses dilated upon the defects of women, it was not with a view to discredit them, or to make people avoid them; it was done with this view that they may be guarded against evil. Simply because there are beggars, people do not give up cooking their food; or because there are deer to graze them, people do not desist from sowing seeds.

‘Bearing children’—stands for the whole series of acts beginning with conception and ending with fostering and bringing them up: as is going to be said below (27)—‘Begetting of children and nourishing of those that are born’.

They are like effulgence in their home. It is well-known that there is no comfort at home, in the absence of the wife. Even when there is plenty of wealth, if the wife is absent, the household is not able to attend to the feeding and other needs of friends and relatives that may happen to come in as guests. In fact, they are as powerless as poor men.

For this reason there is no difference between the Goddess of Fortune and women in their homes.—(26)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 416);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 190);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, 66b).

**(verses 9.26-27)
**

Mahābhārata (13.40.11).—‘One who desires his own prosperity should always honour women; O Bhārata, when the woman is loved and also held in restraint, she becomes the Goddess of Prosperity herself.’

एषो ऽस्याभिप्रायः- सर्वदोषावस्कन्नानाम् अपि हि स्त्रीणां प्रजननायोगान् महाप्रयोजनत्वे सत्य् अयुक्तस् तासां परित्यागः प्रायश्चित्तप्रत्याहरणीयत्वात् । तथा च वक्ष्यति संयतां वासयेद् गृहे, “यत् पुंसः परदारेषु तच् चैनं चारयेद् व्रतम्” इति वचनात् । न चाकस्मात् स्तुतिः प्रवर्तत इति कृत्वावश्यम् एतद् अभ्युपगन्तव्यम् ॥ ९.२६ ॥

यतश् च ।

026 Between wives (striyah) who (are destined) to bear children, who secure many blessings, who are worthy of worship and irradiate (their) dwellings, and between the goddesses of fortune (sriyah, who reside) in the houses (of men), there is no difference whatsoever.

The begetting of the child, the nourishing of the born, and the ordinary life of the world,—of each of these things the woman is clearly the main-spring.—(27)

⁷⁹**स्त्री निबन्धनं **निमित्तम्⁸⁰ । अपत्योत्पादनादौ प्रत्यक्षम् एतत् । लोकयात्रा गृहागतानाम् अन्नादिदानेनावर्जनम् आमन्त्रणनिमन्त्रणादि । अस्य प्रत्यर्थं सर्वस्मिन्न् अर्थे स्त्री निबन्धनम् । “प्रत्यहम्” इति पाठः । प्रत्यक्षशब्दो ऽन्तरङ्गवचनः । अन्तरङ्गम् इत्य् अर्थः ॥ ९.२७ ॥

‘The woman is the mainspring’— the prime cause of the begetting of children and the rest.

That this is so is quite ‘clear.’

‘Ordinary life of the world,’—such as offering food to guests that have arrived, welcoming and inviting others, and so forth.

‘Of each of these things’—the woman is the mainspring. Another reading for ‘pratyartham’ (‘of each of these’) is ‘pratyaham’ (daily)

The term ‘clearly’ implies importance, the sense being that the woman is the prime cause.—(27)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 191);—in Vivādaratnākara (p. 417), which notes that the construction is ‘pratyaham lokayātrāyāḥ nibandhanam strī’, and that both the bringing forth and the rearing of children are her function;—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃs kāra, 66b).

**(verses 9.26-27)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.26].

अयम् अपरः स्त्रीप्रशंसार्थः श्लोकः पूर्वोक्तप्रयोजनार्थ एव विज्ञेयः ॥ ९.२७ ॥

किं चान्यत्, येन ।

027 The production of children, the nurture of those born, and the daily life of men, (of these matters) woman is visibly the cause.

Off-spring, religious acts, faithful service, highest happiness,—all this is dependent on the wife; as also the attainment of heaven by oneself as well as by his forefathers.—(28)

प्राग्दर्शितार्थो ऽयं श्लोकः ॥ ९.२८ ॥

The sense of this verse has been already pointed out before.—(28)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 417);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 191);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, 66b).

अतश् च यथोक्त एवार्थो विज्ञेयः ॥ ९.२८ ॥

एवं च सति ।

028 Offspring, (the due performance on religious rites, faithful service, highest conjugal happiness and heavenly bliss for the ancestors and oneself, depend on one’s wife alone.

(अग्रे व्याख्यानम्।)

029 She who, controlling her thoughts, speech, and acts, violates not her duty towards her lord, dwells with him (after death) in heaven, and in this world is called by the virtuous a faithful (wife, sadhvi)

[These are the same as verses 164 and 165 of Discourse V]

She, who does not fail in her duty to her husband, having her thought, speech and body well-controlled, reaches her husband’s regions; and is called ‘good’ by all gentle-men.—(29).

The woman, who, through failure in her duty to her husband, becomes an object of contempt in the world, comes to be born as a jackal and is tormented by foul diseases.—(30).

पञ्चमे श्लोकाव् उभौ व्याख्यातौ (च्ड़्। म्ध् ५.१६२–६३) ॥ ९.२९–३० ॥

(verses 9.29-30)

These two verses have been already explained under Discourse V.—(29-30)

(verse 9.29)

[[See above, 5.165.]]

(verse 9.30)

[[See above, 5.164.]]

Vaśiṣṭha (21.14).—‘Faithful wives who are ever pure and truthful reside after death in the same regions with their husbands; those that are unfaithful are born as jackals.’

यस्मात् तस्माद् आभिः भर्तृपारतन्त्र्यं न मोक्तव्यम् ॥ ९.२९–३० ॥

030 But for disloyalty to her husband a wife is censured among men, and (in her next life) she is born in the womb of a jackal and tormented by diseases, the punishment of her sin.

Listen to the following disquisition regarding the son, propitious and salutary to the world, set forth by the wise patriarchs and the great sages.—(31)

उपन्यासो विचार्यवस्तुप्रक्षेपः, विचारो वा । तं निबोधत । पुत्रं प्रति पुत्रम् अधिकृत्य उदितम् उक्तं सद्भिर् विद्वद्भिर् महर्षिभिश् च । विश्वजन्यं सर्वेभ्यो जनेभ्यो हितम् । पुण्यं कल्याणकरम् । स्त्रीस्तुत्या व्यवधानात् “प्रजाधर्मं निबोधत” इत्य् अस्यार्थस्यापि पुनर् आदरार्थम् उपन्यासः- उपन्यासं निबोधतेति ॥ ९.३१ ॥

‘Disquisitions’—the setting forth of a matter for investigation; or a dissertation.—‘Listen’ to that,—‘set forth’—put forward—‘regarding the son’—with reference to the son,—‘by the wise patriarchs and the great sages’

‘Salutary to the world’—calculated to do good to all men.

‘Propitious’—beneficial.

The subject of the ‘laws relating to children,’ which was introduced in verse 25 has been interrupted by the few verses dealing with the greatness of women; hence it has been necessary to recall attention to the original subject-matter—‘listen to the disquisition’.—(31)

(verses 9.31-44)

(See also under 48-56.)

Gautama (18.9-14).—‘The child belongs to one who begets it except when an agreement to the contrary has been made. The child begotten on his wife at a living husband’s request belongs to the husband; but if begotten by a stranger, it belongs to the latter;—or to both;—but if reared by the husband, it belongs to him.’

Āpastamba (2.13.6-7).—‘A Brāhmaṇa-text says that the son belongs to the begetter. They quote also the following verse from the Veda:—“Having considered myself formerly as a father, I shall not now allow any longer my wives to be approached by other men, since they have declared that a son belongs to the begetter in the world of Yama. The giver of the seed carries off the son after death, in Yama’s world. Therefore they guard their wives, fearing the seed of strangers. Carefully watch over the procreation of your children, lest stranger-seed he sown on your soil. In the next world, the son belongs to the begetter; an imprudent husband makes the begetting of children futile for himself.”’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.6-9).—‘There is a difference of opinion. Some say the son belongs to the husband of the mother, and others say he belongs to the begetter. With respect to this they quote verses on both sides, like the following:—“If one man’s bull were to beget a hundred calves on another man’s cows, they would belong to the owner of the cows; in vain would the bull have spent his strength.” “Carefully watch the procreation of your offspring, lest strangers sow seed on your soil; in the next world, the son belongs to the begetter; by carelessness, a husband makes his offspring futile for himself.”’

Do. (17.63-64).—‘They declare that a son begotten on a widow who has not been duly authorised, belongs to the begetter; if she was duly authorised, then the child belongs to both the males connected with the authorisation.’

See Manu 10.72.

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p. 414).—‘The origin or soil is the most potent factor; that is why castes become intermixed.’

Do. (p. 581).—‘The declaration of the Veda is that the child belongs to the owner of the soil; some sages say that the child belongs to the mother; the child is said to belong to two fathers.’

यथा विश्वजन्य् ऽसौ तथेदम् उच्यते ॥ ९.३१ ॥

031 Listen (now) to the following holy discussion, salutary to all men, which the virtuous (of the present day) and the ancient great sages have held concerning male offspring.

They recognise the son to be the husband’s; but in regard to one who is only the progenitor, there is diversity of opinion; some people declare the begetter, while others the owner of the soil (to be the owner of the child).—(32)

**भर्ता **उद्वोढा । विवाहसंस्कारेण संस्कृता⁸¹ येन या नारी तस्याम् यस् तस्माद् एव जातस् तं पुत्रं तस्य विजानन्त्य् अभ्युपगच्छन्ति सर्व एव विद्वांसः । नात्र विप्रतिपत्तिः । सिद्धान्तो ऽयम् । श्रुतिद्वैधं तु कर्तरि । यः कर्तैव केवलम् उत्पादयितान्यदीयक्षेत्रे न तूद्वोड्ःआ, तत्र श्रुतिद्वैधं मतभेदः । तं दर्सयति । आहुर् उत्पादकम् अपत्यवन्तं केचित् । अपरे क्षेत्रिणं यस्य सा भार्या तस्याम् अनुत्पादकम् अपि । एवम् आचार्यविप्रतिपत्तेः संशयम् उपन्यस्य, कारणकथनेन तम् एव समर्थयते ॥ ९.३२ ॥

‘Husband’—the marrier; the man with whom the woman has gone through the sacrament of marriage; and when a son is born from this husband in that women, ‘they’—all learned men—‘recognise’—accept—the son to be that man’s. There is no difference of opinion on this point; it is an acknowledged principle.

‘There is diversity of opinion however in regard to one who is the progenitor only’; in a case where the man is not one to whom the woman has been married, but only the begetter of the son in a soil belonging to another man.

This diversity of opinion is next pointed out—‘Some people declare the begetter’ to be the person to whom the child belongs; while others declare ‘the owner of the soil’ to be so; i.e., the person whose wife the woman is, even though he be not the actual begetter.

Having thus propounded the doubt due to the difference of opinion among teachers, the author himself proceeds to justify the doubt.—(32)

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.31].

अपरेषां पक्ष उभयोः ॥ ९.३२ ॥

अस्या विप्रतिपत्तेः कारणम् आह ।

032 They (all) say that the male issue (of a woman) belongs to the lord, but with respect to the (meaning of the term) lord the revealed texts differ; some call the begetter (of the child the lord), others declare (that it is) the owner of the soil.

The woman has been declared to be like the ‘soil,’ and the man has been declared to be like the seed; and the production of all corporeal beings proceeds from the union of the soil and the seed.—(33)

क्षेत्रम् इव क्षेत्रभूता नारी । व्रीह्यादेर् उत्पत्तिस्थानं भूमिभागः क्षेत्रम्, तत्तुल्या नारी । यथा क्षेत्रे बीजम् उप्तं तत्र विध्रियमाणं जायते, एवं नार्याम् अपि निषिक्तं रेतः । बीजभूत एव पुमान् । अत्रापि भूतशब्द उपमायाम् । तदीयं रेतो बीजम्, न साक्षात् पुमान्, तदधिकरनत्वात् तु तथावद् व्यपदिश्यते । समायोगः संबन्ध⁸² आधाराधेयलक्षणः । ततः संभव उत्पत्तिः सर्वदेहिनां शरीरिणाम्, चतुर्विधस्य भूतग्रामस्य । स्वेदजानाम् अप्य् आकाशः⁸³ क्षेत्र, बीजं स्वेदः । अतो युक्तः संशयः, उभयम् अन्तरेण संभवानुपपत्तेः । अपत्योत्पत्तौ उभयोर् व्यापारः । विनिगमनायां⁸⁴ हेत्वभावात् कस्य तत्, उभयोः अथ अन्यतरस्येति⁸⁵ संदेहः । सर्वस्य च प्रकरणस्यायम् अर्थः, नानुमानपरिच्छेद्यो ऽपत्यापत्यवद्भावः । तथा च विभागश्लोके वक्ष्यामः ॥ ९.३३ ॥

‘The woman’ is as if it were ‘the soil’. ‘Soil’ stands for that part of the Earth where corns are grown; and the woman is like that: Just as the seed sown and held in the soil sprouts up, so also the semen deposited in the woman.

‘The man is like the seed’,—Here also the term ‘bhūta’ denotes similitude. The man’s semen is the ‘seed’, and not the man himself; but he is himself so called because the semen is contained in him.

‘From the union’— contact, the relationship of container and contained—there is ‘the production’—birth—‘of all corporeal beings’—beings endowed with bodies; i.e. of the four kinds of living beings. In the case of sweat-born insects also, the ākāśa is the ‘soil’ and sweat the ‘seed’, and the ‘union’ of these is the relation of container and contained.

For the said reason it is only right that there should be the said doubt; as there can be no ‘production’ when either of the two is absent; the function of both being necessary in the begetting of the child; and since there is nothing to indicate to which one of the two the child belongs, hence the doubt as to whether the child belongs to both or to either one of the two.

In fact, the whole of this subject relating to the relationship of the child and the person to whom the child belongs is one that is amenable to reasoning; as we shall show under the verso where the details are set forth.—(33)

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.31].

अत एतस्मात् कारणाद् युक्तेयं विप्रतिपत्तिः ॥ ९.३३ ॥

अस्यां च विप्रतिपत्तौ स्थितं पक्षं दर्शयति ।

033 By the sacred tradition the woman is declared to be the soil, the man is declared to be the seed; the production of all corporeal beings (takes place) through the union of the soil with the seed.

In some cases the seed is prominent; but in others it is the female womb; when both are equal, the offspring is highly commended.—(34)

बीजस्य वैशिष्ट्यं व्यासऋष्यशृङ्गादीनां महर्षीणां दृष्टम् । स्त्रीयोनिष्व् एव क्षेत्रजादिपुत्रेषु धृतराष्ट्रादिषु । ब्राःमणाज् जाता अपि मातृजातयः क्षत्रियास् ते । उभयं तु समं एकस्वामिकम् एकजातीयं समम् । सा प्रसूतिः प्रशस्यते विप्रतिपत्त्यभावात् । तद् उक्तम् एव-⁸⁶ “भर्तुः पुत्रं विजानन्ति” (म्ध् ९.३२) इति ॥ ९.३४ ॥

The prominence of the seed is seen in the case of Vyāsa, Ṛṣyaṣṛṅga (Ṛṣyaśṛṅga?) and other great sages, (who, though born of low mothers, became high sages);—and that of the female womb in the case of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and other ‘kṣetraja’ sons, who, even though born of Brāhmaṇa fathers, took the caste of their mothers.

‘Where both are equal’—i.e. belonging to the same caste.

‘The offspring is highly commended;’—since in this case there is no dispute; this is what has been declared under 32 above, regarding people recognising the son as belonging to the father,—(34)

Compare 10.72.

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.31].

विशिष्टं तु क्वचिद् बीजं

कैश्चित् परिगृहीतम् ।

स्त्रीयोनिस् त्व् एव कुत्रचित् ।

अपरेषां पक्षः ।

उभयं तु समं यत्र सा प्रसूतिर् विशिष्यते ॥ ९.३४ ॥

इत्य् अयं स्थितः पक्ष आचार्यस्य विज्ञेयः ॥ ९.३४ ॥

अत्र पूर्वः पक्षः प्रदर्श्यते ।

034 In some cases the seed is more distinguished, and in some the womb of the female; but when both are equal, the offspring is most highly esteemed.

[Prima-facie argument]—“As between the seed and the womb, the seed is declared to be superior; because the production of all things is marked by the characteristics of the seed.”—(35)

एवम् उपपादिते संशये बीजप्राधान्यपक्षं पूर्वं परिगृह्णाति । तत्प्राधान्याद् यस्य बीजं तस्यापत्यम् । तस्य च प्राधान्यं व्रीह्यादेर् द्रव्यस्य क्षित्याद्यनेककारणत्वे ऽपि तद्धर्मानुविधानदर्शनात् । अतश् च स्फुटम् अदृष्टबीजानुविधानस्यापत्यस्य कार्यत्वाद् व्रीह्यादीनाम् इव तद्धर्मानुविधायित्वं युक्तम् अभ्यपगन्तुम् । तथा हि सर्वत्र कार्य ऐक्यरूप्यं न त्यक्तं भवति । तथा च बीजे प्राधान्यं तद् दर्शयति- सर्वभूतप्रसूतिर् हि । सर्वेषां भूतानां प्रसूतिर् उत्पत्तिर् बीजलक्षणलक्षिता । बीजस्य यल् लक्षणं रूपवर्णसंस्थानादि तेन लक्षिता चिह्निता, तद्रूपानुविधायिनीति यावत् ॥ ९.३५ ॥

The doubt having been set forth, the author puts forward the ‘preponderance of the seed’ as the prima facie argument And if the seed is the superior factor, then the child must belong to him whose the seed is. That the seed is the more important is indicated by the fact that in the case of the corn and such other things, though the soil and several other causes operate in their production, yet they take up the characteristics of the seed. So that even though in the case of the child, the transmission of the characteristics of the seed is not. so clearly manifest, yet it has to be accepted as a fact, on the basis of the fact of such transmission being found in the case of corn and other things. Further, it is only when this view that is accepted that the uniformity of all products becomes established. Thus it is that superiority belongs to the seed.

This is what is shown by the text—‘the production of all things’ is found to be ‘marked by the characteristics of the seed’;—these ‘characteristics of the seed’ consisting in shape, colour, figure and so forth; and by this is the production ‘marked’ distinguished; i.e., it follows them.—(35)

This verse is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 675).

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.31].

बीजस्य चैव योन्याश् च बीजम् उत्कृष्टम् उच्यते ।

यस्मात्,

सर्वभूतप्रसूतिर् हि बीजलक्षणलक्षिता ॥ ९.३५ ॥

035 On comparing the seed and the receptacle (of the seed), the seed is declared to be more important; for the offspring of all created beings is marked by the characteristics of the seed.

“As is the seed which is sown in the soil prepared in season, so does the seed spring forth, marked by its own qualities.”—(36)

अनन्तरस्यैवार्थविस्तरत्वेन श्लोको ऽयं वक्त्रान्वयप्रदर्शनेन । यादृशशब्दस्यार्थं⁸⁷ व्याख्यास्यति “व्रीहयः शालयः” (म्ध् ९.३९) इत्यादिना । कालोपपादिते, काले वर्षादौ वपनकाल उपपादिते⁸⁸ कृष्टसमीक्षरणादिना⁸⁹ संस्कृते । तादृग् रोहति जायते । स्वैर् गुणैर् वर्णसंस्थानरसवीर्यादिभिर् गुणैर् व्यञ्जितं परिदृश्यरूपम् ॥ ९.३६ ॥

This verse is only a detailed version of what has just gone above.

The exact meaning of the term ‘yādṛśam,’ ‘as’, is going to be explained under verse 39 below, where the several kinds of grains are mentioned—‘paddy, vrīhi’ and so forth.

‘Prepared in season’.—‘In season’, i.e., during the rains, at the time of sowing;—‘prepared’—tilled and levelled and got ready.

‘So does it spring forth’—is produced.

‘Own qualities’—of colour, shape, taste, strength and so forth;—‘marked’—characterised.—(36)

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.31].

तथा सति,

अतश् च बीजानां तत्प्राधान्यम् ॥ ९.३६ ॥

036 Whatever (kind on seed is sown in a field, prepared in due season, (a plant) of that same kind, marked with the peculiar qualities of the seed, springs up in it.

“This earth is called the primeval womb of things; and yet, in its development, the seed does not develop any qualities of the womb.”—(37)

बीजगुणानुवृत्तिः पूर्वेणोक्ता । अनेन क्षेत्रगुणानाम् अभावम् आह । एषा भूमिर् भूतानां स्थावराणाम् ओषधीतृणगुल्मलतानां योनिः क्षेत्रम् उच्यते । न च तद्गुणास् तेषु भूतेषु केचन दृश्यन्ते । न मृदः पांसवो वा तत्रोपलभ्यन्ते । बीजं पुष्यति पुष्टिषु । बीजशब्दो ऽत्राङ्कुरनिर्गतव्रीह्यादिवचनो न मूलवचनः, तद् अपि हि पुनर् उपभुक्तशेषम् उप्यमानम् अपरस्मिन् वत्सरे भवत्य् एव बीजम् । तन् न⁹⁰ पुष्यति नानुवर्तते । पुष्ट्यङ्गभूतायाम्⁹¹ अनुवृतौ⁹² पुष्यतिर् वर्तमानः । सकर्मकत्वं द्वितीयानिमित्तम् । योनिगुणान् प्राप्नोति⁹³ वा भजते । पुष्टिषु तदवयवेषु निमित्तं न पुष्यति नानुवर्तते⁹⁴ । यदि पुष्यङ्गानुवृत्तिर् आख्यातेनोच्यते पुष्टिष्व् इत्य् अन्यार्थकम् । तस्माद् अनेकार्थत्वाद् धातूनाम् अन्यवचनमात्र एवाख्यातेनानुव्याख्येयः ।

• श्लोकपूरणार्थं वा पुष्टिष्व् इति । कथंचित् पौनरुक्त्यं परिहार्यम् । सामान्यविशेषभावेन वान्वयो वक्तव्यः । स्वपोषं पुष्ट इति यथा ॥ ९.३७ ॥

The foregoing verse has described the fact that the qualities of the seed are reproduced in the product; the present verse is going to show that the qualities of the soil are not so reproduced.

‘This earth is called the womb’—soil of production—‘of things’—i.e., herb, vegetables, thickets, creepers and other immovable things; and yet none of the qualities of the earth are found in these things, neither clay nor dust bring found in them.

‘The seed does not develop in its development’.—The term ‘seed’ here stands for the corn growing out of the sprouts, and not for the loots. The corn, left over after consumption, when sown, again becomes the seed; and this does not ‘develop’—reproduce;—the reproduction of qualities being a part of the ‘development,’ we have the present tense in ‘develops,’—acquires, obtains—‘the qualities of the womb’—in its constituent parts, if the verb ‘develops’ itself had stood for the reproduction that forms part of the development, then the term ‘in its development’ would be superfluous. Hence, according to the principle that verbal roots have several meanings, the verb ‘develops’ has to be taken as denoting something else. Or, the term ‘in its development’ may be taken as only serving the purpose of filling up the metre; and the superfluity thus explained somehow. Or the two terms, ‘in its development’ and ‘develops’, may be explained as standing respectively for the general and special forms; just as in the expression ‘svapoṣam puṣṭaḥ’, ‘nourished by his own nourishment.’—(87)

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.31].

येन च,

अतश् च तद्धर्माननुवृत्तेर् बीजस्य क्षेत्रम् अप्रधानम् ॥ ९.३७ ॥

037 This earth, indeed, is called the primeval womb of created beings; but the seed develops not in its development any properties of the womb.

“In this world, seeds sown in season by the cultivators even in one and the same plot of land spring-forth in various forms, according to their nature”.—(38)

अनन्तरोक्तो ऽर्थ उदाहरणेन⁹⁵ व्याक्रियते । एककेदारे- अपिर् अत्र⁹⁶ योजनीयः । एकस्मिन्न् अपि क्षेत्रे भूमेः, काले यस्य बीजस्य यो वैकः कालस् तस्मिन्न् उप्तनि कर्षकैर् भिन्नरूपाणि जायन्ते बीजानि स्वभावानुविधानाद् इत्य् अर्थः । यदि च क्षेत्रे प्राधान्यं स्यात् क्षेत्रस्यैकत्वात् सर्वाण्य् एकरूपाणि स्युः ॥ ९.३८ ॥

What has been just said is further explained by means of an example.

‘In one and the same plot’— the particle ‘api’ being construed after ‘kedāre’—i.e., in one and the same field,—‘sown in season’,—i.e., at the time that may be fit for each of the seeds concerned,—‘by the cultivators,’—‘spring forth in various forms’,—each seed being produced in its own peculiar form.

If the soil were the more important factor, all the products would have been of one and the same quality; since the soil is one and the same for all.—(38)

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.31].

यतश् च ।

बीजानुविधानेन भूमिजात्यननुविधानेन च ॥ ९.३८ ॥

038 In this world seeds of different kinds, sown at the proper time in the land, even in one field, come forth (each) according to its kind.

“Vrīhi -corn, rice, mudga-beans, sesamum, māṣa-beans, barley, leeks and sugar-cane are produced in accordance with the seeds.”—(39)

तानि नानारूपत्वेन बीजानि दर्शयति । यथाबिजं बीजस्वभावाभिपत्या । सर्वत्र जात्याख्यायां बहुवचनम् ॥ ९.३९ ॥

The “various forms” in which the seeds grow are here described. ‘In accordance with the seeds”,—i.e., according to the character of the seed.

The plural number throughout is denotative of the species.—(39)

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.31].

तथा च दर्शयति ।

एवं च सति प्रत्यक्षतः ।

039 The rice (called) vrihi and (that called) sali, mudga-beans, sesamum, masha-beans, barley, leeks, and sugar-cane, (all) spring up according to their seed.

“It is not possible that what is sown is of one kind and what is produced is of a different kind; the seed that is produced is the same that is sown.”—(40)

एष एवार्थः शब्दान्तरेण निगम्यते ।⁹⁷ मुद्गेषूप्तेषु व्रीहयो जायन्त इत्य् एतन् नास्ति । प्रतिषेधमुखेनोक्तस्य विधिमुखेन पुनः प्रतिपादनम् उच्यते- यद् धि यद् बीजम् ॥ ९.४० ॥

The same fact is set forth in other words.

If Mudga-beans are sown, what is produced can never be Vrīhi.

What is stated in the first half in the negative form is re-affirmed, in the second half, in the affirmative form.—(40)

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.31].

एतावद्बीजप्राधान्यपक्षः । अधुना [क्षेत्रप्राधान्यपक्षः प्रदर्श्य]ते ॥ ९.४० ॥

040 That one (plant) should be sown and another be produced cannot happen; whatever seed is sown, (a plant of) that kind even comes forth.

[The established conclusion]—for this reason he who is intelligent, well-trained, and conversant with the sciences and the arts, should never, if he desires longevity, sow in another’s wife.—(41)

एवं पूर्वपक्षे सिद्धान्तम् आह । क्षेत्रप्राधान्यम् अनेनोच्यते ।

• ननु च नात्र क्षेत्रप्राधान्याभिधायकं किंचित् पदम् अस्ति, केवलं परक्षेत्रोपगमननिषेधः श्रूयते- वप्तव्यं न जातु परयोषितीति । परदारेषु बीजनिषेको न कर्तव्य इत्य् अस्यार्थः । न पुनर् यस्य क्षेत्रं तस्यापत्यम् इत्य् अनेनोक्तं भवति ।

• सत्यम् । “तथा नश्यति वै क्षिप्तं बीजं परपरिग्रहे” (म्ध् ९.४३) इत्य् अनेनैकवाक्यत्वात्, दृष्टापत्यापहारलक्षणदोषनिमित्तो ऽयं प्रतिषेधः, नादृष्टार्थ उपगमनप्रतिषेधः । स हि चतुर्थे विहत एव- “न हीदृशम् अनायुष्यम्” (म्ध् ४.१३४) इत्यादिना । तस्माद् अन्यशेषतया प्रतिषेधश्रुतेर् अनन्तरेणैकवाक्यत्वाद् असति स्वातन्त्र्ये युक्ता क्षेत्रप्राधान्यप्रतिपादनपरता ।

• प्राज्ञेन सहजया प्रज्ञया । विनीतेन पित्रादिभिर् अनुशिष्टेन । ज्ञानविज्ञानवेदिना करणसाधनौ ज्ञानविज्ञानशब्दौ । ज्ञानं वेदाङ्गशास्त्राणि । विज्ञानं तर्ककलादिविषयम् । एतद् उक्तं भवति । यस्य काचिद् बुद्धिर् विद्यते तेनैवं न कर्तव्यं यतः सर्वशास्त्रेष्व् एषा स्थितिः । यस् तु मूर्खस् तिर्यक्प्रख्यः सो ऽत्र नाधिकृत एवेत्य् अनुवादो ऽयम् । आयुष्कामेनेति चातुर्थिकस्य प्रतिषेधस्य प्रत्यभिज्ञानार्थम् एतत् । ततश् च पृथक् प्रतिषेधशङ्का निरस्ता भवति ॥ ९.४१ ॥

The prima facie argument having been put forward, the present verse sets forth the established doctrine; and what the text means is that the soil is the predominant factor.

Objection—“In the text there is no word signifying the predominance of the soil; all that is declared is the prohibition of having recourse to other’s wives—‘shall not sow in another’s wife’; which means that one should not let his semen enter another man’s wife; and it does not mean that the child belongs to the person to whom the soil belongs.”

True; but when we take the present text along with what follows (under 43) regarding ‘the seed sown in what belongs to another’ being ‘lost’,—it becomes clear that the prohibition of intercourse contained in the present verse is based upon the consideration that the child born would be taken away by another, and it is not with a view to any spiritual result The prohibition based upon spiritual considerations has in fact already gone before (4.134); where it has been said that ‘there is nothing so conducive to the shortening of life etc.’ Thus the conclusion is that, (inasmuch as the present prohibitive text is supplementary to another text (43), with which it has to be construed, we are not free to interpret it as we choose; so that the only right course is to take it as declaring the predominance of the soil.

‘Intelligent,’—possessed of inborn intelligence.

‘Well-trained’— thoroughly educated by his father and others.

‘Conversant with the sciences and the arts’.—The terms ‘jñāna’ and ‘vijñāna’ connote instrumentality (meaning jñāyate anena iti jñānam’, and ‘vijñāyate anena iti vijñānam’). So that the term ‘jñāna’, ‘science’, stands for the sciences subsidiary to the Veda, and ‘vijñāna’, ‘arts’, for the art of reasoning and the fine arts.

The sense of the verse is that the man who is possessed of any intelligence should never do such an act; since such is the law laid down in all scriptures. As regards the ignoramus, who is as good as an animal, the present, teaching is not meant for him at all. Hence what is stated here is purely reiterative.

‘If he desires longevity’.—This has been added with a view to indicate that the present prohibition is the same as that contained under Discourse IV; and this sets aside the idea as to its being a distinct prohibition.—(41)

‘Vijñānam’—‘Treatises on logic, arts, and so forth’ (Medhātithi);—‘subsidiary sciences’ (Kullūka).

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.31].

क्षेत्रप्राधान्यात्, मा भूत् परक्षेत्रे बीजापहारः । [अनादिपरंपरासिद्धं च यतः परक्षेत्रजातं न] बीजिनो ऽपत्यम् ॥ ९.४१ ॥

एवं च ।

041 Never therefore must a prudent well-trained man, who knows the Veda and its Angas and desires long life, cohabit with another’s wife.

On this point, persons conversant with ancient lore recite some ‘Gāthās’ sung by Vāyu, to the effect that man should not sow his seed in what belongs to another.—(42)

गाथाशब्दो वृत्तविशेषवचनः । यथोक्तं पिङ्गलेन- “अत्रासिद्धं गाथा” इति (पिङ्स् ८.१) । अविगीताः परंपरागताः श्लोका अप्य् उच्यन्ते- “तद् एषाभि⁹⁸ यज्ञगाथा⁹⁹ गीयते” इत्य् उक्त्वा गाथाः¹⁰⁰ श्लोका उत्तरत्र वेदे पठ्यन्ते- “यद् अस्य पूर्वम् अपरं तद् अस्य” (ऐत्ब् १४.५) इति । वायुना गीताः पठिता वायुप्रोक्ताः । पुराविदः पुराणकल्पान्तरवेदिनः । परपरिग्रहे परक्षेत्रे ॥ ९.४२ ॥

The term ‘gāthā’ is the name of a particular metre; as has been declared by Piṅgala—‘Atrāsiddhaṅgātheti it is also used in the sense of verses handed down by a long-continued tradition. For instance, in the Veda, we find that, having made the declaration—‘This is the gāthā of the learned that is going to be recited’, it goes on to quote the verses ‘Yadasya pūrvamaparanta-dasya &c.’

‘Sung by Vāyu’—recited, declared by him.

‘Conversant with ancient lore;’—those who know all about what happened in the past cycles.

‘In what belongs to another’—In another man’s field.—(42)

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.31].

042 With respect to this (matter), those acquainted with the past recite some stanzas, sung by Vayu (the Wind, to show) that seed must not be sown by (any) man on that which belongs to another.

‘As the arrow shot by an after-shooter hitting a wounded animal in a hole (already made) is wasted, so does the seed become wasted when sown in what belongs to another.’—(43)

ता इदानीं गाथा दर्शयति । इषुः शरः । स नश्यति खे छिद्रे अन्येनेष्वासेन विद्धं मृगम् अनुविध्यतः पूर्वस्य वेधकस्यात्र स्वाम्यम् ।

• अथ वाकाशे खे शरः क्षिप्तो लक्ष्यम् अन्तरेण नश्यति निष्फलो भवति, विद्धं चानुविध्यतः । एवं परस्त्रियां¹⁰¹ तेजो निःक्षिप्तं तस्य बीजिनः । क्षेत्रस्वामिनो ऽपत्यं भवति ॥ ९.४३ ॥

The author quotes the said ‘gāthā’.

‘Iṣu’ is arrow,—‘becomes wasted’.

‘In a hole’—at a wound.

The man who shoots a deer after it has been wounded by another archer.

In this case the kill belongs to the man who wounded it first.

Or, the meaning may be that ‘the arrow shot in the air—i.e. away from the mark—‘becomes wasted’—abortive,—as also when one shoots an animal already wounded.’

In the same manner, the seed sown by a man in another’s wife, becomes wasted. That is, the child born belongs to the owner of the ‘field’.—(43)

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.31].

परिग्रहे सत्य् अन्यस्य । पश्चाद् अस्वामित्वात् फलाभावं दर्शयति ॥ ९.४३ ॥

043 As the arrow, shot by (a hunter) who afterwards hits a wounded (deer) in the wound (made by another), is shot in vain, even so the seed, sown on what belongs to another, is quickly lost (to the sower).

People learned in ancient lore have regarded this Pṛthvī (earth) to be the wife of Pṛthu; they declare the field to belong to him who has cleared off the stalks, and the deer to him who struck the dart.—(44)

ईदृशो ऽयं पुराणकृतो जायापतिलक्षणसंबन्धो यद् भिन्नाव् अपि ताव् एकीकृताव् इव दर्शयति । तथा हि अनेकवर्षसहस्रातितपृथुसंबन्धा मही तेनैव व्यपदिश्यते पृथिवीति । तस्माद् अन्यापि स्त्री यस्य भार्या तस्य पुत्रो ऽन्येनापि जातः ।

• स्थाणुच्छेदस्य केदारं स्वम् आहुः संबन्धान्तरस्याभावात् । स्वस्वामिसंबन्धं षष्ठी प्रतिपादयति । स्थाणुर् गुच्छगुल्मलतादिप्ररूढो यत्र भवति तच् छिनत्ति यः स स्थाणुच्छेदः । तस्य तत् क्षेत्रं येन प्ररूढगुल्मलतावीरुधः छित्त्वा भूमिः क्षेत्रीकृता । तत्र कर्षणवपनजातं फलं तस्यैव ।

• शल्यवतो मृगम् आहुर् इत्य् अनुषज्यते । बहूनां मृगम् अनुधावताम् आखेटकार्यं यस्यैव संबन्धि शरशल्यं मृगे दृश्यते तस्य तम् आहुः । यत्¹⁰² प्रथमवेद्धुश् च स भवतीत्य् उक्तम् “नश्यतीषुः” (म्ध् ९.४३) इत्य् अत्र ॥ ९.४४ ॥

The relation of husband and wife established by ancient tradition is such that two totally distinct entities are spoken of as one. For instance, though the Earth (Pṛthivī) was associated with King Pṛthu thousands of years ago, yet she is even now named after him ‘Pṛthivī’.

In view of this, even though a son may be born of another man, he must belong to him whose wife the mother is.

‘They declare the field to belong to him who cleared off the stalks;’—there being no other relationship spoken of, the Genetive ending (in ‘sthāṇūcchedasya’) must signify the relation of possessor and possessed.

‘Stalks’— stands here for groves, thickets, creepers and other growths on the land;—he who clears off these is ‘he who clears off the stalks.’ The land belongs to him by whom the over-growths have been cleared and the land levelled and made into arable land. The fruits of filling and sowing this land also belong to that same man.

‘The deer to belong to him who struck the dart.’— ‘They declare’ has to be construed with this also. Where several persons are hunting and following a deer, they declare the animal to belong to him the dart of whose arrow is found in its body. So that it belongs to the man who wounded it first, and tills is what has been said above regarding ‘the arrow of the shooter being wasted.’—(44)

Hopkins says—“The kings subsequent to Pṛthu, according to Medhātithi, have no legitimate claim to possession.”—But there is nothing in Medhātithi to this effect.

(verses 9.31-44)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.31].

अतश् च पूर्वपरिगृहीतुः क्षेत्रिणः क्षेत्रम् । यस्य तत् क्षेत्रं तस्य च क्षेत्रफलं विज्ञेयम्, न बीजिनः । तथा चागमः ॥ ९.४४ ॥

044 (Sages) who know the past call this earth (prithivi) even the wife of Prithu; they declare a field to belong to him who cleared away the timber, and a deer to him who (first) wounded it.

The man is a man only in so far as he consists of himself, his wife and his progeny. thus it is that the Brāhmaṇas have declared that ‘the husband is declared to be the same as the wife.’—(45)

युक्तं च यस्य भार्या तस्यापत्यं यस्माद् भार्याया भर्तुश् चैकत्वम् एव, प्रजाप्य् आत्मभूतैव । कथं वान्यस्यात्मा सो ऽन्यस्य भवेत् । एवं तावद् दृष्टम् एतल्लोके । शस्त्रज्ञा अप्य् एवम् एव विप्राः प्राहुर् इति ॥ ९.४५ ॥

It is only right that the child belongs to the man whose wife the mother is; because the husband and wife are one; and the child also is the man himself; how then can the self of one man belong to another?

Such is the usage of the world, and the learned Brāhmaṇas also have made the same assertion.—(45)

Āpastamba (2.14.16).—‘There is no division between husband and wife;—for from the time of marriage, they are united in religious ceremonies;—likewise also as regards the rewards for acts by which spiritual merit is acquired;—and with respect to the acquisition of property.’

यतश् चैतद् एवम् ।

045 He only is a perfect man who consists (of three persons united), his wife, himself, and his offspring; thus (says the Veda), and (learned) Brahmanas propound this (maxim) likewise, ‘The husband is declared to be one with the wife.’

Either by sale or by repudiation the wife is not released from her husband; such is the law that we know, as originally propounded by prajapati.—(46)

• एतन् न । यतो न शक्या भार्यात्वेन निष्कसहस्रैर् अप्य् अन्यदीयाः स्वत्वम् आनेतुम् । नापि भर्त्रा त्यक्ता प्रहीणद्रव्यतया प्रतिग्रहीतुः स्वत्वम् आपद्यते । यत “उद्वहेत” (म्ध् ३.४) इति कर्त्रभिप्रायक्रियाफलविषयाद् आत्मनेपदाल् लिङ्गान् नान्येन¹⁰³ संस्कृतान्यस्य भार्या भवति । यथा नाहवनीयादय आधातुर् अन्यस्य क्रियादिनाहवनीयादिव्यपदेश्याः । निष्क्रयो विक्रयो विनिमयश् च । विसर्गस् त्यागः । ताभ्यां न मुच्यते, न भार्यात्वम् अस्या अपैति ॥ ९.४६ ॥

Some one may have the following notion:—“Other men’s wives may be made one’s own by paying money to the husband, and the difficulty regarding ownership being thus removed, the son horn of her would belong to the begetter.”

This is declared to be not possible. Wives of other men cannot be made one s own even by the paying of a thousand gold-coins.

Nor, when she is abandoned by her husband on account of poverty, can the wife belong to the man who receives her.

The reason for this lies in the fact that verse 3.4, which contains the injunction of marriage, uses the verb ‘udvaheta’ (‘shall take’), in the Ātmanepada form, which clearly indicates that the woman who has been ‘taken’ through the sacramental rites by one man cannot he the ‘wife’ of any other man; just as the ‘āhavanīya’ (sacrificial Fire) cannot he regarded as being so for any other person save the one who has kindled it with the prescribed rites.

‘Sale’ stands for purchase as well as exchange; and ‘Repudiation’ for abandoning. By neither of them is the wife ‘released’— lose the character of ‘wife.’—(46)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 149), which explains ‘niṣkraya’ as selling and ‘visarga’ as renouncing, divorcing.

एतद् दर्शयत्य् अनेन न परस्त्री केनचित् क्रयेण प्रतिग्रहेण वात्मीया धर्मतः शक्या कर्तुम् । यतो ऽस्य बीजनाशः परस्यावश्यंभावी क्षेत्रप्राधान्यात् । तथा च लोके ॥ ९.४६ ॥

046 Neither by sale nor by repudiation is a wife released from her husband; such we know the law to be, which the Lord of creatures (Pragapati) made of old.

Once does the share fall to a man; once is a maiden given away; once does one say ‘I give’; each of these three comes only once.—(47)

अयम् अनुशयविधाव् अष्टमे (म्ध् ८.२२७) व्याख्यातः । विभागकाले हि समविषमांशभाग्भिः समविषमांशभागेषु¹⁰⁴ परिकल्प्य¹⁰⁵ विभागः कर्तव्यः । तत्र कृते यो विप्रतिपद्येत तस्य प्रतिषेधार्थम् इदम् । तत्रापि यद्य् अयम् आदाव् अयथार्थतां¹⁰⁶ कस्यचिद् अंशस्य प्रज्ञापयेत् तदा स्याद् एव¹⁰⁷ पुनर् विभागः । अथ बहुना कालेनायथाकृततां ब्रूयाद् यावद् इतरैः¹⁰⁸ स्वेषु स्वेषु भागेष्व्¹⁰⁹ अन्यनिवेशशीर्णप्रतिसंस्कारादि कृतं भवेत्, वस्त्रहिरण्यादि चोपयुक्तं स्यात्, तदा समतामात्रकरणे प्रभवति, न पुनः सर्वं समवायविभागम्¹¹⁰ ।

• अन्ये तु क्लीबादीनाम् अनर्हितविभागकानां पश्चाद् अभागहरत्वनिमित्तक्लीबत्वादिपरिज्ञानान् नास्ति भागोपहार इति सकृन् निपातप्रयोजनं वदन्ति ।

• एवं द्वित्रिचतुर्भागहराणां यदृच्छया ये समतां प्रकल्पयेयुः पश्चाद् अनुशयानाः¹¹¹ प्राक्तनं व्यवस्थानम् अतिक्रम्यापहर्तुं न¹¹² लभेरन् । पतितस्य तु लब्धभागस्याप्य् अपहारं वक्ष्यामि ।

• सकृत् कन्या प्रदीयते । यद्य् अपि चानेन वाग्दानोत्तरकालं प्राग् अपि विवाहाद् भर्तुः स्वतोच्यते, तथापि “दत्ताम् अपि हरेत् कन्याम्” (य्ध् १.६५), “तेषां तु निष्ठा विज्ञेया विद्वद्भिः सप्तमे पदे” (म्ध् ८.२२७) इत्यादिपर्यालोचनया विशिष्टविषयतैव । सा च व्याख्याता । सकृद् आह ददामीति । गवादयो हि येनैव रूपेणात्मनः स्वं तेनैवान्यस्मा आपद्यन्ते । कन्या तु दुहितृत्वेन स्वं सती भार्यात्वेनानिवृत्तस्वसंबन्धा दीयत इति पृथग् उपन्यासः ।

• ननु चानिवर्तमाने पितुः स्वसंबन्धे¹¹³ कथं कन्यादानं निर्वर्तते¹¹⁴ । एतद् धि दानस्य रूपं यद् एकस्य संबन्धो निवर्तते ऽन्यस्योपजायत इति ।

• नैष दोषः । द्वाव् अत्र संबन्धौ- अपत्यापत्यवद्भावः स्वस्वामिसंबन्धश् च । तत्रापत्यापत्यवद्भावो न निवर्तते, इतरस् तु निवर्तते । तथा च “बाल्ये पुतुर् वशे तिष्ठेत्” (म्ध् ५.१४६) इति पितुश् चात्र स्वाम्यनिवृत्तिम् आह “पाणिग्राहस्य” (म्ध् ५.१४६) इति भर्तुस् तद् उत्पत्तिम् ॥ ९.४७ ॥

This has been explained by us under the [section on ‘Rescision’ (8.227)].

At the time of partition, if the co-partners are such as are entitled to equal as well as unequal shares, they should divide the property in such equal and unequal shares. This partition having been once made, some one of the co-partners may subsequently raise objections to it. It is such subsequent objection that the ‘present verse is meant to preclude. If, however, at the very outset, the party were to indicate the inadequacy of his share, then, the partition should have to be revised. If, on the other hand, the objecter should declare the inequity of the partition after the lapse of a long time, all that he can claim is the equalisation of his own share, and not a rescission of the whole partition; since during the time that has elapsed each co-partner will have made additions to his share, or carried out repairs to what may have been in a dilapidated condition, or used up the clothes and gold and other things [so that a re-partition of the entire inheritance would not be possible].

Others, however, explain the declaration regarding ‘the share falling only once’ to mean that—‘if after the partition, it be discovered subsequently that there are some among the co-partners who are affected by impotence or some such physical defect as disqualifies him from receiving a share in the property,—there shall be no resumption of these shares by the others.’

Similarly, if there be some co-partners who are really entitled to two, three or four shares, but somehow at the time of partition, all of them receive equal shares, then, if, after sometime, they were to complain, they should not be permitted to annul the former partition.

In the case of the outcast, however, there is resumption of his share, as we shall explain later on.

‘The maiden is given away only once.’—Though this would imply that the husband acquires ownership over the girl immediately after verbal betrothal,—even before the marriage has been performed,—yet what is really meant is that particular time which is indicated by such declarations as ‘One might take away a girl even though she may have been betrothed’ (Yājñavalkya, 1.65) and ‘The marriage is to be regarded as accomplished at the seventh step’ (Manu, 8.227). This we have already explained above.

“Once does one say ‘I give’”—Cows and other things are given away to others in the same form of ownership that, the giver himself has over them; but the maiden belongs to the father as ‘daughter,’ while she is given away to the other party as his ‘wife’; so that the father’s relationship to her does not cease. It is for this reason that she has been mentioned separately (in the sentence ‘the maiden is given away only once’).

Objection.—“If the father’s ownership and relationship does not cease, how can the ‘giving away of the maiden’ be said to be accomplished? It is in the very nature of the act of giving that the ownership of one ceases and that of another is brought about.”

There is no force in this objection. In the case in question there are two relationships,—that of parent and child, and that of owner and owned, and while the former remains intact, the latter does cease. This is what is meant when verse 5.188 declares that ‘During childhood the girl should remain under her father,’ and ‘under her husband during youth,’ which indicates the cessation of the father’s ownership and the coming into existence of that of the husband.—(27)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 490), which adds that this rule regarding the betrothal of a girl pertains to cases where the bridegroom to whom the girl has been betrothed has no disqualifying defects;—in

Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 388), which adds that the irrevocability of a partition here spoken of is meant for those cases where all doubts regarding its fairness can be set at rest by reasonable arguments;—in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 145), and again on p. 182, where it is added that this irrevocability of partitions is meant for cases where the partition has been made by the objector himself;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 218), which explains the first clause to mean that ‘a man obtains his share in a property only once,’ and adds that what is said in regard to the ‘girl’ applies only to those cases where there is no defect in the bridegroom (to whom the girl has been betrothed).

Viṣṇu (5.160).—‘He who, having promised his daughter to one suitor, gives her in marriage to another, shall he punished as a thief;—unless the first suitor have a blemish.’

Yājñavalkya (1.65).—‘A maiden is given away hut once; having given her away, if one takes her hack, he becomes liable to punishment; hut even after giving her away, one may take her hack, if a better suitor should arrive.’

Gautama (Aparārka, p. 94),—‘Even though he may have promised the girl to a suitor, one may not give her to him if he happen to he beset with vice.’

Nārada (12.28).—(Same as Manu.)

Do. (12.32).—‘When a man, after having made a solemn promise of marrying his daughter to a certain suitor, does not deliver her afterwards, he shall be punished by the King like a thief, in case the suitor be free from defects.’

Do. (Aparārka, p. 94).—‘If even after betrothal, some defect is found in either the bride or the bridegroom, the betrothal may be cancelled; there is no finality in mere betrothal.’

Kātyāyana (Do.)—‘If, after betrothal, the bridegroom becomes lost, the girl shall wait for three months and then select another man. If a girl has been betrothed to one and married to another, she shall be given away, even after the performance of the ceremonies, to the person to whom she had been previously promised.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Do.).—‘If the bridegroom happen to die after the girl has been given away with water and verbally,—hut has not gone through the ceremonies with mantras,—she remains an unmarried maiden with her father.’

कन्यातो अन्यद् अपि देयद्रव्यं दाता प्रतिग्रहीत्रे । एवं च सति त्रीण्य् एतानि सतां सकृत् । अतश् च स पुनर्दानासंभवस् तस्याः । तथा च न बीजप्राधान्यं परपरिग्रीतायाम् । कथम् ॥ ९.४७ ॥

047 Once is the partition (of the inheritance) made, (once is) a maiden given in marriage, (and) once does (a man) say,’ I will give;’ each of those three (acts is done) once only.

As with cows, mares, she-camels, slave-girls, buffaloes, she-goats and ewes, it is not the begetter who obtains the offspring,—even thus it is with the wives of others—(48)

(अग्रे व्याख्यानम्।)

[There is no Bhāṣya on this verse. The same idea occurs again in 55 below].

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 578);—and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 574).

**(verses 9.48-56)
**

[(See the texts under 31-44.)]

Parāśara (1.16).—(Same as Manu.)

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p. 580).—‘If the seed is sown by a stranger in a soil without the knowledge of the owner of the soil, it belongs to the owner of the soil.’

Nārada (Do., p. 581).—‘There can be no crops without the soil, nor is there any crop without the seed; hence the child is held to belong to both the father and the mother.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do. p. 557).—‘The child belongs to the person who married the girl with mantras,—says Aṅgiras: but Uśanas says that when the seed has been sown with the consent of both the owner of the soil and the owner of the seed, the product belongs to both.’

Hārita (Do.).—‘No soil is productive without the seed, nor does the seed grow without the soil, hence the child belongs to both—say some people.’

एवम्,

048 As with cows, mares, female camels, slave-girls, buffalo-cows, she-goats, and ewes, it is not the begetter (or his owner) who obtains the offspring, even thus (it is) with the wives of others.

If persons, possessing no fields, but having seeds, sow these in fields belonging to others,—they never obtain the grain of the crop that is produced.—(49)

प्रसिद्धम् एवैतत् । अक्षेत्रिणो बीजवन्तो व्रीह्यादिबीजस्वामिनः सस्यस्य मुद्गमाषादेर् जातस्य न लभन्ते फलं परक्षेत्रे चेद् उत्पत्तिः ॥ ९.४८–४९ ॥

It is a well-known fact that persons possessing no fields, but having seed-corn, do not obtain any portion of the crop of mudga, māṣa and in other grains that spring from fields belonging to other persons.—(49)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 579).

**(verses 9.48-56)
**

[(See the texts under 31-44.)]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.48].

049 Those who, having no property in a field, but possessing seed-corn, sow it in another’s soil, do indeed not receive the grain of the crop which may spring up.

If a bull were to beget a hundred calves on others’ cows, those calves would belong to the owners of the cows, and the bull’s emissions would be in vain.—(50)

पूर्वेण स्थावरेषु धर्मः प्रसिद्धवद् उदितो ज्ञापितो वा । अनेन तिर्यक्षु परिगृहीतेषु गवादिषु निदर्श्यते । अन्यदीयो वृषभो यद्य् अप्य् अन्यगवीषु वत्सान् बहून् अपि जनयेन् न वृषभस्वाम्य् एकम् अपि वत्सं¹¹⁵ लभेत, सर्व एव ते वत्सा गोमिनां गोस्वामिनाम् । आर्षभम् ऋषभसंबन्धि स्कन्दितं बीजनिषेको मोघं वृथा निष्फलम्¹¹⁶ ॥ ९.५० ॥

The foregoing verse has indicated and explained the state of things as pertaining to immoveable property; and the present verse points it out in reference to cows and other animate belongings of men.

When one man’s bull begets a number of calves on cows belonging to other men, the owner of the bull does not obtain a single one of those calves; all of these calves belong to the ‘owners o f the cows’—the persons to whom the cows belong.

‘Of the bull’—i,e., related to the bull—‘Emission’ sowing of seed;—‘in vain’;—futile, useless.—(50)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 579).

**(verses 9.48-56)
**

[(See the texts under 31-44.)]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.48].

050 If (one man’s) bull were to beget a hundred calves on another man’s cows, they would belong to the owner of the cows; in vain would the bull have spent his strength.

Similarly persons who have no ‘soil’ of their own—if they sow in the ‘soil’ belonging to another man, they confer benefit upon the owner of the ‘soil,’ and the owner of the seed reaps no fruit.—(51).

पूर्वस्य निदेशो ऽयम् । यथा गवादिषु स्थावरेषु चैवं मनुष्येष्व् अपि कुर्वन्ति । क्षेत्रस्वामिनाम् अर्थं प्रयोजनं बीजकार्यं संपादयन्ति ॥ ९.५१ ॥

This is a continuation of what has gone before.

Just as in the case of the cows, and also in that of immoveable property, so among human beings also, the sowers of the seed ‘confer the benefit upon’—accomplish the purposes of—the owner of the soil.—(51)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 579);—and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 521).

**(verses 9.48-56)
**

[(See the texts under 31-44.)]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.48].

प्रकृतस्यार्थस्य सर्व एते दृष्टान्तश्लोकाः प्ररूपणाय । एवं योनिबलीयस्त्वात् परक्षेत्रजाता न बीजिनो भवन्तीति ॥ ९.४९–५१ ॥

051 Thus men who have no marital property in women, but sow their seed in the soil of others, benefit the owner of the woman; but the giver of the seed reaps no advantage.

If between the owner of the soil and the owner of the seed, there has been no compact regarding the produce, then the chops belong clearly to the owner of the soil;—the receptacle being more important than the seed.—(52)

अविशेषेणोक्तं क्षेत्रिणां फलं न बीजिनः । तस्यावशिष्टविषयत्वम् आह- अनभिसंधायेति । अभिसंधानं बीजक्षेत्रिणोर् इतरेतरसंविद्व्यवस्थापनम्, नष्टाश्वदग्धरथवत् । “उभयोर् आवयोः फलम् अस्तु” इति यत्र वचनव्यवस्था न भवति तत्र क्षेत्रिण एव प्रत्यक्षो ऽर्थो निश्चितं फलम् । प्रत्यक्षशब्देन निःसंदिग्धताम् आह । यतो बीजाद् योनिर् बलीयसी । क्षेत्रम् अधिकबलम् ॥ ९.५२ ॥

सत्यां तु संविदि ।

It has been stated in a general way that the produce belongs to the owner of the soil, not to that of the seed; a further detail in regard to this is now added.

‘When no compact has been made’—i.e., no agreement between the owner of- the soil and the seed, as to the produce belonging to both, in accordance with the maxim relating to two men, one of whom had lost his horse and another had burnt his chariot, (where the fruit, in the shape of being carried, accrued, by agreement, to both),—‘the crop’—i.e., the produce—‘belongs clearly to the owner of the soil’— The term ‘clearly’ indicates that there is no doubt on this point.

‘Because the receptacle is more important than the seed’—i.e., more importance attaches to the soil,—(52) In a case however, where there is a compact, (what happens is as follows.)—

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 579), which explains the meaning to be:—‘In a case where the owner of the field and the sower of the seed are not parties to an agreement, the benefit accrues to the former and not to the latter.’

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 3?0), which adds the following explanation:—In a case where the ‘field-owner’ and the ‘seed-owner’ have entered into an agreement that ‘the child born would belong to both of us,’ the child that is bora of the connection between the former’s wife and the latter shall belong to both; but where there has been no such agreement, and yet the latter ‘sows his seed’ in the former’s ‘field,’ and a child is bora, it will belong to the ‘field-owner,’ and not to the ‘seed-owner;’ because the ‘receptacle’ is more potent than the ‘seed,’ as is found in the case of the cow, the sheep and other animals.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 656), which adds that ‘phalānabhisandhāna’ means the ‘absence of any such agreement as that the child horn of this connection shall belong to both of us;’so that the son thus born would be ‘kṣetraja’ and not ‘dvyāmuṣyāyaṇa.’

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.127), which adds a note the exact wording of which has been reproduced in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 350) [see above]. Bālambhaṭṭī has the following explanation of the verbal construction:—‘Kṣeṭriṇām bījinām,’ ‘from among field-owners and seed-owners,’ if either party has not agreed to the understanding regarding the lending of the ‘field,’ then the child born belongs to the ‘field-owner;’ and the reason for this lies in the fact that ‘the receptacle is more potent than the seed’;—and the reason for this is declared to be ‘pratyakṣam,’ ‘ordinary perception’, i. e., such is actually found to be the case in ordinary experience;—the ‘phalam’ spoken of in the text stands for the agreement regarding the child;—it goes on to add that according to Medhātithi this verse serves to point out the special circumstance under which the ‘benefit does not accrue to the seed-sower,’ which has been stated in general terms in the preceding verse.

It is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 653);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 185b), which adds the following explanation—‘In a case where there has been no agreement regarding the phala, i.e., the expected offspring,—the child belongs to the woman’s husband, just as we find in the case where, without the knowledge or consent of the owner of the field, if some one sows his own seeds in that field, the outturn of the field belongs to the owner of the field, and not to that of the seeds.

**(verses 9.48-56)
**

[(See the texts under 31-44.)]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.48].

एवं च सति फलं त्व् अनभिसंधायेति वचनात् ।

052 If no agreement with respect to the crop has been made between the owner of the field and the owner of the seed, the benefit clearly belongs to the owner of the field; the receptacle is more important than the seed.

If however the seed is given for the purpose of sowing, after the acceptance of a compact,—in that case both, the owner of the soil and the owner of the seed, are considered to be sharers of the produce.—(r>3)

अनभिसंधाय क्षेत्रिणः फलम् उक्तम् । अभिसंधाने किं बीजिन उतोभयोर् इति संशयः । उभयोर् इत्य् आह । क्रियाया अभ्युपगमो ऽङ्गीकरणम् एवम् एवैतद् इति संविल्लक्षणः यो निश्चयः सा क्रियाभिप्रेता ताम् अभ्युपगमय्य बीजार्थं बीजकार्यफलनिष्पत्त्यर्थं यत् प्रदीयते, सामर्थ्याद् बीजम् इति गम्यते । तस्येह द्वाव् अपि भागिनौ ॥ ९.५३ ॥

It has been said in the preceding verse that in the absence of a compact, the produce belongs to the owner of the soil. The question that arises next is—In case there is a compact, does the crop belong to the owner of the seed or to both? It. is in answer to this that the present verse declares that it belongs to both.

^(‘)Acceptance of the compact.’—The term^(‘)Kriyā’ stands for the compact, the agreement, that^(‘)this shall be so and so’;—when such compact has been ‘accepted,’—‘it’—i.e., the ‘seed,’ as is clear from the context—is^(‘)given’—‘for the purpose of sowing’—i.e., for the purpose of the raising of the crop,—then of this crop both are sharers.—(53)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣara (2.127) which adds the following explanation:—In a case where the ‘field’ is lent to the seed-owner for sowing, on the mutual understanding that the child born would belong to both parties, both of them will be owners of the child, as has been (dṛṣṭa) held by the great sages.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 656), which adds that the term ‘kriyā’ here stands for the agreement that ‘the child born would belong’ to both of us;’ and adds that it is only sons born under these conditions that can be called ‘Dvyāmuṣyāyaṇa.’

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 350), which adds the following explanation:—‘In a case where the owner of the field lends his field to the owner of the seed, after entering into an agreement with him to the effect that the child born shall belong to both,—the child is held to belong to both the parties.’

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 557), which adds that this rule applies also to the case where the ‘seed-owner’ concerned may already have sons of his own;—in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p..653);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra 38a);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 185b), which adds the following explanation:—A man has agricultural land, and another has, the seed-grains,—the two enter into an agreement ‘let us, combine our resources and cultivate the land conjointly and the out turn shall belong to both of us,’—in this case the crop belongs to both; similarly when the husband of the wife enters into an agreement with another man that ‘you beget a child on my wife and the child shall belong to both of us,’ the child that is born belongs to both, and having two fathers, he is called ‘Dvyāṃvṣyāyaṇa.’

**(verses 9.48-56)
**

[(See the texts under 31-44.)]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.48].

एवं च संविदा बीजी फलं लभते, नान्यथा । अयं च संविदा करणेन तृतीयः पक्षो विज्ञेयः । यत्र त्व् एवम् उभयोः संविन् नास्ति तत्र ॥ ९.५३ ॥

053 But if by a special contract (a field) is made over (to another) for sowing, then the owner of the seed and the owner of the soil are both considered in this world as sharers of the (crop).

If seed, carried away by rain or wind, germinates in a soil,—that seed belongs to the owner of the soil, and the owner of the seed does not receive the produce.—(54)

परक्षेत्रे वप्तुर् बीजनाश उक्तः । तत्र मन्येत- “पुरुषापराधात् तस्य युक्तोपहारो नूनम् असौ क्षेत्रं जिहीर्षति । नो चेत् किम् इति परक्षेत्रे वपतीति । येन तु स्वक्षेत्रे व्युप्तम् ओघवाताभ्याम् अन्यत्रानीतं तस्य को ऽपराधो यदि स्वं द्रव्यं हारयति” । तदर्थम् आह । ओघवाताहृतं बीजम् । ओघो जलनिषेकः, तेन वायुना चाहृतं नीतं यस्य क्षेत्रे प्ररोहति तस्यैव तद् भवति । एतेनैव सिद्धे विस्पष्टार्थं न बीजी लभते फलम् इति । सर्वत्र क्षेत्रप्राधान्यम् इत्य् अर्थः¹¹⁷ ॥ ८.५४ ॥

It has been declared ([under 43]) that when a man sows his seed in another man’s soil, his seed is lost. And on the basis people may have the following idea—“In the case cited, it is only right that the produce shall be confiscated, since a wrong act has been committed by the man, in that he has tried to obtain surreptitious possession of the land,—otherwise, why should he go about sowing his seed in another’s field? But in a case where the owner of the seed has sown it in his own field, but it has been carried into another field by water or wind, there is no wrong done by the man; in fact he loses his own seed by this transference.”

It is with a view to combat such a notion that we have the present verse declaring that when ‘seed, carried away by rain or wind’—‘ogha’ stands for rain,—‘germinates in another man’s field’,—then, the produce belongs to the owner of the soil.

Thus is the special law established that ‘the owner of the seed does receive the produce’; i.e., ownership of the soil is the more important factor.—(54)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 150);—in Vivādaratnākara (p. 579), which explains ‘ogha’ as ‘current of water’ and ‘āhṛtam’ as ‘earned,’ and adds that this also only serves to indicate the greater importance of the ‘field’;—and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 521).

**(verses 9.48-56)
**

[(See the texts under 31-44.)]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.48].

ओघवातग्रहणं च प्रदर्शनार्थं विज्ञेयम् । अतश् च यश् चौर्याद् बलाद् वा पारक्षेत्रवापी न तस्यास्ति भाग इति गम्यते ॥ ९.५४ ॥

054 If seed be carried by water or wind into somebody’s field and germinates (there), the (plant sprung from that) seed belongs even to the owner of the field, the owner of the seed does not receive the crop.

This same law should be understood as applying to the offspring of cows, mares, slave-girls, she-camels, she-goats and ewes; as also of birds and buffaloes.—(55)

अपत्याधिकारात् तद्विषयतैव मा विज्ञायीति गवाश्वादिग्रहणम् । यदि वा बीजफलव्यवहारः सस्यादिविषयतया प्रसिद्धतरस् तन्निवृत्त्यर्थम् आह । द्विपदां चतुष्पदां पक्षिणां स्थावराणां च सर्वत्रैष धर्मः । एष इति द्वयं प्रत्यवमृश्यते । अनभिसंधाने यस्य क्षेत्रं तस्य फलम्, अभिसंधाने चोभयोः । उदाहरणार्थत्वाच् च गवाश्वादिग्रहणस्य श्वमार्जारादिष्व् अप्य् अयम् एव न्यायः ।

• तर्हि किम् अर्थम् “यद्य् अन्यगोषु” (म्ध् ९.५०) इति ।

• प्रायेण गावः पुरुषाणां भवन्ति, न तथा विहङ्ग्मादय इति प्रसिद्धेर् अनुवादो ऽसौ ।

• दास्यः सप्तभिर् दासयोनिभिर् उपगताः । प्रसवः कायजन्म । तं प्रति तत्रेत्य् अर्थः ॥ ९.५५ ॥

Cows and horses, etc. are added here in order to prevent the notion being entertained that the laws laid down here are meant only for children; or it may be regarded as added for the purpose of precluding the notion that they are meant to apply to only seeds, fruits and crops, as is already known among people.

The same law applies to quadrupeds, and bipeds, as also to immovable things.

‘This’—refers to what has been said in the preceding two verses:—viz. (1) when there is no compact, the produce belongs to the owner of the soil, and (2) when there is compact, it belongs to both.

Cows and the rest have been named only by way of illustration; the same law applies to the cases of dogs, cats and other animals.

“Why then should the declaration in verse 50 have been made?”

It is only a reiteration of the well-known fact that birds and other animals do not form the ‘property’ of men to the same extent as cows do.

‘Slave girls’—i.e., those acquired by the seven sources of slavery.

‘Offspring’— young ones born from their wombs.—(55)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 580), which explains ‘eṣa dharmaḥ’, as ‘the principle that the owner of the seed does not obtain the fruit;’—also in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 150), which adds that the term ‘dāsī’ here stands for the slave-girl married to another slave; the child of such a slave-girl belongs to the owner of the girl, not to that of the father;—and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (pp. 521 and 574).

**(verses 9.48-56)
**

[(See the texts under 31-44.)]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.48].

गर्दभस्याननुक्रान्तस्यापि पशुसामान्याद् अयम् एव धर्मः स्यात् ॥ ९.५५ ॥

055 Know that such is the law concerning the offspring of cows, mares, slave-girls, female camels, she-goats, and ewes, as well as of females of birds and buffalo-cows.

Thus has been explained to you the comparative importance and non-importance of the seed and the womb; after this i am going to expound the duties of women during times of distress.—(56)

सारं प्रधानम्, फल्ग्व् असारम् । उपसंहरः पूर्वप्रकरणस्य । उत्तरार्धेन वक्ष्यमाणसूचनम् । आपत् जीवनस्थितिहेतुभूतभोजनाच्छादनाभावः, संतानविच्छेदश् च ॥ ९.५६ ॥

‘Importance’—predominance.

‘Non-importance’—non-predominance.

This verse sums up the foregoing section, and its second half introduces the next section.

‘Distress’—i.e., (1) want of food and clothing necessary for the sustaining of life; and also (2) absence of progeny.—(56)

**(verses 9.48-56)
**

[(See the texts under 31-44.)]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.48].

उपसंहारोपन्यासार्थः श्लोकः ॥ ९.५६ ॥

056 Thus the comparative importance of the seed and of the womb has been declared to you; I will next propound the law (applicable) to women in times of misfortune.

The wife of the elder brother is, for the younger, a ‘wife of the preceptor’; and the wife of the younger brother has been declared to be a ‘daughter-in-law’ for the elder.—(57)

श्लोकद्वयेन प्राकृतव्यवस्थाम् अनुवदत्य्¹¹⁸ आपदि नियोगं विधातुम् । ज्येष्ठो ऽग्रे जातः, अनुजः पश्चाज्जातः, कनीयान् यवीयान् अनुज एव ॥ ९.५७ ॥

These two verses (57 and 58) describe the actual state of things, for the purpose of laying down the advisability of ‘Niyoga’ or ‘appointment,’ in times of distress.

‘Elder’—one born before;—‘younger’—one born after; junior in age.—(57)

एतस्यां च व्यवस्थायां सत्याम् ।

057 The wife of an elder brother is for his younger (brother) the wife of a Guru; but the wife of the younger is declared (to be) the daughter-in-law of the elder.

If the elder brother has recourse to the wife of the younger, or the younger brother to the wife of the elder, they become outcasts, even though ‘authorised,’—except in times of distress.—(58)

इतरेतरभार्यागमने ज्येष्ठानुजयोः पातित्यम् अनापदि, सत्य् अपि नियोगे ॥ ९.५८ ॥

Both the younger and the elder brothers become outcasts by having recourse to each other’s wife, except in times of distress,—even though they be ‘authorised,’—(58)

This verse is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 522).

आपदुपगमस्तुत्यर्थं श्लोकद्वयम् । नियुक्ताव् अप्य् अन्पदीति वचनाद् एवम् आपद्य् अप्य् अनियुक्तौ पतितौ भवतः । एवं च सति ज्येष्ठेन कनिष्ठेन वा नियुक्तेन च गुरुभिर् आपदि चोपगमः प्रतिपादनीयः ॥ ९.५८ ॥

इदानीम् आपद् उच्यते ।

058 An elder (brother) who approaches the wife of the younger, and a younger (brother who approaches) the wife of the elder, except in times of misfortune, both become outcasts, even though (they were duly) authorised.

On failure of issue, the woman, on being authorised, may obtain, in the proper manner, the desired offspring, either from her younger brother-in-law or from a ‘Sapiṇḍa’.—(59)

सर्वविशेषेण विशिष्टो ऽनेन नियोगो विधीयते । संतानस्य परिक्षये नियुक्तया देवरादिभ्यः सम्यक् प्रजोत्पादयितव्येति । यद् उक्तम् “योषितां धर्मम् आपदि” (म्ध् ९.५६) इति सेयम् आपत् संतानस्य परिक्षयः । संतानशब्देन पुत्र उच्यते, दुहिता च पुत्रिका । सा हि पितृवंशं संतनोति¹¹⁹ नान्या । तस्य परिक्षयो ऽनुत्पत्तिर् उत्पन्ननाशो वा पुत्रिकायाश् चाकरणम्¹²⁰ । न हि स्त्रियाः केवलायाः¹²¹ पुत्रिकायाम् अन्यस्मिन् वा पुत्रप्रतिनिधाव् अधिकार इति वक्ष्यामः । नियुक्तोत्पादयेद् अनुज्ञाता¹²² गुरुभिः ।

• कुतः पुनः गुरुभिर् इति ।

• स्मृत्यन्तरनिदर्शनात् । अथ वा नियोगशब्दाद् एव । नियोगो¹²³ हि गुरुसंबन्धी लोको ऽप्य् उच्यते । न हि शिष्येण¹²⁴ नियुक्तो ऽध्यापयतीत्य् उच्यते । आचार्येण नियुक्तः करोत्य् अनुवदति¹²⁵ । गुरवश् च श्वश्रूश्वशुरदेवरादयो भर्तृसगोत्रा द्रष्टव्याः, न पित्रादयः । एतेनापत्येनापत्यवन्तस् ते उच्यन्ते¹²⁶ येषां चोपकारस् तत्कृत और्ध्वदेहिको भवति ।

• यद्य् एवं मातामहस्यापि दौहित्रोपकारो ऽस्ति । ततः पित्रा दुहिता नियोक्तव्येत्य् आपन्नम् ।

• उक्तम्, येनापत्यवन्त उच्यन्ते । देवरसपिण्डग्रहणेन¹²⁷ तद्गोत्रा एव हृदयम् आगच्छन्ति । महाभारते च तत्र तत्र नियोक्तृभावो भर्तृपक्षिणाम् एव दर्शितः । अत एव भ्रातृपुत्रे सति न नियोगः कर्तव्यः ।

• ये हि नियुक्तास्¹²⁸ तेषाम् एव संतानोपकारः । पुत्रजनिते स्नेहे ऽपत्योपकारम् अर्थयमाना अधिक्रियन्ते । न मृतस्याधिकारो ऽस्ति । कथं तर्हि तस्यापत्यम् इति व्यपदिश्यते ।

• कथंचित् पिण्डदाने स उपकरोति । वचनाद् इति च ब्रूमः । न ह्य् अपत्यम् उत्पादयितव्यम् इत्य् एष विधिस् तेनानुष्ठित इति, तथापि तदीये क्षेत्रे नियोगविधिजातेन पिण्डदानादि कर्तव्यम् इति शास्त्रार्थः । ततश् च तस्योपकारकम् अवगतम् । यथा चैतत् तथा पुरस्तान् निपुणं वक्ष्यामः ।

• देवरः पतिभ्राता । सपिण्डः पत्यन्वयः । स एव स्त्रियाः¹²⁹ । स्मृत्यन्तरे जातिमात्राच् चेत्य् उक्तं भवति । सम्यग् इति घृताक्तादिनियमं वक्ष्यमाणम् अनुवदति । प्रजेप्सिताधिगन्तव्या विधौ कृत्ये । ईप्सितशब्देन कार्यक्षमताम्¹³⁰ आह । ततो दुहितर्य् अन्धबधिरादौ च जाते पुनर् नियोगो ऽनुष्ठेयः ॥ ९.५९ ॥

This verse enjoins the practice of ‘Niyoga’, hemmed in by all its qualifications.

‘On failure of issue, the woman, on being authorised, may obtain, offspring in the proper manner,’—from her younger brother-in-law and others.

This ‘failure of issue’ is the ‘distress’ referred to under verse 56.

The term ‘issue’, ‘antāna’, here stands for the son; as regards the daughter, she is regarded as^(‘)issue’ only when she has been ‘appointed,’ as it is only then that she carries on (‘santanoti’), perpetuates, her father’s family; which is not done by the daughter, in ordinary circumstances.

The ‘failure’ of such issue consists in no son being born, or in a son, though born, dying off, and in the non-appointment of a daughter (by the husband). We shall explain later on that the woman is not entitled to have an ‘appointed daughter’ or any other substitute for the son. She may, therefore bring forth a child only when authorised by her elders.

“Whence is the idea obtained that the authorisation is to be done by her elders?”

It is obtained from other Smṛti-texts. Or, the idea follows from the very name ‘niyoga’, ‘authorisation’. In ordinary parlance ‘authorisation’ is always understood as proceeding from a superior; when the teacher does the teaching, he is not spoken of as being ‘authorised’ by his pupil to do it; in fact it is the pupil that is spoken of as being ‘authorised’ to read and repeat the lessons.

The ‘elders’ meant here are the mother-in-law, the father-in-law, the younger brother-in-law and other persons belonging to her husband’s family,—and not the woman’s own father and other relations. Because if a child is born as the result of this ‘authorisation’, it is only the former who come to be known as ‘with offspring’, and who become benefitted by the after-death rites performed by that child.

“If that were the sole criterion, then, since the child’s maternal grandfather also would benefit by the rites performed by his grand-child, it would follow that the said ‘authorisation’ could be done by him also.”

This has been already answered by the explanation that those persons alone are to ‘authorise’ who would become known as ‘with offspring’ through the child born as the result of that authorisation. Further, when the verse speaks of the ‘younger brother-in-law’ and the ‘sapiṇḍa’, all persons belonging to the same gotra come to the mind. In the Mahābhārata also, in several places, it is shown that ‘authorisation’ can proceed only from the woman’s relations on the husband’s side. It is for this same reason that there is to be no ‘authorisation’ when the husband’s brother’s son is present.

“As a matter of fact, the benefits from the issue occur to only those persons who are ‘authorised’ to beget the offspring; in fact only those persons are entitled to ‘authorisation’ who are eager to obtain the benefits of the issue, in the shape of the love and satisfaction derived from the son. Thus then, no benefits can occur to one who is dead; how then can the child be said to be the ‘issue’ of the latter?”

Our answer to this is that the dead person also does obtain benefits, in the shape of the offering of libations and so forth; and that this is so is clearly asserted in authoritative texts. Though it is true that the dead person has not carried out the injunction regarding the begetting of a child; yet the scriptures clearly lay down that libations are offered to him by the child that may be begotten in the ‘soil’ belonging to him, (i.e. on his wife), according to the law of ‘authorisation’. And from this it follows that benefits for the issue do accrue to the dead father also. How this is we shall explain fully later on.

‘Younger brother-in-law’—the husband’s brother.

‘Sapiṇḍa’—a person belonging to the husband’s family. This is what is understood to be meant by the law in other Smṛti-texts regarding the child being obtained from any person ‘of the same caste’.

‘In the proper manner’.—This refers to the rules regarding the man annotating himself with clarified butter and so forth.

‘The desired offspring may be obtained’— The verbal affix has the force of the Injunctive. The term ‘desired’ indicates the capacity for fulfilling his duties; which implies that in the event of a girl or a blind or deaf son being born, the process of ‘authorisation’ may be repeated.—(59)

**(verses 9.59-60)
**

‘Santānasya’—‘Son, and also the appointed daughter’ (Medhātithi);—‘Son’ (Govindarāja and Rāghavānanda).

“This practice is forbidden in Āpastamba 2.27.2-7; if the husband is alive; but with the widow, it is expressly enjoined by Gautama 78.4 and 28.21-22, and Vaśiṣṭha 17.56. Nārada gives an elaborate account of the formalities. See Jolly, Recht. Stellung S. 18, where the passage is discussed.”—Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.127) as propounding the practice of ‘niyoga’ for the purpose of forbidding it under verse 64 et seq.—Bālambhaṭṭī adds the notes:—‘Samyak,’ in accordance with the scriptures,—‘īpsitā,’ in the form of a son,—‘kṣaye,’ in the event of threatened extinction of the family; this means that the practice is sanctioned only under very abnormal circumstances;—‘vāg-yataḥ,’ silent;—it then goes on to quote Medhātithi.

(59) is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 445)—and both the verses in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 350); and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 737) which remarks that the term ‘vidhavā’ in this verse stands for the girl whose betrothed husband has died after the betrothal, but before actual marriage.

Both verses are quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 700);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, p. 38a);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, pp. 224-225), which explains the meaning as—“The widow, when directed by the father-in-law or other elders, may beget a desired (i.e., male) child from her husband’s (elder or younger) brother,—but only one; although some people hold that she may secure two sons.’

(See below, verse 64 et seq.)

Gautama (18.4-7).—‘A woman whose husband is dead and who desires offspring may bear a son to her brother-in-iaw. She should obtain the permission of her elders and should have intercourse during her period only. On failure of her brother-in-law, she may obtain offspring from a Sapiṇḍa, a Sayotra, a Samānapravara or from one belonging to the same caste. Some people hold that she should do this with none hut her brother-in-law.’

Do. (28.22-23).—‘The widow may seek to raise up offspring to her deceased husband. A son begotten on a widow, whose brother-in-law is alive, by another relative, is excluded from inheritance.’

Baudhāyana (2.4.9-10).—‘After the expiry of six months from her husband’s death, she may, with the authority of her elders, bear a son to her brother-in-law, in case she has no son. They quote the following:—“A barren woman or one who has already borne sons, or one who is past childhearing, or one whose children are all dead, or one who is unwilling, must never be authorised or appointed to do this.”’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.56).—‘After the completion of six months from the death of her husband, she shall bathe, and offer a funeral oblation to the husband. Then her father and brother shall assemble the elders who taught or sacrificed for her husband, as also his relatives, and authorise her to raise issue to her deceased husband. One should not thus appoint a widow who is either mad or ill-behaved or diseased; nor one who is very aged;—sixteen years after maturity is the period for authorising a widow. Nor shall such an authorisation be made if the male entitled to approach her is sickly.’

Yājñavalkya (1.68-69).—‘If a widow is without a son, her brother-in-law, or a Sapiṇḍa or a Sagotra,—smeared with butter, shall approach her during her period, being authorised to do so by the elders, for the purpose of obtaining a son for her. He shall approach her only till conception has taken place; doing otherwise, he would become an outcast. The son born in this manner is called Kṣetraja.’

Bṛhaspati (25.12-14).—‘The Niyoga (authorisation of a widow to raise offspring to her deceased husband), after having been declared by Manu, has been forbidden by himself; on account of the deterioration in the nature of the time-cycles, this cannot he done by all in the proper form. In the Kṛta, Tretā and Dvāpara cycles, men were imbued with austerities and with knowledge; in the Kali cycle a deterioration in the capacity of men has been brought about. Therefore the sons that were obtained by various methods by the ancient sages cannot he obtained by men now, on account of their being without that capacity.’

Nārada (12.80-81).—‘Should the husband of a childless woman die, she should go to her brother-in-law, through desire to obtain a son, after having received the necessary authorisation from her elders;—and he shall have intercourse with her till a son is born. When a son is born, he must leave her. It would be sinful intercourse otherwise.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Aparārka, p. 97).—‘On the death of her husband, or on her having abandoned her husband, a woman may beget a son from a man of her own caste. If she is a child-widow, or has been forcibly abandoned by her husband, she shall go through the sacrament of marriage again, with any other man. But this remarriage of women, or the begetting of a son from the brother-in-law, or the freedom of women, should not be permitted during the Kali age; as during this age, men are inclined to be sinful.’

Āpastamba (2.27.2-4).—‘A husband shall not make over his wife, who occupies the position of a gentilis, to others (than to his gentiles), in order to cause children to be begotten for himself. For they declare that a bride is given to the family of her husband (and not to the husband alone). This is forbidden for the present age, on account of the incapacity of men’s senses.’

Yama (Vivādaratnākara, p. 446).—‘A man desirous of securing offspring for bis dead brother, may beget a child on his widow; he shall leave her as soon as conception has taken place; he shall never approach her after she has got a child.’

Kātyāyana (Do., 449).—‘After having carried out Niyoga, one should perform the prescribed penance for expiation.’

एवं च सति ज्येष्ठकनिष्ठाव् उभाव् अपि देवरशब्देन [विज्ञेयौ । अत एव तयोर् अविशे]षापेक्षो नियोग इति गम्यते । तथा च वक्ष्यति- “निजो विन्देत देवरः” इति । आपत् सन्तानाभावो ऽनुत्पन्नापत्यतया मृतपु[त्रत्वेन वा । अन्ये तु वर्णय्]अन्ति- “पश्येच् चेज् जीवतो मुखम्” इति वचनात्, जन्मनैव कृतो ऽनेन सन्तत्यर्थ इति । तद् अयुक्तम्, शास्त्रविरोधात् । एवं हि श्रूयते- “तस्मात् पुत्रम् अनुशिष्टं [तल्लोक्यम् आहुस् तस्माद् एनम् अनुशासति]” इति वाजसनेयिनां संप्रतिविधाव् एतद् रहस्यब्राह्मणम् । तथा च स्मृत्यन्तरम्- “सत्पुत्रशिष्यास् त्रायन्ते” इति । एवं च मृतपुत्रस्यापि नियोगः । तथा चाविशेषशास्त्रम् इदं सन्तानस्य परिक्षय इति । यथानुत्पन्नपुत्रस्य सन्तानपरिक्षयः एवं विनष्टस्यापीत्य् अयम् उच्यते । यतः कालसामान्याद् उक्त उभयत्रापि नियोगः । एवं च सति “द्वितीयम् एके प्रजनम्” इत्य् एतद् युक्तरूपं भवति । इदानीम् उपगमविधिर् अयम् उच्यते ॥ ९.५९ ॥

059 On failure of issue (by her husband) a woman who has been authorised, may obtain, (in the) proper (manner prescribed), the desired offspring by (cohabitation with) a brother-in-law or (with some other) Sapinda (of the husband).

He who has been authorised in regard to a widow shall, annointed with clarified butter and with speech controlled, beget, at night, one son,—and on no account a second one.—(60)

विधवाग्रहणम् अतन्त्रम् । क्लीबादिरूपे पत्यौ जीवत्य् अप्य्¹³¹ एष एव विधिः¹³² । यतो वक्ष्यति “नियुक्तौ यौ¹³³ विधिं हित्वा” (म्ध् ९.६३) इति । एतद् एव तस्य प्रयोजनम् । नियमो ऽत्र विषयाणाम्, न नियमानाम्, अन्यथा विज्ञाते¹³⁴ अप्रकृतत्वाद्¹³⁵ विधवाया एव स्युः । निशि प्रदीपाद्यालोकनिवृत्त्यर्थम् एतत्, वचनान्तरेण दिवोपगमनप्रतिषेधात् ।

• अन्ये त्व् आहुः- पुरुषार्थो ऽसौ प्रतिषेधः कर्मार्थस् त्व् अयम् । तेनाह्नि गमनेन क्षेत्रजम् उत्पादयेत्¹³⁶ । एकम् उत्पादयेत् पुत्रं न द्वितीयम् ॥ ९.६० ॥

अस्य प्रतिप्रसवः ।

No significance is meant to be attached to the mention of the. ‘widow’; as the rule laid down here is applicable also to the case of the woman whose husband is alive, but subject to such disabilities as impotence and the like. That such is the meaning is clear from what follows later (in 63). As a matter of fact, the sole purpose underlying the practice lies in what is stated in the present verse; the restriction too pertains to persons subject to the law, and not to the observances themselves. Otherwise it would seem that the whole thing pertained to widows only. (?)

‘At night—this is meant to indicate the absence of all light, in the shape of lamps etc.; intercourse during the day having been already forbidden by another text.

Others however hold that the prohibition of intercourse during the day is with reference to the benefit of the man, while the specification of ‘night’ in the present text bears upon ritualistic purposes.

Hence what is meant is that ‘only one.’—and never a second—‘Kṣetraja’ son is to be begotten; but never by intercourse during the day.—(60)

An exception to this is set forth in the next verse:—

**(verses 9.59-60)
**

See Explanatory notes for [Verse 9.59].

**(verses 9.60-68)
**

[(See texts under 59.)]

Vaśiṣṭha (17.61, et seq.).—‘He shall approach the widow in the moment sacred to Prajāpati, behaving like a husband, without dallying with her, and without abusing or ill-treating her. She shall obtain the expenses for food, raiment, baths and unguents from the estate of her deceased husband. They declare that a son begotten on a widow not duly authorised belongs to the begetter; if she has been duly authorised, the child belongs to both the males connected with the authorisation. No such authorisation shall be made for the purpose of obtaining a living. But some people declare that an authorisation may be made through desire for wealth, after an expiatory penance has been performed.’

Yājñavalkya (1.68-69).—(See under 59.)

Gautama (18.8).—‘She shall not bear more than two sons.’

Nārada (12.82-88).—‘He shall approach the woman, free from passion, and without amorous desire. He must have anointed his limbs with clarified butter, or with oil which has not lost its natural condition, and must turn away his face from hers and avoid the contact of limb with limb. For this custom is practised only when the family threatens to become extinct, for the continuance of the lineage, and not from amorous desire. He must not approach a woman who is with child, or blameworthy, or not duly authorised by her relations. Should a woman procreate a son with her brother-in-law without having been authorised thereto by her relations, that son is declared illegitimate and incapable of inheriting, by the expounders of the Veda. So when a younger brother has intercourse, without authorisation, with the wife of his elder brother,—or an elder brother with the wife of his younger brother,—they are both held to have committed incest. If he has been authorised by the elders, he shall approach the woman and advise her in the manner previously stated, as if she were his daughter-in-law. He becomes purified of the sin when the son is born and his Birth-ceremonies have been performed. He shall approach her only once,—or till conception has taken place. When she has become pregnant, she is again even as a daughter-in-law to him. Should the man or woman behave otherwise, impelled by amorous desire, they shall be severely punished by the King. Otherwise righteousness would be violated.’

Yama (Vivādaratnākara, p. 446).—‘When during her period, the woman has taken her bath, her brother-in-law, desiring an offspring for his deceased brother, may approach her during the dark night, with speech held in check, with a single cloth on, and his body anointed with clarified butter, and mind stricken with grief, avoiding the contact of his face and limbs with her face and limbs.’

विधवाग्रहणस्य दर्शनर्थत्वाद् अविधव्याम् अपि नियोगो न [निषिद्ध इति] विज्ञायते । वक्ष्यति हि “यद्य् अर्थिता तु दारैः स्यात् क्लीबादीनां कथंचन” इति । एवं च पाण्डोर् अविधवानियोगाद् एवापत्योत्पत्तिः स्मर्यते । दिवा च प्रतिषेधान् निशीत्य् अयम् अन्धकारोपदेशः, तथा च व्यासोपगमः स्मर्यते ॥ ९.६० ॥

060 He (who is) appointed to (cohabit with) the widow shall (approach her) at night anointed with clarified butter and silent, (and) beget one son, by no means a second.

Some people, learned in the subject, admit, on the basis of propriety, of a second procreation on women,—perceiving, as they do, that the couple’s purpose of authorisation’ is not (otherwise) accomplished.—(61)

द्वितीयः पुत्र इत्य् एकेषां मतम् । तद्विदः क्षेत्रजोत्पत्तिविधिज्ञाः । अनिर्वृत्तं¹³⁷** नियोगार्थं** पश्यन्तः । नियुक्तया प्रजोत्पादयितव्येत्य् अस्य विधेर् एकस्योत्पादनेनासंपत्तिं¹³⁸ मन्यन्ते । एकवचनम् अविवक्षितं मन्यन्ते । कस् तेषाम् अभिप्रायः । एकवचनम् अविवक्षितं मन्यन्ते । द्रव्यप्रधानत्वात् कर्मणो गुणभावाद्¹³⁹ अविवक्षा, ग्रहैकत्ववत् ।

• ननु चानुपात्तोपदेशे सत्य् अपि द्वितीयया द्रव्यप्राधान्यावगमे संख्यादिविशेषेण विवक्षा स्थितैव । “उद्वहेत द्विजो भार्याम्” (म्ध् ३.४) इति लिङ्गाद् अपत्यविधाव् एकत्वसंख्यातिक्रमो “दशास्यां पुत्रान् आधेहि” इति (र्व् ९.१०.७) ।

• यद्य् एवं¹⁴⁰ न द्वित्व एवावस्थानम् । अस्याम् एवाशङ्कायां द्वितीयम् इति वचनम् अन्यनिवृत्त्यर्थम् । अर्थवत्ता¹⁴¹ तस्याप्य् अयम् अभिप्रायः¹⁴² । औरसे¹⁴³ लिङ्गं विवाहप्रकरणे तु¹⁴⁴ मन्त्रपाठात् । इह त्व् एकत्वातिक्रमः, “अपुत्र एकपुत्रः” इति शिष्टप्रवादात् । अथ वास्या एव स्मृतेर् द्वितीयपुत्रस्तुतिकल्पनात् । धर्मतः शिष्टाचारतः ॥ ९.६१ ॥

A second son also should be begotten;—such is the opinion of some people.

‘Learned in the subject’—persons versed in the laws relating to the begetting of ‘Kṣetraja’ sons.

‘Perceiving that the purpose of authorisation is not accomplished’.—These people hold that the injunction, that ‘the woman on being authorised should begot a child’, is not fulfilled by the begetting of a single son.

What is the real intention of these men?

They hold that the singular number (in the word ‘son’ in the injunction ‘a son is to be begotten’) is not meant to be significant; since it is the substance that forms the more important factor, and no qualification attaches to the act, which shows that no significance can attach to the singular number; just as in the case of the word ‘cup’ (in the injunction ‘wash the cup’).

“In the case of injunctions of things not already spoken of elsewhere, even though the substance is recognised as the predominant factor, yet the significance of such specifications as those by means of number and such qualifications remains undisturbed; e.g., in such injunctions as the ‘twice-born man shall marry a woman’. Then from the indicative power of such mantra-texts as ‘Beget ten sons on this girl’, it is clear that the number one as pertaining to children is not to be observed.

“In that case the man need not rest with two sons only.” In fact it is in view of this that the text has added the term ‘second’, the use whereof lies in the precluding of the possibility of more sons than two. This same is the sense of the mantra-text also, which pertains to the ‘aurasa’ (body-born) son, the text occuring in the section on Marriage. In the present instance however, all that is intended is the exceeding of the number ‘one’; and this on the strength of the saying current, among cultured people that ‘a man with one son is as good as sonless’, or on that of the present verse containing the eulogisation of the second son.

‘On the basis of propriety’—i.e. on the strength of the practice of cultured people.—(61)

This verse is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 700);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 225) which notes that this view has been held by some people on the ground that one son is as good as none at all.

**(verses 9.60-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.60].

अनयोः स्मृत्योर् द्वितीयपुत्रजननस्मृतिर् ज्यायसी, सन्तानानुग्रहात् । कारणम् अत्र गृह्यत इति चेद् उभयत्र कारणग्रहणाद् अप्रवृत्तिर् एवं सति स्यात् ॥ ९.६१ ॥

061 Some (sages), versed in the law, considering the purpose of the appointment not to have been attained by those two (on the birth of the first), think that a second (son) may be lawfully procreated on (such) women.

But when the purpose of the ‘authorisation’ in regard to the widow has been duly accomplished, the two should behave towards each other like an elder and like a daughter-in-law.—(62)

इह तु नियोगविषयो यत्र नियुज्यते । स च संप्रयोगाभिमर्दपर्यवसान उपगमनलक्षणस् तस्मिन् निवृत्ते पूर्वैव वृत्तिः । गुरुवत् स्नुषावत् । ज्येष्ठस्य भार्यायां गुरुवद् यवीयसः स्नुषावत् । परस्परग्रहणात् स्नुषावद् वर्तेत स्त्री पुरुषे ज्येष्ठे, देवरे गुरुवत् ॥ ९.६२ ॥

The ‘authorisation’ herein laid down refers to the act of ‘intercourse’, ending with the sexual act. After this act has been accomplished, their behaviour towards each other should be like that of the ‘elder’ and the ‘daughter-in-law’. If the woman is the wife of the elder brother, she shall be treated like an ‘elder’; but if she is the wife of the younger brother, she shall be treated like a ‘daughter-in-law

The use of the term ‘towards each other’ implies that the woman should behave like the daughter-in-law towards her elder brother-in-law, and like an ‘elder’ towards her younger brother-in-law.—(62)

**(verses 9.60-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.60].

एतस्माच् च ज्येष्ठनियोगो विज्ञायते । तथा च परिभाषोक्ता- “ज्येष्ठो यवीयसो भार्याम्” इति । उभयोश् च देवरशब्देन ग्रहणं युक्तम् “देवराद् वा सपिण्डाद् वा” इत्य् अत्र । अस्य प्रतिषेधविधेर् अर्थवादः ॥ ९.६२ ॥

062 But when the purpose of the appointment to (cohabit with) the widow bas been attained in accordance with the law, those two shall behave towards each other like a father and a daughter-in-law.

If the two persons thus ‘authorised’ renounce the law and act from carnal desire, both would become outcasts,—being like one who has intercourse with his daughter-in-law and one who defiles the bed of his elder.—(63)

विधिम् “घृताक्तः” (म्ध् ९.६०) इत्यादिः । तदतिक्रमे पातित्यम् । नियुक्तो ज्येष्ठः, स्नुषागः पुमान्, गुरुतल्पगः कनीयान् ॥ ९.६३ ॥

‘Law’—regarding ‘annointing with clarified butter’ and so forth. The transgression of the law leads to the parties becoming outcasts.

The ‘authorised’ elder brother being ‘one who has intercourse with his daughter-in-law’, and the younger brother being ‘one who defiles the bed of his elder’.—(63)

This verse is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī, (p. 523);—and in Dattakamīmāṃsā.

**(verses 9.60-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.60].

विधवानियोगविधीनां सर्वेषां व्यतिक्रमनिन्दार्थवादो ऽयम् अविशेषाद् विज्ञेयः, न केवलम् अनन्तरश्लोकस्य नियोगार्थनिर्वृत्त्युत्तरकालप्रतिषेधस्य । एष तावद् एव कारणाद् विधवानियोगः । अस्य प्रतिषेधः ॥ ९.६३ ॥

063 If those two (being thus) appointed deviate from the rule and act from carnal desire, they will both become outcasts, (as men) who defile the bed of a daughter-in-law or of a Guru.

By twice-born persons the widow shall not be ‘authorised’ in regard to another person; by ‘authorising’ her in regard to another, they would violate the eternal law.—(64)

पूर्वेण विहितस्य नियोगस्य प्रतिषेधो ऽयम् ।

• तत्र केचिद् विधवाग्रहणान् मृतभर्तृकायाः प्रतिषेधः, क्लीबेन तु पत्या नियोक्तव्येति¹⁴⁵ विधिप्रतिषेधौ विभक्तविषयाव् इति प्रतिपन्नाः ।

• अन्ये तु विधिवाक्ये संतानविच्छेदस्य निमित्तश्रवणात् तस्य च क्लीबव्याधितयोर् मृतस्याप्य् उपपत्तिः । तथा च विधिवत् प्रतिषेधो¹⁴⁶ ऽप्य् अविशिष्ट एव । अपेतधवसंबन्धा विधवेत्य् उच्यते । तत् तुल्यम् उभयत्रापि ।

• अवश्यं चैतद् एवं विज्ञेयम् । इतरथा घृताभ्यक्तादिनियमो ऽपि क्लीबेन नियुज्यमानाया न स्यात् । तत्रापि ह्य् आमनन्ति- “विधवायां नियुक्तश् च घृताक्तः” (म्ध् ९.६०) इति । तस्माद् विहितस्याविशेषेण प्रतिषेधो ऽप्य् अविशिष्टः¹⁴⁷ । अतश् च विषयसमत्वे विधिनिषेधयोर् विकल्पः । अयं च नित्यो ऽपत्योत्पादनविधिर्¹⁴⁸ विकल्प एव कल्पते, ग्रहणाग्रहणवत् ।

• यदा तु “पुत्रेण जयति” (म्ध् ९.१३७) इत्येवमादिफलोत्पादनविधिस् तदासत्य् अपत्ये तत्कार्यस्यौर्ध्वदेहिकस्योपकारस्याभावाद् भिन्नफलयोः कुतो विकल्पः । समानविषयौ विधिनिषेधाव् एकर्थे विकल्प्येते¹⁴⁹ । षोडशीग्रहणाग्रहणयोर् इति केचित् ।

• उक्तम् अङ्गभूयस्त्वे फलभूयस्त्वम् । प्रधानकार्यसिद्धौ त्व् अविशेषः । तस्माद् अस्मिन् पक्षे पुत्रोपकाराभावम् आह । उपकारविशेषार्थेनास्य प्रवृत्तौ प्रतिषेधातिक्रमेण श्येनतुल्यता ।

• इदं त्व् अत्र निरूप्यम् । यो ऽसौ नियुज्यते स किम् इति प्रवर्तते । न हि तस्य विधिर् अस्ति- “नियुक्तेन गन्तव्यम्” इति । स्त्रियाः पुनर् विद्यते “सम्यक् स्त्रिया नियुक्तया” (म्ध् ९.५९) इति । न च¹⁵⁰ “देवरादिषु प्रवर्तमानेषु स्त्रिया नियोगसिद्धिर् इत्य् अर्थः । तेषां अपि प्रवृत्तिस्¹⁵¹ तद्विधिना क्षेत्रज ईप्सितः” इति वाच्यम् । यतो रागतः प्रवृत्तिर् उपपद्यते¹⁵² । घृताक्तादिनियमविधानम् अनर्थकम् इति चेन् नानर्थकम् । तथानियमैर् उत्पन्ने क्षेत्रजव्यपदेशो नान्य इति ।

• यद् अपि गुरुवचनं कर्तव्यम् इति केचित् प्रवृत्तिनिबन्धनम् आहुः ।

• एवं सति सुरापानादिष्व् अपि गुर्विच्छया प्रवृत्तिः प्राप्नोति । न चासौ गुरुर् अकार्ये यः प्रवर्तयति,

• गुरोर् अप्य् अवलिप्तस्य कार्याकार्यम् अजानतः ।

• उत्पथप्रतिपन्नस्य परित्यागो विधीयते ॥

इति स्मरणात् । परित्यागश् च गुरुकार्यान् निवृत्तिः ।

• एतेनैतद् अपि प्रत्युक्तम्- यन् नियमातिक्रमपातित्यवचनं नियमपूर्विकां वृत्तिम् अनुजानाति “ताव् उभौ पतितौ स्याताम्” (म्ध् ९.६३) इति । इतरथा सर्वप्रकारं गच्छतः पातित्यम् इति विशेषपातित्यम् अनुपपन्नम् । यतस् तन् न केवलस्य पुंसः श्रूयते, किं तर्हि स्त्रिया इति । तस्याश् च पुत्रार्थिन्या¹⁵³ नियोगो विहितः । तदपेक्षं¹⁵⁴ हि व्यतिक्रमे पतितवचनम् “ताव् उभौ पतितौ स्यायाम्” (म्ध् ९.६३) इति । असति व्यतिक्रम एकः पतितः पुमान् एव, अतिक्रमे तु द्वाव् अपीत्य् एवम् अपि लिङ्गान् निर्गच्छत्य्¹⁵⁵ एव ।

• तस्माद् देवरादिविधिलक्षणा¹⁵⁶ प्रवृत्तिः कथम् इति वक्तव्यम् ।

• उच्यते । व्यासादिदर्शनेनापत्यपिण्डदान इव क्षेत्रजोत्पत्त्यर्थं सपिण्डानां गुरुनियोगापेक्षा । तदा नोपगमने च्युतिर् अस्तीत्य्¹⁵⁷ अनुमन्तव्यम् । न हि महात्मनां रागलक्षणप्रवृत्तिर् अभ्युपगन्तुं न्याय्या । यच् चोक्तं नियमातिक्रमे पतितत्ववचनं लिङ्गम् इति, तद् अयुक्तम् । यतः पुंसः पतितत्वे पतितोत्पन्नस्याधिकाराभावाद् उत्पादनम् अनर्थकम् । तस्माद् अस्ति देवरादिविधेर् आभासो ऽयम् ॥ ९.६४ ॥

This is the prohibition of the practice of ‘authorisation’, which has been sanctioned in the foregoing texts.

In this connection, some people have held the following view:—“Inasmuch as the text contains the term ‘widow’, it prohibits the practice only with reference to the woman whose husband is dead; so that the impotent husband should still ‘authorise’ his wife; both the sanction and the prohibition would thus have distinct spheres of application.”

Others, however, have held the following opinion:—“The text, that sanctions the practice mentions the failure of issue as the occasion for it; and as a matter of fact, this occasion is equally present in both cases,—in the case of the husband being impotent or invalided, as also in that of his being dead. So that as the sanction, so the prohibition also, must be accepted as free from restrictions. Then again, a woman is called ‘vidhavā’ (widow) when she ceases to have any intercourse with her ‘dhava’ or husband; and this condition is equally present in both cases.”

It is this latter view that has to be accepted; as otherwise, the rules regarding ‘anointment with clarified butter’ and other details would not be applicable to the case of ‘authorisation’ by the impotent or invalided husband; because the text that lays down that rule uses the term ‘widow’—“He who has been authorised in regard to the widow, etc.’ (Verse 60). For these reasons, just as the preceding sanction, so the subsequent prohibition also, should be taken as free from all limitations. And thus the sphere of application of both being the same, we must take the case as being one of option. This option is possible only in view of the obligatory character of the injunction regarding the begetting of children; the case being analogous to the option bearing upon the ‘holding’ and ‘not holding’ of the Śoḍaśi Cups. If, on the other hand, the injunction of begetting a son were regarded as consisting in such assertions as ‘by means of a son one wins heaven’, and so forth, (where the act of begetting a son is put forward as loading to a certain desirable result), the effect of one having no children would only be the non-performance of the after-death rites. So that the results of the two acts (begetting of a child by ‘authorisation’ and not begetting a. child by that method) would be totally distinct; and under the circumstances, whence could there he any option? It is only when the sanction and the prohibition both hear upon the same object that there can be option; as is the case with the ‘holding’ and ‘not holding’ of the Śoḍaśi Cups.

It has already been pointed out that when an act is done along with all its subsidiary details, its results are fuller than what they are when it is done without those details; but so far as the accomplishment of the main act itself is concerned, there is no difference. So that, in this case the only effect would be that the man not having recourse to the practice would fail to obtain the benefits that would he conferred by the son; and if he has recourse to the practice with a view to obtaining those special benefits, then he would he transgressing the prohibition, and his act would stand on the same footing as the performance of the Śyena sacrififie (which is performed for the special purpose of obtaining the death of the enemy, and involves the transgression of the prohibition of all hilling).

“In connection with this object, the following point deserves to be considered in regard to the man who is ‘authorised’ (to have connection with the ‘widow’)—Why does he have recourse to the act? There is no such injunction for him as that ‘when one is authorised he should have intercourse with the widow’; as there is for the woman, in the form of the text (59)—‘the woman, being duly authorised, etc.’ It would not be right to argue that—“since the ‘authorisation’ of the woman can he accomplished only when her younger brother-in-law or some other male relation would also ad, the action of these latter also is implied by that same injunction (which prescribes the^(‘)authorisation’ of the woman),—since what is desired by the women is the Kṣetraja son (and this cannot be obtained without the action of the male).”

“This cannot be right, because the action of tin; male might proceed from carnal desire also.

“If the injunction did not imply the action of the male, there would be no sense in the rules laying down anointing with clarified butter and other details.

“These rules would not he meaningless; as their meaning would he that the son can he called ‘Kṣetraja’ only when he is born in the manner prescribed, and in no other circumstances.

“Some people have leld that the general injunction that ‘one must obey the injunction of his elders’ is what prompts the male in question.

“But if this were allowed, then one would he justified in drinking wine and doing such forbidden ads, by the wish of his elders to do so. As a matter of fact, one who would prompt the man to have recourse to such acts would not be an ‘elder’ at all. Then again, there is the law—‘The abandoning of the elder is enjoined, if he is vain or ignorant of what should and what should not be done, or has recourse to the wrong path’; and the ‘abandoning’ meant here can only consist in ceasing to work for the elder.

“This same reasoning does away with the following view also:—‘The assertion, (in 63) that by acting contrary to the rules relating to the details of the practice of ‘authorisation,’ the parties concerned become outcasts, implies the sanctioning of the action of both, in accordance with those rules. Otherwise, if the action of the man involved the penalty of outcasting in all kinds of intercourse, there would be no point in the declaration that he becomes an outcast under the special circumstances (of acting contrary to the rules).’

“Then again, the idea, that—‘in the case of there being no transgression of the rules the man alone becomes an outcast, whereas, when there is transgression of them, both parties become outcasts’—is also derived from the indicative power of the texts themselves.

“Thus then, the action of the youger brother in-law and other male relations has got to be explained (and justified).”

Our explanation is as follows:—Judging from the instance of Vyāsa and others, it has to be admitted that, in the begetting of the ‘Kṣetraja’ son, if one acts according to the behests of his elders, there can be nothing wrong in it In the case of Vyāsa and other great men, their action can never be regarded as having been prompted by carnal desire.’ Then, as for the argument that “the assertion that the parties become outcasts if they transgress the rules, is indicative of the act of the male”.—this cannot be right; for, if the male became an outcast, then, the son born of him would not be entitled to the performance of any rites; so that the begetting of the child would be absolutely futile. From all this, it follows that there is just a semblance of an injunction for the action of the younger brother-in-law or other male relations.—(64)

“Verses 64-68 flatly contradict the rules given in the preceding ones. But it by no means follows that they are a modern addition, as held by Hopkins. For the same view is expressed by Āpastamba, 2.27.2-6, and was held, according to Baudhāyana, 2.3.34, by Aupajandhani. Moreover, Bṛhaspati Smṛti states expressly (Colebrook Dig. CLVII) that the contradictory statement occurred in the Mānava Dharmaśātra as known to the author.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.136), as prohibiting niyoga;—again under 2.127, to the same effect, where Bālambhaṭṭī adds that ‘anyasmin’ means ‘other than the husband.’

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 737), which remarks that the term ‘vidhavā’ here stands for the woman, whose husband has died after the marriage has been performed;—then it seeks to reconcile the apparent contradiction between verses 59 and 60 (permitting Niyoga) on the one hand, and verses 64-68 (forbidding it) on the other; the sanction is meant for the girl who is widowed after verbal betrothal, before marriage; while the prohibition applies to one who is widowed after marriage; this, it adds, is made clear by verse 65, which refers to the ‘mantras recited during the marriage-ceremony.’ It concludes therefore that there is no room for any doubts regarding the opinion of Manu, adumbrated in Mitākṣarā.

It is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 38a);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 226), which says that this prohibition is meant for the Kali-age;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 186a).

**(verses 9.60-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.60].

064 By twice-born men a widow must not be appointed to (cohabit with) any other (than her husband); for they who appoint (her) to another (man), will violate the eternal law.

Nowhere in the mantra-texts bearing upon marriage is ‘authorisation’ mentioned; nor again is the marriage of the widow mentioned in the injunction of marriage.—(65)

उद्वाहनं कर्म, तत्र ये मन्त्राः प्रयुज्यन्ते- “अर्यमणं नु देवं कन्या अग्निम् अयक्षत” (आश्ग् १.७.१३) इत्यादयः, तथान्ये ऽपि तत्संबन्धाः “मया पत्या जरदष्टिः” (र्व् १०.८५ ३६) इति, “मया पत्या प्रजावती (अव् १४.१.५२) इति — तत्र सर्वत्र वोढुर् वरयितुः स्वापत्यं भवतीत्य् आहुः । न तत्र श्रूयते “मया यत्र नियुज्यसे ततो जनय” इति । मन्त्रग्रहणेनैतद् दर्शयति । मन्त्रार्थवादा अपि नैवंविधाः सन्ति । दूरत एव तद् दर्शयति- न विवाहविधाव् उक्तं विधवावेदनं पुनः । आवेदनं गमनम् अभिप्रेतम् अत्र¹⁵⁸ । अथ विवाह एवेयं वा संयुज्यते, विवाहयिष्यति देवरो भ्रातृजायाम्, ततो ऽयं नियोगो विवाहविहित¹⁵⁹ एव । न त्व् अत्र विवाहविधिर्¹⁶⁰ इति । पूर्वशेषो ऽयम् अर्थवादः ॥ ९.६५ ॥

‘Udvāha,’ ‘marriage,’ is a rite; and the sacred texts used at that rite—such as; (a) ‘Aryamaṇannu devam kanyā agnimayakṣata,’ (b) ‘Mayā patyā jaradaṣṭih,’ (c) ‘Mayā patyā prajāvatī,’ and so forth,—in all these, it is clearly stated that ownership over the woman belongs to the person that marries her; and nowhere among them is there any such assertion as ‘beget a child from a man in regard to whom you are authorised by me.’

What the text means by mentioning the ‘mantra-texts’ is that even Mantra-texts and Declamatory Texts do not contain any indications of the injunction of the practice. This is further explained.—‘The marriage of widows is not mentioned in the injunction of marriage.’ ‘Marriage’ here stands for intercourse. If the act of the brother-in-law having intercourse with his widowed sister-in-law were a regular ‘marriage,’ then, the practice of ‘niyoga,’ ‘authorisation’, would be the same as ‘Marriage’; and as such, it would be fully enjoined by some such injunction as ‘the brother-in-law shall marry his sister-in-law.’ As a matter of fact, however, there is no such injunction at all.

This is a declamatory supplement to what has gone before.—(65)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskara, p. 737, which notes that this verse supplies the reason for what has been asserted in the preceding verse;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, p. 38a),—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 186a).

**(verses 9.60-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.60].

नोद्वाहिकेषु मन्त्रेषु नियोगः कीर्त्यते क्वचित् ।

लिङ्गतो वचनतो वा,

न विवाहविधाव् उक्तं विधवावेदनंपुनः ॥ ९.६५ ॥

विवाहविधिः शास्त्र इत्य् अर्थः ।

065 In the sacred texts which refer to marriage the appointment (of widows) is nowhere mentioned, nor is the re-marriage of widows prescribed in the rules concerning marriage.

During the time that King Vena was ruling over his kingdom, this reprehensible bestial practice was introduced by ignorant twice-born men among men also.—(66)

अयम् अप्य् अर्थवाद एव नियोगप्रतिषेधशेषः । ये ऽविद्वांसः सम्यक् शास्त्रं न जानते तत्र व्यवहारिणो लिङ्गाद्यन्यपरत्वं¹⁶¹ च न जानते तैर् यं पशुधर्मः स चात्यन्तगर्हितो मनुष्याणाम् अपि प्रोक्तः प्रवर्तितः । स चेदानींतनो नानादिः,¹⁶² वेने राज्ञि प्रशासति राष्ट्रं पालयति ।

• ननु च लिङ्गानि नैव सन्तीत्य् उक्तम् ।

• नैवम्, उद्वाहकेषु मन्त्रेषु न¹⁶³ सन्तीत्य् उक्तम् । अन्यत्र तु दृश्यते । “को वां शयुत्रा¹⁶⁴ विधवेव देवरं मर्यं न योषा कृणुते सधस्थ आ” (र्व् १०.४०.२) इत्यादि । यथा विधवा स्त्री देवरपतिं मनुष्यं कुरुते समानशयन एव, को वा मनस्विनौ कुरुते येन नागच्छतः, को विशेषो¹⁶⁵ विवाहमन्त्रेषु, स किलापत्योत्पत्तिविध्यनुक्रमरूप¹⁶⁶ इत्य् अभिप्रायः ।

• अन्यैर् विद्वद्भिर् इति पठितम् । गर्हितो मनुष्याणां प्रोक्तः । पशूनाम् एष धर्मो भ्रातृस्त्रीगमनं नाम । स च प्रवृत्तो वेनस्य राज्ये ॥ ९.६६ ॥

This also is a declamatory supplement to the prohibition of ‘authorisation.’ The ‘ignorant’ men, who do not know the scriptures, and who do not understand that the indicative power of the texts points to something entirely different,—‘introduced’ ‘this bestial practice,’ which is most ‘reprehensible,’ ‘among men also’; and this was done not during modern times, but ‘during the time that Vena’—(he first king—‘was ruling over his kingdom’—looking after his realm.

“It has been said that there are no sacred texts indicative of prevalence of this practice.”

Not so; what was said was that there was no such indicative in the texts recited at marriage; in other texts there certainly are words indicative of it; for instance, there is the mantra—‘Ko vā sa putro vidhaveva deraram mayā nu doṣo kṛṇute sadhastha’ (Ṛgveda, 10.40.2),—which means ‘who is the woman that invites you Aśvins to her bed in the manner in which the widow invites to her bed her younger brother-in-law,—that you do not come up?’

“But what peculiarity is there in the mantras used at marriage (that capital is made of there being no indication in them of the practice in question)?”

What is meant is that the texts connected with marriage are more nearly connected with the subject of the begetting of children.

Others read ‘vidvadbhiḥ’ (for ‘avidvadbhiḥ’); and the meaning of this would be—‘This practice, of having intercourse with the brother’s wife, which is fit for beasts, has been declared by the learned to be reprehensible, for men,—and it was introduced during the reign of King Vena.’—(66)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 738);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 186a).

**(verses 9.60-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.60].

066 This practice which is reprehended by the learned of the twice-born castes as fit for cattle is said (to have occurred) even among men, while Vena ruled.

In ancient times that chief of royal sages, possessing the whole world, brought about the confusion of castes, having his mind beset with lust.—(67)

भुञ्जन् पालयन् । कथं पुनर् वर्णसंकरं प्रवर्तयन् राजर्षीणां प्रवरः । उक्तं¹⁶⁷ महीम् अखिलां भुनक्ति यः महाराजत्वात् । कामेन रागादिलक्षणेन्ओपहता नाशिता चेतना चित्तस्थैर्यं यस्य सः ॥ ९.६७ ॥

‘Possessing,’—ruling over.

“When the King brought about the confusion of castes, how can he be called the chief of royal sages?”

The answer is that possessing the whole Earth, he was a great King, but he had his ‘mind’— mental equanimity—‘besat’—destroyed—‘by lust’—in the shape of carnal desires and so forth.—(67)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 738 and in Vyavahāra, 186a).

**(verses 9.60-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.60].

067 That chief of royal sages who formerly possessed the whole world, caused a confusion of the castes (varna), his intellect being destroyed by lust.

Since then, whenever any one, through folly, ‘authorises’ a woman whose husband is dead, to beget children,—him the good men censure.—(68)

स्पष्टार्थो ऽर्थवादः ॥ ९.६८ ॥

The sense of this declaratory passage is clear.—(68)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 738 and Vyavahāra, 186a).

**(verses 9.60-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.60].

इमे नियोगप्रतिषेधार्थाः सपुराकल्पाः पञ्चश्लोकाः । उक्तप्रतिषिद्धत्वाच् च नियोगस्य विकल्पः । अनयोस् तु स्मृत्योः कतरा ज्याससीति । किं नः । एतेन शक्यते त्व् एतद् एवं वक्तुम् । उभयत्राभ्युदयः, येनैकत्रापत्यम्, अन्यत्र संयमः । उभयं च विशेषतः संस्कृतम्, यतो नियोगो ऽप्य् अभ्युदयाय । न हि मृतस्य जीवतो वा पत्युर् नियोक्तुः [वा] काचिद् इन्द्रियप्रीतिर् अस्ति, नापि पित्रादीनाम् । विधानसामर्थाच् च पित्रादीनाम् अपि योग्याभ्युदयायेति गम्यते । प्रतिषेधोपदेशसामर्थाच् चानियोगे ऽप्य् अनत्ययः । विधवानियोगसाम्याच् च तत्प्रकरण एवायं कन्यानियोगः शिष्यते ॥ ९.६४–६८ ॥

068 Since that (time) the virtuous censure that (man) who in his folly appoints a woman, whose husband died, to (bear) children (to another man).

If the husband of a maiden dies after the troth has been verbally plighted,—shall her then own younger brother-in-law espouse in the following manner.—(69)

नियोगरूपत्वात् कन्यागतो ऽयं धर्म उच्यते । वाचा सत्ये कृते वाग्दाने निवृत्ते, एकेन दत्तापरेण प्रतिगृहीता । ताम् अनेन वक्ष्यमाणेन विधानेन **निजः **सोदरो देवरो विन्देत विवाहयेत् ॥ ९.६९ ॥

This verse lays down a practice in connection with maidens, which has the form of ‘authorization’.

‘After the troth has been verbally plighted’—i.e., alter the accomplishment of verbal betrothal;—when she has been given away orally by one and accepted by the other party.

‘Her own younger brother-in-law shall espouse’—marry—‘her, in the following manner’—(69)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (1.69), as enunciating the view that the sanction of the ‘kṣeṭraja’ son pertains only to those cases where the bridegroom has died after the verbal betrothal;—again under 2.127, as describing the case in which alone ‘niyoga’ is permissible;—and it adds that this verse implies that the man to whom a girl has been betrothed has become her ‘husband’ even before the marriage rites have been performed.

Mitākṣarā adds the following notes:—When the ‘husband’ to whom the girl has been betrothed dies, then his ‘own’ i.e., uterine brother, elder or younger, ‘vindeta,’ shall take her, i.e., marry her. It construes ‘anena vidhānena’ with the next verse.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 129), to the effect that the child born under this rule belongs to the person to whom the girl had been previously betrothed;—in Aparārka (p. 78), which also notes that this verse serves to restrict the sanction of ‘niyoga’ or of ‘marriage of widows’ to cases of mere betrothal, not of actual marriage;—in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 351), to the same effect; and it adds that for this reason the foregoing conflicting verses 59-68 should not be understood as setting forth two optional alternatives;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 737), to the effect that ‘niyoga’ does not mean mere intercourse, without marriage, it means marriage and then intercourse;—and again on p. 756, as laying down the marrying of the girl by her younger brother-in-law, on the death of her (betrothed) husband.

This verse is quoted also in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 38a).

**(verses 9.69-70)
**

Vaśiṣṭha (17.72-74).—‘If the betrothed of a maiden die after she has been promised to him verbally and by a libation of water,—but before she was married to him with the sacred texts,—she belongs to her father alone. If a damsel has been abducted by force, and not wedded with the sacred texts, she may lawfully he given to another man; she is even like a maiden. If before the death of her husband, the damsel had merely been wedded with the sacred texts, and the marriage had not been consummated, she may be married again.’

Kātyāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 739).—‘If a man should die or become lost after betrothal, the girl shall wait for three menstrual periods and then marry another person.’

विधानं विधिर् विवाहो यथोक्तः, विन्देतेति वचनात् । इतरथा ह्य् अनूढाम् उपगच्छतः कन्यादूषणम् उपपतं स्यात् । निय्मार्थश् चैवम् आरम्भः । एतस्माद् एव च लिङ्गात् प्राग् विवाहात् वाक्प्रदानम् अस्ति, यस्मिन् निर्वृत्ते मृते भर्तरि सान्यस्मै दीयेत ॥ ९.६९ ॥

069 If the (future) husband of a maiden dies after troth verbally plighted, her brother-in-law shall wed her according to the following rule.

When he has, according to rule, espoused her, clad in white garments and pure in her observances, they shall approach each other once in each season, until issue.—(70)

यथाविधि यथाशास्त्रम् । अधिगमैनाम्, यथा¹⁶⁸ वैवाह्यो विधिस् तथा विवाह्य । वाचनिको ऽयं विवाहः । पुनर्भूश् च तथोच्यते । न वा व्यूढापि सती भार्या भवति । केवलं परार्थो ऽस्या वाचनिको विवाहः । तथा च दर्शयति- “न दत्वा कस्यचित् कन्यां पुनर् अन्यस्य दीयते” (म्ध् ९.७१) इति । नासौ देवराय दीयत इत्य् अर्थः । अदत्ता चास्वभूता कथम् इव भार्या भवेत् शुक्लवस्त्राम् । नियमो गमने, अन्यस्मिन्न् अपि नियोगे धर्मो ऽयम् इष्यते ॥ ९.७० ॥

‘According to rule’—in accordance with the rules laid down in the scriptures.

‘Has espoused her’—This would be ‘espousal’ or ‘marriage’ only in name; as the maiden in such a case would he called a ‘punarbhū,’ ‘a remarried widow’; and even though married, she could not be a ‘wife’ (in the real sense of the term); her marriage, which is nominal, being only for a defenite purpose. That this is so is shown in the next verse—‘Having given away his daughter to one man, one shall not give her to another,’—which means, that she should not be given to her younger brother-in-law either; and when she is not given away—and as such does not become the property of the man—how could she he his ‘wife’?

‘Clad in white garments’;—this is a rule that is to be observed by the man approaching the woman; it is to be observed also in other cases of ‘authorisation.’—(70)

This verse is quoted along with 69 in Mitākṣarā (2.127), which adds the following notes:—‘Yathāvidhi,’ in accordance with the scriptures,—‘adhigamya’, having married,—‘anena vidhānena,’ (of the preceding verse) i.e., ‘besmearing himself with clarified butter, with speech held in check and so forth’,—‘śuklavastrām śucivratām,’ with her mind and body under full control,—‘mithaḥ,’ in secret,—shall approach her once during each course, till conception takes place. It proceeds to declare that all this does not make the woman the actual ‘wife’ of the brother-in-law; hence the child bora of this union belongs to the real (i.e., the former) husband;—Bālambhaṭṭī adds that the action of the brother-in-law is purely for the purpose of providing a child for his dead brother; it goes on to add the following notes Kullūka Bhaṭṭa remarks that the fact of the child born of the intercourse here sanctioned belonging to the dead betrothed is clear from the restriction imposed, that there is to be intercourse only once during the course, and that also only until conception takes place.—Having thus stated the view of the older writers, Bālambhaṭṭī enters into a long discussion and comes to the conclusion that the sanction of remarriage must refer to a regular widow—who loses her real husband after full marriage, and not only after betrothal; and it naively remarks that the opinion of the older writers is due to prejudice against ‘niyoga,’ by reason of its having been forbidden during the Kaliyuga.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 129), which also quotes Kullūka Bhaṭṭa’s remark (quoted in Bālambhaṭṭī above). It goes on to add that what is here laid down should be done only if the woman concerned is willing to do it, not otherwise; as is clearly declared by Vaśiṣṭha.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 351);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 737).

**(verses 9.69-70)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.69].

यथाविध्यधिगम्यैनां विधिवद् ऊढाम् । शुक्लवस्त्राम् इति नियमः । शुचिव्रतां मनोवागादिसंयताम् । मिथो भजेताप्रसवात् सकृत् सकृद् ऋताव् ऋतौ । कायसामान्याद् विधवानियोगे ऽप्य् एवम् एव स्यात् । पूर्वं च घृता[क्तत्वादि यद् उक्तं] तद् इह सर्वं स्यात्, समानत्वान् नियोगस्य ॥ ९.७० ॥

070 Having, according to the rule, espoused her (who must be) clad in white garments and be intent on purity, he shall approach her once in each proper season until issue (be had).

Having given away his daughter to one man, the wise man should not give her away again. Having given her away once, if he gives her again, he incurs the guilt of ‘fraud towards men.’—‘(7l)

“तेषां निष्ठा तु विज्ञेया विद्वद्भिः सप्तमे पदे” (म्ध् ८.२२७) इति प्राग्विवाहान् मृते वरे दत्तायाम् अपि पुनर् दानाशङ्कायां प्रतिषेधो ऽयम् । विशिष्टे तु पुनर् वचनम्, तथाविधा¹⁶⁹ पुनर्भूर् उक्ता । नान्यस्मै दत्वा तस्मिन् मृते ऽन्यस्मै दद्यात् । तथा कुर्वन् प्राप्नोति पुरुषानृतम्, मनुष्यहरणे यत् पापं तत् तस्य¹⁷⁰ भवति ॥ ९.७१ ॥

It has been declared ‘that consummation of it is to be understood as occurring at the seventh step’ [(8.227)]. People may be inclined to the notion that if the bridegroom dies before this point has been reached, the girl may be given away to another man; it is this notion that the present text, precludes.

This prohibition has been repeated here, in view of the special circumstances herein mentioned; as a matter of fact, the girl married after betrothal has been already declared to be a ‘remarried widow.’

When the girl has been betrothed, given away, to one man,—if he happens to die—she shall not be given to another. By doing this the father incurs the guilt of ‘fraud towards men’; —i.e., he incurs the same guilt that would be incurred by the kidnapping of a human being.—(71)

[See above, 8.98.]

“Medhātithi and Nandana say that the verse is meant to forbid marriage of a girl whose betrothed has died. But Kullūka thinks that it refers to all cases where a betrothal has taken place, and that it removes a doubt which might arise through a too strict interpretation of 8.227.”—Buhler.

This verse in quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 326);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 220).

Viṣṇu (5.160-161).—‘He who, having promised his daughter to one suitor, marries her to another, shall be punished as a thief, unless the first suitor have a blemish.’

Yājñavalkya (1.65).—‘A girl is betrothed but once; if the father takes her away after that, he should suffer the punishment of a thief; but he may take her away from the man to whom she has been betrothed, if a superior suitor happens to turn up.’

Nārada (12-30).—‘Should a more respectable suitor, who appears eligible in point of religious merit, fortune and amiability, present himself,—after the nuptial fee has already been presented by a former suitor,—the verbal engagement previously made shall he annulled.’

[(See texts under 47.)]

“सहस्रं पुरुषानृतम्” इति । दत्वान्यस्य कस्यचिद् दानाशङ्कया प्रतिषेधानुवादो ऽयम् ॥ ९.७१ ॥

071 Let no prudent man, after giving his daughter to one (man), give her again to another; for he who gives (his daughter) whom he had before given, incurs (the guilt of) speaking falsely regarding a human being.

Even after having accepted the maiden in due form, one mat repudiate her, if she be blemished, or diseased, or corrupted, or betrothed by deception.—(72)

विधिः शास्त्रम्,¹⁷¹ तद् अर्हतीति विधिवत् । यादृशः शास्त्रेण विधिर् उक्तः- “अद्भिर् एव द्विजाग्र्याणाम्” (म्ध् ३.३५) इति । स च कैश्चिद् उदकाधिकारः कन्याविषये स्मर्यते । तेन प्रतिगृह्यापि त्यजेत् कन्यां प्राग् विवाहात् । विगर्हितां दुर्लक्षणां¹⁷² पूर्वं प्रतिगृहीतां अक्षतयोनिम्¹⁷³ अपि तथा निर्लज्जां बहुपुरुषभाषिणीम्, व्याधितां क्षयव्याधिगृहीताम्, विप्रदुष्टां¹⁷⁴ रोगिण्यादिशब्दिताम् अन्यगतभावां च त्यजेत् ।

• अन्ये¹⁷⁵ क्षतयोनिं विप्रदुष्टां व्याचक्षते ।

• न ते सम्यङ् मन्यन्ते । यदि तावत् पुरुषानुपभुक्ता स्त्री कन्या अविकृता¹⁷⁶ तदा नैव दुष्यति । अथ पुरुषसंयुक्ता तदा कन्यैव न भवति । तत्र त्यजेत् कन्याम् इति सामानाधिकारण्यानुपपत्तिः । उक्तश् च तस्यास् त्यागः । छद्मना चोपपादिता न्यूनाधिकाङ्गी¹⁷⁷ या हेतुनियुक्ता¹⁷⁸ । अकथितेषु स्वल्पेष्व् अपि दोषेषु कृतवरणापि त्याज्यैव ॥ ९.७२ ॥

‘Form’—as prescribed in the scriptures; what is done in accordance with this—i.e., as laid down in 3.35 et-seq,—where the use of water has been held by some to be meant for the case of maidens.

When one has, according to this form, accepted a maiden,—he may ‘repudiate, her’—before marriage is done.

‘Blemished’—disfigured by evil bodily marks, not perceived before. Even though she may have been accepted, and be very handsome, yet if she be found to be wanting in modesty, or harsh of tongue.

‘Diseased’— suffering from consumption.

‘Corrupted’—one who is known among men as suffering from an incurable disease, or as being in love with another man.

Such a girl one may repudiate.

Some people have explained ‘vipraduṣṭā’ as ‘deflowered.’

This however is not accepted by others as right. So long as the girl has not been enjoyed by a man, and as such remains a ‘maiden,’ she cannot be regarded as ‘corrupted’; and after she has been enjoyed, she is no longer a ‘maiden’; so that in this case there could be no sense in the assertion that ‘one may repudiate the corrupted maiden.’ And the abandoning of the ‘deflowerd’ girl has been already laid down before (under 8.226).

‘Betrothed by deception’—actually wanting in limbs, or having superfluous limbs.

Since the text mentions the presence of defects as the ground for repudiation, it follows that even in the presence of such minor defects as are not mentioned here,—one may abandon the girl, even after betrothal.—(72)

‘Vipraduṣṭām’—‘Blemished, by bodily defects’ (Medhātithi, Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana); ‘belonging to a base family’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 492), to the effect that it is not only the giver of a defective maiden that is to be punished, but the girl herself is to be renounced in Madanapārijāta (p. 154), which adds the following notes:—‘Vipraduṣṭā’ is one who entertains longings for another man,—‘Chadmanā’, by showing to the bridegrom a girl other than the one to be married;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 744), which adds the following notes:—

‘Vigarhitām’, already previously married, but ‘impenetrated;’ it quotes Medhātithi’s words as ‘pūrvam pratigṛhītām akṣatayonimapi’; ‘vipraduṣṭām,’ having her affections centred in another man;—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 106), which explains ‘vigarhitām,’ as ‘defective’;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 221), as laying down the divorcing of a girl, after the detection of some defect in her,—it explains ‘vipraduṣṭām’ as ‘vividham prakarṣeṇa duṣṭām,’ ‘having several serious defects.’

**(verses 9.72-73)
**

Viṣṇu (5.162).—‘The punishment of a thief is ordained for a suitor abandoning a girl after betrothal, if she is free from blemish.’

Yājñavalkya (1.66).—‘If a man gives away a girl without mentioning her defects, he should be fined with the highest amercement; but the man that abandons a faultless girl betrothed to him should be punished; and if he falsely attributes defects to her, he should be fined one hundred.’

Nārada (Aparārka, p. 96).—‘After having accepted a maiden free from defects, if the man abandons her, he should he punished; and even though he may desire another maiden he should marry the same former maiden.’

Do. (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 745).—‘One shall not find fault with a faultless bride, or with a faultless bridegroom; but if the fault is there, there is nothing wrong in mentioning it and abandoning one another.’

Kātyāyana (Do.).—‘If a man marries a girl without proclaiming his own defects, or asks for her hand, he shall not obtain her, even though she may have been betrothed to him. In the same manner if the girl is subsequently found to have defects, the giver of her shall be punished.’

प्रतिगृ]हीतापि सत्य् एव निमित्ते त्याजा (?) नान्यत्र “निष्क्रयविसर्गाभ्याम्” इति वचनात् । अतो ऽस्याः त्यागनिमित्तैर् विना यथाकामं न त्यागो ऽस्ति, यथोच्छिष्टद्रव्याणाम् ॥ ९.७२ ॥

072 Though (a man) may have accepted a damsel in due form, he may abandon (her if she be) blemished, diseased, or deflowered, and (if she have been) given with fraud.

If a man gives away a defective maiden, without declaring the defects, one may annul that act of the wicked girl-betrother.—(73)

कन्यादोषा उक्ताः । तान् अनाख्याय अनुक्त्वा प्रयच्छति ददाति तस्य तद् दानं वितथं निष्फलं कुर्यात् प्रत्यर्पणेन । उक्त एवायम् अर्थः पूर्वश्लोकेनातिस्पष्टीकृतः ॥ ९.७३ ॥

The defects of the maiden have been already described. If a man gives her away without declaring those defects,—one may ‘annul’—render null and void—that ‘act’—of giving—by returning the gift This, though already laid down in the preceding verse, has been made still clearer by the present one.—(73)

**(verses 9.72-73)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.72].

छद्मनोपपादिता त्याज्येत्यस्यायम् अनुवादः कारणतस् त्यागे दोशा(?)भावप्रदर्शनार्थम् ॥ ९.७३ ॥

073 If anybody gives away a maiden possessing blemishes without declaring them, (the bridegroom) may annul that (contract) with the evil-minded giver.

A man having business may go abroad, after having provided for the maintenance of his wife; for a wife, even though virtuous, may become corrupt, when distressed by want of subsistence.—(74)

यदा प्रवसेत् तदा भार्याया वृत्तिं विधाय प्रवसेद् इति विधिं विधायेत्य् एवम् अर्थं द्रष्टव्यम्- “प्रवसन् भार्याया वृत्तिं विदधीत” इति । तथा कुर्याद् यथास्या यावत् प्रवासं वृत्तिर् भवति । शरीरस्थितिहेतुभोजनाच्छादनगृह्योपकरणादि । तां विधाय प्रवसेत् स्वदेशाद् देशान्तरं गच्छेत् । कार्यवान् कार्यं पुरुषार्थो दृष्टो ऽदृष्टश् च । अदृष्टो धर्मो दृष्टाव् अर्थकामौ । तथा वक्ष्यति “प्रोषितो धर्मकार्यार्थम्” (म्ध् ९.७६) इत्यादिना । अन्तरेणैतानि निमित्तानि भार्यां हित्वा प्रवासो निषिध्यते । अवृत्तिकर्शिता हि । दृष्टदोषप्रदर्शनम् अर्थवादः । अवृत्त्या दरिद्रेण कर्शिता पीडिता प्रदुष्येत् पुरुषान्तरसंपर्कादिना । स्थितिमत्य् अपि । स्थितिः कुलाचारस् तत्संपन्ना क्षुधावसरे दीना दोषम् अवाप्नुयाद् अन्यं भर्तारम् आश्रित्य जीवतीति भाव्यत एतत् । संभावनायां लिङ् ॥ ९.७४ ॥

All that is meant by the injunction here put forth is that whenever a man goes abroad, he should do so after having made provision for his wife’s subsistence; the form of the injunction being—‘one going abroad should make provision for the subsistence of his wife’; that is, he should so arrange it that during the time that he is away, she shall be supplied with means of sustaining her body, with food, clothing and other household requisites.

Having provided for all this, he shall^(‘)go abroad,’ i.e., go away to foreign lands.

‘Having business.’—‘Business’ stands for the man’s purpose, visible (temporal) as well as invisible (spritual); the latter consisting in ‘merit’ and the former in ‘wealth’ and ‘pleasure.’ This same idea is going to be set forth again (in 76)—‘If the man has gone abroad for the purposes of merit, etc.’

This text forbids journeying abroad and leaving the wife behind, in the absence of some such purpose as those herein mentioned.

‘Distressed by want of subsistence.’—This points out a visible harm likely to arise; and is a purely declamatory assertion. ‘Distressed’—troubled—‘by want of subsistence’— by poverty.

‘May become corrupt’—by intercourse with other men.

‘Even though virtuous.’—‘Virtue’ stands for the customs and ways of the family; and she who keeps up these is ‘virtuous.’

It is quite likely that through hunger and other forms of privation, the distressed wife may fall into corruption, and maintain herself by betaking herself to another ‘husband.’ The affix in ‘praduṣyet’ indicates likelihood—(74)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 418), which explains ‘sthitimatī’ as ‘endowed with modesty and other virtues.’

**(verses 9.74-75)
**

Viṣṇu (25.9-10).—‘She shall not decorate herself with ornaments while her husband is absent from home;—nor resort to the bouses of strangers.’

Yājñavalkya (1.84).—‘Amusements, ornamenting the body, visiting social gatherings and festivals, visiting other’s houses—these should be avoided by the woman whose husband has gone abroad.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Aparārka,p. 108).—‘Swinging, dancing, amusements, picture-seeing, applying cosmetics, visiting gardens, going out in conveyances, sitting in exposed places, rich food and drink, sporting with balls, perfumes, garlands, ornaments, polishing of teeth, collyrium, and toilet,—all these should be avoided by women whose husbands have gone abroad.’

Bṛhaspati (25.9-10).—‘While her husband is absent, a woman must avoid decorating herself, as well as dancing, singing, public spectacles or festivals and meat or intoxicating drinks.’

Hārīta (Do., p. 440).—‘During the absence of her husband, the woman shall not adorn herself, nor unbind her hair.’

कार्यार्थं नियमेन ग्रासाच्छादनप्रविधानं कुर्याद् भार्यायाः । अस्य नियमविधेर् अर्थवाद उत्तरः श्लोकार्धः । कार्यवतश् च मनुष्यस्य प्रवासोपदेशाद् विना कार्येण भार्यां मुक्त्वान्यत्र गमनं प्रतिषेधति ॥ ९.७४ ॥

074 A man who has business (abroad) may depart after securing a maintenance for his wife; for a wife, even though virtuous, may be corrupted if she be distressed by want of subsistence.

When the husband has gone abroad after having provided for her subsistence, she shall live on, firmly devoted to restraint. When however he has gone without providing for it, she shall subsist by unobjectionable industries.—(75)

नियमो यथा संनिहिते¹⁷⁹ भर्तरि परिगृहप्रयाणादिनिषेध एवं प्रोषिते ऽपि आस्थिता आश्रिता गृहीतवती । अकृत्वा तु वृत्तिं प्रोषिते शिल्पैर् जीवेद् इति¹⁸⁰ कर्तनजालिकाकरणादिना । गर्हितानि वस्तूनि व्यजनादीनि¹⁸¹ । एष एव विधवादीनां निजश्रमजन्यो वृत्त्युपायः ॥ ९.७५ ॥

‘Restraint’—such as, avoiding the house of others, in the absence of her husband, as she does when he is present ‘Devoted’—fixed, observing.

When he has gone without making provision for her, she should subsist by industries;—such as, spinning, lace-making and the like. The ‘objectionable’ industries are the making of fans and such things.

These are the means of subsistence for widows, depending upon their own labour.—(75)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 438), which explains the construction as ‘vṛttim vidhāya proṣiie;’ and explains ‘jīvet’ as ‘should maintain herself by the means provided for her by her husband.’

**(verses 9.74-75)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.74].

एतस्याम् अवस्थायाम् अगर्हितशिल्पजीवनम् अभ्यनुज्ञायते तस्या जालिकादिकरणम् । एतेन विधवाया अजातपुत्राया वृत्त्युपायो व्याख्यातः । गर्हितं च वस्त्रनिर्णेजनादि । प्रवासप्रयोजनविशेषेण तदाजीवनापेक्षया कालविकल्पम् इदानीं दर्शयति ॥ ९.७५ ॥

075 If (the husband) went on a journey after providing (for her), the wife shall subject herself to restraints in her daily life; but if he departed without providing (for her), she may subsist by blameless manual work.

If the husband went abroad for some sacred duty, he should be awaited for eight years; if for learning, or for fame, six years; but three years, if for pleasure.—(76)

यद् उक्तं “कार्यवान् प्रवसेत् (म्ध् ९.७४) इति, तानि कार्याणि दर्शयति । तद्विशेषेण प्रतीक्षाकालभेदः । परतस् त्व् इदं तया कर्तव्यम् इति नोक्तम्¹⁸² ।

• तत्र केचिद् आहुः- प्रकरणाद् “अगर्हितैर् जीवेत् (म्ध् ९.७५) इति ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । प्राग् अस्मात् कालाद् अगर्हितैर् इतीयं किं म्रियताम् । न ह्य् अस्या अत्मत्याग इष्यते, पुंस इव प्रतिषिद्धत्वात् । तस्मात् प्राग् अप्य् अस्मात् प्रतीक्षणविधेर् अगर्हितैः शिल्पैर् अजीवन्ती गर्हितैर् जीवेत् ।

• अन्ये व्यभिचारम् इच्छन्ति । तथा च स्मृत्यन्तरे-

• नष्टे मृते प्रव्रजिते क्लीबे च पतिते पतौ ।

• पञ्चस्व् आपत्सु नारीणां पतिर् अन्यो विधीयते ॥ (न्स्म् १२.९७)

• अन्ये ऽप्य् आहुः । नास्या जातु¹⁸³ ब्रह्मचर्यम् अपनेतुं शक्यते । स्त्रीधर्मेषु हि तद् अस्या विहितं मनुनापि- “न तु नामापि गृह्णीयात् पत्यौ प्रेते परस्य तु” (म्ध् ५.१५५) इति । मृते भर्तरि नास्ति व्यभिचारः, किम् अङ्ग प्रोषिते । पतिशब्दो हि पालनक्रियानिमित्तकः, ग्रामपतिः सेनायाः पतिर् इति । अतश् चास्माद् वचनाद् नैषा¹⁸⁴ भर्तृपरतन्त्रा स्यात् । अपि त्व् आत्मनो जीवनार्थं सैरन्ध्रीकरणादिकर्मभिर्¹⁸⁵ अन्यम् आश्रयेत । तच् च यदा षण्मसभृत्या संवत्सरभृत्या वा कस्मिंश्चिद् आश्रिते भर्ता यद्य् आगच्छेत् तदानीं तां चेद्¹⁸⁶ वशीकर्तुं शक्नुयात् त्यज त्वं भार्याम् इति यावद् भवति कालो न पूर्णः,¹⁸⁷ प्राक् पत्युर् एव सा, पञ्चमे चर्वितम् अन्यत् ।

• अन्ये ऽप्य् अर्थम् इमम् आहुः ।

• पूर्वे तु पुनर्भूवृत्तम् इच्छन्ति । या पत्या वा परित्यक्ता भवति, यस्याः किल पतिर् इयन्तं कालं निहितवृत्तिको नागच्छति, सा तेन त्यक्तैव भवति । ततश् च यदि सा पुनर्भूधर्मेणान्येनोढा भवेत्, तदा भर्ताभ्यागतो न किंचिद् ब्रूयात् । पुनर् भवस्येयं भार्येति ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । “न निष्क्रयविसर्गाभ्याम्” (म्ध् ९.४६) इति तस्य श्लोकस्यार्थवत्त्वं दर्शयिष्यामः ।

• धर्मश् च तत्कार्यं च धर्मकार्यं । सो ऽर्थः प्रयोजनं प्रवासस्येति धर्मकार्यार्थम् ।

• कुतः । न गृहस्थस्य धर्मार्थो दीर्घकालः प्रवासः । अवश्यं ह्य् अग्नयस् तेन परिचरणीयाः । पाञ्चयज्ञिकम्¹⁸⁸ अनुष्ठेयम् । कुतो गन्तव्यम् “वसन्ते वसन्ते ज्योतिषा यष्टव्यम्” इति । तीर्थस्नानादीन्य् अपि स्मार्थानि च श्रौताविरोधीन्य् अनुष्ठेयानि । न च¹⁸⁹ संविधाय प्रोषितस्य वा बवन्तीति¹⁹⁰ येनोच्यते “संविधायापि प्रवास आपर्वणः,” “स्वयं पर्वणि जुहुयाद् ऋत्विजाम् एकतरकालम्” इति ह्य् उक्तम्¹⁹¹ । अनाहिताग्नेस् तीर्थयात्रायां पाञ्चयज्ञिकस्य¹⁹² तुल्यत्वे ऽपि स्मार्तत्वे भार्यासहितस्योपपत्तेः न तत्त्यागे तीर्थगमनं युक्तम् ।

• उच्यते । गुरुवचनेन, यं गुरवो धर्मार्जने राजोपसेवायां वा स्वकार्याय¹⁹³ प्रेषयन्ति स धर्मार्थं प्रवासः । प्रायश्चित्तं वा तपोवनदेशभ्रमणेन ।

• अथ वार्थार्जनार्थम् एव धर्मकार्यार्थम् अभिप्रेतम्- “दरिद्रो ऽहं कुतश्चिद् धनम् अर्जयिष्ये” ।

• विद्यार्थम् ।

• ननु स्नातस्य च भार्याधिगमः । कृतविद्यस्य च स्नानम् । तत्र कुतः कृतविवाहस्य विद्यार्थिता ।

• दर्शितम् एतत् । ईषदवगतवेदार्थो विवाहे ऽधिक्रियते, निश्चिते स्नानादौ ।

• नैतद् युक्तम् । कृतायां धर्मजिज्ञासायां स्नानं जिज्ञासा च विचारपूर्वकसंशयच्छेदेन निश्चितार्था¹⁹⁴ ।

• सत्यम् । नायं विधिर् विद्यार्थितायाः । तथा च सति धर्मकार्यार्थम् इत्य् अनेनैवावगता स्यात् । उत्पन्ने ऽप्य् अधिकारोपयोगिन्य् अवगमे ऽभ्यासातिशयार्थं विशेषार्थं चान्यासु विद्यासु । क्षिप्रं शौर्ययशःख्यापनार्थं बहिः सविसेषविद्वत्वख्यापनार्थम्¹⁹⁵ । देशान्तरप्रवसने यशोहेतुः प्रवासः ।

• कामार्थं रूपाजीवानुगमो ऽभिप्रेततरां भार्याम् उद्वोढुम् । स्मृत्यन्तरे प्रसूताभेदेन च कालभेदः स्मर्यते । तथा च विष्णुः- “अष्टौ विप्रसूताः षट् राजन्याः चतुरो वैश्या द्विगुणं प्रसूतेति । न शूद्रायाः कालनियमः स्यात् । संवत्सरम् इत्य् एके” इति ॥ ९.७६ ॥

It has been said that a man may go abroad ‘on business’; the present verse proceeds to show the several kinds of ‘business,’—the time of waiting varying with the nature of the business.

The text has said nothing as to what the wife should do after having waited for the eight years. And on this point, some people on the strength of Context, say that she should maintain herself by unobjectionable industries.

This however is not right Because, if the maintaining of herself by unobjectionable industries referred to the time after the eight years of waiting,—then, before the⁻ lapse of that time, is she to die? Suicide is not considered desirable for her, just as it is not for the man; being, as it is, forbidden for all. Hence, the conclusion appears to be that before the lapse of the said time she shall maintain herself by unobjectionable industries; but after that she may have recourse to objectionable ones also.

Others hold that after the said time, the woman may deviate from chastity;—as says smother Smṛti text—‘When the husband is lost, or dead, or become a renunciate, or impotent, or an outcast—in the event of these five calamities smother husband is permitted for women.’ (Parāśara).

Others again hold the following view:—Even in ignorance, it is not open to the woman to renounce her chastity. In fact, it has been laid down among the duties of women (under 5.156) that ‘on the death of her husband she shall not even utter the name of another man’; so that deviation from chastity is not permissible even on the death of her husband,—what to say as to when he has only gone abroad. As regards the Smṛti-text quoted, the word ‘pati’ ‘husband,’ is used there in the sense of protector, just as in the case of such terms as ‘grāmapati’, ‘senāpati’ and so forth. So that all that the present text means is that—‘she should no longer remain dependent upon her husband, she may undertake the work of the toilet-maid or some such thing, under another man who would give her food’; and when she has entered into a contract for such service extending over six months, or a year—if the husband happen to turn up and claim her, asking the employer to give her up,—he can claim her restitution, before the lapse of the eight years; as before that she belongs to her husband.

Other matters relating to this subject have been fully dealt with under Discourse V.

This same view has been accepted by many others also.

Other people, however, hold that the text sanctions recourse to the life of the ‘remarried widow’ (after the lapse of the time mentioned). If a woman is abandoned by her husband,—or if her husband, after having made provision for her, does not return during the said time, and she is as good as abandoned by him,—‘then, she may he married by another man, according to the practice of ‘widow remarriage’; and if the former husband happen to return after that, he can say nothing, and she shall continue to be the wife of the second husband.

This however is not right; since ‘neither by sale nor by repudiation is the wife released from her husband.’ (Manu 9.46); and the uses of this text we shall explain later on.

‘For a sacred duty’— The compound ‘dharmakāryam’ being explained as a karmadhāraya—‘dharma’—‘sacred’—‘kārya’—duty; and that which is for purposes of this is ‘dharmakāryārtham.’

Objection—“For the house-holder, wherefore should there he any protracted journey abroad for a sacred duty? It is incumbent upon him to attend upon the Fires, to perform the

Five Sacrifices. How too can he remain away during the spring season? Since he has got to perform the Jyotiṣ -sacrifice during the spring. Even such acts as bathing in sacred places and the like, which are enjoined by Smṛti texts, have to be performed by him only so long as they are compatible with those laid down by Śruti texts. These could not be possible even for one who has gone abroad after having made arrangements for the maintenance of the fires and other such Śrauta rites. Since it has been laid down that ‘journeys, after proper arrangements during absence, are permissible only till the next New or Full Moon’; and it has also been declared that ‘on the New or Full Moon Day the man shall pour the libations himself.’ Even for one who has not laid the Fires, if pilgrimages were undertaken,—even though these and the performance of the Five Sacrifices would stand upon the same footing, both being laid down by Smṛti texts,—yet as both the acts are laid down as to be done by him along with his wife, there should be no pilgrimage if the wife were left behind.”

Our answer to the above is as follows:—What is said here refers to the commands of one’s elders;—‘i.e., to the case where the man is sent out by his elders, either for acquiring merit, a for attendance upon the king, or on some business of their own,—this going abroad would be ‘for a sacred duty.’ Or, it may refer to the performance of such Expiatory Rites as consist in wandering about hermitages and such places. Or, ‘for satred duty’ may stand for the acquiring of wealth,—the man being poor and seeking to earn wealth by some means. ‘Or for the sake of learning.’—

Objection—“But the taking of a wife is possible only.after one has taken the Final Bath, which is possible only for one who has completed his studies and already acquired learning; wherefore then could there be any possibility for a married man to seek for learning?”

It has been already explained that even after learning a little of what is contained in the Veda, a man becomes entitled to marry, and also to the Final Bath and other Ceremonies.

“This cannot be right; there is Final Bath only after the ‘enquiry into Dharma’ has been completed; and ‘enquiry’ consists in “coming to a definite conclusion after due consideration and clearing of doubts.”

True; but the present text does not contain the injunction that ‘one should seek for learning.’ If it were so, then it would be already included under the ‘purpose of sacred duty’. Then again, even though the man may have acquired sufficient learning to entitle him to Bath and Marriage, yet it would be open to him to seek for further proficiency and practice, specially in the new sciences.

Journey is said to be ‘for fame’, when one goes abroad for advertising his bravery or learning.

‘For pleasure’,—for instance, when one follows a prostitute; or goes about seeking for a more desirable wife.

Another Smṛti text lays down the period of time in reference to the children born:—Says Viṣṇu—‘The Brāhmaṇa shall wait till eight children are born, the Kṣatriya six and the Vaiśya four.’

There is no time-limit in the case of Śūdras. But some people declare the limit in their case to be one year.—(76)

Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda hold that after the expiration of the terms mentioned, the wife shall go to seek her husband. Nandana says—‘the meaning is that no sin is committed if she afterwards takes another husband’.—Medhātithi, having noted and dismissed two other explanations—(a) that ‘she should maintain herself by blameless methods’ [which is the explanation attributed to Medhātithi himself by Buhler], and (b) that ‘she may have intercourse with another man*,—propounds the explanation that ‘she may take service under another man as a toilet-woman in his house, and on the return of her husband, she may return to him, if he can induce her to go.’ He also notes and rejects the explanation of the ‘ancients’ that ‘she may marry another man.’

Nārada (12.98-101).—‘Eight years shall a Brāhmaṇa woman wait for the return of her absent husband; or four years, if she has no issue; after that she may betake herself to another man. A Kṣatriya woman shall wait six years; or three years if she has no issue; a Vaiśya woman, for three years if she has issue; otherwise, two years. No definite period is prescribed for a Śūdra woman, whose husband has gone on a journey. Twice the above periods is ordained for eases where the absent husband is alive and tidings are received of him. The above rules have been laid down for those cases where a man has disappeared. No offence is imputed to a woman if she goes to live with another man after the fixed period has elapsed.’

Gautama (18.15-17).—‘A wife must wait for six years, if her husband has disappeared. If he is heard of, she shall go to him. But if the husband has become a Renunciate, his wife must refrain from intercourse with men. The wife of a Brāhmaṇa who has gone abroad for study must wait for twelve years.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.75-80).—‘The wife of an emigrant shall wait for live years. After five years have passed, she may go out to seek her husband. If, for reasons connected with spiritual or pecuniary matters, she be unwilling to leave her home, she must behave in the same manner as if her husband were dead. In this manner a Brāhmaṇa woman with issue shall wait five years, and one having no issue, four years; a Kṣatriya woman with issue, five years, and one without issue, three years; a Vaiśya woman with issue, five years, and one without issue, two years; a Śūdra woman with issue, three years and one without issue, one year. After that, she shall live among those who are united with her husband, in interest, or by birth, or by the funeral cake, or by water-libations, or by descent from the same family,—each earlier named person being more venerable than the following one. But while any member of the family is living, she shall never go to a stranger.’

अगर्हितेनाजीवेद् इति । अविधायेत्य् अधिकारात् । तस्या एवायं कालनियमः, अगर्हितशिल्पजीवनेन । ऊर्ध्वं तु कालाद् एतस्माद् गर्हितेनापि जीवेच् छिल्पेन । एवं च विरुद्धशिल्पप्रतिप्रसवो ऽयं विज्ञेयः । धर्मकार्यं गुरुवचनादि । कामार्थं रूपाजीवनानुगमः । न तु व्यभिचारः, प्रतीक्ष्यो ऽष्टौ नरः समाः इत्य् एवमादिवचनाद्, येन शास्त्रविरुद्धस् तासां व्यतिक्रमः, अत्यन्तं संयमोपदेशात् । तथा च सति विधवानियोग एव तावत् कथंचिल् लब्धः, कुत एव व्यभिचारः । अन्यस् त्व् आह- अत ऊर्ध्वं व्यभिचारदोषाभावः, प्रतिप्रसवसामर्थ्यात् । न तु नियमेन व्यभिचारोपदेशः । न हि प्रोषिते ऽन्योढायोगो ऽस्ति यतो गुरुनियुक्तापत्यार्थं प्रवर्तते । एवं च सत्य् अत्यन्तम् अजीवन्त्याः प्राणवृत्तिमात्रार्थो रहसिजन्यो वा व्यभिचारमात्रप्रतिप्रसवो ऽयं विज्ञेयः । “या पत्या वा परित्यक्ता” इत्य् एवं परित्यागोपायजन्यपौनर्भवविषयः । तत् त्व् एतद् अत्यन्तशास्त्रविरोधाद् अयुक्तम् । अपरे त्व् इदं मनुष्याणाम् एव प्रवासकालनियमार्थं वर्णयन्ति । अतः परं प्रोषितस्यावस्थाने धर्मार्थम् अपि प्रत्यवायः स्याद् इति । यो ऽयम् अन्यार्थे वाक्ये सामर्थ्यगम्यो ऽर्थः, न तु शब्दार्थतया शक्यः कल्पयितुम् ॥ ९.७६ ॥

076 If the husband went abroad for some sacred duty, (she) must wait for him eight years, if (he went) to (acquire) learning or fame six (years), if (he went) for pleasure three years.

For one year the husband shall bear with a hating wife; after the year he shall wrest her property and cease to co-habit with her.—(77)

द्वेष्यः पतिर् यस्यास् तां द्विषाणाम् । एतेन तु न निष्कासनं¹⁹⁶ कुर्यात् । संपूर्वस्य वसेर् एनाम् इति च द्वितीयानुपपत्तेः, वासयेद् इति निर्भर्त्सयेत् । पातके ऽपि तस्या निष्कासनं नास्ति “निरुन्ध्याद् एकवेश्मनि” (म्ध् ११.१७५) इति वचनात् । प्रायश्चित्ते ऽप्य् अस्मिन् निमित्ते, विनयाधानार्थो ऽपहार¹⁹⁷ इष्यते । न सर्वेण सर्व आत्यन्तिक आच्छेदः ॥ ९.७७ ॥

‘Hating’—she who hates her husband.

The meaning of the verse is that he shall not turn her out of the house. Though the use of the root ‘vas’ with ‘sam’ is not compatible with the Accusative ending in ‘enam’; and ‘samvaset’, ‘co-habit’, would stand for ‘samvāsayet’, ‘allowed to live with him yet it should be taken to mean ‘chiding’. Even in the case of grievious sins, the woman is not to be turned away, since it has been laid down that ‘she is to be kept imprisoned in one room’; similarly, in the case of expiatory rites in connection with such sins. The confiscation of her property also is for the purpose of bringing her to her senses; and it does not mean absolute taking away of all her belongings.—(77)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 423).

**(verses 9.77-84)
**

Nārada (12.92-95).—‘The woman who wastes the entire property of her husband under the pretence that it is her own strīdhana, or who procures abortion, or who makes an attempt on her husband’s life,—the King shall banish her from the town. One who always shows malice to him, or makes unkind speeches, or eats before her husband,—he shall expel from his house. Let not a husband show love to a barren woman, or to one who gives birth to female children only, or whoso conduct is reprehensible, or who constantly contradicts him; if he does love conjugal intercourse with her, he becomes liable to censure himself. If a man forsakes a wife who is obedient, sweet-spoken, skilful, virtuous and the mother of male issue,—the King shall make him mindful of his duty by inflicting severe punishment.’

Yājñavalkya (1.73).—‘One who drinks wine, or is diseased, or guileful, or barren, or destructive of wealth, or harsh-tongued, or brings forth only female children, or bears malice towards her man,—shall be superseded.’

Āpastamba (Aparārka, p. 100).—‘So long as one’s wife is endowed with virtue and offspring, one shall not take to another wife; if she be wanting in either of the two, he shall take to another.’

Baudhāyana (2.4-516).—‘Let him abandon a barren wife in the tenth year; one who bears daughters only, in the twelfth; one whose children all die, in the fifteenth; but her who is quarelsome, without delay.’

Do. (Vivādaratnākara, p. 425).—‘If she does not attend upon him, or is barren or inimical to her husband,—such a wife the wise men always abandon; as also one who talks hurriedly and harshly.’

Viṣṇu (Vivādaratnākara, p. 423).—‘He who forsakes a faultless wife should be punished like a thief.’

Devala (Do.).—‘There is no expiation for the man who forsakes his wife, through folly and unjustly, and thereby abandons his duty and also progeny; hut he may abandon her if she is leprous or outcast or barren, or insane or with menstruation disorganised, or inimical towards himself.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Do.).—‘One who is averse to sexual intercourse, or to pilgrimage, or to the performance of her duties, or who has intercourse with a disciple or an elder,—these four kinds of wife should he abandoned; specially one who is prone to injure her husband.’

Hārīta (Do.).—‘He shall avoid a wife who destroys her embryo, has intercourse with lower castes, or with his disciples and sons, or is addicted to vicious habits, or is in the habit of wasting money and-grains.’

Do. (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 873).—‘The childless wife should be abandoned in the ninth year; one who loses her children, in the tenth year; one who gives birth to daughters only, during the eleventh year; and one of harsh words, immediately.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 872),—‘One shall supersede a wife who is habitually unpleasant or inimical towards men, or disagreeable.’

Devala (Do.).—‘If a wife gives birth to too many children, the husband shall wait for eight years; if she is barren and otherwise defective, ten years; if she gives birth to daughters only, for twelve years,—and then, desirous of male issue, he shall take another wife in the lawful manner.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava—Ācara, p. 508).—‘If the wife is one that puts obstacles in the way of the performance of religious acts, or is unchaste, or is very much diseased,—the husband shall abandon her, for the; preservation of his righteousness;—if she is harsh of speech, he shall not abandon her, but supersede her; nor shall he give up having intercourse with her.’

Dakṣa (Aparārka, p. 113).—‘If the first wife, who is the wife-in-law, becomes faulty, then alone he shall take another wife with better qualities.’

न संवसेद् इत्य् उपगमनिवृत्तिः न निर्वासनम् । पातके ऽपि तस्याः [तन् न] युक्तं “निरुन्ध्याद् एकवेश्मनि” इति तत्र प्रायश्चित्तोपदेशात् । अन्यस् तु त्यागम् एवाह । एवं च सति त्यजतो नातिदोषः कारणोपदेशात् । न त्व् अन्यत्र । सर्वश् च स्त्रीत्यागः प्राग् अग्न्याधेयात् विज्ञेयः, नोत्तरत्र, तया सार्धम् अस्य प्रजाकर्मसहत्वोपदेशाद् इति कश्चित् ॥ ९.७७ ॥

077 For one year let a husband bear with a wife who hates him; but after (the lapse of) a year let him deprive her of her property and cease to cohabit with her.

If the wife disregards her husband who is mad, or intoxicated, or afflicted by disease, she should be deprived of ornaments and appurtenances and abandoned for three months.—(78)

अतिक्रमस् तदुपचर्यावज्ञानं पथ्यौषधादिष्व् अतत्परता, न पुरुषान्तरसंचारः । मासत्रयं परित्यागश् च संभोगस्यैव, पूर्वस्माद् एव हेतोः । हारकटकादिभूषणैर्¹⁹⁸ वियुक्ता कर्तव्या । परिच्छदपरिग्रहेण¹⁹⁹ भाण्डकुण्डादिना दासीदासेन वा ॥ ९.७८ ॥

‘Disregarding’ means neglect of his service, omitting to look after his medication and diet; it does not stand for having recourse to another man.

The ‘abandoning’ for three months also stands only for the omitting of endearing caresses, etc., for reasons already given.

She shall be deprived of ‘ornaments’, such as necklaces, bracelets and so forth;—‘and of appurtenances’—such as vessels, water-jars, slaves and slave-girls, etc., etc.—(78)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 423).

**(verses 9.77-84)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.77].

अत्रासंभोगस् त्यागः, न हि निर्वासनम् ॥ ९.७८ ॥

078 She who shows disrespect to (a husband) who is addicted to (some evil) passion, is a drunkard, or diseased, shall be deserted for three months (and be) deprived of her ornaments and furniture.

If, however, she shows aversion to one who is mad, or an outcast, or impotent, or seedless, or afflicted with foul disease, there shall be no desertion, nor the wresting of her property.—(79)

क्लीबाबीजशब्दौ नपुंसकम् आहतुः । भेदस् तु, एको वातरेता अप्रवृत्तेन्द्रियो ऽपरः । तादृशं या²⁰⁰ द्वेष्टि तस्या²⁰¹ नास्ति निग्रहः पूर्वोक्तः²⁰² । अपवर्तनम् अपहारः, प्रोषितप्रतिषिद्धान्नादयः स्मृत्यन्तरनिषिद्धाः ॥ ९.७९ ॥

‘Impotent’ and ‘seedless’, both denote absence of manly vigour; the only difference is that while the former indicates futility of the seed, the latter implies total absence of virility.

If a wife shows an aversion to such a husband, she is not to suffer punishment.

‘Wresting’—means confiscation. Banishment, stopping of food and such other punishments have been forbidden by other Smṛti-texts.—(79)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 423).

**(verses 9.77-84)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.77].

अत्र निमित्ते ऽत्याग एव तस्याः ॥ ९.७९ ॥

079 But she who shows aversion towards a mad or outcast (husband), a eunuch, one destitute of manly strength, or one afflicted with such diseases as punish crimes, shall neither be cast off nor be deprived of her property.

If the wife is a drunkard, or false in conduct, or rebellious, or diseased or mischievous, or wasteful,—she should be superseded.—(80)

मद्यपासौ मद्यपानरता । पक्तिसंस्कारगृहकार्यानुष्ठानासमर्था तत्परिजागरया,²⁰³ सा परिवेदनायाम् अर्हति । या तु गुरुभिः प्रतिषिद्धमद्यपाना,²⁰⁴ तस्या दण्डं वक्ष्यति “प्रतिषेधे²⁰⁵ पिबेत्” (म्ध् ९.८४) इति । स्वयं नियमस्य त्व् अन्यनियमव्यतिक्रमवत् प्रायश्चित्तेन प्रत्यापत्तिर् युक्ता, पुनर् अधिवेदनं च । तथा च धर्मानुष्ठानप्रजोत्पत्तिगृहकार्योपघातनिमित्तान्य् अधिवेदननिमित्तानि पठ्यन्ते “प्रतिकूला व्याधितार्थघ्नी” इति । ब्राह्मण्यास् तु शास्त्रेण प्रतिषिद्धमद्यायास् तत्पानप्रायश्चित्तम्²⁰⁶ एव भूयो ऽप्रवृत्तौ,²⁰⁷ पातित्यं तु “भ्रूणहनि²⁰⁸ हीनसेवायां स्त्री पतति” (ग्ध् २१.९) इति परिसंख्यानान् न मद्यपाने पातित्यम् इति । तद् एकादशे वक्ष्यामः । उक्तं च पञ्चमे (म्ध् ५.८९) ।

• असत्यवृत्ता असाध्वाचारा भृत्येष्व् असत्परुषवाक्, बलिकर्मणां प्राग् एव भुङ्क्ते, दैवपित्र्ययोर् ब्राह्मणभोजनादौ न श्रद्धावती । अर्थघ्नी²⁰⁹ अतिव्ययशीला भाण्डोपस्करणं न परिरक्षति अनल्पमूल्येन क्रीणाति । हिंस्रा नाकुलशङ्कया भृत्याद्यतिताडणशीला²¹⁰ । अन्वाहिकस्य व्ययस्यापहन्त्री । अधिवेदनं तस्या उपर्य् अन्याविवाहः ॥ ९.८० ॥

अन्यसाम् अप्य् अधिवेदनम् आह ।

‘Drunkard’—addicted to drinking wine; and hence incapable of looking after cooking, and other household work. Such a woman deserves “supersession.” If she persists in drinking, even after she has been forbidden by her elders, she shall undergo the punishment laid down later on, in verse 84. For the sin of transgressing what she ought to observe, she should perform an expiatory rite; but on repetition, she shall be superseded.

Other grounds for supersession have been laid down as hampering the due fulfilment of religious rites, begetting of children and other household duties.

In the case of the Brāhmaṇa woman, for whom wine-drinking has been forbidden by the scriptures, there is to be expiation of the sin of drinking, if the act is not repeated. She does not become an outcast, since the grounds for women being outcasts have been enumerated—‘abortion, and service of low-born men are the grounds for women becoming outcasts’—(says Gautama, 21.9.) All this we shall explain under Discourse XI; it has been dealt with under Discourse V also.

‘False in Conduct’—whose conduct is not good; for instance, whose treatment of servants is harsh, who takes her food even before the religious offerings have been made, who has no faith in rites in honour of gods and pitṛs, or in the feeding of Brāhmṇnas and such religious acts.

‘Wasteful’—who is a spendthrift, and does not take proper care of her utensils and furniture, and buys them at high prices and so forth.

‘Mischievous’—who is inclined to inflict punishments for very small offences (?), and who is prone to interfere with ordinary daily expenditure (?).

‘Supersession’—i.e., marrying of a wife over and above the said one.—(80)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 508), which explains ‘vyādhitā’ as ‘suffering from a long lingering disease—in Madanapārijāta (p. 188), which adds the following notes:—‘Madyapā’, the woman who is addicted to drinking what is forbidden for the caste to which she belongs,—‘asatyavṛttā,’ whose conduct is not good,—‘pratikūlā,’ in the habit of doing tilings disagreeable to her husband and of beating her children, servants and others,—‘arthaghnī,’ prone, through idleness, to wasting money,—‘adhivedana’ means the taking of another wife.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 100), which adds the note that ‘vyādhitā’ means suffering from a lingering disease;—it quotes this verse in support of the view that what is meant to be a ground for superseding the wife is not the drinking of liquor, but the drinking of any intoxicant; the drinking of wine being one of the ‘serious’ sins, it would make the woman liable to be renounced, and not only superseded.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 871), whieh adds that ‘Madyapā’ here has been held by older writers to refer only to women of the twice-born castes; but in reality it refers to all the four castes, for all of whom the drinking of all the three kinds of ‘wine’—Gauḍī, Mādhvī and Paiṣṭī—is forbidden;—‘asatyavṛttā’ is ill-behaved or untruthful;—‘pratikūlā,’ acting in ways injurious to her husband;—‘vyādhitā,’ suffering from such diseases as render her unfit for household work;—‘hiṃsrā’, addicted to beating children and maidservants;—‘arthaghnī’, ‘prone to wasting the wealth acquired;’—‘sarvadā’ is to be construed as qualifying ‘asatyavṛttā’ and the other epithets,—the meaning being the wife who is always untruthful.

It is quoted in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 592), which explains ‘vyādhitā’ as a ‘confirmed invalid.’

**(verses 9.77-84)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.77].

अत्र कश्चिद् आह- सत्य् अपि जात्यर्थाविशेषे “देवानाम् अश्नता हविः” इति लिङ्गात् पुंस एव ब्राह्मणस्य सुरापानप्रतिषेधो नियमन गम्यते, ब्राह्मण्यास् तु क्xअत्रियवैश्यवद् अप्रतिषेधस् तल्लिङ्गाद् विज्ञायते । तथा च तद्वधे क्षत्रियवैश्यवधप्रायश्चित्तम् उपपातकं वक्ष्यति । उपस्पर्शने च शूद्रसाम्यम् । स्त्रीशूद्रोच्छिष्टभक्षणे च । स्मृत्यन्तरे च परिसंख्यातं तासां पातकम् । “ब्रूणहनि हीनवर्णसेवायां च स्त्री पतति” । श्रुतौ च शतकुम्भासुरासंप्रदानं विहितम् । स्त्रीश्राद्धे विशेषः । “प्रति[षि]द्धापि चेद् या तु मद्यम् अभ्युदयेष्व् अपि” इति वचनान् मद्यपानं सर्वस्त्रीणां प्रतिषिद्धम्, न तु विशिष्टसुरायाः । द्विजातिस्त्रीणां क्षत्रियवैश्यवत् । एवं च सति नियमपक्षमात्रायाः स्वयं गुरुवचनेन [वा प्रतिषिद्धाया मद्यपाने ऽध्]इवेदनं तस्या वेदितव्यम् इति । तद् अयुक्तम् । “पतत्य् अर्धं शरीरस्य यस्य भार्या सुरां पिबेत्” इत्यादिस्मृत्यन्तरदर्शनात् । “देवानाम् अश्नता हविः” इत्य् अस्यार्थवादार्थत्वाच् च । ब्राह्म[ण्यापि] सुरापानं न कर्तव्यम् इति । अधिवेदनं नाम तद् उपर्य् अन्या[वि]वाहः । एतेष्व् अपि च निमित्तेषु धर्महानौ; न नियमेनाधिवेदनम्; तत्र हि प्रायश्चित्तैर् अर्ध[पाप]हानिः तासां [शक्यत्वात्] ऋजूकर्तुम् ॥ ९.८० ॥

080 She who drinks spirituous liquor, is of bad conduct, rebellious, diseased, mischievous, or wasteful, may at any time be superseded (by another wife).

The barren wife shall be superseded in the eighth year; in the tenth she whose children die off; in the eleventh she who bears only daughters; but immediately she who talks harshly.—(81)

तत्र वन्ध्याष्टमे ऽब्दे ऽधिवेद्या दशमे तु मृतप्रजा । नाधिवेदने ऽपत्योत्पत्त्यभावाद् धि वन्ध्याया अनुष्ठानपरिपातनं स्यात्, अपत्योत्पत्तिविधेर्²¹¹ आधानविधेश्²¹² च । नापुत्रे ह्य् आधानं श्रूयते । एवं मृतप्रजायाः स्त्रीजनन्याः । अप्रियवादिन्यास् तु दोषाभावेन नाधिवेदनं, न²¹³ सत्यां क्षमायाम् अयं नियमः²¹⁴ ॥ ९.८१ ॥

The text proceeds to lay down the supersession of other kinds of wives.

Among these, the barren one should be superseded in the eighth year; in the tenth, she whose children die off.

By marrying a second wife the man shall save himself from the contingency of disobeying the injunction regarding the Laying of Fire (to which a childless person is not entitled), and that regarding the begetting of children,—to which he would be liable by reason of his wife being childless. Because, the Laying of Fire is not found to be prescribed for a sonless person.

The same holds good regarding the wife that bears only daughters; as also she whose children die off.

As regards the wife who is harsh of speech, as there is no such serious defect, there need be no supersession; and she may be forgiven.—(81)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 188), which adds that ‘adhivettavyā’ has to be supplied at the end;—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 873);—in Aparārka (p. 100);—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 230);—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 508);—and in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 363).

**(verses 9.77-84)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.77].

धर्महानौ सत्याम् । एतद् आसाम् अधिवेदननियमतो विज्ञेयम्, येन जातपुत्रस्याधिकारः श्रौतेषु । अप्रियवादिन्यास् त्व् अनित्यम् अधिवेदनम्, जातपुत्रत्वे सति तया सहाधिकृतत्वात् कर्मसु ॥ ९.८१ ॥

081 A barren wife may be superseded in the eighth year, she whose children (all) die in the tenth, she who bears only daughters in the eleventh, but she who is quarrelsome without delay.

But if a wife, who is an invalid, is well-disposed and endowed with modesty, she may be superseded after her consent has been obtained; and in no case is she to be disgraced.—(82)

भर्त्रे हिता परिचर्यापरा । अनुज्ञापनावमानयोर् इह विधानयम्,²¹⁵ पूर्वासाम् एतद्भावात् । रोगिणीग्रहणं वन्ध्यास्त्रिजनन्याव् अपि लक्षयति । प्रकृतत्वाविशेषाद् अवमाननिमित्ताभावाच् च कर्हिचित् कदाचिद् अवमाननं शिष्ट्यर्थं परिभाषणादि²¹⁶ ॥ ९.८२ ॥

‘Will-disposed’—towards her husband; devoted to his service.

The present verse enjoins—(a) that her consent is to be obtained, and (b) that she shall not be disgraced. This applies also to the case of the barren wife, and to that of one who bears only daughters; because, all these have been mentioned in the same context; and in none of these is there any reason why she should be disgraced.

‘In no cane’—never.

‘Disgraced’—in the form of harsh words addressed in admonition.—(82)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 100), which adds that the qualification ‘sick’ includes also the ‘barren’ wife, and ‘one who gives birth to female children only’;—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 508), as laying down a special consideration in the case of the devoted wife;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 872) which adds that ‘hitā’ is mentioned only by way of illustration.

**(verses 9.77-84)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.77].

अस्याश् चावमानप्रतिषेधाद् इतरा न केवलम् अधिवेद्याः, किं तर्हि शिष्ट्यर्थम् परिभाष्याश् च ॥ ९.८२ ॥

082 But a sick wife who is kind (to her husband) and virtuous in her conduct, may be superseded (only) with her own consent and must never be disgraced.

On being superseded, if a wife, in anger, should go away from the house, she shall be either immediately confined, or cast off in the presence of the family.—(83)

क्रोधेनाधिवेदनहेतुना निर्गतायास् त्यागसंनिरोधौ विकल्पतो विधीयेते । न तु²¹⁷ यथोपपन्नहेतुना भोजनाच्छादनादिना²¹⁸ तत्र प्रीत्या क्रोधावमार्जनं श्वश्रूभिः श्वशुरादिभिर् वा परिभाषणम् । संनिरोधो रक्षिपुरुषाधिष्ठानम् । त्यागो व्याख्यातः- असंभोगः सहशय्यावर्जनम् । कुलं ज्ञातयः, तत्पितृपक्षाः स्वपक्षाश् च ॥ ९.८३ ॥

For the wife going off in anger, caused by the super-session,—the present text lays down two optional alternatives in the shape of confinement or divorce. It would not be right in such a case for either the mother-in-law or the father-in-law and other relations to console her and appease her anger by means of presents of food and clothing, or by sweet words, eta

‘Confinement’ consists in placing her in the charge of guards.

‘Divorce’, ‘Casting off’, has already been explained as consisting in dropping intercourse with her, and avoiding her bed.

‘Family’—Relations, on the woman’s father’s side, as also those of the husband’s own side.—(83)

‘Kula’—‘His own relations as well as the wife’s parental relations’ (Medhātithi);—‘either the family members or the public, according to circumstances’ (Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 69), which adds that ‘casting off’ means ‘sending her to her father’;—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 288), which explains ‘tyājyā’ as ‘left among her own paternal relations, till such time as she is free from her defects’;—in Vidhānapārijāta (II, p. 59);—in Aparārka (p. 101), which explains ‘kulasannidhau’ as ‘pitrādikulasannidhau’, in the presence of her father and other members of the family;—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 230);—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 874), which explains ‘kula’ as ‘her father and other relations’;—and in Madanapārijāta (p. 189).

**(verses 9.77-84)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.77].

उक्तेषु निमित्तेष्व् अधिविन्नाया निर्गतायाः क्रोधेन, त्यागः श्रुतिकर्माधिकाराविरोधे कुलसंनिधौ, असंभोगो वा त्यागः संनिरोधो वा तस्याः । अपरे तु प्रजाकर्मसहत्वनिवृत्त्यर्थम् इदं त्यागवचनं कथयन्ति श्रौतकर्माविरोधेन ॥ ९.८३ ॥

083 A wife who, being superseded, in anger departs from (her husband’s) house, must either be instantly confined or cast off in the presence of the family.

If the wife, though forbidden, drinks wine even at festivals or visits, shows and assemblies, she shall be fined six ‘Kṛṣṇalas’.—(84)

प्रतिषेधे गुरुसंबन्धिभिः²¹⁹ । अयं²²⁰ दण्डः क्षत्रियादिस्त्रीणाम् । न शास्त्रीयो ब्राह्मणीनाम् । न हि तत्र दण्डमात्रेण²²¹ मोक्षः । किं तर्हि, महता । न च तत्राभ्युदयेषु पानाशङ्का । अप्रतिषिद्धमद्यानां तु नियमेनोत्सवसमागतानाम् आदरवती प्रवृत्तिर् दृश्यते । यां सम्यङ् निषेधत्य् अभ्युदयेष्व् अपीति । दण्डश् चायं भर्त्रा दीयते । सत्य् अपि राजवृत्तित्वे “स्त्रीणां भर्ता प्रभुः” इति विज्ञायते । अन्येषाम् अपि परिग्रहवतां भृत्यादिविषये कियति दण्डे स्वातन्त्र्यम्²²² । अभ्युदयः पुत्रजन्मविवाहादय उत्सवाः । प्रेक्षा नटादिदर्शनम् । समाजो नितान्तम् अपि जनसमूहः । तत्र कुतूहलिन्या अयं दण्डः ॥ ९.८४ ॥

‘Forbidden’,—by elders and relations.

The fine here prescribed is for the woman belonging to the Kṣatriya and other lower castes; and not for the

Brāhmaṇa woman, who cannot be let off by the small fine here prescribed; in her case the fine shall be a heavy one. Further, there is no chance of the latter partaking of wine at festivals. It is only the former class of women for whom wine-drinking is not entirely prohibited, who are found to give themselves to much drinking, when they come together on festive occasions; and it is in view of this that they are forbidden.

This fine is to be inflicted by the husband. Even though the inflicting of punishments in the duty of the king, yet, inasmuch as the husband is the ‘lord’ of his wife, he is regarded as competent to inflict the fine; specially as it is found that people are considered free to inflict fines upon servants and other dependents, in certain cases.

‘Festivals’—rejoicings in connection with the birth of a son, marriages and the like.

‘Shows’—theatrical and other spetacles (spectacles?).

‘Assemblies’—large crowds of men.

This fine is to be imposed upon the woman who evinces anxiety to visit these.—(84)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 437).

**(verses 9.77-84)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.77].

प्रतिषेधो मद्यपानस्य न प्रेक्षासमाजगमने । अथ वा प्रसङ्गनिवृत्त्यर्थम् । एवं च सति दण्डस्याल्पत्वाद् अप्रतिषेधे ऽस्त्य् अनुज्ञालेशो ऽभ्युदयादिना निमित्तेन । तच् च मद्यम् असुरा द्विजातिस्त्रीणां विज्ञेयम् । तथा च सति पूर्वत्राप्य् अधिवेदननिमित्तेन मद्यपान एषैव व्याख्या “मद्यपासत्यवृत्ता च” इत्य् अत्र । इतरवर्णविषयं चैतत्प्रतिषेधरूपं विज्ञेयम् ॥ ९.८४ ॥

084 But she who, though having been forbidden, drinks spirituous liquor even at festivals, or goes to public spectacles or assemblies, shall be fined six krishnalas.

When twice-born men wed women of their own as well as other castes, their seniority, honour and habitation shall be according to the order of their castes.—(85)

कामतः प्रवृत्ता यदि समानजातीया असमानजातीयाश् च²²³ विन्देरन् विवाहयेयुस् तासां वर्णक्रमेण जात्यनुरूपं ज्यैष्ठ्यम्, न वयस्तो न च विवाहक्रमतः । फलादिदाननिमित्ते²²⁴ पूजा प्रथमं ब्राह्मण्यास् ततः क्षत्रियावैश्ययोर् इत्य् एष वर्णक्रमः । वेश्म प्रधानं गृहं तद् ब्राह्मण्याः । सवर्णानां विवाहक्रमो निश्चायकः²²⁵ स्मृतः ॥ ९.८५ ॥

If urged by carnal desire, men should wed women belonging to the same caste as themselves, or those belonging to other castes, then their ‘seniority’ shall depend upon ‘the order of their castes,’— and not upon age, nor upon the order of their age.

‘Honour’—consisting in the presenting of fruits and other things.

‘The order of the caste’ is that the Brāhmaṇa-wife comes first, then the Kṣatriya, then the Vaiśya.

‘Habitation’—i.e., the principal apartments. This belongs to the Brāhmaṇa-wife.

Among wives of the same caste, all this is governed by the order of their marriage.—(85)

Cf. the Mahābhārata 13.47.31.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 509), as laying down the order in which the several wives of a man are to be honoured;—in Smṛtitattva (p. 298) as declaring who is to be regarded as the ‘Senior’ wife,

‘Jyesṭhā’;—also in Vol. II, p. 191;—in Vivādaratnākara (p. 419), which explains ‘svāḥ’ as ‘belonging to the same caste as her husband,’ and ‘svāvarāḥ’ (which is its reading for ‘aparāḥ’) as ‘belonging to a different caste’;—in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 198a);—and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 257), which says that the wife of one’s own caste, even though married later, would be the Senior and hence entitled to associate with the husband in his religious acts.

**(verses 9.85-87)
**

Viṣṇu (26.1-4).—‘If a man has several wives of his own caste, he shall perform his religious duties with the eldest wife. If he has several wives of diverse castes, he shall perform them, even with the youngest wife, if she is of the same caste as himself. On failure of a wife of his own caste, be shall perform them with one belonging to the caste next below his own; so also in cases of distress;—but no twice-born man shall ever do it with a Śūdra wife.’

Yājñavalkya (1.88).—‘So long as a wife of the same caste as himself is alive, he shall not have his religious acts done by another; and among several wives of the same caste, the younger one shall not be employed in religious acts, except along with the eldest.’

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākara, p. 420).—‘If a man has several wives, he should have his religious acts, such as the tending of the Sacrificial Fire, done by one who belongs to the same caste as himself; if there are several of the same caste as himself, then by the eldest among them, if she is not defective; or by one who has given birth to a heroic son and is most obedient to him, skilful, sweet-speaking and pure.’

“इमाः स्युः क्रमशो ऽपराः” इत्य् एतत्क्रमेणैव दारकर्मोक्तम् । इह तूत्सृज्येति क्रमेणाद्यूढानां वर्णक्रमेणैव ज्यैष्ठ्यादि स्यात् । प्रयोजनम् अस्य दायविभागः । पूजा चैतेनैव च सवर्णानाम् अनुक्रमेणैव ज्यैष्ठ्यं विज्ञेयम्, न तु जन्मना ॥ ९.८५ ॥

085 If twice-born men wed women of their own and of other (lower castes), the seniority, honour, and habitation of those (wives) must be (settled) according to the order of the castes (varna).

Of all wives, the wife of the man’s own caste, and never that of a different caste, shall attend to the husband’s personal service, as also to his daily sacred rites.—(86)

शरीरशुश्रूषा भर्तुर् उपयोगिपाकादिलक्षणा दानभोजनप्रतिजागरणं स्वा स्वैव²²⁶ कुर्यात् । पृष्ठपादसंवाहननिर्णेजनादौ त्व् अनियमः । युगपत्संनिधौ तु शरीरावयवक्रमो वर्णक्रमेण । नैत्यकं धर्मकार्यम् “सायं त्व् अन्नस्य” (म्ध् ३.१११) इत्यादि अग्निशरणोपलेपनाचमनोदकतर्पणदानादि । ॥ ९.८६ ॥

अस्या निन्दार्थवादः ।

‘Personal service’—i.e., cooking his food, making gifts on his behalf, keeping vigils for him, and so forth.

All this the wife belonging to the man’s own caste shall attend to.

There is no such restriction however regarding such service as shampooing the back and the feet, washing of the feet and so forth.

The declamatory supplement to this follows in the next verse.—(86)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 509);—in Vivādaratnākara (p. 419);—in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 198a);—and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 259).

**(verses 9.85-87)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.85].

अग्निशरणोपलेपनादिधर्मकार्यं यत् स्त्रिया कर्तव्यं तद् गृह्यते । पुरुषस्यापि धर्मकार्यप्रवृत्तस्यैवोपस्पर्शनदानादिलक्षणा शरीरशुश्रूषा धर्मकार्यसाहचर्याद् गृह्यते । न तु पादनिर्णेजनादिस्वरूपा, धर्मकार्येणासरूपत्वात् ॥ ९.८६ ॥

086 Among all (twice-born men) the wife of equal caste alone, not a wife of a different caste by any means, shall personally attend her husband and assist him in his daily sacred rites.

While the wife of the same caste is alive, if through folly, one causes these duties to be performed by another wife, he is a ‘Brāhmaṇa-Cāṇḍāla’, as has been held by the ancients.—(87)

यस् त्व् एतत् कर्म अन्यया असमानजातीयया कारयेत् सजातीयायां स्थितायां ब्राह्मण एव स चण्डालः पूर्वस्माद् दृष्टः ॥ ९.८७ ॥

If a man gets all this done by ‘another wife’—one belonging to a different caste—while she of the same caste, is still living,—he, though a Brāhmaṇa, is as good as a ‘Caṇḍāla.’ This has been so held by the ancients.—(87)

‘Pūrvadṛṣṭaḥ’—‘Known by the ancients’ (Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana);—‘known from olden times’ (Medhātithi);—‘declared in the Purāṇas (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 419);—in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 198a);—and by Jīmūtavāh ana (Dāyabhāga, p. 259).

**(verses 9.85-87)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.85].

शुश्रूषानियमार्थवादो ऽयम् । एवं च सति नान्यया कार्यः । यस् तु व्यतिक्रमे वर्तते तस्यायम् निन्दार्थवादः केनचित् सामान्येन ॥ ९.८७ ॥

087 But he who foolishly causes that (duty) to be performed by another, while his wife of equal caste is alive, is declared by the ancients (to be) as (despicable) as a Kandala (sprung from the) Brahmana (caste).

One shall give his daughter in the proper form, even though she may not have attained (the age), to a bridegroom who is of exceptionally distinguished appearance, and her equal.—(88)

उत्कृट्षायाभिरूपायेति विशेषणविशेष्यभावः । उत्कृष्टायाभिरूपतराय इत्य् अर्थः । अथ वोत्कृष्टाय जात्यादिभिर् अभिरूपायेति पृथग् विशेषणम् । रूपम् आकृतिम् आभिमुख्येन प्राप्तो ऽभिरूपः । स्वभाववचनो²²⁷ वा, सुस्वभावो²²⁸ विद्वान् अप्य् अभिरूप उच्यते । सदृशाय जात्यादिभिः । वरो वोढा जामाता । अप्राप्ताम् अप्य् अयोग्याम् अपि कामावशत्वेन बालाम् अप्राप्तं²²⁹ कौमारं वयः, स्मृत्यन्तरे “नग्निका” (वध् १७.७०) इत्य् उच्यते । कामः स्पृहा यस्या नोत्पन्ना सा चाष्टवर्षा षड्वर्षा वा, न त्व् अत्यन्तबालैव । तथा हि लिङ्गम् “अष्टवर्षाम्” (म्ध् ९.९४) इति ।

• इदम् एव लिङ्गं धर्मप्रयुक्तायाम्²³⁰ अपि विवाहस्येति । अन्यथा रागस्यैव प्रयोजकत्वे कुतो ऽप्राप्ताया विवाह इत्य् आहुः ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । धनार्थिनो ऽपि बालां विवाहयन्ति । न शस्त्रीयैव²³¹ सर्वा प्रयुक्तिस् तृतीये निरूपिता ॥ ९.८८ ॥

‘Utkṛṣṭāyci-abhirupāya.’—The first term qualifies the second; and the meaning is ‘who is of exceptionally distinguished appearance.’—Or, the two terms may be taken as two distinct qualifications—‘utkṛṣṭāya’ meaning ‘one whose caste and other qualifications are remarkable,’ and ‘abhirūpāya’ meaning ‘handsome’;—the literal signification of the term being ‘rūpam ābhimukhyena prāptaḥ,’ ‘who has acquired a good appearance.’—Or, ‘abhirūpāya’ may mean well-disposed; it is in this sense that a learned man also is called ‘abhirūpa.’

‘Equal’—in caste and other matters.

‘Bridegroom’—one who marries; the son-in-law.

‘She who has not attained’;—i.e., who has no carnal desires aroused, who is still too young, not having reached the youthful age,—called ‘nagnikā’ in another Smṛti-text; i.e., one in whom the sexual instinct has not arisen, who is only eight or six years old,—but not a mere infant; as is indicated by the qualifications (elsewhere)—‘one who is eight years old.’ This same qualification may also be indicative of the fact that marriage is meant to be conducive to spiritual merit If mere Lust were the sole inducement to Marriage, wherefore could there be any marriage of the girl ‘who has not attained her age’?

There is no force however in this; as people are found to many very young girls with a view to her dowry. And it has been fully explained under Discourse III that all forms of activity are not in accordance with what is laid down in the scriptures.—(88)

‘Aprāptām’—‘Who has not attained the marriageable age,’ (Medhātithi and Rāghavānanda);—‘who has not attained eight years of age’ (Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 481), which explains ‘aprāptām’ as ‘one whose marriage time has not arrived, i. e., who is still a child’;—in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 124), which explains ‘aprāptām’ as ‘one who has not attained the age that is most commended for marriage’;—in Vīramitrodya (Saṃskāra, p. 755), which reproduces the explanation of ‘aprāptām’ given in Parāśaramādhava;—in Smṛtikaumudī (p. 39), as countenancing the marrying of a girl even before she is of the proper age;—in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 30) to the same effect;—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 103), which explains ‘aprāptām’ as ‘one who has not attained the right age,’ who may be given away in consideration of the special qualifications of the bridegroom.

(verses 9.88-89)

Gautama (18-21).—‘A girl should be given in marriage before puberty.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.70).—‘Out of fear of the appearance of the menses, let the father marry his daughter while she still runs about naked. For if she stays in the home after the age of puberty, sin falls on the father.’

Baudhāyana (4. 1.11).—‘Let him give his daughter, while she still goes about naked, to a man who has not broken the vow of chastity and who possesses good qualities, or even to one destitute of good qualities; let him not keep the maiden in his house after she has reached the age of puberty.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 754).—‘Family, character, beautiful body, age, learning, wealth, presence of guardians,—these seven qualifications should he sought for before a girl is given away; nothing else need he considered.’

Lalla (Do.).—‘Caste, learning, age, character, health, large family, wealth, Brahmanic character,—these eight should he the qualities of the Bridegroom.’

Gautama (Do.).—‘One should give away his daughter to a man who is endowed with learning, character, relations and good conduct.’

Śātātapa (Do., p. 755).—‘That bridegroom should he selected who is seeking for a wife and is endowed with good family and character, handsome, learned, intelligent and young, and free from defects.’

आत्मनो विद्यादिभिर् उत्कृष्टकारणैर् उत्कृष्टायाभिरूपाय वराय तदभावे सदृशाय वा । ऋज्व् अन्यत् । “उत्तमैर् उत्तमैर् नित्यं संबन्धान् आचरेत्” इत्य् अत्रोक्तम् अप्य् एतत् सदृशदानार्थं पुनर् आरभ्यते । एवं च गुणहीने ददतः प्रत्यवायः । तथा चेदम् अनूद्यते ॥ ९.८८ ॥

088 To a distinguished, handsome suitor (of) equal (caste) should (a father) give his daughter in accordance with the prescribed rule, though she have not attained (the proper age).

Well might the maiden, even though she may have reached puberty, remain in the house till her death; but the father shall never give her to a man destitute of good qualities.—(89)

प्राग् ऋतोः कन्याया²³² दानम् । ऋतुदर्शने ऽपि न दद्याद् यावद् गुणवान् वरो न प्राप्तः । गुणो विद्याशौर्यातिशयः शोभनाकृतिर् वयोमहत्वोपेतता लोकशास्त्रनिषिद्धपरिवर्जनं कन्यायाम् अनुराग इत्यादिः ॥ ९.८९ ॥

As a rule, the girl should be given away before puberty; but even after puberty, the father should not give her away until a qualified bridegroom has been found.

‘Qualities’— such as a high degree of learning, bravery, physical beauty, right age, being averse to doing acts forbidden by custom and scriptures, love for the bride; and so forth.—(89)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 93), which adds that what is meant is that ‘so long as a man with good qualifications is not available she shall not be given to one devoid of qualifications,’ and not that there is nothing wrong, under the circumstances, to keep the girl unmarried even after puberty; as this latter view is contrary to other texts.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 124), which adds that all that is meant is that the girl should not be given to a man devoid of qualifications;—in Smṛtikaumudī (p. 38);—in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 804), which says that what is meant is that ‘she should not be given to a man without qualifications when a qualified man is available,’ and it is not meant that a girl should never be given to a man without qualifications;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 216), which has the same note;—in Saṃskāraratnamāla (p. 456), which also has the same note;—and in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 102), which says that ‘api’ and ‘kāmam’ indicate that the verse is not to be taken in its literal sense; all that is meant is to eulogise the marrying of the girl to a qualified man.

(verses 9.88-89)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.88].

अनेन चाप्राप्तकालदानेन परस्याप्राप्तकालस्य कन्याप्रतिग्रहो ऽनुमीयते । येन प्राप्नोत्य् अप्राप्तां न प्रतिग्रहीष्यति । अर्थगृहीतत्वाच् च प्राप्तकालसंयोगस्याप्राप्ते काले दानकीर्तनं नार्थवादिक्रियते ॥ ९.८९ ॥

089 (But) the maiden, though marriageable, should rather stop in (the father’s) house until death, than that he should ever give her to a man destitute of good qualities.

Having reached puberty, the maiden may wait for three years; after that time, she shall procure a suitable husband.—(90)

रेतो ऋतुकालम्, तद्वत्य् अपि त्रीणि वर्षाणि तद्गृहे आसीत । अतः परमम् उत्कृष्टाभावे सदृशं समानजातीयं स्वयं वृणुयात् ॥ ९.९० ॥

‘Puberty’— menstruation; after menstruation she may stay in her father’s house ‘for three years’; after that, in the event of a distinguished bridegroom not forthcoming, she shall choose a ‘suitable husband’— one who is her equal in caste.—(90)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 484);—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 772);—in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 805)—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 217);—and in Saṃskāra-ratnamālā (p. 501).

**(verses 9.90-92)
**

Mahābhārata (13.44.15).—(Same as Manu, but reading ‘svayam bhartāramarjayet’ for the last foot.)

Baudhāyana (4.10.14).—‘Three years let a marriageable damsel wait for the order of her father. But after that time, let her choose for herself, in the fourth year, a husband of the same caste. If no one of equal rank is to be found, she may take even one destitute of good qualities.’

Gautama (18-20).—‘A marriageable maiden who is not given in marriage shall allow three monthly periods to pass, and afterwards unite herself, of her own will, to a blameless man, giving up the ornaments received from her father or his family.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.67-68).—‘A maiden who has attained puberty shall wait for three years;—after three years, she may herself take a husband of equal caste.’

Viṣṇu (24.40).—‘When she has allowed three monthly periods to pass without being married, let her choose a husband for herself; three monthly periods having passed, she has, in every case, full power to dispose of herself as she thinks best.’

Yājñavalkya (1.64).—‘If there are no persons to give her away, the maiden shall herself take a suitable husband.’

Nārada (12.22-23).—‘If no such person be in existence as should marry her, let the maiden approach the King, and let her, with his permission, betake herself to a bridegroom of her own choice, who belongs to her own caste, and is a suitable match in point of descent, morality, age and sacred learning. Let her discharge her religious duties in common with him, and bear children to him.’

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 773).—‘If, for twelve years, the girl remains unmarried in her father’s house, the guilt of embryo-killing falls upon the father, and the maiden shall choose her own husband.’

कन्याया अयम् उपदेशः । सा च द्वादशवर्षर्तुं पश्यतीति स्मर्यते । यत एतस्मात् कालाद् ऊर्ध्वं वर्षत्रयं स्वयंवरात् ग्रहणं तस्याः । ऊर्ध्वं तु ॥ ९.९० ॥

090 Three years let a damsel wait, though she be marriageable; but after that time let her choose for herself a bridegroom (of) equal (caste and rank).

When a maiden, when not given away, herself procures a husband, she incurs no sort of sin; nor does the man whom she weds.—(91)

वर्षत्रयाद् ऊर्ध्वम् अदीयमाना यं भर्तारं वृणुते तस्य दोषो न । कन्यायाः पूर्वेणैव दोषाभाव उक्ते व्रियमाणस्य दोषार्थम् इदम् । ऋतुदर्सनं च द्वादसवर्षाणाम् इति स्मर्यते ॥ ९.९१ ॥

After three years, if not given away, if the girl chooses a husband,—then, no sort of guilt accrues either to the girl or to the man.

That the girl incurs no sin having been already mentioned in the foregoing verse, the present verse is added for the purpose of declaring that there is none on the part of the bridegroom either.

Puberty has been declared to be reached by girls when they are twelve years old.—(91)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 772);—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 484), which says that the meaning is that the man whom she takes as husband does not incur any sin in marrying her;—in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 805), which explains the last clause to mean that the man also incurs no sin;—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 217), which has the same note;—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 501) which explains ‘adīyamānā’ as ‘not given away’, either on account of the absence of a giver, or on account of the giver, though present, being disregarded, and reproduces Mādhava’s explanation.

**(verses 9.90-92)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.90].

यं वरं स्वयं कन्याधिगच्छति तस्यादोषार्थं कन्याया अदोषवचनम् ॥ ९.९१ ॥

091 If, being not given in marriage, she herself seeks a husband, she incurs no guilt, nor (does) he whom she weds.

When the girl chooses her own husband, she should not take away any ornaments given to her either by her father, or mother or brother; if she did take them, she would be a thief.—(92)

भ्रात्रादिभिर् यद् आदौ दत्तं स्वयंवरणाभिप्रायं तस्या अजानद्भिस् तद् अलंकरणं तेषाम् एव प्रत्यर्पयेत् । यदि तु तथाविधाया एव ददाति तदा न त्यागः । तेनास्मै न वयम् एनां दास्याम इत्य् एवमभिप्रायं यद्भूषणं न तस्मिन्न् अन्यथात्वम् आपन्ने युक्तम् । स्तेनः स्याद् इति पुंलिङ्गेन पाट्ःआन्तरम् । वरस्य चौरत्वम् आहुः । तस्मात् तेनालङ्करस् त्याजयितव्यः²³³ ॥ ९.९२ ॥

Ornaments that may have been given to her on previous occasions by her brother or other relations, who would be ignorant of her desire to choose her own husband,—all such ornaments she should hand back to them. She is not to give up what has been given to her after she has actually done the act

It is only when the ornament has been given to her beforehand by persons, with the motive that she shall not be given to a particular person,—and yet it is this same person that the girl chooses for her husband,—it is not right for her to retain the gift

‘Stenaḥ,’ in the masculine form, is another reading for ‘Stenā’; in which case the ‘theft’ would lie upon the bridegroom; in which case, the father should force him to give up the ornament.—(92)

‘Stenaḥ’ is not the reading of Medhātithi, who only notes it as a vār. lec.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 772);—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 223);—in Aparārka (p. 94);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 148);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 217);—and in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p. 501).

**(verses 9.90-92)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.90].

अन्ये त्व् एवम् इमं श्लोकं पठन्ति- “नाददीत त्व् अलंकारं पित्र्यं कन्यास्वयंवरे, मातृकं भ्रातृदत्तं वा स्तेनः स्याद् यदि तं हरेत्” । एवं चापाठे पुरुषविषयः स्लोको भवति ॥ ९.९२ ॥

092 A maiden who choses for herself, shall not take with her any ornaments, given by her father or her mother, or her brothers; if she carries them away, it will be theft.

When a man takes away a maiden who has reached puberty, he shall pay no nuptial fee to the father,—who would fall off from his ownership by reason of thwarting her menses.—(93)

शुल्कदेयाया ऋतुमत्याः शुल्कनिरोधो ऽयम् । स च स्वाम्याद् अतिक्रामेत् । “बाल्ये पितुर् वशे तिष्ठेत्” (म्ध् ५.१४६) इत्य् उक्तम् । वयोन्तरप्राप्तौ चाददतः²³⁴ पितुः स्वाम्यं नास्ति । शुल्कादेयाया अपि हेतोः समानत्वात् पितुः स्वाम्यनिवृत्तिः । अपक्रमणं निवृत्तिः । प्रतिरोधनं प्रतिरोधो ऽपत्योत्पत्तिकार्ये ।

• केचिद् आहुः अमानवोऽयं श्लोकः ॥ ९.९३ ॥

This prohibits the payment of nuptial fees in the case of the girl who has reached puberty, and who is intended to be given away for a fee; and the reason for this is that—‘he would fall off from his ownership.’ It is only during childhood that the girl is to live under the tutilage of her father; so that when she is taken away by a man after she has reached a higher age,—the father’s ownership over her has ceased.

Even in the case of a girl who is not intended to be given away for a fee, the father’s ownership ceases,—the grounds for such cessation (i.e., the girl having reached the higher age) being equally present in her ease also.

‘Falling off’ means cessation.

‘Thwarting’—impeding its fruition in the shape of bearing children.

Some people say that this verse does not belong to Manu.—(93)

Cf. 3, 23, 24, 51 and 52; 8.366;—9, 46, 71, 97 and 98;—11.62.

“According to some people, this verse does not form part of the text of Manu”—says Medhātithi. This is not his own opinion, as Hopkins wrongly asserts.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 772);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 149);—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 223);—in Aparārka (p. 94), which explains ‘śulka’ as the price;—and in Smṛtikaumudī (p. 38).

Viṣṇu (24.41).—‘A girl, whose menses begin to appear while she is living at her father’s house, before she has been betrothed to a man, has to be considered as a degraded woman; by taking her without the consent of her kinsmen, a man commits no wrong.’

स्मृत्यन्तरेष्व् अयं श्लोको न त्व् अत्र समाम्नायते ॥ ९.९३ ॥

093 But he who takes (to wife) a marriageable damsel, shall not pay any nuptial fee to her father; for the (latter) will lose his dominion over her in consequence of his preventing (the legitimate result of the appearance of) her enemies.

A man thirty years old shall marry a charming maiden twelve years old; or one twenty four years old, a damsel eight years old; in the event of his duties suffering, he may do it sooner.—(94)

इयता कालेन यवीयसी कन्या वोढव्या न पुनर् एतावद्वयस एव विवाह इत्य् उपदेशार्थः । अथापि न यथाश्रुतवर्षसंख्यैव । किं तर्हि, बहुना कालेन यवीयसी वोढव्या । न ह्य् एतद् विवाहप्रकरणे श्रुतम् । येन संस्कार्यविशेषणत्वेन तदङ्गं कालो दशादिवर्षां पञ्चविंशत्यादिवर्षं च निवर्तयेत् ।

• ननु च वाक्यान्तरस्थस्याप्य् अङ्गविधिर् भवत्य् एव ।

• सत्यम्, इह प्रकरणोत्कर्षेण पाठाद् आचार्यस्याभिप्रायान्तरम् अनुमीयते । तथा शिष्टसमाचारः । सुतस्य च पुनर् दारक्रियायां नैष कालः संभवतीति “पुनर्दारक्रियां कुर्यात्” (म्ध् ५.१६६) इति नोपप्द्यते ॥ ९.९४ ॥

What the injunction means is that the maiden married should be so much younger than the man;—and not that marriage must be done only at. the age stated. Nor is any stress meant to be laid upon the exact number of years mentioned; all that is meant is that one should many a girl very much younger than himself.

This injunction does not occur in the section dealing with Marriage; hence, what is stated here cannot he regarded as a qualification of the persons undergoing that sacrament, and consequently, as an essential factor in the rite itself; for this same reason, it cannot be taken as precluding the age of ‘ten’ or ‘twenty-five’ or such others.

“But it is often found that even though laid down in a distinct passage, a detail does form an essential factor of an act”

True; but the very fact that the teacher has thought it fit to place the present text apart from the section on marriage is clearly indicative of the fact that he had some special purpose in this.

The practice of cultured men is also as we have stated.

Further, the age here stated can never be observed in the case of one’s son marrying a second time; so that, if the injunction were meant to be taken literally, it would mean that there should be no second marriage; and this would be absurd.—(94)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 766), which says that the following is the upshot of the texts bearing on this subject:—If the age of the girl is 8 years or less, she should be married to a man whose age is three times that of hers; if it is between 8 and 12, the age of the bidegroom should two and a half times;—if her age is between 12 and 16 then that of the bridegroom shall be two years less than the double of her age. Of the sentence ‘dharme sīdati satvaraḥ,’ it gives two explanations:—(a) if he finds that his religious duties would otherwise suffer, he may marry earlier; and (b) if he marries in haste,—i.e., if he marries before he has reached the prescribed age, or if he marries a girl whose age is lower than the one prescribed,—then he suffers in spiritual merit

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 474), as laying down the extent to which the bride should be younger than the bridegroom;—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 121), which adds that this verse applies to cases where the girl has not menstruated upto 12 years;—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 215);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 82), which explains ‘tryaṣṭavarṣaḥ’ as ‘twenty-four years old’;—in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 801);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 112), which explains ‘satvara’ as ‘one of lower age,’ and deduces the conclusion that there is nothing wrong if the girl is married before her menstruation;—and in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 222), which explains ‘satvaraḥ’ as one who is in a hurry to enter the Householder’s stage.’

Mahābhārata (13.41.14).—‘One who is thirty or twenty-one years old shall take a wife sixteen years old, but before she has attained puberty.’

Viṣṇupurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 766).—‘A man shall select a wife whose age is one-third of his own.’

Yama (Do.)—(Same as Manu.)

Āpastamba (Do., p. 767).—‘A man thirty-years old shall take a wife ten years old, before she has attained puberty; and one twenty-one years old, a girl seven years old.’

Āśvalāyana (Do.).—‘A maiden seven years old is called Śaiśavī; a man eighteen years of age shall marry her; a maiden eight years old is called Gaurī, conducive to richness of sons and grandsons; and she shall be married by a man twenty-five years old; a girl nine years old is called Rohiṇī conducive to richness of wealth; a wise man shall wed her for the accomplishment of all his desires; a girl over ten years age, until she has her courses, is called Gāndhārī; and she shall be married by a man desirous of living long.’

गुरुणानुमत् इयता कालेन यवीयसीम् उद्वहेत् कन्याम् ॥ ९.९४ ॥

094 A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.

The husband obtains his wife as a present from the gods, and not by his own wish; hence he should always support the faithful wife, thereby doing what is agreeable to the gods.—(95)

साध्वी भार्या प्रातिकूल्याप्रियवादादिदोषयुक्तापि भर्त्रा न त्याज्येति श्लोकार्थः । अवशिष्टा प्रशंसा । यां तु “निरुन्ध्याद् एकवेश्मनि” (म्ध् ११.१७५) इत्य् असाध्व्या अपि विहितं तत् सकृद्व्यभिचरे । अभ्यासे तु त्याग एव । नान्यथा तां साध्वीं बिभृयाद् इत्य् अनेन किंचित् कृतं स्यात् ।

• यद् अपि,

• हृताधिकारां मलिनां पिण्डमात्रोपजीविनीम् ।

• परिभूताम् अधःशय्यां वासयेद् व्यभिचारिणीम् ॥ (य्ध् १.७०)

तच् च सत्यां शक्तौ पत्युर् इच्छा सा । अनिच्छायां तु त्याग एव ।

• यच् चेदं “पतितास्व् अपि वस्त्रान्नपानं²³⁵ देयं च” (म्ध् ११.१८७) इत्यादि वक्ष्यति, तद्ब्रह्महत्यादिषु प्रायश्चित्तेषु भैक्ष्यभोजनारम्भे निवासप्राप्तौ प्रतिषेधवचनम् इति वक्ष्यामः । सर्वथा तु पुनर् व्यभिचारिण्या भरणं नास्ति । न चात्र त्यागः श्रुतो येन संभोगविषयतया कल्प्येत²³⁶ । “सोमो ऽददत्” (र्व् १०.८५.४१) इत्यादिमन्त्रार्थवदेभ्यो देवतानां दतृत्वं प्रतीयते ।

• अथ वा विवाहे देवताया भार्या भवत्य् अत उच्यते- देवदत्ताम् इति ।

• विन्देत नात्मन इच्छया । यथान्यद् गोहिरण्याद्यापणभूमौ लभ्यते, तथा²³⁷ नेयं भार्या । अत उच्यते नेच्छयात्मन इति । देवानां प्रियम्, देवेभ्यो हितम् — त्यक्तायां भार्यायां वैश्वदेवादिक्रियानिमित्ते नास्ति देवहितम् । अतस् तां²³⁸ द्विषतीम् अपि बिभृयात् । पातित्ये ताम् अधिकारप्राप्तां पतिर् अधिविन्देत²³⁹ ॥ ९.९५ ॥

What the verse means is that ‘the faithful wife should not be abandoned, even though she suffer from the defects of being disagreeable or of harsh speech and so forth’; and the rest of it is merely commendatory.

As for the rule that ‘he shall keep her confined in one room,’ which has been laid down in regard to the unfaithful wife,—this applies to a case where there has been a single act of transgression on her part; if the act is repeated, divorce must follow. Otherwise, there would be no point in the assertion that ‘he shall always support the faithful wife.’

As regards the declaration—‘when a woman has trans gressed, she shall have all her rights withdrawn, he dressed in dirty clothes and be given mere subsistence, being allowed to live in a degraded condition, lying upon the ground’ (Yājñavalkya, 170),—this refers to a case where the husband is willing and able to keep her; if however he is unwilling, then there must be divorce.

It is going to be laid down later on that food and clothing should be provided for oven such wives as have become outcasts, and so forth; but that has to be taken only as prohibiting banishment which would be involved in the starting of a life of living on alms, which forms part of the expiatory rite consequent upon such heinous sins as the murdering of a Brāhmaṇa and the like. This we shall explain later on. In any case, it is not incumbent upon the husband to support a wife who has turned unfaithful. Nor does the present text prescribe ‘casting off’ which might be interpreted as ‘avoiding intercourse with her.’

That the wife is a ‘present from the gods’ is implied by such Vedic texts and declamatory passages as—^(‘)Soma gave her to Gandharva etc.,’ (Ṛgveda, 10.85.41).

Or, she may be called ‘a present from the gods’ in the sense that during the marriage-rite itself, the girl becomes the wife of the gods.

‘Obtains,—not by his own, wish.’ So that the wife does not stand on the same footing as cattle or gold picked up in the market. This is what is meant by the phrase ‘not by his own wish.’

‘What is agreeable to the gods.’—When one divorces his wife, who is a necessary factor in the offering of libations to the Viśvedevas, he is not in a position to do ‘what is agreeable to the gods.’ Hence, even though she be hostile, she has to be supported. But in the event of her becoming an outcast, and hence losing her rights, the husband may ‘supersede’ her.—(95)

‘Deva-dattā’—‘Given by the gods, Bhaga, Aryaman, Savitṛ and the rest mentioned in the Vedic text recited during marriages’,—‘from Agni’ (Nārāyaṇa);—‘from Soma, Agni and the Gandharvas’ (Medhātithi and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 481).

Mahābhārata (13.44.27).—‘That man obtains his wife as a gift from the gods is the teaching of the Law; he (who does not treat her well) falsifies the word of man and god.’

[(See above, under 1.28.)]

स्वप्रयत्नाद् ऋते पित्रोपनीता देवदत्ता भवति, स्वव्यापारपाप्ता वा । उपदेशप्रयोजनं तां साध्वीं द्विषतीम् अपि द्वेष्यां च सतीं बिभृयात् । येनेदृश्या सहधर्मचारिण्या यजमानेन हविः प्रत्तं देवताभिः प्रतिगृह्यते । प्रसवशुद्धा च सा देवपितृमौष्याणाम् अनृण्ये हि निमित्तम् भवति । यतस् ताम् ईदृशीं द्वेष्यतादिभिर् अपि कारणैर् न परित्यजेत् । येन ॥ ९.९५ ॥

095 The husband receives his wife from the gods, (he does not wed her) according to his own will; doing what is agreeable to the gods, he must always support her (while she is) faithful.

Women were created for the purpose of child-bearing, and men for the furfose of procreation. hence it is that Religious Rites have been ordained in the Veda as common between the man and his wife.—(96)

प्रजनं गर्भग्रहणम् । संतानो गर्भाधानम् । तस्माद् धेतोर् अपत्योत्पत्तेर् उभयाधीनत्वाद् वेदे स्त्रीपुंसयोः साधारणो धर्मः पत्न्या सह पुंस उक्तः । अतः केवस्याधिकराभावत् स्त्रियो द्वेष्या अपि न त्याज्याः ॥ ९.९६ ॥

‘Child-bearing’—Conception.

‘Procreation’—Impregnating.

‘Hence’—i.e., because of the act of child-begetting being dependent upon both,—the man’s Religious Rites have been ordained in the Veda, as being in common with his wife.

Consequently, since alone by himself he could not be entitled to the performance of any rites, he shall not abandon his wife, even though she be hostile.—(96).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 418), which adds that the term ‘prajana’ here stands for the act of conceiving and ‘santāna’ for the act of depositing the seed, fecundating.

[(See texts under 85.)]

Nārada (12-19).—‘Women have been created for the sake of propagation.’

एवम् अनयोः प्रजासहत्ववत् कर्मसहत्वं स्मर्यते । येनातस् तां न परित्यजेद् अधिकारानुग्रहाय ॥ ९.९६ ॥

096 To be mothers were women created, and to be fathers men; religious rites, therefore, are ordained in the Veda to be performed (by the husband) together with the wife.

After the nuptial fee for a girl has been paid, if the man who paid the fee dies, the girl should be given to the younger brother-in-law, in case she consents.—(97)

यस्याः पित्रादिभिर् गृहीतं शुल्क, न च दत्ता, केवलवचनेन देयत्वेन व्यवस्थिता, अत्रान्तरे स चेन् म्रियेत तदा — अन्यद्द्रव्यवद् देवरेषु प्राप्ता सर्वेषु²⁴⁰ वा युधिष्ठिरादिवत्, तदभावे सपिण्डेषु — अतो विशेषार्थम् इदम् उच्यते- देवराय प्रदातव्येति, न सर्वेभ्यो भर्तृभ्रातृभ्यो नापि सपिण्डेभ्यः, किं तर्ह्य् एकस्मै देवरायैव । तत्रापि कन्याया अनुमतौ सत्यां ।

• अथासत्यां कन्यायाः शुल्कस्य च का प्रतिपत्तिः ।

• यदि कन्यायै रोचते ब्रह्मचर्यं तदा शुल्कं कन्यापितृपक्षाणाम् एव । अथ पत्यन्तरम् अर्थयते तदा प्राग्गृहीतं शुल्कं त्यक्त्वान्यस्माद् आदाय दीयते ॥ ९.९७ ॥

When the nuptial fee has been received by her father and other relations, but she has not been given away,—only the verbal betrothal having been done,—if, in the interval, the giver of the foe happen to die, then there arises the doubt, as to whether she, in the manner of other goods, shall revert to the younger brother-in-law, or to all brothers, as in the ease of Yudhiṣṭhira and others, or in the absence of brothers, to ‘Sapiṇḍa’ relations,—the text lays down the rule that ‘she should he given to the younger brother-in-law’;—not either to all the brothers of her husband, or to all his ‘Sapiṇḍa’ relations,—but to his younger brother only. But hero also, only if the girl consents.

“In the event of the girl not consenting, what shall become of the nuptial fee?”

If the girl desires to take to life-long celibacy, then the fee shall remain with the members of her father’s family; but if she seeks for another husband, then the fee shall be refunded out of the fee received from this second man.—(97)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 153);—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 227);—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 739);—in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 105), which explains the meaning to be that ‘if the girl agrees she may be given to the younger brother, but if she prefers to be given to some one else, she should be given to this latter’—in Puruṣārthacintāmaṇi (p. 454);—in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 530);—in Gadādharapaddhati (Kāla, p. 227);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 219).

(See under [47], [69] and [71].)

Vaśiṣṭha (17-72).—‘If the betrothed of a maiden die after she has been promised to him verbally and by a libation of water,—but before she was married to him with the sacred texts,—she belongs to her father.’

Kātyāyana (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, 739).—‘If a man should die or become lost, after betrothal, the girl shall wait for three menstrual periods and then marry another person. If the betrothed should go away after having paid the nuptial fee and the girl’s dowry, the girl shall be kept unmarried for one year, after which she should be given away in the proper form to another man.’

केनचिद् विशेषेणास्य पुनर् आरम्भः । एवं च सति “यस्या म्रियेत कन्याया वाचा सत्ये कृते पतिः” इत्य् उक्तं तद् अदत्तशुल्काया विधानं स्यात् । देवरग्रहणाच् च पुनः सपिण्डनिवृत्तिर् गम्यते । युक्ता च तन्निवृत्तिः । सा हि क्रीतत्वात् तद्द्रव्याभिसंबन्धिन्य् एव देवरे ऽभ्यनुज्ञातुं युक्ता, शुल्कपण्यत्वात् तस्याः ॥ ९.९७ ॥

097 If, after the nuptial fee has been paid for a maiden, the giver of the fee dies, she shall be given in marriage to his brother, in case she consents.

Even a Śūdra should not take a nuptial fee, when he is giving away his daughter; by accepting a fee, what he does is disguised bartering.—(98)

इच्छातः शुल्कग्रहणे पूर्वेण विधिर् उक्तः । कस्यचित् तत एवाशङ्का स्यात् — अदोषं शुल्कग्रहणं शास्त्रे गृहीतशुल्काया विशेष उक्तो यतः — अत इमाम् आशङ्काम् अपनेतुम् आह- **नाददीत न शूद्रो ऽपि शुल्कम् **इति । इच्छातः प्रवृत्तौ शास्त्रीयो नियमो न तु शास्त्रेण पदार्थस्यैव कर्तव्यतोक्ता । यथा मद्यपीतस्य प्रायश्चित्तविधानेन न मद्यपानं²⁴¹ शास्त्रेणानुज्ञातं भवति । शुल्कसंज्ञेन यद् एवोक्तम् “गृह्णन् हि शुल्कं लोभेन” (म्ध् ३.५१) इति । येन तु विशेषेण पुनः पाठो ऽसौ प्रदर्शित एव ॥ ९.९८ ॥

What is to be done when the fee is received voluntarily, has been laid down in the preceding verse. Hence some people might come to entertain the following notion—“There is nothing wrong in receiving the nuptial fee, since the scriptures have laid down special rules regarding the subject.” And with a view to preclude such a notion, the text says—‘even a Śūdra should not take a nuptial fee.’—What the foregoing text has done is to lay down certain rules relating to cases where a man receives the fee, of his own will; and it does not lay down the propriety of receiving the fee. Just as the laying down of expiatory rites in connection with wine-drinking does not mean that the drinking is permitted.

The ‘nuptial fee’ here spoken of is the same as what has been deprecated in another text; and we have already explained why the same fact has been reiterated in the present verse.’—(98)

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 140).

**(verses 9.98-100)
**

Vaśiṣṭha (1.36).—‘The buying of a wife is mentioned in the following passage of the Veda:—“Therefore one hundred cows besides a chariot should be given to the bride’s father.”’

Āpastamba (2.13.12)—‘It is declared in the Veda that at the time of marriage, a gift, with a view to meet the father’s wishes, should be made by the bridegroom to the father—“Therefore he should give a hundred cows besides a chariot; this gift he should make bootless by returning it to the giver.” In reference to these marriage-rites, the word “Sale” can apply only in a metaphorical sense; as such union is effected under the law.’

न शूद्रो ऽपीति वचनात् शुल्कग्रहणं दोषवद् इत्य् एतद् दर्शयति । न तु शूद्रस्य प्रतिषेधः ॥ ९.९८ ॥

098 Even a Sudra ought not to take a nuptial fee, when he gives away his daughter; for he who takes a fee sell his daughter, covering (the transaction by another name).

Good men, both ancient and modern, have never committed the act, that having promised to one they gave her to another.—(99)

यद्²⁴² उक्तं “गृहीते शुल्के²⁴³ कन्येच्छायां सत्यां मृते तु शुल्कदे ऽस्या अन्यत्र दानम्” इति, तन् निषेधति । यद् अन्यस्य शुल्कदस्य प्रतिज्ञाय²⁴⁴ पुनर् अन्यस्मै दीयते पुनः शुल्कं गृहीत्वेति वरं स्वयंवरं तु कारयेत् कन्या । एष एवार्थः ॥ ९.९९ ॥

It has been declared above that—‘when the nuptial fee has been received, and the giver of the fee has died, the girl may be given to another man, if she consents.’ This is what is forbidden by the present text,—i.e., the act. of promising the girl to man who has paid the fee, and then to give her to another after receiving a fee from him.

What is meant is that in such cases the girl should be made to choose her own husband.—(99)

This verse is quoted in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 104), which says that this refers to cases where no defects have been discovered in the bride-groom;—in Saṃskāra-ratnamālā (p. 503), which has the same note;—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 218), which says that this refers to cases where the bride-groom has no defects.

**(verses 9.98-100)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.98].

अनेन दानम् अन्यत्र नास्ति । प्रकृतापेक्षम् एतत् ॥ ९.९९ ॥

099 Neither ancients nor moderns who were good men have done such (a deed) that, after promising (a daughter) to one man, they have her to another;

Nor indeed have we heard, even in former Cycles, of the covert sale of a daughter, for a price styled “nuptial fee.”—(100)

न कुतश्चिद् अस्माभिः श्रुतं पूर्वेषु जन्मसु कल्पान्तरेष्व् इत्य् अर्थः ॥ ९.१०० ॥

We have not heard of such a thing from any source. ‘Pūrveṣu janmasu’—i.e., in former cycles.—(100)

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 232), which says that this refers to cases where the father receives the money for his own benefit

**(verses 9.98-100)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.98].

एवं च सति शुल्कदोषान् नियोगो ऽपि सपिण्डे नास्ति । अतो देवराभावपक्षे नियतः प्रजनविभागः ॥ ९.१०० ॥

100 Nor, indeed, have we heard, even in former creations, of such (a thing as) the covert sale of a daughter for a fixed price, called a nuptial fee.

‘May mutual fidelity continue till death’,—this, in brief should be understood as the highest duty between husband and wife.—(101)

अविशेषेण वचनवित्त्या²⁴⁵ सर्वक्रियास्व् अव्यभिचारः । तथा चापस्तम्बः- “धर्मे चार्थे च कामे च नाभिचरितव्या” इति । एतावच् च श्रेयो धर्मो ऽर्थः कामः । तथा चोक्तम्- “त्रिवर्ग इति तु स्थितिः” (म्ध् २.२२४) इति ।

• यच् चाहुः- अपरित्यागो ऽत्राव्यभिचारः, इतरथा स्त्रीवत् पुरुषस्यानेकाभार्यापरिणयनं न स्यात् ।

• तद् अयुक्तम् । अस्ति पुरुषे वचनम् “कामतस् तु प्रवृत्तानाम्” (म्ध् ३.१२), तथा “वन्ध्याष्टमे ऽधिवेत्तव्या” (म्ध् ९.८१) इति । न तु स्त्रियाः । तथा च लिङ्गान्तरं स्यात्- “एकस्य बह्व्यो जाया भवन्ति नैकस्यै²⁴⁶ बहवः सह पतयः” (ऐत्ब् १२.११) इति ।

• आमरणान्ते भव आमरणान्तिकः । अन्यतरमरणे ऽपि तस्यान्तो ऽस्तीत्य् अर्थः । एष संक्षेपेण स्त्रीपुंसयोः प्रकृष्टो धर्मो वेदितव्यः ॥ ९.१०१ ॥

‘Fidelity’—unstinted obedience in all actions. Says Āpastamba: (a) ‘The wife should not be neglected in matters relating to Duties, Wealth and Pleasure’;—(b) ‘The highest good of man consists in Duty, Wealth and Pleasure, as it is declared that the whole fabric rests upon these three factors.’

Some people hold the following view:—“What is meant by ‘fidelity’ here is non-abandonment; otherwise, as to the woman, so to the man also, it would not he open to many more than one wife.”

This however is not right; because in regard to men there is a distinct sanction—(a) ‘Those who act through mere lust, etc.,’ (b) ‘the barren wife shall be superseded in the eighth year,’ and so forth; while there is no such sanction in the case of women. There is another text also which is indicative of the same fact—‘There are several wives for one man, but not several husbands for a woman at the same time.’

‘Until death,’—till they die; i.e., it ends only when either of them dies.

This should be understood to be the highest duty of man and wife, stated in brief.—(101)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 110), which adds that fidelity to each other is an obligatory duty, the transgression of which necessitates expiation;—and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 421).

अव्यभिचारो ऽन्योपगमपरित्यागः स्त्रियाः । न तु पुरुषस्य स्त्रीवद् अन्योपगमप्रतिषेधः । “तस्माद् एकस्य बह्व्यो जाया भवन्ति नैकस्या बहवः सह पतयः” इति स्रुतिः । स्त्रियास् तु पुरुषान्तरसंकल्पेनापि व्यभिचार इत्य् उतं च । एवं सति ॥ ९.१०१ ॥

101 ‘Let mutual fidelity continue until death,’ this may be considered as the summary of the highest law for husband and wife.

Man and wife, after they have passed through the rites, should always so exert themselves that they may not become separated and be unfaithful to each other.—(102)

यतेयातां प्रयत्नवन्तौ तथा स्यातां यथेतरेतरं परस्परं नातिचरेताम् । अतिचारो ऽतिक्रमः, धर्मार्थकामेष्व् असहभावः । कृतक्रियौ कृतविवाहादिसंस्कारौ, अवियुक्तौ²⁴⁷ ततः परम् । उपसंहारश्लोको²⁴⁸ ऽयं नानुक्तार्थोपदेशकः ॥ ९.१०२ ॥

पूर्वोत्तरप्रकरणयोः²⁴⁹ संबन्धश्लोको ऽयम् ।

‘Should exert themselves’— should make an effort; so that they may not be unfaithful to each other;—unfaithfulness consisting in neglect, want of co-operation in matters relating to Duty, Wealth and Pleasure.

‘Passed through the rites’—performed the rites of marriage.

This verse is meant to be a summing up of what has gone before, and not the injunction of any thing new.—(102)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 421).

विहितस्य स्त्रीपुंधर्मस्यानेकप्रकारस्यास्मिन् प्रकरणे तदनुष्ठानादरार्थम् इदम् उक्तानुकीर्तनम् ॥ ९.१०२ ॥

102 Let man and woman, united in marriage, constantly exert themselves, that (they may not be) disunited (and) may not violate their mutual fidelity.

Thus has been expounded to you the law relating to husband and wife, which is conducive to conjugal happiness,—as also the manner of obtaining children in times of distress; learn now the partition of inheritance.—(103)

उक्तेषु स्त्रीपुंसयोश् चापत्योत्पत्तौ च दायधर्मस्य विभागस्यावसरः ॥ ९.१०३ ॥

This verse shows the connection between what has gone before and what is coming next.

The two subjects—of the Duties of Husband and Wife, and the Begetting of Children—having been dealt with, it is the fit occasion for taking up the subject of the Partition of Inheritance.—(103)

This verse is quoted by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 6).

पूर्वयोः प्रकरणयोर् उपसंहारोपन्यासवचनम् इदं श्रोतृसंबोधनार्थम् ॥ ९.१०३ ॥

103 Thus has been declared to you the law for a husband and his wife, which is intimately connected with conjugal happiness, and the manner of raising offspring in times of calamity; learn (now the law concerning) the division of the inheritance.

After the death of the father and of the mother, the brothers, being assembled, shall divide equally the paternal property; while the parents are alive, they have no power.—(104)

भजेरन्न् इति प्राप्तकालतायाम् लिङ् । तथा पञ्चमे प्रपञ्चितम् । अथ वा यस्मिन् समये संक्रामितम् इति²⁵⁰ ॥ ९.१०४ ॥

‘Shall divide’—the affix denotes propriety. (Further Bhāṣya not available).

“The father’s estate is to be divided after the father’s death, and the mother’s estate after the mother’s death’ (Kullūka Rāghavānanda, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).—‘The mother’s estate devolves on the sons, only on failure of daughters’. (Nārāyaṇa).—The word ‘ūrdhvam’ indicates by implication that the rule holds good in the case of the father’s turning an ascetic (Rāghavānanda).—The equal division takes place if the eldest does not desire to receive an additional share (Kullūka).—The last clause shows that division of the property may take place with the parents’ permission during their lifetime. (Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda).”—Buhler.

Of the Bhāṣya on this verse we have a single short sentence; on the next verse it is wanting in all the Mss. hitherto found; so also on several other important verses bearing on inheritance. It seems it has been purposely destroyed by the ‘Editors’ who reconstructed the Bhāṣya under King Madana. And from the fact that the pruning knife began to operate with the verse dealing with the rule regarding the larger share of the eldest brother, one feels justified in assuming that the conclusion arrived at on this point by Medhātithi was detrimental to the interests of the said King, who therefore set himself systematically to collecting all available Mss. of the work and destroying this portion.—In the absence of some such strong motive, one fails to see why the King should have taken all this trouble regarding the ‘reconstruction’ of Medhātithi’s commentary.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 455), which adds the following notes:—‘Samam’, equal, there being no setting aside of the twentieth part (for the eldest brother).—It might be argued that since Manu has himself laid down that the twentieth part should be set aside as the additional share for the eldest brother, when they are dividing the paternal estate after the father’s death, why should he speak of ‘equal shares’?—But the fact of the matter is that the said additional share is meant only for those cases where the eldest brother happens to possess special qualifications.—Udayakara has however explained the present verse to mean that what of is to be divided into ‘equal’ shares is only that part of the property which remains after setting aside the said twentieth part.—Halāyudha and Pārijāta have read ‘saha’ in place of ‘samam’ and Pārijāta has explained it as ‘among themselves’.—The term ‘paitṛkam’ is to be expounded as ‘mātā ca pitā ca pitarau, tayoḥ idam paitṛkam’; so that the ‘mother’s estate’ also becomes included,—so says Halāyudha.—Though the text uses the term ‘paitṛkam riktham’, ‘father’s estate’, it is meant to include the estate of the grandfather and other forefathers also; in which latter also the brothers have shares.—Though it is true that both the father’s and the mother’s estate are meant, yet it has to be borne in mind that to the mother’s estate, the sons are entitled only in the absence of a daughter or her descendants.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 41), which adds that even though the text repeats the particle ‘ca’, yet it does not mean that both the parents should die before the property is divided.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p, 326), which adds the following notes:—‘Pituḥ ūrdhvam’, this phrase indicates the time for the division of the father’s property; and ‘mātuḥ ūrdhvam’ indicates that for the division of the mother’s property; thus the meaning of the verse comes to this:—On the death of the Father, his estate is to be partitioned, even though the Mother may be living; similarly on the death of the Mother, her estate is to be partitioned, even though the Father may be living; there being no reason why the partition of the estate of the one should await the death of the other.

It is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 443);—in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 124) which has the following notes;—‘Samam’, equal,—i.e., without setting apart 20 per cent for the eldest;—it might be argued that Manu has actually sanctioned 20 per cent, as the special share of the eldest brother, in connection with the partition that is done after the Father’s death;—but this sanction should be taken as referring either to cases where the eldest brother has very special qualifications, or where he is specially desirous of having a special share;—it explains the mention of the ‘mother’ as being due to the term ‘paitṛkam’ meaning ‘parental’, and hence including the mother’s property also, which can be partitioned only after the death of the ‘mother.’

It is quoted in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 331);—in Dāyakramasaṅgraha;—in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 170a), which adds the following notes:—‘Paitṛkam’, belonging to the Father and the Mother; the sense being that the Father’s property is to be divided after the Father’s death, find the Mother’s property after the Mother’s death;—the particle ‘ca’ does not imply that ‘after the death of both the parents is another time for partition’; for the simple reason that the Mother or the Father being alive can be no obstacle in the partitioning of the property of the other;—and in Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 23), which says that this verse is meant to answer the question ‘why the sons should not partition the property during the life-time of the parents’?—the reason being that during that time they have no proprietary right over it.

Gautama (28.1).—‘After the father’s death, the sons shall divide his estate.’

Baudhāyana (2.3.3, 8).—‘A father may divide his property among his sons;—while the father lives, the division of the estate can take place only with his permission.’

Viṣṇu (18.36).—‘Sons who are of the same caste as the father shall receive equal shares.’

Āpastamba (2.13.1-3).—‘Sons begotten in the right manner on a wife of the same caste as oneself have a right to inherit the estate;—if they do not sin against either of the parents.’

Yājñavalkya (2.117).—‘After the parents, the sons shall divide equally their property as well as their debts; the mother’s property, what remains after the paying off of the debts, her daughters shall divide among themselves; and in the absence of the daughters, the offspring of their daughters.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 12).—‘Partition is ordained only among those sons who have attained their majority;—for males, majority is attained in the sixteenth year.’

Śukranīti (4.5.591).—‘If the father he dead, the sons and the rest are to receive their shares according to the said proportion (i.e., sons and their mothers are to be made equal sharers).’

Arthaśāstra (p. 31).—‘During the life-time of the parents, the sons have no right over the ancestral property; after the death of the parents, there is partition of the ancestral property, and also of the self-acquired property of the father… There shall be an equal division of the property and of the debt.’

Nārada (13.49-50).—‘After their father’s death, the sons shall succeed to his wealth in order; whenever a superior son is wanting, the one next to him shall succeed. On failure of a son, the daughter succeeds; because she continues the lineage just like the son.’

Do. (13.2).—‘The father being dead, the sons shall divide the estate as they ought,—so shall the daughters divide the property of the mother when she dies; on failing daughters, their issue.’

Nārada (Aparārka, 718).—‘After the father, the sons shall divide the property equally.’

Bṛhaspati (25.1).—‘After the death of both parents, division of the property among brothers has been ordained to take place. It may take place even in the father’s life-time, if the mother be past child-hearing.’

Do. (25.10).—‘When they divide the father’s heritage, all the sons shall share alike.’

Devala (Vivādaratnākara, p. 456).—‘On the father’s death the sons shall divide among themselves the father’s property; they have no right over the property so long as the father is alive and is free from faults.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do.).—‘During the father’s life time, the sons shall not divide the property; the sons have no right even over that which may have been acquired subsequently; because as regards property, as well as over religious rites, the sons are dependant upon the father, so long as he is alive and is faultless.’

Saṃgrahakāra (Parāśaramādhava-Vyavahāra, p. 327).—‘The father’s property may be divided on his death, even while the mother is living; as apart from her husband, the wife has no proprietory right; similarly the mother’s property may be divided on her death, even while the father is living, as the husband has no right over his wife’s Strīdhana while her children are there.’

तदनुज्ञाता जीवद्पितृमातृका अपि धर्मकार्यापेक्षया भजेरन्न् इत्य् एतद् अर्थाद् आपद्यते । तथा च गौतम आह- “जीवति चेच्छति पितरि” इति । मातुर् अपि चोर्ध्वं तदीयद्रव्यविभागः पाक्षिको विज्ञेयो भगिनीभिः सह ॥ ९.१०४ ॥

104 After the death of the father and of the mother, the brothers, being assembled, may divide among themselves in equal shares the paternal (and the maternal) estate; for, they have no power (over it) while the parents live.

The eldest brother alone may take the entire paternal property; the rest shall live under him, just as under their father.—(105)

(No Bhāṣya available).

What is said here refers to eases where ‘the eldest son is specially virtuous’ (Kūlluka and Rāghavānanda),—or ‘possesses eminent qualities, and the others are less distinguished’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (p. 117), where Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes:—‘Pitryam’, inherited from the father,—‘Śeṣāḥ’, brothers other than the eldest,—Upajī veyuḥ, should follow him, like their father. Mitākṣarā adds that such unequal division, even though sanctioned by the scriptures, should never be adopted, being opposed to popular sentiment, and also to Vedic texts.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 35), in support of the view that the eldest son should succeed to the kingdom;—in Aparārka (p. 722), which adds that this rule is meant for eases where the younger brothers are still in status pupillari, or are not entitled to any share by reason of being idiots and so forth, or are inexperienced;—and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 457), which adds the following notes:—What is meant is that in partition, the eldest brother, if he happens to be possessed of all the qualities of the superior brother, should be treated as the sole master, like the Father himself;—‘tamupajīveyuḥ’ means that ‘they should live on the subsistence provided by him.’

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva, (II, p. 170);—anti in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 125), as laying down an alternative course;—in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 171b);—and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dayabhāga, pp. 35 and 103).

**(verses 9.105-110)
**

Gautama (28.3-4).—‘Or, the whole property may go to the first-born; and he shall support the rest as a father. But in partition there is an excess of spiritual merit.’

Baudhāyana (2.3.13).—‘A son who possesses specially good qualities becomes a protector of the rest.’

Āpastamba (2.14.6).—‘Some people declare that the eldest son alone inherits.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.1).—‘The father throws off his debts and obtains immortality if he sees the face of a living son.’

Viṣṇu (15.45).—(Same as Vaśiṣṭha.)

Nārada (13.5).—‘Or the senior brother shall maintain all like a father, if they wish it; or even the youngest brother, if able; the well-being of the family depends on the ability of the head.’

Hārīta (Vivādaratnākara, p. 459).—‘When the father has voluntarily handed over the property to the sons, or when he has gone abroad, or when he has died, the eldest son shall look after the property.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 460).—‘When the father has been disabled, the eldest son shall carry on the business of the estate, hut never without the father’s consent.’

Mantra (Parāśaramādhava—Ācāra, p. 501).—‘(Same as Vaśiṣṭha.)

एष कारणतः पाक्षिको ऽविभागो विज्ञेयः । [यदि तत् कार]णं न स्यात् तदा ज्येष्ठमध्यमकनिष्ठानां विभागम् अनेकप्रकारं वक्ष्यति । ज्येष्ठग्रहणपक्षे चायम् अर्थवादो भवति ॥ ९.१०५ ॥

105 (Or) the eldest alone may take the whole paternal estate, the others shall live under him just as (they lived) under their father.

By the mere birth of the eldest son, a man becomes ‘with son,’ and (hence) free from the debt to Pitṛs; it is for this reason that he deserves the whole.—(106)

(No Bhāṣya available).

Cf. Śruti—‘Nāputrasya lokosti’ (Aitareya Brāhmaṇa 7.3.9).

This verse is quoted in Virādaratnākara (p. 457), which adds the following notes:—‘Putrībhavati’, becomes one who has fulfilled the dictates of the scriptures regarding the begetting of offspring;—the addition of ‘mātra’ is meant to indicate that, the man becomes ‘with son’ even before the child has had its sacramental rites performed;—‘anṛṇaḥ’, becomes freed, by the birth of a single son, from one of the three kinds of debts which have been described in the Śruti as besetting a man from his very birth.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 35);—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācarā, p. 501);—in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 163);—in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 439);—in Saṃskāra-ratnamālā (p. 686);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 43);—in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 656);—in Nṛsiṃhapraṣāda (Saṃskāra 25b);—in Śrāddhakriyākaumudī (pp. 450 and 491), which explains ‘putrībhavati’ as ‘becomes saved from the hell called Put’;—in Śuddhikaumudī (p. 86):—in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 171b);—and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, pp. 37 and 250) as lending support to the view that one’s title to another’s property is determined also by the benefits conferred by the former on the latter.

**(verses 9.105-110)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.105].

यतश् च,

106 Immediately on the birth of his first-born a man is (called) the father of a son and is freed from the debt to the manes; that (son), therefore, is worthy (to receive) the whole estate.

That son alone to whom the man transfers his debt, and through whom he attains immortality, is the ‘duty-born son;’ others are known as ‘lust-born.’—(107).

इतरान् इत्य् अर्थवादो ऽयम् । यथाश्रुततात्पर्यग्रहणाद्²⁵¹ धि कनीयसाम् अभागार्हतैव स्यात् । ततश् च वक्ष्यमाणविरोधः ॥ ९.१०७ ॥

‘Others, etc.’—This is purely declamatory. If it were taken in its literal sense, the younger brothers would never be entitled to any property at all; and this would be contrary to what follows.—(107)

“This verse alludes to the Vedic text quoted, Vaśiṣṭha 17.1; Viṣṇu 15.43”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 457), which adds the following notes:—‘Sannayati’, concentrates,—‘ānantyam’, endless bliss,—‘aśnute’, obtains, i.e., becoming freed from debt,—‘Kāmajān’, this is a mere exaggerated statement, because it cannot be taken to mean that the younger sons have no share in the paternal estate, since it has been distinctly declared that they do have such share.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 163);—in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 656);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 43);—in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 172a);—by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 37);—and in Rājanītiratnākara (p. 40b).

**(verses 9.105-110)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.105].

स शिष्टः स्यात् । अविभागपक्षे चेयं ज्येष्ठस्य कनीयस्सु वृत्तिर् उच्यते ॥ ९.१०७ ॥

107 That son alone on whom he throws his debt and through whom he obtains immortality, is begotten for (the fulfilment of) the law; all the rest they consider the offspring of desire.

The eldest brother shall support his younger brothers, just as the father supports his sons; and the younger brothers, in duty bound, shall behave towards the eldest brother, like sons.—(108)

पुत्रवत् पालनीया न तु बाला इति धनादिना गर्हणीयाः । तैर् अप्य् अयं पितेति भावनीयम्²⁵² । तद् आह पुत्रवच् चापि वर्तेरन्न् इति ॥ ९.१०८ ॥

अपरा प्रशंसा ।

They should be supported like sons; but they shall not be deprived of wealth, on the ground of their being of younger age.

They also should look upon him as their father; this is what is meant by the sentence.—‘They shall behave like sons.’— (108)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 457), which adds the following explanation:—The eldest brother should take care of the younger brothers, as if he were their father, and he should not separate them;—‘putravat varteran’, they should not entertain feelings of hatred towards him;—in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (pp. 513, 656 and 691);—in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 90), as attributing the qualities of father and son to the elder and younger brothers respectively;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 172a).

**(verses 9.105-110)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.105].

येनैवंगुणः,

108 As a father (supports) his sons, so let the eldest support his younger brothers, and let them also in accordance with the law behave towards their eldest brother as sons (behave towards their father).

It is the eldest brother who advances the family, or ruins it; the eldest brother is worthy of the highest honour; the eldest brother is never ill-treated by good men.—(109)

य एव गुणज्येष्ठः स वर्धयति कुलम् । अयम् एव निर्गुणस् तत्कुलं विनाश्यति । शीलवति ज्येष्ठे कनीयांसो ऽपि तथा वर्तन्ते । ते ऽपि गुणहीनेन विवदन्ते²⁵³ ॥ ९.१०९ ॥

This is another eulogy on the eldest brother.

The right sort of eldest brother ‘advances the family’; and when the same is devoid of qualities, he ‘ruins it.’ When the eldest brother has a good character, his younger brothers also behave in the same manner. And when not possessed of good qualities, all these quarrel among themselves.—(109)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 457), which adds the following notes:—‘Kulam vardhayati’, the prosperity of the family being brought about by the adopting of proper business-methods and the taking care of the younger brothers;—‘vināśayati’, all that this means is that he is in a position to ruin the family;—in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 656);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 172a).

**(verses 9.105-110)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.105].

एवं च सति,

ज्येष्ठः कुलं वर्धयति विनासयति (?) वा पुनः ।

अनेवंगुणः, तस्मात् कारणात् ।

ज्येष्ठः पूज्यतमो लोके

अतश् चासौ,

ज्येष्ठः सद्भिर् अगर्हितः ॥ ९.१०९ ॥

109 The eldest (son) makes the family prosperous or, on the contrary, brings it to ruin; the eldest (is considered) among men most worthy of honour, the eldest is not treated with disrespect by the virtuous.

If the eldest brother behaves as the eldest brother, he is like a mother, and like a father. If however he does not behave like the eldest brother, he shall be honoured simply as a kinsman.—(110)

ज्येष्ठस्य वृत्तिः पुत्रे इव²⁵⁴ स्नेहः,²⁵⁵ पालनम्, शरीरधनेषु तदीयेषु स्ववद् अनुपेक्षा, अकार्येभ्यो निवर्तनम् । यस् त्व् अन्यथा वर्तते तत्रे बन्धुवत् प्रत्युत्थानाभिवादनैः मातुलपितृव्यवत् संपूजा कर्तव्या । अन्यथाकरणे विधेयतानिवृत्तिः ॥ ९.११० ॥

‘Behaving like the eldest brother’ consists (1) in treating the younger brothers with love, like that towards a son,—(2) in supporting them and looking after their property, like his own, and (3) in preventing them from wrong acts?.

If he behaves otherwise, he should he honoured ‘like a kinsman,’—i.e., like the maternal or paternal uncle; i.e., the younger brothers shall stand up when they come up, and so forth. This means that they shall not be entirely subservient to his wishes.—(110)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 457), which adds the following notes:—The ‘behaviour of the eldest’ consists in lovingly maintaining and taking care of the youngers;—‘bandhuvat’, like the maternal uncle and other relations, he should be treated with respect, and saluted and so forth, and he should not be treated disrespectfully;—in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (pp. 513 and 691);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 172a).

**(verses 9.105-110)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.105].

गुरुकार्यनिवृत्त्यर्थम् इदं बन्धुवचनम् । तथा च सति ॥ ९.११० ॥

110 If the eldest brother behaves as an eldest brother (ought to do), he (must be treated) like a mother and like a father; but if he behaves in a manner unworthy of an eldest brother, he should yet be honoured like a kinsman.

Thus may they live either together, or separately, with a view to spiritual merit; by separate living merit prospers; hence separation is meritorious.—(111)

स्वेच्छानियोज्यत्वाभावान् निरपेक्ष्यस्वद्रव्यसाध्येषु²⁵⁶ ज्योतिष्टोमादिष्व् असंभवात्, तत्सिद्ध्यर्थो ऽयं न्यायप्राप्तो विभाग उच्यते- पृथग् वा धर्मकाम्ययेति । न पुनर् अविभागाद् अधर्मः, विभाग एवाग्निहोत्रादिवद् धर्मः ।

• ननु च धर्मानुष्ठानप्रतिबन्धहेतुत्वाद् अधर्मतैवाविभागस्य ।

• नैष दोषः । अधिकृतस्याननुष्ठाने प्रत्यवायः । न चाविभक्तधनस्याधिकारो ऽग्निमत्वाभावात्, विभागकाल एवाग्निपरिग्रहस्य विहितत्वात् । यस् तु जीवत्य् एव पितरि कृतविवाहस् तदैव च परिगृहीताग्निस् तस्याधिकृतत्वान् नैवाविभागः । सो ऽपि यदि विच्युतः परिग्रहाद् अन्यतो वा विहितानुष्ठानपर्याप्तधनस् तदा नैव सह वसन् प्रत्यवेयात् । न हि विभागाविभागयोर् धर्माधर्मत्वं स्वरूपेणास्तीत्य्²⁵⁷ उक्तम् ।

• ननु च “भ्रातॄणाम् अविभक्तानाम्²⁵⁸ एको धर्मः प्रवर्तते” (न्स्म् १३.३७) इति वचनात्, दम्पत्योर् इव सहानुष्ठाने प्राग्विभागाद् अस्त्य् एव धर्मव्यक्तिः । साधारण्याद् द्रव्यस्य सर्वैः संभूय कर्तव्यम् इति ।

• नैतद् अग्निहोत्रादौ । आहवनीयादिषु²⁵⁹ ह्य् अग्निहोत्रादयः । संस्कारनिमित्ताश् चाहवनीयादय आत्मनेपददर्शनाद् अन्यतरस्य संबन्धितां न²⁶⁰ प्रतिपद्यन्ते । परकीये वाग्नौ जुह्वतः प्रतिषेधदर्शनम् अस्ति- “नान्यस्याग्निषु यजत” इति । न स्मार्ते ह्य् अपि गृह्ये ऽग्नौ विधानम् । गृहशब्दस्य विशिष्टोपादानाद् अग्निवचनत्वाद् एष एव न्यायः । अतिथ्यादिभोजनदाने महायज्ञमध्ये पाठात्²⁶¹ ।

• वैवाहिके ऽग्नौ कुर्वीत गृह्यं कर्म यथाविधि ।

• पञ्चयज्ञविधानं च । (म्ध् ३.५७)

इति गृह्यत एवाधिकारः । तेनैतद् वचनम् “एको धर्मः” (न्स्म् १३.३७) इति श्राद्धपूर्तान्नादिमात्रं विज्ञेयम् ॥ ९.१११ ॥

Inasmuch as no man voluntarily incurs any responsibilities regarding the performance of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other sacrifices, which involves the spending of wealth,—the text proceeds to recommend ‘separation,’ with a view to the performance of such acts.—‘Or separately with a view to spiritual merit’—This does not mean that, non-separation is sinful; all that is meant is that Separation is meritorious, just like the Agnihotra and other acts.

“But since non-separation would be an obstacle to the performance of the meritorious acts, it should he sinful.”

There is no force in this objection. There is sin only when a man omits to do what it is his duty to do; and one who has not separated from his brother is not entitled to the performance of the religions acts, for the simple reason that he has no independent ‘Fire’ of his own; as the ‘Laying of Fire’ has been laid down as to be done at the time of separation. In the case of the man who has married and laid his Fires during his father’s life-time, he is at once entitled to the performance of the religious acts; so that for such a man there is no ‘non-separation.’ But even in this case, if the man happens to lose his properly, or for some reason does not possess enough wealth to enable him to perform the religious acts, he would not incur sin, if he lived with his brothers. Because, as has been already pointed out, neither ‘separation’ by itself, or ‘non-separation’ by itself, is cither meritorious or sinful.

“It has been declared that ‘for brothers who have not divided their property a single religious duty is performed,’ which shows that like husband and wife, the brothers perform their duty conjointly; and this clearly shows that before separation, their clear duty is that they should act conjointly, on account of their property being common.”

This cannot be the case with the Agnihotra and similar acts. These are performed in the ‘Āhavanīya’ and other consecrated fires; and the existence of these fires is due to certain consecratory rites. Further, as the injunction relating to these contains the verb with the Ātmanepada ending, it is clear that the Fires consecrated by one man cannot be used by another; and further the pouring of oblations in Fires consecrated by another person is found to be distinctly forbidden—‘one should not offer sacrifices in Fires belonging to another man.’ Nor is the performance of the Agnihotra and other rites laid down as to be done in the household Fire kindled according to Smārta rites, because the very term ‘household’ connotes a special qualification; and the tin; thus qualified could be used for certain specified purposes only; such for instance as the feeding of guests and other acts laid down as constituting the ‘great sacrifices;’—in such texts as—‘In the marital fire should one perform his household-rites, as also the five sacrifices.’ From this it is clear that in the household-fire one can perform only the household-rites. Consequently when a text says that ‘a single duty is performed,’ it clearly refers to such acts as the Śrāddha, the Charities and so forth.—(111)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 459), which has the note that, what is meant is that separation is considered desirable, because it affords the opportunity for several performances of sacrifices; it is not meant that the separation itself is conducive to merit, like the performance of the Jyotiṣṭoma, or that non-separation is sinful, like the eating of the flesh of the animal killed by a poisoned arrow.

It in quoted in Aparārka (p. 719), which adds that conjoint life is meant for those cases where some of the brothers may be still studying; in cases where all of them have read the Veda and are capable of taking the fires, it is far better that they should live separately;—again on p. 722, to the effect that it is not necessary that the brothers must divide immediately after the father’s death;—in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 125) as sanctioning partition as conducive to religions merit;—in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 172a);—and by Jīmūtavāhāna (Dāyabhāga, p. 37), which says that this is a clear case of voluntary option.

Gautama (28.4).—‘In partition, there is increase of spiritual merit.’

Bṛhaspati (25.6).—‘When several brothers reside in the same house and cook their food together, the Pitṛs, Gods and Brāhmaṇas are worshipped at a single place; but after they have divided the property, the worship takes place separately in each house.’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 719).—‘It has been ordained that while the parents are alive, the sons shall live together; when the parents have died, and the sons become divided, their spiritual merit increases.’

अत्र कारणम् इदम् उच्यते । यदि ज्येष्ठो गुणवत्तया धर्माधिकारार्हो भवति, इतरे चानधिकृता असमर्थाश् च धर्मानुष्ठाने, अतो ऽयम् अविभागो द्रष्टव्यः । यदि त्व् अज्येष्ठवृत्तिर् ज्येष्ठः स्यात् गुणवान् अपि सन् गतो (?) ऽसमर्थेष्व् अपि धर्मानुष्ठाने कनीयस्सु अयम् अविभागो न स्यात् । उक्तं हि “यो ज्येष्ठो ज्येष्ठवृत्तिः स्यात्” इति । तथा “ज्येष्ठवृत्तिर् यस् तु स्यात्” इति च । एवं च सति धर्मानुष्ठानसमर्थेष्व् अधिकारार्हेषु कनीयस्सु दण्डापूपिकया प्रतिषिद्ध एवायम् अविभागो द्रष्टव्यः, सत्य् अपि ज्येष्ठस्य गुणवत्त्वे ज्येष्ठवृत्तित्वे च । तथा चोक्तम् “तस्माद् धर्म्या पृथक्क्रिया” इति । न च धर्म्ये विभागे सत्य् अविभागो युक्तः कारणोपदेशात् । तथा च तद् उक्तम् एव । एतेन पितापुत्रविभागो व्याख्यातः । तुल्यहेतुत्वात् । न चायं नास्तीति मन्तव्यः “ऊर्ध्वं पितुर्” विभागोपदेशात् । यस्माद् वक्ष्यति, “न तत्सुतैर् भजेत् सार्धम्” इति । ततो लिङ्गात् पितापुत्रयोर् विभागो विज्ञेयः । यतश् च सर्वेष्व् अधिकारार्हेषु धर्मानुष्ठानसमर्थेषु च धर्म्या पृथक्क्रिया । अत इदम् उच्यते ॥ ९.१११ ॥

111 Either let them thus live together, or apart, if (each) desires (to gain) spiritual merit; for (by their living) separate (their) merit increases, hence separation is meritorious.

For the eldest, the additional portion shall consist of the twentieth part of the property, as also the best of all the chattels; half of that for the middlemost, and the fourth of that for the youngest.—(112)

• तद् एतद् अपेशलम् । न ह्य् एवंविधः कालनियमः क्वचिद् अपि श्रूयते सायंप्रातःपर्वादिनियमाद् अन्यत्र । यच् च “अन्ये कृतयुगे धर्माः” (म्ध् १.८५) इति तत् प्रथम एव व्याख्यातम् । न हीदं²⁶² युगभेदेन धर्मव्यवस्थाहेतुः²⁶³ । देशनियमो ऽपि प्राचीनप्रवणादिव्यतिरेकेण मध्यदेशपूर्वदेशकृतो²⁶⁴ नैवास्तीत्य् उक्तम्, “जातिजानपदान् धर्मान्²⁶⁵” (म्ध् ८.४१), “सद्भिर् आचरितम्”²⁶⁶ (म्ध् ८.४६) इत्य् अत्र । दीर्घसत्रेष्व् अद्यत्वे ऽप्य् अनुष्ठानसंभवः । संवत्सरशब्दस् त्व् अहःसु प्रथम एव दर्शितः । यत् तु नाद्यत्वे केचिद् अनुतिष्ठन्तो दृश्यन्त इति, उपदिष्टार्थस्य नित्यवद् आम्नातस्यापि बहुभिः प्रकारैर् अनुष्ठानसाधनाशक्त्या फलानिच्छया वा नास्तिकतया वा । यत् तु “वेने राज्यं प्रशासति” (म्ध् ९.६६) तदाप्रभृतिकं महापौर्वकालिकम् अनुष्ठानं दर्शयतीत्य् अर्थवादो ऽसौ न कालोपदेशः ।

• ज्येष्ठस्य विंशः । ज्येष्ठस्य सर्वद्रव्याद्²⁶⁷ विंशतितमो भाग उद्धृत्य दातव्य एव । मध्यमस्य तदर्धं चत्वारिंशत्तमो भागः । एवं कनिष्ठस्य तुरीयो ज्येष्ठापेक्षयाशीतितमो भागः । एवम् उद्धृते परिशिष्टं त्रिधा कर्तव्यम् । तत्र सर्वेभ्यो द्रव्येभ्यो यद् वरं श्रेष्ठं तज् ज्येष्ठस्यैव । अथ वा “द्रव्येष्व् अपि परं वरम्” इति पाठः । उत्तमाधममध्यानि यानि द्रव्यादीनि सन्ति ततस् तस्माद् यद् एकं श्रेष्ठं तत् तस्यैव तद् उक्तं भवति । यत्र गावो ऽश्वा वा सन्ति एकः श्रेष्ठो ज्येष्ठस्य दातव्यो न द्रव्यान्तरेण मूल्येन वा स्वीकर्तव्यः । त्रयाणां सर्वेषां गुणिनाम् अयम् उद्धारविधिः, गुणवताम् उद्धारदर्शनात् ॥ ९.११२ ॥

Some people hold the following view—“This rule regarding the additional portions refers to the past, and is not meant to be observed during the present time; specially because the rules laid down in the Smṛti always bear upon some particular time; and when the rule is put forth as to be observed, the intention of the author is that the knowledge of this may bring merit to the learner; just as it is in the case of the Prolonged Sacrificial Sessions. No one is found nowadays to perform these Prolonged Sacrificial Sessions, and yet Brāhmaṇa texts contain injunctions of them. It is in view of such acts that it has been declared that ‘Religious duties for the Kali cycle are different etc., etc.’ (l85). Thus religious duties are to be understood as restricted in regard to time also, just as they are in regard to place. As a matter of fact, no religious act that has been enjoined is performed in all places; hence it is that they are declared as restricted in regard to place. If they were meant to be performed at all places, there would be no such restrictions as—‘This shall be done by the learned twice-born persons etc, etc.’ (9.66). From all this it follows that when rules regarding Additional Portions are put forward, they are not meant to be observed, their case being analogous to that of Killing the cow (for the Madhuparka offering).”

This view is not quite satisfactory. No such restriction regarding time is found laid down anywhere. Restrictions regarding place also that are found pertain only to ‘the ground sloping towards the east’ and so forth, and never to the ‘Central’ or ‘Eastern’ or other parts of the country; as has been made clear under 8.41. As regards the Prolonged Sacrificial Sessions also, it is quite possible even nowadays to preform them; specially as it has been already shown that in connection with all this the term ‘year’ stands for the day. As for no one being found to perform these nowadays,—even though its performance has been enjoined as necessary,—that may be due to the fact, either that men are not possessed of the capacity necessary for their performance, or that they do not desire the results obtainable from its performance, or that they do not have sufficient faith. Then, as regards the phrase ‘while Vena was ruling over his kingdom’ (9.66), which has the appearance of a restriction regarding time, all that it indicates is that the duties laid down have been performed from very ancient times; and not that they are restricted in regard to time.

The ‘twentieth part’ for the eldest; i.e., the twentieth part of the entire state shall be deducted and given to the eldest brother. Half of that—i.e., the fortieth part, to the middlemost brother; and to the youngest brother, the fourth part of that,—i.e., the eightieth part. When all these shares have been taken out, the remainder is to be divided into three equal parts.

Further, among all the chattels, that which happens to be the best is to be given to the eldest brother.

Or, the reading may be ‘dravyeṣvapi param varam,’ which means that from among all kinds of things—good, bad and indifferent,—the best of each kind shall be given to the eldest brother. For instance, if there are cows or horses, the best of these shall be given to him—absolutely—and not either in lieu of any other article, or in return for a price.

This rule regarding additional portions is meant only for those cases where the three brothers are possessed of special qualifications; as it is only in the case of such men that additional shares are found to be actually given.—(112)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.114), which notes that this unequal division pertains to eases where the Father himself is dividing his self-acquired property among his sons,—no such division being permissible regarding ancestral property.

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 645), which supplies the following explanation:—The twentieth part of the property going to be divided, as also the best thing among the articles, should be given to the eldest brother; to the second brother, the fortieth part of the estate and also an article of the second quality; and to the youngest brother, the eightieth part of the estate and a third-rate article; the property that remains after this is to be divided equally;—it goes on to add that, though this unequal division has been sanctioned by several texts, yet it should never be adopted in practice, as it is contrary to popular sentiment, and what is against popular sentiment should not be done.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 468), along with the next two verses which adds the following notes.—This deduction of special shares pertains to cases where the eldest brother is endowed with superior qualifications;—the law on this point may be thus summed up: In a case where there are several sons born of the same mother, and every one is endowed with qualities,—but there is a gradual inferiority in the qualities,—then the eldest brother should receive as his special share, the twentieth part out of the whole property, as also the best among the articles in the property; the second brother is to receive half of that, i.e., the fortieth part, and also one article of the second quality; and the youngest brother, the eightieth part, and also an article of the lowest quality;—when however the eldest and the youngest alone are possessed of superior qualities, then the said special shares are to be given to these two only, the second brother receiving only his ordinary share, the special share prescribed for the qualified second brother—i.e., the fortieth pari of the property,—being equally divided among the throe;—in a case where there are several brothers between the oldest and the youngest, and many of them are possessed of superior qualities, each one of the middle brothers is to receive a fortieth part as his special share;—when the eldest brother is possessed of very superior qualities, while the others are entirely devoid of qualities, he shall take as his special share the best among the articles,—the best of every kind of articles, e.g., ruby among the gems and so forth,—and also one among each kind of cows, buffaloes and other cattle.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 43);—in the Smṛtitattva II (p. 193);—in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 128), which notes on p. 125 that this refers to cases where the elder brother is endowed with special qualifications, or where he is specially desirous of having the extra share;—in Smṛtisāroddhāra, (p. 331), which says that this refers to the property acquired by the father when he divides it among his sons during his own life-time;—and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 64), who says that equal partition is to be made after all these ‘special shares’ have been extracted, as is made clear by verse 116; the special share of the eldest brother being the twentieth part of the property along with the ‘best article’.

(verses 9.112-113)

Gautama (28.5-8).—‘The additional share of the eldest son consists of the twentieth part of the estate, a male and a female (of animals with one row of front teeth), a cart yoked with animals with two rows of front teeth, and a bull; the additional share of the middlemost consists of the one-eyed, old, hornless and tailless animals, if there are several of them; the additional share of the youngest consists of the sheep, grain, iron-utensils in the house, a house, a cart yoked with oxen, and one of each kind of the other animals. The remaining property shall be divided equally.’

Baudhāyana (2-3.4-5).—‘Or the eldest may receive the most excellent chattel; for the Veda says “they distinguished the eldest by an additional share of the property;” or the eldest may receive in excess, one part out of ten; and the other sons shall receive equal shares. The additional share of the eldest is a cow, a horse, a goat or a sheep, respectively among the four castes.’

Viṣṇu (18.37).—‘A best part shall be given to the eldest as his additional share.’

Yājñavalkya (12.114).—‘If the father makes the partition, he can distribute the property among his sons as he pleases; or he shall give the superior share to the eldest; or he may give equal shares to all.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 33).—‘If the father makes the division during his life-time, he shall not make any difference in favour of any son; nor shall he disinherit any without reason.’

Nārada (13.4).—‘Or the father himself may distribute his property among his sons, when he is stricken in years,—either allotting a larger share to the eldest son, or in any other way that he chooses.’

Do. (13.13).—‘To the eldest son, a larger share shall be allotted and a lesser share than that to the youngest, the rest shall take equal shares; and so shall an unmarried sister.’

Bṛhaspati (25.7-10).—‘Partition among coparceners is held to be of two kinds. One is with attention to priority of birth, the other consists of the allotment of equal shares. All sons of the twice-born, begotten on wives of the same caste as themselves, shall take equal shares, after giving a preferential share to the eldest. He who is the first by birth, by sacred knowledge, or by good qualities, shall take a couple of shares out of the partible wealth, and the rest shall take equal shares; hut the former stands to these latter in the relation of father, as it were. When they divide their father’s heritage, the sons shall share alike; but he who is distinguished by sacred knowledge and virtue shall obtain a larger share than the rest.’

Hārīta (Vivādaratnākara, p. 471).—‘When the property is going to be divided, they shall make over to the eldest a hull from among the cows and hulls, or some superior article, and the household temple; the others shall go out of the family-house and build their own houses. If they do not build separate houses, then the best house shall go the eldest, the next best to the middlemost, and the next to the youngest.’

Āpastamba (2.14.7, 10-15).—‘In some countries, gold, black cattle, or black produce of the earth (iron) is the share of the eldest. This preference for the eldest son is forbidden by the scriptures; for it is declared in the Veda, without making any differentiation among sons, that “Manu divided his wealth amongst his sons.” The Veda also lends support to the rule in favour of the eldest son—“They distinguish the eldest by a larger share of the heritage.” But the answer to this is that those versed in the science of interpreting the law declare that a mere statement of facts cannot he a rule.’

Devala (Vivādaratnākara, p. 472).—‘One should allot the tenth part of the property as the additional share for the eldest who happens to be well-behaved.’

ज्येष्ठस्य विंशतिभागः सर्वद्रव्येषु च यद् वरम् । मध्यमस्य ततो ऽर्धं चत्वारिंशद् भागः । वरद्रव्यानन्तरश् चोद्धारो मध्यमस्य । एवं चतुर्थस् त्व् अशीतिभागो यवीयसः सर्वद्रव्येभ्यश् च हीनः उद्धारः । “द्रव्येभ्यश् च वरं वरम्” इत्य् अस्मिन् पाठे मध्यमकनिष्ठयोस् तदनुरूपैवांशकल्पना विज्ञेया । एवं च मध्यगा उद्धृत्य यद् अन्यच् छिष्यते तस्य समो विभागः कार्यः । त्रयाणां चायं समगुणानां विभागविधिः, त्रयाणाम् उद्धारदर्शनात् । अयम् अपरो विभागः ॥ ९.११२ ॥

112 The additional share (deducted) for the eldest shall be one-twentieth (of the estate) and the best of all chattels, for the middlemost half of that, but for the youngest one-fourth.

The eldest and the youngest shall receive their property according to the rule just stated; to those other than the eldest and the youngest, would belong the middlemost share.—(113)

त्रिभ्यो ऽधिकपुत्रस्य ज्येष्ठकनिष्ठयोर् गुणवतोर् यथोक्तम् उद्धृत्य बहूनाम् अपि मध्यमानां²⁶⁸ गुणवतो मधमस्य यश् चत्वारिंशत्तमो भाग उक्तो ऽनन्तरश्लोके²⁶⁹ बहुभिर् अपि मध्यमैः संविभजनीयः²⁷⁰ । समगुणानां तु मध्यमानां सर्वेषाम् एकैकस्य पूर्ववचनाच् चत्वारिंशत्तमो भाग उक्त उद्धार्यः । तेषां स्यान् मध्यमं धनम् इति उभयथा वचनं व्यज्यते । मधय्मधनं यद् अनन्तरश्लोके निर्दिष्टं तत् सर्वेषां समवायेन दतव्यम् । यदि वा प्रत्येकम् एव ज्येष्ठकनिष्ठताम् अपेक्ष्य । तत्र प्रथमपक्षो निर्गुणेषु युक्तः । ते न बहुधनार्हाः²⁷¹ । द्वितीयो गुणवत्स्व् एव ॥ ९.११३ ॥

In a case where a man dies leaving more than three sons, the eldest and the youngest shall receive their shares in the manner just stated, if they are duly qualified; and (a) the ‘fortieth part’ which has been ordained ‘for the qualified middlemost’ in the preceding verse, shall be divided among the several middle ones; but (b) when all the middle ones are qualified, each of them shall receive the ‘fortieth part’ of the property. Both these methods of division are indicated by the words of the text—‘to them would belong the middlemost share’—i.e., (a) the middlemost share allotted to the middle brothers shall be given to all the middle brothel’s conjointly; or (b) every one of them shall get it, in accordance with their relative ages. The former of these would be most proper in the case of all the middle brothers being unqualified; as these do not deserve much property; and the latter method should apply to the ease where all are duly qualified—(113)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 468), which adds an explanation [see preceding note].

(verses 9.112-113)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.112].

बहुपुत्रस्य ज्येष्ठकनिष्ठयोर् गुणवतोर् यथोक्तम् उद्धृत्य निर्गुणानां बहूनाम् अपि मध्यमानां गुणवतो मध्यमस्य यश् चत्वारिंशद्भाग उक्तो ऽनन्तरश्लोके स बहुभिर् अपि च मध्यमैर् विभजनीयः । समगुणानां तु मध्यमानां सर्वेषाम् एकैकस्य पूर्ववच् च[त्वा]रिंशद् भाग उद्धार्यः ॥ ९.११३ ॥

113 Both the eldest and the youngest shall take (their shares) according to (the rule just) stated (each of) those who are between the eldest and the youngest, shall have the share (prescribed for the) middlemost.

Among the goods of every kind, the first-born shall take the best; as also anything that may be particularly good; as well as the best of ten animals.—(114)

आद्येनार्धश्लोकेन “सर्वद्रव्याच् च यद् वरम्”(म्ध् ९.११२) इत्युक्तम् अनुवदति । जातशब्दो जातिपर्यायः प्रकारवचनो वा । अग्रजो ज्येष्ठः । अग्र्यं श्रष्ठम् । यच् च सातिशयम् एकम् अपि वस्त्रम् अलंकारं वा । दशतो दशावयवाद् वा वरम् एकम् आददीत । यदि दश गावो ऽश्वा वा सन्ति तदा एकं श्रेष्ठम् आददीत । अर्वाग् दशावयवाद् वा न लभते । वर्गे दशशब्दः ।

• अन्ये तु स्वार्थे तसिं चाचक्ष्यते । दशैव दशतो “वरान्” इति बहुवचनं पठन्ति । दश वरान् आददीत । अन्यस् तद्विशिष्टान् स्मरति-“दशतः पशूनाम् एकशफद्विपदानाम्” (ग्ध् २८.१२–१३) इति ॥ ९.११४ ॥

The first half of the verse only reiterates what has been said above regarding the eldest brother taking the be of the chattels.

The terra ‘jāta’ is synonymous with ‘jāti,’ ‘kind’; or it may mean ‘variety.’

‘First-born’—eldest.

‘Best’—most excellent.

‘Anything particularly good;’—such as a piece of cloth or an ornament

‘Best of ten.’—He shall take the best one among the ten. That is, if there are ten cows or horses, he shall take the best among these. The term ‘ten’ is used in the sense of a group consisting of ten.

Others explain ‘daśataḥ’ as ending in the ‘tasi’ affix, which has the reflexive sense, and hence meaning ‘ten’ (not ‘from among ten’); and according to this they read ‘varān’ in the plural (for ‘varam’); and the sense in this case is that he should take ten good animals.

Others again declare that the term refers to a particular kind of animals; those that have single hoofs, for instance (?).—(114)

‘Yacca sātiśayam kiñcit.’—‘A dress or an ornament’ (Medhātithi);—‘something impartible, like an idol’ (Nandana).

‘Daśataḥ varam’—‘The best among ten animals’ (Medhātithi, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda);—‘ten superior articles’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi; the reading for ‘varam,’ in this case, being ‘varān’).—‘Everything shall he divided into ten shares and the eldest shall receive one such share in excess’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 469), which adds an explanation (for which see note on 112).

[See texts above, under 112-113.]

Gautama (28.11-13).—‘Or, let them each take one kind of property, selecting, according to seniority, what they desire, ten head of cattle. But no one brother shall take ten one-hoofed animals or ten slaves.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17. 42-45).—‘Let the eldest take a double share;—and a tithe of kine and horses:—the goats, the sheep, the house belong to the youngest;—black iron, the utensils and the furniture to the middlemost.’

Yājñavalkya (2-114).—(See above under 312-313.)

धनजाताद् धनजाताद् यच् छ्रेष्ठं यच् चैकम् अपि सातिशयं सर्वस्माच् च धनजाताद् दशभागः । एतज् ज्येष्ठस्योद्धृत्य पूर्ववद् अन्यत् समधा विभजेरन् । यत्रैव च ज्येष्ठो महागुणः इतरे च गुणहीनाः तत्रायं विधिः सामर्थ्याद् विज्ञेयः । तथा चोत्तरश्लोके चैतम् अर्थं स्फुटीकरिष्यत्य् एव । अपरे तु “दशतश् चाप्नुयाद् वरान्” इति द्वितिया(?)बहुवचनं पठन्ति । गा अश्वान् वा तथा चैतद् दश पशव एव स्मृत्यन्तरे विशेषिताः “दशकं पशूनां नैकशफद्विपदानाम्” इति ॥ ९.११४ ॥

114 Among the goods of every kind the eldest shall take the best (article), and (even a single chattel) which is particularly good, as well as the best of ten (animals).

But there is to be no additional share ‘out of ten,’ if all the brothers are efficient in their occupations; some little thing however shall be given to the eldest, as a mark of respect.—(115)

दशसु पशुषु यः पूर्वत्र्ओद्धार उक्तः स नास्ति । ये भ्रातरः स्वकर्मसु श्रुताध्ययनादिषु संपन्ना विशेषवन्तः । दशस्व् इति चोपलक्षणं व्याख्यानयन्ति । दशसु यत्र श्लोक उद्धार उक्तः स सर्व एव नास्ति, कर्मसंबन्धात् । किं तु तैर् अपि यत् किंचिद् एवाधिकम् उपायविधिं मानवर्धनं पूजाकरं ज्यत्ष्ठाय देयम् ॥ ९.११५ ॥

‘Out of ten’— animals.

‘The additional share,’ mentioned in the preceding verses,—there is to be none,—when the brothers are all ‘efficient’—particularly excellent—‘in their occupations’—of learning, study and so forth.

Some people take the term ‘daśasu,’ ‘out of ten,’ as purely illustrative;—the sense being that there is to be none of the additional shares that are mentioned in the text which speaks of ‘the best of ten;’ and the reason given for this explanation is that the text lays down ‘efficiency in occupations’ as the ground.

Even in such cases however, the other brothers should give to the eldest brother ‘some little thing’—some present—as a mark of respect.—(115)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara, (p. 476), which adds the following explanation:—The additional share prescribed in the last quarter of the last verse, ‘the best among them’, is not to be taken if all the brothers are equal in learning and other qualities. This is only by way of illustration; it means that none of the additional shares mentioned in verses 112-114 is to be taken; as is clear from the clause ‘yat kiñcideva deyam syāt’; which means that some little thing is to be given to the eldest brother, as a mark of respect due to his superior age. When there is no difference among them on account of qualities, then ‘Seniority’ among the brothers is to be determined by the portion of their mothers, the son born of the senior-most wife having been declared to be the ‘senior.’ That this is the finally adopted view (and not a mere tentative one) is proved by the fact that both Lakṣmīdhara and the Pārijāta have accepted the view that ‘the son of the senior wife, even though younger in age, is to be regarded as senior.’

This is quoted by a Jīmūtavāhana, (Dāyabhāga, p. 74).

Āpastamba (2.13, 13).—‘The eldest son shall be gladdened by some choice portion of the property.’

Bṛhaspati (25.7-10).—(See under 312-313.)

पूर्वश्लोके य उद्धारो ज्येष्ठस्योक्तः स निवर्त्यते । उद्धारो दशस्व् अपि पशुषु नास्ति ज्येष्ठस्य, प्राग् एवान्यत्र यथो[क्तधनजातादिषु । यन्]निमित्तेनायं ज्येष्ठांशापवादस् तं दर्शयति । संपन्नानां स्वकर्मसु तद्भ्रातॄणाम् । एवं वैषाम् अध्ययनविज्ञाने कर्मसंपद्वचनाद् अर्थगृहीते । एतद् अपि [ज्ञेयम्] । यत् किंचिद् एव देयं तु ज्यायसे मानवर्धनं नोद्धारः पूर्वः । तथा च समगुणेषु भ्रातृष्व् अयं विभागो विज्ञेयः । उद्धारग्रहणपक्षे चेदम् उच्यते ॥ ९.११५ ॥

115 But among (brothers) equally skilled in their occupations, there is no additional share, (consisting of the best animal) among ten; some trifle only shall be given to the eldest as a token of respect.

After the ‘additional share’ has been thus deducted, equal shares shall be allotted. But if no additional share has been deducted, the allotment of shares shall be in this (following) manner,—(116)

समुद्धृते पृथक्कृत उद्धारे ऽधिके भागे ऽवशिष्टे धने समान् अंशान् प्रकल्पयेत् । अनुद्धृते वक्ष्यमाणा भागकल्पना ॥ ९.११६ ॥

‘Deducted’—set apart

‘Uddhāra’—additional share.

‘Equal shares shall be allotted’—out of the property that remains after the deduction.

If no additional share has been set apart, the allotment of shares shall be in the manner going to be described below.—(116)

This verse is quoted in the Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 43);—and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 64).

**(verses 9.116-117)
**

Gautama (28.8-10).—‘All the rest of the property shall be divided equally;—or the eldest may have two shares,—and the rest one each.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.42).—‘Let the eldest take a double share’

(see the texts under 312-313).

एवं यथोक्तन्यायाविरोधेनोद्धृत्य शिष्टस्य समो विभागः ॥ ९.११६ ॥

116 If additional shares are thus deducted, one must allot equal shares (out of the residue to each); but if no deduction is made, the allotment of the shares among them shall be (made) in the following manner.

The eldest son shall take one share in excess; the one born next to him a share and a half; and the younger ones one share each; such is the settled law.—(117)

एकेनांशेन्आधिकं स्वांशं हरेत् स्वीकुर्यात् द्वाव् अंशौ प्रतिपद्येतेत्य् अर्थः । ततो ऽनुजस् तदनन्तरम् अध्यर्धम् अर्धद्वितीयम् । यवीयांसस् तस्माद् अर्वाग् जाताः सर्वे समम् अंशं नाधिकं किंचिन् नाल्पम् इत्य् अर्थः ॥ ९.११७ ॥

The eldest brother shall take ‘one share in excess’ of his own; that is, he shall take two shares.

The brother born next to him ‘a share and a half,’—this being the second brother’s share.

^(‘)The younger ones’—born after the second; all these shall receive one share each,—nothing more or less.—(117)

This verse is quoted in the Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 43);—in the Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 331), which has the following notes—‘ekādhikam’, i.e., two shares,—‘adhyardham’, i.e., a share and a half,—‘tataḥ anujaḥ’, ‘born after the eldest brother’,—‘aṃśamaṃśam’, i.e., one share each; this refers to cases where no ‘special share’ has been taken;—and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 64).

**(verses 9.116-117)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.116].

गुणाधिके ज्येष्ठे ईषद्प्रकृष्टगुणे च तदनन्तरजे तदवरेषु च ताभ्यां निकृष्टगुणेषु समेषु वायं विभागः सामर्थ्याद् विज्ञायते । “समेत्य भ्रातरः सह” इति वचनात् प्रतिषिद्धं भगिनीभ्यः पित्र्यधनांशदानम् । इष्यते च तासाम् अनूढतया निमित्तेन तत्प्राप्तिः । यत इदं तदपवादार्थम् आरभ्यते ॥ ९.११७ ॥

117 Let the eldest son take one share in excess, the (brother) born next after him one (share) and a half, the younger ones one share each; thus the law is settled.

To the maidens of the same caste, the brothers shall each severally give the fourth part of his share; those not inclined to give would be outcasts—(118)

कन्याशब्दः प्रायो ऽनूढासु प्रयुज्यते । कानीनपुत्रः स्मृत्यन्तरे च “अप्रत्तानाम्”²⁷² (ग्ध् २८.२४) इति पठ्यते । अतो ऽनूढायाम् अयं भाग उच्यते ।

• स्वाभ्यः स्वजात्यपेक्षया²⁷³ स्वाभ्यो²⁷⁴ भ्रातरः कन्याभ्यश् चतुर्भागम् अंशं दद्युः स्वाद् अंशात् । यत्र बह्व्यः कन्याः सन्ति तत्र समानजातीयभ्रात्रपेक्षया चतुर्थांशकल्पना²⁷⁵ कर्तव्या । तथा चायम् अर्थः । त्रीन् अंशान् पुत्र आददीत चतुर्थं कन्येति ।

• यद् अपि कैश्चिद् उक्तम्- महान् उपकारः पितृकरणं कन्यानाम् अदत्तानाम्, येन जीवति पितरि तदिच्छया मूल्येनापि²⁷⁶ धनेन संस्क्रियन्ते, मृते त्व् अंशहरा इति ।

• तत्पुत्रे ऽपि तुल्यम्,²⁷⁷ वाचनिके चार्थे केयं नोदना । अथाभिप्रायः- “समाचार उद्वाहमात्रप्रयोजनं दानम्” इति, आचारो दुर्बलः स्मृतेर् इति । न चैकान्तिकः²⁷⁸ । अनैकान्तिकत्वे च स्मृतितो ऽयं नियमो युक्तः ।

• यद् अपीदं केनचिद् उक्तम्- उद्वाहमात्रप्रयोजनं देयम्, न च चातुर्थो भागो यथाश्रुतम् इति ।

• स इदं²⁷⁹ वाच्यः । नोद्वाहे परिमितधनदानम् अस्ति । तस्य द्वादशशतं दक्षिणेतिवत् “केवलम् आच्छाद्यालंकृतां विवाहयेत् । सौदायिकं वास्या दद्यात्” इति श्रूयते । अलंकारस् तु²⁸⁰ सुवर्णमणिमुक्ताप्रवालादिर् अनेकधा भिन्न²⁸¹ इति । तत्र न ज्ञायते कियद् दातव्यं धनं कीदृशो वालंकार इत्य् अतश् च पर्माणार्थम् एवेदं युक्तं स्वाद् अंशाच् चतुर्भागम् इति । न चास्मिन्न् अर्थे शास्त्रविरोधो युक्तिविरोधो वा ।

• स्मृत्यन्तराण्य् एवम् एव पक्षम् उपोद्बलयन्ति ।

• असंस्कृतास् तु संस्कार्या भ्रातृभिः पूर्वसंस्कृतैः ।

• भगिन्यश् च निजाद् अंशाद् दत्वांशं तु तुरीयकम् ॥ इति । (य्ध् २.१२८)

तथा-

• आ संस्काराद् धरेद् भागं परतो बिभृयात् पतिः ॥ इति । (न्स्म् १३.२६)

अस्यायम् अर्थः । यत्र स्वल्पं धनम् अस्ति भ्रातुर् भगिन्याश् च न चतुर्भागे कन्याया भरणं भवति, तत्र समभागं कन्या हरेद् आ संस्कारात् । परतस् तु स्मृत्यन्तराच् चतुर्भागं गृह्णीयात् स्वल्पम् अपि । कथं तर्हि भरणमात्रं कुर्यात्, अत उत्क्तम् “परतो बिभृयात् पतिः” इति ।

• भ्रातृग्रहणम् सोदर्यार्थं व्याचक्षते । को ऽभिप्रायः । भ्रातृशब्दो निरुपपदः सोदर्य²⁸² एव मुख्यया वृत्त्या वर्तते । पृथक्वचनं च लिङ्गम् ।

• यस्यास् तु हि सोदर्यो नास्ति तस्या दायः²⁸³ सौदायिकं वा न प्राप्नोति²⁸⁴ । वैमात्रेयो दास्यतीति चेन् नासति वचनान्तरे ददात्य् अयम् । भ्रातृशब्दा एकपितृकानेकात्ममातृकाश्²⁸⁵ च गृह्यन्ते । पैतृष्वस्रेयादिषु तूपचाराद् वर्तत इति युक्तम् । एवम् एकशब्दस्यानेकार्थत्वं नाभ्युपगतं भवति । स्मृत्यन्तरसमाचारश् चेतः²⁸⁶ श्रेयान् । तत्र हि पठ्यते- “यच् छिष्टं पितृदायेभ्यः दत्वर्णं पैतृकं च यत् । भ्रातृभिस् तद् विभक्तव्यम्” (न्स्म् १३.३२) । य पित्रावश्यं दातव्यं तद् ऋक्ताद् उद्धृत्य शेषं विभजेरन्न् इत्य् अर्थः । यथा च ऋणापाकरणादि व्याह्रियते, तद्वत् कन्यादानम्, अवश्यकर्तव्यत्वात् । “कन्याभ्यश् च प्रादानिकम्”²⁸⁷ (कश् ३.५,२१) इति । नात्र भगिनीशब्दो भातृशब्दो वा श्रूयते । यत इयम् आशङ्का स्यात् ।

• यत्²⁸⁸ तु पृथग् इति तद् एकैकस्यैव समूहभागः²⁸⁹ सर्वाभ्य इत्य् एवम् अपि युज्यते ।

• इदम् उच्यते²⁹⁰ अददतां प्रत्यवायान् न तु हठाद् दाप्यन्ते ।

• यत उच्यते पतिताः स्युर् अदित्सव इति । यो हि यत्र यावत्य् आंशे स्वामी स “हरेत्” इत्य् उच्यते, न पुनर् “अनेनास्मै दातव्यम्” इति । यथा नोच्यते²⁹¹ भ्राता भ्रात्रे दद्याद् इति । यच् चोच्यते तत् पुनर्²⁹² अस्वामिभ्यः ॥ ९.११८ ॥

The term ‘kanyā’ is, as a rule, used in the sense of the unmarried girl’, as we find in the case where a son is called ‘kānīna’ (which means born of a kanyā, i.e., of an unmarried woman). In another Smṛti text, ‘anūḍhā’ (‘unmarried’) is the actual word used. From this it is dear that the share here laid down pertains to the unmarried girl.

‘Of the mine caste.’—Each of the brothers should give to the sister of the same caste as himself the fourth part of his own share. That is to say, in a case where the father has left several unmarried girls, the share allotted to ouch of them should be the fourth part of the portion of the brother belonging to the same caste as himself.

The upshot therefore comes to be this:—Three parts of the property shall be taken by the sons and the fourth part by the daughter.

Some people have held the following view:—Three parts of the property shall be taken by the sons and the fourth part by the daughter.

Others have held the following view:—“Truly a great benefit is derived by the daughter from her father:

If the father is alive they have their marriage performed at tremendous expense, and if he is dead, she obtains a share in the property.”

But the same may be said of the son also. Further, why should there be such objections against what is distinctly laid down by the words of the text?

If the idea of the objector is that, according to custom, the only benefit to which the girl is entitled is that her marriage should be performed,—then our answer is that the direct assertion of the Smṛti is infinitely more authoritative than custom. As a matter of fact however, the custom referred to is by no means universal; so that when it is only limited in scope, the right course is to adopt the course laid down in the Smṛti text.

Some people have held the view that—“all that need be given to the girl is what is necessary for her marriage, and not quite the fourth part as mentioned in the text”

But to such people we address the following remarks:—There is no restriction upon gifts in connection with marriage, as there is in connection with the sacrificial fee, which is fixed at¹ twelve hundred.’ The gift in connection with marriage however is not precisely fixed. For it is said.—‘The father shall marry the girl, clothed and adorned, and he may also give her a dowry;’ and as ornaments are of various kinds, made of gold, jewels, pearls, corals and such substances, it cannot be definitely ascertained how much wealth is to be given on that account, or what sort of ornament is to be given. So that even for the purpose of precisely defining what shall be given, it is only right to say that the brother shall give the fourth part of bis share. Nor does this militate against either any scriptual injunctions or reason.

This same view is supported by other Smṛti texts also: ‘The brothers who have already had their sacramental rites performed, should perform the same for the unmarried girls; and sisters should receive from their brother’s the fourth part of their shore’ (Yājñavalkya 2. 124); and again—‘Until marriage has not been performed, she shall received a share; after marriage she shall be maintained by her husband.’

What this last text means is as follows:—When the property left for the brother and the sister is small, and the fourth part of the brother’s share is not sufficient for the sister’s maintenance,—in such a case the sister shall enjoy a share equal to her brother’s, until her marriage; after which she shall receive the fourth part of the share, even though if be small. And in answer to the question as to how that, would maintain the girl, the answer is that ‘after marriage she shall be maintained by her husband.’

The term ‘brother’ in the present text has been explained as standing for the uterine brother. But what is the purpose of adding this explanation? As a matter of fact, the term ‘brother’ without a prefixed qualification is always directly applied to the uterine brother. And the term ‘severally’ in the text is also indicative of the same idea.

But in that case the girl that has no uterine brother would have to go without a share in the property; nor could there be any chance for any dowry being provided for her. It might be argued that her step-brother would provide for her. But in the absence of some other text laying down (such a gift), he may not give it

As a matter of fact however, the term ‘brother’ is found to be applied to the sons of the same father and several mothers; and it is only to cousins, maternal and paternal, that the term is applied figuratively. If this view is accepted, it saves us from the contingency of attributing several denotations to the single word ‘brother.’

The rule laid down in other Smṛti-texts also supports the allocation of shares set forth in the present text. We read there as follows—^(‘)What remains of the ancestral property, after the father’s debts have been paid off’, shall be divided; other necessary payments also being made out of it, such for instance as the gift to the unmarried girls; Here we do not find the words ‘brother’ and^(‘)sister,’ which might give rise to the doubt (as to the uterine or other kinds of brother being meant).

As regards the term ‘severally’ (in the text),—it has been added with a view to guard against the possible interpretation that the fourth part of the share of a single brother should be divided among all the sisters.

It might be argued that—“all that this means is that the brothers would incur sin by not giving out of their shares; and there is nothing to force them to give it.” Hence it is added—‘Those not inclined to give would be outcasts.’ A man is spoken of as^(‘)taking’ a thing only when he is its owner, and no one speaks of such a thing as^(‘)to be given to him;’ hence it is that no one speaks of the brothers giving to a brother (both being owners); and whenever the word^(‘)giving’ is used, it is only when the recipient is not the owner of the property concerned.—(118)

‘If there are several brothers find only one sister, the former must deduct from their several shares as much money as will make up the fourth part of one brother’s share’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 731), which adds the following notes ‘Svebhyoṃśebhyaḥ’ means ‘from out of the share of one brother’; the plural number is used in view of the plurality of daughters;—‘svāt svāt’, the repetition is in reference to daughters of diverse castes;—thus the meaning comes to be as follows:—When a Brāhmaṇa has wives of all the four castes, and each of these has daughters, then the daughter born of the Brāhmaṇa wife is to receive the fourth part of the share accruing to the son of the Brahmaṇa wife; similarly the daughter of the Kṣatriya wife is to receive the fourth part of the share of the son of the Kṣatriya wife. This however, is not the sister’s ‘rightful inheritance’.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.124), which adds the following explanation:—The Brāhmaṇa-sons should give to the Brāhmaṇa-daughters the fourth part of the share that accrues to them in accordance with their castes,—whereby 4 parts go to the Brāhmaṇa, etc. (see verse 153 below); it does not mean that each brother should give a fourth part out of his own share; what is meant is that the daughter of a certain caste is to receive the fourth part of what is prescribed as the share of the son of that caste;—the last clause ‘patitāḥ syuraditsavaḥ’ indicates the obligatory character of the rule. For this same reason it is not right to hold that all that the daughter is to receive is money enough for her marriage. It goes on to add that the explanation provided by Asahāya and Medhātitha is the right one. Thus it is decided that after the father’s death, the daughter is actually entitled to a share.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 494), which adds the following explanation:—It does not mean that the brother should take out a fourth part of his own share and give it to his sister; what is meant is that the daughter of a certaind (certain?) caste is to receive the fourth part of what is prescribed as the share of the son of that caste; which thus is to be given to her, for the purpose of her marriage. Thus the meaning comes to be that out of the ‘four shares’ and the ‘three shares’ to which the sons of the Brāhmaṇa wife and those of the Kṣatriya wife respectively are entitled,—out of the combined total of these—a ‘fourth part’ shall be given to the daughter; so that while it is the ‘fourth part’ that is to be given, the real purpose of this gift is to enable her marriage to be performed. Such is the view of Viṣṇu, the Kalpataru and the Mitākṣarā; while Halāyadha holds the opinion that no stress is meant to be laid on the ‘fourth part’, all that is meant is that the daughter is to receive what would be needed for the performance of her marriage. And this is the view that appears to be most proper; for whatever the ‘fourth part’ may be, the performance of the marriage would be necessary in any case.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 345), which supplies the following notes:—The meaning is that the brother belonging to the Brāhmaṇa and other castes should each give to the sisters of the Brāhmaṇa and other castes, the fourth part of his own share; that is to say, (a) in a case where a man has only one wife, and that of the Brāhmaṇa caste, and from her he has one son and one daughter,—the son shall divide his father’s property into two parts, and having divided one of these two parts into four parts, he shall give one of these four parts to his sister and take the rest for himself;—when there are two sons and one daughter, the property shall be divided into three parts, and one of these three parts being divided into four parts, one of these four parts is to go to the daughter, and the rest the two sons shall divide between themselves;—when there is one son and two daughters, the father’s property shall be divided into three parts, and one of these three parts being divided into four parts, two of these latter parts shall be given to the two daughters, and the rest shall be taken by the son.—(b) But in a case where the man has left one son of the Brāhmaṇa wife and one daughter of the Kṣatriya wife,—the father’s property shall be divided into seven parts (‘four shares’ accruing to the Brāhmaṇa son and ‘three shares’ to the Kṣatriya son), if there be one, the ‘three shares’ (accruing to the Kṣatriya son) shall be divided into four parts, one of these four parts shall be given to the Kṣatriya daughter, the rest of the property going to the Brāhmaṇa son; where there are two Brāhmaṇa sons and one Kṣatriya daughter the father’s property is to be divided into eleven parts (4 shares for each of the Brāhmaṇa sons and three for the Kṣatriya if there be one), and the three parts (accruing to the Kṣatriya son) being divided into four parts, one of these four parts shall go to the Kṣatriya daughter, and the rest of the property shall be divided between the two Brāhmaṇa sons. On the same principle is partition to proceed when there are brothers of different castes or sisters in varying numbers; such is the explanation provided by Medhātithi, and approved by Vijñāneśwara also;—Bhāruci on the other hand holds that the ‘fourth share’ only stands for ‘such amount as may be necessary for her marriage,’ and that therefore unmarried girls have no right to the inheritance as such. This same view has been held also by the author of the Candrikā,—of these two views, people may accept the one that appears to be the most reasonable.

It is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, p. 36a);—in Vivādacintāmani (Calcutta, p. 134), which says that the meaning is that ‘each daughter should receive the fourth part of what forms the share of a son of the same caste as himself,’ and adds that stress is not meant to be laid upon the ‘fourth part,’ what is meant is that so much should be given to her as would suffice for her marriage;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 179b), which says that this does not mean that ‘in the case of either form of partition among the brothers, each brother should give to the sister a fourth part of his share’; as, if there were so, if there are several brothers to a single sister, she would have a very large property,—or if there were a single brother to many sisters, he would have nothing left for himself;—all therefore that is meant is that the brother should give to the sisters just enough to suffice for her marriage—so says the Vivādaratnākara, the Vivādacintāmaṇi and the rest;—this is not right; as the text is clear on the point that by not giving to the sister the fourth part of his share, the brother incurs a sin which is quite different from that incurred in not providing for her marriage; the right explanation is that which has been provided by Medhātithi and the Mitākṣarā. (It then proceeds to quote these).

It is quoted by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 114), which says that the root ‘dā’ used makes it clear that the sisters have no claims over the property.

This verse is quoted in Mitālṣarā (2. 119), to the effect that of the animals mentioned, if an odd one remains after partition, it is to be given to the qldest brother;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 686), to the same effect;—in Aparārka (p. 723), which explains ‘viṣamam’ as a number different from (not a multiple of) the number of brothers;—in Vivādaratnākara (p. 498), which says that the odd animals are not to be partitioned by being sold and the value divided, they should be taken by the eldest brother;—and in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 57).

Viṣṇu (18.35).—‘Unmarried daughters shall receive shares proportionate to the sons’ shares.’

Yājñavalkya (2.124).—‘The brothers who have already had their sacramental rites performed shall perform the sacraments for those brothers and sisters whose sacraments have not been performed,—after each of them has given to the sister the fourth part of their share.’

Nārada (13.13).—‘The rest shall take equal shares; and so shall an unmarried sister.’

Do. (13.33-34).—‘Those brothers and sisters for whom the sacraments have not been performed by their father, must have them performed by their elder brothers, who shall defray the expenses from the paternal property. Or, if no paternal property is left, the rites shall be performed for those by the brothers previously initiated contributing the required funds from their own portions.’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 731).—‘Those sons and daughters that have not had their sacraments performed by the father shall have them performed by their elder brothers, who have already had their sacraments performed, out of the paternal property.’

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākara, p. 494).—‘For unmarried daughters, the fourth part of the property has been ordained, the other three parts being for the sons.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 495).—‘When the father’s estate is being divided, the unmarried daughter shall receive out of the estate, provision for her ornaments, marriage and dowry.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 33).—‘Among the brothers, those that are not settled in life shall receive the expenses of settling, and the unmarried sisters, the expenses for their marriage,—from those brothers that are already settled in life.’

Brhaṣpati (25.21).—‘Should thore be younger brothers whose initiation has not been performed, they must be initiated by the other brothers; the expenses being defrayed out of the property inherited from the father.’

अनूढानां भगिनीनां नियमेन दानम् इदम् उच्यते, सान्तानिकादिदानवत् । “पतिताः स्युर् अदित्सवः” इति वचनात् । एतच् च स्वांशतो न समुदायतः । उद्वाहमात्रप्रयोजनं देयं स्वधर्मानुपरोधेन, न चतुर्भागो यथाश्रुतः । एवं हि बहुभ्रातृकाणाम् अल्पत्वाच् च कन्यानां धनं बहुतरम् आपद्येत, द्व्येकयोश् च भ्रात्रोर् बह्वीनां भगिनीनां दाने निर्धनत्वं प्रसज्येत । न चैतद् इष्टम्, “धर्म्या पृथक्रिया” इति वचनात् । अथ वा “प्रदद्युर् भ्रातरः पृथक्” इत्य् अत्र श्लोकपदे पृथग्वचनात् भिन्नमातृका एवैते सोदर्याभ्यो भगिनीभ्यः पूर्ववद् दद्युर् इति ॥ ९.११८ ॥

118 But to the maiden (sisters) the brothers shall severally give (portions) out of their shares, each out of his share one-fourth part; those who refuse to give (it), will become outcasts.

One shall not divide an odd goat, or sheep, or an animal with uncleft hoofs; the odd goat or sheep is declared to belong to the eldest.—(119)

एकशफम् अश्वाश्वतरगर्दभादयः । विभागकाले समसंख्यया यद् विभक्तुम् अजाविकं न शक्यते ज्येष्ठस्यैव स्यान् न तद् अन्यद्रव्यांशपातेन समतां नयेद् विक्रीतं वा ततस् तन्मूल्यं दापयेत् । अजाविकम् इति पशुद्वन्द्वविभाषैकवद्भावः²⁹³ (च्ड़्। पाण् २.४.१२) ॥ ९.११९ ॥

‘Animal with uncleft hoofs;’—such as the horse, the mule, the ass etc. When the number of cattle available do not admit of division in equal numbers, then the odd animal should be given to the eldest brother; and its value shall not be made good by giving (to the other brothers) other things, nor shall the animal be sold and its value distributed among the brothers equally.

‘Ajāvikam;’—the singular form is justified on the ground of its being a copulative compound standing for animals.—(119)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.119), to the effect that of the animals mentioned, if an odd one remains after partition, it is to be given to the eldest brother;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 686), to the same effect;—in Aparārka (p. 723), which explains ‘viṣamam’ as a number different from (not a multiple of) the number of brothers;—in Vivādaratnākara (p. 498), which says that the odd animals are not to be partitioned by being sold and the value divided, they should be taken by the eldest brother;—and in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 57).

Baudhāyana (2.3.9).—‘The additional share of the eldest brother is a cow, a horse, a goat and a sheep, respectively, for the four castes.’

अजाविकं तु विभागकाले यदि विअमसंख्यया विभक्तुम् अशक्यं तज् जेष्ठस्यैव स्यात् । न तद् अन्यस्य द्रव्यांशपातेन समतां नयेत्, विरीय वा तन्मूल्यं खण्डयेत् ॥ ९.११९ ॥

119 Let him never divide (the value of) a single goat or sheep, or a (single beast) with uncloven hoofs; it is prescribed (that) a single goat or sheep (remaining after an equal division, belongs) to the eldest alone.

If the younger brother begets a son on the wife of the elder, the division in that case shall be equal; such is the settled law.—(120)

ज्येष्ठस्य नियोगधर्मेण पितृवत् सोदरे ऽतिदेशे प्राप्ते तन्निवृत्त्यर्थम् उच्यते । समस् तत्र विभागः स्यात् । न चोद्धारम्, न च “एकाधिकं हरेज् ज्येषृहः” (म्ध् ९.११७) इति, नापि “यत् किंचिद् एव देयम्” (म्ध् ९.११५) इति । समः स्यात् । केन । उत्पादकेन पितृव्यकेण कनीयसा । अनियुक्तासुतस्य त्व् अभागार्हतैव वक्ष्यते । इदं च लिङ्गं “भ्रातरः समेत्य”²⁹⁴ (म्ध् ९.१०४) इति सत्य् अपि भ्रातृशब्दे भातृपुत्रेणाप्य् असति भ्रातरि सह विभागः कर्तव्यः ॥ ९.१२० ॥

This verse precludes the idea that the son of the elder brother begotten by the method of ‘authorisation’ is entitled to the ‘preferential share’ that would have been his father’s.

‘The division in that case shall equal’—That is, there shall be no ‘preferential share;’ nor shall the eldest receive ‘one more’ (as laid down in 117), or the ‘some trifle’ (laid down in 115).

It shall be equal:—equal to whom? To that of his begetter—his younger uncle.

The son horn without ‘authorisation’ is not entitled to any share,—as is going to be declared later on.

This text, is indicative of the rule that when the brother is not alive, the division shall be between the surviving brother and his nephew.

This verse in quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.136), which says that this refers to cases where the brothers (the one dead and his younger brother who beget the son on bis sister-in-law)were not divided, while verse 146 below pertains to cases where they have been divided;—and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 542), which adds the following explanation:—The undivided elder brother having died without a son, if the younger brother begets, by commission, a son on his widow, then, when there comes about partition between this son and his uncle-progenitor, it will be done in equal shares, and the son shall not obtain any special share by reason of his dead father having been the elder brother.

**(verses 9.120-121)
**

Smṛti (Vivādaratnākara).—‘In the case of there being several sons of the same mother, but from diverse fathers, their shares shall be determined by the shares that should have been their fathers.’

ज्येष्ठांशापवादार्थो ऽयम् आरम्भः । एवं च ज्येष्ठापत्यतया तदंशाधिको भागो न स्यात्, गुणवतो ऽपि कनीयसोत्पन्नत्वात् क्षेत्रजत्वाच् च । नाप्य् अर्धांशः, किं तर्हि “समस् तत्र विभागः स्यात्” । केन, पितृव्येन पितुः कनीयसोत्पादकेनेति । अयं च नियुक्तासुतः क्षेत्रजो विज्ञेयः । अनियुक्तासुतस्य त्व् अनंशार्हत्वम् एव वक्ष्यते । ज्येष्ठपुत्रस्य तु गुणवतः पितुर् इव सोद्धारो धणांश इत्य् एतद् अपि च सामर्थ्याद् गम्यते ॥ ९.१२० ॥

120 If a younger brother begets a son on the wife of the elder, the division must then be made equally; this the law is settled.

The Secondary cannot rightly be (equal to) the primary; because in procreation, the father is the primary, therefore he (the secondary) should be treated accordinc, to the law (stated before).—(121)

उपसर्जनम् अप्रधानं²⁹⁵ क्षेत्रजस्य । प्रधानस्य औरसस्य तुल्य इत्य् एतद् अध्याहृत्य,²⁹⁶ तद् धर्मतः शास्त्रतो न युज्यते । औरसः किल पितृवज् ज्येष्ठांशं कृत्स्नं लभते । अयं तु क्षेत्रजो ऽप्रधानम्, तस्माद् धर्मेण तं भजेत् । धर्मः पूर्वोक्ता भागकल्पना ।

• ननु चायम् अपि ज्येष्ठः पुत्रो भवति, किम् इत्य् औरसवन् न लभते ।

• अत आह, पिता प्रधानं प्रजने । पिता जनको ऽत्राभिप्रेतः । स प्रधानम् अपत्योत्पादने । अयं चाप्रधानः कनीयसा जनितः । उपसर्जनं प्रधानस्य समम् इत्य् एवाध्याहृत्य²⁹⁷ श्लोको गम्यते । अर्थवादो ऽयम्, पूर्वस्य ज्येष्ठांशनिषेधस्यार्थवादत्वाच् च प्रधानोपसर्जनशब्दयोर् यत् किंचिद् आलम्बनम् आश्रित्य व्यख्या कर्तव्या ।

• अन्ये पठन्ति “तस्माद् धर्मेण तं त्यजेत्” इति ।

• तद् अयुक्तम्, सर्वत्र समभागस्योक्तत्वात् । अर्थवादत्वाच् चास्य न विकल्पाशङ्का कार्या ॥ ९.१२१ ॥

The ‘Secondary ’— subsidiary i.e., the ‘kṣetraja’ son;—‘to the primary’—to the legitimate, ‘body-born,’ ‘aurasa’ son,—‘cannot he equal’—this has got to be supplied,—‘rightly,’ according to law. Hence this cannot be right. That is, it is only the ‘legitimate’ son of the elder brother who is entitled to the ‘preferential share,’ which would have been his father’s; while the son in question, the ‘kṣetraja’ is only a ‘secondary’ son.

“Therefore h e should be treated according to law.”—The rule of partition stated before.

“But if the son in question also happens to be the eldest, wherefore cannot he obtain exactly what would go to the ‘legitimate’ son?”

The reason for this is stated:—‘In procreation the father is t he primary.’—The term ‘father’ here stands for the actual progenitor; he is the principal factor in the act of begetting the son. The ‘kṣetraja’ son, therefore, being begotten by the younger brother, is secondary.

The verse can be explained only by supplying the words ‘is not equal to.’

This verse is purely declamatory, supplementing the foregoing prohibition of the ‘preferential share;’ and since it is declamatory, it may be explained, by attributing any meaning to the terms ‘primary’ and ‘secondary.’

Others read ‘tasmād dharmeṇa tam tyajet.’ (‘Therefore one should rightly abandon him).’

But this is not right; since everywhere the ‘kṣetraja’ son has been declared to be entitled to an equal share with the other sons.

Then again, since this passage is purely declamatory, it could not be taken as setting forth an optional alternative (to the ‘equal share’ laid down in other texts).—(121)

‘Pradhānasya’.—‘The principal, body-born, son’ (Medhātithi);—‘The father, the husband of the widow’ (Kullūka, Narāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda).

“The subsidiary son has not the same rights as the principal, his dead father, the husband of his widow-mother; it is this father, the husband of the widow, who is the ‘principal etc.,’ (Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa);—‘the father is the principal, not the mother, hence even though the mother is the elder sister-in-law, yet the son does not have the same right as his dead father’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 542) as supplying a reason for what has been said in 120; it adds the following explanation:—‘upasarjana’ is subsidiary, i.e., the Kṣetraja son,—it is not lawful that this son should be treated like the principal, the ‘body-born’, son; because in this case (of niyoga) the father, the progenitor-uncle, is the ‘principal’;—such is the explanation given by the author of the Prakāśa. Lakṣmidhara construes ‘Upasarjanam’ as ‘Upasarjanatvam’; but that makes no difference in the meaning.—‘Dharmeṇa’, according to the injunction of the scriptures.

**(verses 9.120-121)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 9.120].

अयं पूर्वश्लोकार्थवादः । उपसर्जनम् अप्रधानं पितुः कनीयान् भ्राता क्षेत्रजस्योत्पादयिता, यस्माद् अतः प्रधानस्य ज्येष्ठस्य भ्रातुः समांशम् इत्य् एतद् धर्मतः शास्त्रतो नोपपद्यते । तथा चोक्तं ज्येष्ठस्यांशदानम् । एवं च सति पिता प्रधानो ऽपत्यप्रजने । तथा च वक्षत्य् औरसप्राधान्यम्, न चायं क्षेत्रजः पित्रा जातः । तस्माद् दर्मेण तं भजेत्- धर्म पूर्वश्लोकशास्त्रम्, “समस् तत्र विभागः स्यात्” इत्य् एतत् । केचिद् “अर्धेन तं भजेत्” इति पठन्ति । तद् अयुक्तम्, पूर्वोक्तव्याघातप्रसङ्गात् । न चात्र विकल्पो युक्तः, अविधित्वाद् अस्य । अविधित्वं च पूर्वश्लोकार्थवादत्वाद् इति । अथ वोपसर्जनं क्षेत्रजः प्रधानस्यौरसस्य् समांश इति एतद् धर्मतो नोपपद्यते । तथा च वक्ष्यति “एक एवौरसः पुत्रः पित्र्यस्य वसुनः प्रभुः” इति । यतश् च पिता प्रधानः प्रजने न चायं तेन जातः, तस्माद् अस्य समांशतैव युक्ता । पूर्वशास्त्र [समं] पितृदानं ततः । अथ वोपसर्जनं क्षेत्रजः प्रधानस्य क्षेत्रिणः समांशम् इत्य् एतद् धर्मतो नोपपद्यत इति । अन्यत् समानम् ॥ ९.१२१ ॥

121 The representative (the son begotten on the wife) is not invested with the right of the principal (the eldest brother to an additional share); the principal (became) a father on the procreation (of a son by his younger brother); hence one should give a share to the (son begotten on the wife of the elder brother) according to the rule (stated above).

ज्येष्ठा प्रथमोढा । पश्चाद् ऊढा कनिष्ठा । तयोर् जातानाम् किं मातुर् उद्वाहक्रमेण ज्यैष्ठ्यं स्यात् स्वजन्मक्रमेण वेति²⁹⁸ संशयम् उपन्यस्योत्तरत्र निर्णेष्यते संप्रतिपत्तुम् ॥ ९.१२२ ॥

किं मातुर् उद्वाहक्रमेण ज्यैष्ठ्यम् उतापत्यजन्मक्रमेणेत्य् एवं [संशय], अयं निर्णयक्रमो विधीयते ॥ ९.१२२ ॥

122 If there be a doubt, how the division shall be made, in case the younger son is born of the elder wife and the elder son of the younger wife,

‘In case the younger son is born of the elder wife, and the elder one of the younger wife,—how would the partition be made?’—If such a doubt arises,—the son born of the elder wife shall take one bull as his ‘preferential share;’ the other bulls, which are not so good, shall belong to those who are junior to him, on account of the position of their mothers.—(122-123)

पूर्वस्यां जातः पूर्वजः कनीयान् वृषभस्योक्तो भागवान् । ततो वृषाद् अन्ये ये वृषभा अज्येष्ठास् ते बहूनाम् एकशः कृत्वा देयाः । अतश् च ज्यैष्ठिने यस्यैतावद् उक्तम् अधिकं यच् छ्रेष्ठो वृषो गुणमात्रेणाधिक्यं न संख्यया तदूनानां तस्मात् पूर्वजाद् ऊनानाम् । कियताम् इत्य् आह । स्वमातृतः पुनर् मुख्यतोडत्वात्²⁹⁹ तेनात्र मातृज्यैष्ठ्यम् आश्रितं भवति न जन्मतः ॥ ८.१२३ ॥

(verses 9.122-123)

‘Elder wjfe’—married first:—‘younger wife’—one who was married later.

As between the sons born of these wives, the question arises whether ‘seniority’ shall he determined by the order in which their mothers have been married?—or, by the order in which they were themselves born? Having raised this question, the author answers it in the next verse;—this method being adopted with a view to making the rule more easily comprehensible.—(122)

‘Pūrvajaḥ’—he who is horn of the ‘pūrvā,’ the elder, wife, though himself younger (in age)—is entitled to one excellent hull.

The other bulls that there may be,—‘which are not so good’—shall he allotted to the other several brothers, one to each.

Hence the ‘preferential share’ laid down for the son born of the eldest wife consists of the best bull;—the superiority of his share consisting only in the quality of the bull, not in the number.

‘Those who are junior to him’—i.e., to the son born of the eldest wife.—Junior by what?—‘On account of the position of their mothers’—i.e., according to the order of their marriage. Thus the seniority among the sons is determined by the seniority of their mothers, and not by their own age.—(123)

**(verses 9.122-123)
**

These verses are quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 473), which adds the following explanation: The question here raised pertains to the case where there are several sons born of several mothers belonging to the same caste as the father; the term ‘pūrvajaḥ’ (in verse 123) stands for the younger son born of the senior wife, as is clear from the latter half of the verse; which means that the next best bullocks—those not the very best—shall belong to those brothers who are ‘junior’ by reason of the junior position of their mothers; i.e., whose mothers are junior to the mother of the aforesaid

brother;—and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 461).

**(verses 9.122-126)
**