DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31218#0098
THE CASTE SYSTEM OF NORTHERN INDIA
perty is his son, whilst the ‘heir’ in this particular case is
the brother. But, firstly, even in respect of other kinds
of property, the son does not always inherit : for instance,
though a minor might get the chief’s estate, he might
not, by reason of his minority, get the chieftainship,
which would then pass to some older relative. And,
secondly, inheritance of women means marriage, and
there is no race however low that would permit the union
of mother and son : the natural heir in such a case would'
be the brother.
This theory does not explain the prohibition on the
‘Succession’ of the elder brother to the younger brother’s
widow. But, firstly, this prohibition is not universal :
in many African tribes the elder brother does so ‘succeed’.
Secondly, there is a widespread taboo on intercourse of
any kind whatever between the elder brother and his
younger brother’s wife,1 2 whicli taboo is due to quite other
reasons : but where it exists, as it does in India, then
a fortiori there can be no marriage between them. And
lastly, the elder brother would normally predecease his
younger brother, and normally, therefore, would not be
available to marry the latter’s widow : and in primitive
races the normal is apt to become the legal.
The Aryan form of the levirate (niyoga) is definitely
based on the idea of the wife as property. The husband
who authorizes it after his death could also have authoriz-
ed it during his life : and the sons born in niyoga are
afhliated to him because they, like tlieir mother, are his
property.
The evidence regarding the Jewish custom is less con-
clusive, cliiefly because the various references to it relate
to various stages in its development, and its original form
cannot be determined. But the story of Ruth points the
same way. Boaz was not a levir, whose duty it would
have been to marry Ruth, and ‘raise up the name of the
dead upon his inheritance’.3 He was merely a ‘near kins-
1 Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy—references under ‘Avoidance’.
2 Ruth iv. 5, io; Deut. xxv. 6.
perty is his son, whilst the ‘heir’ in this particular case is
the brother. But, firstly, even in respect of other kinds
of property, the son does not always inherit : for instance,
though a minor might get the chief’s estate, he might
not, by reason of his minority, get the chieftainship,
which would then pass to some older relative. And,
secondly, inheritance of women means marriage, and
there is no race however low that would permit the union
of mother and son : the natural heir in such a case would'
be the brother.
This theory does not explain the prohibition on the
‘Succession’ of the elder brother to the younger brother’s
widow. But, firstly, this prohibition is not universal :
in many African tribes the elder brother does so ‘succeed’.
Secondly, there is a widespread taboo on intercourse of
any kind whatever between the elder brother and his
younger brother’s wife,1 2 whicli taboo is due to quite other
reasons : but where it exists, as it does in India, then
a fortiori there can be no marriage between them. And
lastly, the elder brother would normally predecease his
younger brother, and normally, therefore, would not be
available to marry the latter’s widow : and in primitive
races the normal is apt to become the legal.
The Aryan form of the levirate (niyoga) is definitely
based on the idea of the wife as property. The husband
who authorizes it after his death could also have authoriz-
ed it during his life : and the sons born in niyoga are
afhliated to him because they, like tlieir mother, are his
property.
The evidence regarding the Jewish custom is less con-
clusive, cliiefly because the various references to it relate
to various stages in its development, and its original form
cannot be determined. But the story of Ruth points the
same way. Boaz was not a levir, whose duty it would
have been to marry Ruth, and ‘raise up the name of the
dead upon his inheritance’.3 He was merely a ‘near kins-
1 Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy—references under ‘Avoidance’.
2 Ruth iv. 5, io; Deut. xxv. 6.