DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0055
40 NEW MATERIALS FOR HISTORICAL STUDY OF HINDU LAW.
Lecture sitions belonging to the Vedic period of Sanskrit Literature,
111 But very few out of these texts from the Veda have a
' bearing on Civil Law; and those texts which are actually
quoted in support of some legal rule have generally been
given their legal significance by means of an artificial
method of interpretation. Thus Vasishtha endeavours to
rest the claim of the Putrikaputra, a certain species of
adopted son, to succeed to his grandfather on a text from
the Rigveda, which occurs in a hymn addressed to the
goddess of the Dawn, and has nothing whatever to do with
Adoption. Apastamba, when arguing about the injustice of
an unequal division of the patrimony, quotes a Veda text
containing the simple statement that Manu distributed his
wealth among his sons, as proving that unequal partition is
not recognized in the Veda. Baudhayana rests the propo-
sition that women are incapable of inheriting on a Vedic
text which excludes them from participation in the drink-
ing of Soma juice at the solemn Soma sacrifices. These
iivVmces show that the texts of the Veda, far from exer-
cising a pressure on the Smriti writers and preventing
them from recording freely the usages of their own period,
were, by a little dexterous wrangling, made by them to fit
in with, and capable of being adduced in corroboration of,
their own theories. Where this was impossible, the Smriti
writers may be seen to avail themselves of that convenient
theory, so elaborately developed in after times by the com-
mentators, that a certain practice, though legitimate in the
times of the ancient sages, must not be followed in the
present day. The agreement of the rules of the Dharma-
sutras with the usages prevalent in the time of their
composition is further confirmed by the difference of
doctrine observable between the now extant works of this
class. There exists indeed a large stock of ancient tradi-
tion common1 to them all, and a considerable number of
versus memoriales in particular, which may be compared
to the legal proverbs of other countries, recur with
slight variations in most of them. On a number of vital
points, however, spch as e, g. the Order of Succession, the
Law of Stridhana, the Practice of Niyoga and the Rights
of Subsidiary Sons, they are at issue. It is hardly possible
to trace this diversity of doctrine to another cause than the
difference of popular usage subsisting between the divers
times and countries in which tlue existing Dharmasutras
had originated.
Lecture sitions belonging to the Vedic period of Sanskrit Literature,
111 But very few out of these texts from the Veda have a
' bearing on Civil Law; and those texts which are actually
quoted in support of some legal rule have generally been
given their legal significance by means of an artificial
method of interpretation. Thus Vasishtha endeavours to
rest the claim of the Putrikaputra, a certain species of
adopted son, to succeed to his grandfather on a text from
the Rigveda, which occurs in a hymn addressed to the
goddess of the Dawn, and has nothing whatever to do with
Adoption. Apastamba, when arguing about the injustice of
an unequal division of the patrimony, quotes a Veda text
containing the simple statement that Manu distributed his
wealth among his sons, as proving that unequal partition is
not recognized in the Veda. Baudhayana rests the propo-
sition that women are incapable of inheriting on a Vedic
text which excludes them from participation in the drink-
ing of Soma juice at the solemn Soma sacrifices. These
iivVmces show that the texts of the Veda, far from exer-
cising a pressure on the Smriti writers and preventing
them from recording freely the usages of their own period,
were, by a little dexterous wrangling, made by them to fit
in with, and capable of being adduced in corroboration of,
their own theories. Where this was impossible, the Smriti
writers may be seen to avail themselves of that convenient
theory, so elaborately developed in after times by the com-
mentators, that a certain practice, though legitimate in the
times of the ancient sages, must not be followed in the
present day. The agreement of the rules of the Dharma-
sutras with the usages prevalent in the time of their
composition is further confirmed by the difference of
doctrine observable between the now extant works of this
class. There exists indeed a large stock of ancient tradi-
tion common1 to them all, and a considerable number of
versus memoriales in particular, which may be compared
to the legal proverbs of other countries, recur with
slight variations in most of them. On a number of vital
points, however, spch as e, g. the Order of Succession, the
Law of Stridhana, the Practice of Niyoga and the Rights
of Subsidiary Sons, they are at issue. It is hardly possible
to trace this diversity of doctrine to another cause than the
difference of popular usage subsisting between the divers
times and countries in which tlue existing Dharmasutras
had originated.