DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0164
THE LAW OF ADOPTION, HISTORICALLY CONSIDERED.
149
devi of Gauda, whose name was converted by her royal Lecture
father into the male form, Kalyanamalla, makes it certain vn-
that the custom of substituting by means of a peculiar
legal fiction female issue to male, where the latter was
wanting, is of considerable antiquity in some parts of India.
As regards, however, the attempt on the part of the
author of the Vasishtha-smriti to trace it back to the
Vedic period, it must be designed as a failure, because the
passage from the Rigveda, which he quotes in support
of this view, is shown by the connection to have a totally
different sense than that which he assigns to it.1
The son of the appointed daughter, Putrikaputra, is The son
universally mentioned as an heir. A number of authors—appointed
viz., Baudhayana, Yajnavalkya, Devala and Brihaspati—daughter,
agree in declaring him second only to the legitimate son
of the body (Aurasa); and Manu, by means of a copious
discussion of the rights and position of the Putrikaputra
(IX. 127—140), arrives at the result that he is perfectly
equal to the legitimate son of the body. This high posi-
tion of the Putrikaputra among the twelve sons may be
taken to account in some measure for the preference which
the Hindu Law of Inheritance exhibits for the daughter’s
son in general; he retained his rank at a time when the
practice of appointing daughters had long become obsolete
in nearly every part of India. There exists some differ-
ence of opinion as to whether it was necessary for the
father expressly to reserve his dominion over the future
son of a Putrika at the time of her marriage, or whether
the duty of offering the funeral oblations to his maternal
grandfather and the right to take his property might
accrue to the son of any daughter who had no brothers.
Solemn formulas, by the recitation of which at the time of
marriage a sonless father might secure the future male
issue of his daughter to himself and religious rites accom-
1 The Cruti text quoted by Vasishtha (XVII, 16) is taken from the
Rigveda I. 124—7. He takes it to mean that a maiden who has no'brothers
comes back to the male ancestors (of her own fajnily). Sayana in his
Commentary on the Rigveda mentions two explanations of this passage ;
the second of these agrees with Vasishtha’s interpretation. But the
context shows the true meaning of the passage to be this—that Usbas,
the goddess of the dawn, addresses herself boldly to the men after the
manner of a woman who has no brother (her natural protector) ! See
Muir’s Sanskrit texts V. p. 458 : Mayr. Ind. Erbrecht, 96. Nevertheless,
the interpretation proposed by Vasishtha and Sayana must be very old,
as it may be traced to such an early work as Yasaka's Nirukta (Ill. 5).
149
devi of Gauda, whose name was converted by her royal Lecture
father into the male form, Kalyanamalla, makes it certain vn-
that the custom of substituting by means of a peculiar
legal fiction female issue to male, where the latter was
wanting, is of considerable antiquity in some parts of India.
As regards, however, the attempt on the part of the
author of the Vasishtha-smriti to trace it back to the
Vedic period, it must be designed as a failure, because the
passage from the Rigveda, which he quotes in support
of this view, is shown by the connection to have a totally
different sense than that which he assigns to it.1
The son of the appointed daughter, Putrikaputra, is The son
universally mentioned as an heir. A number of authors—appointed
viz., Baudhayana, Yajnavalkya, Devala and Brihaspati—daughter,
agree in declaring him second only to the legitimate son
of the body (Aurasa); and Manu, by means of a copious
discussion of the rights and position of the Putrikaputra
(IX. 127—140), arrives at the result that he is perfectly
equal to the legitimate son of the body. This high posi-
tion of the Putrikaputra among the twelve sons may be
taken to account in some measure for the preference which
the Hindu Law of Inheritance exhibits for the daughter’s
son in general; he retained his rank at a time when the
practice of appointing daughters had long become obsolete
in nearly every part of India. There exists some differ-
ence of opinion as to whether it was necessary for the
father expressly to reserve his dominion over the future
son of a Putrika at the time of her marriage, or whether
the duty of offering the funeral oblations to his maternal
grandfather and the right to take his property might
accrue to the son of any daughter who had no brothers.
Solemn formulas, by the recitation of which at the time of
marriage a sonless father might secure the future male
issue of his daughter to himself and religious rites accom-
1 The Cruti text quoted by Vasishtha (XVII, 16) is taken from the
Rigveda I. 124—7. He takes it to mean that a maiden who has no'brothers
comes back to the male ancestors (of her own fajnily). Sayana in his
Commentary on the Rigveda mentions two explanations of this passage ;
the second of these agrees with Vasishtha’s interpretation. But the
context shows the true meaning of the passage to be this—that Usbas,
the goddess of the dawn, addresses herself boldly to the men after the
manner of a woman who has no brother (her natural protector) ! See
Muir’s Sanskrit texts V. p. 458 : Mayr. Ind. Erbrecht, 96. Nevertheless,
the interpretation proposed by Vasishtha and Sayana must be very old,
as it may be traced to such an early work as Yasaka's Nirukta (Ill. 5).