DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0165
150 THE LAW OF ADOPTION, HISTORICALLY CONSIDERED.
Lecture panying such recitation, are qaoted by several authors.1
In Gautama’s Dharmasutra (XXVIII. 19) the opinion that a
Putrika and Putrikaputra may be appointed by the implied
intention of the father alone is expressly stated to be the
■ opinion of some—i.e., an opinion which he does not hold
himself. Manu2 and Vishnu (XV. 6), on the other hand,
especially the latter, state as distinctly as possible that
any daughter who has no brothers may become a Putrika,
even though no formality of any kind has been performed.
The prohibition to marry a damsel having no brothers,
because her son might be estranged from his natural father
and declared a Putrikaputra, occurs in Gautama’s Dharma-
sutra as well as in other law-books.3 This prohibition
would seem to corroborate the opinion that any daughter
who had no brothers was liable to become a Putrika
and her son a Putrikaputra, whenever the father might
desire it, and without any agreement, formal or tacit,
having been entered into at the time of her marriage. It
is important to notice, that the Indian Law in this instance
does not stand on ceremony. It may be presumed that in
the precisely analogous case of real adoption, the customary
ceremonies may likewise be dispensed with without injur-
ing the validity of the act.
Iliegiti- The process by which the appointed daughter and the
oTtiVwife sou ^ie aPP°inted daughter are raised to the dignity
and daugh-of sons to their father and maternal grandfather respect-
ters. ively, though unusual, is perfectly consonant with our
sense of morals and justice. The case is exactly opposite
with regard to all the four sorts of sons that will now be
considered. There exists a strange contrast between the
strict rules of the Indian Legislators regarding the relation
to the sex, and their readiness to sanction the rights even
1 Gautama XXVIII. 19 ; Vasishtha XVII. 17; Vishnu XV. 5 ;
Manu IX. 127.
2 Manu (IX. 136) speaks of the son procreated by a daughter “no
made or made (a Putrika).” Jones, following Kulluka, who in his turn
follows Gautama (XXVIII. 19). translates, “that male child whom a
daughter thus appointed, either !>// an implied intention or a plain
declaration, shall produce.” The other Commentators, however (Medba-
tithi, Govindaraja, Narayana. Raghayananda and Nandanacharya), give
the text its plain meaning. Thus, ep.. Narayana states expressly that
one not made means “ one not formally declared a Putrika.” This rule
of course is not intended to give the son of a brotherless maiden an
unconditional right to claim the property left by his grandfather. He
was to take it, if his grandfather chose to declare him his heir, but not
otherwise.
3 Gautama XXVIII. 20 ; Manu III. 11 ; Yajnavalkya I. 53.
Lecture panying such recitation, are qaoted by several authors.1
In Gautama’s Dharmasutra (XXVIII. 19) the opinion that a
Putrika and Putrikaputra may be appointed by the implied
intention of the father alone is expressly stated to be the
■ opinion of some—i.e., an opinion which he does not hold
himself. Manu2 and Vishnu (XV. 6), on the other hand,
especially the latter, state as distinctly as possible that
any daughter who has no brothers may become a Putrika,
even though no formality of any kind has been performed.
The prohibition to marry a damsel having no brothers,
because her son might be estranged from his natural father
and declared a Putrikaputra, occurs in Gautama’s Dharma-
sutra as well as in other law-books.3 This prohibition
would seem to corroborate the opinion that any daughter
who had no brothers was liable to become a Putrika
and her son a Putrikaputra, whenever the father might
desire it, and without any agreement, formal or tacit,
having been entered into at the time of her marriage. It
is important to notice, that the Indian Law in this instance
does not stand on ceremony. It may be presumed that in
the precisely analogous case of real adoption, the customary
ceremonies may likewise be dispensed with without injur-
ing the validity of the act.
Iliegiti- The process by which the appointed daughter and the
oTtiVwife sou ^ie aPP°inted daughter are raised to the dignity
and daugh-of sons to their father and maternal grandfather respect-
ters. ively, though unusual, is perfectly consonant with our
sense of morals and justice. The case is exactly opposite
with regard to all the four sorts of sons that will now be
considered. There exists a strange contrast between the
strict rules of the Indian Legislators regarding the relation
to the sex, and their readiness to sanction the rights even
1 Gautama XXVIII. 19 ; Vasishtha XVII. 17; Vishnu XV. 5 ;
Manu IX. 127.
2 Manu (IX. 136) speaks of the son procreated by a daughter “no
made or made (a Putrika).” Jones, following Kulluka, who in his turn
follows Gautama (XXVIII. 19). translates, “that male child whom a
daughter thus appointed, either !>// an implied intention or a plain
declaration, shall produce.” The other Commentators, however (Medba-
tithi, Govindaraja, Narayana. Raghayananda and Nandanacharya), give
the text its plain meaning. Thus, ep.. Narayana states expressly that
one not made means “ one not formally declared a Putrika.” This rule
of course is not intended to give the son of a brotherless maiden an
unconditional right to claim the property left by his grandfather. He
was to take it, if his grandfather chose to declare him his heir, but not
otherwise.
3 Gautama XXVIII. 20 ; Manu III. 11 ; Yajnavalkya I. 53.