DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0179
164
THE LAW OF ADOPTION, HISTORICALLY CONSIDERED.
Lecture Sagotra, or any member of the Brahman caste.1 This being
VI1- the case, it would follow, e.g., that a Brahman might adopt
the son of a Vaigya woman, because any Brahman may be
appointed to raise offspring to the widow of a Vaigya.
Yet this would be opposed to one of the fundamental rules
of the Modern Law of Adoption as taught by Nandapandita
himself, viz., that no member of a different caste can ever
be adopted. Other contradictions between the Niyoga
theory and the ordinary rules regarding adoption have
been noticed by N. V. Mandlik.2
The Vai- It has to be observed, moreover, that the Vaijayanti
adoption0'1 19), which contains a short resume of Nandapandita’s
opinions on the subject of adoption,3 does not refer to this
rule at all. This shows more clearly than anything else can,
how little store Nandapandita set on it himself.
Niyoga Finally, the custom of Niyoga, as shown before, was
obsolete, obsolete even in the time of some of the oldest Smriti-
writers. Its obsolete character is recognized to the fullest
extent in the Dattakamimamsa (II. 64—68). If, therefore,
Nandapandita makes use of this obsolete custom in order
to justify his own opinions in regard to a different practice,
it is no better than if in modern Europe a judge would
try to settle a question regarding the offspring of an illicit
connection by a reference to the jusprimce noctis. If
1 See the author’s note to his translation of the Vishnu-smriti, 61-62.
Nandapandita’s opinion regarding the eligibility of all members of
the Brahman caste to be appointed, which appeared to be the views of
Vijnanegvara, is grounded on the text of Vishnu (XV. 3) and on an
analogous text of Gautama (XVIII. 6).
2 Ibid. 482—83.
8 The following rules are laid down in the Vaijayanti:—(1) A son may
be given in adoption by both parents, or by the mother alone with the
consent of the father. Thus according to Vasishtha XV. 1-2, 5 ; Vishnu
XV. 19 ; Mann IX. 168. The text of Manu directs either that the son
shall be given in distress only or to one who has no son himself.
(2) No one can adopt who has a son living—Manu, ibid. (3) No only
son shall be given in adoption (Vas. XV. 3, 4) ; nor an eldest son, under
the text of Caunaka I (4) The two last rules do not apply
to a brother’s son—Vishnu XV. 42. (5) For the rites in an adoption,
Vasishtha XV. 6 is quoted. (7) A brother’s son is the most eligible person
to be adopted— Vaaishtha XV. 7, 8. (9) The rite- of giving a son is
“ identical with the rite to be performed in making a Putrika. as described
by Jabali.” It may be observed that the prohibition to give an eldest son
in adoption does not occur in the Dattakamimamsa, though it is found in
many other treatises. In the Mitakshara, Sarasvativilasa, etc., it is rested
on a text of Manu (IX. 106), in other works on the anonymous text
rM i
THE LAW OF ADOPTION, HISTORICALLY CONSIDERED.
Lecture Sagotra, or any member of the Brahman caste.1 This being
VI1- the case, it would follow, e.g., that a Brahman might adopt
the son of a Vaigya woman, because any Brahman may be
appointed to raise offspring to the widow of a Vaigya.
Yet this would be opposed to one of the fundamental rules
of the Modern Law of Adoption as taught by Nandapandita
himself, viz., that no member of a different caste can ever
be adopted. Other contradictions between the Niyoga
theory and the ordinary rules regarding adoption have
been noticed by N. V. Mandlik.2
The Vai- It has to be observed, moreover, that the Vaijayanti
adoption0'1 19), which contains a short resume of Nandapandita’s
opinions on the subject of adoption,3 does not refer to this
rule at all. This shows more clearly than anything else can,
how little store Nandapandita set on it himself.
Niyoga Finally, the custom of Niyoga, as shown before, was
obsolete, obsolete even in the time of some of the oldest Smriti-
writers. Its obsolete character is recognized to the fullest
extent in the Dattakamimamsa (II. 64—68). If, therefore,
Nandapandita makes use of this obsolete custom in order
to justify his own opinions in regard to a different practice,
it is no better than if in modern Europe a judge would
try to settle a question regarding the offspring of an illicit
connection by a reference to the jusprimce noctis. If
1 See the author’s note to his translation of the Vishnu-smriti, 61-62.
Nandapandita’s opinion regarding the eligibility of all members of
the Brahman caste to be appointed, which appeared to be the views of
Vijnanegvara, is grounded on the text of Vishnu (XV. 3) and on an
analogous text of Gautama (XVIII. 6).
2 Ibid. 482—83.
8 The following rules are laid down in the Vaijayanti:—(1) A son may
be given in adoption by both parents, or by the mother alone with the
consent of the father. Thus according to Vasishtha XV. 1-2, 5 ; Vishnu
XV. 19 ; Mann IX. 168. The text of Manu directs either that the son
shall be given in distress only or to one who has no son himself.
(2) No one can adopt who has a son living—Manu, ibid. (3) No only
son shall be given in adoption (Vas. XV. 3, 4) ; nor an eldest son, under
the text of Caunaka I (4) The two last rules do not apply
to a brother’s son—Vishnu XV. 42. (5) For the rites in an adoption,
Vasishtha XV. 6 is quoted. (7) A brother’s son is the most eligible person
to be adopted— Vaaishtha XV. 7, 8. (9) The rite- of giving a son is
“ identical with the rite to be performed in making a Putrika. as described
by Jabali.” It may be observed that the prohibition to give an eldest son
in adoption does not occur in the Dattakamimamsa, though it is found in
many other treatises. In the Mitakshara, Sarasvativilasa, etc., it is rested
on a text of Manu (IX. 106), in other works on the anonymous text
rM i