DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0242
THE HISTORY OF FEMALE PROPERTY.
227
the bride is somewhat analogous to the Teutonic Morgen- Lecture
gabe,—i.e., a present which the husband used to make to the x-
bride on the morning after the wedding, and the Culkcb, or
bride-price, may be fitly compared to the Teutonic Wittum,
or bride-price. In Germany, both the Wittum, which was
afterwards converted into a donation to the -wife, and the
Morgengabe have exercised a very considerable influence
on the development of the proprietary right of women.1
The same may certainly be said of the Indian Ccdka, which,
from having been the bride-price, was made over to the
bride herself in aftertimes, and became the subject of a
special line of succession apart from the remainder of
Stiidhana.2
There can be no doubt that, in India as elsewhere, there The
was a period when women were considered incapable of^ll'^s,a"
holding any independent property. A well-known Smriti-
text3 states that women, as well as sons and slaves, can
have no property of their own ; whatever they acquire
they must give up to him who owns them. That the
principle here enounced is not a mere theoretical assertion
appears from the position of women in the Law of Inherit-
ance.' It has been shown in the preceding Lecture that, in
ancient times, women were considered incapable of inherit-
ing, and that they do not appear among the regular heirs
even in the Code of Manu. Beginning with the Sutra works,
the two Dharmasutras of Apastamba and Baudhayana
contain but a feeble trace of incipient proprietary rights
of women. Apastamba (II. 6, 14. 9) mentions as an
opinion, to which4 he does not give his assent, the rule
1 See Schroeder. Daseheliche Giiterrecht Deutschlands, Berlin, 1875.
2 See the XI. Lecture in Sir H. Maine’s Lectures on the Early History of
Institutions, for a General History of Female Property.
3 Manu VIII. 416 ; Narada V. 39. A far more recent author than
either of these two states that property acquired by mechanical arts by a
woman is entirely at the disposal of her husband. Katyayana, in the
Viramitrodaya. etc. Seeyw.sf.
4 This, as shown by the Commentary of Haradatta, is the correct read-
ing of the passage of Apastamba. According to the reading followed
in the Mitakshara, the furniture in the house would have to be added to
the above species of property belonging • to a woman on partition, and
Apastamba would be made to declare as his own ouinion, that both the
furniture and the ornaments, but not the property received from rela-
tions, shall belong to her. See for this and other varies lectioneis^VL^ev's,
Apastamba in the Sacred Books, 133-134. notes. The construction put on this
passage in the Mitakshara is probably due to the tendency to make it
agree with the texts of other lawgivers. In pronouncing against the
right of women to separate property. Apastamba is but consistent with
himself, as he considers women, especially widows, as unlit to inherit.
227
the bride is somewhat analogous to the Teutonic Morgen- Lecture
gabe,—i.e., a present which the husband used to make to the x-
bride on the morning after the wedding, and the Culkcb, or
bride-price, may be fitly compared to the Teutonic Wittum,
or bride-price. In Germany, both the Wittum, which was
afterwards converted into a donation to the -wife, and the
Morgengabe have exercised a very considerable influence
on the development of the proprietary right of women.1
The same may certainly be said of the Indian Ccdka, which,
from having been the bride-price, was made over to the
bride herself in aftertimes, and became the subject of a
special line of succession apart from the remainder of
Stiidhana.2
There can be no doubt that, in India as elsewhere, there The
was a period when women were considered incapable of^ll'^s,a"
holding any independent property. A well-known Smriti-
text3 states that women, as well as sons and slaves, can
have no property of their own ; whatever they acquire
they must give up to him who owns them. That the
principle here enounced is not a mere theoretical assertion
appears from the position of women in the Law of Inherit-
ance.' It has been shown in the preceding Lecture that, in
ancient times, women were considered incapable of inherit-
ing, and that they do not appear among the regular heirs
even in the Code of Manu. Beginning with the Sutra works,
the two Dharmasutras of Apastamba and Baudhayana
contain but a feeble trace of incipient proprietary rights
of women. Apastamba (II. 6, 14. 9) mentions as an
opinion, to which4 he does not give his assent, the rule
1 See Schroeder. Daseheliche Giiterrecht Deutschlands, Berlin, 1875.
2 See the XI. Lecture in Sir H. Maine’s Lectures on the Early History of
Institutions, for a General History of Female Property.
3 Manu VIII. 416 ; Narada V. 39. A far more recent author than
either of these two states that property acquired by mechanical arts by a
woman is entirely at the disposal of her husband. Katyayana, in the
Viramitrodaya. etc. Seeyw.sf.
4 This, as shown by the Commentary of Haradatta, is the correct read-
ing of the passage of Apastamba. According to the reading followed
in the Mitakshara, the furniture in the house would have to be added to
the above species of property belonging • to a woman on partition, and
Apastamba would be made to declare as his own ouinion, that both the
furniture and the ornaments, but not the property received from rela-
tions, shall belong to her. See for this and other varies lectioneis^VL^ev's,
Apastamba in the Sacred Books, 133-134. notes. The construction put on this
passage in the Mitakshara is probably due to the tendency to make it
agree with the texts of other lawgivers. In pronouncing against the
right of women to separate property. Apastamba is but consistent with
himself, as he considers women, especially widows, as unlit to inherit.