DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0265
250 THE HISTORY OF FEMALE PROPERTY.
Lectube teaching of Vijnanecvara. However, the reading Kartana,
. though found in two MSS. from Colebrooke’s collec-
tion, and one MS. from Dr. Buhler’s collection, can
only be due to an oversight on the part of a copyist,
as Vicvegvara must have derived his opinion on the
subject from the Mitakshara, which, no doubt, contain-
ed the reading (JECbktha) inheritance. In his Commentary
on the Mitakshara, the Subodhini, Vigvegvara has impli-
cit! v followed Vijnanegvara.1
Uiuiradeva. One Madras authority also assents unreservedly to the
doctrine of the Mitakshara. The Sarasvativilasa, which
has now been printed, after quoting the text of Yajna-
valkya, repeats word, for word the clause of the Mitakshara
regarding the term Adya (§ 264). It is true that, in some
passages of his work, Rudradeva uses the term Stridhana
in reference to the separate property of woman only. On
the other hand, he takes a very friendly attitude towards
the proprietary rights of women, which is exhibited, e.g.,
by the fact that he treats Stridhana, by the side of the
succession to males, as obstructed property.2
Lpararka. However, Vij nan eg vara's theory does not receive more
striking confirmation from any other quarter than from
Apararka’s Commentary of the Yajnavalkya-smriti. Apa-
rarka had that identical reading Chaiva in the text of
Yajnavalkya before him; which caused Jimutavahana to
put forth his restrictive definition of the term Stridhana.
Nevertheless, what Apararka says about the meaning of
this reading is this: “The particle Cha has the same
meaning as Adi, ‘etc.’ Therefore it is used in order to
include other species of Sfridhana, such as are mentioned in
the following texts :—The wives shall obtain an equal share
(Yajn. II. 115) ; the mother also shall receive an equal share
(Yajn. II. 123) ; the fourth part of their own share (Mann IN.
118); let the daughters divide the nuptial present of their
mother (Vas. XVII. 46) ; this and whatever else may become
the property of a woman is denominated woman’s property,
(by whom ?) by Manu and other ancient sages.”3 These re-
1 Thus he says (for the Sanskrit. see Appendix') “ Some assert that
the term Stridhana Aust not be interpreted according to its deriva-
tion. That is wrong. It has to be understood in accordance with its
derivation. In order to point this out, he says :—The term Stridhana
must be interpreted in accordance with its derivation.”—(Mit. II. 113.)
2 Mr. Foulkes’s Prefade. p. 22.
3 (For the Sanskrit, see Appendix.)
Lectube teaching of Vijnanecvara. However, the reading Kartana,
. though found in two MSS. from Colebrooke’s collec-
tion, and one MS. from Dr. Buhler’s collection, can
only be due to an oversight on the part of a copyist,
as Vicvegvara must have derived his opinion on the
subject from the Mitakshara, which, no doubt, contain-
ed the reading (JECbktha) inheritance. In his Commentary
on the Mitakshara, the Subodhini, Vigvegvara has impli-
cit! v followed Vijnanegvara.1
Uiuiradeva. One Madras authority also assents unreservedly to the
doctrine of the Mitakshara. The Sarasvativilasa, which
has now been printed, after quoting the text of Yajna-
valkya, repeats word, for word the clause of the Mitakshara
regarding the term Adya (§ 264). It is true that, in some
passages of his work, Rudradeva uses the term Stridhana
in reference to the separate property of woman only. On
the other hand, he takes a very friendly attitude towards
the proprietary rights of women, which is exhibited, e.g.,
by the fact that he treats Stridhana, by the side of the
succession to males, as obstructed property.2
Lpararka. However, Vij nan eg vara's theory does not receive more
striking confirmation from any other quarter than from
Apararka’s Commentary of the Yajnavalkya-smriti. Apa-
rarka had that identical reading Chaiva in the text of
Yajnavalkya before him; which caused Jimutavahana to
put forth his restrictive definition of the term Stridhana.
Nevertheless, what Apararka says about the meaning of
this reading is this: “The particle Cha has the same
meaning as Adi, ‘etc.’ Therefore it is used in order to
include other species of Sfridhana, such as are mentioned in
the following texts :—The wives shall obtain an equal share
(Yajn. II. 115) ; the mother also shall receive an equal share
(Yajn. II. 123) ; the fourth part of their own share (Mann IN.
118); let the daughters divide the nuptial present of their
mother (Vas. XVII. 46) ; this and whatever else may become
the property of a woman is denominated woman’s property,
(by whom ?) by Manu and other ancient sages.”3 These re-
1 Thus he says (for the Sanskrit. see Appendix') “ Some assert that
the term Stridhana Aust not be interpreted according to its deriva-
tion. That is wrong. It has to be understood in accordance with its
derivation. In order to point this out, he says :—The term Stridhana
must be interpreted in accordance with its derivation.”—(Mit. II. 113.)
2 Mr. Foulkes’s Prefade. p. 22.
3 (For the Sanskrit, see Appendix.)