DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0267
252
THE HISTORY OF FEMALE PROPERTY.
Lecture at any time.” Tn his commentary on the next verse, Vijna-
• neqvara quotes with approval a great number of texts
relating to the custom of Sati, from which he says great
advantage resultscto a widow. Under these circumstances,
the silence frequently deplored of Vijnanecvara regarding
the exact extent of a woman’s power over her property can
hardly be interpreted in a sense favourable to woman’s rights,
and it is far from probable that Vijnanecvara meant to
grant to a woman that limited power over her estate even,
which males have in disposing of ancestral property. It
appears thus that the effect of Vijnanecvara’s wide inter-
pretation of the term Stridhana is neutralized by her want
of independence. The corresponding portions of the com-
mentary composed by Vijnanecvara’s contemporary, Apa-
rarka, show that the texts, under which a woman’s power
over inherited property is restricted, were not unknown in
the epoch of Vijnanecvara. The latter omits to quote
them, simply because they were unnecessary for the eluci-
dation of the Yajnavalkya-smriti, which contains nothing
corresponding to them.
Mayukha. jt) the absence of special provisions on this point in the
Mitakshara, we shall have to turn, for further elucidation
of it, to the later writers of the Mitakshara School, none
of whom has understood Vijnanecvara as an apostle of
woman’s rights. Beginning with the Bombay School we
shah have to consult chiefly the Mayukha, which divides
Stridhana,—i.c., the entire property of a woman, in refer-
ence to the dominion over it, into two distinct classes.
The Saudayika, as defined by Katyayana, is under the full
dominion of a woman,,. excepting only presents of an
immovable kind received from her husband, which are
subject to his control in his lifetime, and must not be
alienated by her even after his death. The text of Narada,
on which this prohibition is rested, is indeed quoted as
authoritative in nearly all standard works. Her power over
her supersession fee and other kinds of Stridhana (Adhi-
vedanikadyam) is also restricted under the Mayukha. This
important rule is deduced from a-text of Mann (IX. 199),
which relates really to the property of the husband, though
Nilakantha, by nmans of a forced construction, makes it to
apply to Stridhana.1 This, of course, does not impair the
1 Borrodaile’s translation of this passage (IV. 10. 8) contains several
mistakes. See West an( Buhler, p. 74, note (first ed.), Sinritichandrika,
IX. 1, 13, 14 ; and Mundli-k’s Vyavahara Mayukha.
THE HISTORY OF FEMALE PROPERTY.
Lecture at any time.” Tn his commentary on the next verse, Vijna-
• neqvara quotes with approval a great number of texts
relating to the custom of Sati, from which he says great
advantage resultscto a widow. Under these circumstances,
the silence frequently deplored of Vijnanecvara regarding
the exact extent of a woman’s power over her property can
hardly be interpreted in a sense favourable to woman’s rights,
and it is far from probable that Vijnanecvara meant to
grant to a woman that limited power over her estate even,
which males have in disposing of ancestral property. It
appears thus that the effect of Vijnanecvara’s wide inter-
pretation of the term Stridhana is neutralized by her want
of independence. The corresponding portions of the com-
mentary composed by Vijnanecvara’s contemporary, Apa-
rarka, show that the texts, under which a woman’s power
over inherited property is restricted, were not unknown in
the epoch of Vijnanecvara. The latter omits to quote
them, simply because they were unnecessary for the eluci-
dation of the Yajnavalkya-smriti, which contains nothing
corresponding to them.
Mayukha. jt) the absence of special provisions on this point in the
Mitakshara, we shall have to turn, for further elucidation
of it, to the later writers of the Mitakshara School, none
of whom has understood Vijnanecvara as an apostle of
woman’s rights. Beginning with the Bombay School we
shah have to consult chiefly the Mayukha, which divides
Stridhana,—i.c., the entire property of a woman, in refer-
ence to the dominion over it, into two distinct classes.
The Saudayika, as defined by Katyayana, is under the full
dominion of a woman,,. excepting only presents of an
immovable kind received from her husband, which are
subject to his control in his lifetime, and must not be
alienated by her even after his death. The text of Narada,
on which this prohibition is rested, is indeed quoted as
authoritative in nearly all standard works. Her power over
her supersession fee and other kinds of Stridhana (Adhi-
vedanikadyam) is also restricted under the Mayukha. This
important rule is deduced from a-text of Mann (IX. 199),
which relates really to the property of the husband, though
Nilakantha, by nmans of a forced construction, makes it to
apply to Stridhana.1 This, of course, does not impair the
1 Borrodaile’s translation of this passage (IV. 10. 8) contains several
mistakes. See West an( Buhler, p. 74, note (first ed.), Sinritichandrika,
IX. 1, 13, 14 ; and Mundli-k’s Vyavahara Mayukha.