DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0290
EXCLUSION FROM INHERITANCE.
27
Dayabhaga (V. 7, 10, 11), the principal authority of that Lecture
school, quotes three texts, in which the exclusion of the ' xn-
madman is ordained without any restriction; and in com-
menting on the text of Manu, Jimutavahana says dis-
tinctly, that no other infirmity than blindness and deafness
need have existed from birth. The same opinion is ex-
pressed in Raghunandana’s Dayatattva and in the Daya-
kramasangraha. Nor is it probable that Jagannatha would
have discarded the doctrine of his predecessors, if his
opinion had not been influenced by a false reading in the
text of Narada. That text, as quoted by Jagannatha,1
contains the clause ^^rsrui^viru: “ afflicted, from the date
of birth with insanity, blindness or lameness,” whereas
the ordinary reading is •’ “idiots, madmen,
blind, and lame persons.” The latter reading is found in
all the other Digests and in all the manuscripts of the
Narada-smriti which I have been able to consult.2 It is
difficult to say from what source the erroneous reading of
Jagannatha may have been derived, and whatever may be
the equities of the case, it is certain that Jagannatha’s
opinion on this point ought not to have been allowed the
least weight by the Courts. As regards madness in parti-
cular, there are several passages in the Commentaries in
which it is referred to as an illness, and not as a natural
defect existing from birth. Thus the Mitakshara explains
the term unmatta, ‘ a madman,’ as denoting ‘ one affected by
any of the various sorts of insanity produced by disorders
of the aerial humours, of bile, or of phlegm, or by a com-
bined derangement of those three humours, or by posses-
sion by a demon.’3 Apararka says unmatta means one
afflicted with the illness called unmada—i. e., with mania.
Of the Commentators of Manu, no other than Narayana
has thought it necessary to explain the term a madman.3
He says, the deaf man likewise (as well as the blind man)
must have been from birth; the madman and the rest
must be incurable.4
1 Dig. V. 5, cccxx.
2 The manuscripts of Narada (XIII. 22) read idiots,
madmen and lame persons ; but this difference of reading does not
affect the point under notice. t
3 This translation differs slightly from Colebrooke’s Mitaksh. II. 10.
2. See, too, Burnell’s Varadaraja 13-14.
4 (For the Sanskrit, see Appendix.} In Wynch’s Translation of the
Dayakramasangraha (Stokes’s II. L. B., 500) term chronic, used with
reference to disease, is explained to mean ‘ from the period of birth.’ But
27
Dayabhaga (V. 7, 10, 11), the principal authority of that Lecture
school, quotes three texts, in which the exclusion of the ' xn-
madman is ordained without any restriction; and in com-
menting on the text of Manu, Jimutavahana says dis-
tinctly, that no other infirmity than blindness and deafness
need have existed from birth. The same opinion is ex-
pressed in Raghunandana’s Dayatattva and in the Daya-
kramasangraha. Nor is it probable that Jagannatha would
have discarded the doctrine of his predecessors, if his
opinion had not been influenced by a false reading in the
text of Narada. That text, as quoted by Jagannatha,1
contains the clause ^^rsrui^viru: “ afflicted, from the date
of birth with insanity, blindness or lameness,” whereas
the ordinary reading is •’ “idiots, madmen,
blind, and lame persons.” The latter reading is found in
all the other Digests and in all the manuscripts of the
Narada-smriti which I have been able to consult.2 It is
difficult to say from what source the erroneous reading of
Jagannatha may have been derived, and whatever may be
the equities of the case, it is certain that Jagannatha’s
opinion on this point ought not to have been allowed the
least weight by the Courts. As regards madness in parti-
cular, there are several passages in the Commentaries in
which it is referred to as an illness, and not as a natural
defect existing from birth. Thus the Mitakshara explains
the term unmatta, ‘ a madman,’ as denoting ‘ one affected by
any of the various sorts of insanity produced by disorders
of the aerial humours, of bile, or of phlegm, or by a com-
bined derangement of those three humours, or by posses-
sion by a demon.’3 Apararka says unmatta means one
afflicted with the illness called unmada—i. e., with mania.
Of the Commentators of Manu, no other than Narayana
has thought it necessary to explain the term a madman.3
He says, the deaf man likewise (as well as the blind man)
must have been from birth; the madman and the rest
must be incurable.4
1 Dig. V. 5, cccxx.
2 The manuscripts of Narada (XIII. 22) read idiots,
madmen and lame persons ; but this difference of reading does not
affect the point under notice. t
3 This translation differs slightly from Colebrooke’s Mitaksh. II. 10.
2. See, too, Burnell’s Varadaraja 13-14.
4 (For the Sanskrit, see Appendix.} In Wynch’s Translation of the
Dayakramasangraha (Stokes’s II. L. B., 500) term chronic, used with
reference to disease, is explained to mean ‘ from the period of birth.’ But