No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2011
This work, as far as our knowledge extends, is the first attempt made by a native of India to produce an elementary treatise on an intricate subject of Hindú Law, modelled after the European plan of a Catechism, written in the form of questions and answers, in the vernacular language of Bengal, with quotations in Sanskrit, from books of established authority, adduced in support of the principles advanced. The greater part of the volume is occupied by a succinct view of the law of Inheritance, according to the system of Jímútaváhana, the author of the Dáyabhága, compared with that of Vijnáneswara, the writer of the Mitákshará. Subjoined, is a short treatise on Adoption, likewise in the form of questions and answers. The following translation of a few passages will give a more precise idea of the plan of the work:—
“7th Question.—If the father is very old, so as to be unable to attend to business—have the sons a right to divide the property or not ?
* In translating this passage of Sankha and Likhita, which is likewise quoted in the Dáyabhága (p. 41. 8vo. edit.), we have ventured slightly to deviate from the division of the sentences adopted by Mr. Colebrooke; see Hindú Law of Inheritance, p. 19.Google Scholar
* Because every one of them, by establishing a separate household, will of his own accord perform the same oblations, and other religious ceremonies, incumbent on householders, which previously were performed by the brothers in common.
† Mitákshará, Vyavahára-adhyáya, p. 174Google Scholar. 8vo. edit. See Colebrooke, 's Hindú Law of Inheritance, p. 275Google Scholar; where the passage here attributed to Manu is ascribed to Vrihaspati.
‡ Manu, , ix. 159.Google Scholar
* From Put, “Hell,” and the verbal root Trai, “To save,” supposing the diphthong ai of the latter element to have been shortened into a, on the same principle according to which the root GAI, “To sing,” is shortened into GA in the derivation sámaga, “Who chaunts the Sáma-veda.” According to the fashion of the native grammarians, the alleged derivation of puttra might be expressed thus:—putas tráyate, iti puttrah, analogous to that of sámaga: sámáni gáyati, iti sámagah.
† Tán abravít sa drĭshtví tu Jaratkáruh pitámahán:
Ke bhavanto 'valambante garte 'smin vai adhomukháh?
* * *
Pitara úchuh:
Yáyávará náma vayam rĭshayah śansitavratáh,
Santánasya kshayát, brahmann, adho gachchháma midiním.
“Jaratkáru, beholding them, thus addressed the deceased ancestors: ‘Who are you, hanging in this cavern, with your heads foremost?’ … The ancestors replied: ‘We are sages of renowned sanctity; our name is the Yáyávaras; owing to the extinction of our race, O Bráhman, we must go downwards under the earth.’”—Mahábhárata, vol. i. fol. 24. b. in the MS. given to the Royal Asiatic Society by Colonel Tod. The same story occurs again at fol. 41, a.