[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India)](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930) › v1.c6.s2.1 # History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s2.1 History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s2.1 - **Language:** English ### [v1.c6.s2.1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v1.c6.s2.1.1) The Gautamadharmasūtra¹⁷ says ‘the Veda is the source of \*dharma\* and the tradition and practice of those that know it (the Veda).’ So Āpastamba¹⁸ says ‘the authority (for the \*dharmas\*) is the consensus of those that know \*dharma\* and the Vedas.’ Vide also the Vasiṣṭhadharma-sūtra¹⁹ (I. 4-6). The Manusmṛti²⁰ lays down five different sources of \*dharma\* ‘the whole Veda is (the foremost) source of dharma and (next) the tradition and the practice of those that know it (the Veda); and further the usages of virtuous men and self-satisfaction.’ Yājñavalkya²¹ declares the sources in a similar strain ‘the Veda, traditional lore, the usages of good men, what is agreeable to one’s self and desire born of due deliberation—this is traditionally recognised as the source of dharma.’ These passages make it clear that the principal sources of \*dharma\* were conceived to be the Vedas, the Smṛtis, and customs. The Vedas do not contain positive precepts (\*vidhis\*) on matters of \*dharma\* in a connected form; but they contain incidental references to various topics that fall under the domain of dharmaśāstra as conceived in later times. Such information to be gathered from the Vedic Literature is not quite as meagre as is commonly supposed. In another place²² I have brought together about fifty Vedic passages that shed 'Like (a woman) growing old in her parents' house, I spray to thee as Bhaga from the seat common to all'²³. Vide also Ṛgveda I 124. 7; IV. 5. 5 and Atharvaveda I. 17. ### [v1.c6.s2.1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v1.c6.s2.1.2) 1 and Nirukta III. 4-5. These passages constitute the basis of the rules of the dharmasūtras and the Yājñavalkya-smṛti against marrying a brotherless maiden²⁴. This bar against marrying a brotherless maiden seems to have been due to the fear that such a girl might be an appointed daughter (\*putrikā\*) and that a son born of such a girl would be affiliated to his mother's father. This custom of \*putrikā\* is an ancient one and is alluded to in the Ṛgveda, according to Yāska²⁵. Ṛgveda X. 85 is a very interesting hymn as regards marriage; verses from it are used even to this day in the marriage ritual.²⁶ It shows that in the remote Vedic age the marriage rite resembled in essence the Brāhma form as described in the Dharmasūtras and Manu.²⁷ But the purchase of a bride (i. e. what is called Āsura marriage in later literature) was not unknown in the Vedic age. A passage of the Maitrāyaṇīyasaṁhitā (I. 10. 11) is referred to in the Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra²⁸ in this connection, viz. 'she who being purchased by the husband'. The Gāndharva form is hinted at in the words²⁹ 'when a bride is fine-looking and well adorned, she seeks by herself her friend among men'. The importance of the \*aurasa\* son was felt even in the remote Vedic ages. 'Another (person) born of another's loins, though very pleasing, should not be taken, should not be even thought of (as to be taken in adoption³⁰)'. The Taittirīya-saṁhitā (VI. 3. 10. 5) propounds the well-known theory of the three debts³¹. ### [v1.c6.s2.1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v1.c6.s2.1.3) The story of Śunaḥśepa in the Aitareya-brāhmaṇa (VII. 3) suggests that a son could be adopted even when there was an \*aurasa\* son. The Taittirīya-saṁhitā (VII. 1. 8. 1) tells the story of Atri who gave an only son in adoption to Aurva. The Kṣetraja son of the Dharma-sūtras is often referred to in the earliest Vedic literature. ‘What (sacrificer) invites you (Aśvins) in his house to a bed as a widow does a brother-in-law or a young damsel her lover’³². The Taittirī-yasaṁhitā makes it clear that a father could distribute his wealth among his sons during his own life time ‘Manu divided his property among his sons’ &c.³³ Another passage of the same \*Saṁhitā\* seems to suggest that the eldest son took the whole of the father’s wealth ‘therefore people establish their eldest son with wealth’³⁴. Even in the Vedic ages the son excluded the daughter from inheritance ‘a son born of the body does not give the paternal wealth to (his) sister’³⁵. A passage of the Taittirīya-saṁhitā is relied upon by ancient and modern writers on \*dharmaśāstra\* for the exclusion of women in general from inheritance ‘therefore women being destitute of strength take no portion and speak more weakly than even a low person’³⁶. The Ṛgveda eulogises the stage of studenthood and the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa speaks of the duties of the Brahmacārin such as not partaking of wine and offering every evening a \*samidh\* to fire³⁷. The Taittirīya-saṁhitā (VI. 2. 8. ### [v1.c6.s2.1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v1.c6.s2.1.4) 5) relates³⁸ how Indra consigned Yatis to wolves (or dogs) and how Prajāpati prescribed a Prāyaścitta for him. The Śatapathabrāhmaṇa speaks of the king and the learned Brāhmaṇa as the upholder of the sacred ordinances.³⁹ The Taittirīyasaṁhitā says 'therefore the Śūdra is not fit for sacrifice'.⁴⁰ The Aitareya Brāhmaṇa tells us that when a king or other worthy guest comes, people offer a bull or a cow.⁴¹ The Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa speaks of Vedic study as \*yajña\* and the Taittirīya-āraṇyaka⁴² enumerates the five \*yajñas\*, which are a prominent feature of the Manusmṛti. The Ṛgveda eulogises the gifts of a cow, horses, gold and clothes.⁴³ Another passage of the Ṛgveda⁴⁴ (thou art like a \*prapā\* in a desert) is relied upon by Śabara on Jaimini (I. 3. 2) and by Viśvarūpa on Yājñavalkya as ordaining the maintenance of \*prapās\* (places where water is distributed to travellers). The Ṛgveda condemns the selfish man who only caters for himself.⁴⁵ --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v1.c6.s2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v1.c6.s2.1) · Pramāṇa