History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s21.14.2

v1.c6.s21.14.2

(122), reads ‘dadyāt-cāpaharec-cāṁśaṁ’ with Viś. (142 b), reads ‘patitas-tatsutaḥ klībaḥ’ with Viś. (144 a), reads ‘aprajāyāmatītāyām’ with Viś. (148). The Agnipurāṇa however in a far larger number of cases agrees with the readings of the Mit. Agni (256. 8) reads with the Mit. (122) ‘vibhākteṣu suto jātaḥ savarṇāyāṁ vibhāgabhāk,’ Agni. (256. 10) reads ‘mātāpyaṁśaṁ samaṁ haret’ with the Mit. (123), while Viś. (127) reads ‘mātāpyaṁśaṁ samāpnuyāt.’ Viśvarūpa’s reading leaves it undecided as to what the share of the mother is to be, while the Mit. makes it definite by stating that it is equal (to that of a son). Agni (256. 12) reads ‘catustri-dvyeka-bhāgāḥ syuḥ’ and ‘viḍjāstu dvyekabhāginaḥ’ with the Mit. (125); Agni. (256. 21) reads ‘-rdhabhāgikaṁ’ with the Mit. (134). Agni. (256. 27) reads ‘andho’cikitsyarogādyā’ with the Mit. (140), while Viś. (144) reads ‘rogī ca.’ The reading of the Mit. makes provision by the word ‘ādya’ for other persons like deaf-mutes mentioned in other smṛtis as not entitled to inherit, while Viś. has to put a forced interpretation on ‘ca’ as including such persons. The Agni (256.33) reads ‘vyayaṁ dadyāc-ca sodayaṁ’ with the Mit. (146), while Viś. (150) reads ‘dāpyaś-ca sodayaṁ’. Agni (256. 36) reads ‘vibhāgabhāvanā jñeyā gṛha-kṣetraiś-ca yautakaiḥ’ with the Mit. (149), while Viś. (153) reads ‘°bhāvanādeyagṛha-kṣetrakayautakaiḥ’. Here the former reading is easy and gives a complete sentence. With Viś. we have to separate ‘°bhāvanā’ and ‘ādeya &c.’.