History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.1195

v4.c63.1195

The smṛtis and some of the medieval and later digests even enter into elaborate discussions about the rights of a son or sons born from wives of classes lower than that of the father. Vide Gaut. 28. 33-37, Baud. Dh. S. II. 2. 10, Kauṭ. III. 6, Vas. 17. 48-50, Manu IX. 149-155, Yāj. II. 125, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 18. 1-33, Nār. (dāyabhāga 14), Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 374 verses 27-29), Śaṅkha (quoted in V. R. p. 531). It is not necessary to deal in detail with the varying provisions made in these works, as marriages with women of a lower class have not been in vogue for several centuries; but a few remarks will have to be made. Manu IX. 153 and Yāj. II. 125, Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 374 v. 27) clearly state that if a brāhmaṇa has sons from wives of the four classes, the whole property should be divided into ten parts which should be distributed as follows:—four for the son of the wife of the brāhmaṇa caste, three for the son of the kṣatriya caste wife, two for the son of the vaiśya caste wife and one for the son of the śūdra class wife. Manu IX. 154 (almost the same as Anuśāsana 47. 21) further provides that whether a brāhmaṇa leaves sons or no sons born (of wives of the three twice-born classes) the heir shall give, according to the law, to the son of a śūdra class wife no more than a tenth part of his estate. V. P. p. 487 and the Mit. (on Yāj. II. 133) after quoting Manu, make this quite clear. But as remarked by the Mit. on Yāj. II. 125 the son of a brāhmaṇa from a wife of the kṣatriya or other lower class was not to share in land obtained by the brāhmaṇa by way of gift (vide Bṛ. quoted in note 1106 above) though he could share land acquired by purchase or the like. A verse (attributed to Bṛ. by Dāy. IX. 22 and V. R. p. 534 and to Devala by V. P. p. 466) denies altogether a share in land to a śūdra class wife's son of a brāhmaṇa, while Manu IX. 155 (the son of a person of the three higher classes from a śūdra woman gets no share in the paternal wealth) is variously explained, the Mit. saying that it applies only where the son has already got some property from his father while the Mayūkha and some others say that it applies to the son of a śūdra woman who is not married to the person of higher caste but is only a mistress. Kauṭ. III. 6 and Bṛ. (quoted by V. R. p. 534) provide that the *pāraśava* son gets ⅓ of his father's estate and the nearest sapiṇḍa gets the remaining two thirds. Śaṅkha-Likhita (quoted by Medhātithi on Manu. IX. 155) have the same rule as in Manu IX. 155. It is remarkable that early medieval writers like Vijñāneśvara (about 1100 A. D.) or even later ones like Mitramiśra (first half of 17th century) in V. P. pp 464-466 enter with zest into elaborate explanations of Manu IX. 153 and Yāj. II. 125 and never expressly state that these verses had ceased to be applicable in their days, though there are a few other medieval works like the Sm. C. II. pp. 288-289 and the Madanaratna¹¹³⁰ that either do not explain these verses at all or say that these verses are applicable to a different age. According to Manu (IX. 178, 160) the son of a brāhmaṇa from a śūdra class wife is called śaudra or pāraśava, while according to Yāj. I. 91 he is called both niṣāda and pāraśava (vide H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 86-87 for niṣāda and pāraśava). But he is one of the secondary sons (*gauṇa-putra*) according to Manu (IX. 180), Vas. 17. 38 and others. Writers from Aparārka downwards quote certain¹¹³¹ verses from Śaunaka on matters forbidden in the Kali age (*kali-varjya*) one of which is the acceptance of sons other than aurasa and dattaka.¹¹³²