Sexual Life in Ancient India: A Study in the Comparative History of Indian Culture v1.c6.119.2

v1.c6.119.2

The kānīna or unmarried woman’s son is among the first and privileged set of six in all except Manu, ix, 161, as also Gautama, xxviii, 33 and Baudhāyana, ii, 2, 3.32 ; but these two agree here exactly with Manu, only that Baudh. brackets the putrikāputtra with the datta of Manu, and so gets thirteen classes, and Gautama handles the son of the heiress-daughter like a very cruel father in the way already mentioned. In these three the kānīna is found at the head of group II. The paunarbhava is taken by Vasisṭha, xvii, 13 ff., Yājñav., ii, 128 ff., Viṣṇu, xv, 1 ff., into I, while in Nārada he stands in the first place in II, in Manu and his followers in the last place but two. Yājñavalkya and Viṣṇu, it is true, do not expressly mention the two categories. All lay it down that if there are no sons really entitled to inherit, then the others must come into the inheritance according to their rank. The greater number, that is, Vas., Nār., Yājñ., and Viṣṇu in their six first classes have only actual children of the mother, no matter who the father may be. Vas., xvii, 22, 23, and Yājñ., ii, 129 (= Agnipur., 256.16) assert that the unmarried woman’s son belongs to the girl’s father, which sounds the more remarkable in that these two law teachers reckon the kānīna among the very members of the husband’s family who are entitled to inherit. Whether this prescription is only to hold when the mother does not marry is very much open to question.