[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Reference works](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference) › [Vedic Index of Names and Subjects](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.macdonell-keith-1912) › v1.c3.s18.236 # Vedic Index of Names and Subjects v1.c3.s18.236 Vedic Index of Names and Subjects v1.c3.s18.236 - **Language:** English ### [v1.c3.s18.236](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.macdonell-keith-1912.v1.c3.s18.236) ⁵ The same question has been raised as to the origin of English or Teutonic property in land generally. Against any idea even of family ownership in a strict sense of the word, see Fustel de Coulanges, \*Recherches sur quelques Problèmes d’Histoire\*, 322 et seq.; Ashley, in Fustel de Coulanges, \*Origin of Property in Land\*, xvi-xxi; Pollock and Maitland, \*History of English Law\*, 2, 237 et seq. The older view, which accepted family and communal ownership, represented in different forms by Maine (\*Village Communities in the East and West\*), Stubbs, Green, and others, is defended in a new form by Vinogradoff, \*Villanage in England\*. See also Keith, \*Journal of the African Society\*, 6, 201 et seq. Jolly, \*Recht und Sitte\*, 93-96, does not accept the communal ownership of land, but, \*ibid.\*, 80, is inclined to believe in the joint ownership of a family. He admits that this is inconsistent with the strict rule of \*patria potestas\*, which still exists in Bengal; Baden Powell, \*Village Communities in India\*, 133 et seq., doubts the existence in early India of such a \*patria potestas\*. But the facts seem clearly to show that there was such a power, and that the father owned the property. His sons, as they grew up, came to claim the property, and he might have to divide it; hence the idea naturally developed that every child on birth had a legal share in the property. No doubt also from the first the right to part with land was one which grown-up sons and the rest of the community could object to, once the village had acquired a fixed existence. This would account adequately for the later system. \*Cf.\* also pp. 100, n. 19; 336, n. 7, and Rājanya. - [Previous: v1.c3.s18.235](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.macdonell-keith-1912.v1.c3.s18.235) - [Next: v1.c3.s18.237](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.macdonell-keith-1912.v1.c3.s18.237) - [Up: v1.c3.s18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.macdonell-keith-1912.v1.c3.s18) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.macdonell-keith-1912.v1.c3.s18.236](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.macdonell-keith-1912.v1.c3.s18.236) · Pramāṇa