ld not be
against the course of duty or morality. The Burdwan translator has
misunderstood the second line of this verse, while K.P. Singha has
quietly dropped it.

288. Dharmasya refers to the true or correct or eternal Aryan usage,
Pradanam is khandanam, from da, to cut. The sense is that the grant of
liberty to women is an Asura practice.

289. Hence, no one should wed, led by desire alone. Nor should the maiden
be permitted to choose for herself. She may be guided in her choice by
improper considerations connected with only carnal pleasure.

290. The property is divided into five parts, two of which are taken by
the daughter under such circumstances and three by the son.

291. I expand the verse for making it intelligible, by setting forth the
reasons urged by Hindu lawyers and noticed by the commentator.

292. Valatah vasyam implies only those whose consent is obtained by
force. Hence, such cases as those of Krishna abducting Rukmini and Arjuna
abducting Subhadra, are excluded from this denunciation.

293. The maiden may herself accept ornaments. That would not convert the
transaction into a sale.

294. Swalpa-kaupinah literally is covered with a small piece of cloth,
hence, capable of being easily seduced.

295. i.e., he should not acquire for storing. He may acquire to spend in
sacrifices and gifts or for maintaining himself and his family.

296. i.e., if the Brahmana, led by affection for any other wife,
disregards the wife belonging to his own order and shows preference for
those of the other orders, he then incurs the liability of being regarded
as a Chandala that has come to be numbered among Brahmanas.

297. The sense of this verse seems to be this: If a Brahmana takes in
succession three spouses all belonging to his own order, the son born of
his first wife shall take the share that is allotted to the eldest; that
born of the second wife shall take a share next in value; and that born
of the youngest wife shall take the share allotted to the youngest. After
such especial shares are taken, the residue of the property is to be
distributed unto equal shares each of which shall be taken by each of the
children. If this interpretation be correct, it would appear that the
contention waged some years ago in Bengal, that the scriptures do not
allow a person the liberty of taking more than one spouse from his own
order, falls to the ground. Upon other grounds also, that contention was
absurd, for Kshatriy