^{page 677 note 1} There are exceptions to this, of course, where the patriarchal sentiment is still strong, e.g. the Highlands of Scotland, the west of Ireland, and Wales, and in the case of a few ancient families elsewhere. But even in these exceptions it is primarily as among Hindus the lineage and the name, i.e. the agnatic kindred, which are of importance.

^{page 677 note 2} “No rights should be acknowledged in collaterals and the property of those who have neither descendants nor ascendants should escheat to the State ”–Mill, Principles of Political Economy,Bk.V, ch. ix, †1. Cf. Bentham in Collected Works,vol. ii, pp. 585–598: “Supply without burden, or escheat vicetaxation ”.

^{page 677 note 3} In European legal systems degrees are counted up to the common ancestor and down again, and the propositusis not counted. In Hindu law they are counted only to the common ancestor, and both ends of the lines are included. Thus second cousins are in the sixth degree in French or English law, but the fourth degree in Hindu law. Fifth cousins are in the twelfth degree in French law, but in the seventh in Hindu law.

^{page 678 note 1} Mitakshara circaA.D. 1075–1100, Dayabhaga about twenty years later: see Kane, History of Dharmaśāstra,vol. i, pp. 325 ff., for a scholarly discussion of the date of the Dayabhaga

^{page 679 note 1} It is tempting, though obviously dangerous, to speculate on the possibility that these texts may once have had a narrower application than they bear in Manu. But against any such speculation is the fact that whatever we may think of the pinda lepathe libations of water are obviously an ancient part of the rite. One passage of Manu, however, ix, 186, appears to imply that at that date the offering of water was only a concomitant of the pindaand offered to the same persons. A Hindu to-day offers pindato P1-P3 and MF1-MF3, pinda lepato F4-F6, and water to F7–F13 (or, according to the Vyavahara Mayukha, without limit). He is in communion with all to whom he offers or who when he is dead will offer to him, and with all who offer to those to whom he offers, the strength of the tie varying according to the nearness and nature of the offering.

^{page 680 note 1} Col. Mit., ii, VI. Gharpure (1939), p. 1101.Google Scholar

^{page 680 note 2} Setlur, p. 101: sec. viii, 22Google Scholar

^{page 680 note 3} Setlur, p. 103: sec. 595Google Scholar

^{page 680 note 4} Ch. xi, IV, 14. Setlur, p. 297Google Scholar

^{page 680 note 5} Sec. 66. Setlur, p. 335Google Scholar

^{page 680 note 6} Setlur, p. 269Google Scholar

^{page 680 note 7} Ch. ii, sec. 8, el. 5. Setlur, p. 424Google Scholar

^{page 681 note 1} Setlur, p. 532.Google Scholar

^{page 681 note 2} XI, sec. 78. Setlur, p. 514.Google Scholar

^{page 681 note 3} This text is variously attributed to a lost Smriticalled Vriddha Satatapa or to Baudhayana. It does not occur in the extant Baudhayana. But in fact the nibandhasare full of such “master- Jess maxims ”, just as English common law is full of Latin tags of untraceable origin.

^{page 681 note 4} Commenting on Yajn. II, 264, in regard to the wealth of a trader who has died abroad. Gharpure (1939), pp. 1310–1311.

^{page 681 note 5} It is perhaps worth noting that if Sir William Jones′s view of Athenian law (as propounded in his Isaeus)is correct, a similar enumeration in that system resulted in the cousins, as enumerated heirs, being preferred to their own parents.

^{page 682 note 1} Loc. cit., see also Girdhari Loll Boyv. Bengal Government(1868) 12 M.I.A. 448. The title Yogisvara is a title for Yajnavalkya. But though Yajnavalkya uses the term bandhuat this point, it is Vijnanesvara who explains it as including “the maternal uncle and the like ”.

^{page 683 note 1} One commentary, the Vivada Batnakara(Setlur, p. 284), quotes a comment on a text of Vishnu to the effect that “bandhus”means “sapindas”. But the order of the text in question is that of Bengal law: and the words are therefore presumably used in the Bengal sense at this point. Later in the discussion the writer goes over to the Mitakshara order of succession. He appears, however, to be the only important writer of any branch of the Mitakshara school who does not quote the Vriddha Satatapa text.

^{page 683 note 2} Father′s mother′s brother′s son, father′s mother′s sister′s son, mother′s mother′s brother′s son, mother′s mother′s sister′s son.

^{page 684 note 1} Lallubhaiv. Mankuvarbai2 B. 388 (Westropp C.J., Sargent and West JJ.). Admittedly, West was responsible not only for the separate judgment delivered by him but also for that part of the judgment of the whole court delivered by the Chief Justice which is based on his researches.

^{page 684 note 2} Indeed in the case before them the question was between the widow of an agnate first cousin on the one hand and an agnate fifth cousin on the other. Bandhusor bhinna gotra sapindaswere not in issue.

^{page 684 note 3} Notably Nilakantha Bhatta, author of the Vyavahara Mayuklta,and Nanda Pandit

^{page 686 note 1} 2nd edition, 1922. See especially pp. 594 ff.

^{page 686 note 2} Indeed it is unlikely that bandhuswere heirs at all in Manu′s day. He does not mention them.