conformable to the general tenor, giving the other an interpretation of a subordinate nature, I readily concur in giving him the title of a commentator, though the word expounder would be more applicable. By way of illustration, I give here an instance of what I have advanced, that the reader may readily determine the sense in which the author of the Dayubhagu should be considered as a commentator.
15. In laying down rules “on succession to the estate of one who leaves no made issue," this author first quotes (Ch. xi. page i58,) the following text of Vrihusputi: “In scripture and in the code of law, as well as in popular practice, a wife is declared by the wise to be half the body of her husband, equally sharing the fruit of pure and impure acts. Of him, whose wife is not deceased, half the body survives: how then should another take his property, while half his person is alive? Let the wife of a deceased man, who left no male issue, take his share notwithstanding kinsmen, a father, a mother, or uterine brother, be present,” &c. &c. He next cites the text of Yagnuvulkyu, (p. 160,) as follows:—“The wife and the daughters, also both parents, brothers likewise, and their sons, gentiles, cognates, a pupil, and a fellow student; on failure of the first among these, the next in order is indeed heir to the estate of one, who departed for heaven leaving no male issue. This rule extends to all persons and classes.” The author then quotes a text from the Institutes of Vishnoo, ordaining that “the wealth of him who leaves no male issue, goes to his wife; on failure of her, it devolves on daughters; if there be none, it belongs to the mother,” &c. &c. Having thus collected a series of passages from the Institutes of Vrihusputi,
