adoption & marriage: legal question

[Jonathan Silk]

with regard to the suggestions regarding niyoga and appointment of a
daughter as putrikaa, the (or rather an) interesting point is that
the text is entirely uninterested in this aspect: there is no mention
of inheritance. But I presume, and have not been disabused of this
notion by the responses so far, that there is no particular reason
for the son-in-law in the story in question to have been adopted,
since the daughter could (although this is not mentioned) have
inherited. Shall I assume that within the putative original context,
an audience would have assumed the daughter to the heir, even if the
story never mentions it? Moreover, may I presume by the silence of
the zi.s.tas that another of my assumptions was correct and actually
adopting the young man would, in fact, make his marriage to the
daughter an incestuous one?

JAS
--
Jonathan Silk
Department of East Asian Languages & Cultures
Center for Buddhist Studies
UCLA
290 Royce Hall
Box 951540
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1540
phone: (310)206-8235
fax:  (310)825-8808
silk at humnet.ucla.edu