The Laws of Manu

by The Laws of Manu (retail) (epub)

  [34] They would be trampled to death by the elephant.

  [37] The implication is that he leaves no remainder (śeṣa) for the king.

  [39] That is, he is overlord of the earth and also the owner of the soil, both of which are designated by the same Sanskrit word (bhūmi).

  [42] ‘One’s own particular innate activity’ (svakarman) is used here as a rough equivalent of svadharma, the particular religious duty appropriate to a particular person.

  [43] The word artha here may mean either a legal case or money, yielding a second meaning of ‘swallow up the money’.

  [44] Inference (anumāna) is one of the three means of arriving at a conclusion; see 12.105.

  [45] The time and place may be that of the court case (taking into consideration the customs of the locality and of the period) or of the circumstance of the crime.

  [49] ‘The usual custom’ (ācarita, customary conduct) is, according to various commentaries, fasting, fasting to death, sitting at the debtor’s door, or killing the debtor’s wife, children, and livestock and then sitting at his door.

  [51] The legal instrument (karaṇa) is an agreement, written or, more often, verbal, that has been witnessed and has legal standing.

  [62] ‘Men with ancient roots’, particularly in that part of the country. The conditions of being in extremity are described at 8.69.

  [64] According to the commentators, ‘people whose mistakes have been revealed’ are those who have previously been convicted of perjury, or of any crime; people who are suffering from diseases are the seriously ill, such as lepers, who may give false testimony as the result of anger, forgetfulness, or faintness; and the corrupt are those who have committed major crimes.

  [65] Most of these are excluded because of their inadequacy; the king and the learned priest, however, are excluded because they are needed in other capacities, the king to reign and the priest to attend to his studies and his sacrifices.

  [66] The entirely dependent man is probably a slave, but might be a man dependent on a party to the lawsuit. The wrong activities are those of someone of another class.

  [68] ‘Like them’ in class, particularly, but also in other qualities.

  [72] The verb used for careful scrutinization (parīkṣeta) is, significantly, the same as the one used for the investigation of guests invited to a ceremony for the dead (3.130).

  [78] The commentators suggest several reasons for testifying ‘other than’ naturally (svabhāvena): with the thought, ‘My words will burn this man who is already burning,’ or as a joke, or in anger, or in remorse, or out of fear.

  [81] The Goddess of Speech (Sarasvatī) is the wife of the god Brahmā.

  [82] Varuṇa, the god of truth, binds liars on earth with ropes made of diseases like dropsy, and in hell with ropes made of serpents.

  [84] The self (ātman) is both the individual soul or self and the supreme soul or self (paramātman) that is identified with brahman. The theological implication is that the higher self is witness to the lower self; the more humanistic implication is that a human being is his only witness.

  [85] The inner man (puruṣa) is the spirit that dwells within all matter. See 1.11, 1.19, etc.

  [88] He may warn the commoner that he will lose his own cows, grain, and gold, or that the punishment for giving false evidence is as great as the punishment for stealing cows, grain, and gold or for committing crimes against cows, grain, and gold, or by making him swear by touching a cow, grain, and gold. The warnings to the servant are enumerated in the verses that follow, and this whole set of warnings is repeated at 8.113. The crime (pātaka) is, more particularly, a misdeed that causes one to fall (pat) from caste. These crimes are enumerated in detail in chapter 11.

  [90] Here, and above, it may be assumed that the punishments take place after death, in hell. Cf. 3.230, where a lie sends the merit of the ceremony for the dead to the dogs, presumably dogs on earth. Here, the dogs may be the dogs of Yama.

  [91] The commentators identify the hermit (muni) with the supreme self (paramātman), though Manu identifies him with Yama in the very next verse.

  [92] Arguing with Yama, the god of justice, is tantamount to lying. The Field of the Kurus (Kurukṣetra) is, with the Ganges, one of the great pilgrimage sites.

  [94] ‘Blind Darkness’ (andhatāmisra) is the name of one particular hell; see 4.88.

  [96] The knowing soul, or ‘knower of the field’ (kṣetrajña), the field being the body, is the conscious principle, identified with the inner Man or supreme soul. The commentators suggest that he might doubt or wonder, ‘Will he tell the truth or lie?’

  [97] The commentators suggest that he destroys his relatives (his ancestors) by causing them to fall to hell, or to fall from heaven and be reborn as animals.

  [105] Sarasvatī is the goddess of speech and the wife of the god Brahmā. See 8.81.

  [106] The pumpkin verses (kūṣmaṇḍas) are Vājasaneyī Saṃhitā 20.14–16 (=Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 10.3–5), asking the gods to free the worshipper from sin; the verse to Varuṇa is ṛg Veda 1.24.15, asking Varuṇa to free the worshipper from sin and from his binding rope; the verses to the waters (ṛg Veda 10.9.1–3) merely ask for strength, and are cited elsewhere in Manu (11.133) as reparation for killing certain small animals; but a verse later in that Vedic hymn (10.9.8) asks the waters to free the worshipper from any falsehood that he has sworn.

  [108] One commentator says that such disasters are a sign that the man has given false evidence. See 8.115.

  [110] One commentator cites the Mahābhārata, where the seven sages swore an oath against the unknown thief (Indra) who had stolen certain lotus filaments (13.94.3–44; 13.95.1–86). He also says that the Mahābhārata tells that when Indra had seduced Ahalyā and was cursed (by her husband, Gautama), he swore a multiple oath in fear of the curse, but Indra swears no oath in the extant versions of that text (13.41.1–35), nor in the Rāmāyaṇā (1.47–8); indeed, if he did it would be a false oath. The commentator also says that when Sudās the son of Pījavana was king (see 7.41), and Vasistha was accused by Viśvāmitra of having eaten his own one hundred sons and of being an ogre, he stood in the middle of a circle, touched the heads of his wives and children, and swore an oath: ‘May I die today if I am an ogre.’ In the ṛg Veda (7.104.15), Vasiṣṭha swears this oath: ‘May I die today if I am a sorcerer (yātudhāna), or if I have burnt up the life of a man; may whoever falsely says that I am a sorcerer lose his ten heroic sons.’ It is probably this story to which the commentary, and Manu himself, refers. But the Bṛhaddevatā (6.34), in glossing the Vedic verse, says that Vasiṣṭha was in torment because King Sudās had been cursed to become an ogre and had killed Vasiṣṭha’s one hundred sons.

  [113] See the note on 8.88. The ruler and commoner must swear, ‘Let these things bear no fruit for me if…’

  [115] If he can stay under water a long time, he is innocent; if he comes right to the surface, he is guilty.

  [116] The story is told in the Pañcaviṃśa (Tāṇḍya) Brāhmaṇa (14.6.6): Vatsa and Medhātithi were both sons of Kaṇva; Medhātithi reproached Vatsa, saying, ‘You are not a priest; you are the son of a mother who was a servant.’ Vatsa replied, ‘As an ordeal of truth, let us walk through fire, to decide which of the two of us is more of a priest.’ And not even a hair of Vatsa was burned by the fire. The story is also told in the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa (3.234–6), with some changes. The commentators on Manu 8.116 retell the story in great detail, with major modifications, of which perhaps the most significant is that they refer to the evil brother as ‘the half-brother by a different mother’ (vaimātreya), which implicitly validates the very claim that the story is at pains to disprove.

  [120] The first, or lowest, level of fines is 250 pennies (paṇas), the middle level is 500, and the highest level is 1.,000 (see 8.136 and 138). This being so, the last two fines amount, like the first, to 1,000 pennies. In a vain attempt to make sense of this, several commentators take the ‘first’ (pūrva) to refer not to
the lowest level but to the first sum mentioned in this verse, i.e. 1,000 pennies. In this case, each of the first three fines amounts to 1,000 pennies, while the last comes to 2,000, which is hardly an improvement.

  [125] The ninth ‘place’, property, which, the commentators point out, is to be confiscated if the offence is a minor one, indicates that the list includes all forms of punishment, corporal and financial; daṇḍa, after all, often means ‘fine’. The tenth ‘place’, the whole body, signifies capital punishment.

  [129] The first punishment is straightforward argument and admonition; the second (literally, saying, ‘Shame, shame!’ [Dhik! Dhik!]), is still verbal, but more violent. Vadha can mean either corporal punishment (usually by whipping or mutilation) or capital punishment (execution, usually by impalement), an ambiguity that clouds many important passages of Manu.

  [132] This is the trasareṇu.

  [113] The ‘louse-egg’ is a likṣā; the ‘black mustard-seed’ a rājasarṣapa, and the ‘white mustard-seed’ a gaurasarṣapa.

  [134] The ‘berry’ measurement (kṛṣṇala, also called a raktika, the bright red seed of the guñja berry, Abrus Precatorius) was the smallest weight in actual use, approximately 1.83 grains, or 0.118 grams. Five ‘berries’ made a ‘bean’ (māṣa), sixteen ‘beans’ a ‘gold-piece’ (suvarṇa), also called a ‘scratch’ (karṣa) or a penny (paṇa) (literally, a gambler’s chip). The fines in court were usually counted in pennies (paṇas), which, like ‘berries’, were normally of copper but might also be of silver or gold, and varied in value accordingly.

  [135] The ‘straw’ (pala) thus weighed about 1.33 ounces or 37.76 grams. The ‘straw’, as well as the ‘support’ (dharaṇa) and the ‘small bean’ (māṣaka or māṣika), like the ‘berry’, the ‘bean’, and the penny, might be measurements of gold, silver, or copper.

  [136] The ‘old coin’ is a purāṇa. The ‘scratch-penny’ (kārṣāpaṇa) of copper was worth eighty ‘berries’, or five ‘beans’; of gold, it was worth sixteen ‘beans’, that is, a penny.

  [137] The ‘hundred-weight’ (śatamāna) is also measured in gold. The ‘gold ornament’ (niṣka) is also said to be worth sixteen ‘beans’.

  [138] The penny (paṇa) is the basic weight of all fines, and is to be understood as the unit intended when none is designated.

  [140] In the extant lawbook by Vasistha, this rule occurs at 2.51; the text actually says ‘the eightieth part of every hundred’, which is 1.25 per cent per month, or fifteen per cent per annum.

  [142] A priest pays two per cent per month, and so on.

  [144] That is, one must not lend a pledge out against the owner’s wish, and if it is lent, the lender must give the owner the interest, and reimburse him if it is damaged while lent out.

  [146] The good will here probably refers to the owner’s consent.

  [152] And, according to the implications of 8.142, that five per cent is just for servants, though some commentators on 8.152 would apply that rate to all four classes.

  [153] The interest should be recognized by the law texts or by ordinary practice; the term for compound interest is ‘wheel-interest’, because it keeps coming around; periodical interest is either interest that increases if the debt is not paid by the due date, or simply monthly interest; forced interest is an illegal rate that the debtor agrees to when he is in trouble; corporal interest is paid by the labour of the debtor or of his pledged animals or slaves.

  [154] That is, he should exchange the old instrument of agreement for a new one with a new due-date.

  [155] That is, if he cannot produce the interest due, he should turn it into an additional principal in the new agreement, but he must promise to pay it as part of the new debt.

  [157] The meaning seems to be that the merchant transporting the goods by sea borrows money to outfit the ship and repays it when the ship comes in and the goods are sold; and normal interest rates need not apply for such transactions.

  [159] Useless gifts are variously interpreted by the commentators as gifts promised as a joke, or made to clowns or actors or bards or singers, not for the sake of religion, or a tip or bribe promised by the father and not yet paid. ‘Useless’ (vṛthā) often means ‘for no religious purpose’ (see the eating of meat ‘for no religious purpose’, 5.34–8), and a useless gift is a gift to someone other than a priest. ‘Gambling debts’ are literally debts related to dice (ākṣika), and ‘bar bills’ debts related to liquor (saurika). The word for this particular kind of ‘tax’ (śulka) may also designate a bride-price.

  [162] That is, if the guarantor had received from the debtor for whom he stood bail enough money to pay off the debt, but died before he could pay it, and that sum is part of the estate that his son inherits, the son must use it to pay the debt.

  [163] As in 8.66, someone totally dependent might be a slave, but in this case also a menial servant or the youngest son.

  [164] The support might take the form of a written document, a guarantor, or a witness, the commentaries suggest; an example of such an agreement is the sale of one’s wife and children.

  [168] ‘Undone’ (akṛta) in this context, as in 8.117, means invalidated.

  [169] This appears to be a proverb, whose general meaning, according to the commentators, is that the first three should not be forced to serve in legal cases, and the last four should not force others to participate in them. The family suffers when the undivided relatives have to pay a dead man’s debts or a family is ruined by a bad son; the rich man benefits by lending money.

  [176] The accuser is punished because the creditor has a right to act in this way; see 8.48–50.

  [177] A man of a higher class (the commentators say a priest) should not work off the debt but pay gradually as he gets the money in some other way. See 8.153, where paying off interest by physical labour is forbidden.

  [178] The evidence may be provided by inference, by ordeal (‘an act of god’), or by an oath.

  [180] The condition would mean whether or not it was sealed, whether or not the act of depositing was witnessed, and so forth.

  [185] The nearest relative (pratyanantara) or next in line to inherit would be a son, brother, or wife. The understanding is that, if the depositor is still alive when the deposit is returned to this relative, and the relative dies, the deposit must be paid back to the depositary (the person with whom it was deposited).

  [187] ‘He’ may be the king or the depositor. The commentators suggest that this verse applies to instances where there is some doubt as to the person with whom the deposit was made. ‘Gentle persuasion’ (sāman) is the same term used for the political stratagem of conciliation (see 7.107).

  [190] The means may be those listed in 8.49, or the four basic expedients of government polity (conciliation, bribery, dissension, and physical force), or the use of spies, or beating and imprisonment. The Vedic oaths probably also imply ordeals (see 8.109–16).

  [192] The commentators suggest various ways in which this verse differs from the previous verse: they say that the more severe punishments implied in 8.191 (for thieves were mutilated) do not apply to first offenders, to deposits of relatively small amounts, or to priests, and that 8.192 covers these cases. 8.192 also stipulates that there should be no distinction between a deposit and something loaned for personal use, or (according to the commentators who feel that the verse as a whole applies only to first offenders) between men who are of different classes or who have received deposits of greater or lesser value.

  [193] The word here translated as ‘struck down’ (hantavya) is, like vadha (‘corporal or capital punishments’), ambiguous; it may mean a beating or torture or execution. The corporal punishments would include crushing or cutting off his hands, feet, or head, impaling him on a stake, or having him trampled to death by elephants.

  [194] That is, if the depositary (or, for that matter, the depositor) says that the object has a different value, and the other members of the family testify against him, he should be fined.

&n
bsp; [198] He might be connected by birth, being a relative, or by mutual interest (see 8.331–2). Some commentators suggest that this implies that the owner and the thief are in cahoots in some way, others that they merely reside in the same village. An excuse (literally, a ‘way out’, apasara) would be proof that he had been given the item in question or had bought it openly.

  [204] Manu objects strongly to the bride-price at 3.51–4 and 9.93–100, but is willing to discuss its legal aspects for those who insist on indulging in the practice.

  [205] Verses 8.224 and 9.73 tell how he is to be punished if he does not admit the flaws.

  [207] Either the sacrificer or the priest who receives the fee should pay the substitute, according to different commentators.

  [210] The first group are the four priests mentioned in 8.209; there are three other groups, each consisting of four priests. The division is calculated differently by the different commentators, but according to one reasonable division, out of every twenty-five shares, the first group gets twelve, the second six, the third four, and the fourth three.

  [212] The religious purpose might be a sacrifice or wedding; if it is not used for this purpose, either the money is promised and then not given, or it is given and then taken back.

  [218] The Sanskrit term, samayabheda, is more literally ‘breaking an agreement’.

  [224] See 8.205 for the man who does announce the flaw.

  [226] ‘Those who are not virgins’ are more literally ‘non-virgins’ (akanyā); one commentator, perhaps taking ‘among men’ into consideration, suggests that this term designates homosexuals.

  [227] The wedding couple take seven steps around the fire; after the seventh step has been made the marriage is complete.

  [232] The worms may be snakes or a particular sort of worm that kills cows by entering them through their genitals; the dogs may be jackals or domesticated dogs.

  [237] A bow-length is approximately six feet. A fire-stick-cast is the distance that one can throw a short, thick piece of wood used at sacrifices (śamyā), approximately two hundred feet. The strip of six hundred feet mentioned in this verse was to be reserved for pasturage.