The Laws of Manu

by The Laws of Manu (retail) (epub)

  [241] Though the animal is fined, it may be assumed that the herdsman has to pay the fine.

  [242] Cows are regarded as being difficult to manage right after they calve. The livestock of the gods are sacrificial animals or animals that belong to temples.

  [243] Since the owner of a field must pay taxes to the king (generally a sixth of the crop), he must pay the king a fine if the crop is diminished through his fault (in allowing livestock to get into it, or in failing to plant or harvest properly).

  [245] Between mid-May and mid-June (the Indian month called Jyaiṣṭha), the hot sun burns away the grasses that might otherwise obscure the dikes (setu).

  [246] The banyan tree (nyagrodha) is the Ficus Indica, the fig (aśvattha, the tree ‘under which horses stand’) is the Ficus Religiosus, the ‘pseudo-parrot’ (kiṃśuka) tree is the Butea Frondosa, the silk-cotton tree or Seemul (śālmali) is the Bombax Heptaphyllum or Salmalia Malabarica, the Sal (sāla) is the Shorea Robusta or Valica Robusta, the Palmyra palm (tāla) is the Borassus Flabelliformis, and the tree with milky sap might be the Calatropis Gigantea (arka).

  [247] The fire-stick tree (śamī, used to kindle the fire at a sacrifice) is the Acacia Suma. The hump-backed plant (kubjaka) is an aquatic plant, the Trapa Bispinosa.

  [255] The commentators argue that ‘fix in place’ means to set down in writing; this is possible, especially given the reference to the witnesses’ names, but still unlikely to have been the custom for village disputes in Manu’s time.

  [263] The middle-level fine is five hundred pennies. See 8.138.

  [268] The commentators interpret this as a series of three fines for a priest who insults a member of each of the other three classes, and this is probably the meaning. But it could also be interpreted as a series of three fines for members of the three other classes who insult a ruler.

  [270] The man of one birth has not undergone the initiation that is the second birth; he may be a servant, a man with a high-caste father and low-caste mother, or a man of any class who has failed to undergo initiation. ‘From the rear-end’ (jaghanya) means literally ‘from the buttocks’ and refers to cosmogonies in which certain human groups are born of that part of the creator; figuratively, it means ‘last, lowest, vile’. The low birth of the servant is described at 1.31 and his vile, once-born status at 10.4.

  [275] ‘Calumniates’ (ākṣārayan) might mean, according to the commentators, that he accuses them of a major crime or of incest or adultery, or causes dissension among them, or curses them.

  [277] That is, this is an exception to the general rule set forth in 8.270.

  [281] Some commentators specify that this must be done in such a way that the man does not die.

  [296] The thief’s punishment is often used as a rough standard for other punishments, but there are various ways of punishing a thief. The commentators suggest that it might be a fine of a thousand pennies, in which case half would be five hundred pennies, or the confiscation of all (or half) of his goods, or capital punishment, in which case half would be the mutilation of certain limbs.

  [306] Here, as always, ‘puts to death those who should be killed’ may also mean ‘inflicts corporal punishment on those who deserve corporal punishment’.

  [309] ‘Down’ may imply a downfall in this life or hell after death.

  [314] The word for ‘what I have done’ is karman, which also implies the effects of that action; the hair is unbound as a sign of supplication. At 11.100–101 a thief who has stolen gold is instructed to behave in this way, but in that instance the king produces the rod with which to inflict the punishment, whereas here the thief himself brings the instruments with which he is to be punished.

  [320] A ‘jar’ (kumbha) is a measure of grain, variously calculated but usually probably somewhere between three and four bushels.

  [321] The commentators disagree as to the meaning of a hundred; it may be a hundred items, but more likely a hundred of some weight (a ‘scratch’, a ‘gold ornament’, and so forth).

  [325] The word chūrikā, a hapax, is glossed by most commentators as ‘the nostril of a barren cow’, but others say it is a draught ox (pierced by the goad) or the sack carried by a draught ox (pierced by a thief who then removes its contents). If, however, we read sthūrikā, as several editions do, and consider that the sthūra is the hock, or lower leg of an equine or bovine, the verse makes more sense: cutting the sthūrikā is hamstringing, particularly in light of the fact that the appropriate punishment may entail cutting off either half of a foot or half of the thief’s feet (i.e. one foot).

  [331] The thief might be connected with the person that he robs by birth, by being a relative, or by mutual interest (see 8.198).

  [332] The act of violence in this case would be robbery with violence. Some commentators interpret the presence or absence of a connection to imply the presence or absence of a guard, or of the owner of the stolen article, at the scene of the crime.

  [336] Since the king can hardly pay the fine to himself, the commentators suggest that he should give it to priests or throw it into the water as a gift to Varuṇa (see 9.245).

  [344] The position of Indra is kingship over the gods in heaven, the theoretical goal of every human king. Acts of violence include not only robbery with violence (as in 8.332) but, according to the commentators, rape, arson, tearing up clothing, and destroying property.

  [345] The man who injures someone with a rod commits assault and battery.

  [348] These are times in which robbers prevent the twice-born from offering sacrifice and fulfilling other duties, or a foreign invasion or a famine causes the classes to intermix, or when the king is dead and people must arm themselves to save their property or someone else’s property.

  [349] The struggle for sacrificial gifts given to the officiating priests (dakṣiṇā) might occur when someone is trying to take away their cows, or in war.

  [350] The man who has a weapon in his hand is more literally a man with a drawn bow (ātatāyin). The commentators, troubled by the implications of this verse, go to great lengths to narrow down the circumstances under which it applies. But it says what it says.

  [351] ‘Secretly’ might be by poison or magic.

  [352] The commentators say that the king should brand such a man by means of spears and tridents and cut off his nose, lips, or penis.

  [358] Most commentators regard the ‘non-place’ as the wrong place on the body (‘a place other than the hand,’ says one) or a place that should not (be touched); some, however, regard it as a lonely place, such as is described in 8.356.

  [359] The word used for the loss of the life’s breath (prāṇānta) is unambiguous in designating death, unlike the usual vadha that can mean either capital or corporal punishment. The commentators argue that the death penalty should apply only to a servant, but the verse says quite simply that any man other than a priest may be killed for sexual misconduct. See 8.379 for the exception made for the priest.

  [360] Having a legitimate reason to be in the house, these men may speak only about their business there, unless the husband prohibits this.

  [364] He is her equal presumably in caste, but perhaps in other qualities too.

  [365] For the rear castes (jaghanya), see 8.270. The implication is that the girl takes the active role in seducing the man, and that she should be kept at home until she gets over her infatuation. The verbs used for sexual union in this verse and the next (bhaj and sev) imply passion, even love, in addition to the physical act.

  [366] Here it is the man who initiates the act, and so it is he who is punished, but only by being made to marry the girl and to pay the father (if the latter wants to accept the money; if he does not, the man would pay the money as a fine to the king).

  [367] The construction is awkward and the use of the verb kṛ (‘do’ or ‘make’) in this sense is unique to this verse and to 8.369, where its meaning is unmistakable, but the implications are clear enough here too and are spelled out by the commentators: the man
does not actually have intercourse with the girl, but corrupts her by opening up her intact vagina with his two fingers, which are therefore appropriately cut off in punishment.

  [373] The woman outlaw is a vrātyā, whom the commentators identify as the wife of an uninitiated Aryan or even a woman shared by several men. The ‘Fierce’ Untouchable woman is a caṇḍālī. Several commentators suggest that the basic fine is a thousand (pennies) and the double fine therefore two thousand.

  [374] A woman of the twice-born classes is almost certainly intended by this verse, but it is worth noting that the ‘person’ is unspecified, in the unmarked masculine case, which does make it grammatically possible for a man to be intended.

  [375] From the context supplied by the preceding and following verses, it may be assumed that this applies to a man who cohabits with a guarded woman of the priestly class. Some commentators say that the urine of a donkey should be used in place of water for this punitive shave, others, the urine of a man or of a dog.

  [397] The general meaning seems to be that the weaver should increase, rather than decrease, the weight of a piece that he is given to work on and returns to the owner. Some commentators, however, argue that the weaver should pay the ten per cent as a tax to the king. As for the fine of twelve, some say it is twelve ‘straws’, some twelve pennies, some twelve times the value of the cloth or the thread, some one-twelfth the value of the cloth or the thread.

  [399] The commentators list a few of the king’s monopolies: elephants, saffron (in Kashmir), fine cloth (in the east), horses (in the west), gems and pearls (in the south). An example of a prohibited export is grain in time of famine.

  [420] The offence that the king removes is that of the offenders whom he rightly punishes as well as his own guilt that he would have if he failed to punish them.

  CHAPTER 9

  [1] I will tell the eternal duties of a man and wife who stay on the path of duty both in union and in separation. [2] Men must make their women dependent day and night, and keep under their own control those who are attached to sensory objects. [3] Her father guards her in childhood, her husband guards her in youth, and her sons guard her in old age. A woman is not fit for independence. [4] A father who does not give her away at the proper time should be blamed, and a husband who does not have sex with her at the proper time should be blamed; and the son who does not guard his mother when her husband is dead should be blamed.

  [5] Women should especially be guarded against addictions, even trifling ones, for unguarded (women) would bring sorrow upon both families. [6] Regarding this as the supreme duty of all the classes, husbands, even weak ones, try to guard their wives. [7] For by zealously guarding his wife he guards his own descendants, practices, family, and himself, as well as his own duty. [8] The husband enters the wife, becomes an embryo, and is born here on earth. That is why a wife is called a wife (jāyā), because he is born (jāyate) again in her. [9] The wife brings forth a son who is just like the man she makes love with; that is why he should guard his wife zealously, in order to keep his progeny clean.

  [10] No man is able to guard women entirely by force, but they can be entirely guarded by using these means: [11] he should keep her busy amassing and spending money, engaging in purification, attending to her duty, cooking food, and looking after the furniture. [12] Women are not guarded when they are confined in a house by men who can be trusted to do their jobs well; but women who guard themselves by themselves are well guarded. [13] Drinking, associating with bad people, being separated from their husbands, wandering about, sleeping, and living in other people’s houses are the six things that corrupt women. [14] Good looks do not matter to them, nor do they care about youth; ‘A man!’ they say, and enjoy sex with him, whether he is good-looking or ugly. [15] By running after men like whores, by their fickle minds, and by their natural lack of affection these women are unfaithful to their husbands even when they are zealously guarded here. [16] Knowing that their very own nature is like this, as it was born at the creation by the Lord of Creatures, a man should make the utmost effort to guard them. [17] The bed and the seat, jewellery, lust, anger, crookedness, a malicious nature, and bad conduct are what Manu assigned to women. [18] There is no ritual with Vedic verses for women; this is a firmly established point of law. For women, who have no virile strength and no Vedic verses, are falsehood; this is well established.

  [19] There are many revealed canonical texts to this effect that are sung even in treatises on the meaning of the Vedas, so that women’s distinctive traits may be carefully inspected. Now listen to the redemptions for their (errors).

  [20] ‘If my mother has given in to her desire, going astray and violating her vow to her husband, let my father keep that semen away from me.’ This is a canonical example. [21] If in her mind she thinks of anything that the man that married her would not wish, this is said as a complete reparation for that infidelity.

  [22] When a woman is joined with a husband in accordance with the rules, she takes on the very same qualities that he has, just like a river flowing down into the ocean. [23] When Akṣamālā, who was born of the lowest womb, united with Vasiṣṭha, and Sārangī, the bird-woman, with Mandapāla, they became worthy of honour. [24] These and other women of vile birth in this world were pulled up through the particular auspicious qualities of their own husbands.

  [25] The ordinary life of a husband and wife, which is always auspicious, has thus been described. Now learn the duties regarding progeny, which lead to future happiness both here on earth and after death.

  [26] There is no difference at all between the goddesses of good fortune (śriyas) who live in houses and women (striyas) who are the lamps of their houses, worthy of reverence and greatly blessed because of their progeny. [27] The wife is the visible form of what holds together the begetting of children, the caring for them when they are born, and the ordinary business of every day. [28] Children, the fulfilment of duties, obedience, and the ultimate sexual pleasure depend upon a wife, and so does heaven, for oneself and one’s ancestors. [29] The woman who is not unfaithful to her husband but restrains her mind-and-heart, speech, and body reaches her husband’s worlds (after death), and good people call her a virtuous woman. [30] But a woman who is unfaithful to her husband is an object of reproach in this world; (then) she is reborn in the womb of a jackal and is tormented by the diseases (born) of (her) evil.

  [31] The following discussion about a son was held by good men and great sages born long ago; listen to it, for it has merit and applies to all people.

  [32] They say that a son belongs to the husband, but the revealed canon is divided in two about who the ‘husband’ is: some say that he is the begetter, others that he is the one who owns the field. [33] The woman is traditionally said to be the field, and the man is traditionally said to be the seed; all creatures with bodies are born from the union of the field and the seed. [34] Sometimes the seed prevails, and sometimes the woman’s womb; but the offspring are regarded as best when both are equal. [35] Of the seed and the womb, the seed is said to be more important, for the offspring of all living beings are marked by the mark of the seed. [36] Whatever sort of seed is sown in a field prepared at the right season, precisely that sort of seed grows in it, manifesting its own particular qualities. [37] For this earth is said to be the eternal womb of creatures, but the seed develops none of the qualities of the womb in the things it grows. [38] For here on earth when farmers at the right season sow seeds of various forms in the earth, even in one single field, they grow up each according to its own nature. [39] Rice, red rice, mung beans, sesame, pulse beans, and barley grow up according to their seed, and so do leeks and sugar-cane. [40] It never happens that one seed is sown and another grown; for whatever seed is sown, that is precisely the one that grows.

  [41] A well-educated man who understands this and who has knowledge and understanding will never sow in another man’s wife, if he wants to live a long life. [42] People who know the past recite some songs about this sung by
the wind god, which say that a man must not sow his seed on another man’s property. [43] Just as an arrow is wasted if it is shot into the wound of an animal already wounded by another shot, even so seed is immediately wasted on another man’s property. [44] Those who know the past know that this earth (pṛthivī) is still the wife of Prthu; they say that a field belongs to the man who clears it of timber, and the deer to the man who owns the arrow. [45] ‘A man is only as much as his wife, himself, and his progeny,’ the priests say, and also this: ‘The wife is traditionally said to be what the husband is.’ [46] A wife is not freed from her husband by sale or rejection; we recognize this as the law formulated by the Lord of Creatures long ago. [47] The division (of inheritance) is made once, and the daughter is given (in marriage) once, and a man say ‘I will give’ once; good people do these three things once.

  [48] Just as the stud is not the one who owns the progeny born in cows, mares, female camels, and slave girls, in buffalo-cows, she-goats, and ewes, so it is too (with progeny born) in other men’s wives. [49] People who have no field but have seed and sow it in other men’s fields are never the ones who get the fruit of the crop that appears. [50] If (one man’s) bull were to beget a hundred calves in other men’s cows, those calves would belong to the owners of the cows, and the bull’s seed would be shed in vain. [51] In the very same way, men who have no field but sow their seed in other men’s fields are acting for the benefit of the men who own the fields, and the man whose seed it is does not get the fruit.

  [52] If no agreement about the fruit is made between the owners of the fields and the owners of the seed, it is obvious that the profit belongs to the owners of the fields; the womb is more important than the seed. [53] But if this (field) is given over for seeding by means of an agreed contract, then in this case both the owner of the seed and the owner of the field are regarded as (equal) sharers of that (crop). [54] Seed that is carried by a flood or a wind into someone’s field and grows there belongs to the owner of the field, and the man who sowed the seed does not get the fruit. [55] This is the law for the offspring of cows and mares, slave girls, female camels, and she-goats, and birds, and female buffalo.