[288] (The king) should have all the prisons built on the royal highway, where the suffering and mutilated evil-doers can be seen. [289] He should immediately banish anyone who breaches the (city’s) rampart, fills up the moat, or breaks down the gates. [290] A fine of two hundred (pennies) should be imposed for all magic spells, for rituals that make use of roots when they are performed by people who are not trustworthy, and for various kinds of witchcraft. [291] A man who sells (as seed) what is not seed, or pulls up (sown) seed, or destroys a boundary, should receive the corporal punishment of mutilation. [292] But a goldsmith who behaves dishonestly is the most evil of all the thorns, and the king should have him cut to pieces with razors. [293] For the theft of things used in ploughing, or weapons, or medicines, the king should adjust the punishment according to the time and the use.
[294] The king and his minister, the fort, the territory, the treasury and army, and the ally – these are its seven elements, and so the kingdom is said to have seven members. [295] But he should realize that of these seven elements of the kingdom, each one is more important than the one that follows it, in order, and (its loss) the greater disaster. [296] Yet when a seven-member kingdom stands firmly upright like three staves (tied together), no single part of it predominates, because each has qualities superior to those of the others. [297] For each member is specifically better qualified for certain tasks, and is said to be the best for the purpose that it can accomplish.
[298] By means of spying, applying energy, and engaging in actions, he should constantly ascertain his own power over his own country and others’ as well as the enemy’s power over his own country and others’. [299] And when he has thoroughly considered all the afflictions and vices (on both sides), and their importance or lack of importance, he should then resolutely undertake what is to be done. [300] Each time he becomes exhausted he must undertake the action again, and again; for good fortune favours the man who undertakes actions with resolution. [301] The king’s various forms of behaviour are the Winning Age, the Age of the Trey, the Age of the Deuce, and the Losing Age; for the king is said to be the Age. [302] Asleep, he is the Losing Age; awake, the Age of the Deuce; when he is ready to act, the Age of the Trey; and when he is active, the Winning Age.
[303] The king should behave with the brilliant energy of Indra, the Sun, the Wind, Yama, Varuṇa, the Moon, Fire, and the Earth. [304] Just as Indra rains heavily during the four monsoon months, even so he should rain down the things that are desired in his own kingdom, behaving like Indra. [305] Just as the Sun takes up water with his rays for eight months, even so he should constantly take up taxes from his kingdom, for in that he behaves like the Sun. [306] He should pervade (his subjects) with his spies just as the Wind moves about, pervading all creatures, for in this he behaves like the Wind. [307] The king should restrain his subjects just as Yama restrains both friend and foe at the proper time; for in this he behaves like Yama. [308] He should seize evil men just as Varuṇa is seen to bind people with his ropes; for in this he behaves like Varuṇa. [309] When his subjects thrill with joy in him as human beings do at the sight of the full moon, the king is behaving like the Moon. [310] He should constantly turn the heat of his brilliant energy and majesty against evil-doers and use it to injure corrupted vassals; this is traditionally known as behaving like Fire. [311] He behaves like the Earth when he supports all living beings just as the Earth bears all living beings equally.
[312] Using these and other means, the king should constantly and tirelessly suppress the thieves in his own kingdom and even in others’ (kingdoms).
[313] Even during the utmost extremity, he should not make priests angry, for when angry they could instantly destroy him, with all his army and his vehicles. [314] Who would not be destroyed if he provoked the anger of those who made fire omnivorous, the ocean water undrinkable, and the moon to wax and wane? [315] Who could prosper if he harmed those who, when angered, could create other worlds and other Guardians of the World, and make the gods non-gods? [316] Who, if he wanted to live, would do violence to those upon whom the worlds and the gods depend and stand firm forever, and whose property is the Veda?
[317] A priest is a great deity whether or not he is learned, just as fire is a great deity whether or not it is brought to the altar. [318] The purifying fire with its brilliant energy is not defiled even in cremation grounds, and when oblations of butter are placed in it at sacrifices it grows even greater. [319] Thus priests should be revered in every way, even if they engage in all kinds of undesirable actions, for this is the supreme deity. [320] If the rulers become overbearing towards the priests in any way, the priests themselves should subdue them, for the rulers were born from the priests. [321] Fire arose from the waters, rulers from priests, and iron from stone; their all-pervading brilliant energy is quenched in their own wombs. [322] Rulers do not prosper without priests, and priests do not thrive without rulers; priests and rulers closely united thrive here on earth and in the world beyond.
[323] When a king has given the priests the wealth that comes from all fines, and has given up the kingdom to his son, he should go to his death in battle. [324] The king who always behaves in this way, dedicated to the duties of a king, should employ all his retainers in matters that are for the good of his people.
[325] The eternal rule for the innate activity of a king has thus been told in its entirety; now learn the following rule for the innate activities of a commoner and a servant, in that order.
[326] When a commoner has undergone the transformative rituals and has married a wife, he should constantly dedicate himself to making a living and tending livestock. [327] For when the Lord of Creatures emitted livestock he gave them over to the commoner, and he gave all creatures over to the priest and the king. [328] A commoner must never express the wish, ‘I would rather not tend livestock,’ nor should they ever be tended by anyone else when a commoner is willing. [329] He should know the high or low value of gems, pearls, coral, metals, woven cloth, perfumes, and spices. [330] He should know how to sow seeds, and recognize the virtues and faults of a field, and he should know how to use all sorts of weights and measures; [331] and the worth or worthlessness of merchandise, the good and bad qualities of countries, the profit or loss from trades, and the way to raise livestock. [332] And he should know the wages of hired servants, the various languages of men, the way to preserve goods, and buying and selling. [333] He should make the utmost effort to increase his goods by means in keeping with his duty, and take pains to give food to all creatures.
[334] The servant’s duty and supreme good is nothing but obedience to famous priestly householders who know the Veda. [335] If he is unpolluted, obedient to his superiors, gentle in his speech, without a sense of ‘I’, and always dependent on the priests and the other (twice-born classes), he attains a superior birth (in the next life).
[336] The auspicious rule for the innate activities of the classes when there is no extremity has thus been described; now learn the one that they have, in order, even in extremity.
End of Chapter 9
[3] This is an idea that evidently appeals to Manu; he expresses it, in slightly different words, at 5.148 as well.
[5] ‘The proper time’ to have intercourse is during the fertile season.
[8] This is an old saying, that can be traced back to the Veda (Aitareya Brāhmaṇa 7.13.6).
[9] Some commentaries interpret the verb ‘make love’ (bhaj) as a reference to the mere physical act of sexual intercourse; some take it as an indication that the woman’s heart must be given to that man at the moment of union, too, for the child to resemble him.
[13] By ‘sleeping’, the commentaries specify sleeping at the wrong time, too much, or in the day; one might also add, in the wrong place.
[17] Manu is, as Chapter 1 makes clear, not merely the primeval law-giver but also the son of the Lord of Creatures, and hence a creator himself. He thus ‘assigns’ these qualities to women in both capacities: making them originally, and reco
gnizing them in his laws.
[20] This is a quotation from the Śānkhāyana Gṛhya Sūtra 3.13.5, where the verse is to be recited by an illegitimate son, and the Āpastamba Śrauta Sūtra 1.99, where the verse is to be recited by any sacrificer. See also Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 6.4.12, where there is a Vedic verse by which a man may take back the breath and sons of his ‘wife’s lover whom he hates’.
[21] The verse is said by the woman’s son, presumably.
[23] Akṣamālā (‘Wearing a Rosary’), better known as Arundhatī, married the great priestly sage Vasiṣṭha and became the paragon of wifely fidelity, though she suspected him, insulted him, abandoned him, and was cursed therefore to become a small, ugly, hardly visible star of evil omen (Mahābhārata 1.224.27–9). The Purāṇas and Epics without exception give her a pure priestly lineage as the daughter of Kardama, the grandson of Brahmā himself, and Devahuti, the daughter of Manu son of the Self-existent. But here Manu and the commentators (who state that she was of the lowest caste, even a ‘Fierce’ Untouchable [caṇḍālī]) say that she was low-born, in order to make the point that even a wife of a low caste (or species) may be raised up by her priestly husband. Sārangī, also called Sārngī, was a female bird (sāranga, or ‘dappled’, is the name of several species, including the caṭaka bird). The sage Mandapāla, whose ancestors were in imminent danger of destruction because he had failed to produce children, became a bird of the same species, married her, produced many children in her, and abandoned her and them (Mahābhārata 1.220). Thus both of these tales of upward female mobility have unhappy endings.
[24] The commentators mention Satyavatī, Gangā, and Kālī as examples of women of vile birth.
[29] This verse and the next repeat 5.164–5 in an inverted order.
[32] The sower of the seed is the biological father, who may or may not be the legal husband; the woman is the field, and the owner of the field is the legal husband. The son born in the field (the wife) by a man other than her legal husband is known as the kṣetraja, literally ‘born in the (husband’s) field’, the wife’s natural son. The kṣetraja is defined in 9.167.
[34] Sometimes the seed and sometimes the womb prevails in determining the characteristics and status of the son. Vyāsa and Ṛṣyaśṛnga, great sages whose fathers were priests and whose grandmother and mother were a female fish and a female antelope, respectively, but who were regarded as the sons of the men who begot them, are cited by the commentators as examples of the prevalence of the seed; Dhṭtarāṣṭra, whom Vyāsa begot in the ‘field’ of Vicitravīrya but who was regarded as Vicitravīrya’s son, is given as an example of the prevalence of the womb. (Mahābhārata 1.57, 3.110, and 1.96–100.)
[39] Mung beans (mudga) are Phaseolus Mungo, pulse beans (māṣa) Phaseolus Raditus.
[41] The commentators gloss ‘knowledge and understanding’ (jñānavijñāna) as the Vedas and their ancillary subjects (such as grammar and logic) or canon (Veda) and tradition (dharmaśāstra).
[42] The commentators do not identify these songs of the wind god.
[44] Pṛthu was the first king, the husband and owner of the earth (see 7.42); kings who ‘possess’ the earth after him do not possess her.
[45] The commentators say that the first statement is in the Vājasaneyī Brāhmaṇa; see also Āpastamba Śrauta Sūtra 2.14.16. They do not suggest a source for the second statement.
[48] The stud (utpādaka, literally ‘the begetter’) may also be the owner of the stud.
[56] The extremity in this case would be the man’s extremity, caused by his failure to produce male heirs.
[57] Here, as often, ‘guru’ may designate either an honoured teacher or a father. In either case, the guru’s wife is the paradigmatic sexually tabu woman.
[58] The ‘appointment’ of a man to beget a child on behalf of another man, preferably his older brother, or the appointment of a woman to allow such a man to beget a child on behalf of her legal husband, is called niyoga in Sanskrit, and is roughly equivalent to the custom of Levirate marriage (from the Latin leviratus, brother-in-law). Manu is ambivalent about this procedure and therefore makes statements for and against it which seem to be contradictory but can be reconciled. On the one hand, he acknowledges its legality as an emergency measure and argues, as here, that the husband owns the children born in his ‘field’. On the other hand, he dislikes the procedure, tends to assimilate it to ‘unofficial’ adulteries (which of course he abhors), and takes every opportunity to point out that the natural father has a very serious claim to the child (in such verses as 9.181).
[59] The woman may be appointed by her husband, if he is alive and has failed to give her sons (because he is impotent [klība, perhaps homosexual] or sick, the commentators suggest), or by his relatives, if he has died before producing a son.
[60] The commentators do not comment on the butter. It may have a ritual role or simply serve as a lubricant for a presumably unexcited woman.
[61] Several commentaries explain this by a saying: A man who has one son has no son.
[64] This and the next three verses present a view different from that of the previous paragraph. The commentators regard this as an apparent contradiction, and take various measures to resolve it, such as distinguishing between a man other than the husband and a man other than the huband’s brother, or between a dead husband and an impotent husband, and so forth. It is more likely, however, that Manu simply included both viewpoints: for a widow to have a son by another man in an emergency is permitted by some, but not by others. Historically, it was permitted at an early period in India, and later prohibited; Manu may well represent the stage of uneasy transition.
[65] But, as one commentator points out, the practice is mentioned elsewhere in the ṛg Veda (10.40.2cd): ‘Who invites you as a widow takes her husband’s brother to her bed, as a young woman takes a young man to her room?’
[66] Vena was a particularly evil king, the father of the first good king, Pṛthu (see 7.41–2). When Vena was killed by priests who could no longer tolerate his irreligion, they churned his dead body to produce his son Pṛthu – a mythological parthenogenic counterpoint to the appointment of widows.
[70] The commentators suggest that the unpolluted vow consists in her devoting herself to him, and to no other man, in body, speech, and mind.
[72] ‘Corrupted’ in the sense of having her maidenhead broken or having slept with another man, the commentators suggest, and ‘concealed’ in the sense of using a garment to cover a leprous skin or a superfluous limb.
[75] The commentators suggest that in a life of restraints she should not go to other people’s houses.
[76] The commentators discuss at great length what she should do at the end of that period: go to look for him, take another husband, go on supporting herself by her approved crafts, and so forth. Several of them gloss ‘pleasure’ (kāma) in its more restricted sense of lust: to seek another wife that he likes better.
[77] The inheritance may consist in her own dowry or in the jewellery and so forth that he has given her. ‘Not live with her’ is interpreted variously as meaning that he should abandon her (some add that he should not, however, deprive her of a livelihood), or that he should not have sex with her (some add that he should just give her food and clothing).
[78] The commentaries suggest that her ‘transgression’ may mean that she disobeys him, but does not have sex with another man; that he may be ‘infatuated’ (pramatta) with gambling; and that her property may consist of kitchen utensils, servant girls, and so forth.
[79] ‘Without seed’ (abīja) may mean ‘impotent’ or ‘sterile’, and in the former case klība might mean not ‘impotent’ but ‘homosexual’.
[80] She may be superseded by another wife, even if she continues to live in the same house.
[87] An Untouchable priest is someone who, though he is actually a member of one of the four classes or even a priest, behaves like a ‘Fierce’ Untouchable (caṇḍāla) or becomes one through some crim
e.
[88] The husband should be like her in class, but in other qualities as well. The commentators dispute what ‘the right age’ is; some say eight years old, some twelve; the marriage age also differed in different families and castes. Some commentators say that a girl should not be given before she is capable of experiencing desire; some that she should be married while she still goes about naked, that is while she is still six or eight; some object to the practice of marrying off a young girl for money.
[93] By failing to see to it that she has the opportunity to bear children as soon as she begins to menstruate, the father has interfered with her child-bearing function and hence has no right to be paid for getting her a husband. Here Manu seems to advocate, or at least accept, the giving of a bride-price (śulka); but at 9.98–9 and 3.51–4 he argues passionately against it.
[94] In an emergency, he may marry when he is even younger than the stated ages. The ages are in any case approximate: the man should be about three times the age of the girl.
[107] There may be an implicit contrast not only between duty and desire (dharma and kāma) but between religion and pleasure (dharma and kāma) as two of the three human goals.
[110] ‘Like a relative’ (bandhuvat) means like a more distant relative, like an uncle.
[111] That is, if they separate, each son will perform the rituals, and so more religious merit will be generated.
[113] That is, each one would be treated like a middle son and get an equal share of what is left after the eldest and youngest have taken theirs.
The Laws of Manu Page 33