with the Commentary of Medhatithi 201 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 207 из 350Следующая ⇒

Yājñavalkya (2.13-15). — ‘If he shifts his position, licks the ends of his mouth, perspires in his forehead, his face becomes pale, speech is dry and halting, talks much and inconsistently, is not pleasant in the eye or in his speech, twists his lips, the natural condition of his mind, speech and body becomes changed, — such a person, whether he be a complainant or a witness, should be regarded as at fault or wicked.’

Rāmāyaṇa (Vyavahāratattva, p. 31). — ‘The man cannot hide his internal feelings entirely, without showing some slight shadow of it in his external appearance; it becomes exposed even against his will.’

VERSE 8.26

Section IV - The Commencement of Trials

आकारैरिङ्गितैर्गत्या चेष्टया भाषितेन च ।
नेत्रवक्त्रविकारैश्च गृह्यतेऽन्तर्गतं मनः ॥२६॥

ākārairiṅgitairgatyā ceṣṭayā bhāṣitena ca |
netravaktravikāraiśca gṛhyate'ntargataṃ manaḥ ||26||

The inner mind is indicated by such variations as those of aspect, gait, gesture, speech, and by changes in the eye and the face. — (26)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What this verse does is to support, by ordinary experience, what has gone in the preceding verse; hence there is no repetition.

‘Ākāra’ is that which changes, variations; such as aspect and the rest.

‘Aspect’ has already been explained; the plural number is used in view of there being numerous individual aspects.

‘Gait,’ — this is in addition to what has gone in the preceding verse; it means the ordinary gait of a man being tripped or otherwise altered.

‘Speech’ — inconsistent and contradictory statements.

‘Changes in the face’ — the mouth being parched and so forth.

The rest has all been explained under the previous verse.

By means of the variations of all these the innermost heart is indicated even in ordinary life; such in brief is the meaning of the verse. — (26)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 260); — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 43); — in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 112); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (22a), which has the following notes: — ‘Iṅgita’ stands for perspiration, thrilling of the hair, — ‘vikāra’ of the eye, the look of love or anger, — ‘ceṣṭita’, throwing about of the hand and so forth, — ‘gatyā’ halting gait and so forth; — ‘ceṣṭita’, inconsistent and contradictory statements, — ‘vaktra vikāra’, drying of the mouth &c; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, p. 30b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.25-26)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.25.

VERSE 8.27 [Protection of the Interest of Minors (bāla)]

Section V - Protection of the Interest of Minors (bāla)

बालदायादिकं रिक्थं तावद् राजाऽनुपालयेत् ।
यावत् स स्यात् समावृत्तो यावत्चातीतशैशवः ॥२७॥

bāladāyādikaṃ rikthaṃ tāvad rājā'nupālayet |
yāvat sa syāt samāvṛtto yāvatcātītaśaiśavaḥ ||27||

The king shall take care of the property owned by a minor, till such time as he may return from the teacher’s house, or till he may have passed his minority. — (27)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

An objection is raised — “The subject that was introduced was the investigation of suits; where then was the occasion for the protecting of the property of minors?”

Answer. — This subject has been introduced here, just with a view to show that the property of minors does not come within the scope of legal proceedings; it has to be protected by the king, like his own property; otherwise the minor’s uncles and other relatives would quarrel among themselves, each asserting — ‘I shall take care of it.’ There is no connection of this subject with the present context. It has had to be introduced here, — and not along with the exclusive ‘Duties of the King,’ — because in regard to this people may have the notion that even such property may form the subject of legal proceedings.

‘Bāladāyādi’ — that of which a minor is the ‘dāyāda,’ i.e., owner, in which sense the term is used here. The property owned by minors shall be taken care of by the king, till such time as he may return from the teacher’s house, or till he may have passed his minority. This second alternative of passing the minority is meant for those who pass their childhood in their own home (and are not handed over to an Ācārya). In the case of one however who has entered the teacher’s house as a Religious Student, even though he may have passed his minority, his property shall have to be looked after until he returns from the teacher’s house. Or, the meaning may he that in the case of twice-born persons, the ‘return’ shall be the limit, while in that of others, it shall be the ‘passing of minority.’ — (27)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 598), which explains ‘Bāladāyāgatam’ as ‘belonging to a minor’ and ‘ānupālayet’ as ‘should guard it against co-parceners’; — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 244).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (10.48). — ‘The property of infants must be protected until they attain their majority or complete their studentship.’

Vaśiṣṭha (16.8-9). — ‘The King shall protect the property of persons unfit to transact business; — but when a minor comes of age, his property must be made over to him.’

Viṣṇu (3.65, Vivādaratnākara, p. 598). — ‘The King shall protect the property of infants, of people without protectors and of women.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 599). — ‘The King shall protect the property of infants, of persons unable to transact business, and of the wives of the Vedic Scholar and the Warrior. Ownerless properties revert to the King.’

Baudhāyana (Do.). — ‘Until sons are able to transact, business, they shall keep their property along with the accrued profits carefully till they attain majority.’

Agnipurāṇa (Rājadharma, 222.18-19). — (Same as Manu, reading ‘bālaputrāsu’ in place of ‘baśāputrāsu.’)

Kātyāyana (Do.). — ‘If a man dies leaving an infant, son, the relations shall protect his property.’

VERSE 8.28

Section V - Protection of the Interest of Minors (bāla)

वशाऽपुत्रासु चैवं स्याद् रक्षणं निष्कुलासु च ।
पतिव्रतासु च स्त्रीषु विधवास्वातुरासु च ॥२८॥

vaśā'putrāsu caivaṃ syād rakṣaṇaṃ niṣkulāsu ca |
pativratāsu ca strīṣu vidhavāsvāturāsu ca ||28||

There shall be similar protection in the case of barren women, of son-less women, of women devoted to their husbands, and of widows faithful to their husbands, — when their family is extinct, and when they are in distress. — (28)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Whoever may be without a protector, that person’s property shall he taken care of by the king; the ‘barren’ women and the rest being mentioned only by way of illustration. It is only thus that the ‘protection of the people’ becomes accomplished. The preceding verse lays down the period of time during which the said protection of the property is necessary.

‘Vaśā’ — barren woman.

‘Sonless woman’ — one who has no son, or whose son is incapable, or whose son is in a bad condition.

Between vaśā and aputrā we have the copulative compound.

“The barren woman also is sonless.”

True, but both have been mentioned for the purpose of showing that even though her husband he alive, the said woman may be looked after; as on account of her being superseded (by another wife taken by her husband), her husband may neglect her.

‘Whose family is extinct’; — this is added with a view to indicate those who have no protector in the shape of husband’s younger brother, or paternal or maternal uncle, and being women, are themselves incapable of looking after their own property, — and whose other relations are jealous of her property. Otherwise, as a rule, the character and property of women should be looked after by her relations; as has been thus declared — ‘On the husband lies the burden of supporting and protecting the woman, for which he is capable; when the husband’s family becomes extinct, and there is no man left and no standing, and there are no Sapiṇḍas even left, her father’s people become her protectors; when both families are extinct, the king is the supporter and protector of the woman’ (Nārada, 13-28 to 29).

When the woman herself is, somehow, capable of taking care of herself, then there is nothing done by the relations; it is in view of this that the text has added — ‘of women in distress’; — this epithet indicating inability. Others have explained the term ‘women in distress’ to mean ‘those whose husbands are in distress’; — even a woman whose husband is alive becomes a tit object for the king’s care, if her husband is incapable of taking care of her. This applies to the case of women in whose family there are no men left to take care of them. The epithet ‘whose family is extinct’ thus means ‘those who have no family, i.e., relations.’

Others have explained the term ‘niṣkulā’ to mean the misbehaved woman; of those women also the property acquired by means of their beauty has to be protected by the king.

According to this explanation the term ‘niṣkulā’ has to be taken by itself (and not as qualifying the other terms).

‘Widows faithful to their husbands’; — ‘vidhavā,’ ‘widow,’ is one whose husband is dead; — ‘dhava’ being a synonym for ‘husband’; and she who is deprived of the dhava is ‘vidhavā,’ ‘widow.’ Till such time as she remains faithful to her husband, she deserves to have her property looked after by the king. In the event of her being unfaithful, she does not deserve to have any property at all, as we read in another Smṛti text — ‘She who is bent upon doing injury, who is devoid of modesty, who wastes money, who is addicted to misconduct — such a woman does not deserve to have property.’ Such a woman is to be banished; and this ‘banishment’ shall be only in the form of being driven away from the main apartment of the home, and not in being driven away entirely; because even in the; case of such women as have become outcasts the scriptures have laid down that they shall be; provided with a separate dwelling-house, clothing and food: — ‘In the case of outcast women also, this same action should be taken; clothing, food and water should be provided for them and they should live near the house.’ In view of this, wherever.we find an injunction regarding the banishment of such women, — e.g., in such texts as ‘the woman’s entire property, etc., etc.,’ — the ‘banishment’ should be understood to be of the nature just explained. And she deserves to retain what she may have saved from the fond that is granted her; this the relatives shall not take away.

So far as the present treatise (of Manu) is concerned, in regard to such women what has been proscribed is supersession, and not. the confiscation of property; as has been declared (under 9.80) — ‘She who drinks wine, misbehaves, or is disobedient, or diseased, or mischievous, or wasteful, shall always he superseded.’ Hence on the strength of Manu’s text, the above-quoted text as to the; unfaithful wife not deserving any property has to be explained as follows:

“Such a woman shall not receive that property which she should have received on account of her super-session; that is, she shall not receive what has been enjoined as to be; given to her in the following text — ‘To the superseded wife shall he given a compensation for her supersession.’ But what may have been given to her before that shall not be taken away from her.”

Our opinion however is that in the case of the woman who is inimical to her husband, or addicted to misbehaviour, confiscation of property is only right, and proper; since in Manu also (9.78) it has been declared that — ‘She who disregards her husband when she is maddened, or drunk, or diseased, shall be abandoned for three months, having been deprived of her ornaments and clothes’; — i.e., she shall be deprived of her ornaments and clothes before being abandoned. — (28)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Niṣkulāsu’ — ‘Those women who have no brother-in-law, or uncle to take care of them’ (Medhātithi and Rāghavānanda); — ‘harlots’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi); — ‘those maidens whose family is extinct’ (Govindarāja); — ‘those who have no Sapiṇḍas’ (Kullūka).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 512), which adds the following notes: — ‘Vaśā’, barren woman, — ‘aputrā’, one who has lost her son, — ‘Niṣkulā’ one who has lost all her paternal and maternal relations.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (3.65). — (See under 27.)

Agnipurāṇa (Rājadharma, 222.20). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 8.29

Section V - Protection of the Interest of Minors (bāla)

जीवन्तीनां तु तासां ये तद् हरेयुः स्वबान्धवाः ।
तांशिष्यात्चौरदण्डेन धार्मिकः पृथिवीपतिः ॥२९॥

jīvantīnāṃ tu tāsāṃ ye tad hareyuḥ svabāndhavāḥ |
tāṃśiṣyātcauradaṇḍena dhārmikaḥ pṛthivīpatiḥ ||29||

While these women are alive, if their relatives should appropriate their property, — on them the righteous king shall inflict the punishment of thieves. — (29)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This ‘punishment of thieves’ has been laid down for those relatives who should appropriate the property of women. They appropriate her property in manifold wavs; giving out., for instance, that — ‘she is not mistress of herself as regards what she gives away and what she enjoys, — I am the real owner of the; property.’

It is in view of the possibility of people thinking that such misappropriators are not ‘thieves’ that the text lays down the ‘punishment of thieves’ for them.

‘While they are alive, if the relations’ — brother-in-law and others — ‘should appropriate their property, — on them the king shall inflict punishment,’ — shall punish them.

The ‘punishment of thieves’ is going to be described later on (verse 334) — ‘With whatever limb a thief operates against men, each of those limbs the King shall cut off, in order to prevent the repetition of the act.’

What the verse means is that the property of helpless women should be specially guarded against her own relations; guarding against thieves being the duty that has been laid down for the King as owing to the entire kingdom. — (29)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 2.147), in support of the view that except the husband, no co-parcener should lay hands upon the property of women during their life-time; — in Aparārka (p. 752), to the effect that when the woman is dead, her relations do have a right to her Strīdhana property; — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 512); and in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 70).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 752). — ‘While the woman is alive, her husband or sons or brother-in-law or relations have no power over her strīdhana; if they take it from her, they should be punished.’

Agnipnrāṇa (Rājadharma, 222.21). — (Same as Manu.)

VERSE 8.30 [Unclaimed Property]

Section VI - Unclaimed Property

प्रणष्टस्वामिकं रिक्थं राजा त्र्यब्दं निधापयेत् ।
अर्वाक् त्र्यब्दाद्द् हरेत् स्वामी परेण नृपतिर्हरेत् ॥३०॥

praṇaṣṭasvāmikaṃ rikthaṃ rājā tryabdaṃ nidhāpayet |
arvāk tryabdādd haret svāmī pareṇa nṛpatirharet ||30||

Property, the owner whereof has disappeared, the King shall keep for three years; up to three years the owner may receive it; but after that the King (shall take it). — (30)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When some one has lost something, — it having dropped on the ground while he was going along the road, or in the forest, — and the conservator of the forests, or some other official of the King, finds it and brings it to the King, — the King shall arrange for its safe keeping and have it kept exposed to view at the royal gate or on the public road, and made it known by heat of drum if any one has lost anything; or he shall have it kept in charge of keepers on the spot where it was found. For three years he shall thus keep it.

Then, before the lapse of three years, if some one reports with proofs that the property belongs to him, then it should he made over to him, after deducting the sixth part of it, which is said (in verse MM) to be the King’s share; and after the lapse of three years the King shall take the property into his own treasury.

That ‘riktha,’ ‘property,’ is said to be ‘praṇaṣṭasvāmika,’ of which the owner has ‘disappeared’ — i.e., cannot he traced.

‘Tryabdam’ denotes the aggregate of three years; the feminine affix being absent, just as it is in the compound ‘trivarṣam.’ The term ‘abda’ is synonymous with ‘year.’

‘Shall keep’ — shall have it deposited.

‘Up to three years,’ — i.e., before the period of three years is over, — ‘the owner may receive it,’ — assert, his ownership.

The term ‘arvāk,’ ‘up to’ denotes limit, and indicates priority of time or place.

Others have explained the sentence ‘the king shall lake it’ to convey the permission to him to enjoy the property. What these people mean is that even after the lapse of throe years, it would, not be right for the King to ‘take’ or possess what belongs to another person; and hence what is meant is that after the lapse of three years, if the lightful owner does not turn up, the King shall enjoy the usufruct of the property.

But how will these people explain the verse ‘Whatever an owner sees enjoyed by others during ten years, and though present, says nothing, that he shall not recover’ (8.117)? Further, if it he asserted that the ‘taking away’ of another man’s property cannot be right, — then the using also of such property cannot be right. Specially as another man’s property in the shape of clothing and the like, becomes unfit by use. For these reasons it is only right that the mention of ‘taking away’ should he taken to mean actual possession; specially as enjoyment, which is the fruit of possession, would be present (according to the other view also). Then again, what sort of ‘enjoyment of usufruct’ would there ho in the case of such property as the elephant, the house and the like?

Thus then, there is no reason for abandoning the direct literal meaning of the words; specially as the root ‘hṛ,’ ‘to take away,’ has often been found to be used in the sense of possession, as in such phrase ‘riktham haret,’ ‘shall take possession of the property.’ Hence what the sentence means is that after three years the King shall ‘take’ — i.e., take possession of — the property. — (30)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This rule is meant for only such property as does not belong to a Brāhmaṇa — says Nandana.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 778), which notes that the rule (relating to the keeping of the property for three years) pertains to the case of property belonging to Brāhmaṇas with exceptional qualifications; — in Mitākṣarā on 2.38, which notes that the meaning is that for three years, the property must be kept in safe custody; if the owner turns up before the lapse of one year, the entire property should be handed over to him; but if he turns up after one year then a portion of the property is to be taken by the king as fee for keeping it; the proportion being specified below in verse 33; it adds that the last clause, permits the king to spend the property after three years, only in the case of the owner not turning up at all. — It is quoted again under 1.173, where it is noted that the period of three years is meant for the case of the owner being a Brāhmaṇa ‘endowed with learning and character.’

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 226), which notes that this only permits the king to make use of the property (not to make it his own). In view of what the Mitākṣarā and Aparārka have said, it is interesting to note that Madnapārijāta reads ‘abdam’ and ‘abdāt’, which clearly puts down the period as one year only.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 87), which also notes that the rules refer to the property of a Brāhmaṇa learned in the Veda.

This is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 266), which adds the following notes: — Reading this text along with Yājñavalkya (2-33), we take the rule to be that, if the owner turns up before the lapse of one year, the entire property should be made over to him, but if after that, the king should take from it his own share; — for three years he should keep the property in the same condition in which it was found; and after that he is permitted to spend out of it; — and if the owner turns up after three years, then the king should take out of it his own share, which should be equal to that of the owner, — giving the fourth part of the royal share to the man who found the property.

It is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Āhnika, p. 36a and Vyavahāra, p. 27b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (10.36-38). — ‘Those who find lost, property, the owner of which is not known, shall report it to the King. The King shall cause it to be proclaimed and hold it in his custody for a year. After that one-fourth of the value of the property goes to the finder and the remainder to the King.’

Vaśiṣṭha (16.19-20). — ‘Property entirely given up goes to the King. If it be otherwise, the King with his ministers and the citizens shall administer it.’

Yājñavalkya (2.33). — ‘The property lost and found, the King shall make over to him to whom it belongs; if he fails to substantiate with proofs his claim to it, he shall he punished with fine equal to the value of the property.’

Do. (2.172). — ‘If a man obtains from another person the property that had been stolen or lost, — without reporting it to the King — he should he fined 96 Paṇas.’

Yājñavalkya (2.173). — ‘When a stolen or lost property is brought to the King by the customs-officers or by village-officers, the owner thereof shall get it if he turns up before one year; after that the King shall take it himself.’

Agnipurāṇa (Rājadharma, 222.16-17). — (Same as Manu.)

Arthaśāstra (p. 96). — ‘If the owner of the lost property proves his ownership, he obtains what had been lost and recovered. If he fails to prove his ownership, he is fined the fifth part of the value of the article: and the article becomes the lawful property of the King; if the owner takes forcible possession of the article lost and found, he is to he fined the first amercement. Property lost and found should remain deposited in the Customs Office; and after three fortnights, it is to he handed over to the rightful owner or surrendered to the royal treasury.’

VERSE 8.31

Section VI - Unclaimed Property

ममैदमिति यो ब्रूयात् सोऽनुयोज्यो यथाविधि ।
संवाद्य रूपसङ्ख्यादीन् स्वामी तद् द्रव्यमर्हति ॥३१॥

mamaidamiti yo brūyāt so'nuyojyo yathāvidhi |
saṃvādya rūpasaṅkhyādīn svāmī tad dravyamarhati ||31||

He who says ‘this is mine’ should be questioned in proper form; and the owner ought to receive the property after having correctly described the colour, the number and other details regarding it. — (31)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author explains in what, manner the rightful owner shall establish bis ownership over the lost property.

Whenever any one comes and says ‘this is my property,’ ‘he should be questioned in proper form.’ — ‘Questioned,’ i.e., examined.

“What is the proper form of questioning?”

The questioning could be done in the following manner: — What is the article that has been lost? Of what colour? Of what size? What is the number of things? Was it dropped or not dropped? If it was dropped, at which place was it dropped? Whence did you obtain it?

If he gives a correct account of the colour, number and other details; ‘colour’ of animals, clothes and the like: ‘the cow or the cloth lost was white’; similarly the ‘number’: ‘there were ten cows or yokes.’ ‘Other details’ — such as, e.g., if it was gold what was its weight, if it was in a lump or a definite shape. If he gives a correct account of all this, then he establishes his ownership, and as such ‘ought to receive the property.’

An ‘account’ is called ‘correct,’ when it is found that what it describes is in exact agreement with what is known by other means of knowledge.

The mention of ‘colour, number and other details’ is only by way of illustration, and; implies also the producing of witnesses and other evidence of ownership. — (31)

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США