with the Commentary of Medhatithi 217 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 223 из 350Следующая ⇒

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘amercement’ is to be construed also with the terms ‘middling’ and ‘highest’; though in other treatises these two terms are found to be used by themselves also: — e.g., the punishment with these is the ‘Highest.’ From the point of view of the scriptures, and also from the juxtaposition of the words, they are to be regarded as qualifying ‘amercement.’

The words of the text are quite clear. — (138)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Sahasram’ — “Copper paṇas are meant” — Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (1.366), which remarks that the fines here prescribed pertain to offences committed unintentionally; — in Aparārka, (p. 592), which adds that these pertain to slight offences; — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 665); — in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 295), which reproduces the words of Aparārka; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 938); — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 192), which says that the numbers refer to copper kārṣāpaṇas.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (4.14). — ‘250 copper Paṇas constitute the first amercement; 500 Paṇas the middlemost amercement; 1,000 Paṇas, the highest amercement.’

Yājñavalkya (1.364). — ‘1,080 Paṇas constitute the highest amercement; 540 Paṇas, the middlemost; — 270 Paṇas, the lowest.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p. 664). — ‘From 24 to 91 is the first amercement, 200 to 500, the middlemost amercement; 600 to 1,000, the highest amercement; to he determined in accordance with the resources of the culprit and the nature of his offence.’

Nārada (Do.). — ‘24 to 96 is the first amercement; 200 to 500, the middlemost; 500 to 1,000 the highest.’

VERSE 8.139

Section XXIV - Grades Of Fine

ऋणे देये प्रतिज्ञाते पञ्चकं शतमर्हति ।
अपह्नवे तद् द्विगुणं तन् मनोरनुशासनम् ॥१३९॥

ṛṇe deye pratijñāte pañcakaṃ śatamarhati |
apahnave tad dviguṇaṃ tan manoranuśāsanam ||139||

On the debt being admitted to be due, the debtor deserves (a fine of) five per cent.; and in the case of denial, twice as much; such is the ordinance of manu. — (139)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When the debtor, on being summoned to the King’s Court, admits the debt as legally due by him, saying — ‘I do really owe this to him,’ — then ‘i.e., deserves five per cent.’ ‘as fine’; — this has to be added. By this rule, the man is to be fined the twentieth part of the amount of debt claimed. The man deserves this fine on account of his having transgressed the law by not satisfying the creditor’s claims outside the Court and thereby forcing him to come up to the king.

When the man commits a further transgression by denying the claim, saying — ‘I do not owe anything to this person,’ — then, on the claim being proved, the man is to be fined ‘twice as much’; i.e., double of five per cent.; i.e., ten per cent.

‘Such is the ordinance of Manu’ — Prajāpati; i.e., the Rule or Law propounded by him from the very beginning of creation.

Others have explained the term ‘as much’ as referring to the total amount of the claim, i.e., double the sum that is due to the debtor; as it is only thus that the syntactical connection with the term ‘debt’ is maintained; otherwise there is a syntactical split; and as no different subject has been mentioned, if it referred to the same subject, then the result would be an option.

This however is not right; for the double of the amount of debt would he too much. Even though the subject is not definitely mentioned, yet on account of juxtaposition, it is only right that it should be taken as referring to ‘five per cent.’ — (139)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Taddviguṇam’ — ‘Double of 5 p. c., i.e., 10 p. c.’ This is the explanation, accepted by all the commentators. But Medhātithi mentions ‘others’ as explaining the meaning to be ‘double of the amount of the debt’ This latter would be more in keeping with what has gone before in verse 59.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 77), which adds the following notes: — The meaning is as follows: If the debt is at first denied, and subsequently admitted, then the debtor should be fined 5 per cent on the amount of debt; but if he does not admit it even subsequently — and yet the debt becomes proved by the evidence adduced, — then the man shall be fined the ‘double of that,’ i.e., 10 per cent. It proceeds to add a note which serves to explain the inconsistency of this rule with what has gone in verse 59: — the diversity is due to considerations of the nature of the debtor’s motives.

It is quoted in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 34), which adds the explanation that ‘when a debt is denied at first and subsequently admitted, the debtor is to he fined 5 per cent, and if the man continues to deny the debt which is subsequently proved, the fine is to be 10 per cent; and adds that this refers to cases where the debtor is poor’; — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (81a), which has the following explanation: — (a) If the man has denied the debt but admits it when sued in Court, then he is to be fined 5 p. c., (b) if he continues to deny it in the Court, but the debt is subsequently proved, then the fine is 10 per cent; — this refers to cases where the former denial has been based upon some misapprehension on the part of the debtor; the case where the denial is through perversity and intentional, has been dealt with under 59.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 111a), which explains the meaning to be ‘when the man having denied the debt at first, admits it when sued and brought before the Court, he should pay a fine of 5 p. c. and if he continues to deny it, but is subsequently forced by evidence to admit, then 10 p. c.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (6.20-22). — ‘If a creditor goes before the King and fully proves his demand, the debtor shall pay as fine to the King a tenth part of the sum proved. The creditor, on receiving the sum, shall pay the twentieth part of it. If the whole demand has been contested by the debtor, and even a part of it has been proved against him, he must pay the whole.’

Yājñavalkya (2.44). — ‘Out of the sum proved against him, the King shall make the debtor pay ten per cent, (as fine) and the creditor, on having realised his dues, shall pay five per cent,’

Nārada (1.132-134). — ‘If a wealthy debtor, from malice) refuses to pay his debt, the King shall compel him to pay it by forcible means, and shall take five in the hundred for himself. If the debtor acknowledges the debt with his own mouth, the King shall take from him ten per cent, of the debt as fine; and twice as much if he has been convicted. If the debtor, owing to a calamity, has not means sufficient to discharge the whole debt, the claim of the creditor shall be entered in a legal document, specifying the caste of the debtor and of the creditor, their names, and the names of their neighbours.’

Bṛhaspati (11.60-02). — ‘When the time fixed for pay ment has elapsed, and the accruing of interest has ceased, the creditor may either recover his loan or cause a new bond to bo written in the form of compound interest. This rule concerns an acknowledged debt; but a debtor denying his liability shall be compelled to pay, on the debt being proved in a court, by a document or by witnesses.’

Yama (Vivādaratnākara, p. 78). — ‘If a wealthy debtor refuses to repay the debt, through ill-will, he should be compelled by the King to pay, after having realised from him double the amount of the claim.’

VERSE 8.140 [Rates of Interest]

Section XXV - Rates of Interest

वसिष्ठविहितां वृद्धिं सृजेद् वित्तविवर्धिनीम् ।
अशीतिभागं गृह्णीयान् मासाद् वार्धुषिकः शते ॥१४०॥

vasiṣṭhavihitāṃ vṛddhiṃ sṛjed vittavivardhinīm |
aśītibhāgaṃ gṛhṇīyān māsād vārdhuṣikaḥ śate ||140||

The money-lender shall stipulate an interest sanctioned by Vasiṣṭha, for increasing the capital. He shall take monthly the eightieth part of a hundred. — (140)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘He shall take, etc.’ (the second half of the verse) represents the injunction; and what is said regarding its being ‘sanctioned by Vasiṣṭha’ is merely commendatory; — the sense being that ‘Vasiṣṭha, the revered sage, cognisant of all that happens at the three points of time and devoid of greed, accepted interest, hence it is commendable.’ ‘By its means one’s capital increases, and yet there is no impropriety in it on the ground of its being indicative of greed.

‘Stipulate,’ — Employ; at the time that he is advancing money to the debtor, he should clearly stipulate the rate of interest.

In the case of all things that can be counted or measured, — such as clothes, grains, gold and so forth- the rate of interest is to be as here laid down. In the case of liquor, however, the rate of interest has been declared to be eight times of the principal, — and this is an exception to the limit that the total amount of the debt shall not exceed the double of the principal, as we shall explain later on. — (140)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This rule, here attributed to Vasiṣṭha, actually occurs in Vasiṣṭha-Dharmaśāstra, 2.51.

“According to Kullūka, (on 142), Nārāyaṇa, Rāghavānanda and Nandana, this rule refers to a debt secured by a pledge, find the correctness of this view is proved by the parallel passage of Yājñavalkya (2.37).” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara, p. 7, which explains ‘māsāt’ as ‘after the lapse of one month,’ and adds that this refers to debt that is secured by a pledge that can be enjoyed (by the creditor).

Smṛtitattva (p. 349) quotes the second half and adds that ‘of 100 kārṣāpaṇas’, the ‘eightieth part’ would be 20 paṇas.

It is quoted in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 420), which explains ‘aśītibhāgam’ as 20 paṇas; — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 325); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 91b), which says that this refers to cases of mortgage, and the meaning is that when 100 rupees have been advanced, the creditor should charge 1¼ rupee after the lapse of one month.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.140-142)

Gautama (12.29-30). — ‘The legal interest for money lent is five māṣas a month for twenty kārṣāpaṇas. Some declare that this rate should not he paid longer than one year.’

Vaśiṣṭha (2.48). — ‘They quote the following — 2, 3, 4 or 5, in the hundred, he may take as interest per month, according to the order of the castes.’

Vaśiṣṭha (2.51). — ‘The interest for a money-lender declared by Vaśiṣṭha is five māṣas for twenty Kāṛṣāpanas, per month.’

Yājñavalkya (2.37). — ‘In the case of loans with pledges, the interest per month shall be the eightieth part; in those without pledges, it shall be 2, 3, 4 or 5 per cent, respectively for the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya, the Vaiśya and the Śūdra.’

Nārada (1.99-101). — ‘Let a money-lender take, in addition to the principal, the interest fixed by Vaśiṣṭha, viz., an eightieth part of a hundred every month. 2, 3, or 5 (in the hundred) is the legitimate rate of interest; let him take as much in the shape of interest, every month, in the direct order of the four castes. Or let him take 2 in the 100, remembering the practice of the virtuous.

Bṛhaspati (11.3). — ‘An eightieth part of the principal accrues as interest on it every month; and it is doubled by such interest within six years and eight months.’

Artha-Śāstra (p. 61). — ‘The legal interest, per month, on every 100 Paṇas, is 1¼ Paṇas; it is 5 Paṇas in business transactions; 10 Paṇas for people trading in forests; and 20 Paṇas for those trading on the seas.’

Viṣṇu (6.1-5). — ‘A creditor shall receive his principal back from his debtor exactly as he had lent it to him. As regards interest, he shall take, in the direct order of the castes, 2, 3, 4 or 5 percent., per month, if no pledge has been given; or the debtor of any caste may pay as much as has been promised by him. After the lapse of one year, let them pay interest according to the afore-mentioned rule, even though it may not have been agreed upon. By the use of the pledge, interest becomes forfeited.’

VERSE 8.141

Section XXV - Rates of Interest

द्विकं शतं वा गृह्णीयात् सतां धर्ममनुस्मरन् ।
द्विकं शतं हि गृह्णानो न भवत्यर्थकिल्बिषी ॥१४१॥

dvikaṃ śataṃ vā gṛhṇīyāt satāṃ dharmamanusmaran |
dvikaṃ śataṃ hi gṛhṇāno na bhavatyarthakilbiṣī ||141||

Or, remembering the duty of the righteous, he may take two in the hundred; by taking two per cent. he does not incur the sin of extortion. — (141)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Two in the hundred’, — i.e., for each hundred an interest of two is paid.

This rule permitting an interest of two per cent, is for that money-lender who, having a large family, is unable to maintain them if he charges only the rate laid down in the preceding verse.

The term ‘monthly’ (of the preceding verse) has to be construed with this also.

‘Remembering, etc.’; — all this is merely commendatory. The meaning is that the taking of this interest also is within the province of the conduct of good men; so that by charging it one does not lose his righteousness.

The author proceeds to show that such a money-lender is not regarded as greedy of wealth — ‘He does not incur the sin of extortion’; the sin involved in unlawfully taking what belongs to another is called ‘the sin of extortion’; and he who does such an act is said to ‘incur the sin of extortion.’ — (141)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This applies to debts not secured by a pledge — say Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda; — according to Medhātithi this higher rate is permitted for those who have a large family to support and hence require a huge income from their loan-transactions.

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 349), which adds that ‘Dvikam’ means two Purāṇas; — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 8); — in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 420), which explains ‘Dvikam’ as Purāṇas; — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (81a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.140-142)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.140.

VERSE 8.142

Section XXV - Rates of Interest

द्विकं त्रिकं चतुष्कं च पञ्चकं च शतं समम् ।
मासस्य वृद्धिं गृह्णीयाद् वर्णानामनुपूर्वशः ॥१४२॥

dvikaṃ trikaṃ catuṣkaṃ ca pañcakaṃ ca śataṃ samam |
māsasya vṛddhiṃ gṛhṇīyād varṇānāmanupūrvaśaḥ ||142||

He may charge just two, three, four or five per cent. per month from the four castes respectively. — (142)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

From the four castes, Brāhmaṇa and the rest, respectively, he shall charge the four rates, two per cent, and so forth. These four rates are sanctioned in relation to the four castes respectively.

‘Just,’ — i.e., not exceeding by even a half or a quarter. This term has been added to preclude the idea that the expression ‘two per cent.’ may be applicable to ‘two and a quarter’ or ‘two and a half.’ Just as the shortest alteration, even by a single syllable, of a name makes the name a totally different one (so the addition of even a quarter would make the rate totally different).

This also is an alternative open to the man who cannot maintain his family at the former rate of interest; or to one who has only a small capital; or to cases where the borrowers are not specially righteous persons.

The propriety of this would be analogous to the act of doing a righteous act with the money extorted from wicked persons.

For ‘samam,’ ‘just,’ another reading is ‘samām.’

This rate of interest however is to be charged for one year only, and not beyond that; as the rates being high, the principal might become more than doubled. — (142)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This rule is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 8), which adds the following notes: — ‘Dvikam’ means ‘that in which two Purāṇas per month are charged’; so with ‘trika’ and the other terms. — From the Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra, one should charge an interest of two, three, four and five Purāṇas respectively, for every hundred of the debt; — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 320); — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (67b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.140-142)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.140.

VERSE 8.143 [Pledges (ādhi)]

Section XXVI - Pledges (ādhi)

न त्वेवाधौ सोपकारे कौसीदीं वृद्धिमाप्नुयात् ।
न चाधेः कालसंरोधात्निसर्गोऽस्ति न विक्रयः ॥१४३॥

na tvevādhau sopakāre kausīdīṃ vṛddhimāpnuyāt |
na cādheḥ kālasaṃrodhātnisargo'sti na vikrayaḥ ||143||

But when there is profitable pledge, he shall receive no interest on the loan; and there shall be neither transference nor sale of the pledge, merely by the lapse of time. — (143)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Money-lending is done in various forms — with pledge as well as without pledge. Pledge also is of two kinds — to be used and to be kept. That to be used is again of two kinds — (a) that in which the profit consists in some form of product of the pledged article and (b) that which is used as it stands; the milch cow belongs to the former class, and wrought gold, etc., to the latter.

What is said here regarding the case ‘when there is profitable pledge’ refers to the pledge to be used.

The ‘profitable pledge’ is of various kinds, such as the milch cow, fields, gardens and so forth.

While such a pledge is being used by the money-lender, ‘he shall receive no interest,’ such as that laid down in the foregoing verses — ‘on the loan.’ That is, he who is deriving a profit from the pledge shall receive no other kind of interest.

In the case of the pledge to be kept also, ‘merely by the lapse of time,’ — simply because a longtime has elapsed, — even becoming doable of its former size, and the pledge remains unredeemed, — ‘there shall be neither transference nor selling.’ ‘Transference’ consists in the article being duly made over to another person. Even though already doubled, the principal, even on the transference of the pledge, shall continue to grow: as is going to be declared later on — ‘sakṛdāhṛta,’ etc. ‘Selling’ is well known. This also shall not be done.

“What then is to be done in such cases?”

The man shall continue to use (derive proñt from) the pledge, till the principal has become doubled and repaid; when it shall be redeemed. When the doubled principal has been repaid, the pledge ‘to be used’ shall cease to be used, and that ‘to be kept’ shall be returned. The pledge ‘to be used’ shall remain with the creditor till the debt is repaid, — unless there is some damage. If there is some damage done, and the creditor somehow has become too poor, having no other property except that pledged article, then, having waited for some time, he shall report it to the king and sell the article; and from the sale-proceeds he shall take an amount which is just the double of his principal, and hand over to a middle-man the balance for being paid over to the debtor.

“But it is declared that — ‘if on the principal having been doubled, the pledge is not redeemed, it becomes lost (forfeited)’ (Yājñavalkya, Vyavahāra, 58)”

This we are going to explain. As a matter of fact, this ‘forfeiture’ or ‘loss’ does.not mean that the former owner entirely loses his ownership, and the person having it acquires ownership over it. For when there can be no ‘transference or sale,’ what sort of ‘ownership’ would the man acquire? Hence, by virtue of the said prohibition of ‘transference or sale,’ the ‘loss’ or ‘forfeiture’ must he taken to mean that the creditor who may have ceased to use it becomes entitled to use it again. Or the term ‘loss’ may he taken as referring to such things as clothes and the like, which naturally become ‘lost’ (perished) by using; and which cannot continue to be used even when they have lost their original form, — in the manner in which lands and other such things can continue to be. It is in this sense that the Smṛti has to be explained.

In fact, the term ‘loss’ has been used in the figurative sense, of permitting the use of it; while the prohibition of ‘transference and sale’ must be taken in its literal sense; as this latter is not capable of being understood in a figurative sense. It is in this sense that, we have another Smṛti text to the effect that ‘there shall be no selling or handing over of pledges, etc., etc.’ What is spoken of as ‘handing over’ in this text is the same as ‘transference,’ as is clear from its being mentioned along with ‘sale,’ — both of them being similar in certain respects. — (143)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“According to Medhātithi Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa, the last clause refers to pledges which are not used; but Kullūka objects that this is contrary to the common practice of the Śiṣṭas; and Rāghavānanda refers to Yājñavalkya, 2.48. where it is clearly stated that beneficial pledges only are never lost, while those which are merely kept are lost when the original debt is doubled by unpaid interest.” — Buhler.

The first part of this verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 23), which explains ‘sopakāre’ as ‘what is used or enjoyed’; — in Aparārka (p. 659); — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 15), which explains ‘sopakāre’ as ‘used’ or ‘enjoyed,’ and the mere fact of the thing having been used deprives the creditor of the interest, and if, through some act of the creditor, the article mortgaged loses its usefulness, the interest ceases; — in Kṛtyakalpataru (70a); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 95a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.143-144)

Gautama (12-32). — ‘A loan secured by a pledge that is used by the creditor bears no interest.’

Viṣṇu (6.5). — ‘If the pledge is used, interest becomes forfeited.’

Nārada (l.125-229). — ‘A pledge is of two kinds — one to be kept, and one for use. It must be preserved in the same condition in which it was given; otherwise, the pledgee loses interest...... A pledge must not be used forcibly; by so using it, the pledgee forfeits the interest due to him. That foolish person who uses a pledge without the authority of the owner, shall lose one half of his interest, as a compensation for such use. If a pledge for use has been given, the creditor must not take interest due on the loan.’

Bṛhaspati (11.18 et seq.). — ‘Should the creditor, actuated by avarice, use a pledge before interest has ceased to accrue on the loan, or before the stipulated period has expired, such use shall be stopped. The pledge has to be kept carefully, like a deposit; interest becomes forfeited in the event of its being damaged. If the pledge is used and rendered worthless, the principal itself becomes forfeited; if a very valuable pledge be spoilt, the creditor must satisfy the pledger.’

Yājñavalkya (2.59). — ‘There is no interest payable, if a pledge given as deposit is used, or if a pledge given for use is destroyed; if it is spoilt or lost, it should be replaced; except when such loss has been due to an act of god or the King.’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 659). — ‘If the pledge in the form of gold and the like, has been destroyed by the fault of the creditor, the debtor shall pay the principal along with the interest accrued, and the creditor shall be made to pay the value of the pledge to the debtor.’

Kātyāyana (Do.). — ‘If the pledgee makes use of the pledge without authorisation, he shall pay the price of such use; or else, he shall forfeit the interest.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 3). — ‘The man who uses the pledge should pay the price of such use; also a fine of 12 paṇas; if, by such use, the pledge becomes lost or spoilt, the user should replace it, and also be fined 21 paṇas; so also when the pledge becomes lost in any other way. A pledge given for use should not be allowed to be destroyed; nor in this case should any interest accrue; if it is given for mere keeping and not for use, then interest shall accrue.’

VERSE 8.144

Section XXVI - Pledges (ādhi)

न भोक्तव्यो बलादाधिर्भुञ्जानो वृद्धिमुत्सृजेत् ।
मूल्येन तोषयेच्चैनमाधिस्तेनोऽन्यथा भवेत् ॥१४४॥

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры