with the Commentary of Medhatithi 221 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 227 из 350Следующая ⇒

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 72), as laying down one of the methods of ‘compound interest.’ It adds the following notes: — ‘Nirjitām,’ legally due to the creditor; of this accrued interest he should pay either the whole, or a part only, and add the remainder to the principal and renew the bond for the total; — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 19b); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (80a), which explains ‘nirjitām’ as ‘determined to have already accrued to the creditor,’ — and ‘karaṇ am parivartayet’ as ‘should write another document attested by fresh witnesses’; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 104a).

At the end of Adhyāya VIII, Mandlik has printed the following verse with Medhātithi’s explanation thereupon —

atha śaktivihīnaḥ syād ṛṇī kālaviparyayāt |
śakyaprekṣam ṛṇaṃ dāpyaḥ kāle deśe yathodayam||

This verse, though commented upon by Medhātithi, has been omitted by all other commentators.

It is found in Nārada (131.) It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 71) as from Nārada; it explains ‘Śaktivihīnaḥ’ as ‘without ability to repay the debt,’ and ‘kālaviparyayāt’ as ‘on account of famine and so forth.’

The verse is not Manu’s, it is Nārada’s; and it has been only quoted by Medhātithi and explained by him in course of his comment on verse 159.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.154-155)

Nārada (1.131, 134). — ‘When a debtor has been disabled by a reverse of fortune (from paying the debt), he shall be made to discharge the debt gradually, according to bis means, as he happens to gain wealth. 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 parties), their names and names of their neighbours.’

Bṛhaspati (11.47, 60). — ‘A loan shall be restored on demand, if no time has been fixed; or on the expiry of the time, if time has been fixed; or when interest ceases. When the time fixed for payment has elapsed, and the interest has ceased, the creditor may either recover his loan or cause a new bond to be written in the form of compound interest.’

Bhāradvāja (Parāśaramādhava-Vyava., p. 193). — ‘If the debtor has no money to repay the debt, he shall liquidate it by giving grains, gold, or cattle, or clothes, slaves or conveyances.’

VERSE 8.155

Section XXVII - Limitation of Interest (kusīdavṛddhi)

अदर्शयित्वा तत्रैव हिरण्यं परिवर्तयेत् ।
यावती सम्भवेद् वृद्धिस्तावतीं दातुमर्हति ॥१५५॥

adarśayitvā tatraiva hiraṇyaṃ parivartayet |
yāvatī sambhaved vṛddhistāvatīṃ dātumarhati ||155||

Not having brought forward the gold, he should renew the bond; and he should pay as much interest as may be possible. — (155)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Not having brought forward’ — paid up — ‘the gold,’ — i.e., the amount of gold due as interest, — ‘he should renew the bond’; — i.e., in the presence of witnesses he should make the declaration — ‘I owe this man so much principal and so much interest,’ — and should put this down in writing also; entering the amount of interest for one year; — so explain some people.

And in the new bond, when the principal along with accrued interest has been entered as the principal, the rate of interest stipulated should he very low; just such as may not become too much of a burden for the man; that is, it should be lower than the former rate.

Yajvan, Asahāya and Nārada hold that at the time of the renewal of the bond the debtor should be made to pay even a shell, if he is able to do so; so that the witnesses may not be witnesses to a mere verbal statement, but to the actual payment of even a small amount as interest; so that they actually see the money-transaction; and when they come to be examined, — which may be any time during ten years, — they may have their mind firm, on account of being able to recall what they had heard and also actually seen with their eyes. — (155)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 73), which adds the following notes: — ‘adarśayitvā hiraṇyam’, not bringing up the gold for payment, — not even a single pice, — and hence not paying even the interest, he should add the accrued interest to the original principal, and making this total the new principal, he should enter it in the new bond that he should write. Though the entire interest is actually due to be paid at the time, yet, if he is unable to pay the whole, he may pay just that much of it which he may be able to pay; — this is what is meant by the clause ‘yāvatī sambhavet etc.’

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 194), which adds the following explanation: — ‘Hiraṇyam adarśayitvā’, — not having paid the interest that has been earned, — he should have it included in that same bond; — in Kṛtyakalpataru (80a), which explains ‘hiraṇyam adarśayitvā’ as ‘not paying any part of the accrued interest to the Creditor,’ the meaning is that he should pay as much of the accrued interest as hew can, and then make out a fresh document; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 104a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.154-155)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.154.

VERSE 8.156

Section XXVII - Limitation of Interest (kusīdavṛddhi)

चक्रवृद्धिं समारूढो देशकालव्यवस्थितः ।
अतिक्रामन् देशकालौ न तत्फलमवाप्नुयात् ॥१५६॥

cakravṛddhiṃ samārūḍho deśakālavyavasthitaḥ |
atikrāman deśakālau na tatphalamavāpnuyāt ||156||

When a man has entered into a ‘wheel-contract’ wtth reference to a particular place or time, — if he fails in regard to the place or time, he shall not suffer its reward. — (156)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘I am going to Benares, — my purpose being the acquiring of merit as well as trading in vessels; and such and such an amount shall be the interest paid upon the wheeled conveyance you supply’; — this contract having been entered into, if the man does not actually proceed to Benares, being forced back with only a little profit, by difficulties in the form of forests, river-crossings and anarchism, — then he should not be made to pay the entire amount of interest stipulated; for how can the reward that would be due to those who have gone to Benares be due to those who never went to that place? When the oxen go a long distance, it involves much labour on their part; so that it is right that the reward of their owner should he commensurate with that labour; but when they have returned sooner than stipulated, it is open to the owner to make further profit on them by hiring them out afresh.

This is what is meant by ‘failure’ in the text.

Similarly as regards time also, the contract being — ‘These oxen may work for me for a month, and your interest shall be so much,’ — if the man returns the bullocks in a fortnight (the man does not have to pay the full reward).

In both these cases, the debtor has ‘entered into the wheel-ccntract’ — i.e., accepted its terms — and in this contract a special place or time has been stipulated, — if then, on account of reasons described above, he has not kept up to the stipulated place or time, and has thus ‘failed’ in regard to them, — ‘he shall not suffer’ — have to pay — ‘the reward,’ in the form of the stipulated interest. — (156)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Cakarvṛddhi’; — ‘Interest on wheeled carriage’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); — ‘compound interest’ (Nārāyaṇa as also ‘others’ in Medhātithi on verse 157).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 73), which gives a totally different explanation: — ‘Deśakālavyavosthitaḥ cakravṛddhim samārūḍhaḥ’ means ‘having entered into an agreement regarding cakravṛddhi’ to the effect that “at such and such a place and time I shall take döuble this amount,” — if the creditor asks for repayment of his dues with compound interest, before the stipulated time, or at a place other than the stipulated one, then he shall not receive his dues with compound interest;’ — in Kṛtyakalpataru (80a), which explains ‘samārūḍha’ as ‘stipulated, agreed upon,’ and ‘tatphalam’ as the effect of the cakravṛddhi; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 104a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.156-157)

Arthaśāstra (p. 64). — ‘For 100 Paṇas, the proper interest is ¼ Paṇa; 5 Paṇas for traders; 10 Paṇas for dealers in forests; 20 Paṇas for dealers on the seas.’

Yājñavalkya (2-38). — ‘Dealers in forests should pay 10 per cent., and dealers on the seas, 20 per cent.; or men may pay to all castes whatever interest may have been agreed upon by themselves.’

VERSE 8.157

Section XXVII - Limitation of Interest (kusīdavṛddhi)

समुद्रयानकुशला देशकालार्थदर्शिनः ।
स्थापयन्ति तु यां वृद्धिं सा तत्राधिगमं प्रति ॥१५७॥

samudrayānakuśalā deśakālārthadarśinaḥ |
sthāpayanti tu yāṃ vṛddhiṃ sā tatrādhigamaṃ prati ||157||

As regards the exact amount to be paid, the interest shall be that which is fixed by persons expert in sea-voyages, and those capable of calculating the profits in connection with a particular place and time. — (157)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verso is an answer to the question — “In the case cited above, is there to be paid no interest at all? Or is it to be 5 per cent?”

‘Sea-voyage’ has been mentioned only by way of illustration; the sense is that whatever interest is fixed by traders who know all about journey by land and water, should be determined as the exact amount to be paid.

‘Those capable of calculating the profits in connection with a particular place and time,’ — persons who know what amount of profit is to be made whore, — and not only those, pilots and others, who are expert in sea-voyages.

Others have explained the foregoing verses in the following manner, making gratuitous additions to its words: — The last verse (157) is in answer to the question. — “In a case where the debtor has entered into a contract on the strength of profits to be made at a particular place or time, — but on reaching that place, he does not make the profit that he had expected, — then what amount of interest should he pay?” And the mention of the term ‘cakravṛddhi’ (which, in this interpretation would not mean ‘wheel-interest,’ but ‘compound interest,’ which the debtor agrees to pay, on expectation of large profits) would include the ‘privately stipulated’ interest also. In such a case, the king shall decide as due that amount of interest which may be fixed by those tradesmen who know each other’s circumstances and the chances of profit and loss.

‘As regards the exact amount to be paid,’ ‘adhigamam prati,’ — ‘Prati’ is a proposition denoting ‘indication,’ and as such governs the Accusative in ‘adhigamam,’ according to Pāṇini 1.4.90.

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 11), which adds that the term ‘Samudrayānakuśalāḥ’ stands for all merchants; — ‘deśakālārthadarśinaḥ,’ those who know that in such and such a country such and such profit is to be made; — ‘adhigama’ is ‘decision’ i.e., ‘by that is the interest to be determined;’ — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (68a), which has the following notes: — ‘Samudrayānakuśalāḥ’ stands for tradesmen in general, — ‘deśakālārthadarśinaḥ,’ one who knows what profit is obtained at what time, — ‘adhigama’ is decision, finding.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.156-157)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.156.

VERSE 8.158 [Sureties (pratibhū)]

Section XXVIII - Sureties (pratibhū)

यो यस्य प्रतिभूस्तिष्ठेद् दर्शनायैह मानवः ।
अदर्शयन् स तं तस्य प्रयच्छेत् स्वधनाद् ऋणम् ॥१५८॥

yo yasya pratibhūstiṣṭhed darśanāyaiha mānavaḥ |
adarśayan sa taṃ tasya prayacchet svadhanād ṛṇam ||158||

When a man stands surety for the appearance of a person, if he does not produce him, he shall pay his debt out of his own property. — (158)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the case of Loan-transactions there are two kinds of security — a Surety and a Pledge. The present verse deals with the case where the security is in the form of a surety.

There are three kinds of Surety — (1) for appearance, (2) for guarantee and (3) for payment. The present text refers to the surety for appearance.

‘If a man stands surety for the appearance of a person — saying ‘I shall produce him at such and such a place’ — if he fails to do so, he shall pay the debt out of his own property.

The term ‘debt’ stands for all objects of dispute. The meaning therefore is that in suits relating to any object, the surety should have to make good that object. In the case of defamation, assault, adultery and other offences, if the surety has given the undertaking that ‘if I do not produce the accused I shall pay such and such a sum,’ then he shall have to pay that sum; but in the event of there being no such undertaking, he should he made to pay only the fine that the king imposes upon the accused...... (?) — (158)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 185).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (6.41). — ‘Sureties are ordained for appearance, for honesty and for payment; the first two kinds of surety must pay the debt on failure of their engagements; as for the last, their sons also may be made to pay.’

Yājñavalkya (2.53). — ‘Surety has been ordained for appearance, for honesty and for payment; the first two should he made to repay the debt on the failure of their engagements; as for the last, his sons also may be made to pay.’

Śukranīti (4.5.244-248). — ‘Having noticed that the defendant brought up by the Bailiff has other engagements, the King should take a suitable surety for his appearance. “I shall pay what is not paid by this man, — I shall present him before you, — I shall make him deliver a pledge, — You have no fear from him; — I shall do what he fails to do; — such and such are his occupations; — he does not swear falsely.”’

Nārada (1.118-119). — ‘For appearance, for payment, and for honesty; these are the three different purposes for which three sorts of sureties have been ordained by the sages. If the debtors fail to discharge the debt, or if they prove dishonest, the surety for payment and for honesty must pay the debt; and so must the surety for appearance, if he fails to produce the debtor.’

Bṛhaspati (11.39-42). — ‘For appearance, for honesty, for payment, and for delivering the assets of the debtor — it is for these four different purposes that sureties have been ordained by the sages in the legal system. The first of these says, “I shall produce the man”; the second says, “He is a respectable person”; the third says, “I shall pay the debt”; the fourth says, “I shall deliver his assets.” If the debtors fail in their engagements, the first two sureties must pay the sum lent at the appointed time; both the last two sureties, and in default of them, their sons, are liable for the debt, when the debtors break their promise. The creditor should allow time for the surety to search for the debtor who has absconded, — a fortnight, a month, or a month and a half, according to the distance of the place where the man may he supposed to he hiding.’

Kātyāyana (Parāśaramādhava-Vyavahāra, p. 186). — ‘For the searching of the absconding debtor, the surety should be given time, extending up to a month and a half; if he produces him by that time, he should he absolved from responsibility. If, even on the lapse of the time, he is unable to produce him, he should be made to pay the debt.’

VERSE 8.159

Section XXVIII - Sureties (pratibhū)

प्रातिभाव्यं वृथादानमाक्षिकं सौरिकां च यत् ।
दण्डशुल्कावशेषं च न पुत्रो दातुमर्हति ॥१५९॥

prātibhāvyaṃ vṛthādānamākṣikaṃ saurikāṃ ca yat |
daṇḍaśulkāvaśeṣaṃ ca na putro dātumarhati ||159||

But the son shall not be liable to pay the surety-money, or a futile gift, or gambling deists, or debts due to liquor, or the balance of fines and duties. — (159)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Prātibhāvyam’ is that which is due from the surety, — i.e., the paying off of the debt due by the party for whom he has stood surety; it is this that is called ‘surety-money.’

What is denied here is the son’s liability; and the denial of liability implies the denial of its being his duty to pay; and in as much as a man never pays what it is not his duty to pay, the meaning of the text is that he should not pay. The sense of (the root ‘arh’ is to be thus explained in accordance with the sense of the infinitive verb with which it occurs.

“But how could there be any idea of the son’s liability to pay the surety-money, etc., when these were not debts incurred by his father?”

There is no force in this objection. When a man has undertaken to pay a certain sum it is as good as a ‘debt,’ since the result is the same. And when definitely known, it is a ‘debt,’ and as such may he considered as being due to be paid by the son. That is why this liability has got to be denied.

‘Futile gift’; — Gift promised in joke or under similar circumstances, made in some such form as ‘I request you to have this man paid such and such an amount by such and such a banker.’ If a messenger has been sent with this message, but the payment is not actually made, either on account of the banker’s absence, or of some other reason, — and the father dies in the meantime, — the son cannot be made to pay the gift.

Debts incurred in gambling are ‘gambling debts’; i.e., the amount that has been actually lost at play, or the money that can he proved to have been borrowed for the purpose of gambling, shall not he paid. In the case of a person who abandons his family and relations and lives and sleeps constantly at gambling dens, and is known to be always playing, — it can he easily ascertained that his debts are all due to gambling.

Debts due to drinking are said to be, ‘due to liquor’; ‘liquor’ standing for all sorts of intoxicating drugs. Hence the present denial partains to the debts of a man who is an inveterate drunkard.

‘Balance of fines and duties’; — if the father has paid a part of the fine or part of the duty, — but did not pay the entire amounts, — then the balance cannot be realised from the son. That is, he cannot be made to pay what the father did not pay.

Another Smṛti text lays it down in general terms — ‘the son shall not be made to pay surety-money, trade-duties, debts due to gambling and drinking, and lines.’ ( Gautama, 12.41.)

Thus then, there is an option. If the crime for which the fine had been inflicted was a serious one, or the property inherited from the father is a large one, then the balance only of the fine, as of the duties, shall be remitted; but if they have not. been serious, then the whole shall be remitted. — (159)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vṛthādānam’ — ‘Gifts promised in jest, or to clowns, bards and such persons’ (Medhātithi, Nārāyaṇa and Kulluka). — ‘gifts promised not for religious purpose, but to singers and the like’ (Nandana). —

“Vaśiṣṭha (16.31) gives this verse as a well-known quotation. So Gautama (12.41).” — Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 57), which adds the following notes: — The term ‘prātibhāvyam’ refers here to sureties of both kinds — surety for appearance, and surety for trust; — ‘vṛthādānam’ is useless gifts; — ‘ākṣikam,’ that due to gambling; — ‘saurikam’, that due to wine-drinking; — the ‘gambling’ and ‘drinking’ meant here are of the improper kind; — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (76b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.159-162)

Vaśiṣṭha (16.31). — ‘They quote the following: — “A son need not pay money due by a surety, anything idly promised, money due for losses at play or for spirituous liquor, nor what remains unpaid of a fine or a toll.”’

Gautama (12.41). — ‘Money due by a surety, a commercial debt, a marriage-fee, debts contracted for spirituous liquor or in gambling, and a fine shall not involve the sons.’

Viṣṇu (6.41). — ‘Surety is ordained for appearance, for honesty, and for payment; the first two themselves (not their sons) shall pay the debt on failure of the engagement; but of the last, the sons also would be liable to pay.’

Yājñavalkya (2-47, 53, 54). — ‘The son shall not pay his father’s debt involved in connection with wine, or love or gambling, or with balances of line and toll, or with idle gifts...... Surety is ordained for appearance, for honesty and for payment; on failure of the engagement, the first two shall pay the debt, and in the case of the last, his sons also shall be liable to pay. In a case where the surety for appearance or the surety for honesty has died, his son shall not he made to pay the debt; but in the case of one for payment, the sons should pay.’

Bṛhaspati (11.39-42). — (See under 158.)

Do. (11.51). — ‘Sons shall not he made to pay a debt incurred by their father for spirituous liquor, for losses at play, for idle gifts, for promises made under the influence of love or wrath, or for suretyship; nor the balance of a fine or toll.’

Nārada (1.118-19). — (See under 158.)

Do. (1.10). — ‘The son must pay the debt contracted by the father, excepting those debts which have been contracted from love or anger, or for spirituous liquor, games or bailments.’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 656). — ‘The son shall pay the sum due by reason of suretyship.’

Kātyāyana (Do., p. 656). — ‘The debt contracted by the father in connection with suretyship must be paid by the son.’

Yājñavalkya (2.55, 56). — ‘If there are several sureties, each shall pay to the creditor his own proportionate share of the debt. If each one of them has stood surety for the whole amount, the creditor may realise it from them in any way he chooses. In a case where the surety has been publicly compelled to pay the creditor, the debtor should pay to the surety double of the amount paid by him.’

Nārada (1. 120, 121). — ‘When there is a plurality of sureties, they shall pay each proportionately, according to agreement. If they were hound severally, the payment shall be made by any of them, as the creditor pleases. Twice as much as the surety, harassed by the creditor, has given to the creditor, shall the debtor pay hack to the surety.’

Bṛhaspati (11.44). — ‘When a surety, being harassed, pays a proved debt which he has vouched for, the debtor shall pay him twice as much, after the lapse of a month and a half.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 657). — (Same as Bṛhaspati.)

VERSE 8.160

Section XXVIII - Sureties (pratibhū)

दर्शनप्रातिभाव्ये तु विधिः स्यात् पूर्वचोदितः ।
दानप्रतिभुवि प्रेते दायादानपि दापयेत् ॥१६०॥

darśanaprātibhāvye tu vidhiḥ syāt pūrvacoditaḥ |
dānapratibhuvi prete dāyādānapi dāpayet ||160||

The law laid down in the preceding verse shall apply to the case of ‘Surety for appearance’; in the case of the death of the ‘Surety for payment’ however, the king shall make the heirs also to pay up. — (160)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘law laid down’ — by me — ‘in the preceding verse,’ — viz., ‘the surety-money due from the father shall not be payable by the son’ — applies only to the case of ‘surety for appearance.’

This assertion might give rise to the idea that the son should be made to pay in the case of ‘surety for guarantee,’ — hence the author proceeds to add — ‘In the case of the death of the surety for payment,’ the heirs are made to pay up, and not in the case of any other kind of surety.

“If such is the meaning, then the first half of the verse is superfluous; for when it is declared that the son is liable only for the dues by the Surety for Payment, it follows that he is not liable for the dues by any other form of surety. If it be argued that it is for the purpose of making things clear that the first, half is added, — then the case of ‘surety for guarantee’ also should have been added, otherwise, it would be doubtful whether the denial (contained in the preceding verse), excluded as it would be from the two cases of surety, is a prohibition or a positive injunction.”

There can be no such doubt; since the matter has been clearly stated in another Smṛti — ‘In a case where the surety for appearance, or the surety for confidence, has died, the sons should not pay the dues, but they should pay in the case of the Surety for Payment,’ (Yājñavalkya, Vyavahāra, 54). In the present text also, as the assertion ‘in the case of the death of Surety for Payment, etc.,’ is in the form of a positive injunction, it cannot become applicable to the case of any other form of surety. There is nothing wrong however in the implications of merely re-iterative assertions (as the first half of the verse is) being extended (to cases other than those directly mentioned). If the question is raised, as to the purpose for which such re-iteration should have been made, — our answer is that it is a peculiarity of Manu’s style of writing. — (160)

Познавательные статьи:



Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Статус республик в составе РФ

Понятие финансов, их функции и особенности

Сущность демографической политии