with the Commentary of Medhatithi 226 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 232 из 350Следующая ⇒

In the case of all deposits, such should be the method of restoration; but in the case of a sealed deposit, he should incur nothing, if he does not extract anything from it. — (188)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the case of open deposits ‘the method of restoration’ shall be as just described in verses 182 et seq.

The depositary shall not incur the censure of the debtor, as regards the deposit to be restored.

This same rule should be applicable to the case where the article deposited has been destroyed by rats, etc. For instance, the article deposited having been wrapped up in a piece of cloth and placed in a wooden vessel, if rats, with their sharp teeth, should cut through the wood and devour the article, — it is no fault of the depositary’s. Then again, if the article is deposited in the form of a bundle sealed in a basket, — on account of its being such as cannot be contained in a wooden box, — then also if it is eaten by rats, it is no fault of the depositary’s. This is specially so, if it is known to the depositor, who has been informed by the depositary that he possesses no wooden box (where the article would be safe from rats, etc.), — or if the depositor knows the man’s character and is close by (and hence is in a position to know that the article has been really damaged by rats). — (188).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

The second half of this verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 86), which adds the explanation that if the deposit has been handed over to the depository sealed, — then, unless the latter extracts anything from it, he shall incur no blame; but if he does extract anything, then he certainly becomes open to censure. In the case of an unsealed deposition the other hand, even though he may have extracted something, if he delivers it before the depositor, he does not incur blame.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada (2.14, 15). — ‘The same law applies in the case of Yācita, Anvāhita, and other forms of deposits, also in those of articles made over to artisans, as also Nyāsa and Pratinyāsa deposits; if a man takes charge of a wealthy boy, the law applicable in this case also is the same.’

Bṛhaspati (12.15). — ‘The same set of rules applies in the case of a bailment for delivery to a third party, a loan for use, an article made over to an artisan, a pledge and a person offering himself for protection.’

Yājñavalkya (2.67). — ‘The same law applies to the other forms of deposit- the Yācita, the Anvāhita, the Nyāsa and the Nikṣepa.’

VERSE 8.189

Section XXXII - Deposits (nikṣepa)

चौरैर्हृतं जलेनोढमग्निना दग्धमेव वा ।
न दद्याद् यदि तस्मात् स न संहरति किं चन ॥१८९॥

caurairhṛtaṃ jalenoḍhamagninā dagdhameva vā |
na dadyād yadi tasmāt sa na saṃharati kiṃ cana ||189||

The depositary shall not hake good what has been stolen by thieves, or carried away by water, or burnt, — if he does not extract anything from it. — (189)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If thieves, known or unknown, should bore a hole through the wall and take away the artiole, — in spite of the depositary having taken all due care for its protection, — then the loss falls upon the owner (depositor).

‘Carried away by water’ — i.e., moved away from its place of keeping, to some other place. — (189)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 663), which adds that if out of the property, the man extracts not even a small part (then he shall not have to make it good); — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 88), which also adds — ‘if out of the deposited property, the depository does not extract, take out, anything;’ — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 206), which adds — ‘if he extract even the smallest part of the deposit, then he shall have to make it good;’ — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 37), which says that in a case where the deposit-holder takes for himself a portion of the deposit and keeps the remainder secretly in some other place with a view to evade the return of the trust, — then he is to be made to refund the entire deposit.

It is quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru (p. 83 a), which explains ‘tasmāt na saṃharati’ as ‘does not take for himself any part of the deposit.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (2.66). — ‘The depositary should not be made to pay anything, if the deposit has been taken away by the King, or by accidents or by thieves. When the depositor asks for it, if it is not restored, and is found to be lost, the depositary shall be made to pay its value and also a fine equal to it.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 663). — ‘Where a deposit has been destroyed by anarchy or by accidents, it is held to have been lost to the depositor.’

Nārada (2.12). — ‘If the deposit has been stolen by thieves, carried away by water, or burnt by fire, it need not he restored, unless the depositary should have appropriated some portion of it.’

Nārada (2.9). — ‘If a deposit is lost, together with the property of the depositary, the loss shall he the depositor’s. The same rule shall obtain if the loss has been caused by accidents or by the King; unless the depositary shall have acted fraudulently.’

Do. (2.8). — ‘If the depositary derives profit from a deposit, by using it without the consent of the depositor, he shall be fined, and shall restore the profit with interest, to the depositor.’

Bṛhaspati (12.10-12). — ‘When a deposit is destroyed, together with the goods of the depositary, by the act of God or of the King, the depositary is not to blame. If the depositary should suffer the deposit to be destroyed by his want of care or indifference, or should refuse to restore it on being asked for it, he shall he made to pay the value of it with interest. Should the depositary secure any advantage for himself through the article deposited with him, he shall be fined by the King and compelled to pay its value with the interest.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 663). — ‘If the deposit has been destroyed by the fault of some one, that person should be made to pay the value of the deposit along with interest.’

VERSE 8.190

Section XXXII - Deposits (nikṣepa)

निक्षेपस्यापहर्तारमनिक्षेप्तारमेव च ।
सर्वैरुपायैरन्विच्छेत्शपथैश्चैव वैदिकैः ॥१९०॥

nikṣepasyāpahartāramanikṣeptārameva ca |
sarvairupāyairanvicchetśapathaiścaiva vaidikaiḥ ||190||

The appropriator of a deposit, as also one who has not deposited anything (and yet asks for it), — the king shall test by all methods, as also by means of oaths and ordeals prescribed in the scriptures. — (190)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

He who appropriates the deposit placed with him, in the absence of witnesses, and he who, having received it back, asks for it again, — both these the king shall ‘test’; — ‘testing’ stands for trying to find out the truth, — by employing ‘all methods’; — ‘methods’ stands for proofs. So that if the man is found to have fallen from the path of rectitude and denies the deposit, — then recourse may he had to heating and imprisonment also; specially when the property involved is a large one, the same methods have to be employed as in the case of thieves. But no punishment shall lte inflicted if there is uncertainty in the matter.

The epithet ‘prescribed in the scriptures’ has been added only by way of praise of the means to be employed. — (190)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Sārvaiḥ upāyaiḥ’ — ‘All kinds of evidence, the four expedients of kindness and the rest, and also in the case of wicked people, beating and imprisoning’ (Medhātithi, who is not rightly represented by Buhler); — ‘the four expedients of kindness and so forth’ (Govindarāja, Kullūka and Rāghavānanda); — ‘spies and the like’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 208), as laying down punishment for the depositor and depository if proved to be dishonest; — in Kṛtyakalpataru, (84a); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 113a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.190-192)

Yājñavalkya (2.66). — (See under 189.)

Do. (2.67). — ‘If the depositary derives, by his own will, an advantage from the deposit, he shall he made to pay to the depositor what he may have gained, along with interest, and should also he lined.’

Nārada (2.7). — ‘The wicked man who does not restore a deposit, on being asked by the depositor to do so, shall be punished by the King. If the deposit has been lost or destroyed, he shall make good its value.’

Do. (2.13). — ‘He who fails to restore a deposit, and he who demands what he never deposited, shall both be punished like thieves, and shall be made to pay a sum equal in amount to the value of the deposit in question.’

Bṛhaspati (12.11). — (See under 189.)

Do. (12.13). — ‘He who, after receiving the deposit, denies the fact and is convicted by the evidence of witnesses or ordeal, shall be compelled to give up the deposit and to pay an equal amount as fine.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 73). — ‘He who enjoys a sealed deposit should pay for such use, in accordance with place and time; also a line of 12 Paṇas. If the deposit becomes lost or damaged by such use, he shall bear the cost of the article deposited, and also pay a fine of 21 Paṇas'

VERSE 8.191

Section XXXII - Deposits (nikṣepa)

यो निक्षेपं नार्पयति यश्चानिक्षिप्य याचते ।
तावुभौ चौरवत्शास्यौ दाप्यौ वा तत्समं दमम् ॥१९१॥

yo nikṣepaṃ nārpayati yaścānikṣipya yācate |
tāvubhau cauravatśāsyau dāpyau vā tatsamaṃ damam ||191||

He who does not restore a deposit, and he who, without having made any deposit, asks for it, — both of these should be punished like thieves, or be made to pay a fine equal in value. — (191)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse prescribes the punishment for one who denies what has been deposited with him, and also for him who demands what was never deposited. The man is to be fined that amount which would be the value of the article in regard to which the fraud is committed. — (191)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 663); — and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 91), which adds the following explanation: — The depository, who, even when asked to do so, does not surrender the deposit, — or the other party who demands the deposit, without having delivered it, — both of these should be punished like a thief, if the property involved is a large one; but if it is a small one, then they have to be fined the value of the deposit in question, and the depository is to be forced to surrender the deposit also.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha, (p. 84); — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 208); — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 89), which notes that in the same text the Matsyapurāṇa reads ‘dviguṇam damam’; it says that Manu’s rule is meant for cases where the persons concerned are poor and well-behaved; — in Kṛtyakalpataru (83b); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 113a), whieh explains ‘śāsyau’ as ‘should be punished and fined.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.190-192)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.190.

VERSE 8.192

Section XXXII - Deposits (nikṣepa)

निक्षेपस्यापहर्तारं तत्समं दापयेद् दमम् ।
तथोपनिधिहर्तारमविशेषेण पार्थिवः ॥१९२॥

nikṣepasyāpahartāraṃ tatsamaṃ dāpayed damam |
tathopanidhihartāramaviśeṣeṇa pārthivaḥ ||192||

In all cases the king shall make the appropriator of a deposit pay a fine equal in value to it; also the appropriator of a friendly loan. — (192)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The preceding verse has laid down the punishment to be like that of the thief; under that rule there are two alternatives — corporeal punishment and fine equal in value to the property involved — to he determined according to the caste of the accused. So that in the case of castes other than the Brāhmaṇa, it would, under the said rule, he open to the king to inflict either of the two forms of punishment. And it is this possibility that is precluded by the present verse, which restricts the punishment to fine only; so that from among the penalties inflicted on thieves, what may be added to the fine is only admonition or reprimand, and not mutilation and other corporeal punishments.

It will not be right to take the present verse as precluding corporeal punishment from the case of Brāhmaṇas, who also would be subject to both kinds of alternative punishments sanctioned by the preceding verse. Because corporeal punishment has been already generally prohibited in the case of Brāhmaṇas; — in such texts as ‘one shall not strike a Brāhmaṇa’ (8.380).

‘Upanidhi’ here stands for what is used through friendship.

‘In all cases,’ — i.e., irrespectively of the nature of the property or the caste of the person involved.

Others have given a technical meaning to the term ‘upanidhi’; but that meaning is applicable elsewhere, not here. Because, in the absence of any convention, fixing the technical sense of a term, the right course is to take it in its ordinary sense. This same ‘upanidhi’ is going to be mentioned again as ‘friendly loan’ (under 196). — (192)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse appears to be a mere repetition of 191. According to Medhātithi, 191 lays down two alternative punishments — corporal punishment (thief’s penalty) and fine; and 192 excludes the ‘thief’s punishment’ by specifying the fine only. He repudiates the explanation that has been attributed to him by Hopkins — viz., 192 is for the sake of freeing the Brāhmaṇa from the corporal punishment prescribed in 191. Nor is there anything in Medhātithi to show that he takes 192 as referring to fresh offences, — a view that has been attributed to him by Buhler. — Both these views are found in Kullūka.

‘Upanidhi’ — ‘Sealed deposit’ (Kullūka); — ‘something lent in a friendly spirit’ (Medhātithi, who repudiates, in the present context, the technical meaning of ‘sealed deposit.’)

‘Aviśeṣeṇa’ — ‘Irrespective of the character of the property or the caste of the person’ (Medhātithi); — ‘irrespective of caste’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 92), which adds the following explanation: — The reiteration of ‘fine equal in value to the deposit’ here — to the exclusion of the ‘thiefs penalty,’ with which it has been coupled in the preceding verse, — should be understood as meant for the case where the misappropriator of the deposit is a Brāhmaṇa. The terms ‘tathā’ and ‘aviśeṣeṇa’ mean that all that has been said in regard to the misappropration of the deposit, should he understood to be applicable to that of the Upanidhi also, — the misappropriation of both standing on the same footing.

It is quoted also in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 85); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (83b); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 113a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.190-192)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.190.

VERSE 8.193

Section XXXII - Deposits (nikṣepa)

उपधाभिश्च यः कश्चित् परद्रव्यं हरेन्नरः ।
ससहायः स हन्तव्यः प्रकाशं विविधैर्वधैः ॥१९३॥

upadhābhiśca yaḥ kaścit paradravyaṃ harennaraḥ |
sasahāyaḥ sa hantavyaḥ prakāśaṃ vividhairvadhaiḥ ||193||

The man who may appropriate, by fraudulent means, the property of another person, should be punished publicly, along with his accomplices, with various modes of death. — (193)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Fraudulent means,’ ‘deceit,’ and ‘pretence’ are synonymous terms: and this ‘fraud’ is of several forms: — (1) ‘altering the thing’: having shown saffron, the man substitutes the kusumbha flower for it, — (2) ‘using short weights and measures,’ and so forth. The rule regarding these forms of ‘fraud’ is going to be laid down later on, under 203 et seq. The forms of ‘fraudulent moans’ meant here are — (a) ‘threatening,’ (b) promising rewards from the king, (e) promising to secure the love of a maiden, and so forth.

The man makes such false assertions to the other person as — (a) ‘robbers shall rob you, if I do not protect you,’ or (b) ‘the king was very angry with you, and I have tried much to appease him,’ or (c) ‘I shall obtain for you from the king the post of the city-officer,’ or (d) ‘I shall secure for you some other great benefit,’ or (e) ‘my daughter is very much in love with you and has sent you this present’; — under these pretexts he brings to the man some presents and takes away from him much more valuable things in return; — and in the presence of this other party he whispers something to the king, or to some other high official, and says to the man — ‘I have been talking regarding your business.’

The man who, by such fraudulent means, enjoys the property of others, for him the punishment is that he shall be punished ‘publicly’ — on the public road — with such ‘modes of death,’ as ‘decapitation with the axe,’ ‘impalement,’ ‘tramling (trambling?) by elephants’ and so forth.

Others have held, on the strength of the ‘context,’ that what is said here pertains to the case of ‘Deposits’; in this sense the ‘fraudulent means’ would consist in putting off the restoration by such pretexts as — ‘I do not remember where I kept the thing,’ ‘the article was kept by another person, who is not here now, he shall come to-morow’ and so forth; and the man who thus puts it off is said to ‘appropriate’ it. — (193)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 92), which adds the following notes: — ‘Upadhābhiḥ,’ by fraud; — ‘sahāya’ is one who helps in the misappropriation of other’s property by fraud; — ‘prakāśam’, in the public square and such places; — it is quoted again at p. 316; — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 39), which explains ‘upadhā’ as ‘fraud’ — ‘sahāya’ as ‘abettor in the fraudulent appropriation,’ — and ‘vadha’ as ‘beating, imprisonment and so forth’; — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (84a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.193-194)

[See the texts under 190-192.]

Nārada (2.3). — ‘In whatever manner a man may have delivered any of his effects to another, in that same manner shall the article be restored to him. Delivery and receipt should be equal.’

Bṛhaspati (12.9). — ‘A deposit must be returned to the very man who bailed it, in the very manner in which it was bailed.’

VERSE 8.194

Section XXXII - Deposits (nikṣepa)

निक्षेपो यः कृतो येन यावांश्च कुलसंनिधौ ।
तावानेव स विज्ञेयो विब्रुवन् दण्डमर्हति ॥१९४॥

nikṣepo yaḥ kṛto yena yāvāṃśca kulasaṃnidhau |
tāvāneva sa vijñeyo vibruvan daṇḍamarhati ||194||

As much of a certain deposit has been entrusted in the presence of a number of men — so much should it be decided to be; the party misrepresenting it becomes liable to punishment. — (194)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Certain’ refers to the kind or quality of the substance, and ‘as much’ to its quantity, e.g., one party says — ‘I had deposited gold with him and he is giving me back bell-metal; I had deposited a hundred and he is giving me only half of it’; — on being asked — “Did you hand over the deposit in secret or before witnesses?” — if he says ‘in the presence of a number of men’ — i.e., witnesses — then what these men, on being questioned, should declare, should be regarded as the truth.

‘Misrepresenting’ — i.e., asserting otherwise than this, the party is punished.

If however the complainant says that the deposit was not handed over in the presence of witnesses, there is an occasion for the admitting of other kinds of proof.

This verse also prescribes nothing new. — (194)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 664), which explains ‘vibruvan’ as ‘telling what is not true;’ — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 94), which adds the following notes: — ‘Vibruvan,’ declaring it to be more when it was less; from a parity of reasoning, it follows that if the depository also declares the deposit to be less where it was really more, he also should be fined; — and in Kṛtyakalpataru (85a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.193-194)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.193.

VERSE 8.195

Section XXXII - Deposits (nikṣepa)

मिथो दायः कृतो येन गृहीतो मिथ एव वा ।
मिथ एव प्रदातव्यो यथा दायस्तथा ग्रहः ॥१९५॥

mitho dāyaḥ kṛto yena gṛhīto mitha eva vā |
mitha eva pradātavyo yathā dāyastathā grahaḥ ||195||

When a trust has been created privately and accepted also privately, then it should be restored also secretly: as the delivery so the restoration. — (195)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

VERSE 180 has laid down the rule regarding deposits; and the present verse lays down what is to be done in the case of other transactions.

In the case of debts, friendly loans and sales, the restoration or repayment should be in the same manner in which it had been contracted. So that if it has been given privately, it should not be made public by seeking for re-payment through a court of justice; and when a loan has been given on the strength of a document written by the debtor alone, then its payment should not be sought for through court. If this were done, the creditor’s property should be made to suffer.

The case of deposits also being covered by this same rule, the addition of a rule in regard to them separately is meant to indicate that in their case the rule is absolute; hence in the case of transactions other than deposits, when effected in private, if subsequently suspicion should arise regarding the possibility of dispute, it may he right and proper to make it public.

Or the repetition may he justified on the ground that what is done in the present verse is the prohibition of making public what has been done in private, while in the preceding verse what has been said concerns ‘sealed or open deposits.’

The term ‘mithaḥ’ means ‘in private,’ or ‘mutually’ As all transactions are done between two parties, the addition of this adverb is meant to deny the presence of a third party.

‘Dāya,’ ‘Trust,’ though a generic term, stands here for transactions other than ‘deposits,’ — such, for instance, as sale and the like. — (195)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 113b), which has the following notes: — ‘Dāya,’ handing over, pledging, depositing, — ‘graha,’ receiving the deposit

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada (2.6). — ‘Deposits are of two kinds — attested and unattested. They must be restored precisely in the same condition in which they were delivered.’

Bṛhaspati (12.5). — ‘A deposit is of two kinds — attested and deposited in private; it must be guarded with the same care as a son.’

Do. (12-14). — ‘When a dispute arises with regard to a deposit privately made, the performance of an ordeal is ordained for both parties, to establish the facts of the case.’

VERSE 8.196

Section XXXII - Deposits (nikṣepa)

निक्षिप्तस्य धनस्यैवं प्रीत्योपनिहितस्य च ।
राजा विनिर्णयं कुर्यादक्षिण्वन्न्यासधारिणम् ?? ॥१९६॥

nikṣiptasya dhanasyaivaṃ prītyopanihitasya ca |
rājā vinirṇayaṃ kuryādakṣiṇvannyāsadhāriṇam ?? ||196||

Thus shall the king come to a decision regarding property given as ‘deposit’ and that which is given as ‘friendly loan,’ — without causing any injury to the keeper of the deposit. — (196)

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?