with the Commentary of Medhatithi 233 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 239 из 350Следующая ⇒

The addition of the term ‘together’ shows that if they are allowed to roam about long distances, then if any is killed, the blame does lie with the keeper. The animals are in the hands of the keeper; so that if they come to harm through his carelessness, it should be made good by the keeper himself. It is for the purpose of making this simple fact easily understood that the author has had recourse to these detailed assertions. — (236)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 175), which explains ‘mithaḥ’ as ‘herded together’, — ‘tatra’ i.e., on the death of the cow; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 265), which explains ‘avaruddhānām’ as ‘herded together by the keeper’ and in Aparārka (p. 773).

VERSE 8.237

Section XXXIX - Disputes between Owner and Keeper

धनुःशतं परीहारो ग्रामस्य स्यात् समन्ततः ।
शम्यापातास्त्रयो वाऽपि त्रिगुणो नगरस्य तु ॥२३७॥

dhanuḥśataṃ parīhāro grāmasya syāt samantataḥ |
śamyāpātāstrayo vā'pi triguṇo nagarasya tu ||237||

Around the village there should be a pasture-ground, four hundred ‘bows’ or three ‘stick-throws’ (in width); but three times that space around the town. — (237)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

the ‘bow’ is four cubits in length; four hundred such ‘bows.’

‘Around’ — on the four sides, ‘of the village,’ — the ‘pasture-ground’ shall he reserved; that is, this much of space should be left uncultivated, for the roaming about of cattle.

‘Śamyā’ is a stick; this should be thrown with great force; and from the point where it falls, it should be thrown again; and when this has been done three times, that shall represent the size of the pasture-ground.

‘Three times that around the town’; — the distinction between ‘village’ and ‘town’ is well known.

‘Stick-throws’ — i.e., its being thrown, falling on the ground on the momentum being spent up, and so forth. — (237)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 774), which adds the following notes: — ‘Śaṃyā’ is the piece of wood which serves as the bolt keeping the bullock fixed to the yoke, — and the distance covered by the tin-owing of tins piece of wood is what is called ‘Śamyāpāta.’

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 231), which, reading ‘Saṃyāpātāḥ’ (in place of ‘Śaṃyāpātāḥ’) notes that the ‘Sami’ is a wooden bolt, and three times the distance covered by the throwing of it should be the extent of the pasture-land round the village, and three times this should be the pasture-land surrounding a city.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 96), which explains ‘parīhāra’ as ‘land reserved for the grazing of cattle — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 817).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (2.166-167). — ‘In accordance with the wishes of the village-people, and in consonance with the extent of land available and the orders of the King, pasture-land for the grazing of cows shall he reserved...... This pasture-land shall he one hundred bow-lengths in extent, and shall he beyond the village and the cultivated holds; it shall he two hundred how-lengths round a market-town, and four hundred bow-lengths round a city.’

VERSE 8.238

Section XXXIX - Disputes between Owner and Keeper

तत्रापरिवृतं धान्यं विहिंस्युः पशवो यदि ।
न तत्र प्रणयेद् दण्डं नृपतिः पशुरक्षिणाम् ॥२३८॥

tatrāparivṛtaṃ dhānyaṃ vihiṃsyuḥ paśavo yadi |
na tatra praṇayed daṇḍaṃ nṛpatiḥ paśurakṣiṇām ||238||

If the cattle damage the unfenced crops therein, the king, in that case, shall not inflict punishment on the cattle-keepers. — (238)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

As a rule, no crops should be grown on the pasture-lands; since if they have been grown, — why should fences have not been put up? The fault thus lies with the cultivator, and not with the cattle-keepers. The cattle-keeper cannot always be leading each individual animal by the rope; and there is no other grazing ground for the cattle. — (238)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.162), to the effect that this impurity pertains only to cases where the crops are not fenced.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (2.162). — ‘If cattle graze in a field on the road-side, or near the village pasture-land, there is no offence, if it goes there by chance, and not intentionally on the part of the cowherd.’

Nārada (11.40). — ‘When a field is situated on the borders of a village, or contiguous to the pasture-land, or adjacent to a high road, the herdsman is not reprehensible for any damage to the crops, if the field is not protected by a fence.’

Gautama (12.21). — ‘If damage is done in an unenclosed field near the road, the responsibility falls on the herdsman and on the owner of the field.’

Viṣṇu (5.147-148). — ‘There is no offence if the damage has been done near a highway, or near a village, or in a field adjacent to the pasture-ground; or if it has been done in an unenclosed field.’

VERSE 8.239

Section XXXIX - Disputes between Owner and Keeper

वृतिं तत्र प्रकुर्वीत यामुष्त्रो न विलोकयेत् ।
छिद्रं च वारयेत् सर्वं श्वसूकरमुखानुगम् ॥२३९॥

vṛtiṃ tatra prakurvīta yāmuṣtro na vilokayet |
chidraṃ ca vārayet sarvaṃ śvasūkaramukhānugam ||239||

One should set up an enclosure there which the camel cannot see, and shut up every opening through which the head of a dog ok a boar could be thrust. — (239)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Enclosure’ — is the name given to a fencing of thorns and twigs that is put up round fields and gardens for the preventing of the entrance of cattle; in some places this is called ‘parṇikā.’

The height of this enclosure should be such that the camel shall not look over it.

“Is the accusative ending in ‘yām,’ ‘which,’ used in the sense of the Instrumental?” Our answer is — no.

“How then would be the camel not see the enclosure?”

If it is very high, its other side being not visible, the enclosure is as good as not seen.

All the openings should also he closed, — such openings as can he entered by the head of the dog or the hog; i.e, the gaps that may be of the size of the head of these animals: the sense is that every effort should be made so that their head may not be thrust in. — (239)

After the enclosure has been set up —

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.162) as laying down the necessity of fencing fields and gardens; and Bālambhaṭṭī adds the following notes: — ‘Tatra’, round the field, — the fence should be so high that even a tall animal like the camel should not be able to see the crops from the other side; — ‘mukhānugam’, enabling the mouth of the dog or the hog lo reach the crops, — ‘mukhonantam’ is another reading; — the meaning is as “follows: — One should build a fence, like a wall, round the field, which should be so high that the camel may not be able to see the crops; and if there are any holes there, large enough to enable the dog or the hog to thrust its mouth into it, then all these should be securely closed up: If we read ‘vā vārayet’, then the second half is to be taken as laying down another method of having the fence.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada (11.41). — ‘On that side of the field which faces the road, a fence shall ho made, over which a camel cannot look, nor horses or cattle jump, and which a hoar cannot break through.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p. 233). — ‘Round a field situated on the road-side, an enclosure should he erected which the camel may not look over, nor may horses or boars be able to gain entrance.’

VERSE 8.240

Section XXXIX - Disputes between Owner and Keeper

पथि क्षेत्रे परिवृते ग्रामान्तीयेऽथ वा पुनः ।
सपालः शतदण्डार्हो विपालान् वारयेत् पशून् ॥२४०॥

pathi kṣetre parivṛte grāmāntīye'tha vā punaḥ |
sapālaḥ śatadaṇḍārho vipālān vārayet paśūn ||240||

If cattle attended by the keeper be found in an enclosed field, on the road-side or near the village, the keeper should be fined a hundred; but cattle without a keeper shall be driven off. — (240)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘In an enclosed field, either on the road-side, or near the village’ — within the pasture-ground; — the term ‘anta’ means near; — if the cattle should eat the crops, — and the keeper be on the spot, — then he should ‘be fined a hundred’, since no fine could be imposed upon the cattle; so also when the keeper is close by, if he is too much engrossed in his family-affairs, and does not send any hired person to see to the cattle.

‘Cattle without a keeper’ should he ‘driven off’ with a stick or some such thing; and they shall not he punished. ‘Cattle without a keeper’ that are meant here are such calves as have been sot free in connection with certain religious rites. (These belong to no one). In the case of other cattle roaming about without a keeper, punishment shall he inflicted upon the owner.

Or, we may read ‘aparivṛtā,’ ‘unenclosed,’ ‘unfenced,’ for ‘parivṛtā,’ ‘enclosed,’ and ‘sapāla’ may be taken as standing for ‘the owner along with the keeper,’ — the compound ‘sapāla’ meaning a party other than the one denoted by the terms of the compound, i.e., one along with the keeper — and the question arising ‘who is to be punished in this case?’ — the answer is that both the owner of the field and the keeper of the cattle should ho punished; — tho owner being punished for the fault of having cultivated the field near the road-side and not fencing it; if it had been fenced, how could the crops have been eaten?

‘Cattle without a keeper’ — which may have strayed from the herd — should be driven off. Says Gautama (12.21) — ‘When there is an unfenced field on the road-side, punishment shall be inflicted on the keeper and on the cultivator of the field.’ — (240)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vārayet’ — Rāmacandra reads ‘cārayet’ and takes the whole verse as a single sentence — ‘If the cattle-keeper takes the cattle to graze in a field that is fenced, he shall be fined along with his master.’

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 232), which reads ‘cārayet’ for ‘vārayet it explains the meaning of the verse to be — ‘The field on the road-side or on village precincts being duly fenced, if its crops are eaten (this clause is to be added), then the keeper of the cattle is to be fined one hundred (paṇas), and the stray cattle is to he caught and tied up.’

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 266), which adds the following notes: — When a field on the road-side has been duly fenced, if cattle break through the fence and destroy the crops, the keeper of the cattle is to be filled a hundred paṇas; similarly when a field on the precincts of a village has been duly fenced, if cattle break into it and eat the crops, the keeper is to be fined a hundred paṇas. This indicates that there is to be no punishment if the field is unfenced.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 771), which explains the meaning to be that when the field on the road-side and other such places has been duly fenced, if it is damaged by cattle which is attended by their keeper, then the keeper is to be fined one hundred; but if the cattle is unattended it shall be driven off; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 137b), which explains ‘pathi kṣetre’ a s ‘in a field close by the path,’ — and ‘grāmāntīye’ as ‘lying on the outskirts of the village.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada (11.28, 29, 35). — ‘When crops have been destroyed by cows or other cattle crossing a fence, the herdsman deserves punishment in that case, unless he should have done his best to keep the cattle off. When the crops have been entirely destroyed to the very roots, the owner of them may claim a corresponding quantity of grain as damages; the herdsman shall be corporally punished: and the owner of the cattle shall pay a fine. When cows, straying through the fault of their keeper, have entered a field, no punishment shall be inflicted on their owner; the herdsman alone being punishable.’

Gautama (12.19-20). — ‘If damage is done by cattle, the responsibility lies on the owner; but if the cattle were attended by a herdsman, then it falls on the latter.’

Āpastamba (2.28.5). — ‘If cattle, leaving their stable, eat the crops of other persons, then the owner of the crops, or the King’s servants, may make them lean by impounding them; hut this punishment shall not he over-done.’

Viṣṇu (5.140-146). — ‘If a she-buffalo damages crops, her keeper shall he fined eight māṣas; if she has been without a keeper, her owner shall pay the fine. For mischief done by a horse or a camel, or an ass, the fine shall he the same. For damage done by a cow, it shall he half; half of that again in the case of the goat or the sheep. For cattle abiding in the field after eating the crops, the fine shall he double; and in every case the owner of the field shall receive the value of the crops that have been destroyed.’

Yājñavalkya (2.162). — ‘In the case of a field on the roadside, or adjacent to the pasture-land of the village, if cattle is allowed to graze unintentionally, there is no offence; but if it is done intentionally, the man deserves punishment like the thief.’

Uśanas (Vivādaratnākara, p. 232). — ‘If a man asks for compensation for the crops that may haves been grazed by a cow, his Pitṛs and deities do not accept his offerings.’

VERSE 8.241

Section XXXIX - Disputes between Owner and Keeper

क्षेत्रेष्वन्येषु तु पशुः सपादं पणमर्हति ।
सर्वत्र तु सदो देयः क्षेत्रिकस्यैति धारणा ॥२४१॥

kṣetreṣvanyeṣu tu paśuḥ sapādaṃ paṇamarhati |
sarvatra tu sado deyaḥ kṣetrikasyaiti dhāraṇā ||241||

In the case of other fields, the cattle-keeper should be fined a ‘paṇa’ and a quarter; and in all cases the crop shall be made good to the owner of the field; such is the established rule. — (241)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the case of ‘other fields’ — i.e., other than those on the road-side or near the village; — if the crops are eaten, the fine shall be a ‘paṇa and a quarter.’

“The fine should be a small one, in the case of a field close by, as compared to that in the cue of one that can be reached after traversing a long distance, or which is situated outside the village. In the latter case the punishment should be heavy. For in this case there can be no excuse for the cattle being allowed to enter the field.”

There is no force in this; if a heavy fine were not inflicted in the case of fields close by, then every day, when the cattle would be going out or coming in, they would destroy all the fields near the village; while if there is a heavy fine imposed, people would be afraid of it and would take special care to keep them away. In the case of remoter fields, it is only seldom that cattle are taken to graze so far for the sake of some particular kind of grass; hence only a slight fine has been prescribed in this case.

In the case of these fields also, cattle without a keeper should be driven off.

In all cases the loss to the owner of the field has to be made good, the exact amount being determined by experts.

‘Kṣetrika’ is one who has possession of the field; the word being formed with the affix ‘ṭhak,’ the original term ‘kṣetra’ belonging to the ‘vrīhyādi’ group.

‘Such is the established rule’ — laid down on the subject.

The use of the phrase ‘in all cases’ indicates that in the case of cattle without a creeper also, the loss has to be made good to the owner of the field by the owner of the cattle.

Though the term ‘cattle,’ ‘paśu,’ includes all such animals as the buffalo, the goat, the sheep, the camel, the ass and so forth, — yet, on the strength of the words of another Smṛti, it is restricted to cows only. Gautama (12.24-25) prescribes other fines in the case of animals other than the cow — ‘In the case of the horse and the buffalo, the fine is to be ten, while in that of goats and sheep two each.’ — (241)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 769), which adds the following — ‘The meaning of the verse is as follows: — With the exception of those fields which have been specifically mentioned by Manu to be such that for damaging their crops cattle are not to be punished; — if the crops of any other fields happen to be damaged, then the keeper is to be fined one kārṣāpaṇa and a quarter’; — this should be understood as referring to repeated and serious damage: — ‘and in all cases of damage to crops by cattle, the estimated produce of the field damaged should be given to the owner.’

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 234), which adds the following notes: — ‘Anyeṣu,’ in the case of fields other than those lying on the outskirts of the village and so forth; — the ‘cattle’ (to be fined) should here be taken as standing for the keeper of the cattle; — it being impossible for the cattle to pay a fine; the fine should be understood to be a paṇa and a quarter for each head of cattle; — and in Vīvādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 65), which explains ‘anyeṣu,’ as, ‘lying at a distance.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (12.21-26). — ‘If the damage was done in an unenclosed field near the road, the responsibility falls on the herdsman and on the owner of the field. Five māṣas form the fine to be paid for damage done by a cow; six for a camel or an ass; ten for a horse or a buffalo; two for each goat or sheep. If the entire crop has been destroyed, the value of the whole must be paid in addition to the fine.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 60). — ‘In the case of camels and buffaloes running away after grazing in the reserved pasture-land, one-fourth of a Paṇa should be realised; for cows, horses and asses, one-eighth; in that of small cattle, one-sixteenth. If they sit on the land after grazing, the fines shall be double; if they abide on the land, it will be quadruple. In the case of crops being grazed by cattle, the damage done shall be computed and double the amount of the value shall be the amount of the fine inflicted.’

Yājñavalkya (2.159-160). — ‘If crops are damaged by the she-buffalo, there shall be a fine of eight māṣas; half of his, if by the cow; and half of that again, if by goat or sheep; if they have sat in the field after grazing, the fine shall be double.’

Do. (2.161). — ‘The owner of the field shall receive the value of as much crop as may have been damaged; the keeper of the cattle should be beaten, and the owner should be punished with the aforesaid fine.’

Nārada (11.38-39). — ‘When a man claims damages for crops grazed by cattle, that quantity of grain should be restored to him by the owner of the cattle which may have been consumed by the cattle in the estimation of the neighbours the cows shall be given up to the owner and the grain to the husbandman. In the same way a fine shall be imposed on the herdsman when crops have been trodden down by cows.’

Do. (11.31). — ‘For damage done by a cow, he shall inflict a fine of one māṣa; two māṣas in the case of a she-buffalo; half a māṣa in the case of a goat trespassing with its young.’

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākara, p. 235). — ‘The owner of the cow should be made to pay a quarter Paṇa; of the she-buffalo, two quarters; of goats, sheep and calves, one quarter is the fine ordained.’

Śāṅkha-Likhīta (Do.). — ‘In the case of all calves, one māṣa; ten in that of the she-buffalo; sixteen in that of asses and camels; and four, in that of goats and sheep.’

VERSE 8.242

Section XXXIX - Disputes between Owner and Keeper

अनिर्दशाहां गां सूतां वृषान् देवपशूंस्तथा ।
सपालान् वा विपालान् वा न दण्ड्यान् मनुरब्रवीत् ॥२४२॥

anirdaśāhāṃ gāṃ sūtāṃ vṛṣān devapaśūṃstathā |
sapālān vā vipālān vā na daṇḍyān manurabravīt ||242||

But Manu has declared that no punishment shall be inflicted upon a cow within ten days of its calving, or bulls or dedicated cattle, — whether with or without keepers. — (242)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The present verse lays down an exception to what has been said above.

Since the text speaks of the ‘cow,’ it follows that, in the case of other animals, such as the buffalo and the like, the wrong done is cognisable. The term ‘vṛṣāh’ stands for bulls.

‘Dedicated cattle,’ — such cattle as have been selected by a sacrificer for being used at an impending sacrificial performance. Or the term ‘deva’ may stand for the images of Viṣṇu, Śiva or other Gods installed within brick-structures; and such ‘cattle’ as may have been presented to these ‘Gods’ would be called ‘dedicated cattle’; as in such cases there would be a relation of possession and possessed between the ‘Gods’ and the ‘cattle.’

What is declared here pertains to such cattle as serve as ornaments of temples; and not to those that are only brought there for the purpose of their milk being offered to the temple. Because in the case of the latter, it is the keepers that offer the milk to the Gods, and hence are the ‘owners’ of the cattle; so that these have to be regarded as on the same footing as other owners. On the other hand, those that serve as ornaments to the temple have been presented to the temple, and as such come to be regarded as being ‘dedicated cattle.’

Some people hold that the term ‘vṛṣāh’ stands for such bulls as have been let off, in connection with the ceremony of Vṛṣotsarga.

Such cattle — whether they be ‘with keepers,’ or not belonging to any one and hence ‘without keepers’ — are not to be penalised. — (242)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara' (p. 239), which explains ‘deva-paśu’ as ‘cattle dedicated to the gods’; — in Aparārka (p. 771); — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 268), which explains ‘vṛṣa’ as (a) ‘mahokṣa,’ i.e., ‘large bull,’ or (b) ‘bulls dedicated by the rite called vṛṣotsarga’; — and in Smṛtitattva (p. 530), which adds that the cattle mentioned here, if they do any damage, are simply to be driven away; — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 811); — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta p. 68), which explains ‘vṛṣān’ as ‘breeding bulls.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5.150). — ‘If the damage has been done by bulls that have been set at liberty, or by a cow shortly after her calving (there is no offence).’

Yājñavalkya (2.163). — ‘The Big Bull, cattle consecrated and let loose, a cow newly calved, stray strange cattle, or those perturbed by visitations of the King or of Fate, — these shall ho set at liberty (without punishment), even though they he accompanied by the keeper (at the time of grazing).’

Uśanas (Aparārka, p. 771). — ‘Elephants and horses are not to he punished; as also a strange cow, or one newly calved; or one that has strayed from the herd, and all cows at the time of rejoicings or Śrāddhas.’

Kātyāyana (Do., p. 772). — ‘In the matter of punishing the grazing of cattle, of the highest, lowest and middlemost kinds, the King shall inflict fines only in the event of the owner of the field complaining about it.’

Nārada (11.30, 32, 33). — ‘A cow within ten days of her calving, a big bull, a horse and an elephant shall he kept off carefully. The owner of any one of them is not liable to punishment for doing any damage. The owners of elephants and horses shall not pay any fine. Impunity is likewise granted to the owner of the strayed cow, of one that has recently calved, or of one that is uncontrollable; — as also the owner of one that has lost her way, or broken down, or stuck in the marsh, or a bull marked by the sign of consecration.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 60). — ‘The village-bull, the consecrated bull, the cow within ten days of calving, old hulls and breeding bulls shall not be punished.’

VERSE 8.243

Section XXXIX - Disputes between Owner and Keeper

क्षेत्रियस्यात्यये दण्डो भागाद् दशगुणो भवेत् ।
ततोऽर्धदण्डो भृत्यानामज्ञानात् क्षेत्रिकस्य तु ॥२४३॥

Познавательные статьи:



Где возникла философия и почему?

Относительная высота сжатой зоны бетона

Сущность проекции Гаусса-Крюгера и использование ее в геодезии

Тарифы на перевозку пассажиров