with the Commentary of Medhatithi 238 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 244 из 350Следующая ⇒

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.276-278)

(See texts under 268-270.)

VERSE 8.278

Section XLI - Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation)

एष दण्डविधिः प्रोक्तो वाक्पारुष्यस्य तत्त्वतः ।
अत ऊर्ध्वं प्रवक्ष्यामि दण्डपारुष्यनिर्णयम् ॥२७८॥

eṣa daṇḍavidhiḥ prokto vākpāruṣyasya tattvataḥ |
ata ūrdhvaṃ pravakṣyāmi daṇḍapāruṣyanirṇayam ||278||

Thus the law relating to punishments in connection with verbal assaults been truly expounded; after thisI am going to profound the law relating to physical assault. — (278)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Physical assault’ — Causing suffering by physical hurt; the term ‘pāruṣya’ (‘hurt’) has been used in the sense that ‘assault’ causes pain in the same manner as the thrusting of the thorn does.

‘Law’ — i.e., rules relating to the details of punishment.

This verse serves the purpose of summing up the foregoing section and introducing the next. — (278)

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.276-278)

(See texts under 268-270.)

VERSE 8.279 [Assaults]

Section XLII - Assaults

येन केन चिदङ्गेन हिंस्याच्चेत्श्रेष्ठमन्त्यजः ।
छेत्तव्यं तद् तदेवास्य तन् मनोरनुशासनम् ॥२७९॥

yena kena cidaṅgena hiṃsyāccetśreṣṭhamantyajaḥ |
chettavyaṃ tad tadevāsya tan manoranuśāsanam ||279||

With whatever limb the low-born man hurts a superior person, every such limb of his shall be cut off; this is the teaching of Manu. — (279)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Low-born man’ — from the Śūdra down to the Caṇḍāla.

‘Superior person’ — belonging to the three higher castes.

If the former hurts the latter with any ‘limb,’ — either directly, or through the instrumentality of a stick or a sword or some such weapon, — then ‘that limb of his shall be cut off.’

The term ‘hiṃsā’ (hurt) here stands for striking in anger, intentionally raising the hand or some weapon and letting it fall upon another, — and not actually killing.

The repetition of the pronoun ‘tat tat’ (‘every such’) is meant to guard against the idea that only one limb is to be cut off, which might arise from the use of the singular number in ‘aṅgam’ (‘limb’). Hence in a case where the hurt is inflicted by several limbs, all these limbs should be cut off.

‘Teaching’ — advice. Such is the law laid down by Manu. This has been added with a view to make a lenient king inflict the severe punishment. — (279)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 258), which explains ‘hiṃsyāt,’ as ‘strikes,’ — ‘śreyāṃsam’ (which is its reading for ‘checcreṣṭham’) as ‘one of the three higher castes — and ‘antyajaḥ’ as the ‘Śūdra’; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 146b).

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 100); — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 288); — in Aparārka (p. 813), to the effect that the limb should be cut off, if a, Śūdra causes pain to a Brāhmaṇa, or a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya; — and in Mitākṣarā (2.215), to the effect that if a Śūdra causes pain to the Brāhmaṇa, or to the Kṣatriya, or to the Vaiśya, his limb should be cut off; and adds that inasmuch as this lays down the cutting of the limb of a Śūdra who strikes any twice-born person, it follows, from the parity of reasoning, that this same punishment is to be inflicted upon the Vaiśya striking the Kṣatriya. Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes: — ‘Śreyāṃsam,’ higher caste, twice-born caste, — ‘antyaja,’ he who is born of the lower-most (‘antya’) limb, or one born of the lowest caste, — i.e., the Śūdra. This same rule is applicable also to the Vaiśya striking the Kṣatriya, as the former is ‘antyaja’ ‘low-born,’ in comparison with the latter, who therefore is ‘śreyān,’ ‘superior.’

It is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, p. 44b); — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 75), which explains ‘śreyāṃsam’ (which is its reading for ‘śreṣṭham’) as ‘the three higher castes,’ and ‘antyaja’ as ‘Śūdra.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.279-280)

Gautama (12.1). — ‘A Śūdra who criminally assaults twice-born men with blows shall he deprived of the limb with which he offends.’

Viṣṇu (5.19). — ‘With whatever limb an inferior insults or hurts his superior in caste, of that limb the King shall cause him to be deprived.’

Yājñavalkya (2.215). — ‘That limb of a non-Brāhmaṇa with which he hurts the Brāhmaṇa should he cut off. If he raises a weapon to strike him, he shall pay a fine of the first degree; if he only touches the weapon, then only half of that.’

Ārthaśāstra (p. 106). — ‘By whatever limb the Śūdra strikes the Brāhmaṇa, that limb should be cut off; if he only raises a weapon to strike, some portion of a limb may be cut off; if he only touches the weapon, the penalty shall be half of that.’

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākara, p. 262). — ‘For raising the hand to strike a man of one’s own caste, the fine is 12 Paṇas; double of that for actually striking him.’

Nārada (15-16.25). — ‘With whatever limb a man of low caste offends a Brāhmaṇa, that very limb of his shall be cut off; such shall be the atonement for his crime.’

VERSE 8.280

Section XLII - Assaults

पाणिमुद्यम्य दण्डं वा पाणिच्छेदनमर्हति ।
पादेन प्रहरन् कोपात् पादच्छेदनमर्हति ॥२८०॥

pāṇimudyamya daṇḍaṃ vā pāṇicchedanamarhati |
pādena praharan kopāt pādacchedanamarhati ||280||

If he raises his hand or a stick, he should have his hand cut off; if he strikes in anger with the foot, his foot shall be cut off. — (280)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If he raises his hand for the purpose of striking, then the hand should be cut off, — even though he may not actually strike.

‘Stick’ stands for anything that hurts in the same manner as the stick does. Hence if he strikes with the soft root of the lily and such things, the punishment shall be less severe.

‘If he strikes with the foot’; — here also raising is to be understood.

‘Threatening’ also is included herein. — (280)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p, 268) in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 288), which adds that, though in the case of other castes raising a weapon to strike one of a higher caste, the penalty is to be the ‘first amercement,’ yet for the Śūdra it has to be the cutting of the hand and other limbs.

This is quoted in Aparārka (p. 814); — in Mitākṣarā (2.215), to the effect that in the case of the Śūdra for merely raising a weapon, the hand is to be cut off; — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 75); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 146b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.279-280)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.279.

VERSE 8.281

Section XLII - Assaults

सहासनमभिप्रेप्सुरुत्कृष्टस्यापकृष्टजः ।
कट्यां कृताङ्को निर्वास्यः स्फिचं वाऽस्यावकर्तयेत् ॥२८१॥

sahāsanamabhiprepsurutkṛṣṭasyāpakṛṣṭajaḥ |
kaṭyāṃ kṛtāṅko nirvāsyaḥ sphicaṃ vā'syāvakartayet ||281||

If a low-born person tries to occupy the same seat with his superior, he should be branded on the hip and banished; or the king shall have his buttocks cut off. — (281)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Superior’ — i.e., the Brāhmaṇa, who is always ‘superior’ by reason of his caste, even though he be ‘inferior’ on account of his bad character. In the case of the other castes ‘superiority’ and ‘inferiority’ are relative and comparative (so that everyone of them may be ‘superior’ and also ‘inferior’). It is for this reason that the text has used the term ‘lowborn,’ where the term ‘born’ shows that what is meant is ‘inferiority’ by birth; hence on account of its proximity, the ‘superiority’ also should be understood to be by birth. This superiority by birth belongs to the Brāhmaṇa, irrespectively of other considerations, and he is never ‘inferior.’ From all which it follows that the punishment here laid down is for the Śūdra who occupies the same seat with the Brāhmaṇa.

‘Hips,’ — buttocks; — ‘branded’ upon that. This ‘branding’ is to be not mere marking with lime or saffron or such things; but it is to be indicative of the man’s having undergone the punishment; so that others might fight shy of the same transgression. Hence the marking prescribed is one that is ineffaceable, and should he done with an iron-nail or some such thing; as is going to be laid down below (8.352) — ‘Punishments that strike terror, etc., etc.’

He should also be ‘banished’ from the kingdom.

‘Sphik’ is the name of a part of the buttocks, on both the right and the left side. This he ‘shall have cut off.’ In as much as this is an alternative to ‘branding,’ it is only the part, and not the entire buttock, that is to be cut off.

‘Tries to occupy’; — the man is to be punished not merely for trying to do so, but only when he has actually occupied it; because the mere wish or attempt can be hidden (and hence may not he discovered), and also because the penalty laid down is very severe. — (281)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 814); — and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 268), which adds the following notes: — ‘Sahāsanamabhiprepsuḥ’ sitting on the same seat, — ‘abhiprepsu’ (lit. desirous of getting at) standing here for actually getting at itself, — the man sitting upon the same seat with his superior should be ‘branded on his hip and banished — ‘utkṛṣṭa,’ the Brāhmaṇa, ‘apakṛṣṭaja,’ the Śūdra, — ‘kṛtāṅkah’, branded with red hot iron, — ‘spicha,’ a part of the loin; — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p.75), which says that the ‘branding’ is to be done with iron, and that ‘spicha’ is a part of the waist.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (12.7). — ‘If he assumes a position equal to that of twice-born men, in sitting, in lying down, in conversation, or on the road, he shall undergo corporal punishment.’

Āpastamba (2.27.15). — ‘A. Śūdra who assumes a position equal to that of a member of the first three castes, in conversation, on the road, or a coach, in sitting and on similar occasions, shall be flogged.’

Viṣṇu (5.20). — ‘If he places himself on the same seat with his superior, he shall be banished with a mark on his buttocks.’

Nārada (15-16. 26). — ‘A low-born man, who tries to place himself on the same seat with his superior in caste, shall be branded on his hip and banished; or the King shall cause his backside to be gashed.’

VERSE 8.282

Section XLII - Assaults

अवनिष्ठीवतो दर्पाद् द्वावोष्ठौ छेदयेन्नृपः ।
अवमूत्रयतो मेढ्रमवशर्धयतो गुदम् ॥२८२॥

avaniṣṭhīvato darpād dvāvoṣṭhau chedayennṛpaḥ |
avamūtrayato meḍhramavaśardhayato gudam ||282||

If, out of arrogance, he spits, the king should have his two lips cut off; if he urinates, then his penis; and if he breaks wind, his anus. — (282)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If he sprinkles urine on his superior, or passes urine in his presence, with a view to insult him, — then, even though the urine may not actually touch the man, yet, in as much as he insults his superior with ‘urination,’ the penis shall he cut off.

This same rule applies to the case of semen; as the effect is the same in this ease also.

‘Spitting’ consists in letting the fluid pass out of the nostrils or the mouth. Hence if it is done through the nostrils, it is the nostrils that have to be cut off; in accordance with what has been said (under 279) regarding the punishment to be inflicted upon that limb with which the offence has been committed.

‘Breaking wind’ — is making an improper sound with the anus.

All this is to be punished, when done ‘out of arrogance’ and not when done by chance. — (282)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 268), which adds the following notes: — ‘Āvaniṣṭhīvato darpāt’, through arrogance spitting on the superior, — ‘avamūtrayataḥ,’ sprinkling urine, — ‘avaśardhayataḥ,’ passing wind through the anus with a loud sound; — in Aparārka (p. 814), which takes it as prescribing the penalty for the Śūdra doing these things upon twice-born persons; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p, 288); — in Mitākṣarā, (2. 115) where Bālambhaṭṭī remarks that the acts here mentioned are indications of disregard and contempt; — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, pp. 75 and 73).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5.21-22). — ‘If he spits on him, he shall lose both lips; — if he breaks wind against him, his hind-parts.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 106). — ‘If he touches one with unclean limbs, or with the feet, or with spittings, he shall be fined 6 Paṇas; if with vomits or urine or ordure, 12 Paṇas; if he touches the body above the navel, the double of these; if on the head, then four times. This among equals. If one does all this to a superior, then the fine shall be double; half only if it is done inadvertently.’

Nārada (15-16. 27). — ‘If, through arrogance, he spits on a superior, the King shall have both his lips to be cut off; if he makes water on him, the penis: if he breaks wind against him, the buttocks.’

Yājñavalkya (2.213-214). — ‘If one touches another person with ashes, or mud, or dust, — the fine shall be 10 Paṇa.s; if he touches him with an unclean hand, or with the foot, or with spittings, the fine shall be double of that. This refers to the case of equals; if the offence is against another man’s wife, or against superior persons, the fine shall be double; if against inferiors, it shall be half; there is to be no punishment if all this is done under the influence of liquor and such things.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 813). — ‘The fine is to be quadrupled if one touches another person with vomitings, urine or ordure; and sixfold if the middle of the body is touched; and eightfold, if the head is touched.’

Hārīta (Vivādaratnākara, p. 266). — ‘If one of a lower caste catches hold of the neck, or breasts or hair or mouth of a person of the higher caste, the fine shall be 30; 63, for uprooting his hair and for threatening him.’

VERSE 8.283

Section XLII - Assaults

केशेषु गृह्णतो हस्तौ छेदयेदविचारयन् ।
पादयोर्दाढिकायां च ग्रीवायां वृषणेषु च ॥२८३॥

keśeṣu gṛhṇato hastau chedayedavicārayan |
pādayordāḍhikāyāṃ ca grīvāyāṃ vṛṣaṇeṣu ca ||283||

If he catches hold of the hair, the king shall unhesitatingly have his hands out off; also if he lays hold of the feet, the beard, the neck, or the scrotum. — (283)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The phrase ‘out of arrogance’ of the preceding verse has to be construed with this verse also.

If the Śūdra lays hold of the Brāhmaṇa’s hair, with a view to insult him, his hands should be cut off. The dual number has been used for the purpose of indicating that even when the catching is done with a single hand, since the pain caused is the same as that in the case of catching with both hands, it is both the hands that shall be cut off, and not one only.

‘Dāḍhikā’ is beard.

In the case of other parts of the body also, the catching of which causes the same pain as the catching of the neck and other limbs mentioned, the punishment shall be the same as the one here laid down.

‘Unhesitatingly’; — this forbids any consideration regarding the exact amount of pain caused by the catching, — whether it has been much or otherwise. The sense is that the punishment is to be inflicted for the mere catching. — (288)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

It is difficult to see why Hopkins calls the reading ‘dāḍhikāyām,’ ‘obscure.’

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 814), which adds the following notes: — ‘Dāḍhikāyām’ — on the beard, — ‘Vṛsaṇeṣu scrotum and the rest; if the scrotum alone were meant, then the plural ending could not be justified; — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 268), which remarks that the dual ending has been used in ‘hastau’ with a view to indicate that both hands are to be cut off even though the beard be held by one only; and it explains ‘dāḍhikā,’ as ‘beard’ — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p, 76), which explains these two verses to mean that ‘if a Śūdra insults a man of any of the higher castes by spitting at him, his lips should be cut off — if by urinating on his body, his urinary organ should be cut off, — if by passing wind over him, the anus should be cut off, — and if by catching hold of his hair, then his hands should be cut off.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5.65). — ‘If he seizes him by his feet, by his hair, by his garment, or by his hand, he shall pay ten Paṇas.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 106). — ‘On touching his feet, garment, hands or hair, the fine shall be multiples of six respectively.’

Nārada (15-16.28). — ‘If he pulls a superior by the hair, the King shall unhesitatingly cause his hands to be out off; likewise if he seizes him by the feet, beard, neck or scrotum.’

Yājñavalkya (2.217). — ‘For pulling a person by the feet, hair, garment or hands, — there shall be a fine of 10 Paṇas; for causing pain, dragging, binding with cloth and striking with the feet, the fine shall be a hundred.’

VERSE 8.284

Section XLII - Assaults

त्वग्भेदकः शतं दण्ड्यो लोहितस्य च दर्शकः ।
मांसभेत्ता तु षट् निष्कान् प्रवास्यस्त्वस्थिभेदकः ॥२८४॥

tvagbhedakaḥ śataṃ daṇḍyo lohitasya ca darśakaḥ |
māṃsabhettā tu ṣaṭ niṣkān pravāsyastvasthibhedakaḥ ||284||

One who bruises the skin should be fined one hundred; as also one who fetches blood; he who cuts the flesh, six ‘niṣkas’ and the bone-breaker should be banished. — (284)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What is here laid down pertains to offences committed among the twice-born men themselves, as also between two Śūdras.

When one only ‘breaks’ or pierces the skin, and fetches no blood, the fine is one hundred.

The same also when blood flows out. Though no blood can flow out unless the skin has been broken, yet the limitation on the fine has been laid down with a view to preclude the idea that since the hurt is more serious, the punishment should he heavier.

Others hold that this has been added in view of the fact that blood flows also out of the ear, the nostrils and such other pans, as also out of the outer skin (and the rule is meant to apply to this latter ease).

This however is not right. Because in a case where there is internal hurt, the pain is very severe, and the punishment therefore should be proportionately heavy. Hence what is meant is that the fine of one hundred shall be inflicted in a case where only a small quantity of blood has flown out.

In the case of head-breaking, the punishment shall be the same as that in the case of cutting the flesh.

The term ‘niṣka’ here stands for a measure of gold, as has been already explained before.

‘The breaker of bones should be banished,’; — i.e., one who causes the bone to be broken. The compound ‘asthibhedakaḥ’ should be explained by compounding ‘asthi’ (‘bone’) with the term ‘bheda’ which ends with the ‘ghañ’ affix, and then adding the causal affix in the sense of ‘doing’ to the compound thus formed (i.e., ‘asthibhedam karoti iti asthibhedakaḥ’).

‘Banishment’ is an alternative to ‘Death.’ In works dealing with the science of government, in the sections dealing with punishments, we find the latter penalty laid down; for instance, in the works of Bṛhaspati and Uśanas. So ‘banishment’ applies to the case of Brāhmaṇas, and ‘death’ to that of others. — (284)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“According to Rāghavānanda the rule refers to Śūdras assaulting Śūdras. According to Nārāyaṇa, the last offender’s property shall be confiscated.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 164), which remarks that in view of the law laid down by Viṣṇu, that for causing bleeding the fine shall be 64 paṇas, — the penalty here laid down should be understood to be applicable to cases where there is much bleeding caused by the tearing of the skin.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 287); — in Aparārka (p. 815) which adds that, the bleeding is due to grievous hurt, then the fine is to be 100, otherwise 64; — in Mitākṣarā (2.218), where Bālambhaṭṭī remarks that the penalty here laid down applies to cases where the hurt has been inflicted on some vital part of the body; — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 74), which explains ‘niṣka’ as equivalent to four ‘suvarṇas’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5.66-72). — ‘If he causes pain to him, without fetching blood, he shall pay 32 Paṇas; for fetching blood, 64; — for mutilating or injuring a hand, or a foot, or a tooth, — and for slitting an ear, or the nose, — the second amercement. For rendering a man unable to move about, or to oat, or to speak, — or for striking him violently, — the same punishment is ordained. For wounding or breaking an eye, or the neck, or an arm, or a hone, or a shoulder, the highest amercement. For striking out both eyes of a man, the King shall confine him and not release him from the jail as long as he lives; — or he shall order him to be mutilated in the same way.’

Yājñavalkya (2.218-220). — ‘If one causes pain with wood and other things, without fetching blood, he should ho made to pay a fine of 32 Paṇas; on fetching blood, the double of that. If he breaks a hand, or a foot, or a tooth, or slits the ear or the nose, or reopens a wound, or beats him nearly to death, — the middle amercement. On incapacitating him from moving, eating or speaking, also for piercing the eyes and other organs, or for breaking the shoulder, or the arms or the thighs, the middle amercement.’

Nārada (15-16.29). — ‘If a man breaks the skin of an equal, or fetches blood from him, he shall be fined a hundred Paṇas; if he cuts the flesh, 6 Niṣkas; if he breaks a bone, ho shall be banished.’

Bṛhaspati (22.720). — ‘For injuring a person with bricks, stones or a wooden club, he shall he fined two Māṣas; double of this, if blood flows. For tearing the skin, the lowest amercement shall be inflicted; for tearing the flesh, the middle amercement; for breaking a hone, the highest amercement; for killing, capital punishment. For breaking the oar, the nose or hand, or injuring teeth, or feet, — the middle amercement; and double of that for cutting off any of those limbs. He who injures a limb or divides it, shall be compelled to pay the expense of curing it.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 107). — ‘On hurting a person, without fetching blood, with wood, stones, bricks, iron-stick, or ropes — the fine shall be 24 Paṇas; double of that if blood is fetched. The lowest amercement for beating a man nearly to death, without fetching blood; as also for disabling a hand or foot. For breaking the hand or foot, or for tearing the nose or the ear, or for opening a wound, the same punishment. For breaking the thigh or the neck or the eyes, or making one unable to speak or move or eat, — the middle amercement; also the expenses for effecting a cure. If the man happen to die, the culprit should be tried as a heinous criminal.’

Познавательные статьи:



Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Статус республик в составе РФ

Понятие финансов, их функции и особенности

Сущность демографической политии