with the Commentary of Medhatithi 240 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 246 из 350Следующая ⇒

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 8.293-294)

‘Driver’ — the man who drives the cart; his ‘ineptitude’ consists in his being not trained. What is said here applies to the case where the accident is due to this, and not to want of care; for when the driver is a trained one, the punishment should fall on him, there being no fault on the part of the master.

On account of the said ‘ineptitude,’ if the cart suddenly happens to ‘turn off,’ — i.e., giving up the right path, swerves off either sideways or backwards, — and should thereby cause some damage, the owner should he fined for having employed an untrained driver.

In view of what is going to be said regarding the case ‘when a man is killed’ (296), where diverse penalties are prescribed in accordance with the nature of the living being injured or article damaged, — significance cannot be attached to what is said in the present verse regarding the fine being ‘two hundred’; all that is meant by the declaration is that the case cited is one calling for punishment; specially as there is nothing else (apart from the specific cases mentioned below) to which the exact amount of fine here laid down may he taken as applicable. — (293-294)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verse 8.293)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 863), which explains ‘prājaka’ as the driver and ‘swāmi’ as the man riding in the chariot; — in Smṛtitattva (p. 530), which explains the meaning to be that, in a case where the chariot goes astray on account of the inefficiency of the driver, and causes hurt to some one, a fine of 200 should be imposed on the owner of the chariot for the offence of having engaged an inept driver; — in Bālambhaṭṭī (2.299) which adds the same explanation as the one just given; — and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 282), which adds the following notes: — In a case where the owner of the chariot has employed an inefficient driver, and the horses go astray by reason of the driver’s inefficiency, and if there be any damages caused by this, then the owner should be fined 200.

It is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 1041).

(verse 8.294)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 282), to the effect that in a case where the driver is efficient, the punishment shall be inflicted upon him; and it explains ‘āptaḥ’ as ‘fully expert’; — and in Mitākṣarā (2.300) which adds, that if the owner employs an expert driver, then it is the driver that is to be punished, not the owner; — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 1042).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.290-294)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.290.

VERSE 8.295

Section XLII - Assaults

स चेत् तु पथि संरुद्धः पशुभिर्वा रथेन वा ।
प्रमापयेत् प्राणभृतस्तत्र दण्डोऽविचारितः ॥२९५॥

sa cet tu pathi saṃruddhaḥ paśubhirvā rathena vā |
pramāpayet prāṇabhṛtastatra daṇḍo'vicāritaḥ ||295||

But if he happens to be stopped on the road and causes the death of a living being, either through animals or through the cart, — in such a case there is no doubt regarding punishment. — (295)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Penalty for causing hurt has been described; the text proceeds to lay down details regarding it.

If ‘he’ — the driver — ‘happens to be stopped’ — his movement obstructed — ‘on the road’ — by some dense mass coming in front of him; while thus placed behind that mass, either on account of carelessness, or by reason of being untrained, he continues to urge forward the animals yoked to his cart, and then suddenly pulls them up, — another cart happens to be close hy, — then, by the sudden stoppage of the speed of his cart, he happens to cause the death of men or other living beings, — either through the ‘animals’ — horses or others — yoked to the other cart, — or ‘through the cart’ itself, or through some parts of it; — in such a case ‘there is no doubt regarding the punishment,’ punishment is certain.

Or, when the fast-running horses, on being suddenly pulled up, at the sight of some obstacle in front, turn off sideways and kill the men that may be there on one side, or behind the cart, — then in such a case ‘there is no doubt regarding punishment,’ — i.e. there is no punishment at all; and this for the simple reason that there is no fault of the driver in this case.

Or, the words may he construed to mean that — when the cart is ‘on the road’ — i.e., standing on the road; — or ‘stopped’ — i.e., pulled up — then in such a case the punishment is ‘vicāritaḥ’ (this being the reading in place of ‘avicāritaḥ’), i.e., specially prescribed. — (295)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 282), which explains the meaning to be that in a case where being inefficiently driven by the driver, the chariot happens to be obstructed on the road by another chariot or by an animal, and thereby causes hurt to a living being, the punishment is to be inflicted on the driver, ‘avicāritaḥ,’ most surely.

It is quoted in ‘Bālambhaṭṭī’ on 2.300.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.295-298)

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākara, p. 284). — ‘If any animal happen to be killed, the man should be made to pay a fine according to the character of the animal killed, and the value of the animal to its owner.’

Viṣṇu (5.50-54). — ‘He who kills domestic animals shall pay a fine of 100 kārṣāpaṇaṣ; — he shall make good their value to the owner; be who kills wild animals shall pay 500 kārṣāpaṇas; a killer of birds or fish, ten kārṣāpaṇas; a killer of insects, one kārṣāpaṇa.’

VERSE 8.296

Section XLII - Assaults

मनुष्यमारणे क्षिप्रं चौरवत् किल्बिषं भवेत् ।
प्राणभृत्सु महत्स्वर्धं गोगजोष्ट्रहयादिषु ॥२९६॥

manuṣyamāraṇe kṣipraṃ cauravat kilbiṣaṃ bhavet |
prāṇabhṛtsu mahatsvardhaṃ gogajoṣṭrahayādiṣu ||296||

If the case of a man being killed, on the spot, the guilt would be similar to that of the thief; and half of that in the case of the larger animals, such as cows, elephants, camels, horses and the like. — (296)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If on account of the driver being in the position above described, a man happens to be killed by the cart or by the animals yoked to it, then his ‘guilt’ — i.e., his punishment — ‘would be similar to that of the thief.’

Though the punishment laid down for the thief is either ‘death’ or ‘confiscation of the entire property’ and so forth, yet in the present context it is the fine that is meant, and not ‘death’; as is clear from the words — ‘Half of that in the case of the larger animals,’ — since it is only of the fine that there can be a ‘half.’

The ‘fine’ for the ‘thief’ has been held to be the ‘highest amercement,’ on the ground that the fine for killing smaller animals, which occupy the third place in the scale — having been put down at ‘two hundred,’ it is only right that in the case of human beings, who occupy the first place in the scale, it should be the ‘highest amercement.’

‘Animals,’ — living beings, such as man, beasts and birds,etc.

‘Larger’; — in the case of ‘cows,’ ‘largeness’ consists in their superior quality, while in that of the elephant and other animals, it consists in their size.

The phrase ‘and the like’ is meant to include the ass, the mule, the tiger and others.

Our opinion on this point however is as follows: — If the other punishments of the ‘thief’ were not meant to be applicable to the present case, then the author would have simply mentioned ‘a thousand’ as the fine. The mention of the ‘half’ may justify the exclusion of the penalty of ‘death’; but all the other penalties, — such as ‘confiscation of the entire property,’ and so forth — that have been prescribed in the case of the thief, — must be taken as meant to be applicable to the case of men.

“It cannot be right to apply to the case of man-killing any penalty other than ‘death’; because under 8.323 below, it is clearly laid down in so many words that ‘death’ shall be the penalty in the case of killing a man. Under the circumstances, why should the other explanation (whereby only the other penalties are made applicable) be accepted, simply because the term ‘half’ happens to be used in another sentence? It would be far better to attribute some other figurative meaning to the term ‘half’ itself.”

This would be true if there were any other way of construing the term ‘half’ with ‘death.’ ‘Punishment similar to that of the thief’ having been prescribed, it would not be right to take it to mean one thing (death) in the first sentence and another thing (fine, etc.) in the second. — (296)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 283), which adds the following notes: — The term ‘chauravat’ indicates the fine that has been prescribed in connection with the ‘highest amercement’, — and not mutilation or death; as there could be no ‘half’ of the latter, — such a half being prescribed in the latter part of the verse for causing hurt to cows and such other animals.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 109); — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 291); — and in Mitākṣarā (2.300), where Bālambhaṭṭī adds the following noṭes: — If a man is killed by a chariot, going astray by reason of the careless driver, then he at once becomes as great an offender as a thief, and liable to be punished as a thief ‘Kilviṣam’ is another reading for ‘kilviṣī’; and the penalty meant here must be the ‘highest amercement,’ not death, since the second half of the verse speaks of the ‘half’ of the said penalty, by which ‘half a fine of 500 is meant, for the offence of killing such larger animals as the cow and the like.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.295-298)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.295.

VERSE 8.297

Section XLII - Assaults

क्षुद्रकाणां पशूनां तु हिंसायां द्विशतो दमः ।
पञ्चाशत् तु भवेद् दण्डः शुभेषु मृगपक्षिषु ॥२९७॥

kṣudrakāṇāṃ paśūnāṃ tu hiṃsāyāṃ dviśato damaḥ |
pañcāśat tu bhaved daṇḍaḥ śubheṣu mṛgapakṣiṣu ||297||

In the case of hurting petty animals, the fine is two h undred; and fifty in the case of the auspicious quadrupeds and birds. — (297)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Animals of small size are called ‘petty’; these may, in some cases, be ‘petty’ in age, — as in the case of the calf, the elephant-cub and. so forth; and in others they may he ‘petty’ in quality, — as the ram and such animals. As for the latter, the author is going to lay down ‘five māṣas’ as the fine for killing goat and sheep. Hence the present text must be taken as referring to the small-sized animals other than those two.

‘Auspicious quadrupeds’ are the deer and similar animals; which are ‘auspicious’ in shape, as well as quality; and ‘birds,’ such as the swan, the parrot and so forth. And the ‘inauspicious quadrupeds and birds’ are the crow, the owl, the jackal and so forth.

The term ‘paśu’ here stands for quadrupeds.

People have held that the penalties laid down here refer to ‘hurt’ in general, and not to ‘hurt’ caused by conveyances, which form the subject-matter of the context. Because, it is contended, the treatment of the subject of ‘hurt caused by conveyances’ was finished at verse 295, — where it was declared that the punishment (for hurt caused by conveyances) has been ‘vicāritaḥ,’ which means that ‘its consideration has been finished.’ And hence it is held that what is declared in the present verse has no connection with that context.

Similarly under verse 290, in the sentence ‘half of that in the case of the larger animals,’ the penalty spoken of as ‘half’ should, on the strength of other Smṛtis, be taken as referring to the cutting off of the hand or some such limb, which would he a minor form of ‘death’ (and hence ‘half’). — (297)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.300), where Bālambhaṭṭī adds the following notes: — ‘Kṣūdra-paśu’ are smaller animals, — these smaller ones being either in age, e.g., calves &c., or in quality, e.g., goats &c.; but it is the former that are meant here; so that for the killing of a young calf the fine would be 200; in the case of birds that are auspicious — in shape or in quality, — ‘mṛga,’ the ruru, the pṛṣata and other species of the deer, — birds, such as the parrot, the swan and so forth, — the fine is 50.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 283), which adds the following notes: — ‘Kṣudra’ means small; and ‘smallness’ is of two kinds — due to age, as in the case of the elephant cub, and due to quality, as in the case of the goat and the like; the ‘śubha mṛga’ are the Ruru, the Pṛṣata and so forth; and ‘śubha’ birds are the parrot and the like.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 109); — and in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 291).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.295-298)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.295.

VERSE 8.298

Section XLII - Assaults

गर्धभाजाविकानां तु दण्डः स्यात् पञ्चमाषिकः ।
माषिकस्तु भवेद् दण्डः श्वसूकरनिपातने ॥२९८॥

gardhabhājāvikānāṃ tu daṇḍaḥ syāt pañcamāṣikaḥ |
māṣikastu bhaved daṇḍaḥ śvasūkaranipātane ||298||

In the case of donkeys, goat and sheep the fine shall consist of five ‘māṣas’; and the fine shall be one ‘māṣa’ for the killing of a dog ok a pig. — (298)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘pāñcamāṣika’ means ‘that of which five māṣas is the measure’; since the substance is not mentioned of which there shall be ‘five māṣas,’ the most reasonable conclusion is to take the mean, i.e., a substance of medium quality; hence it is ‘five māṣas’ of silver that is meant; so say some people.

But the right view is to take it as referring to gold; and in this sense the present assertion does not militate against anything that has been said before with regard to its being ‘equal to it’ (?)

The final conclusion is that the exact substance is to be determined in accordance with the circumstances of each individual case. — (298)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p; 283), which notes that the ‘māṣaka’ is equal to two kṛṣṇalas, as declared by Pārijāta; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 291); — and in Mitākṣarā (2.300), where Bālambhaṭṭī adds the following notes: — For the killing of a donkey, or goat, or sheep, the fine consists in silver, 5 Māsas in weight, and not gold, and for the killing of a dog or a pig, one Māṣa of silver. It notes both the readings, ‘pāñcamāṣikaḥ... māṣikaḥ’ and ‘pañcamāṣakaḥ...... māṣakaḥ’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.295-298)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.295.

VERSE 8.299

Section XLII - Assaults

भार्या पुत्रश्च दासश्च प्रेष्यो भ्रात्रा च सौदरः ।
प्राप्तापराधास्ताड्याः स्यू रज्ज्वा वेणुदलेन वा ॥२९९॥

bhāryā putraśca dāsaśca preṣyo bhrātrā ca saudaraḥ |
prāptāparādhāstāḍyāḥ syū rajjvā veṇudalena vā ||299||

The wife, the son, the slave, the servant and the uterine brother shall be beaten with a rope or a split bamboo, when they have committed a fault. — (299)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Prāptāparādhāḥ,’ — those who have fallen upon, committed, a fault. ‘Fault’ means transgression of morality; when any such has been committed by them, they should he beaten.

As a matter of fact, beating is a form of hurt, and as such is forbidden by the general law — ‘no living beings shall be injured’; but an exception to this is made in the case of transgressions by the wife and other persons.

All these are relative terms; hence the meaning is that the wife is to be chastised by him whose wife she is, the slave is to be chastised by him who is his master, and so forth.

What is enjoined here is the method of keeping the persons on the right path, and not actual beating; so that chastisement may be administered verbally; and in cases where the fault is serious, there may also be beating.

In the place of ‘uterine’ we should read ‘younger,’ and the right reading would thus be ‘bhrātā tathānujaḥ’; since it is the younger brother that may be chastised by his elder brother, like a child. The half-brother also is under the tutelage of the elder brother, if the latter is a duly qualified person; hence he also, if he takes to the wrong path, should be prevented by all the methods, ending with beating,

‘Split bamboo’ — the bark of the bamboo. This has been mentioned only as illustrative of the lotus-fibre and other such objects which cause only slight pain. — (299)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Cf. 4.164.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 271), which explains that the younger ‘brother’ is meant; — in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 514); — in Aparārka (p. 610, and also p. 817); — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (pp. 572 and 919); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 52); — in Samskāraratnamālā (p. 314), which says that the specific mention of the ‘uterine’ brother indicates that the half-brother shall not be beaten; — and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 142), which says that this beating should be done only when the boy proves intractable to chiding and other means; — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 76).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.299-301)

Gautama (2.42-44). — ‘As a rule, a pupil shall not be punished corporally, — if no other course is possible, he may be corrected with a thin rope or a thin cane; if the teacher strikes him with any other thing, he should be punished by the King.’

Āpastamba (1.8.28-29). — ‘If the pupil commits faults, the teacher shall always reprove him; — frightening, fasting, bathing in cold water and expulsion from the teacher’s presence are the punishments to be employed, according to the seriousness of the fault, until the pupil leaves off the mischief.’

Yama (Vivādaratnākara, p. 2.). — ‘Wife, son, slave, slave-girl and pupil, — when these commit a fault, they should be chastised with a rope or with split bamboo; but in the lower, never in the higher, parts of the body: — if one strikes them otherwise, he should be punished.’

Nārada (Do.). — ‘If the pupil docs not obey the teacher, he should be chastised, without hurting him, either with a thin rope or with split bamboo; the teacher shall not beat him much, nor in the head or on the chest. Behaving otherwise than this, the teacher should be punished by the King.’

VERSE 8.300

Section XLII - Assaults

पृष्ठतस्तु शरीरस्य नोत्तमाङ्गे कथं चन ।
अतोऽन्यथा तु प्रहरन् प्राप्तः स्याच्चौरकिल्बिषम् ॥३००॥

pṛṣṭhatastu śarīrasya nottamāṅge kathaṃ cana |
ato'nyathā tu praharan prāptaḥ syāccaurakilbiṣam ||300||

But only on the back part of the body, and never on the upper part; he who strikes otherwise than this incurs the guilt of a thief. — (300)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

He who strikes with things other than those specified — i.e., with a stick or such things — or on a part of the body other than those mentioned, — i.e., on the eye, etc. — ‘incurs the guilt of a thief.’

This is only meant to be deprecatory of the act referred to; and is not the injunction of an actual punishment; so that in this case also the penalty shall be the same as that in other oases of ‘hurt.’ — (300)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 514); — in Aparārka (p. 610), which explains that ‘kilviṣam’ means ‘an offence deserving punishment’; — again on p. 817, where ‘kilviṣam’ is explained as ‘punishment’; — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 271), which explains ‘pṛṣṭhataḥ’ as ‘not in a vital part,’ and ‘uttamāṅge’ also as ‘in a vital part’; — in Vidhānapārijāta (p. 530); — in Mitākṣarā (2.32), in support of the view that, if, in a fit of passion, the Teacher should strike the pupil in a vital part of the body, and the boy should complain before the king, then it becomes an admissible suit; — in Vyavahāra-Balambhaṭṭī (pp. 572 and 919); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, 47b); — in Saṃskāramayūkha (p. 52) to the effect that no one should be struck on the head; — in Saṃskāraratnamālā (p, 315), which says that ‘uttamāṅga’ means ‘head’; — in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 142); — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 76).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.299-301)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.299.

VERSE 8.301

Section XLII - Assaults

एषोऽखिलेनाभिहितो दण्डपारुष्यनिर्णयः ।
स्तेनस्यातः प्रवक्ष्यामि विधिं दण्डविनिर्णये ॥३०१॥

eṣo'khilenābhihito daṇḍapāruṣyanirṇayaḥ |
stenasyātaḥ pravakṣyāmi vidhiṃ daṇḍavinirṇaye ||301||

Thus has the law relating to physical assault been fully explained; after this I am going to expound the law for the regulating of punishments in cases of theft. — (301)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘The law relating to assault’ — the rules regarding punishments — has been fully explained. The term ‘daṇḍa’ as occurring in the name of the ‘head of dispute’ ( daṇḍapāruṣya), has been used as indicating the weapon of assault (stick).

After this I am going to expound the several kinds of penalties to be inflicted on the thief.

This verse serves the purpose of introducing the next head. — (301)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 286).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.299-301)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.299.

VERSE 8.302 [Theft (steya)]

Section XLIII - Theft (steya)

परमं यत्नमातिष्ठेत् स्तेनानां निग्रहे नृपः ।
स्तेनानां निग्रहादस्य यशो राष्ट्रं च वर्धते ॥३०२॥

paramaṃ yatnamātiṣṭhet stenānāṃ nigrahe nṛpaḥ |
stenānāṃ nigrahādasya yaśo rāṣṭraṃ ca vardhate ||302||

The King shall, make the best efforts for suppressing thieves; by the suppression of thieves comes fame and the kingdom prospers. — (302)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It is possible that a certain king may be too merciful and hence not undertake the work of suppressing thieves, regarding it to be a cruel act of injury; hence with a view to prompt such a king to do his duty, the text puts forward a valedictory passage appraising the suppression of thieves. The meaning is that the act of punishing thieves does not involve anything wrong in the way in which the ‘injury of living beings’ does; on the contrary, in the case of thieves, it is the act of inflicting hurt on them which serves a visibly useful purpose and enhances the fame of the king.

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