with the Commentary of Medhatithi 244 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 250 из 350Следующая ⇒

वेणुवैदलभाण्डानां लवणानां तथैव च ।
मृण्मयानां च हरणे मृदो भस्मन एव च ॥३२७॥

मत्स्यानां पक्षिणां चैव तैलस्य च घृतस्य च ।
मांसस्य मधुनश्चैव यच्चान्यत् पशुसम्भवम् ॥३२८॥

अन्येषां चैवमादीनां मद्यानामोदनस्य च ।
पक्वान्नानां च सर्वेषां तन्मुल्याद् द्विगुणो दमः ॥३२९॥

sūtrakārpāsakiṇvānāṃ gomayasya guḍasya ca |
dadhnaḥ kṣīrasya takrasya pānīyasya tṛṇasya ca ||326||

veṇuvaidalabhāṇḍānāṃ lavaṇānāṃ tathaiva ca |
mṛṇmayānāṃ ca haraṇe mṛdo bhasmana eva ca ||327||

matsyānāṃ pakṣiṇāṃ caiva tailasya ca ghṛtasya ca |
māṃsasya madhunaścaiva yaccānyat paśusambhavam ||328||

anyeṣāṃ caivamādīnāṃ madyānāmodanasya ca |
pakvānnānāṃ ca sarveṣāṃ tanmulyād dviguṇo damaḥ ||329||

In the case of the theft of yarns, cotton, fermenting drug, cowdung, molasses, curds, milk, skimmed curd, water and grass (326), — of vessels made of bamboo or cane, as also of salts, earthenware, earth and ashes (327) — of fish, birds, oil, clarified butter, meat, honey, and other animal-products (328) — of other things of this kind, spirituous liquors, cooked rice and all kinds of cooked food, — the fine shall be double the value of the thing (stolen). — (326-329)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 8.326-329)

‘Yarns’ — woolen, jute and so forth.

‘Salts,’ — rock-salt, black salt, and so forth.

‘Other animal-products’ — the flesh, etc.

Other kinds of ‘cooked food’ — such as sweet bread, sweetmeats, etc. The term ‘ādi’ means kinds, kinship consisting in similarity, equality, similar utility. It is in this sense that butter, gruel, sugar-candy, sugar, coagulated milk, inspissated milk and so forth become included. The term ‘animal-products.’ according to some, includes the wool, the skin and so forth.

‘And be forth’ — includes the products of the things mentioned; and as an example of this, the text has mentioned both ‘curd’ and ‘milk.’

Similarly ‘yarn’ includes also cloth made from yarns.

As for the ‘nalikā’ and such things, even though they are made up of yarns, and are ‘animal-products,’ — yet, being already included under ‘fine clothes’ (verse 321), they are to be excluded from the present verse.

The term ‘taila’ here stands for oils in general, — and not for the oil of ‘tila,’ sesamum, only, as its derivation suggests. So that the oils of linseed, Priyaṅgu, cardamom and other things also become included. — (326-329)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

(verses 8.326-329)

These verses are quoted in Vīvādaratnākara (p. 326), which adds the following notes: — Anyeṣāmevamādīnām’, i.e., pastries and the like, — ‘anyat paśusambhavām’, skins, tusks and so forth; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 989); — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 140), which says that this refers to the case of the theft of small quantities of yarn; and such as have been made ready for use.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.326-331)

Viṣṇu (5.83-86). — ‘A stealer of thread, cotton, cow-dung, sugar, sour milk, milk, butter-milk, grass, salt, clay, ashes, birds, fish, clarified butter, oil, meat, honey, basket-work, split bamboo, earthenware, or iron pots, shall pay three times its value as fine; — the same fine is ordained for dressed food. For stealing flowers, green grain, shrubs, creepers, climbing plants or leaves, the fine is 5 kṛṣṇalas; — the same for stealing pot herbs, roots or fruits.’

Nārada (Theft, 22-24). — ‘For stealing wood, cane, grass and the like, earthenware-utensils, bamboo, utensils made of bamboos, rattan, bone, leather, vegetables, green roots, grass, flowers, cow-milk, molasses, salt, oil, cooked food, dressed food spirituous liquor, flesh, and other objects of small value, a fine five times the value of the article shall be levied.’

Bṛahspati (22.20). — ‘When a man takes grass, wood, flowers, or fruit, without permission of the owner, he deserves to have a hand cut off.’

Do. (22.25). — ‘He who destroys or takes away implements of husbandry, an embankment or flowers, roots or fruits, shall be fined a hundred paṇas, or more according to the nature of the offence.’

Yājñavalkya (2.275). — ‘For stealing articles trifling, mediocre or large, the punishment shall he in accordance with the value of the article stolen; and in the inflicting of punishments, the King shall take into consideration the time, the place and also the age and capacity of the offender.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Aparārka, p. 848). — ‘If a non-Brāhmaṇa steals, either forcibly or unintentionally, any of the following articles belonging to a Brāhmaṇa, he shall have his hand cutoff: — sacrificial fuel, clarified butter, fire-wood, grass, fodder, flower, incense, fruits; if any one is actually caught in the act of stealing kuśa-grass, leather-vessels, or the Agnihotra-implements, his limb shall be cut off; hut if he is found out afterwards, he shall be made to ride a donkey if he is a Brāhmaṇa, and shall have his head shaven.’

Vyāsa (Vivādaratnākara, p. 325). — ‘One who steals trifling and mediocre articles, or flowers, roots or fruits, shall be made to pay double the value of the article, or a fine of five kṛṣṇalas.’

Do. (p. 328). — ‘For stealing things of small value or milk or milk-products, the stealer should ho made to pay to the owner the value of the thing, and to the King a fine double the said value.’

Gautama (Do.). — ‘Five kṛṣṇalas for the stealing of fruits, green grains or vegetables.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 327). — ‘For the stealing of dressed wood, stone, earthenware, vessels made of leather or cane, the fine shall be either five times the value of the article stolen, or three kārṣāpaṇas.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 100). — ‘For stealing flowers, fruits, vegetables, roots, cooked food, vessels of leather, bamboo or earthenware, or other trifling things, the fine shall be not less than 12, or more than 24 Paṇas. For stealing articles made of iron, wood or ropes, — or of small animals, clothes and such things, or large objects, the fine shall be not less than 24, or more than 40 Paṇas; for stealing vessels made of copper, vṛtta (?), bell-metal, glass or ivory, the fine shall be not less than 48 or more than 90 Paṇas, i.e., the first amercement.’

VERSE 8.330

Section XLIII - Theft (steya)

पुष्पेषु हरिते धान्ये गुल्मवल्लीनगेषु च ।
अन्येष्वपरिपूतेषु दण्डः स्यात् पञ्चकृष्णलः ॥३३०॥

puṣpeṣu harite dhānye gulmavallīnageṣu ca |
anyeṣvaparipūteṣu daṇḍaḥ syāt pañcakṛṣṇalaḥ ||330||

For flowers, green corns, shrubs, creepers, trees and other unhusked (grains), the fine shall consist of five ‘kṛṣṇalas.’ — (330)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Flowers’ — The navamallikā and the rest.

‘Green com’ — while still in the field.

‘Other unhusked,’ — ‘anyesu aparipūteṣu’; — in as much as this has the plural form, and ‘husking,’ — which consists in the removing of chaff and husks — is possible only in the case of ‘grains,’ we construe this along with the term ‘dhānyesu,’ ‘grains,’ of the next verse. As for ‘shrubs, creepers and trees’ and (‘flowers’ which are expressed by the only other words in the verse with the plural ending), though the former have leaves, and the latter also are generally mixed up with leaves, yet they are never spoken of as ‘husked.’

The Locative ending refers to the ‘stealing,’ mentioned in the preceding verse, from where it is construed here also.

In the case of these, there shall be a fine of ‘five kṛṣṇalas’; — the ‘kṛṣṇalas’ meant being of various metals, to be determined in accordance with the greater or less utility of the things stolen. The ancients have held that it refers to gold only. — (330)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Anyeṣu’ — Medhātithi does not read ‘alpeṣu’ as asserted by Hopkins.

‘Pañcakṛṣṇalaḥ’ — ‘Medhātithi says that the kṛṣṇalas meant may be gold or silver, in accordance with the gravity of the offence’ — that ‘it is meant to be gold only’ is the view that he quotes as held by the ‘ancients.’ Buhler therefore is not right in attributing this latter view to Medhātithi himself.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 325) which adds the following notes: — ‘Harite dhānye’, which is still lying unripe in the field; on this being stolen for purposes of fodder , — ‘ naga’, tree, — ‘alpeṣu’ (which is its reading for ‘anyeṣu’), quantity even less than what can be carried by a man, — ‘aparipūteṣu’, unhusked, — ‘dhānye’, in construing the sentence the number is to be changed into the plural, ‘dhānyeṣu.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.326-331)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.326-329.

VERSE 8.331

Section XLIII - Theft (steya)

परिपूतेषु धान्येषु शाकमूलफलेषु च ।
निरन्वये शतं दण्डः सान्वयेऽर्धशतं दमः ॥३३१॥

paripūteṣu dhānyeṣu śākamūlaphaleṣu ca |
niranvaye śataṃ daṇḍaḥ sānvaye'rdhaśataṃ damaḥ ||331||

For husked grains, for vegetables, roots and fruits, there shall be a fine of a hundred, in a case where there has been no propitiation; and fifty, where there has been propitiation. — (331)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Roots, etc.,’ — e.g., sugar-cane, grapes and so forth.

In a case of theft which is ‘niranvaya’; — ‘anvaya’ stands for ‘propitiation,’ the adopting of a conciliatory attitude towards the owner, such as — ‘I took this thing under the impression that what is yours is mine also; if this be not so, then take it,’ — or some such words; — where this is not done, it is a ‘case where there has been no propitiation’; and this being a form of ‘robbery,’ the punishment is severe.

A case where there has been such ‘propitiation’ is called ‘sānvaya.’

Or, the meaning may be that there shall be a fine of ‘hundred’ in a case where there is no ‘relationship’ between the parties, — such as living in the same village and so forth.

Or, ‘niranvaya’ may mean ‘unguarded.’ Where the watchman is present, since the fault lies with both (thief as well as the watchman), the punishment of the thief shall be slight.

The punishment here laid down refers to the case of stealing corns lying in the threshing yard, where they are husked. In the case of corns stored in the house, the fine shall be ‘eleven times their value,’ as declared above (330). — (331)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Niranvaye’ — ‘(a) Friendly leading, or, (b) neighbourliness, or (c) absence of watchman’ (Medhātithi); — Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa have (a); — and Kullūka and Rāghavānanda have (b). — See 198 above.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 324), which adds the following notes: — ‘Paripūteṣu,’ husked, — ‘niranvaye,’ (the appropriating being done) without any such justification as friendship and the like; in view of the present rule being inconsistent with what Manu has himself said in regard to ‘vadha’ being the penalty for stealing more than 10 kumbhas of grains, and ‘eleven times’ the fine for stealing lesser quantities, — people have held that the present rule is meant for thefts from the harvesting yard, the heavier penalties being for thefts from the houses.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.326-331)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.326-329.

VERSE 8.332 [Robbery (sāhasa)]

Section XLIV - Robbery (sāhasa)

स्यात् साहसं त्वन्वयवत् प्रसभं कर्म यत् कृतम् ।
निरन्वयं भवेत् स्तेयं हृत्वाऽपव्ययते च यत् ॥३३२॥

syāt sāhasaṃ tvanvayavat prasabhaṃ karma yat kṛtam |
niranvayaṃ bhavet steyaṃ hṛtvā'pavyayate ca yat ||332||

If the act is committed with violence and in the presence of men, it is ‘robbery’; it is ‘theft’ when done in the absence of men, and when it is denied after having been done. — (332)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The taking away of what belongs to another is called ‘theft’; and on account of the denotation, of the root from which the word is derived, one who commits ‘theft’ is a ‘thief.’ But for cases of a particular kind of theft, special provisions have been made; that is why we have the present texts. In fact merely ‘taking what belongs to another’ cannot be ‘theft,’ because if it were, then in cases of debts and deposits also, punishments for ‘theft’ would have to be inflicted. The present texts have used a different name (‘sāhasa,’ ‘robbery,’ in place of ‘steya,’ ‘theft’) with a view to laying down different forms of punishment.

‘Is denied,’ — i.e., having done the act, the man says ‘I have not done it.’

‘The act is committed’ — such as causes pain to others, e.g., tearing clothes, setting (ire, taking away property and so forth. In the case of ‘setting fire,’ though there is no ‘taking away of property,’ yet it is regarded as ‘theft,’ because it is done secretly, and denied afterwards. But in cases of ‘theft,’ the punishment is determined by the nature of the article stolen; this would, therefore, not be applicable to the case of ‘setting fire.’ It is for this reason that the present section has been separated from that on ‘Theft.’

‘Act done with violence’; — since the text mentions ‘act’ in general, acts other than ‘the taking away of other’s property’ also, when clone with violence, would come under ‘robbery.’

“What punishment could there be in the case of the setting of fire, and such acts, when clone without violence?”

This we shall explain under the section on ‘Extirpation of Criminals.’

It is for this reason that, in a case where a house has been broken into, but nothing stolen, they declare the punishment to be what is laid down under ‘Extirpation of Criminals.’ Otherwise, this should have come under ‘Theft’ itself. — (332)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Ata eva sandhicchede & c.’ (Medhātithi, p. 1069, l. 10) — See Manu 9.276.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 298), which adds the following Explanatory notes: — When the misappropriation of other’s property is done openly by force, even in the presence of watchmen and the king’s officers, then it is ‘Sāhasa’, robbery, — ‘theft’ consists in misappropriating secretly during absence, or by fraud; — and when the man, after avoiding the king’s officers and taking away the property, subsequently through fear, hides it, then also it is a case of ‘theft.’

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 286), which adds the following notes: — ‘Anvayavat’ in the presence of the men guarding it, — ‘prasabham,’ by force; — i.e., it is ‘robbery’ when the misappropriation is done without any attempt at concealment; — ‘apavyayate’ hides, denies; — wherever there is misappropriation, it is ‘theft,’ which is of two kinds — (1) done in the absence of watchmen, and (2) done even in the presence of the watchman, but afterwards hidden.

The same work quotes it again on p. 350 where it adds the following explanation: — When the property is taken away in the presence of the watchman, this is what is called ‘sānvaya apahāra,’ which is robbery, but where it is taken away in the absence of the watchman, and then denied, it is theft.

It is quoted in ‘Mitākṣārā,’ (2.266), which adds the following notes: — ‘Anvayavat,’ in the presence of the guardians of the property, the state officials and others, — ‘prasabham,’ by force — where another’s property is taken away — it is called ‘robbery different from this is ‘theft,’ which is ‘niranvaya’ — i.e., done either in the absence of the guardians of property and others, or through fraud; — and whenever the act, though committed in the presence of these persons, is concealed through fear, this also is ‘theft’ Bālambhaṭṭī has declared ‘kṛtvāpavyayate ca yat’ to be the generally accepted reading, and explains it as ‘conceals.’

It is quoted in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 329), which explains ‘anvayavat’ as ‘before the owner’s eyes,’ and ‘niranvayam’ as ‘behind the owner’s back’; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 150b), which adds the same explanation and adds that even in cases of robbery, if the accused denies the act in the court, it becomes a case of ‘theft.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (2.230). — ‘The forcible taking away of what does not belong exclusively to one has been called Robbery. The penalty in this case consists of a fine double the value of the article; if the robbery is denied, it shall he four times that value.’

Bṛhaspati (28.2 et seq.). — ‘Stealers are of two kinds — open (robbers) and secret (thieves); fraudulent traders, quacks, gamblers, dishonest judges, bribe-takers, cheats, persons pretending to interpret omens, or to practise propitiatory rites, low artists, forgers, hired servants refusing to work, dishonest umpires, perjured witnesses and jugglers — these are open stealers.’

Bṛhaspati (22.24). — ‘Robbery is declared to be threefold as it may be of the lowest, middling or highest kind; the punishment in each case should also be of the lowest, middling or highest sort, according to the nature of the article.’

Nārada (Theft, 1 et seq.). — ‘Two kinds of robbers stealing the goods of others have to he distinguished — the one kind, open and the other kind concealed. Open robbers are those who forge measures and weights, receivers of bribes, robbers, gamblers, public prostitutes, those who go about in disguise, etc., etc.’

Arthaśāstra (p. 100). — ‘The taking away of an article, if accompanied by force, is called Robbery, — if not accompanied by force, Theft, — also when the act is denied.

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākara, p. 287). — ‘When a thing is taken away forcibly, in the presence of watchmen, it is sāhasa, Robbery; if it is done secretly, it is steya, Theft.’

VERSE 8.333

Section XLIV - Robbery (sāhasa)

यस्त्वेतान्युपकॢप्तानि द्रव्याणि स्तेनयेन्नरः ।
तमाद्यं दण्डयेद् राजा यश्चाग्निं चोरयेद् गृहात् ॥३३३॥

yastvetānyupakḷptāni dravyāṇi stenayennaraḥ |
tamādyaṃ daṇḍayed rājā yaścāgniṃ corayed gṛhāt ||333||

If a man steals these things when they have been prepared, the king should fine him one hundred; as also him who steals the fire from the house. — (333)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘These things’ — yarns and the rest.

‘Prepared:’ — when the time for their being put to use, — in the form of being given away or enjoyed — is near at hand. Or it may mean ‘refined,’ i.e., ‘having fresh capacity produced in them.’ For instance, after the yarn is at first handed over to the weaver for being woven into cloth, it is doubled up, then turned up and so forth; the curd becomes ‘refined’ by having pepper, sugar and other things mixed with it; similarly milk, clarified butter and so forth.

In these eases the fine shall be ‘one hundred.’

If the reading is ‘? dyam’ in place of ‘śatam,’ then the fine shall consist of the ‘first amercement.’

‘Fire from the home’ — the fire kindled for the purpose of cooking meals; or the fire kindled in connection with the Agnihotra offerings; or the fire that is set up, without consecration, for the convenience of the cold-stricken poor. The same punishment applies to the case of all kinds of fire, — kindled at the time of cooking, or for relieving the cold of the poor, or for making sacrificial offerings, — be the quantity of fire stolen large or small.

Though under verse 326 where punishment for the stealing of ‘yarns’ and other things is laid down, we have the phrase ‘and other things’ (which might include Fire also), yet there can be no determination of its ‘value,’ since there is no buying or selling of it (so that ‘double the value’ could not be determined). Though it would he possible to fix the fine at a sum which would be the double of that which would enable a sufficient quantity of fire to be kindled, or which would constitute the ‘sacrificial fee’ necessary for the rekindling of the fire.

In addition to this fine, the necessity of satisfying the owner remains (as laid down under 288 above).

Thus then, in the case of the stealing of the sacrificial fire-triad, the thief shall pay to the owner of the fire the amount that would be needed for the re-kindling rites and for the expiatory rites necessary under the circumstances.

For these reasons the punishment prescribed in the present verse must be taken as referring to the fire kindled for household purposes; since that would be of small consequence. In the case of the sacrificial fire, the fine must be ‘double the value’ (as laid down in 329). Similarly in the case of the theft of such minor sacrificial accessories as kuśa, pebbles and such other things, — whose absence does not disqualify the sacrificer, — there should be cutting off of the limb, — says Śaṅkha. When however the fires themselves are stolen, the man becomes entirely incapacitated; why then should not the punishment in this case be most heavy? — (333)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Upakḷptāni’ — (a) ‘Ready for being put to use, in the way of gift, enjoyment and so forth, or (b) specially prepared or embellished’ (Medhātithi); — ‘Ready for use’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda). No commentator explains the term as ‘thread worked into cloth’; Buhler has no justification for attributing it to ‘Medh., Gov., Kull., and Rāgh.’

‘Agni’ — ‘Consecrated fire’ (Medhātithi and Kullūka); — also the ordinary fire (Govindarāja).

This verse is quoted in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 140), which says the ‘fire’ meant is that which has been consecrated by either Śrauta or Smārta rites.

VERSE 8.334

Section XLIV - Robbery (sāhasa)

येन येन यथाङ्गेन स्तेनो नृषु विचेष्टते ।
तत् तदेव हरेत् तस्य प्रत्यादेशाय पार्थिवः ॥३३४॥

yena yena yathāṅgena steno nṛṣu viceṣṭate |
tat tadeva haret tasya pratyādeśāya pārthivaḥ ||334||

By whatever limb the thief operates against men, that shall the king take off, by way of retribution. — (334)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The punishment here laid down is meant for one who is repeatedly addicted to stealing. If even on being found, the man does not remain in the path of rectitude, then, after having been fined thrice or four times, he should have his limb cut off, — irrespectively of the quality or quantity of the article stolen, as also of any considerations regarding his having broken through a wall or other details, — merely on the strength of his having committed the act of stealing.

When the thief acts, — i.e., steals through the strength of any particular limb, — that limb the king should ‘take off’ — i.e., cut off. For instance, if the thief depending upon his fleet foot, runs off, under the impression that no one can overtake him, — then his feet should be cut off. When another relies upon his knowledge of the art of breaking through walls, he should have his hands cut off.

‘By way of retribution’ — with a view to make him receive a reward in keeping with his act.

Or ‘pratyādeśa’ may stand for reproach, forcible, dignified, angry and contemptuous; consisting in the king’s declaration ‘he who acts thus, him shall I treat in this manner.’ — (334)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Pratyādeśāya’ — ‘By way of making a deterrent example’ (Medhātithi); — ‘for the purpose of preventing repetition’ (Kullūka).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada (Theft, 34). — ‘With whatever limb a thief acts among men, that very limb shall be taken away from him such is the law ordained by Manu.’

Познавательные статьи:



Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Статус республик в составе РФ

Понятие финансов, их функции и особенности

Сущность демографической политии