with the Commentary of Medhatithi 284 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 290 из 350Следующая ⇒

If a man has recourse, either openly or secretly, to this (vice), the form of punishment inflicted upon him shall be in accordance with the King’s discretion. — (228)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘vikalpaka’ means variants forms.

It depends entirely upon the King’s wish. (?)

From the words ‘learn the law relating to gambling’ (221) onwards, there are only two or three verses that are injunctive, the others are purely declamatory. — (228)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“Rāghavānanda and Nandana point out that not only corporeal punishment (according to verse 224), but also a fine may be inflicted,” — (Buhler).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 611), which explains ‘yatheṣṭam’ as ‘in accordance with the king’s wish’; — in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 153), which adds the following notes: — ‘Yatheṣṭam’ i.e. after duly examining the nature of the guilt, whatever punishment, — corporal or monetary — the king decides to inflict, that is to be regarded as lawful; — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 880).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.227-228)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.227.

VERSE 9.229 [Miscellaneous Punishments]

Section XXXI - Miscellaneous Punishments

क्षत्रविद् शूद्रयोनिस्तु दण्डं दातुमशक्नुवन् ।
आनृण्यं कर्मणा गच्छेद् विप्रो दद्यात्शनैः शनैः ॥२२९॥

kṣatravid śūdrayonistu daṇḍaṃ dātumaśaknuvan |
ānṛṇyaṃ karmaṇā gacched vipro dadyātśanaiḥ śanaiḥ ||229||

The Kṣatriya, the Vaiśya and the Śūdra, when unable to pay a fine, shall discharge the liability by labour; the Brāhmaṇa may pay it by instalments. — (229)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The Kṣatriya and the rest, when devoid of property, should not be harassed by imprisonment; they should make good the amount of fine due to the king ‘by labour’, — such work as may be in keeping with the character of the man, and profitable to the king.

The Brāhmaṇa shall be made to pay it ‘by instalments’ — so that his family may not suffer from want. Imprisonment, beating and such chastisements are forbidden for the Brāhmaṇa.

What has been laid down before pertains to the repayment of the debt to the debtor, while the present verse pertains to the payment of fines. There is thus no repetition. — (229)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 658), which adds the following notes: — ‘Karmaṇā,’ by such service as may be a proper recompense for the money owed; — the Brāhmaṇa is not to liquidate the debt by service; he must pay it off, by and bye; — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 880).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Yājñavalkya (2.43). — ‘If a man of the lower castes is very much reduced in circumstances, he should be made to do work, towards repayment of the debt; but the Brāhmaṇa should never be made to work; he should be made to pay up gradually, as he goes on getting money.’

Bṛhaspati (Aparārka, p. 616). — ‘If the debtor has absolutely no wealth, he should be brought home and made to work; but the Brāhmaṇa should be made to repay the debt gradually.’

VERSE 9.230

Section XXXI - Miscellaneous Punishments

स्त्रीबालोन्मत्तवृद्धानां दरिद्राणां च रोगिणाम् ।
शिफाविदलरज्ज्वाद्यैर्विदध्यात्नृपतिर्दमम् ॥२३०॥

strībālonmattavṛddhānāṃ daridrāṇāṃ ca rogiṇām |
śiphāvidalarajjvādyairvidadhyātnṛpatirdamam ||230||

On women, boys, men out of their minds, the old, the poor and the sick, the king shall inflict punishment with creepers, barks, ropes and so forth. — (230)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Punishment’. — The persons meant, here are such poor people as are incapable of doing labour. As these would stand on the same footing as the ‘great sinners’, they shall be chastised with the creeper etc.

‘Śiphā’ is creeper, and ‘vidala’ — tree-bark. — (230)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 658), which adds that the term ‘daridra’ here stands for that impecunious person who is unable to render any compensatory service; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 159); — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 880).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākara, p. 655). — ‘Untouchables, rogues and slaves, those who have committed sins and those born of inverse marriages should suffer beating, and not monetary punishment.’

VERSE 9.231

Section XXXI - Miscellaneous Punishments

ये नियुक्तास्तु कार्येषु हन्युः कार्याणि कार्यिणाम् ।
धनौष्मणा पच्यमानास्तान्निःस्वान् कारयेन्नृपः ॥२३१॥

ye niyuktāstu kāryeṣu hanyuḥ kāryāṇi kāryiṇām |
dhanauṣmaṇā pacyamānāstānniḥsvān kārayennṛpaḥ ||231||

If the officers deputed to look after the business of suitors should, fired by the heat of wealth, hamper that business, — these the King shall render penniless. — (231)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Those officers who have been ‘deputed’ — appointed — ‘to look after the business’ — investigation of eases and so forth — ‘of suitors’, — as representatives of the King; — if these, ‘fired by the heat of wealth’ — i.e. having received bribes from either party — ‘hamper that business’, — ‘these the king shall render penniless’, — i.e. he shall confiscate all their property.

Though for the delinquency of officers a distinct punishment is going to be prescribed (in 234), yet what is here laid down refers to the case of repeated offences.

Other officers also — such as the commander of an army and the like — when ordered against a certain party, take bribes from him, and do not proceed to capture him; — these also shall be met with the same punishment.

Others read ‘aniyukta’ (for ‘niyukta’); and in that case the meaning is — ‘If some persons though not appointed to any office, proceed to help one or the other party, — either on account of their considering themselves the king’s favourites, or of their being very rich, — and thus prevent justice bring done to the other party, — they shall be punished as here prescribed.’

In this case, the epithet ‘fired by the heat of wealth’ (i. e., bribed) would not have any significance; not ‘appointed’ being the most significant qualification in this case. — (231)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5.180). — ‘The confiscation of the entire property is the punishment ordained for the judge who takes bribes.’

VERSE 9.232

Section XXXI - Miscellaneous Punishments

कूटशासनकर्तॄंश्च प्रकृतीनां च दूषकान् ।
स्त्रीबालब्राह्मणघ्नांश्च हन्याद् द्विष् सेविनस्तथा ?? ॥२३२॥

kūṭaśāsanakartṝṃśca prakṛtīnāṃ ca dūṣakān |
strībālabrāhmaṇaghnāṃśca hanyād dviṣ sevinastathā ?? ||232||

Forgers of royal proclamations, sowers of disaffection among the people, the slayers of women, infants and Brāhmaṇas, and those serving his enemies, — the king shall put to death. — (232)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Forgers of Royal proclamations’ — give out as done by the king what is not done by him. ‘Proclamations’ — royal edicts such orders as ‘No one shall eat at the house of such and such a person’, ‘such and such a favour has been conferred upon this man’, ‘such is the law that has been laid down by the king’, and so forth — are always entered upon a piece of paper, written by the hand of the royal scribe, and are then known as the ‘Royal proclamation’. And people may forge these — i.e., misrepresent them.

‘Sowers of disaffection among the people’, — who spread disaffection among such of the people as may have some grievance or may be too greedy and so forth; — also the slayers of woman and infants and of Brāhmnṇas; — ‘those that serve his enemies’ — secretly carrying on visits to them. — (232)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 862), which adds the following notes: — ‘Prakṛtīnām,’ of the various ‘members’ of the state; — ‘dviṭsevinaḥ,’ those who serve persons disloyal to the king; — and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 370), which adds the following notes: — ‘Śāsana’ here stands for royal proclamations; — ‘prakṛtīnām,’ of the Minister and other members of the State; — ‘dūṣakān,’ defamers without justification, those who attribute delinquencies, when in reality, there are none; — ‘dviṭsevinaḥ,’ persons serving men inimical to the king.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5.9, 11). — ‘The King shall put to death those who forge royal edicts; — and those who forge private documents; — and also poisoners, incendiaries, robbers, killers of women, children or men; — those stealing more than ten

Kumbhas of grain, — or more than a hundred māṣas of things sold by weight; — also those who aspire to sovereignty, though being of low birth; breakers of dikes, and such as give shelter to robbers; and a woman who is unfaithful to her lord.’

Viṣṇu (Vivādaratnākara, p. 370). — ‘One who tries to contaminate the limbs of the kingdom — Minister, etc., and the people — should be put to death.’

Yājñavalkya (2.240). — ‘One who forges weighing scales, royal edicts, weights and measures, or coins, — and one who deals with these, — should be fined the highest amercement.’

Do. (2.294). — ‘One who subtracts from or adds to a royal edict, and one who lets go an adulterer or a thief, — should be fined the highest amercement.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Aparārka, p. 862). — ‘One who makes use of a forged document, or disobeys a royal edict, and deals with short weights and measures should suffer corporal punishment or cutting off of a limb.’

Katyāyana (Do.). — ‘One who tries to establish his case either by forged evidence or by means of a forged seal, should he fined with the highest amercement.’

VERSE 9.233

Section XXXI - Miscellaneous Punishments

तीरितं चानुशिष्टं च यत्र क्व चन यद् भवेत् ।
कृतं तद् धर्मतो विद्यान्न तद् भूयो निवर्तयेत् ॥२३३॥

tīritaṃ cānuśiṣṭaṃ ca yatra kva cana yad bhavet |
kṛtaṃ tad dharmato vidyānna tad bhūyo nivartayet ||233||

Whatever has been finally settled and whatever punishment has been inflicted, — he shall accept as lawfully done, and shall not annul it — (233)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Whenever a transaction in the King’s Court has been ‘finally settled’, — the root ‘tīr’ (in ‘tirtam’) denoting completion, — i.e. definitely concluded, — not only verbally, but duly recorded; — as also ‘when a punishment has been inflicted’; — all this the king shall ‘accept as lawfully done, and shall not annul it’; — except in the case of the doubling of a fine, — which is thus recommended — ‘the king shall revise the case with a view to inflicting a double fine’. — (233)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“Medhātithi and Kullūka refer this prohibition to cases which have been properly decided in the King’s Courts, while Nārāyaṇa thinks that it applies to orders passed by former kings. — Nandana gives a different explanation of the words ‘tīritam’ and ‘anuśiṣṭam’...... according to which the former means ‘a cause or plaint declared to be just or unjust by the assessors,’ and the latter ‘a cause or plaint confirmed by witnesses’.” — (Buhler).

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva, (II, p. 231), which adds the following notes: — ‘Anuśiṣṭam,’ confirmed by witnesses and other evidence, and hence ‘tīritam,’ decided by the assessors; — such suit the king shall not reopen.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.306), which explains the meaning to be that the king shall not have a suit reopened simply with a view to exact a heavier fine; he may however have a decided suit reopened when the losing party applies for reconsideration and stipulates that he would be prepared to pay a double fine in the event of the suit being again decided against him.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, (Vyavahāra, p. 161), which adds that the verse refers to cases where the finding of the Court has been accepted by the parties concerned; — in Kṛtyakalpataru (64b), which has the following notes — ‘Tīritam,’ decided and finished, — ‘anuśiṣṭam,’ deposed to by the witnesses , — ‘yatra kvacana,’ in the village-assembly or other places; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 38b), which says 1,000 Paṇas are meant

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.233-234)

Yājñavalkya (2.305). — ‘The man who, though defeated in the suit, does not accept defeat, and comes forward again to contest the suit, should be again non-suited and fined double the amount of the suit.’

Do. (2.304). — ‘Those cases that have been wrongly decided, the King shall try again and punish each of the judges and the party in whose favour the case had been decided by them, with a fine double the amount of the suit.’

Nārada (Aparārka, p. 866). — ‘When a legal transaction has been completed and a punishment has been inflicted, — if a party feels that it has been illegally done, he should have the case re-tried, undertaking to pay double the fine previously inflicted upon him.’

Bṛhaspati (6.5). — ‘When a party does not feel satisfied with the decision arrived at by assemblies of kindreds or other agencies, the King should revise that decision and institute a fresh trial, if it should prove to have been unjust.’

Śukranīti (4.5.553). — ‘When a Minister or the judge decides a case contrary to the law, the King shall revise it and fine the judge one thousand.’

VERSE 9.234

Section XXXI - Miscellaneous Punishments

अमात्यः प्राग्विवाको वा यत् कुर्युः कार्यमन्यथा ?? ।
तत् स्वयं नृपतिः कुर्यात् तान् सहस्रं च दण्डयेत् ॥२३४॥

amātyaḥ prāgvivāko vā yat kuryuḥ kāryamanyathā ?? |
tat svayaṃ nṛpatiḥ kuryāt tān sahasraṃ ca daṇḍayet ||234||

If the councillors or the judge decide a case unfairly, that case the King himself shall revise and fine them one thousand. — (234)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The confiscation of property laid down above (under 231) was in connection with the taking of bribes; the present text deals with the miscarriage of justice through ignorance or such other causes.

‘Councillors’ — representatives of the King.

‘He shall fine him one thousand’; — the sentence refers to the whole set of officers; just as by the sentence ‘the Gargas shall be fined one hundred’, the fine falls upon the whole community of ‘Gargas’. — (234)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“Medhātithi and Kullūka think that the rule refers to cases where the cause of the unjust decision is not a bribe, because the punishment of corrupt judges has been prescribed above, verse 231; — But Nārāyaṇa and Rāghavānanda think that it applies to cases of bribery also, and that the fine shall vary according to the nature of the case, 1,000 Paṇas being the lowest punishment.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru (65a); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 38b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.233-234)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.234

VERSE 9.235 [Mortal Sins]

Section XXXII - Mortal Sins

ब्रह्महा च सुरापश्च स्तेयी च गुरुतल्पगः ।
एते सर्वे पृथग् ज्ञेया महापातकिनो नराः ॥२३५॥

brahmahā ca surāpaśca steyī ca gurutalpagaḥ |
ete sarve pṛthag jñeyā mahāpātakino narāḥ ||235||

The slayer of a Brāhmaṇa, the drinker of wine, the thief and the violator of the preceptor’s bed, — all these individually should be known as men who have committed heinous crimes. — (235)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Drinker of wine’ — is a ‘heinous criminal’ only when he is a Brāhmaṇa.

‘Thief’ — i.e., one who has stolen gold from a Brāhmaṇa.

This is a reiteration of what has been already said before, made with a view to what follows. — (235)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Surāpaḥ.’ — Refers to the Brāhmaṇa only (Medhātithi), to the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya also (Nārāyaṇa and Kullūka).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 634), which adds the following notes: — The ‘taskara’ here stands for the stealer of gold; — ‘pṛthak’, severally; — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 116).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.235-242)

Baudhāyana (1.18.18). — ‘In case a Brāhmaṇa has slain a Brāhmaṇa, has violated his guru’s bed, has stolen gold, or has drunk wine, — the King shall cause him to he branded with heated iron with the mark of a headless trunk, a female part, a jackal or the sign of the tavern on the forehead and banish him from his realm.’

Viṣṇu (5.1-8). — ‘Great criminals should all he put to death; — in the case of a Brāhmaṇa, no corporal punishment should he inflicted. — A Brāhmaṇa should he banished from his own country, his body having been branded. — For murdering another Brāhmaṇa, let a headless corpse be impressed on his forehead; — for drinking wine, the flag of a liquor-seller; — for stealing gold, a dog’s foot; — for incest, the mark of the female part. — If he has committed any other heinous crime, he shall he banished unhurt, with all his property.’

Bṛhaspati (Vivādaratnākara, p. 634). — ‘Even though he may have committed a heinous offence, the Brāhmaṇa should not he killed; he should he branded and banished with his head shaven.’

Yama (Do., 635). — ‘In the case of the Brāhmaṇa committing any of the four capital offences, his head shall be shaved and he shall he banished; and with a view to proclaiming his crime, he shall be paraded riding on a donkey; or he may be branded on the forehead.’

Nārada (Do.). — ‘In the case of the Brāhmaṇa committing any of the four capital offences, — violating the Guru’s bed, drinking wine, stealing gold, and killing a Brāhmaṇa, — for violating the Guru’s bed, he should he branded with the mark of the female part, — for drinking wine, with the flag of the wine-seller, — for stealing gold, with the mark of the dog’s foot, — for killing a Brāhmaṇa, the mark of a headless trunk shall be branded on his forehead; and no one should hold any converse with him; — such is the teaching of Manu.’

VERSE 9.236

Section XXXII - Mortal Sins

चतुर्णामपि चैतेषां प्रायश्चित्तमकुर्वताम् ।
शारीरं धनसंयुक्तं दण्डं धर्म्यं प्रकल्पयेत् ॥२३६॥

caturṇāmapi caiteṣāṃ prāyaścittamakurvatām |
śārīraṃ dhanasaṃyuktaṃ daṇḍaṃ dharmyaṃ prakalpayet ||236||

Even on all these four, if they do not perform the expiatory penance, the king shall inflict corporal punishment along with fine, in accordance with the law. — (236)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Even though the Brāhmaṇa alone becomes a heinous criminal by drinking wine, yet even for him there is to be corporal punishment, — though no corporal punishment has been laid down for the Brāhmaṇa before this. This follows from the force laid upon the term ‘four’ in this verse.

Others, however, have explained this ‘corporal punishment’ as standing for branding; and this would be done in the ease of the Brāhmaṇa also.

Others again explain the particle ‘api’ as ‘even,’ and declare that the penalty here laid down is meant for all the five kinds of ‘heinous criminals;’ the construction being that — ‘this punishment is to be inflicted on even all these four, as also on the fifth, in the shape of the person associating with these four.’

For the crime of ‘Brāhmaṇa-slaying,’ ‘corporal punishment’ has been already laid down above, — in the rule that — ‘the king shall put to death those who kill a woman, an infant or a Brāhmaṇa.’

From what follows in the next verse it is clear that ‘corporal punishment’ here stands for branding.

‘According to the late’ — ‘he shall make due discrimination regarding the greater, or less seriousness of the crime.’ — (236)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 634); — and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 116).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.235-242)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.235.

VERSE 9.237

Section XXXII - Mortal Sins

गुरुतल्पे भगः कार्यः सुरापाने सुराध्वजः ।
स्तेये च श्वपदं कार्यं ब्रह्महण्यशिराः पुमान् ॥२३७॥

gurutalpe bhagaḥ kāryaḥ surāpāne surādhvajaḥ |
steye ca śvapadaṃ kāryaṃ brahmahaṇyaśirāḥ pumān ||237||

For violating the preceptor’s bed the sign of the female organ shall be branded; for drinking wine that of the tavern; for theft that of the dog’s foot; and for killing a Brāhmaṇa that of a headless man. — (297)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

From the prohibition of branding the forehead (in certain cases, contained in 240) — ‘People shall not be branded on the forehead,’ — it follows that the branding here laid down is to be done on the forehead. — (237)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 635) which adds that all this branding is to be done on the forehead; — in Mitākṣarā (2. 270), which adds that this is meant, for those cases where the culprit is unwilling to perform the prescribed expiation; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 304), which also adds the same remark; — in the Aparārka (p. 842); — in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra 42b); — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 329); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 152b), which says that all this penalty is meant for those who refuse to undergo the prescribed expiations.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.235-242)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.235.

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США