English
Fields situated away from the common were not fenced, and if cattle strayed there and did damage to crops, a fine was imposed of one pana and a quarter per head of cattle, and the actual damage done had also to be made good. (VIII, 230 to 241.) (10) DispUTES ABOUT BOUNDARIES. We have a curious glimpse into the state of villages and agriculture in the laws on this subject. The month of Jaishtha (May-June) is the driest in the year in India, and it is laid down that all disputes regarding boundaries of contiguous villages should be decided in that month. Such boundaries weré generally marked by an Asvathva, Kinsuka, or ether tree, by tanks, wells, cisterns and fountains, Hidden marks were to be left to determine boundaries, and stones, bones, pebbles, &c., were to be . buried where such boundaries met. When a boundary question could not be decided on the existing landmarks the villagers were to be ex- ‘amined, and on failure of villagers, hunters, fowlers, herdsmen, fishermen, root diggers, snake catchers, glean- ers and foresters could be examined. If all these CHAP. XII] "LAWS. 189 resources failed, the. king was directed to generously make good out of his own demesnes any possible loss - to either of the contending villages, (VIII, 248 to 265.) (11) and (12) ASSAULT AND DEFAMATION. We now come to Criminal Law properly so called, and there we meet once more the influence of that baneful system which has cast its shadow over every phase of Hindu civilization and life. A Brahman should be fined fifty panas for defaming a Kshatriya, twenty-five panas for defaming a Vaisya, and twelve panas for defaming a Sadra, but a Sddra who defamed a Brahman should have his tongue cut out, “ for he is of low origin.” And if he’ mentioned the names and castes of the twice born with contumely, an iron nait ten fingers long should be thrust red-hot into his mouth. (VIII, 268 to 271.) Of course it must not be supposed that the actual ad- ministration of the law was ever so barbarous, or that even Brahman judges ever disgraced themselves by inflicting such monstrous punishments on Sddras who had in a moment of anger used harsh words towards | Brahmans. Brahmans have painted themselves much - worse than they really were ; and the administration of : the law, sufficiently cruel towards the poor Sidra as it undoubtedly was, was never so barbarous as it is said | to have been. “ With whatever limb a man of low . castes does hurt to a man of the highest castes, even that limb shall be cut off;—that is the teaching of. 190 BUDDHIST PERIOD. [BOOK Iv. Manu.” (VIII, 279.) But with due deference to Manu, we hold that his countrymen never disgraced themselves by following his teaching. The ordinary punishment for defaming was 12 pa- nas (VIII, 269), and for causing hurt so as to cut the skin, 100 panas. If a muscle was cut, 6 nishkas was the fine, and ifa bone was broken, the offender was banished. (VIII, 284.) For causing damage, a fine equal to the damage was levied, but if the property was of inferior value, five times the damage was levied. (VIII, 288, 280.) (13) and (14) THEFT AND ROBBERY. The utmost precautions were taken to punish thieves, for if the king “punishes thieves, his fame grows and his king- - dom prospers.” (VIII, 302.) And the king who does not afford -protection to property and yet takes his leases, tolls, and fines, “will soon sink into hell.” (VIII, 307.) Thefts were punished with various fines, or with cor- poral punishment, or with the amputation of the hand. When theft was committed in presence of the owner ~ (ie, with violence) it was called robbery (VIII, 319 to 332). The use of violence was considered a most serious offence ; but the right of private defence was granted when a man was attacked by assassins and in other cases, (VIII, 345 to 350.) (15) ADULTERY. This offence was always looked upon. with the greatest detestation in India, and an 1 CHAP, XIL] LAWS. 191 adulterer, if he’ was not a Brahman, was to be punished with death, “for the wives of all the four castes must always be carefully guarded.” (VIII, 359.) Violating an unwilling maiden was punishable with corporal punishment, or with the amputation of two fingers and a fine of 600 panas (VIII, 364, 367). We have still more terrible punishments provided for; a womar seducing another was to be lashed and fined, an adul- tress was to be devoured by dogs, and an adulterer was to be burnt to death (VIII, 369, 371, 372). Itis doubt- ful, however, if such sentences as the above were ever carried out. Less cruel punishments are provided for further down. For a Sddra committing adultery with a. twice born woman, amputation was the punishment. For a Vaisya and a Kshatriya committing the offence with a Brah- man, imprisonment or heavy fines were provided, For a Brahman committing the offence with a woman of the same caste a heavy fine was imposed (VIII, 374 to 378). A Brahman was on no account to be punished with death, “though he have committed all possible crimes.” “No greater crime is known on earth than slaying a Brahman” (VIII, 380, 3814). At the conclusion of the sections on Criminal Law, Manu has some miscellaneous provisions. <A sacrificer forsaking his priest, or a priest forsaking his sacrificer, a son forsaking his parents, a Brahman not asking his neighbours to invitations, and a Srotriya not entertain- 192 BUDDHIST PERIOD. [BOOK IV. ing other Srotriyas, were all punishable with fines. There are provisions for the punishment of dishonest washermen and weavers. The king could impose an ad valorem tax of 5 per cent. on the sale of all merchandise. He could keep a monopoly of certain articles in his hands, and punish those who traded on those articles. He levied customs and tolls. And it is even said that he was to fix the price of all market- able goods; but this-of course was never attempted by any ruler. The king was also to settle all weights and measures, ‘fix ferry charges, direct Vaisyas to trade, to lend money, or to cultivate the land, and make the Sidra to serve the twice born castes. A Brahman could make a Sidra, whether bought or unbought, do servile work for him, ’ for the Sudra “was created by the Self-existent to be ' the slave of a Bréhman.” (VII, 413.) Never was the _ name of the Self-existent taken to sanctify a baser and ? more iniquitous institution ! Slaves are said to be of seven kinds, viz., captives of war, those serving for daily food, slaves born as such in the house, slaves bought or given by others, slaves inherited, and men enslaved by way of punishment (VHT, 388 to 415). , (6) HusBAND AND WIFE. Manu begins this subject i with insisting on the .dependence of women on men, and with certain sayings about women, which may have been considered witty at the time, but which are unwor- CHAP, XII.] LAWS. 193 thy of Manu’s pages. For, as we have seen before, Manu assigns on the whole a high and respected posi- tion to women. We have seen before how Manu contradicts himself on the ancient custom of raising issue on a widow, and there can be no doubt that public opinion was against such custom after the Christian Era. We have also seen how widow marriage was becoming ee though it was no doubt still prevalent in Manu’s time.| The marriage of a virgin widow is however expressly permitted (IX, 69). Again, Manu quotes the ancient rule that a wife should wait for her husband 8 years if he went on sacred duty, 6 years if he went for learning or fame, and 3 years if he went for pleasure. One commentator states that she was to marry again after that period, and that is the obvious meaning of the old rule. A wife must not shew aversion to a drunken husband, but may shew aversion te a mad husband or an out- caste or one “afflicted with such diseases as punish crimes.” A drunken, rebellious or diseased wife might be superseded, and so also a barren wife or one who bore female children only (IX, 78 to 81). But this superseding does not mean absolute desertion ; but the wife must still be kept in the house, and maintained (IX, 83). “Let mutual fidelity continue until death.”—This is the highest law for husband and wife (IX, 101). R. C.D, A, L—IIL, 13 194 BUDDHIST PERIOD. [BOOK Iv. (17) INHERITANCE. The important subject of In- heritance is treated in over a hundred sections (IX, 104 to 220), but it is not necessary for our purpose that we should go into the law on the subject in detail. After the death of the father and mother, the brothers might equally divide the estate among themselves (IX, 104), or the joint-family system might be continued under the eldest brother, who would under those circumstances take the management of the whole estate (IX, 105). But the separation of brothers is not condemned, on the contrary, it is recommended and called meritorious (IX, 111). To the eldest and youngest sons additional .shares were allotted in the division of property (IX, 112 to 117). To maiden sisters each brother should pay _out of his share one-fourth (IX, 118), but this is supposed by commentators to mean that brothers must provide for the dowry of their unmarried sisters. In TX, 120, 146, &c., we have a provision for the son begot- ten on the wife or widow of an elder brother by a younger brother, although Manu has elsewhere con- demned such practice. Again, a person who had no sons might make his daughter an “appointed daughter,” say- . ing to her husband, “the male-child born of her shall per- form my funeral rites.” And when this was done, there was no distinction between a son’s son and an appoint- ed daughter's son (1X, 127, 133). IX, 141 and 142 sanction adoption. As usual Manu repeats the old rules laid down by CHAP. XIL] LAWS.