From the archive

The Laws of Manu — SBE Vol. 25 (trans. Georg Bühler, 1886)

English·1879–1910·trans. Georg Bühler·567 passages

The text · part 19 of 27

197. But it is prescribed that the property which may have been given to a (wife) on an Asura marriage or (one of the) other (blamable marriages, shall go) to her mother and to her father, if she dies without issue.

198. Whatever property may have been given by her father to a wife (who has co-wives of different castes), that the daughter (of the) Brahmamt (wife) shall take, or that (daughter’s) issue.

195. Yagn. II, 144. Kull. and Nar. state that both the separate property of a woman, enumerated in verse 194, and that named in verse 195, descend to her children, i.e. ‘to her sons and the rest’ (Ragh.), or ‘to her sons or daughters’ (Nand.). N4&r. remarks that ‘a gift subsequent’ and ‘the husband’s affectionate gift’ are not stridhana, or separate property, and that hence the wife has no right of free disposal with respect to these two.

196-197. Vi. XVII, 19-20; Y4gi. II, 145.

196. Nar. adds to the term ‘property,’ stridhanastridhanarfipam,
‘whether separate property or not.’

198. I. e. if a Braéhmana has wives of the Brahmana and Kshatriya castes, property given in any way to the Kshatriya wife by her own family, goes to the daughter of the Brahmama wife, or if that daughter of the Brahmama wife is dead and has left issue, to the latter. ‘Thus the sons of the Brahmana wife are excluded’ (Kull., Nar.). ' Nar. states expressly that the term ‘issue’ refers to daughters alone.

Bb2

p. 199

199. Women should never make a hoard from (the property of) their families which is common to many, nor from their own (husbands’ particular) property without permission.

200. The ornaments which may have been worn by women during their husbands’ lifetime, his heirs shall not divide; those who divide them become outcasts.

201. Eunuchs and outcasts, (persons) born blind or deaf, the insane, idiots and the dumb, as well as those deficient in any organ (of action or sensation), receive no share.

199. Kull. and Ragh., whose explanation the translation given above follows, take the first clause to refer to the property of a united family, and the second to the separate property of the husbands. But according to Nar. and Nand. the translation should be as follows, ‘ Wives should never take anything (for their private expenses) from (their husbands’ property, destined for the support of) their families, on which many have a claim, nor from their own property (which is not stridhana), without the consent of their husbands.’ Nér.’s explanation of nirh4ram kuryuA, ‘should (never) take anything,’ seems preferable to that given by Kull. and R4gh.

and R4gh.

200. Vi. XVII, 22. ‘His heirs,’ i.e.‘ the sons and the rest’ (Kull., N&r.). Nand., who differs from the above explanation, says, ‘Since the ornaments are the husband’s property, because they have not been mentioned as stridhana, the object of this utterance is to forbid their going to the heirs, while the husband lives’ (alamk4rasya stridhane ’nudish/atvad bhartridhanatvena bhartribhave day4diném praptyapavadartho ’yam 4rambhak). Nand. appears, therefore, to construe patyau givati with bhageran, just as Nandapazd.ta does in the parallel passage of Vishnu (see Professor Jolly’s note).

201-203. Ap. II, 14,1,15 3 Gaut. XXVIII, 23, 40, 43; Vas. XVII,
52-53 ; Baudh. II, 3, 37-40; Vi. XV, 32-37 ; Vag. II, 140-141.

201. ‘Eunuchs,’ i.e. ‘those who are incurable ;’ ‘ outcasts,’ i.e. ‘those guilty of a mortal sin (mah4p&taka) before they perform a penance ;’ ‘the insane,’ i.e. ‘those who are incurable’ (Nar.). ‘Those deficient in any organ, i.e. of action’ (Nand.), such as lame men (Kull, Nand.), such as men without hands (R4gh.), or

p. 373

202. But it is just that (a man) who knows (the law) should give even to all of them food and raiment without stint, according to his ability; he who gives it not will become an outcast.

203. If the eunuch and the rest should somehow or other desire to (take) wives, the offspring of such among them as have children is worthy of a share.

204. Whatever property the eldest (son) acquires (by his own exertion) after the father’s death, a share of that (shall belong) to his younger (brothers), provided they have made a due progress in learning.

also ‘of sensation,’ such as men who have lost the faculty of touch (Na4r.).

"202. Medh.and Kull. take atyantam, ‘without stint,’ in the sense of ‘for life.’ Ndr. construes the word with adadat, and explains ‘he who does not give it at all.’ Nand. reads abhyangam, ‘ointments,’ for atyantam, ‘ without stint.’

203. Medh. is of opinion that some of the persons disqualified from inheriting, the vataretas kliba, those born blind and the lame, may marry, while outcasts, madmen, and the rest cannot do so. Hence the conditional clause may be taken in the sense adopted above in the translation. He, however, adds that the rule may also refer to cases in which the cause of the disqualification arose after marriage. N4r.’s explanation is substantially the same. But he considers that a eunuch and an outcast cannot contract a legal marriage, and that the expression klibidaya4, literally ‘ those among whom the eunuch is the first,’ refers to ‘men born blind and the rest.’ He admits also the rights of the Kshetraga sons of eunuchs and outcasts who contracted a marriage before their disqualification arose. Kull. says, ‘By the employment of the term ‘somehow or other” it is indicated that a eunuch and the rest are not worthy to marry.’ In the sequel he explains the word ‘offspring’ by Kshetraga. R4gh.and Nand. follow him with respect to the latter point.

Kull. says, ‘By the employment of the term ‘somehow or other” it is indicated that a eunuch and the rest are not worthy to marry.’ In the sequel he explains the word ‘offspring’ by Kshetraga. R4gh.and Nand. follow him with respect to the latter point.

204. The rule refers of course to a united family only (Kull.). Medh. infers from the expression vidydnupalina4, ‘ provided they have made a due progress in learning,’ that ‘persons subsisting by learning, mechanics and artisans, such as physicians, actors, singers,’

p. 205

205. But if all of them, being unlearned, acquire property by their labour, the division of that shall be equal, (as it is) not property acquired by the father; that is a settled rule.

206. Property (acquired) by learning belongs solely to him to whom (it was given), likewise the gift of a friend, a present received on marriage or with the honey-mixture.

are meant. N4r..and Nand. hold that no part of an acquisition, made under the same circumstances by the youngest brother, can be claimed by the eldest, because this verse specifies the eldest alone, and because the next verse declares that the acquisitions only made by any member of an unlearned family, shall be partibie.

205. Gaut. XXXVIII, 31. This rule refers to acquisitions by trace (Medh., Kull, Nar.), by agriculture (Medh., Kull. Nand.), or by royal service (Medh.), ‘As the division is to be equal, the eldest receives no preferential share’ (Medh., Kull., Nand.). Medh. adds that, since the expression ‘as it is not property acquired by the father,’ gives the reason for the equal division, the same rule holds good for the division of the estate of any other person deceased without issue. Nand. takes apitrya iti for apitryad iti and explains it by ‘since (the division) has not been made by the father.’

206. Yagi. II, 118-119. ‘Property acquired by learning,’ i.e. ‘a fee for teaching or money received for proficiency in an art’ (Medh., Nand.), includes according to a text of Katyayana, quoted by Kull. and Ragh. (see Colebrooke V, Digest CCCXLVII), gifts from pupils, gratuities for performing a sacrifice, a fee for answering a difficult question in casuistry, or for ascertaining a doubtful point in law, rewards for displaying knowledge or for victory in a learned contest, or for reciting the Veda with transcendent ability. Instances in which land was given as vidyadhana occur in the inscriptions, see e. g. Indian Antiquary, XII, p.195b, 16. ‘A present received on marriage,’ i.e. ‘ what (the bridegroom) receives from the relatives of his wife’ (Medh., N4r.), or ‘from any other person’ (Medh. ‘ others’), means according to Nand., ‘stridhana received at the time of marriage’(?). ‘A present received with the honey-mixture’ is explained by Medh. and, as Kull. asserts, by Gov. also, by ‘the fee given for the performance of a sacrifice.’ But the explanation given by Kull., Nar., Ragh., and Nand., ‘any

p. 375

‘A present received with the
honey-mixture’ is explained by Medh. and, as Kull. asserts, by
Gov. also, by ‘the fee given for the performance of a sacrifice.’
But the explanation given by Kull., Nar., Ragh., and Nand., ‘any

p. 375

207. But if one of the brothers, being able (to maintain himself) by his own occupation, does not desire (a share of the family) property, he may be made separate (by the others) receiving a trifle out of his share to live upon. .

208. What one (brother) may acquire by his labour without using the patrimony, that acquisition, (made solely) by his own effort, he shall not share unless by his own will (with his brothers).

209. But if a father recovers lost ancestral propresent received, in token of respect, with the honey-mixture,’ e. g. a silver vase (R4gh.), is preferable. Regarding the persons worthy of the honey-mixture, see above, III, 119-120. Kull. points out that this rule is a restriction of that given above, verse 204. RAgh. adds that, as the parallel passage of Yagi. shows, such acquisitions become the private property of the donee, only if they were obtained ‘without detriment to the paternal estate ;’ see also below, verse 208.

207. Yagi. II,116. The translation given above follows the second explanation offered by Medh., and the glosses of Kull. and N&ér. According to Medh.’s first explanation, with which Nand. agrees, the translation would agree with Sir W. Jones’s, ‘he may debar himself from his share.’ The reason why a trifle should be given is, according to all commentators, that future disputes may be prevented.

208. Yagf. I],118; Vi. XVIII, 42. ‘By his labour,’ i.e. ‘by agriculture and the like’ (Medh., Kull., Nand.), or ‘by any occupation entailing trouble’ (sramaganyakarman4, Na&r.). Anupaghnan, ‘without using’ (Nand.), or ‘ without living upon’ (R4gh.), is explained by Kull. ‘without detriment to, and Nand. mentions this interpretation also. Ndr. remarks that acquisitions made without labour or trouble are liable to partition. Nand. says that the rule, given in this verse, may be reconciled with that contained in verse 205, by assuming that the latter presupposes that all brotl.ers exert themselves according to their ability (pirvam sarveshu yath4s4marthyam fham4neshu bhratr:shu labdhasya samavibhaga ukta ity avirodho ’nusamdheyaA).

209. Yagt-II, 119; Vi. XVIII, 43. The translation of paitrikam, lit.‘ paternal,’ by ‘ ancestral,’ is based on Nar.’s gloss svapitr?-p. 210 perty, he shall not divide it, unless by his own will, with his sons, (for it is) self-acquired (property).

210. If brothers, (once) divided and living (again) together (as coparceners), make a second partition, the division shall in that case be equal; in such a case there is no right of primogeniture.

211. If the eldest or the youngest (brother) is deprived of his share, or if either of them dies, his share is not lost (to his immediate heirs).

212. His uterine brothers, having assembled together, shall equally divide it, and those brothers who were reunited (with him) and the uterine sisters.

sambandhi and on Ragh.’s pitr:pitimahAdisambandhi. The latter refers also to the parallel passage of YA4g%. Anavdptam, ‘lost,’ means literally ‘not obtained (by his father).’ The translation of svayamargitam by ‘for it is self-acquired’ agrees with Nand.’s remark, svayamargitatvad ity artha#. N4r. adds, ‘ And thus it has been declared that property of the father which has not been acquired by him with exceedingly great trouble must be divided at the will of the sons, and to this refers the passage of Yag#. II, 121, “ Qver land acquired by the grandfather, &c.”’ Medh., whose commentary on this verse is very corrupt, seems likewise to have inferred from it that Manu admitted the equal ownership of a father and his sons in ancestral property (see also Colebrooke V, Digest XCI). But he combats the theory that sons may without a violation of their duty force the father to divide the ancestral property.

2to. Vi. XVIII, 41.

211. ‘Be deprived of his share,’ i. e. ‘because he has become an outcast or the like’ (Medh.), or ‘ because he has become an ascetic’ (Kull., Nand.), or ‘because he has emigrated’ (Nand.), or ‘ because he has become a eunuch after the (first) partition’ (N4r.). Na lupyate, ‘is not lost (to his immediate heirs), is explained by N4r. as follows, ‘His share, being formerly determined, is not lost, i.e. must not be divided by all the reunited coparceners and thus be made to disappear’ (see also the text of Brzhaspati, Colebrooke V, Digest CCCCVII, 2). ‘What is to be done with the share is shown in the next verse’ (Medh., Nar., Ragh., Nand.).

212. Vi, XVII, 17; Gaut. XXVIII, 21; Y4gz. II, 138. The

p. 377

213. An eldest brother who through avarice may defraud the younger ones, shall no (longer hold the position of) the eldest, shall not receive an (eldest son's additional) share, and shall be punished by the king.

214. All brothers who habitually commit forbidden acts, are unworthy of (a share of) the property, and the eldest shall not make (anything his) separate property without giving (an equivalent) to his younger brothers.

meaning of the verse is: 1. according to Medh., with whose opinion the not very clear glosses of Kull. and Ragh. seem to agree, ‘the share of a deceased reunited brother goes first to the reunited brothers of the full blood and to such sisters of the full blood who are not married (aputra4, MSS. for aprattés4)—married sisters (pravritta#, MSS. for pradatté#) being excluded, because they belong to another family—next to not reunited brothers of the full blood, finally to reunited half-brothers;’ 2. according to Nar., ‘the share of a reunited brother devolves first on reunited brothers of the whole blood, next on reunited half-brothers, further on sisters of the full blood, then on the sons of brothers [of the whole blood?], and finally on sons of half-brothers [? tadabhave tvasodarady api].’ Nand. has the same order of heirs as Nar., but stops with ‘ the sisters of the whole blood.’ Nar.’s and Nand.’s explanation, which strictly follows the order of the enumeration in the text, agrees with Brzhaspati’s rule (Colebrooke V, Digest CCCCVII, 3), which likewise seems to be a paraphrase of Manu’s words. Kull., R4gh., and Nar. hold that the heirs, named in the verse, inherit only on failure of sons, wives, daughters, and parents. Nar. further remarks that some refer this verse and the preceding one to the division of the estate of one who died before partition, while others believe that it applies to the estate of a reunited brother only.

213. ‘Shall no (longer hold the position of) the eldest,’ i.e. ‘shall not receive the honours, e.g. in saluting, due to the eldest brother’ (Medh., Kull., Nar., Ragh.). The insertion of the words ‘an eldest son’s additional’ before ‘ share,’ is made on the authority of Medh. and Kull. ‘Shall be punished,’ i.e. ‘ by reprimand (vigdandadhigdandabhy4m) or by a fine as the case may require’ (Medh.).

214. Ap. II, 14,15; Gaut. XXVIII, 40; Baudh. II, 3, 38. ‘Who

p. 215

215. If undivided brethren, (living with their father,) together make an exertion (for gain), the father shall on no account give to them unequal shares (on a division of the estate).

216. But a son, born after partition, shall alone take the property of his father, or if any (of the other sons) be reunited with the (father), he shall share with them.

217. A mother shall obtain the inheritance of a son (who dies) without leaving issue, and, if the mother be dead, the paternal grandmother shall take the estate.

habitually commit forbidden acts,’ i.e. ‘who are addicted to gambling, drinking, and the like vices’ (Kull., Ragh.), or ‘ who, being Br&hmanas, follow despicable modes of living, such as tending cattle, serving SQdras and the like’ (Nar.). Na... . kurvita yautukam, ‘shall not make (anything his) separate property,’ means according to Nand. ‘shall not give a marriage-portion to his daughter without having made a division of the estate.’ The correct interpretation is, however, that given by the other commentators, according to which the eldest is not to appropriate anything out of the common stock for himself ‘without giving an equivalent to the others’ (kanish/Aebhyas tévad adattv, Nar.).

215. Y4g%. II, 120. Medh. remarks that this rule is a restriction of the general power of the father to make an unequal division (Y4gi. II, 116), and thinks that it is not necessary that all the brothers should have been associated in the same kind of work. According to him it is sufficient that all have exerted themselves to gain money. Na§r. and Nand. clearly express the contrary view (sahotthinam sambhfyavazigyadina vittarganam, Nar.).

216. Gaut. XXVIII, 29; Vi. XVII, 3; Y4gv. II, 122.

ar7. Vi. XVII, 7; Yagn%. II, 135. Kull, Nar., and Nand. all three hold that the mother inherits only on failure of sons [grandsons and great-grandsons, Nand.], widows, and daughters. But they disagree with respect to the sequence of the next following heirs. Kull. holds that the mother and the father, whose right has been mentioned above, verse 185, follow next, inheriting conjointly, then brothers, afterwards brothers’ sons, and after

p. 379

218. And if, after all the debts and assets have been duly distributed according to the rule, any (property) be afterwards discovered, one must. divide it equally.

219. A dress, a vehicle, ornaments, cooked food, water, and female (slaves), property destined for pious uses or sacrifices, and a pasture-ground, they declare to be indivisible.

them the paternal grandmother. N§r. gives the following order : 1. mother, 2. father, 3. brothers, 4. brothers’ sons, 5. maternal grandmother. Medh. says that this verse has been explained formerly. The portion of his commentary where the explanation occurred, has, however, been lost ; see note on verse 187.

218. Y4gi. II, 126. Medh., Kull., and Nar. point out that on the division of property discovered after partition, the eldest, according to this text, receives no preferential share. N4r. adds that this rule applies also to debts, discovered after partition. Nar. inserts this verse after verse 219.

Y4gi. II, 126. Medh., Kull., and Nar. point out that on the division of property discovered after partition, the eldest, according to this text, receives no preferential share. N4r. adds that this rule applies also to debts, discovered after partition. Nar. inserts this verse after verse 219.

21g. Gaut. XXVIII, 46-47; Vi. XVIII, 44. Instead of pattram, ‘a vehicle,’ i.e. ‘a horse or cart, used exclusively by one of the coparceners during union’ (Medh., Kull., Nar., Ragh.), Nand. reads pAtram, ‘a drinking-vessel.’ Striyad, ‘female (slaves),’ means according to Nar. ‘ wives.’ My translation of yogakshemam, which I take with Medh., N4r., and Nand. as a copulative compound in the neuter gender, by ‘ property destined for pious uses and sacrifices,’ rests on the explanation given by Vig#Anesvara (Colebrooke, Mit. I, 4, 23), and adopted by Haradatta and Nandapamdita on the parallel passages of Gaut. and Vi. I prefer it to all others, chiefly on account of the explicit passage of Laugakshi which Vigt4nesvara quotes. In its favour speaks also that numerous royal grants allow villages or land to Brahmanas and their descendants for the performance of certain sacrifices, or for charitable purposes, such as the daily distribution of food (annasattra or saddvrata), and that the occurrence of a rule in the Smrttis, declaring property given under such conditions to be impartible, is no more than might be expected. The commentators on Manu, on the other hand, give the following explanations: 1. ‘the means of securing protection, i.e. royal councillors, family priests, ministers, old women (vriddh4?), a house, and a Afra, a spy (?), or a pasture-ground(?) and the like’ (Medh.); 2.‘a royal councillor, a domestic priest and the like’ (Kull.

p. 220

220. The division (of the property) and the rules for allotting (shares) to the (several) sons, those begotten on a wife and the rest, in (due) order, have been thus declared to you; hear (now) the laws concerning gambling.

221. Gambling and betting let the king exclude from his realm; those two vices cause the destruction of the kingdoms of princes.

222. Gambling and betting amount to open theft; the king shall always exert himself in suppressing both (of them).

223. When inanimate (things) are used (for staking money on them), that is called among men gambling (dydta), when animate beings are used (for the same purpose), one must know that to be betting (samahvaya).

224. Let the king corporally punish all those (persons) who either gamble and bet or afford (an

224. Let the king corporally punish all those (persons) who either gamble and bet or afford (an and RA4gh., which latter reads, however, yogakshemapraédram); 3. ‘means of gain, i.e. a grant and the like, received from a king and the like, and gained by oneself, and means of protection’ (prakare 4a ish/akadih? Nar.); 4. ‘sources of gain, i.e. persons for whom one sacrifices and the like, sources of protection, i.e. doorkeepers and the like, and sources of gain and protection, ie. lords of villages and the like’ (Nand.). Pra&ara, ‘a pastureground,’ means according to Nar. and Nand. ‘a road leading to a field, a garden and the like.’

Medh., Kull, and Nar, state that the first four articles shall in general be kept by the coparcener who used them or for whose use they were prepared, but that articles or quantities of exceptional value must be sold or exchanged for other property. Wells and so forth are to be used by all the coparceners (Kull., Nand.). Female slaves are to do work for all coparceners (Kull.).

221-229. Ap. Il, 25, 12-15 ; Gaut. XXV, 18; Baudh. II, 2, 16;
Yagn. I, 199-203. In the I. O. MSS. Medh,’ 8 commentary on
verses 221-227 is missing.

224. Y4gn. II, 304. ‘The distinctive marks of twice-born men,’

p. 381

opportunity for it), likewise Sddras who assume the distinctive marks of twice-born (men).

225. Gamblers, dancers and singers, cruel men, men belonging to an heretical sect, those following forbidden occupations, and sellers of spirituous liquor, let him instantly banish from his town.

226. If such (persons who are) secret thieves, dwell in the realm of a king, they constantly harass his good subjects by their forbidden practices,

227. In a former Kalpa this (vice of) gambling has been seen to cause great enmity; a wise man, therefore, should not practise it even for amusement.

228. On every man who addicts himself to that (vice) either secretly or openly, the king may inflict punishment according to his discretion.

i. e. ‘the sacrificial thread and the like’ (Kull., N&r.). ‘Shall punish corporally,’ i. e. ‘shall cause them to be flogged, &c.’ (N4r.), or ‘ shall cause their hands and feet to be cut off and so forth according to the gravity of the offence’ (Kull., Ragh.).

225. Instead of krfirfn, ‘cruel men,’ i.e. ‘those who hate men learned in the Veda’ (Kull.), Nar. and Ragh. read ker&n, which the former explains by ‘men of exceedingly crooked behaviour,’ and the latter in accordance with Kull.’s explanation of krfran. Nand. reads kailan, ‘given to sports’ (kelisilén), and K. dor&n, ‘thieves.’ Sauadik4n, ‘distillers or sellers of spirituous liquor’ (Kull, Nar.), may also mean ‘ drunkards,’ as Nand. explains it.

226. Instead of ‘who are secret thieves’ (Kull.), Nar. says,
‘and secret thieves.’ BA&dhante, ‘harass’ (Kull.), means according
to N4r., Ragh., and Nand. ‘ corrupt.’

explains it.

226. Instead of ‘who are secret thieves’ (Kull.), Nar. says,
‘and secret thieves.’ BA&dhante, ‘harass’ (Kull.), means according
to N4r., Ragh., and Nand. ‘ corrupt.’

227. Nar. explains purfkalpe, ‘in a former Kalpa,’ by ‘in the ancient stories,’ and Ragh. and Nand. point to the adventures of king Nala and Yudhish/Aira, which, no doubt, are alluded to in the text.

228. Ragh. and Nand. point out that not only corporal punishment (according to verse 224), but also a fine may be inflicted; see also the next verse.

p. 229

229. But a Kshatriya, a Vaisya, and a Sddra who are unable to pay a fine, shall discharge the debt by labour ; a Brahmaaa shall pay it by instalments.

230. On women, infants, men of disordered mind, the poor and the sick, the king shall inflict punishment with a whip, a cane, or a rope and the like.

231. But those appointed (to administer public) affairs, who, baked by the fire of wealth, mar the business of suitors, the king shall deprive of their property.

232. Forgers of royal edicts, those who corrupt his ministers, those who slay women, infants, or Brdhmazas, and those who serve his enemies, the king shall put to death.

233. Whenever any (legal transaction) has been completed or (a punishment) been inflicted according to the law, he shall sanction it and not annul it.

229. Yagi. II, 43. Compare the rule given at VIII, 177.

230. Sipha, ‘a whip,’ is explained by Ragh. as ‘a rod measuring five fingers,’ or ‘the pendent root of a fig-tree.’ Nar. and Nand. give the latter meaning. Medh., N4r., and Nand. read daridranatharogizam, ‘the poor, the unprotected, and the sick.’

231. See above, VII, 124; Vi. V,180. ‘Those appointed, &c.,’ i.e. viceroys and so forth (Medh.), or judges and so forth (N4r.). ‘Baked by the fire of wealth’ is a simile taken from the burning of earthen pots, and means that such persons by the influence of wealth undergo a change for the worse, just as a pot heated in a fire changes its colour, or, as the Vaiseshikas hold, its nature. According to Medh., ‘others’ read ye ’niyukt&s tu, and referred the verse to non-official persons meddling with administrative or judicial business.

232. Yagi. II, 240; Vi. V, 9, 11.

233. Medh. and Kull. refer this prohibition to cases which have been properly decided in the king’s courts, while Nar. thinks that it applies to orders passed by former kings. Nand. gives a different explanation of the words tirita and anusishfa. He adduces a verse of Katyayana, according to which the former means ‘a cause or

p. 383

234. Whatever matter his ministers or the judge may settle improperly, that the king himself shall (re-)settle and fine (them) one thousand (pamas).

235. The slayer of a Brahmama, (a twice-born man) who drinks (the spirituous liquor called) Sur, he who steals (the gold of a Brahmaza), and he who violates a Guru’s bed, must each and all be considered as men who-committed mortal sins (mah&pataka).

236. On those four even, if they do not perform a penance, let him inflict corporal punishment and fines in accordance with the law.

237: For violating a Guru’s bed, (the mark of) a female part shall be (impressed on the forehead with a hot iron); for drinking (the spirituous liquor called) Sur4, the sign of a tavern; for stealing (the gold of a Brahmama), a dog’s foot; for murdering a Brahmama, a headless corpse.

plaint declared to be just or unjust by the assessors,’ and the latter ‘a cause or plaint confirmed by witnesses.’

234. Y4gh. II, 305. Medh. and Kull. think that this 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 Nar. and Ragh. think that it applies to cases of bribery also, and that the fine shall vary according to the nature of the case, 1000 panas being the lowest punishment.

235-242. Baudh. I, 18, 18; Vi. V, 3-7.

235. Instead of ‘(a twice-born man) who drinks the spirituous liquor, &c.’ (Kull., Nar.), Medh. and Ragh. say,‘a Bréhmanza who, &c.;’ but see below, XI, 94.

236. Medh. remarks that ‘ others’ refer this rule, on account of the word api, ‘even, likewise,’ to the fifth Mah4patakin also, i.e. to him who associates with one of the other four (see below, XI, 55); and R4gh., as well as Nand., approves of this explanation.

237. ‘The sign of a tavern,’ i.e. ‘a wine-cup.’ It follows from the rule given in verse 240, that the forehead is the place where they shall be branded.

p. 238

238. Excluded from all fellowship at meals, excluded from all sacrifices, excluded from instruction and from matrimonial alliances, abject and excluded from all religious duties, let them wander over (this) earth.

239. Such (persons) who have been branded with (indelible) marks must be cast off by their paternal and maternal relations, and receive neither compassion nor a salutation ; that is the teaching of Manu.

240. But (men of) all castes who perform the prescribed penances, must not be branded on the forehead by the king, but shall be made to pay the highest amercement.

241. For (such) offences the middlemost amercement shall be inflicted on a Brahmama, or he may be banished from the realm, keeping his money and his chattels.

242. But (men of) other (castes), who have unintentionally committed such crimes, ought to be deprived of their whole property ; if (they committed them) intentionally, they shall be banished.

238. Medh. reads asamyogy4h, ‘excluded from all intercourse,’ instead of asamy4gy4A, ‘excluded from all sacrifices.’

240. ‘ All castes,’ i.e. ‘ the three Aryan castes.’ N4&r. and Nand. read pfirve, ‘the before-mentioned castes.’ ‘The highest amercement,’ see above, VIII, 138.

241. According to Medh., the meaning of the verse is that a Brahmaaa, endowed with good qualities, who unintentionally (verse
242) committed a mortal sin, shall either be fined in the middlemost amercement and be made to perform the prescribed penance, or, if he refuses to do that, be banished without the infliction of a fine. Kull. and Nand. partly agree, but think that the offender is to be banished, if he committed the crime intentionally.

242. The translation follows N4r. and Nand., who think that persons, performing no penance, shall be deprived of their whole

p. 385

243. A virtuous king must not take for himself the property of a man guilty of mortal sin; but if he takes it out of greed, he is tainted by that guilt (of the offender).

244. Having thrown such a fine into the water, let him offer it to Varuza, or let him bestow it on a learned and virtuous Brahmaza.

245. Varuma is the lord of punishment, for he holds the sceptre even over kings; a Brahmaza who has learnt the whole Veda is the lord of the whole world.

246. In that (country), where the king avoids taking the property of (mortal) sinners, men are born in (due) time (and are) long-lived,

247. And the crops of the husbandmen spring up, each as it was sown, and the children die not, and no misshaped (offspring) is born.

property, if the offence was committed unintentionally, and be banished after being branded, if their crime was intentional. Nér., moreover, adds, ‘this refers to light cases; it has been declared that he shall slay the offender in bad cases.’ Kull. and Ragh. think that confiscation of the whole property shall be inflicted in particularly bad cases, instead of the fine of rooo pamas prescribed in verse 240; and Medh. says that this is the opinion of ‘some.’ Medh., Kull., and Ragh. explain pravasanam, ‘shall be banished,’ by ‘shall be punished corporally.’ Though it is not absolutely impossible that pravis may mean ‘to hurt, or punish corporally,’ it seems not advisable to take the word in the latter sense, on account of verses 238 and 241; compare also VIII, 284. Medh. remarks that a SQdra who offends unintentionally, shall be branded and be deprived of his whole property, else he shall be put to death.

244. Yagi. II, 307.

245. Varuna is the supreme ruler (adhiraga) of kings; see Taittirtya-brahmava III, 1, 2, 7. Regarding the position of a learned Brahmaaa, see above, I, 98-101.

246. Instead of kAlena, ‘in (due) time,’ i.e. ‘after the full period of gestation’ (Kull., Nar., Ragh.), Nand. reads loke tu, ‘ but in that country.’

[25] cc

p. 248

Regarding the position of a learned Brahmaaa, see above, I, 98-101.

246. Instead of kAlena, ‘in (due) time,’ i.e. ‘after the full period of gestation’ (Kull., Nar., Ragh.), Nand. reads loke tu, ‘ but in that country.’

[25] cc

p. 248

248. But the king shall inflict on a base-born (Sddra), who intentionally gives pain to Brahmazas, various (kinds of) corporal punishment which cause terror.

249. When a king punishes an innocent (man), his guilt is considered as great as when he sets free a guilty man; but (he acquires) merit when he punishes (justly).

250. Thus the (manner of) deciding suits (falling) under the eighteen titles, between two litigant parties, has been declared at length.

251. A king who thus duly fulfils his duties in accordance with justice, may seek to gain countries which he has not yet gained, and shall duly protect them when he has gained them.

252. Having duly settled his country, and having built forts in accordance with the Institutes, he shall use his utmost exertions to remove (those men who are nocuous like) thorns.

253. By protecting those who live as (becomes)
Aryans and by removing the thorns, kings, solely
intent on guarding their subjects, reach heaven.

254. The realm of that king who takes his share

248. See above, VIII, 279-284. Though all the commentators take avaragam in the sense of ‘a base-born Sfidra,’ the word may have its etymological meaning, ‘a man of lower caste.’ Medh. explains ‘who gives pain’ by ‘who takes their property or wives ;’ Nar., ‘who causes exceedingly great misery.’

249. See above, VIII, 19, 310-311, 317.

250. ‘ This verse is the conclusion of the section on the eighteen titles of the law’ (Medh.), ‘and now follows a supplement on the duties of a king’ (Nar.).

252. See above, VII, 69-70.

253-254. See above, VIII, 307, 386-387.

p. 387

in kind, though he does not punish thieves, (will be) disturbed and he (will) lose heaven.

255. But if his kingdom be secure, protected by the strength of his arm, it will constantly flourish like a (well)-watered tree.

256. Let the king who sees (everything) through his spies, discover the two sorts of thieves who deprive others of their property, both those who (show themselves) openly and those who (lie) concealed.

257. Among them, the open rogues (are those) who subsist by (cheating in the sale of) various marketable commodities, but the concealed rogues are burglars, robbers in forests, and so forth.

258. Those who take bribes, cheats and rogues, gamblers, those who live by teaching (the performance of) auspicious ceremonies, sanctimonious hypocrites, and fortune-tellers,

258. Aupadhik4d, ‘cheats,’ means according to Medh. ‘ persons of crooked behaviour who promise kindnesses, but secretly do evil to others,’ or ‘such as take money under false pretences,’ or ‘such as extort money by threats.’ The last explanation is adopted by Kull. and Ragh., while Nar. and Nand. interpret the term to mean ‘persons who cheat by using false weights and measures.’ Vaiikak&h, ‘rogues,’ i.e. ‘men who promise to transact business for others, and do not keep their word’ (Medh.), or ‘alchemists who pretend to change base metals into precious metals’ (rasam vidyam {rasavidyaya] tamradi ragatédirhpena darsayitva suvarnddikam gréhnanti, Ragh., Kull.), or ‘men who take money on false pretences’ (Nar.). Mangaladesavrittah, ‘those who live by teaching the performance of, or by performing for others, auspicious ceremonies’ (Medh., Kull., Ragh.), means according to Nar. ‘men who live by reciting auspicious hymns’ (mangalastutipasio vrettam karitam yeshim), and Medh. proposes a similar alternative explanation. Medh. reads bhadraprekshanikaiA saha, and explains the compound by ‘eulogists’ (prasamsikapurushalakshaz4d). Nar. explains iksha#ik&A, ‘ fortune-tellers,’ by ‘actors and jugglers.’

cc 2

p. 259

259. Officials of high rank and physicians who act improperly, men living by showing their proficiency in arts, and clever harlots,

260. These and the like who show themselves openly, as well as others who walk in disguise (such as) non-Aryans who wear the marks of Aryans, he should know to be thorns (in the side of his people).

261. Having detected them by means of trustworthy persons, who, disguising themselves, (pretend) to follow the same occupations and by means of spies, wearing various disguises, he must cause them to be instigated (to commit offences), and bring them into his power.

259. Mahdmiatra, ‘ officials of high rank,’ i.e. ‘courtiers such as councillors and domestic priests’ (Medh.), or ‘ ministers’ (N4r.), is taken by Kull. and R4gh. in its other sense, ‘ elephant-breakers.’ SilpopaéarayuktaA, ‘men living by showing their proficiency in arts,’ i.e. ‘such as cut figures out of chips of cane and the like’ (Medh., R&gh.), or ‘painters and the like’ (Kull). Nar. and Nand. read silpopakdrayuktaA, i.e. ‘artists such as painters and persons adorning (upak4ra) people such as hairdressers’ (Nar.), or ‘umbrella and fan makers’ (Nand.). Medh. says that asamyakkarizaf, ‘who act improperly,’ must be taken with all the four classes of persons enumerated.

260. Nar. and Nand. read vigatfydn, ‘such and the like open (rogues) of many kinds,’ and connect the accusatives in this verse with viditva in the next. Kull. takes vig4nty4t, ‘let him know (to be),’ in the sense of ‘let him discover (through spies).’

261. The translation follows Nar.’s explanation, who reads protsahya (likewise found in Gov., Ragh., and K.) instead of protsddya, found in the editions, in Kull.’s and probably also in Medh.’s version. The reading prots4dya, ‘having destroyed them,’ is objectionable on account of the following verse. RAagh. explains protsahya differently ; he says, ‘having inspired them with energy by saying, “you must give up this livelihood and earn money by agriculture, trade, and the like,” he shall induce to adopt a honest mode of line through desire for money.’ Nand. seems to

p. 389

262. Then having caused the crimes, which they committed by their several actions, to be proclaimed in accordance with the facts, the king shall duly punish them according to their strength and their crimes. .

263. For the wickedness of evil-minded thieves, who secretly prowl over this earth, cannot be restrained except by punishment.

264. Assembly-houses, houses where water is distributed or cakes are sold, brothels, taverns and victualler's shops, cross-roads, well-known trees, festive assemblies, and. play-houses and concertrooms,

265. Old gardens, forests, the shops of artisans, empty dwellings, natural and artificial groves,

266. These and the like places the king shall cause to be guarded by companies of soldiers, both stationary and patrolling, and by spies, in order to keep away thieves. ,

267. By the means of clever reformed thieves, who associate with such (rogues), follow them and know their various machinations, he must detect and destroy them.

268. Under the pretext of (offering them) various dainties, of introducing them to Brahmazas, and on the pretence of (showing them) feats of strength, the (spies) must make them meet (the officers of justice).

read protsarya (protsary4, MS.). Kull. explains anekasamsth4naif, ‘wearing various disguises’ (Nar., Nand.), by ‘stationed in various places.’ Medh.’s commentary on the end of verse 261 and on verses 262-274 is missing in the I. O. MSS.

267. Instead of utsddayet, ‘he shall destroy them’ (Kull. K., editions), Gov., Nar., Nand., and Ragh. read uts4hayet, i.e. ‘he shall incite them to commit (crimes,’ Nar., Ragh.).

p. 390

269. Those among them who do not come, and those who suspect the old (thieves employed by the king), the king shall attack by force and slay together with their friends, blood relations, and connexions.

270. A just king shall not cause a thief to be put to death, (unless taken) with the stolen goods (in his possession); him who (is taken) with the stolen goods and the implements (of burglary), he may, without hesitation, cause to be slain.

271. All those also who in villages give food to thieves or grant them room for (concealing their implements), he shall cause to be put to death.

272. Those who .are appointed to guard provinces and his vassals who have been ordered (to help), he shall speedily punish like thieves, (if they remain) inactive in attacks (by robbers).

273. Moreover if (a man), who subsists by (the fulfilment of) the law, departs from the established rule of the law, the (king) shall severely punish him by a fine, (because he) violated his duty.

269. M@lapranihité#z, ‘who suspect the old thieves employed by the king’ (Kull. R&gh.), means according to Nar. ‘who have been sent by ministers and the like staying in his kingdom,’ and according to Nand. ‘ who have discovered the root, i.e. the reasons (of the proceedings of the spies).’ All the three explanations are, however, doubtful.

271. Bhandaivakasadah, ‘who give them room for (concealing) their implements’ (Kull.), means according to Nf&r. ‘who give them money (for buying arms and the like) and shelter.’

272. The commentators take sAmantan, ‘his vassals,’ in its etymological sense of ‘neighbours.’ But it has here no doubg the usual technical meaning.

273. According to the commentators officiating priests and other Brahmanas are meant, who subsist by obtaining alms on the strength of their piety.

p. 391

274. Those who do not give assistance according to their ability when a village is being plundered, a dyke is being destroyed, or a highway robbery committed, shall be banished with their goods and chattels.

275. On those who rob the king’s treasury and those who persevere in opposing (his commands), he shall inflict various kinds of capital punishment, likewise on those who conspire with his enemies.

276. But the king shall cut off the hands of those robbers who, breaking into houses, commit thefts at night, and cause them to be impaled on a pointed stake.

277. On the first conviction, let him cause two fingers of a cut-purse to be amputated; on the second, one hand and one foot; on the third, he shall suffer death.

278. Those who give (to thieves) fire, food, arms, or shelter, and receivers of stolen goods, the ruler shall punish like thieves.

274. Vi.V, 74. Instead of hitabhange, ‘when an embankment is destroyed’ (Kull., editions), Ragh. reads hidabhange, and Gov. as well as Nand. id4bhange with the same explanation. Nar. has tadigabhange, probably a mistake for idabhange, and mentions a var. lect. hi#abhange, adding that hi#/a is ‘a dam thrown across ariver.’ K. finally reads setubhange.

276. Yagn. Il, 273.

reads hidabhange, and Gov. as well as Nand. id4bhange with the same explanation. Nar. has tadigabhange, probably a mistake for idabhange, and mentions a var. lect. hi#abhange, adding that hi#/a is ‘a dam thrown across ariver.’ K. finally reads setubhange.

276. Yagn. Il, 273.

277. Vi.V, 136; Yagi. II, 274. ‘Two fingers,’ i. e. ‘the thumb and the index’ (Kull., Ragh., Nar.), or ‘the index and the middle finger’ (Nand.).

278. Yagn. II, 276. ‘Those who give (to thieves) fire,’ i.e. ‘in order that they may warm themselves, or for similar purposes’ (Me@h.), or ‘in order that they may put fire to houses’ (N4r.). Moshasya samnidhAtrf, ‘receivers of stolen goods’ (Kull.), means according to Nar. ‘those who conduct thieves to the place where they can commit their crime, or helpers and abettors.’ The best copy of Medh. has mokshasya, both in the text and in the

p. 279

279. Him who breaks (the dam of) a tank he shall slay (by drowning him) in water or by (some other) simple (mode of) capital punishment; or the offender may repair the (damage), but shall be made to pay the highest amercement.

280. Those who break into a (royal) storehouse, an armoury, or a temple, and those who steal elephants, horses, or chariots, he shall slay without hesitation.

281. But he who shall take away the water of a tank, made in ancient times, or shall cut off the supply of water, must be made to pay the first (or lowest) amercement.

282. But he who, except in a case of extreme necessity, drops filth on the king’s high-road, shall pay two karshdpazas and immediately remove (that) filth.

283. But a person in urgent necessity, an aged man, a pregnant woman, or a child, shall be reprimanded and clean the (place); that is a settled rule.

284. All physicians who treat (their patients) wrongly (shall pay) a fine; in the case of animals, the commentary, and the other gives it in the text, while the explanation is rakshitarah, ‘protectors or abettors.’ Nand., too, reads in the text mokshasya, and says, ‘mokshasya moshitadravyasya mokshasAdhanasyeti v4.’ It would, therefore, seem that an ancient var. lect. mokshasya really existed.

279. Yagi. II, 278. ‘By (some other) simple (mode of) capital punishment, i. e. ‘by cutting off his head’ (Nar., RAgh.).

280. Yager. I], 273. This verse and the next are omitted in the I. O. MSS. of Medh.

281. Nar. says that the offender must also make good the damage done.

282. Vi.V, 106-107. Medh. says that he shall pay the Kandla, i.e. the sweeper, to remove the filth.

284. Vi. V, 175-177; Yagi. II, 242. Nar. adds, ‘But thisp. 393 first (or lowest); in the case of human beings, the middlemost (amercement).

285. He who destroys a bridge, the flag (of a temple or royal palace), a pole, or images, shall repair the whole (damage) and pay five hundred (pazeas).

II, 242. Nar. adds, ‘But this

p. 393

first (or lowest); in the case of human beings, the middlemost (amercement).

285. He who destroys a bridge, the flag (of a temple or royal palace), a pole, or images, shall repair the whole (damage) and pay five hundred (pazeas).

286. For adulterating unadulterated commodities,
and for breaking gems or for improperly boring
(them), the fine is the first (or lowest) amercement.

287. But that man who behaves dishonestly to honest (customers) or cheats in his prices, shall be fined in the first or in the middlemost amercement.

288. Let him place all prisons near a high-road, where the suffering and disfigured offenders can be seen.

289. Him who destroys the wall (of a town), or fills up the ditch (round a town), or breaks a (town)gate, he shall instantly banish.

290. For all incantations intended to destroy life, refers to cases when death is not (the result of the wrong treatment) ; for if that is the case the punishment is greater.’

285. Vi.V,174; Yae%. I], 297. ‘A pole, i.e. the flagstaff of a village (Nar.), or ‘such as stand in tanks and the like’ (Kull.). ‘Images,’ i.e. ‘statues of men; but death as the punishment for destroying images of the gods, because (above, verse 280) capital punishment has been prescribed for breaking into temples’ (N4r.). Kull. and Ragh. say ‘common images, made of clay and so forth.’

286. Vi. V, 124; Yagi. II, 245-246. Medh. thinks that the fine must be proportionate to the value of the spoiled gem, and Kull. adds that in every case the owner of the spoilt article shall receive compensation.

287. Thus Kull. and Nar. But Medh. takes the first clause differently ; ‘That man who gives unequal (quantities) for (such goods as ought to be bartered for) equal (quantities).’

288. Nand. reads kash/ani, ‘where the treatment is severe,’ instead of sarvazi, ‘all.’

290. According to the commentators the abhiéaéraz comprisep. 291 for magic rites with roots (practised by persons) not related (to him against whom they are directed), and for various kinds of sorcery, a fine of two hundred (pazas) shall be inflicted.

291. He who sells (for seed-corn that which is) not seed-corn, he who takes up seed (already sown), and he who destroys a "boundary(-mark), shall be punished by mutilation.

292. But the king shall cause a goldsmith who behaves dishonestly, the most nocuous of all the thorns, to be cut to pieces with razors.

293. For the theft of agricultural implements, of — arms and of medicines, let the king award punishment, taking into account the time (of the offence) and the use (of the object).

all incantations and sacrifices, taught either in the Veda or in secular works, which are intended to destroy life. The magic rites, performed with roots, are those which are intended to bring a person into one’s power. These are permitted, if practised against a husband or a relative (Nar.). The krety4h, ‘sorcery,’ are such spells as produce diseases, or cause the failure of an adversary’s undertakings. If the abhi#dras are successful, the punishment is that of murder (Medh., Kull.).

291. Instead of bigotkr:shfam (Kull.), which is explained ‘who sells seed-corn placed (at the top of a bag of worthless grain),’ the correct reading seems to be bigotkrash/i, ‘he who takes up seed (already sown).’ Bigotkrash4i occurs in Nar.’s commentary only, where it is explained bigakale maharghatékamotkarshak4rt, ‘he who at sowing time plucks (the seed) out, desiring to raise the price of grain.’ All the other commentators give more or less corrupt readings, which, however, all point to the form bigotkrash/, viz. Medh., bigetkrush/aA or bigotkriptya, explained by vandhyaniti kshetra gfdtu [kshetranzi kartum] bigam utkarshati sobhanam yad bigam kshetre [ta]devoddhritya nayati; Gov., bigotkrish/ah ; Nand., bigotkrésh/oh and bigotkrishéa, explained by big4ndém uptanam uddharté ; K., biryatkrash/4, marked as corrupt.

293. Thus a theft of a plough in the season for ploughing, or of

p. 395

294. The king and his minister, his capital, his realm, his treasury, his army, and his ally are the seven constituent parts (of a kingdom); (hence) a kingdom is said to have seven limbs (anga).

295. But let him know (that) among these seven constituent parts of a kingdom (which have been enumerated) in due order, each earlier (named) is more important and (its destruction) the greater calamity.

296. Yet in a kingdom, containing seven constituent parts, which is upheld like the triple staff (of an ascetic), there is no (single part) more important (than the others), by reason of the importance of the qualities of each for the others.

297. For each part is particularly qualified for (the accomplishment of) certain objects, (and thus) each is declared to be the most important for that particular purpose which is effected by its means.

298. By spies, by a (pretended) display of energy, and by carrying out (various) undertakings, let the king constantly ascertain his own and his enemy’s strength ;

299. Moreover, all calamities and vices; afterwards, when he has fully considered their relative importance, let him begin his operations.

arms just before or during a fight, should be punished more heavily than if it had been committed at any other time.

294. See above, VII, 257; Yaga. I. 352.

Moreover, all calamities and vices; afterwards, when he has fully considered their relative importance, let him begin his operations.

arms just before or during a fight, should be punished more heavily than if it had been committed at any other time.

294. See above, VII, 257; Yaga. I. 352.

296. The verse is meant, as the commentators remark, to show that one must not infer from verse 295 that the Angas, named later in the enumeration, may be neglected. According to Nar., the simile is not taken from the triple staff of an ascetic, but from the three beams of a house and the like.

298. See above, VII. Medh., Gov., Nar., Nand., and K. read at the end of the line, paratmanoé, instead of mahipatiA.

299. ‘All calamities and vices,’ i.e. ‘those affecting his enemy

p. 300

300. (Though he be) ever so much tired (by repeated failures), let him begin his operations again and again; for fortune greatly favours the man who (strenuously) exerts himself in his undertakings.

301. The various ways in which a king behaves (resemble) the Krzta, Treté, Dv4para, and Kali ages; hence the king is identified with the ages (of the world).

302. Sleeping he represents the Kali (or iron age), waking the Dv4para (or brazen) age, ready to act the Treta (or silver age), but moving (actively) the Krzta (or golden) age.

303. Let the king emulate the energetic action of
Indra, of the Sun, of the Wind, of Yama, of Varuza,
of the Moon, of the Fire, and of the Earth.

304. As Indra sends copious rain during the four months of the rainy season, even so let the king, taking upon himself the office of Indra, shower benefits on his kingdom.

305. As the Sun during eight months (imperceptibly) draws up the water with his rays, even so let him gradually draw his taxes from his kingdom; for that is the office in which he resembles the Sun.

306. As the Wind moves (everywhere), entering (in the shape of the vital air) all created beings, even so let him penetrate (everywhere) through his and his enemy’s party’ (N4r.), or ‘those affecting both his own and the enemy’s parties’ (Kull.). Nand. reads the second line as follows, gurulaghavato gfatva tatak karma samaéaret.

302. This verse closely agrees with the fourth exhortation, addressed by Indra to Rohita, Aitareya-brahmaza VII, 15.

305. Instead of nityam, ‘gradually, Nand. reads samyak,
‘duly.’ ,

p. 397

spies; that is the office in which he resembles the Wind.

307. As Yama at the appointed time subjects to his rule both friends and foes, even so all subjects must be controlled by the king; that is the office in which he resembles Yama.

308. As (a sinner) is seen bound with ropes by Varuma, even so let him punish the wicked ; that is his office in which he resembles Varuaa.

309. He is a king, taking upon himself the office of the Moon, whose (appearance) his subjects (greet with as great joy) as men feel on seeing the full moon.

As (a sinner) is seen bound with ropes by Varuma, even so let him punish the wicked ; that is his office in which he resembles Varuaa.

309. He is a king, taking upon himself the office of the Moon, whose (appearance) his subjects (greet with as great joy) as men feel on seeing the full moon.

310. (If) he is ardent in wrath against criminals and endowed with brilliant energy, and destroys wicked vassals, then his character is said (to resemble) that of Fire.

311. As the Earth supports all created beings
equally, thus (a king) who supports all his subjects,
(takes upon himself) the office of the Earth.

312. Employing these and other means, the king shall, ever untired, restrain thieves both in his own dominions and in (those of) others.

313. Let him not, though fallen into the deepest distress, provoke Brahmazas to anger; for they,

308. Nand. reads the first line differently, Varuzen4pi pasais 4a badhyate varuzair narak, ‘As men are bound by Varuza with Varuma’s fetters.’ The expression ‘the fetters of Varuna’ is a common designation of dropsy.

310. N&r. adds, ‘As the fire at an ordeal injures wicked men, even so he should destroy wicked neighbours.’

312. ‘In (those of) others,’ i.e.‘ those thieves who live in other kingdoms, and come to rob in his own’ (Kull., Nar.), Nand. omits this and the next two verses.

313. ‘Let him not provoke Brahmaaas to anger, ’i.e. ‘by taking theirp. 314 when angered, could instantly destroy him together with his army and his vehicles.

314. Who could escape destruction, when he provokes to anger those.(men), by whom the fire was made to consume all things, by whom the (water of the) ocean was made undrinkable, and by whom the moon was made to wane and to increase again ?

315. Who could prosper, while he injures those (men) who provoked to anger, could create other worlds and other guardians of the world, and deprive the gods of their divine station ?

316. What man, desirous of life, would injure them to whose support the (three) worlds and the gods ever owe their existence, and whose wealth is the Veda ?

317. A Brahmaza, be he ignorant or learned, is a great divinity, just as the fire, whether carried forth (for the performance of a burnt-oblation) or not carried forth, is a great divinity.

318. The brilliant fire is not contaminated even in burial-places, and, when presented with oblations (of butter) at sacrifices, it again increases mightily.

property’ (Medh., Nar.), or ‘treating them with contumely’ (Medh.). ‘They could destroy him,’ i.e. ‘by magic rites and curses’ (Kull.).

314. This verse refers to certain stories, told, as Medh. and Nar. point out, in the section of the Mah4bhéarata, called Mokshadharm4é XII, 344, 55, 57-58, 60-61. There it is said that Bhrigu made the fire consume all things, that the moon became ‘consumptive’ in consequence of the curse of Daksha, and that Vadav4mukha made the ocean salt in punishment for his disobedience.