The History of Antiquity, Vol. 4 (of 6)

by Max Duncker

CHAPTER VI.

THE CONSTITUTION AND LAW OF THE INDIANS.

The requirements of the new doctrine extended throughout the whole circle of life. The establishment of the arrangement into castes struck deep into the sphere of the family, of civic society, and the state; the old rules for purification were enlarged to suit the new system, and changed into rubrics for expiation and penance, touching almost at every step upon daily life. The ethical notions of the old time had to make room for a new ideal of the life pleasing to God. How could the ancient customs of the tribes, which hitherto had been the rule and standard of family and inheritance, of meum and tuum, resist such a sweeping alteration of the social, religious, and moral basis of life? How could the traditional punishments of transgressions and offences continue in existence? Marriage and inheritance must be arranged so as to suit the system of the castes; punishment must be dealt out according to the rank of the castes, and the religious sin involved in each offence; the administration of justice must take account of the new religious system in which actions, hitherto regarded as permissible, were looked on as offences. The monarchy had new duties to fulfil towards the Brahmans and the new faith; the authority of the state, the power of inflicting punishment, must side with the true faith, with the interests of the priests, and the maintenance of the orders established by God. In the circles of the Brahmans there must have been a lively desire to establish the legal arrangement of the state on the basis of the divine arrangement of the world; to regulate the state in all its departments in a manner suitable to the nature of Brahman. The traditional observances and legal customs, the usages of the families, races, and districts, must be brought into harmony with the new doctrine; as an almost inevitable consequence, a rule was set up for correct morals, usages, and life, corresponding to the divine nature and will; a pattern was drawn of the manner in which individual family and state might act in every matter in accordance with the nature of Brahman. The commands resulting from the system of the divine order of the world were combined into one standard, set forth in a scheme universally accepted, and thus elevated above all doubt and contradiction, and in this way the Brahmans passed beyond the differences which could not but remain among them in respect to this or that point, and did actually remain in the schools of the priests, as the Brahmanas show. Moreover, unanimous prescripts, a comprehensive and revered canon of law and morals, were naturally an advantage to the position of the Brahmans; their status was thus rendered more secure and distinctive; and success was more certain.

The priesthoods of the various districts must have made a beginning by influencing and modifying in the spirit of the new doctrine the customs and usages of the land; they then proceeded to draw up the customs of family law, of marriage and inheritance, the rights and duties of the castes. In this compilation it was inevitable that the hereditary customs should be revised in the spirit of the priesthood. Collections of this kind serving as rules for certain departments of life have been preserved in certain Grihya-Sutras, i. e. books of household customs, and Dharma-Sutras, i. e. catalogues or tables of laws.[221] Out of the oldest records of household customs and legal usages, altered and systematised in the spirit of the priests, out of the collections and revisions of the customs of law and morals made in various schools of priests, a book of law at last grew up for the Brahmans, which comprised both the civic and religious life, and in all relations set forth the ideal scheme, according to which they should be arranged in the spirit of the priesthood, i. e. in a manner suitable to the divine will. This book of the law bears the name of Manu, the first man, the progenitor of the race.

It has been shown above that the victory of the Brahmans, the new faith and code of morals, was first won in the regions between the Yamuna and the Ganges, in the land of the Bharatas, Panchalas, Matsyas, and Çurasenas. As it was there that the pre-eminence of the Brahmans was first completely acknowledged, it was there that they were first able to exercise an influence on the customs and ordinances of law; there also that the need of a comprehensive regulation of life upon the Brahman view was most strongly felt. "The land between the Sarasvati and the Drishadvati was created by the gods (devata); and therefore the sages give it the name of Brahmavarta"—so we are told in the book of the law. The custom of Brahmavarta (achara), preserved unbroken in this land, is for the book of the law the right custom, the correct law. Hence it follows that the rules given in that book rest on the observances which grew up in this region under the predominating influence of the Brahmans. The book further tells us that on the borders of Brahmavarta is Brahmarshideça, i. e. the land of the Brahmanic saints; this includes the land of the Kurus (Kurukshetra) and that of the Panchalas, Matsyas, and Çurasenas. From a Brahman born in this land all men are to learn their right conduct upon earth. The "land of the middle" (Madhyadeça), according to the book, extends from Vinaçana in the west to Prayaga, i. e. to the confluence of the Yamuna and the Ganges; but the law is to prevail from the Vindhyas to the Himalayas, from the western to the eastern sea, over the whole of Aryavarta (i. e. the land of the Aryas): "wherever the black gazelle is found, an efficacious sacrifice can always be offered." In that land the Dvijas are to dwell; "but the Çudra who cannot obtain sustenance there may dwell elsewhere."[222]

The book of the law naturally declares the revelation (Çruti), the threefold Veda, to be the main source of law. The second source is immemorial tradition or the custom (Smriti) of the good, which is found in its typical form in Brahmavarta; in the third degree are the utterances of the old priests and sages, who are in part quoted by name and cited—Vasishtha, Atri, Gautama, Bhrigu, and Çaunaka.[223] But the book of the law is also not inclined utterly to reject the ancient observances and customs; on the contrary, all usages of families, races, and districts remain in force, provided that they are not contradictory to this code.[224] The Brahmans were wisely prepared to content themselves with this looser form of unity; by thus sparing local life, they might hope to gain the ascendant more easily and readily in the points of chief importance. This regard for local law is counterbalanced by the fact that the book includes in its sphere religious duties, morals, and worship, and the entire arrangement of the state; in all these departments it lays down the scheme on which they are to be regulated in the spirit of the priesthood. The book is as copious on the doctrine as on the practice; it contains the punishments of heaven as well as those on earth; the arrangement of expiations and penalties as well as of regulations for the trade of the market; the principles of a vigorous management of the state, and the description of hell; the rules for living the Brahman's life and conducting war successfully; the decision of the judge on earth and beneath it. It is not content with establishing rules of law, or commands of moral duty, it includes among its ordinances moral maxims, a number of proverbs and rules of wisdom; it not only shows how heaven is gained but also the proper demeanour in society; a compendium of diplomacy follows the system of regenerations. Hence this book gives striking evidence of the mixture characteristic of the Indian nature, a mixture of superstitious fancy and keen distinction, of vague cloudiness and punctilious systematising, of soaring theory and subtle craft, of sound sense and over-refinement in reflection.

If from these indications about the customs of Brahmavarta and the Brahmans of Brahmarshideça we can determine with tolerable certainty the region in which the book of the law has grown up, it follows from the introduction in which the holy Bhrigu recites the law as "Manu had revealed it to him at his prayer," and from the close where we are again told that this is "the law announced by Bhrigu,"[225] that the collection of Brahmanic rules contained in this book have been preserved in the form and revision received in the school derived from Bhrigu, and connected with the old minstrel race of the Bhrigus.[226] It is more difficult to find the date at which the germ of this collection of law may have been brought to completion. Even if we set aside the introduction and the close which are in no connection with the body of the work, the book is still wanting in unity: it contains longer and shorter rules on the same subject, is sometimes milder, sometimes more severe; a fact in favour of the gradual origin of the book, which indeed, as has been observed, is necessitated by the nature of the case.

The Indians possess a series of books of law, which, like that called after Manu, bear the name of a saint or seer of antiquity, or of a god. One is named after Gautama, another after Vasishtha, a third after Apastamba, a fourth after Yajnavalkya; others after Bandhayana and Vishnu. According to the tradition of the Indians the law of Manu is the oldest and most honourable, and this statement is confirmed by a comparison of the contents and system of the rules contained in it with those of the other books.[227] Not to mention the fact that a considerable number of the rules in the book of Manu are repeated verbally in the other collections, the legal doctrine of the Indians is seen even in the older of these collections, in the book of Vishnu, which belongs to the Brahman school of the Kathakas, in that of Gautama, and finally in that of Yajnavalkya, which with the book of Gautama is nearest in point of date to the book of Manu—in a far more developed state, and with much more straw-splitting refinement. The book which is named after Yajnavalkya of the race of Vajasani belongs to the eastern regions of the Ganges, the kingdom of Mithila. It is based on a doctrine which, unknown to Manu's law, came into existence in the fourth century B.C.; the system of mixed castes and trade law is far more developed in it than in Manu. We shall see below that this doctrine cannot be placed much further back than the year 300 B.C.,[228] and it is assumed that the laws of Yajnavalkya in their present form may date from the third century of our era. If Manu's law is older than Yajnavalkya's, and the latter rests on a doctrine, the rise of which we can fix about the year 300 B.C., while Manu's doctrine is older, there are other indications to be gathered from Manu's work which enable us to fix the date more clearly. Manu's law, as we have seen, limits the habitations of the Aryas to the land north of the Vindhyas—from which we may conclude that this view belongs to a period when the Aryas had not yet set a firm foot on the coast of the Deccan. This extension of the Aryas to the south of the Vindhyas began, as will be seen below, after the year 600 B.C. Soon after this year we find the states on the Ganges completely arranged according to the Brahmanic law, and the prescripts of the laws of Manu; even in the first half of the sixth century we find a stricter practice in regard to marriages outside the order, and a severer asceticism than the law-book requires. The conclusion is therefore inevitable that the decisive precepts, which we find in the collection, must have been put together and written down about the year 600.[229]

The introduction belongs undoubtedly to a later period. Manu is seated in solitary meditation, and there come to him the ten great saints—the book mentions Marichi, Atri, Angiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, Daksha, Vasishtha, Bhrigu, Narada[230]—and say: "Thou alone, lord, knowest the distinction of the pure and impure castes, the true meaning of this universal order, which is self-existent; deign to explain it to us with clearness and in order." Manu then first narrates to the saints the story of creation. The highest being first created the water, and cast into it procreative seed, which became an egg, bright as gold and gleaming like the sun, and in this egg the highest being was born in the shape of Brahman. Then Brahman caused the egg to divide and formed from it the heaven and the earth and the great waters. He then divided himself into a man and a woman, and the male half (Brahman Viraj) produced him, Manu, who fashioned all things and created the ten Rishis, and the seven Manus, who in turn created animals and plants. Then the highest being caused him (Manu) to learn the book of the law by heart: he imparted it to the great saints and taught it to Bhrigu, who would recite it. Then Bhrigu takes up the word and says: "Learn from me the law as Manu has revealed it at my prayer." Bhrigu then narrates how the seven Manus had created various beings each in his age, and recites the doctrine of the four great periods of the world (p. 70), of the origin of the four castes and the majesty of the Brahmans.[231]

It is no doubt a somewhat late form of Brahmanic cosmogony which is recited in this introduction. We hear no more of the Manu of the Rigveda, the progenitor of the Aryas; he is elevated in the priestly system to be the first being beside Brahman, and made the creator of the world. He is now called Manu Svayambhu, i. e. the self-existent Manu, and creates from himself the ten Rishis, the seven other Manus, who in their turn create living creatures and plants. The seven Manus are all denoted by special epithets—the seventh is known as the ancient Manu; he is called the son of Vivasvat, Vivasvata (p. 30). If Manu Svayambhu had already imparted the law to the great saints, to whose number Bhrigu belongs, and taught it especially to Bhrigu, it was unnecessary for the great saints to ask it from Manu once more. This difficulty is as little felt in the book as the still more striking contradiction that the collection, though emanating from the first Manu or Brahman, is based upon and even expressly appeals to the utterances of Vasishtha, Atri, Gautama, Bhrigu. This is further explained by the fact that the introduction is completely ignored in the text of the book.

In the text we see the civic polity on the Ganges at an advanced stage. The monarchy which rose up from the leadership of the immigrant hordes, in conflict partly against the old inhabitants and partly against the newly-founded states, has maintained this supreme position, and extended it to absolute domination. It is in full possession of despotic power. The Brahmanic theory, so far from destroying it, has, on the contrary, extended and strengthened it. The Brahmans, it is true, demanded that the king should regulate worship, law, and morals according to their views and requirements; they imposed upon him duties in reference to their own order, but, on the other hand, they were much in need of the civic power to help them in carrying through their demands against the other orders. This doctrine of submission to the fortune of birth, of patient obedience, of a quiet and passive life, in connection with the reference to the punishments after death, and the evils to come, were highly calculated to elevate the power of the kings, and lull to sleep energy, independence of feeling and attitude, boldness and enterprise, in the castes of the Kshatriyas and Vaiçyas. The interest in another world and occupation with the future must thus have become more prominent than the participation in this world or care for the present. In such circumstances the world was gladly left to those who had once taken in hand the government of it. When the nation had gradually become unnerved by such doctrines and cares, the monarchy had an easy game to play. Its rule might be as capricious as it chose. In weaker nations, unaccustomed to action, the need of order and protection is so great that not only acts of violence against individuals but even the oppression felt by the whole is gladly endured for the sake of the security enjoyed in other respects by the entire population.

The book compares the kings with the gods. "He who by his beneficence spreads abroad the blessings of prosperity, and by his anger gives death, by his bravery decides the victory, without doubt unites in himself the whole majesty of the protectors of the world."[232] Brahman created the king, the book tells us, by taking portions from the substance of the eight protectors of the world, and these the king now unites in his person.[233] "As Indra is the bright firmament, so does the king surpass in splendour all mortal beings; as Indra pours water from heaven for four months (the Indians on the Ganges reckoned the rainy season at four months), so must he heap benefits on his people. Like Surya (the sun-god) the king beams into the eyes and hearts of all; no one can look into his countenance. As Surya by his rays draws the moisture out of the earth for eight months, so may the king draw the legal taxes from his subjects. As Vayu flies round the earth and all creatures and penetrates them, so should the power of the king penetrate through all. Like Yama in the under world, the king is lord of justice; as Yama when the time is come judges friends and enemies, those who honour him and those who despise him, so shall the king hold captive the transgressors. As Varuna fetters and binds the guilty, so must the king imprison criminals. Like Agni, the king is the holy fire: with the flame of his anger he must annihilate all transgressors, their families and all that they have, their flocks, and herds, and he must be inexorable towards his ministers. As men rejoice at the sight of the moon-god (Chandra), so do they take pleasure in the sight of the good ruler; as Kuvera spreads abundance, so does the gracious look of the king give blessing and prosperity.[234] The sovereign is never to be despised, not even when he is a child; for a great divinity dwells in this human form."[235] The king also represents, according to Manu, the four ages of the world. On his sleeping and waking and action depends the condition of the land. "If the king does what is good, it is Kritayuga (the age of perfection); if he acts with energy, it is Tritayaga (the age of the sacrificial fires); if he is awake, it is Dvaparayuga (the period of doubt); if he sleeps it is Kaliyuga (the period of sin)."[236] We have already become acquainted with the deification of kings in a still more pronounced form in the inscriptions on the temples and palaces of Egypt. It will always be found where there is nothing to oppose the authority of the king but the impotence of subjects who possess no rights, when life and death depend on his nod, and above all where a divine order supposed to be gathered from the commands of heaven is realised on earth in the state, and there are no institutions to carry it out, but only the person of the king as the single incarnation of power.

However high the Brahmans placed the sanctity and dignity of their own order above that of the Kshatriyas, the book makes no attempt to bring the monarchy into the hands of the Brahmans. It lays down the rule that the kings must belong to the order of the Kshatriyas;[237] and leaves the throne to them, without feeling the contradiction that by this means a member of a subordinate caste receives dominion over the first-born of Brahman. It was part of the conception of the Brahmans that each order had a definite obligation. The Kshatriyas must protect the other orders; and therefore the chief protector must belong to this caste. But the book does not even aim at confining the royal power of the Kshatriyas in narrower limits for the benefit of the Brahmans. The kings are merely commanded to be obedient to the law of the priests; the order of Brahmans is declared to be especially adapted for public offices, without excluding the rest of the Dvija from them. The king is further recommended to advise chiefly with Brahmans on affairs of state, and to allow Brahmans to pronounce sentence in his place.[238] For the great sacrifices he must have a Brahman to represent him (Purohita); and for household devotion and daily ritual he must keep a chaplain (Ritvij).

Agreeably to the Brahmanic conception of the world, the maintenance of the established order is the especial duty of the king. He must take care that all creatures do what is required of them and perform their duties. He must also protect his subjects, their persons, property, and rights. He must reward the good and punish the bad. Justice is the first duty of the king. By justice the book understands chiefly the maintenance of authority and order by terror, by sharp repression and severe punishment. The power of inflicting punishment is regarded as the best part of the kingly office; the king must especially occupy himself with pronouncing judgment, and punish without respect of persons. The terror spread by punishment, and the apportionment of it in particular cases, are the principles of the law of penalties. The Brahmans had gained recognition for their doctrine mainly by the fear of the penalties of hell, and the regenerations; they thought that nothing but fear governs the world, and by that means only could order be maintained in the state. The more the Brahmanic doctrine drained the marrow out of the bones and the force out of the souls of the people, the more dependent and incapable of self-help the subjects were made by the severe oppression and tutelage of the kings, the more necessary it became, as no one could now defend or help himself, to have an effectual protection for persons and property, and this the book finds only in the power of punishment exercised by the king.

We find a complete theory of the preservative power of punishment, before which all distinctions of criminal and civil process disappear, and it becomes a matter of indifference whether an offence has taken place from a doubtful claim, from error, carelessness, or evil intention. "A man who does good by nature," so we are told in the book, "is rarely found. Even the gods, the Gandharvas, the giants, the serpents perform their functions only from fear of punishment. It is this which prevents all creatures from abandoning their duties, and puts them in a position to enjoy what is properly their own. Punishment is justice, as the sages say; punishment governs the world; it is a mighty power, a strong king, a wise expounder of law. When all things sleep, punishment is awake. If the king did not ceaselessly punish those who deserve it, the stronger would eat up the weak; property would cease to exist; the crow would pick up the rice of the sacrifice, and the dog lick the clarified butter. Only when black punishment with red eyes annihilates the transgressors, do men feel no anxiety."

The services rendered by the king in the exercise of justice and the maintenance of order and the system of caste thus attained, are naturally rated very highly by the book of law, in accordance with its general tendency. "By the suppression of the evil and protection of the good, the king purifies himself like a Brahman by sacrifice." "Then his kingdom flourishes like a tree that is watered continually;" through the protection which the king secures for the good by punishment, he acquires a portion of the merits of the good. The portion of these merits thus allotted to the king is determined by arithmetical calculations. "The king who collects the sixth part of the harvest and protects his people by punishment, obtains a sixth part of the merit of all pious actions, and the sixth part of all rewards allotted by the heavenly beings to the nation for their sacrifices and gifts to the gods, and for the reading of the holy scriptures. But the king who does not protect his people, and yet takes the sixth, goes into hell; as does also the king who punishes the innocent and not the transgressors. Even if the king has not himself pronounced the unjust sentence, a part of the guilt falls upon him. The fourth part of the injustice of the sentence falls on him who began the suit, a fourth on the false witnesses, a fourth on the judge, a fourth on the king. A pure prince, who is truthful, who knows the holy scriptures, and does not disregard the laws, which he has himself given, is regarded by the sages as capable of regulating punishment, of imposing it evenly, and thus he increases the virtue, the wealth, and prosperity of his subjects (the three means of happiness)." "To the prince who decides a case righteously, the people will flock like the rivers to the ocean, and when he has thus obtained the good-will of the nation"—so the book continues—"he must attempt to subjugate the lands which do not obey him."[239]

Accompanied by Brahmans and experienced councillors, the king is to repair without magnificence to the court of justice. After invoking the protectors of the world, he begins, standing or seated, with the right hand raised, and his attention fixed, to examine the case according to the rank of the castes. Like Yama, the judge of the under world, the king must renounce all thoughts of what is pleasing to him; he must follow the example of the judge of all men, suppress his anger, and put a bridle on his senses. If right wounded by wrong enters the court and the king does not draw out the arrow he is himself wounded. From the attitude of the litigants, the colour of their faces, and the tone of their voices, their appearance and gestures, the king must ascertain their thoughts and attain to truth, as the hunter reaches the lair of the wild beast which he has wounded by following up the traces of its blood. Beside these indications, witnesses are required for proof; and if these are not forthcoming, oaths or the "divine declaration." Respectable men of all the orders are allowed as witnesses, especially the fathers of families; if these are not to be obtained, the friends or enemies of the accused, his servants, or such as are in need and poverty, and are afflicted with sickness. In cases of necessity the evidence of a woman, a child, and a slave can be taken.[240]

The book repeatedly and with great urgency exhorts the witnesses to speak the truth, and threatens false witnesses with hell and a terrible series of regenerations. In the presence of the accuser and accused the king calls on the witness to tell the truth: to the Brahman he says, "speak;" to the Kshatriya, "tell the truth;" to the Vaiçya, he points out that false witness is as great a crime as theft of corn, cattle, and gold.[241] "The wicked think," says Manu, "no one sees us if we give false witness. But the protectors of the world know the actions of all living creatures, and the gods see all men. The soul also is its own witness; a severe judge and unbending avenger dwells in thine heart. The soul is a part of the highest spirit, the attentive and silent observer of all that is good and evil." The false witness will not only come to misfortune in his life, so that, deprived of his sight, with a potsherd in his hand he will beg for morsels in the house of his enemy—for all the good that a man has done in his life at once departs into dogs by false witness—in a hundred migrations he will fall into the toils of Varuna, and at last will be thrown head foremost into the darkest abyss of hell. Even his family and kindred are brought into hell by the false witness. For further elucidation the book provides a scale; by false witness about oxen five, about cows ten, about horses a hundred, and about men a thousand members of the family of the false witness are thrown into hell.[242]

If no witnesses are forthcoming the king must endeavour to find out the truth by the oaths of the accuser or the accused, which in cases of special importance he may test and confirm by the "divine declaration." Even the Brahmans could not refuse the oath; for Vasishtha had sworn to the son of Pijavana (Sudas). The Brahman swore by his truthfulness; the Kshatriya by his weapons, his horses, and elephants; the Vaiçya by his cows, his corn, his grass; the Çudra, when taking an oath, must invoke all sins on his own head.[243] If the king desires the "divine revelation" on the truth of the oath, the person taking it must lay his hand, while swearing, on the head of his wife, or the heads of his children; or after taking it, he must undergo the test of fire and water or fire; i. e. he is thrown into water and he must touch fire with his hand. If in the second case no immediate harm follows, if in the first the witness sinks like any other person, if in the third he is not injured by the fire, the oath is correct. Fire, so the book proceeds, is to be the test of guilt or innocence for all men; the holy Vatsa once demonstrated his innocence by walking through fire without a hair of his head being consumed.[244] When we consider the inclination of the Indians to the marvellous, and their belief in the perpetual interference of the gods, it cannot surprise us that these regulations about the divine declaration—which are all that are found in the book of the law—became at a later time much more extended and complicated; it is also possible that the book has omitted certain hereditary forms of the divine sentence, such as the carrying of hot iron, though they continue to exist.[245]

When the king had thus come to a conclusion about the matter and its position by means of indications, evidence, oaths, and "divine declaration," when he had considered the extenuating or aggravating circumstances, e. g. special qualities in the criminal, or repeated convictions, and reflected on the prescriptions given by the law, he is to cause punishment to be inflicted on the guilty. The book acknowledges that the king alone is not sufficient for the burden of pronouncing justice; it is open to him to name a representative, and the necessary judges from the number of the twice-born; no exclusive right in this respect is reserved for the Brahmans, but they are especially recommended. "A court of law, assembled by the king, and consisting of a very learned Brahman and three Brahmans acquainted with writing, is called by the sages the court of Brahman with four faces." A Çudra can never be named by the king as his representative in a court of law. If such a thing were to happen, the kingdom would be in the unfortunate position of a cow which had fallen into a morass.[246]

The doctrine of the Brahmans that no living creature is to be killed is little attended to in respect of human life either in their penal code or in their asceticism. The punishment of death is perhaps less frequently imposed than elsewhere in the East, but mutilations are only the more common, and at times they are employed to aggravate the sentence of death, which is inflicted by beheading and impalement.[247] The legends of the Buddhists show that cruel mutilations were not uncommon. Men of the despised classes, especially Chandalas, served as executioners.[248] The Brahmans are to be free from all bodily punishment; the other castes could be punished either by loss of life, or of the sexual organs, or in the belly, the tongue, feet and hands, eyes and nose, and were distinguished by different brands on the forehead.[249] But the book of the law adds a rule of some importance intended to win respect and legal value for the priestly arrangements of penances: all criminals, who perform the religious expiations prescribed for their offence, are not to be punished in the body, but only condemned to pay a fine. Next to corporal punishments, fines are the most frequent; but imprisonment is mentioned; this was carried out in gaols, which were to be erected on the highways "to spread terror."

The book allows the kings absolute power to punish with capricious severity and with death any attempt and even "any hostile feeling" against themselves. This is necessitated by the position of the despotic ruler whose throne depends on keeping alive the sense of fear in his subjects. "He who in the confusion of his mind betrays hatred against his king must die; the king must at once occupy himself with the means to bring about his destruction." Any one who has refused obedience to the king or robbed the king's treasury must be put to death with tortures.[250] He who forges royal orders, puts strife between the ministers of the king, appropriates the royal property, has any understanding with the enemies of the king, and inspires them with courage, must die. So also must the man who has killed a Brahman, a woman, or a child,[251] who has broken down a dyke, so that the water in the reservoir is lost.[252] Adultery under certain circumstances is punished with death. Robbery, arson, attacks with violence on persons or property, are punished very severely, for such crimes "spread alarm among all creatures."[253] The punishments prescribed by the law for the protection of property are, comparatively, the most severe; it seems that the Brahmanic view, which allots to each creature his sphere of rights, regarded property, the extended circle of the person, as an appurtenance deserving the strictest respect, and that the Brahmans looked on the protection of property as an essential part of a good arrangement of the state, which must secure his own to every man and maintain him in the possession of it. The king is to suppress theft with the greatest vigour. In order to discover the thief, no less than the gambler and cheat, the law recommends him to avail himself of the espionage of those who apparently pursue the same occupation. These spies are to be taken from all orders, and must watch especially the open places, wells, and houses of courtesans in the cities, and in the country the sacred trees, the crossways, the public gardens, and parks of the princes. The king must cause every one to be executed who is caught on the spot with the property upon him, and the concealers of the thief must be punished as severely as the thief himself.[254] Any one who steals more than ten kumbhas worth of corn is to be punished with death; theft of a less value is followed by loss of hand or foot. Petty stealing, e. g. of flowers, or of as much corn as a man can carry, is to be punished by fines, in which the Vaiçya has to pay twice as much as the Çudra, the Kshatriya four times, the Brahman eight or a hundred times. Burglary is a capital offence; the sentence is carried out by impalement, after the hands of the victim have been cut off.[255] A cut-purse loses two fingers; on a second offence a hand and a foot; if the offence is repeated he must die.[256] In regard to property, Manu's laws are so severe that they not only put the sale of another's goods, but even the loosing of a tied ox, or the tying of one which is loose, the use of the slave, horse, or carriage of another on the same level as theft. On the other hand, it is permissible to take roots, and fruits, and even wood for sacrifice out of any unfenced field; the hungry traveller, if a Dvija, may break two sugarcanes, but not more.[257] Gamblers are punished like thieves, and any one who keeps a gambling house must undergo corporal punishment; drunkards are branded in the forehead. The law of contract and debt, the breach of covenants, the non-payment of wages when due, the annulling of a purchase or sale, the law of deposits, the collection of outstanding accounts, gambling debts and wages, are discussed at some length.

The views and regulations in the book of law about the unlimited power of the king and the exercise of the right of punishment might appear to be of a later date than has been assumed, if the sutras of the Buddhists and the accounts of the Greeks from the end of the fourth century B.C. did not exhibit the monarchy of India in the full possession of unlimited power; the latter also mention the careful regard paid by the kings to the administration of justice. Hence we can hardly be wrong in assuming that the Arians in India were not later than their kindred in Iran in reaching this form of constitution.

Along with the absolute power of punishment the law allows the kings a very liberal right of imposing taxes. The taxes were regarded as the recompense which the subjects have to pay for the protection which the king extends to them. However high the quota of taxes may be which the king has the right to raise, the law calls attention to the fact that it is not good "to exhaust the realm by taxes." The impositions are to be arranged in such a way that the subjects may confess that king and nation find "the just reward of their labour." The king is never to cut off his own roots by raising no taxes at all on a super-abundance of possessions, nor may he from covetousness demand too heavy a tribute, and so cut off the roots of his subjects. As the exhaustion of the body destroys the life of the animated creature, so does the exhaustion of the kingdom destroy the life of the king. As a rule, he may only demand the twelfth part of the harvest, i. e. above eight per cent., and the fiftieth, i. e. two per cent., of animals and incomes in gold and silver.[258] Yet the eighth or sixth corn could be demanded according to the quality of the soil and the amount of labour required upon it, and the fifth part of the increase in cattle and in gold and silver. In cases of necessity the fourth part of the harvest could be demanded, "when the king is protecting his people with all his power." Of the gain on fruit-trees, herbs, flowers, perfumes and honey the king can take the sixth part. From the wares of the merchant which come to be sold, the king may take the twentieth;[259] and those who live by retail trade may be compelled to pay a moderate tax. Artisans, day-labourers, and Çudras who earn too little to be able to pay taxes, the king compels to work for him one day in each month.[260]

From this it is clear how extensive was the circle from which taxes were paid; all incomes, whether from the soil and under it, even to flowers and honey, or from the breeding of cattle, all purchases and sales were taxed, and the rates at which the taxes were levied were high. There were besides presents in kind. If we add to these the exactions of the tax-gatherer, which in the East have rarely been wanting, the burdens prescribed and imposed by the laws must have been very considerable. It would afford little protection to those who had to pay that Manu's laws required that the taxes should be collected by men of good family whose characters were free from avarice.[261] Yet these and other rules in the book show that an attempt was made to introduce order, and, at any rate, a certain moderation into the taxation. The good advice given in conclusion to the king, that he should collect his yearly tribute in small portions, even as the bee and the leech suck in their nourishment gradually,[262] is rather evidence of Machiavellian policy than of good feeling towards the taxpayers, while the open reference to the leech as a pattern of moderation is equivalent to an acknowledgment of the draining process of which we find evidence elsewhere. From the general duty of paying taxes the "learned Brahman" is alone exempted; from him the king is never to take tribute even though he were dying of hunger;[263] the Brahmans, as we shall see, paid their sixth in intercessions.[264]

The rules given in the law for taxation are not of recent date. The sixth part of the harvest is there prescribed as the rule. From the accounts of the Greeks about the year 300 B.C. the fourth part of the harvest was collected, and a tenth from trade.[265] According to the sutras of the Buddhists the pressure of taxes in some states on the Ganges became exhausting. Subsequently, the princes of the Mahrattas took a fifth of the harvest, which seems to have become the rule in later times, and occasionally a fourth, in corn or coin. The Sultan Akhbar caused the whole land to be measured and the value of the produce to be calculated on an average of the harvests of nineteen years, and the size of the farm; then he took the third part of the produce thus estimated in gold, with entire release from all other taxes. Lands in the possession of the Brahmans partially enjoy even to this day the traditional freedom from taxation.

As it is difficult for one man to govern a great kingdom the book advises the king to choose seven or eight ministers from men whose fathers have already been in the service of the crown, persons of good family, of knowledge of the law, bold and skilful in the use of weapons.[266] He is to secure their fidelity by an oath. With them he is to consider all affairs, first with each singly, then with all together; after this he may do what seems to him best. On matters of great importance the king must always ask the advice of one Brahman of eminence, and consider the affair with him as his first minister.[267] The sutras of the Buddhists as well as the epic poems show us the court of the king arranged according to these rules; in the Ramayana, king Daçaratha of Ayodhya has eight ministers together with his Parohita and Ritvij.[268]

The plan presented by the law for the management of the state is very simple. The king is to place officers (pati, lords) over every village, and again over every ten or twenty villages (grama), so that these places with their acreage formed together a district. Five or ten such districts form a canton, which contains a hundred communities, and over this in turn the king places a higher magistrate. Ten of these cantons form a region, which thus comprised a thousand villages, and this is administered by a governor.[269] The overseers of districts are to have divisions of soldiers at their disposal to maintain order in their districts. Thefts and robbery which they are unable to prevent with their own forces they must report to the overseers of cantons.[270] Thus the states of India were governed by a complicated series of royal magistrates subordinated to each other, which is of itself evidence of an advanced stage of administration. Whether the kings of India adopted this or some other plan for the management of their states, which in the first instance were of no great extent, experience must have taught, before Manu's laws received their present form, that these magistrates did not always discharge their duties faithfully, but were guilty of caprice and oppression. The subordination of the magistrates is intended to supply a means of control; but the law also requires regular payment of officers. "Those whom the king employs for the security of the land," we are told, "are as a rule knaves, who gladly appropriate the property of the subjects."[271] In order to prevent this as far as possible regular payment is absolutely necessary. The fourth class (the overseers of the villages) is to receive what the village has to contribute to the king in rice, wood, and drink; the third class (the overseers of districts) must receive as pay the produce of an estate, which requires twelve steers to cultivate it; the second class must receive the produce of a plot five times as large, &c.[272] Moreover, in every great city the king must nominate a head overseer, and must from time to time cause reports to be made by special commissaries of the manner in which the magistrates perform their duties; and those who take money from the people with whom they have to do, the king must drive out of the land and confiscate their property.[273]

The advice which the book imparts to the kings on the duties they have to fulfil beside the protection of the subjects, the maintenance of order, and the supervision of their magistrates; the art of government sketched for them, the regulations for personal security put into their hand, are the result of an unfettered reflection on all these relations for which no limitations and principles are in existence, except the interest of uncontrolled dominion, and the respect due to the Brahmans.

The king is to take up his abode in a healthy and rich district, inhabited by loyal people, who get their living easily, and surrounded by peaceful neighbours. In such a district he is to choose a place difficult of access owing to deserts or forest. If these are not to be found the king must build his citadel on a mountain, or he must make it inaccessible by specially strong walls of stone or brick, or by trenches filled with water. As a man can do nothing to a wild animal when in its hole, so the king has nothing to fear in an inaccessible place. In the midst of such a fortress the king must build his palace with the necessary spaces properly divided in such a manner that it can be inhabited at any period of the year. The palace must be provided with water and surrounded with trees, the entire dwelling must then be enclosed by trenches and walls. The citadel, in which the palace lies, must be well provided with arms, supplies, beasts of burden, fodder, machines, and Brahmans. One archer behind the breast of the wall easily holds a hundred enemies in check.[274] The guard in the interior of the palace is to be trusted only to men of little spirit, for brave men, seeing the king frequently alone or surrounded by women, could easily slay him at the instigation of his enemies. It is best to pay regularly the servants of the palace; the chief servants are to receive six panas a day, six dronas of corn a month, and six suits of clothes in the year; the lowest receive one pana a day, one drona of corn a month, and an upper and under garment twice in the year.[275]

The king, his council, his treasure, his metropolis, his land, army, and confederates—these are, according to the book of the law, the seven parts of the kingdom, which ought mutually to support each other. The king is the most important part, "because through him all the other parts are set in motion;" his destruction brings with it the ruin of the rest. Hence the king must take thought for his preservation. For this object the book advises him—besides securing the metropolis, the citadel, and the people in it—to pay attention to a good arrangement of the day. With early dawn he is to rise and purify himself, in deep meditation to offer his sacrifice to Agni, and show his respect for the Brahmans who know the three holy books.[276] Then he must go to the magnificent hall of reception, and there delight his subjects by gracious words and looks. After administering justice he is to consult with his ministers in some secret place where he cannot be overheard, on a lonely terrace or on the top of a mountain. In the middle of the day, if he is free from disquiet and weariness (or in the middle of the night), he must reflect on virtue, content, and riches, on war and peace, on the prospect of success in his undertakings. Then he must bathe, take such exercise as becomes a king, and then repair to the meal in his inner chambers. There he must take food prepared for him by old, faithful, and trustworthy servants, but previously tested with the help of a partridge, whose eyes become red if there is poison in the dish. He must consecrate the food by prayers, which will destroy the poison contained in it. He must at all times carry precious stones with him, to counteract the effect of poison, and must mix antidotes with his food.[277] After dinner the women make their appearance to fan him, and sprinkle him with water and perfumes, but not till their ornaments and dress have been carefully searched to see that neither weapons nor poison are hidden in them. When the king has passed the suitable time with his wives, he occupies himself anew with public business. He puts on his armour, and reviews his warriors, elephants, horses, chariots, and arms.[278] In the evening, after sacrifice, he repairs in his armour to a remote part of the palace, in order to receive the accounts of his spies. Then he takes his evening meal in his innermost chambers, at which his wives attend him. After a light repast and some music, he lies down to rest at the proper time, and rises refreshed in the morning.[279]

The book advises the king to make conquests, and gives him counsel on the conduct of war. This may be explained as a survival of the old warlike feeling of the people, or as the result of the duty imposed on the Kshatriyas, or from the encyclopædic nature of the book, which includes all sides of civic life. The ideal of the Brahmans lay no doubt in a quiet and peaceful life, but like other priesthoods they were inclined to leave the state a free course in its desire for extension of power so long as it satisfied the requirements they laid upon it. Conquests, the book tells us, cannot be made till a treasure has been collected and the troops carefully exercised.[280] Every neighbour is to be regarded as an enemy, but the neighbour of a neighbour as a friend. While the king must carefully conceal the weaknesses of his own kingdom, he must spy out the weakness of the enemy; he must send spies into the enemy's land, just as he uses them to detect gambling, theft, and cheating in his own. The persons best suited for this purpose are fictitious penitents, degraded eremites, broken merchants, starving peasants, and finally young men of bold and acute spirit; these must collect accurate information concerning the ministers, treasures, and army of the hostile state.[281] The choice of the ambassador sent to the enemy's coast is of the first importance both for knowing the country, and ascertaining the views of the prince. He must be a man of high birth, of acuteness and honesty, friendly in his manners. In negotiations with the hostile prince, this envoy must be able to judge of his intentions from his conduct, tone, attitude, and demeanour; he must detect his plans by secretly bribing a covetous minister.[282] When acquainted with the strength and designs of the enemy, the king must attempt to weaken their power and strengthen his own. For this purpose he must by all possible means create dissension in the enemy's country, or foster a dissension already existing; he must gain over relatives of the prince who prefer a claim to the throne, or discontented and displaced ministers; and make presents to the subjects of the hostile prince. Finally, he must conclude treaties with the ambitious neighbours of the hostile state, and attempt to break off his alliances, by creating personal dissensions between the princes.[283]

The issue of all things in this world, the book says, depends on the laws of fate, which are regulated according to the acts of men in their former existence. These laws are concealed from us; we must therefore hold to things which are accessible. It is enough if the king keeps three things before him in these undertakings; himself, the object he has in view, the means of attaining it. Starting from the experience of the past and the present situation of affairs, he must attempt to discover the probable issue. He who can foresee the use or harm of any resolution, who decides quickly at a given moment, and can see the consequences of any event, will never be overcome. A prince who is firm in his views, liberal and grateful to all who serve him, bold, skilful, and fearless, will, in the opinion of the sages, hardly be overcome. Fortune attends the enterprising and enduring prince, and he who keeps his counsels secret will extend his power over the whole earth.[284]

If the king is attacked unexpectedly he must take refuge in negotiations; in such a case he must also make up his mind to endure some slight injury, and even sacrifice a part of his kingdom. But if he has made all his preparations and concealed them, if he has drawn all the parts of his kingdom into himself like a tortoise; if the fortresses are armed and garrisoned, if the six divisions of the army—the elephants, chariots, cavalry, foot-soldiers, generals, and baggage—are ready, and he has made arrangements for his absence, he must consider like a hawk the best mode of attack, the object of which must be the metropolis of the enemy, and make it suddenly at a favourable time of the year. If the strength of his army consists in chariots, elephants, and cavalry, he must set out in November (Margaçirsha) or in February (Phalguna) in order to find the autumn or spring harvest in the fields, in case some special misfortune has befallen the enemy, or the victory is for general reasons beyond a doubt. The march must be secured by making roads, by spies, and good advanced troops who know the signals, for which purpose daring men, of whom it is known that they will not desert, must be sought out.

Battles must be avoided as much as possible if the object can be attained by other means, for the issue of a battle can never be foreseen. But if it is found impossible to compel the enemy to make peace by devastating his land, by taking up strong positions and an entrenched camp, or by blockading him in his camp, and cutting him off from supplies—water, and wood for firing, by provoking him by day, and attacking him by night—if a battle is unavoidable, it is best in a plain to fight with cavalry and chariots, in a well watered region with elephants, in a woodland district with archers, on open ground with sword and shield. The Kshatriyas of Brahmavarta and Brahmarshideça, from the lands of the Matsyas, Panchalas, and Çurasenas were to be placed in the front ranks, or if these were not forthcoming, tall and skilful men of other regions. Poisoned arrows and fire arrows are not to be used. A man on a chariot or a horse is not to attack a foot-soldier; an enemy is not to be attacked who is already engaged with an opponent, or has lost his arms, or is wounded. These rules, like the precept that the king is never to turn his back when the army has been set in array, are results of the old warlike and knightly feeling united with the view of the Brahmans, that each order should fulfil its proper office. It is the duty of the Kshatriyas not to fly, says the book, but much more of the king; kings who fight with great courage in the battle, eager to overcome each other, and do not turn aside their heads, go straight into heaven when they fall. Those who pray for life with folded hands, the severely wounded, and those who fly, are not to be slain.[285] According to these regulations the regions of Brahmavarta and Brahmarshideça produce not only the best Brahmans but the best Kshatriyas. The accounts of the Greeks from the fourth century B.C. prove that at any rate the princes of the land of the Indus knew how to fight bravely. Megasthenes tells us that they rarely came to close conflict, but generally carried on the contest with large bows at a distance.

When victory has been won, the law advises the king, however weary he may be, to follow it up quickly. According to the regulations of the Veda, gold and silver found in the booty belong to the king, everything else to the man who has taken it. If the enemy's land is conquered an attempt must be made to secure the possession of it. The king must issue a proclamation to relieve all the inhabitants from alarm; he must worship the deities worshipped by the conquered land, and pay respect to the virtuous Brahmans in it. Under certain circumstances it is good to make distributions to the people; to carry off treasures arouses hatred, to distribute them excites love; each is worthy of praise or blame according to circumstances. Finally, the book utterly disregards the possible result of the excellent advice given by laying down the rule that the king may hand over the conquered district to a prince of the royal blood, and prescribe certain conditions with which he is to rule there as a vassal king. It is obvious that such relations must soon end in revolts. The position of the vassal king is too strong for obedience, and his strength is a temptation to acquire complete freedom and independence. Manu's doctrines are intended for these vassal kings also; they may apply them like the chief kings for their own benefit.

No regulations are given in the book for the succession to the throne. It only requires that a consecration shall take place on the accession of a new king. If the king feels that his end is near, he must distribute his treasures to the Brahmans; hand over the kingdom to his son, and seek death in battle; if there is no war, the old king must end his life by starvation. The precept that the king should seek death in battle is again a remnant of the old feeling; he must live and die like a Kshatriya.

The Epos and legends of the Brahmans are in complete agreement with the book of the law as to the necessity of monarchy, its objects and duties. It has been mentioned already how the Brahmans created a new king out of the body of the dead king Vena (p. 149), as a protection against the robbers who rose up on all hands. A land without a king, we are told in the Ramayana, is like a cow without a bull, a herd without a herdsman, a night without a moon, a woman who has lost her husband. There is then no property; men consume each other as one fish eats another. When there is no king Indra does not water the plains, the fields are not sown, the son does not obey the father, No rich man builds houses and lays out parks; no priest skilled in sacrifice brings offerings to the gods. The people do not dance at the festival, the minstrels are not surrounded by an audience. No maiden adorned with gold walks in the evening in the gardens, no elephant sixty years old stands in the ways with tusks adorned with bells. The peasant and the herdman cannot sleep securely with open doors; the traders are not safe in the streets. When there is no king the ceaseless sound of archers practising for battle is never heard.[286] In the Mahabharata we are told of Yudhishthira's reign at Indraprastha that he ruled with great justice, protected his subjects as his sons, and conquered his enemies round about, so that every one in the land was without fear or distress, and could apply his whole mind to the fulfilment of religious duties. The kingdom received an abundance of rain at the proper time; all the inhabitants were rich, and testified to the virtues of the king in the abundance of the harvests, in the increase of the flocks, and in the great growth of trade. There was neither drought nor inundation; the parrots did not eat the corn; there were no swindlers, liars, or thieves in the land.

In the Epos also we find the kings dwelling in fortified cities and citadels. According to the Ramayana, Ayodhya is a city surrounded by high walls, with broad and deep trenches and strong gates; the gateways and the towers on the walls are occupied with archers; in the midst of the city was the royal citadel surrounded by walls, so lofty that no bird could fly over it, watched by a thousand warriors strong and courageous as lions. In the three first of the five courts of this citadel, young soldiers kept watch; in the two last, where the king and his wives dwelt, were old men. In the Epos the kings when old lay aside their crowns, as the book commands, and resign them to their sons. The aged Dhritarashtra of Hastinapura resigns the throne to Yudhishthira; Daçratba of Ayodhya wishes to give it up to Rama. Dhritarashtha and Yudhishthira end their days in the wilderness as Vanaprasthas, or penitents, in the manner prescribed in the book for every Dvija in his old age (p. 184). The ceremonial of consecration required by the book is described at great length in the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. Rice, white flowers, clods of earth, pieces of silver and gold, and precious stones are brought to Yudhishthira; he touches them in the traditional manner. Then fire, milk, honey, curdled milk, purified butter, the holy goblets, leaves and twigs of the sacred trees, and vessels with consecrated water are placed before the king. When the sacrificial fire has been kindled, Yudhishthira with Draupadi seats himself before it on a tiger's skin; the consecrating Brahman pours the libations into the sacrificial fire—cow's milk, sweet and curdled, and melted butter—and in order to purify the king and queen he pours the urine of cows on their heads and then lays cowdung upon them. Then the consecrated water is poured over them, and after this the music begins to sound, and the minstrels sing the praises of Yudhishthira and his ancestors. At the consecration of Rama the golden throne is set up, the yellow parasol and the two flappers of buffalo-tails, the tiger-skin, bow and sword are brought forward. The four-yoked chariots, the elephants, the great white buffalo, the lion with strong mane, the cows with golden ornaments on their horns, the flowers and the jars filled with water from the Ganges and the holy springs and pools, are made ready.[287] Rama and Sita place themselves in beautiful garments in the portico of the palace, their faces to the east, and the people cry aloud: Long live the Maharaja (great-king) Rama; may his reign be prosperous and continue for ever! Then the Rishis come with jars full of consecrated water, say the solemn words, and pour the water upon the heads of Rama and Sita. Then the Brahmans do the same, the Kshatriyas, Vaiçyas, and Çudras, and all the remaining classes of the people. When Rama and Sita have changed their garments they return to their place in the portico; the yellow parasol is spread over Rama, and he is fanned with the two flappers. And the Brahmans and the people of Ayodhya came to bless Rama, and scattered rice in the husk and kuça-grass on his head, and Rama sent away the Brahmans with rich gifts, and the minstrels and dancers and dancing-girls were rewarded. The sutras of the Buddhists mention as the symbols of monarchy the turban and tiara, the sword, the yellow parasol, the flappers of buffalo-tails, and the parti-coloured shoes.[288] In the Ramayana, Bharata, the younger brother, will not accept the throne in the place of his elder brother Rama, though commanded to do so by his father. Then Rama takes off the gilded shoes and hands them to Bharata, a symbol of his renunciation of the throne, which was in use even among the Germans.[289] The virtuous Bharata is now compelled to reign; but he places the shoes on the throne, holds the yellow parasol over them, and causes them to be fanned by the first ministers, and before these shoes of his brother he takes counsel and administers justice.

The lecture which Rama gives his brother on the art of government is in complete harmony with the doctrines of the book of the law. He asks Bharata whether he is protecting the city of Ayodhya and all the cantons of his kingdom in a proper manner; whether he pays due respect to householders and proprietors, whether his judges give them justice? Is an accused chief set at liberty through bribery? Are the judges in any matter of law between rich and poor raised above the desire of gain? O Bharata, the tears shed by those who have been condemned unjustly, destroy the children and the flocks of him who governs with partiality. He asks further whether Bharata despises the Brahmans who are so given up to the satisfaction of the senses and the enjoyment of the world that they do not trouble themselves about the things of heaven—whether he despises men eminent in useless knowledge, and those who profess to be wise without having learned anything: whether he prefers one learned man to a thousand of the unlearned; ten thousand of the ignorant multitude will not be able to render him any service in his government. Does he employ distinguished servants in great matters, men of lower degree in smaller affairs, and the lowest in the least important? In affairs of great moment he must employ only those who have served his father and grandfather, who have not opened their hand to bribes; heroic and learned men, who are masters of their senses, and able to untie a knot. Dost thou despise the counsel of women, and conceal from them thy secrets? Or do thine own counsellors contemn thee, and the people, oppressed by excessive punishments? Dost thou honour those who are bold and skilful? Do thy servants and troops receive pay at the proper time? Are thy fortresses well provided with corn, water, weapons, and archers? Is the forest, where the royal elephants are kept, well chosen? Art thou well equipped with horses and female elephants? Hast thou store of young milch-cows? Is thy expenditure less than thy income? Dost thou bestow thy wealth on Brahmans, Kshatriyas, needy strangers? or lavish it on thy friends? Dost thou wake at the right time? Canst thou overcome sleep? Dost thou divide thy time properly between recreation, state business, and religious duties? Dost thou think at the end of the night on the way to become prosperous? Dost thou take counsel with thyself and with others also? Are thy resolutions kept secret? Do other princes know thy aims? Art thou acquainted with that which they would undertake? Are the plans formed in the councils of other princes known to thee and thy counsellors? The concealment of his counsels by his ministers is the source of success for a prince. He who does not remove an ambitious and covetous minister, who maligns others, will be himself removed. Is thine envoy a well-instructed, active man, able to answer any question on the moment? Is he a man of judgment who knows how to deliver a message in the words in which it is given to him? Art thou certain that thy officers are on thy side, if sent into foreign lands, and if none knows the commission given to another? Dost thou think lightly of enemies who, though weak and expelled from their country, may easily return? Dost thou seek to obtain land and wealth by all honest means? Dost thou bow down before thy spiritual leaders; before the aged, the penitent, the gods, strangers; before the holy groves and all instructed Brahmans? Dost thou sacrifice wealth to virtue, or virtue to wealth, or both to favouritism, covetousness, and sensuality? The prince who rules a kingdom with justice, when surrounded with difficulties, wins heaven when he leaves this world.

We can only fix in a very general way the date at which these prescripts of the book on the art of government, and the doctrines of the Epos so completely in agreement with them, came into existence. The sutras of the Buddhists and the accounts of the Greeks from the end of the fourth century B.C. exhibit to us the kingdom of India occupied with efforts which correspond in some degree to the views of the book and the descriptions of the Epos. If however we were to conclude from the despotic power to which the monarchy attained in the states on the Ganges, that the subject populations at that time or later were disconnected and reduced, without independent movement in any sphere of life—our conclusion would be completely wrong. As traditions, modes of worship and customs of the ancient time maintained themselves beside and in spite of the new doctrine of the Brahmans, so did remains of the old communities, of the old social and political life, maintain themselves against the omnipotence of the kings. These were the clans of the minstrels, formed naturally or by the adoption of pupils—which brought the old invocations from the Indus and preserved them—which on the Ganges sang the heroic songs, the Epos in its earliest form, and afterwards became combined into the priestly order, out of whose meditations rose the new system. These clans continued in the new states. The names represent in part different traditions of the doctrine, various schools and views. But even the clans of the Kshatriyas and Vaiçyas, united by the common worship of ancestors, existed on the Ganges. Only in them or in close local communities could those customs of law grow up and perpetuate themselves, to which reference is so frequently made in the book of the law. The spread of the system of castes, the accompanying tendency to perpetuate what has once come into existence, was not likely to injure the continuance of these clans. They exercised a very important supervision over the members; and by bringing the Brahmans to the funeral meals of the families, as prescribed in the book (p. 163), this supervision became an advantage to the new doctrine, and in any case assisted the Brahmans essentially in carrying out their system, just as to this day it helps in a higher degree to maintain that system. The book of the law lays down detailed regulations who is to be invited to the funeral feasts and the festivals for the souls of the departed, and who is to be excluded. Those are to be excluded who are not true to the mission of their caste, and neglect its obligations, who do not fulfil their religious duties, who pursue forbidden and impure occupations, e. g. the burying of the dead for hire, dancing as a trade, dog-breaking, buffalo-catching, etc.; those who suffer from certain bodily infirmities, and finally those who lead an immoral life; usurers, drunkards, gamblers, keepers of gambling and drinking houses, adulterers and burglars, thieves and incendiaries, every one of bad reputation and character.[290] In this way the clans under the guidance of the Brahman assessors possessed the most complete censorship over the lives of the members, and a power of punishment from which there was no escape. The families could impose expiations and fines on any member who transgressed or failed to fulfil his religious, moral, or caste duties; if he refused to submit to these they could at a certain time expel him for ever out of the community, by excluding him from the funeral feast. The latter resolution of the family deprived the person on whom it fell of his entire social position; in fact, of his economical existence. It implied exclusion from the caste. No one could have any dealings with a person so expelled, otherwise he became infected by communion with him. He could not get his children married; after his decease no sacrifice for the dead assuaged the punishments which awaited him in the other world. Now as ever, the clans perform the ceremony of adopting the young Dvija into the caste and family by investiture with the sacred girdle; they still exercise this jurisdiction, and as a penalty for breach of the arrangement of castes, neglect of religious duties, drunkenness, slander, and other moral errors, they impose exclusion from the family and caste by overturning the water-jar and exclusion from the funeral feast. A sentence of social extinction is thus pronounced upon the expelled person. He is civically dead and despised. No one associates with him in any one relation; no one holds any communion with him. The members of his own family will not give him a draught of water after his expulsion; no member even of the lowest order shelters him, for by doing so he would break the law of caste. It is only by this self-government, this censorship of the clans, that the system of caste has been able to strike such deep roots, to resist every new doctrine, and the severest attacks of foreign tyranny; that the religion, character, and civilisation of the Indians continue to exist after centuries of oppression.

The corporate form of the village communities were not of a much later date than the authority of the clans over their members. Its early stages must go back at least as far as the settlement of the Aryas in the land of the Ganges, for we find it in the same form in the districts which were not occupied by the Aryas till later, in Malava (Malva), Surashtra (Guzerat), and to a considerable extent in the provinces of the Deccan. The village community possesses a definite property (mark) consisting of arable land, pasture, forest, and uncultivated soil. The book of the law orders the overseers of districts to take care that the boundaries of the properties are marked out by the planting of trees, by wells and altars. If a contention arises between two villages about the borders, they must be marked out afresh, according to the traces which can be discovered, and the declaration of witnesses taken in the presence of inhabitants of the village. These witnesses must take their oaths in red garments, with crowns of red flowers on their heads. If witnesses cannot be found in the contending neighbouring villages, the people who dwell in the open land, or the forest, must be taken; the cowherds, fishermen, hunters, bird-catchers, snake-hunters; and on their declaration the borders must be fixed and set down in writing.[291] The community has its overseers, and the office is hereditary. He divides the quotas among the villagers, according to the measure and productiveness of the land; he also divides the uncultivated land and fixes the share in water allotted to each. He settles differences between the villagers, and manages the police, having even the power of imprisonment. As a reward for the labours of the office the overseer is in possession of a larger share in land, and receives taxes from the villagers, one or two handfuls, as a rule, from every measure of corn or rice in the harvest. But the overseer does not govern the community by his own power; he exercises all his functions surrounded by the community, who assemble under the great tree, and provide him with assessors, or deputies for settling quarrels. Beside the overseer the community has its Brahman, who has to point out the proper time for beginning every business—without such certainty the Hindu undertakes nothing—who narrates stories to the peasants from the Epos and legends, and in modern times at any rate is the school-master of the village. There are also other officers, the smith, and guardian of the soil, and even a dancing-girl, to whom, along with the overseer, land and taxes are allotted.[292] In the sutras of the Buddhists we also hear of resolutions of the communities in cities, and corporations of merchants, who compel the members to pay respect to their rules by imposing fines;[293] and Megasthenes tells us that the cities in the kingdom of Magadha were governed by six independent colleges. From this we may assume that the impulse to form associations and corporations was not unknown to the cities on the Ganges: we are however without any information as to the extent of these corporations, or the length of time during which they were able to maintain themselves against the power of the kings. The advice of the book that the king should place chief overseers over the cities has been mentioned above (p. 215). On the other hand, the village communities remain intact in their old form till this day, and they with the clans form the principal entrenchment behind which the old Indian character has maintained itself against native and foreign despotism. The change of princes or government has little influence on the village communities; they manage their own affairs independently: the business rarely amounts to more than an increase or diminution in taxes. The violence of the princes fell on the surrounding districts, not on quiet humble villages; it was only the tax-gatherer and the overseer of the districts that they had to fear. But even if specially bad times came, if invasion reached and devastated the village, and the inhabitants were slaughtered or driven out, all who survived the sword and famine returned, or their children returned, to the land they had left, rebuilt their huts, and began again to cultivate the fields which their fathers had cultivated from immemorial antiquity.

In spite of the violence and barbarity of native kings and foreign conquerors, and the severe claims made upon them here and there, the Indians in their clans and village communities possessed a considerable share of freedom and self-government in the personal relations of life; this was the case with the majority of the cultivators of the soil, and the householders of all the upper castes. From the worship of the ancestors, the combination of families, there grew up within the castes of the Brahmans, the Kshatriyas, and the Vaiçyas a pre-eminence and favoured position for those families which claimed to be not only of purer, but also of older and nobler origin than the rest. In the circles of the separate castes this aristocracy took the place of the ancient aristocracy of the Kshatriyas. However little weight might be attributed to it by the kings, the example and pattern of these families had great influence on the lower members of the caste. In later centuries the importance of this aristocratic element was strengthened by the fact, that in the land of the Ganges the office became hereditary to which the princes had to transfer the collection of land-taxes or taxes generally in the various districts of the land. Thus the tax-gatherers were enabled to perpetuate their functions in these families; they oppressed the village communities, from which they took the taxes till they became their serfs, and thus in course of time they reached an influential and important position, which they were able to maintain with success, and have maintained in all essentials to this day.

FOOTNOTES:

[221] Müller, "Hist. of anc. Sansk. Lit." 133 ff; 200 ff. Lassen, "Ind. Alterth." 2, 80; Johaentgen, "Gesetzbuch des Manu," s. 108, 163.

[222] Manu, 2, 17, 18, 21-23, 24.

[223] Manu, 3, 16; 8, 140. If Vasishtha and Çaunaka, as lawgivers, did not mean the old Rishis and, apparently, some traditional statements of theirs, but the first name referred to the Vasishtha-dharma-çastra, and thus to the teacher of Açvalayana, these quotations like many passages would be interpolations; and those of Çaunaka would not be very late, for M. Müller places this Çaunaka about 400 B.C. "Hist. of Sansk. Lit." p. 242 ff.

[224] Manu, 8, 41, 46.

[225] Manu, 1, 119; 12, 126.

[226] There was a school of Brahmans, the Manavas, belonging to the Madhyandinas, whose text-book was the black Yajus. From the name Manava, Johaentgen concludes that it is the redaction of the Manava-school in which we have these laws, and that Manu's book is really the book of the Manavas. According to the tradition of the Indians, there ought to be three redactions of Manu, of which one numbers 4000 verses. The copies known as yet, and accessible to us, have only 2285 verses.

[227] Jolly, "Z. Vgl. Richtsw., Die Systematik des indischen Rechts."

[228] Cf. Stenzler, "Indische Studien," 1, 236, 246. Lassen, loc. cit. 1², 999.

[229] Buddha's active life falls, as we shall see, in the period from 585 to 543 B.C. According to the sutras of the Buddhists, the Brahmanic law was then in full force; in fact in the districts mentioned in the text stricter rules were in force than those of the laws of Manu. The law is cited in the legends of the Buddhists, e. g. Burnouf, "Introduct. à l'histoire du Boud." p. 133; cf. Manu, 2, 233. It is true we possess the old sutras of the Buddhists in the form which they received in the third century B.C.; but Buddha's appearance presupposes the prevalence of the Brahmanic system, the supremacy of the doctrine and practice of it. In opposition to Buddhism the system of castes has not been softened by the Brahmans, but demonstrably strengthened. Moreover, the description of the legal and social conditions given in the sutras cannot be suspected to be mere inventions. The book of the law knows three Vedas only (cf. Manu, 4, 124); the sutras always quote four. In Manu the sentence of the Atharvan is mentioned once only (11, 33); hence the Atharva-veda seems to be later than Manu's law. In the Buddhist sutras the worship of Çiva is mentioned very frequently as in common use (Burnouf, loc. cit. p. 131); but the book of the law knows neither the name nor the god. From the accounts of the Greeks it is further clear that the worship of Vishnu was widely spread towards the end of the fourth century. This name the book contains only once, in the concluding part (12, 107-126), which has very little connection with the body of the book; and even here the word is used in the same sense as in the Rigveda (12, 121). While Ceylon was occupied by the Aryas about the year 500 B.C. and the southern Mathura was founded even earlier, the knowledge of places in Manu's law does not really go beyond the Vindhyas towards the south: the Odras and Dravidas are merely mentioned in a general enumeration of nations (10, 44), and the Andhras as an impure caste (10, 36, 49). The kingdoms of Mathura and Kerala would certainly have been mentioned if they had been in existence. The book of the law mentions the Nyaya (logic), the system of Mimansa, though only in the suspected conclusion (12, 109, 111), but not the Buddhists. It is true expressions occur, like liars (Nastika, 2, 11), revilers of the Veda (Vedanindaka), but we know that before Buddha the Sankhya doctrine denied both the gods and the Veda. I can, therefore, concede to Johaentgen (who places the book between 500 and 350 B.C.) that germs and analogies from the Sankhya doctrine occur in it, especially in the doctrine given in the introduction of the elements and properties (1, 74-78); this requires no alteration in the date. It ought to be observed that in the book of the law the kings and heroes of the Epos are not mentioned at all, but names of kings are found which occur in the Vedas: Vena, Nahusha, Pijavana, Sumukha, Nimi, Prithu (Manu, 7, 41, 42; 9, 44, 66); hence we may conclude that the book was brought to a close before the revision of the Epos from a priestly point of view was accomplished, or at any rate became a common possession of all. M. Müller's position, that the anushtubh çlòka was first used in the last centuries B.C., would affect only the form of the book, not the rules themselves; and Goldstücker is of opinion that this metre is of a far older date. However this may be, the metrical redaction of the Manava-dharma-çastra is not its original form: it is based upon a non-metrical Dharma-sutram. That the oldest Grihya-sutras and Çrauta-sutras are older than the first Dharma-sutra is allowed; but this does not prove the modern origin of the latter. A complete civilisation like that exhibited to us in the philosophy and grammar of the Indians before Buddha, by the sutras of the Buddhists and the accounts of the Greek, was certainly not without a systematic canon to answer the questions in life for the Brahmans. They required the power of the state, and could not leave it without a guide. It would be inconceivable how the condition of India, which Buddha finds, could have grown up without such a guide for princes and judges. Müller himself maintains that the distinction of Çruti and Smriti existed before Buddha; that it was the Çruti already containing Mantras and Brahmanas, which gave the impulse to his reforms. "Hist. of Sansk. Lit." p. 78 ff,; p. 86, 107, 135. If Çaunaka wrote, as Müller concludes, about the year 400 b.c., his sutras for the elucidation of the understanding of the Brahmanas, and Açvalayana wrote the sutras of ritual about the year 350, and Panini his grammar, far more important Dharma-sutras must have been written for the Brahmans before this time, and thus the grounds given above and taken for the contents of the book are in my judgment supported. From these contents, and these essential precepts, two or three prohibitions might be made to count for a later origin (Manu, 4, 102, 114; 8, 363), precepts aimed at Buddhism, but which may also have had other heterodoxy in view. There is also the mention of the name of Yavana. The Yavanas are mentioned among the nations who have sunk owing to omission of the sacred customs, along with the Odras, Dravidas, Kambojas, Duradas, Çakas and Pahlavas (10, 44). Supposing that this list came from an older time, the Yavanas Çakas and Pahlavas may easily have been interpolated at a later period for the sake of completeness. In any case it is clear that the laws of Manu are the oldest book of law in India in their contents and theory of law, and that the material in it is in part older than the material in the Dharma-sutras which have come down to us; Jolly, loc. cit. It is only in regard to the law of debt that Jolly seems to find older regulations in the book of Gautama than in that of Manu. "Abh. M. A." 1877, s. 322.

[230] Manu, 1, 35.

[231] Manu, 1, 1-78, 119; 12, 126. The four periods of the world are mentioned in Kaushitaki-Brahmana, in M. Müller, "Hist. of Sansk. Lit." p. 412.

[232] Manu, 7, 4-11.

[233] Manu, 5, 96.

[234] Manu, 9, 304-309.

[235] Manu, 7, 8.

[236] Manu, 9, 301, 302.

[237] e. g. Manu, 7, 2.

[238] Manu, 7, 82-86.

[239] Manu, 7, 26, 27, 31; 8, 175; 9, 251.

[240] Manu, 8, 1-3, 23-26; 61-70.

[241] Manu, 8, 88.

[242] Manu, 8, 75, 82, 89-99.

[243] Manu, 8, 113.

[244] Manu, 8, 110, 114-116. A. Weber, "Ind. Stud." 9, 44, 45.

[245] In Yajnavalka, 2, 95, we find: "The balance, fire, water, poison, and lustral water are the judgment of the gods for purification; these are applied in great charges, if the accuser is prepared for a fine." The later law knows nine divine judgments; it adds the corns of rice, the hot piece of gold, the ploughshare, and the lot. Brahmans, women, children, old men, sick persons, and the weak are to be tested by the balance; the Kshatriya by the fire, the Vaiçya by water, the Çudra by poison. In the test of the balance (Yama weighed the souls on scales, supr. p. 137), the point was that the person to be tested should be found lighter on the second weighing than on the first; in the test of fire, a piece of red-hot iron, covered with leaves, must be carried seven paces forward; each burn was a mark of guilt. The red-hot ploughshare must be licked by the accused person; if his tongue was not burnt he was acquitted; a piece of gold must be picked out of boiling oil and the hand must show no marks. The taking of a particular poison which ought to have no evil effects on the accused, and the drinking of lustral water poured over the images of the gods, which was not to be followed by any evil effects, and the piece of gold in the boiling oil are later additions. According to an Upanishad to the Samaveda, guilt or innocence is proved by the grasping a red-hot axe; a burn is a proof of guilt. Stenzler, in "Z. D. M. G." 9, 662 ff. A. Weber, "Vorles." s. 79².

[246] Manu, 8, 11, 21.

[247] Manu, 9, 276. Burnouf, "Introduction," p. 413.

[248] Burnouf, loc. cit. p. 408. Yet Aryas are found also, Burnouf, loc. cit. p. 365.

[249] Manu, 9, 237, 239-242.

[250] Manu, 9, 275.

[251] Manu, 9, 232.

[252] Manu, 9, 279.

[253] Manu, 8, 344-347.

[254] Manu, 9, 261-268, 278.

[255] Manu, 9, 276.

[256] Manu, 9, 277.

[257] Manu, 8, 341, 342.

[258] Manu, 7, 130.

[259] Manu, 8, 398; 7, 131.

[260] Manu, 7, 118, 138.

[261] Manu, 7, 62.

[262] Manu, 7, 129.

[263] Manu, 7, 133.

[264] Bohlen, "Indien," 2, 46.

[265] Megasthenes, in Strabo, p. 708 and below.

[266] Manu, 7, 54.

[267] Manu, 7, 58, 59.

[268] Ramayana, ed. Schlegel, 1, 7.

[269] Manu, 7, 114.

[270] Manu, 7, 116-118.

[271] Manu, 7, 123.

[272] Manu, 7, 118-120.

[273] Manu, 7, 124.

[274] Manu, 6, 69-75.

[275] Manu, 7, 126. The Indians learned to coin money from the Greeks after the year 300 B.C.; till that time their coinage consisted of weighed pieces of copper, silver, and gold, with the mark of the weight as a stamp. The pana is a copper weight of this kind; to this day the name denotes copper money in India. The drona is a weight of about 30 pounds. Cf. Lassen, 2, 574.

[276] Manu, 7, 37.

[277] Manu, 7, 218.

[278] Manu, 7, 222.

[279] Manu, 7, 224-226.

[280] Manu, 7, 101-103.

[281] Manu, 7, 154-158.

[282] Manu, 7, 63-68.

[283] Manu, 7, 107, 158-163, 198.

[284] Manu, 7, 205, 210.

[285] Manu, 7, 90-93.

[286] Ramayana, 2, 52.

[287] Ramayana, 2, 1-17.

[288] Burnouf, "Introduction," p. 166, 416, 417. The ritual for the consecration of kings, according to the Aitareya-Brahmana, is given in Colebrooke, "Asiatic Researches," 8, 408 ff. Cf. Schlegel, "Ind. Bibliothek," 1, 431, and Lassen, "Alterth." 2, 246, 427.

[289] Grimm, "Rechtsalterthümer," s. 156 ff.

[290] Manu, 3, 150 ff.

[291] Manu, 8, 229-260.

[292] Mill, "History of British India," 2, 66. Montgom. Martin, "Political Constitution of the Anglo-Eastern Empire," p. 271.

[293] Burnouf, "Introduction," p. 242, 245, 247.