[326] For stealing thread, cotton, agents of fermentation, cowdung, molasses, yogurt, milk, buttermilk, water, grass, [327] baskets made of bamboo or split cane, salts, clay, things made of clay, and ashes, [328] fish, birds, oil, clarified butter, meat, honey, and other animal products, [329] other things of this sort, wine, cooked rice, or all sorts of cooked foods, the fine should be twice the value of the stolen item. [330] For flowers, green grain, shrubs, creepers, and trees, and other unwinnowed (grain), the fine should be five ‘berries’. [331] For winnowed grain, vegetables, roots, and fruits, the fine should be a hundred (pennies) if there is no connection, but half a hundred (pennies) if there is a connection. [332] An act (of this sort) committed by force is an act of violence when there is a connection, but it is theft when there is no connection or when someone takes something away and then denies it. [333] If a man steals any of these things when they have been prepared for use, or if he steals fire from a house, the king should have him pay a fine at the lowest level.
[334] Whatever part of the body a thief moves against men, that is precisely the part of the body that the king should take away, as a deterrent. [335] No father, teacher, friend, mother, wife, brother, son, or personal priest should go unpunished by the king if he fails to remain within his own duty. [336] In a case where another, common man would be fined one ‘scratch-penny’, in that case a king should be fined a thousand; this is the established rule. [337] For theft, the offence (and hence the fine) of a servant should be eight times (the value of the stolen object), of a commoner it is sixteen, and of a ruler thirty-two, [338] but of a priest it is sixty-four, or a full hundred, or even twice sixty-four times, for he knows about virtues and vices.
[339] Manu has said that it is not theft to take roots and fruits from trees, wood in order to make a fire, and grass as fodder to feed to cows. [340] A priest who, by sacrificing for him or even teaching him (the Vedas), tries to get property from the hands of a man who took it when it was not given to him, is just like a thief. [341] If a twice-born man who is travelling and runs out of provisions takes two sugarcanes or two roots from another man’s field, he should not have to pay a fine. [342] A man who ties up (animals) that are not tied up, or sets free those that are tied up, or who takes a slave, a horse, or a chariot, commits the offence of a thief. [343] A king who suppresses thieves according to this rule will win fame in this world and unsurpassed happiness after death.
[344] A king who wishes to win the position of Indra and incorruptible, unfading fame should not, even for a moment, overlook a man of violence. [345] A man who commits violence should be regarded as the worst evil-doer, worse than a man who commits verbal assault, a thief, or a man who injures someone with a rod. [346] A king who tolerates someone bent on violence quickly goes to his own destruction and incurs hatred. [347] Neither as a result of friendship nor for the sake of getting a great deal of money should a king set free men of violence, who cause terror to all living beings. [348] Twice-born men may take up weapons when their duties are being obstructed and when time has brought calamity down upon the twice-born classes. [349] A man who kills with justice, in self-defence, in a struggle for the sacrificial gifts, or in order to protect women and priests, does nothing wrong. [350] A man may without hesitation kill anyone who attacks him with a weapon in his hand, even if it is his guru, a child, or an old man, or a priest thoroughly versed in the Veda. [351] There is no stain at all for the killer in slaying a man who has a weapon in his hand, whether he does it openly or secretly; rage befalls rage.
[352] If men persist in seeking intimate contact with other men’s wives, the king should brand them with punishments that inspire terror and banish them. [353] For that gives rise among people to the confusion of the classes, by means of which irreligion, that cuts away the roots, works for the destruction of everything. [354] If a man who has previously been accused of such offences carries on a private conversation with another man’s wife, he should pay the lowest level of fine. [355] But if a man who has not previously been accused speaks to (another man’s wife) for a reason, he should incur no fault, for he has committed no transgression. [356] If a man speaks to another man’s wife at a bathing place, in a wilderness or a forest, or at the confluence of rivers, he incurs (the guilt of) sexual misconduct. [357] Acting with special courtesy to her, playing around with her, touching her ornaments or clothes, sitting on a couch with her, are all traditionally regarded as sexual misconduct. [358] If a man touches a woman in a non-place, or allows himself to be touched by her, with mutual consent, it is all traditionally regarded as sexual misconduct.
[359] A man who is not a priest deserves to be punished by the loss of his life’s breath for sexual misconduct, for the wives of all four classes should always be protected to the utmost. [360] Beggars, panegyrists, men who have been consecrated for a Vedic sacrifice, and workmen may carry on a conversation with other men’s wives if they are not prohibited (from doing so). [361] But a man who has been prohibited should not carry on a conversation with other men’s wives; if a man who has been prohibited converses (with them), he should pay a fine of one ‘gold piece’. [362] This rule does not apply to the wives of strolling actors or of men who live off their own (wives); for these men have their women embrace (other men), concealing themselves while they have them do the act. [363] But just a very small fine should be paid by a man who carries on a conversation secretly with these women, or with menial servant girls who are used by only one man, or with wandering women ascetics.
[364] A man who corrupts an unwilling virgin should instantly suffer corporal or capital punishment; but a man who corrupts a willing (virgin) when he is her equal should not undergo corporal or capital punishment. [365] If a virgin makes love with a man of a superior caste, (the king) should not make her pay any fine at all; but if she makes love with a man of the rear castes, he should have her live at home in confinement. [366] If a man of the rear castes makes love with a virgin of the highest caste, he should be given corporal or capital punishment; if he makes love with a virgin of the same caste as his own, he should pay the bride-price, if her father wishes it. [367] But if a man in his arrogance overpowers a virgin and does it to her, two of his fingers should immediately be cut off and he should pay a fine of six hundred (pennies). [368] If a man corrupts a willing virgin when he is her equal, he should not have his fingers cut off but should be made to pay a fine of two hundred (pennies) in order to put an end to this addiction.
[369] If a virgin does it to another virgin, she should be fined two hundred (pennies), be made to pay double (the girl’s) bride-price, and receive ten whip (lashes). [370] But if a (mature) woman does it to a virgin, her head should be shaved immediately or two of her fingers should be cut off, and she should be made to ride on a donkey.
[371] If a woman who is proud of her relatives or her own qualities deceives her husband (with another man), the king should have her eaten by dogs in a place frequented by many people. [372] And he should have the evil man burnt on a red-hot iron bed, and people should pile wood on it, and the evil-doer should be burnt up. [373] A double fine should be imposed on a man who has already been convicted and is accused (again) within a year, and it should be just as much for cohabiting with a woman outlaw or a ‘Fierce’ Untouchable woman.
[374] A man of the servant class who cohabits with someone of the twice-born castes, guarded or unguarded, loses his (sexual) member and all his property if the person was unguarded, and his entire (body and property) if the person was guarded. [375] A commoner (who commits this act) should have all his property confiscated and be imprisoned for a year; a ruler should pay a fine of a thousand (pennies) and have his head shaved with urine. [376] If a commoner or a ruler has sex with an unguarded woman of the priestly class, (the king) should make the commoner pay five hundred (pennies) and the ruler a thousand. [377] But if these two go astray even with a guarded woman of the priestly class, they should be punished like servants or burnt up in a grass fire. [378] A priest who rapes
a guarded woman of the priestly class should be fined a thousand pennies, but if he has sex with her when she wants it, he should be fined five hundred (pennies).
[379] Shaving the head is ordained as the punishment consist ing in the loss of the life’s breath for a priest; but for the other classes the punishment should be the (actual) loss of the life’s breath. [380] (The king) should never kill a priest, even one who persists in every sort of evil; he should banish such a man from the kingdom, unhurt and with all his wealth. [381] There is no greater (act of) irreligion on earth than priest-killing; therefore the king should not even conceive in his mind of killing that man. [382] If a commoner has sex with a guarded woman of the ruling class, or a ruler with a (guarded) woman of the commoner class, they both deserve the punishment for (sex with) an unguarded woman of the priestly class. [383] A priest should be fined a thousand (pennies) if he has sex with guarded women of these two classes; and a fine of a thousand (pennies) should be paid by a ruler or a commoner for (sex with) a woman of the servant class. [384] For (sex with) an unguarded woman of the ruling class, a commoner should be fined five hundred (pennies), but a ruler may choose either to have his head shaved with urine or to pay the fine. [385] A priest who has sex with an unguarded woman of the commoner class or the ruling class or with a woman of the servant class should be fined five hundred (pennies), but a thousand for (sex with) a woman of the lowest castes.
[386] The king in whose town there is no thief, no adulterer, no defamer, no man who commits acts of violence or assault and battery – he enjoys the world of Indra. [387] The suppression of these five in his own realm gives the king supreme kingship among those who are his equals in birth and fame among people in the whole world.
[388] A sacrificial patron who rejects an officiating priest, and an officiating priest who rejects a sacrificial patron, should each be fined one hundred (pennies), provided (each is) uncorrupted and capable of performing the ceremony. [389] Neither a mother nor a father, nor a wife, nor a son deserves desertion; anyone who deserts them when they have not fallen should be fined six hundred (pennies) by the king.
[390] When twice-born men argue among themselves about what is to be done in the stages of life, a king who wishes to do what is best for himself should not speak inappropriately about duties. [391] Together with the priests, the king should show them due honour, calm them down with conciliation at the start, and then teach them their individual duties.
[392] A twice-born man who holds a celebration for twenty (priests) where he does not entertain his immediate neighbour and the neighbour next to that one, if they are good men, should pay a fine of one ‘small bean’. [393] If a priest who knows his Veda by heart fails to entertain at auspicious ceremonies another virtuous priest who knows his Veda by heart, he should pay him twice the value of the food and pay a fine (to the king) of one gold ‘small bean’. [394] A blind man, an idiot, a (cripple) who slides along on a board, a seventy-year-old man, and a man who does favours for priests who know their Veda by heart should not be made to pay taxes to any (king). [395] The king should always treat with great respect a priest who knows his Veda by heart, a man who is ill or in pain, a child or an old man, a man who has nothing at all, a man who belongs to a great family, and a noble Aryan.
[396] The washerman should wash things gently, on a smooth board made of the wood of a silk-cotton tree, and he should not return (one person’s) clothes in place of (another person’s) clothes, nor let anyone (other than the owner) wear the clothes. [397] A weaver should give back an extra ‘straw’ (of thread or cloth) for every ten ‘straws’ (that he receives); if he does otherwise, he should be fined twelve.
[398] The king should take one-twentieth of the amount that is established as the fair price by men who are skilled at setting tolls and duties and familiar with all kinds of merchandise. [399] The king should take away the entire stock of a man who, out of greed, exports goods that are pre-empted by the king’s (monopoly) or forbidden (to be exported). [400] A man who avoids a custom-house, or who buys and sells at the wrong time, or lies in counting out (goods or money), should be fined eight times the amount he cheated about. [401] (The king) should establish (the rates for) buying and selling all merchandise, taking into consideration the place they leave, the place where they arrive, the (length and time of) storage, and the profit and loss. [402] Every five nights, or at the end of every fortnight, the king should establish the prices in the presence of those (merchants). [403] Every scale and precise measure should be carefully marked and he should have them examined again every six months.
[404] At a ferry, an (empty) cart should be charged one penny, a man’s (load) half a penny, a livestock animal or a woman a quarter (of a penny), and a man with no load half a quarter. [405] Carts full of goods should be charged a ferry-toll according to their value, but (carts) empty of goods and men with no baggage (should be charged just) a little something. [406] For a long journey, the boat-toll should be in proportion to the time (of the journey) and the place (of destination) – but it should be understood that this is just for (journeys) along the banks of rivers; there is no definite rule for (journeys) on the ocean.
[407] A woman pregnant two months or more, a wandering ascetic, a hermit, and priests who bear the signs (of their orders) should not be made to pay a toll at a ferry. [408] If anything is broken on a boat through the fault of the boatmen, it should be paid for by the boatmen collectively, (each paying) his own share. [409] This is the decision that applies to legal proceedings brought by boat passengers when the boatmen are at fault on the water; there is no fine for (an accident that is) an act of the gods.
[410] (The king) should make a commoner engage in trade, lend money, farm the land, or keep livestock; and (he should make) the servant the slave of the twice-born. [411] A priest should out of mercy support both a ruler and a commoner if they are starved for a livelihood, and have them carry out their own innate activities. [412] But if a priest, out of greed and a sense of power, makes twice-born men who have undergone the transformative rituals do the work of slaves against their will, the king should make him pay a fine of six hundred (pennies). [413] He may, however, make a servant do the work of a slave, whether he is bought or not bought; for the Self-existent one created him to be the slave of the priest. [414] Even if he is set free by his master, a servant is not set free from slavery; for since that is innate in him, who can take it from him?
[415] There are seven ways that slaves come into being: taken under a flag (of war), becoming a slave in order to eat food, born in the house, bought, given, inherited from ancestors, or enslaved as a punishment. [416] A wife, a son, and a slave: these three are traditionally said to have no property; whatever property they acquire belongs to the man to whom they belong. [417] A priest may with confidence take away any possession from a servant; for since nothing at all can belong to him as his own, his property can be taken away by his master. [418] (The king) should make the commoner and the servant carry out their own innate activities diligently; for if the two of them should slip from their own innate activities, they would shake this universe into chaos.
[419] Every day, (the king) should see to the completion of his actions, his vehicles and harness animals, his regulated revenues and expenditures, and his mines and his treasury.
[420] A king who brings all these legal proceedings to a conclusion in this way and removes every offence reaches the ultimate level of existence.
End of Chapter 8
[2] As in 2.193, the right hand, more precisely the right arm, is kept outside the upper garment.
[4] In modern legal terminology, the third and fifth are conversion.
[7] ‘Here’ may mean in this world or in this text.
[11] This may be an allusion to the four faces of the god Brahmā.
[16] The rather awkward pun forces a meaning from alam (‘enough of this, no more of this’) and also, according to some commentators, from vṛṣala, which they take to refer not to a particular clas
s but to anyone who gives false evidence.
[17] At 4.239–41, dharma (there translated as ‘religion’) alone is said to follow a man beyond the grave.
[18] The injustice (adharma) in this case is an unjust decision; the ‘one who causes it’ is the plaintiff or defendant who has given wrong testimony, the witness is a false witness, and the judges and the king have failed to detect the falsehood. See 1.81–2 for the diminution of dharma (translated in 8.18 as ‘justice’ and in 1.81–2 as ‘religion’) quarter by quarter (pāda by pāda, also meaning ‘foot by foot’).
[19] Here ‘the one who did it’ is the one who committed the crime.
[20] The first man is one who was born a priest but did not study the Vedas or perform rituals; the second might not even have been born a priest at all.
[24] One commentator glosses ‘profitable and not profitable’ as what will please the people and what will make them angry. But there is also a more basic statement about the importance of two of the three human aims (the trivarga): profit (artha) and religion or justice (dharma).
[28] The commentators suggest that the women who have no families (niṣkulās) are whores or maidens who have no one to give them in marriage, and that the faithful wives (pativratās) are those whose husbands are absent. In all cases, the understanding is that the king takes the place of the absent male protector.
[33] Some commentators suggest that the king may take a twelfth in the first year, a tenth in the second, and a sixth in the third; others that it depends on the virtues or lack of virtues of the owner; one suggests that the proportion depends on the trouble that the king had in protecting it.
The Laws of Manu Page 28
