6,
19, 7); the scattering of rice and other grains on the heads of the newly
wedded pair (ibid.
19, 7); the scattering of rice and other grains on the heads of the newly
wedded pair (ibid.
Cambridge History of India - v1
'
The rites involving the goblins of disaster and disease have naturally
a prominent place in the domestic ritual of the Gșihya Sūtras and afford
us glimpses of an otherwise unknown pantheon. The wife herself, who has
so little to do with texts, must go outside her house and offer food to
'the white demon with black teeth, the lord of bad women,' and if she
bears a child the husband must daily, till the wife's confinement ends, offer
rice and mustard in the fire near the door where the wife is confined,
dispersing demons whose names are given : 'Çanda, Marka, Upavīra,
,
Çaundikeya, Ulūkhala, Malimlucha, Droņāsa, Chyavana,' all indicative
of trouble, as are those that follow (apparently a supplementary list),
'Ālikhat, Animisha, Kimvadanta, Upaçruti, Haryaksha, Kumbhiņ, Çatru,
Pātrapāņi, Nșimaņi, Haņtrimukha, Sarsha pāruņa, Chyavana, avaunt. '
But if the child falls ill with epilepsy, the 'dog-disease,' the father cures him
by covering him with a net and murmuring,
Kūrkura, Su-Kūrkura, Kūrkura (it is) who holds ſast the children ; scat (chech
chet ! ), dog, let him go ; reverence to thee, Sisara, barker, bender, true the gods have
given thee a boon, and hast thou chosen my boy ? Scat, dog, let him go (as before).
True, the Bitch of heaven, Saramā, is thy mother, Sisara is thy father, and Yama's
black and speckled dogs thy brothers ; but scat, dog, let him go? .
s
The demon attacking the boy is here called Kumāra, the cult is
obviously demoniac. In general, the Sūtras of this class are concerned not
with the greater sacrifices, which are discussed in the Crauta Sūtra, called
the Havis and Soma sacrifices, but with the so-called great sacrifices of
food cooked (pāka) and offered on special noon-days and at funeral feasts,
or seven in all, including offerings to serpents as well as to demons and
gods.
The last of these domestic 'cooked-food' sacrifices introduces a
feature :
On the full moon day of the month Chaitra he makes (images of) a pair of
animals out of meal ; (he offars) them and jujube leaves (to the gods); to Indra and
Agni a figure with prominent navel ; and balls to Rudra (Cārkhyana, Gpihya Sūtra,
IV. 19)
These images of meal representing living beings are partly due to the
new feeling of pity for animals and the desire not to injure life, which plays
a part in Brāhmanism as well as in Buddhism. It must be admittted,
however, that economy had something to do with the substitution of animals
of meal for real animals, but ostensibly it is a Vishņuite trait. The general
1 Pāraskara. Gyihya Sūtra, I, 16, 23 f.
2 lb. 24.
8 From the full moon of the month Crāvana, offerings to soakes have to be made
daily till it is safe to sleep on the ground again. This is called the Pratyavarohaņı
and occurs on the full moon day called Agrahāyaņi, when one may 'descend again' (from
the high couch).
new
## p. 208 (#242) ############################################
208
[Ch.
LIFE AND CUSTOMS IN THE SUTRAS
a cow.
rule in this regard is that attributed to Manu : ‘Animals may be killed
(so said Manu) at the Madhuparka and Soma sacrifice and at the rites for
Manes and gods. ' But it is an old rite of hospitality to kill a cow for a
guest! ; and, as a matter of form, each honoured guest is actually offered
The host says to the guest, holding the knife ready to slay the
cow, that he has the cow for him ; but the guest is then directed to say :
Mother of Rudras, daughter of the Vasus, sister of the Adityas navel
of immortality (is she). Do not kill the guiltless cowr; she is (Earth itself),
Aditi, the goddess. I speak to them that understand. ' He adds, My
sin has been killed and that of so-and-so ; let her go and eat grass. But
if he really wants to have her eaten, he says, 'I kill my sin and the sin of
so-and-so' (in killing her), and though in many cases the offer of the cow is
thus plainly a formal piece of etiquette, yet the offering to the guest was not
complete without flesh of some sort ; and it is clear from the formulas that
any of the worthiest guests might demand the cow's death, though as
the 'six worthy guests' are teacher, priest, father-in-law, king, friend,
and Āryan ‘reborn' man, and all of these were doubtless well grounded in
that veneration for the cow which is expressed above by identifying her
with Earth (as Aditi), there was probably seldom any occasion to harrow
the feelings of the cow-revering hosta. Pāraskara mentions only the cow
but Çānkhāyana (G. S. II, 15, 1) already substitutes a goat as a possible
alternative ; he also mentions the gods to which this animal is sacred,
that is, he seeks to make the animal offered to the guest a sacrifice to a god.
Thus he
says that if the animal is offered to the teacher and killed it is 'sacred
to the Fire. god'; if it is offered to a king, it is sacred to Indra, and if to a
friend (mitra) it is sacred to Mitra. Similar additions may be traced in
many particulars, sometimes found by comparing one text with another,
sometimes clearly interpolated.
The Sūtras, while they do not recognise the sects of later days, yet
point to the different conception of deity embodied in the two great modern
sects worshipping Rudra-Çiva and Vishņu. Thus, as above, Rudra and the
Rakshasas are also associated in the rule : When one repeats a text sacred
to Rudra, to the Rakshasas, to the Manes, to the Asuras, or one that con-
tains an imprecation, one shall touch water' (Çankh. G. S. , I, 10,9). On
the other hand, when the bridegroom leads the bride to take the seven steps,
which form part of the wedding ceremony, he murmurs a blessing at every
step: 'One for sap, two for juice, three for prosperity, four for comfort, five
for cattle, six for the seasons, Friend ! be with seven steps (mine) ; be thou
devoted to me'. And after each clause he says 'may Vishņu lead thee. '
Similarly, the fact that Vaiçravana (Kubera and Içāna (Rudra-Çiva) are
1 Chipter IV', p. 101.
2 Pāraskara, Gțihya Sülra, 1, 3, 26.
## p. 209 (#243) ############################################
X
MARRIAGE CEREMONIES
209
>
>
9
worshipped ‘for the bridegroom' point to the phallic nature of these cognate
spirits (Pār. , G. S. , I, 8, 2 ; Çānkh. , G. S. , I, 11, 7).
The Gșihya Sūtras show that there was no one rite of universal accep-
tation in those ceremonies most intimately connected with domestic felicity.
Indeed, the author of the Āçvalāyana Grihya Sūtra (I, 7, 1) says expressly
that in the matter of weddings, 'customs are diverse,' and he gives only that
which is common usage. Thus he tells how the bride is to go about the
fire, mount the stone, pour out grain, gaze at the pole-star, etc. , but does
not mention other rites which other Gțihya Sūtras enjoin. Some of these,
however, are of universal interest ; and a comparison of the Hindu cere-
monies with those of other Aryan-speaking peoples shows that in all pro-
bability the Indian ritual has preserved elements reaching far back into
prehistoric times? .
Thus in the ceremony it is universal usage to walk the seven steps to.
gether and for the bridegroom to murmur, as he takes the bride's hand :
“This am I, that art thou, that art thou, this am I ; Heaven am I and Earth
art thou ; the (feminine) Rich (Rigveda verse) art thou, the Saman am I.
Be thou devoted to me,' and to make the bride mount a stone as an emblem
of firmness. But special rules are that women shall come to the bride's
house and eat and drink brandy and dance four times ; and that merry girls
shall escort the bridegroom to the bride's house, and that he must do all
the foolish (? ) things they tell him to d (except when taboo is con-
cerned). (Çārkh. , G. 8. , I, 12, 2). Some measure of values may perhaps
be obtained from the statement that the fee to the priest who performs the
marriage-ceremony is a cow, given by the bridegroom, if the groom is of
the same caste as the priest, but a village if the groom is 'royal', Rājanya,
that is a nobleman of 'kingly order, and a horse if the groom is of the third
estate (farmer, trader). Obviously the succeeding rule, which is not unique,
countenances a sort of sale in that it adds : “(The bridegroom must give)
to the one who has the daughter one hundred (cows) together with a
chariot. ' The same rule is found in the Dharma Sūtras (Āpastamba, II,
13, 12) with the explanation that the gift must be returned, as a sale is not
allowed –which only points back to an earlier period when the sale of
daughters was allowed.
1 On this point, cf. Haas and Weber, Indische Studien, vol. v ; L. von Schroeder,
Die Hochzeitsgebrä'lche der Esten und etniger anderer finnisch-ugrischer Volkerschaften
in Vergleichung mit denen der indogermanischen Volker (1888) ; M. Winternitz, Das
altindische Hochzeitsrituell. . . mit Vergleichung der Hochzeitsgebräuche bei den übrigen
indogermanischen Volkern (1892); also a paper by the last writer on the same subject
in the Transactions of the National Folk-lore Society (Congress, 1891-2), and one by Th.
Zachariae, ‘Zum altindischen Hochzeitsrituell' (Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Mor.
genlandes, vol. XVII, pp. 135 f. , and 211 f. ).
## p. 210 (#244) ############################################
210
[CH,
LIFE AND CUSTOMS IN THE SUTRAS
The distinction among the orders mentioned in the gifts above is only
one of innumerable passages in which, as a matter of course and without
thought of any other social order, the castes are named as priest, noble or
warrior, and 'people', the last terms embracing all those ‘reborn', who are
not priests or warriors or slaves. The slaves, Çūdras and lower orders, are
recognised as part of the social structure. The name itself suggests that the
Çūdras were originally a conquered people, as Karian became synony-
mous with slave at Athens. Yet the Çūdras were not Pariahs but members
of the household, who took part in some of the domestic rites.
The test of caste is not marriage alone but defilement by eating and
touching what is unclean. In this regard the Sūtras show only the begin.
ning of that formal theory of defilement which results in a pure man of the
upper castes being defiled by the shadow of an impure man, and in the taboo
of all contact with the impure. According to Gautama (Dharma Sūtra, XVII,
I f. ), Brāhman may eat food given by any of the 'reborn' who are worthy
members of their caste, and if in need of food to support life he may take
food and other things even from a Çūdra. Food forbidden is that defiled
naturally by hairs or insects falling into it and that touched by woman dur-
ing her courses, by a black bird (crow), or by a foot, etc. , or given by an
outcast, a woman of bad character, a person accused, an hermaphrodite, a
police-officer (dandika), a carpenter, a miser, a jailer, a physician, a man who
hunts without using the bow (i. e. a non-Aryan snarer of animals), a man who
eats refuse or the food of a multitude, of an enemy, etc. The list continues
with the taboo of food offered disrespectfully and of certain animals,
Āpastamba (Dharma S. , I 6, 18, 1 f. ) allows the acceptance of gifts, includ-
ing a house and land, even from an Ugra (low caste or mixed caste), though,
like the later law-books, his code states that a priest may not eat in the
house of anyone of the three orders (varņas) belong him ; but he may
eat the food of any other priest, and according to 'some' he may eat the
food of people of any caste except Çūdras and even their food in times of
distress. Forbidden by him is the food of an artisan, of people who let
houses or land, a spy, an unauthorised hermit (Buddhist ? ), besides that of
surgeon, usurer, and others. Caste is varņa or jāti, 'colour' and 'kin,' the
former embracing the latter, as a social order including clans or families.
Even in the all-important matter of marriage, caste is not so important as
family. The only test, when one seeks a wife, according to Çānkhāyana, is
that of the family : ‘They ask the girl in marriage, reciting the clan-names. '
The text of Āçvalāyana expressly mentions as a form of marriage that in
which the bridegroom kills the relatives and rapes the weeping girl, evident-
ly a form once countenanced as well as enumerated among possible forms;
at any rate it bars out all examination of the bride's social position. Indeed
the marriage rules permit the marriage of a Çūdra woman, though as the
:
1
## p. 211 (#245) ############################################
X]
CASTE AND FAMILY
211
>
>
>
last of four wives, with a member of the highest caste (e. g. Pār. , G. S. , 1, 4,
11), whose offspring, of course, being ‘mixed' or impure, is not a member of
the Āryan 'reborn,' but nevertheless is recognised legally. And what shall
we say of those who are not ‘reborn' although Āryans ? The rule in this
case is universal that, if priest, warrior, or member of the third estate fail to
be ‘reborn in the Veda,' i. e. if such a one is not duly initiated into his
social order at the proper time, he loses his prerogatives and becomes an
‘outcast'. 'No one should initiate such men, nor teach them, nor perform
sacrifice for them, nor have intercourse with them, and further, 'A person
whose ancestors through three generations have been thus outcast is exclud-
ed from the sacrament of initiation and from being taught the Veda,' that
is, they become Vrātyas or entirely outcast persons with whom one may not
even have intercourse unless they perform special ritest.
In general the Gșihya Sūtras may be said to be the later scholastic
codification of rules, formulas, and rites long practised, concerned chiefly
with the orderly progress of an individual ideal life, and incidentally with
such ceremonies as naturally occur in such a life, that is, besides rites from
babyhood to marriage, fixed moon-rites etc. , those concerned with building,
holidays, burial, etc. That they are not of Vedic age in their present form,
though in substance reverting in part to Brāhmaṇa beginnings, may be con-
cluded from their obvious posteriority in respect of language and metre
(where verses are cited) to the Brāhmaṇas, not to speak of earlier Vedic
texts, as well as from the fact that several Sūtras emanate from districts
scarcely known even by name to the Brāhmaṇas. The general order of
arrangement in the Gșihya Sūtras is one conditioned by the subject matter
which is to reveal the whole duty of man as a householder. Most of them
begin with the marriage and continue with the birth of a child, the
ceremonies at conception and at various stages before birth, at the birth it.
self, at the naming of the child, when he sees the sun, when he is fed, when
his hair is cut, when he becomes a student, and when he returns home from
his Guru (tutor) and becomes a householder. Then the child, now grown to
a man, marries and the circle begins again. Finally the rite for the burial
is described. A few texts take up the round of life at another point, that
where the student-life begins. This is the procedure in the case of some of
the Black Yajurveda texts (for example, the Mānava and Kāțhaka Sūtras),
but it makes no difference where one begins; each Sūtra follows out the life
to the end, and the general uniformity shows that, whatever be the minor
discrepancies and divergences of opinion (of which the authors are
themselves well aware), the Gșihya Sūtras as a whole are based upon one
model, and that, whether in the northern or southern districts, the lives of
1 See Paraskara, Grihya Sülra, II, 5, 40 f. , and Weber Ind. Literaturgesch. p. 73 f. ,
Eng. trans. p. 67.
a
## p. 212 (#246) ############################################
212
[ch.
LIFE AND CUSTOMS IN THE SUTRAS
9
3
orthodox Āryans were governed by a remarkable conformity of ritual. It is
not improbable that, as has been suggested by Professor Oldenberg, many
of the rites prescribed as general rules were nothing more than formulas of
secret magic owned at first by certain families and afterwards become unis
versal property?
The specimen given above will suffice to show the artless style of
these didactic Sūtras. They have in fact no style save that attained
by scrupulous brevity. In the following paragraphs we shall seek rather
to illustrate certain phases of the Gșihya Sūtras as indicative of religious and
magical beliefs and of the social environment in which they were produced,
or at least for which they were intended.
We may begin with reverting to the cure of epilepsy already mentioned.
In the course of childhood the boy may be attacked by the dog-demon
(epilepsy). What is the father to do? The names of the canine demons
have been mentioned above with a parallel passage containing more of
the same sort. These are to be averted by a sort of honorific propitiation.
They are lauded ; but their objectionable behaviour in this special case is
deprecated. The author of our Sūtra contents himself with this. But
a rival author or two (Hiraṇyakeçin, G. S. , II, 2, 7, 1 f. ; Āpastamba,
2
Grihya Sūtra, VII, 18, 1) are not content with the method here advocated.
According to them, the father must make a hole in the roof of the royal
gaming-hall and pull the boy through it, lay him on his back on dice strewn
about, and then, while a gong is sounded, recite the deprecatory words
to the dog-demons and pour curds and salt over the boy. Several items of
this recipe are of interest, the avoidance of the door, the use of salt
and curds to frighten demons, the gong for the same purpose to be beaten
on the south side of the hall. These may be said to be universal antidotes;
peculiar is the use of the dice, which has no parallel in the similar situations
offered by the Sūtra. Finally the fact that the father makes a hole in
the roof of the gaming-hall shows that it is made of thatch (easily repaired)
and leads to the question what sort of architecture is normally to be
found implied in the Sutras. The gaming-hall is the public gambling-
place which a king is directed to build for the use of his subjects, and
curiously enough, with the exception of the house-holder's own dwelling, it
is almost the only reference to edifices found in the Sūtras. On the other
hand, all the dicta of the Sūtras show that such life as is depicted is
supposed to be country life ; the district and the village are the geographical
entities. Cities are not ignored but are despised”. Thus there are no
1 Compare the admirable discussion of the position of the Gșihya Sūtras by
Prof. Oldenburg in S. B. E. vol. XXX.
2 Apastamba, Dharma Sūtra, I, 32, 21, let him avoid going into towns', and
Baudhāyana, Dharma Sūtra, II, 3, 6, 33, 'It is impossible for one to obtain salvation,
who lives in a town, covered with dust,'
## p. 213 (#247) ############################################
X]
RELIGIOUS AND MAGICAL BELIEFS
213
a
>
>
ceremonies for urban life. But there is a rite for ploughing, when sacrifice
is made to Açani (the thunder-bolt) and to Sītā (the furrow), as well
as to other bucolic deities, Aradā, Anaghā, etc. , as to the greater bucolic
gods, Parjanya and Indra and Bhaga, with similar offerings on the occasion
of the 'furrow sacrifice,' the 'threshing-floor sacrifice,' when one sows,
reaps, or takes in the harvest, all indicating that the life portrayed is that
of the village agriculturist, who must even 'offer a sacrifice at mole-heaps
to Akhurāja, the king of moles' (Gobhila, Gșihya Sūtra, IV, 4, 28 f. ;
ibid. 30 f. ). So the constant injunctions to go out of the village,” to
sacrifice at a place where four roads meet, or on a hill, etc. , imply life in
villages even for householders and scholars rather than in towns (Gobhila,
III, 5, 32-35).
Besides the introduction of evil spirits and bucolic divinities into the
ritual of the domestic service, we find in the Sūtras for the first time
the recognition of images of the gods, which must be implied by the
regulations concerning the deities Içāna Midhushi, and Jayanta (ʻlord,'
'bountiful one,''conqueror') as well as the lord of the field,' Kshetrapati,
who are moved about and given water to drink (Āp. , G. S. , VII, 19,
13; ibid. 20, 1-3 and 13).
When a boy is initiated he is made to mount a stone with the
adjuration to be ‘firm as a stone' which elsewhere is confined to the bride,
and is then given in charge to‘Kashaka (Kaçaka), Antaka, Aghora,
Disease, Yama, Makba, Vaşini, Earth and Vaiçvānara, Waters, Herbs,
Trees, Heaven and Earth, Welfare, Glory, the All-gods, all the Bhūts, and
all the gods' (Hiraṇyakeçin, G. S. , I, 2, 6, 5). In this list of demons
and deities to whom the boy is given in charge, Vaşini as the 'ruling
goddess' is noticeable. She is probably the mother-goddess who despite
all Vedic influence always was the chief spiritual village-power identified
with Çiva's wife in various forms. Perhaps too, the recognition (in a rite to
procure increase of cattle) of a god described merely as 'He who has
a thousand arms and is the protector of cow-keepers' (Gaupatya), may be a
veiled allusion to Krishņa-Vishņu (Gobhila, IV, 5, 18).
As the Gộihya Sūtras in distinction from the Dharma are concerned
with domestic superstitions, these may rightly be considered their peculiar
contribution to the history of India. Of political and social life they
contain almost nothing except as confined within the bounds of the family.
The regular routine of the normal life contains a sufficiency of such
superstitions, though the underlying reason for them is due in some cases,
more to mechanical adjustment to a supposed harmony than to spiritual
fears. This is the case for example in the regulation that the initiation
of the Brāhman, Kshatriya, and Vaiçya shall take place, respectively,
in spring, summer, and autumn, in the eighth, eleventh, and twelfth
>
>
## p. 214 (#248) ############################################
214
[ CH.
LIFE AND CUSTOMS IN THE SŪTRAS
years after conception, the respective seasons being supposed to represent
the castes, as the years represent the metres regarded as peculiar to these
castes. Deeper lies the origin of the following :- the rite to drive out of
the bride the influence deadly to the husband and to convert it into
an influence deadly to her possible paramour (Hir. G. S. , I, 7, 24, 1 f. ); the
prayer that the 'weeping women' (demons) and Vikeçi may not torment her,
nor the Piçāchas of the womb, who devour flesh and bring death (ibid.
6,
19, 7); the scattering of rice and other grains on the heads of the newly
wedded pair (ibid. 21, 6); and the corresponding rite according to which
the husband ties barley about the wife's head, here expressly to have
'
offspring' (Āp. , G. S. , VI, 14, 7). Naturally the conjugal relations offer a
fruitful field for this sort of thing. Thus we have a rite to make a
husband subject to his wife as well as to make her co-wives subject to
her (ibid. III, 9, 5, f. ) and another very peculiar rite, the object of which
is to keep the wife faithful, in which she is regarded much as is the
slave around whom, when suspected of estrangement, urine is poured from
a horn to keep him magically at home (Hir. , G. S. , I, 4, 14, 2).
Another subject claiming the attention of the Sūtra-maker is the
efficacy of amulets. These are tied upon the priests, as a sort of final
expression of good-will, in the Āçvayuja rite. They are made of lac and
herbs (Gobh. , III, 8, 6). Minor superstitions abound. If one yawns, one
must say, “May will and wisdom abide in me,' evidently a phase of
the popular belief that the soul may escape in a yawn or sneeze (Hir. ,
G. S. I, 5, 16, 2). Signs of ill-luck which must be averted by sacred
formula are found in the presence in the house of a dove, of bees,
or an anthill, in the budding forth of a post, etc. (ibid. I, 5, 17, 5). The
transmission of sin is illustrated by the dictum that if one touches a
sacrificial post the faults committed at the sacrifice are incurred (ibid. 16,
16); also by the injunction that when one's hair is cut a well-disposed
person should gather it up and hide it away, as the well-disposed person
(the mother, for example) thus 'hides the sin in the hair,' probably a
refinement on the original notion of not losing one's soul-strength at
the hands of some ill-disposed person (ibid. I, 2, 9, 18 ; cf. Āçv. , I, 17, 10,
etc. , where the formula is 'for long life'). Whether the objection to
certain trees as liable to cause eye-trouble, etc. , is grounded in fact or
fancy, causing the injunction to transplant them, may be questioned, but the
original cause has been lost in the maze of superstition, which makes the
· Açattha tree injurious on the east side of the house, the Plaksha on
the south, the Nyagrodha on the west, and Udumbara on the north.
Before speaking of the Dharma Sūtras in particular it will be necessary
here to settle the question as to what is meant by the Aryan, so often
mentioned in all the Sūtras. While not lacking in moral connotation,
>
## p. 215 (#249) ############################################
X]
DHARMA SŪTRAS
215
)
so that as a common adjective ārya meant noble in heart as well as in race,
it is only in the democracy of religious philosophy that such a person
as an Āryan slave or barbarian was conceivable. Practically Ārya was
synonymous with ‘reborn' and indicated a person of the three upper
castes in good standing, antithetic to Çūdra and other low-caste or out-
caste persons. Yavanas (Greeks) are the most esteemed of foreigners, but
all Yavanas are regarded as sprung from Çūdra females and Kshatriya
males. Gautama says that sundry authorities hold this viewl. Such rules
as that given by Gautama (XII, 2) in the case of the violation of an
Āryan woman by a Çūdra, when compared with Āpastamba, Dh. S. , II,
,
26, 20, and 27, 9, prove conclusively that Ārya is ‘noble in race'as
distinguished from the 'black colour' (ibid. I, 27, 11, with the preceding
'non-Aryans'). Mr Ketkar in his History of Caste in India (p. 82), is
rather rash in stating that there was no racial discrepancy felt between
Āryan and Dravidian. It is true that those who were out-caste were no
longer called Aryang, but no Çūdra was ever regarded as Āryan, any
more than he could be 'reborn'. Ārya indicated racial distinction from the
times of the Rigveda onwards.
We have seen that the Grihya Sūtras practically recognise life only as
lived in villages. In the Dharma Sūtras, as these are later and have
to do with wider relations, the town (pur, nagara) appears as a larger
unit, though how much larger it is not easy to say ; and when we
remember that pur is after all only a stronghold or fort, and nagara
is anything larger than a village, we must be cautious of too ready belief in
large cities. Everything indicates on the contrary that life was still chiefly
that of small places and kings were only petty chieftains. There was not
supposed to be any school or even studying done in town. The Dharma
Sūtra of Gautama, regarded as the oldest of extant Dharma Sūtras, says
expressly that one should not recite the holy texts at any time in a town ;
and it is assumed, as in the Gșihya Sūtras, that such life as is described
passes normally in villages. Even in the description of the royal residence
(v. inf. p. 220), the hall has a thatched roof. The king still stands up
in propria persona and hits a thief with a cudgel; and, if the king fails to
strike, the 'guilt falls on the king' (Gaut. Dh. S. , XII, 43). The commenta-
tators, apparently aware of the incongruity in applying such a rule to the
kings of their day, attempt to restrict its application as intended for specially
evil thieves (of gold) ; but it is in fact a general rule even as late as
Āpastamba (Dh. S. , I, 25, 4), who says : 'A thief shall loosen his hair and
appear before the king carrying a cudgel on his shoulder. With that
(cudgel) he (the king) shall smite him ; if he dies his sin is expiated, but,
if the king forgives him, the guilt falls on him who forgives ; or he (the
1 Dh. Cāstra, IV, 21 (erroneously rendered 'offspring of male Cūdras and female
Kshatriyas' in S. B. E. vol. II, p. lvi). This passage referring to Yavanas is unique in the
Sūtras. They are Bactrian and other Asiatic Greeks. See Chap. XXII.
2
## p. 216 (#250) ############################################
216
(ch.
LIFE AND CUSTOMS IN THE SUTRAS
i
a
1
thief) may throw himself into a fire or die by starvation. Thus the later
author seeks to excuse the king (but not the thief).
The Dharma Sūtras add to the data of social life material evidence
which shows that there were recognised customs not approved in one part
of the country but doubtfully admitted as good usage because locally
approved in other parts. For, in discussing usage, Baudhāyana (Dh. S. , I,
1,17 f. ) expressly says that customs peculiar to the South are to eat in the
company of an uninitiated person, in the company of one's wife, to eat
stale food, and to marry the daughter of a maternal uncle or of a paternal
aunt, while customs peculiar to the North are to deal in wool, to drink rum,
to sell animals that have teeth in the upper and in the lower jaws, to follow
the trade of arms, and to go to sea. He adds that to follow these practices
except where they are considered right usage is to sin, but that for cach
practice the local rule is authoritative, though Gautama denies this?
Baudhāyana also admits the doctrine that a priest who cannot support him-
self by the usual occupation of a Brāhman may take up arms and follow the
profession of a warrior ; though here again his opinion is opposed to that
of the earlier Gautama, who argues that such an occupation on account of
its cruelty is not fitted for a priest. Whether the Gautama here represented
as opposed be the Gautama whose Sūtra has come down to us may be
doubted, but the two passages show that caste-integrity was not regarded as
essential, for no one could be a warrior and retain the mode of life deemed
proper for a priest.
The geography of the Sūtras illustrates very forcibly the limited reach
of interest at the same time that knowledge of a wider country was thoroughly
disseminated. Kalinga on the eastern coast is even the subject of versifi-
cation, 'He sins in his feet who visits the Kalingas,' and one who travels to
their country must perform a purificatory sacrifice; as must they who visit
the Ārattas (in the Punjab) or the Pundras and Vangas (in Bengal), while
the inhabitants of the country lying about Multān, Surat, the Deccan,
Mālwā, western Bengal, and Bihār all are declared by Baudhāyana to be of
mixed origin and · (by implication) their customs are not to be followed.
The 'country of the Āryans' embraces in fact only the narrow district
between the Patiala district in the Punjab and Bihār, and between the
northern hills (Himālayas) and those of Mālwā ; some even confine the
definition of Āryāvarta (ceuntry of the Āryans) to the district between the
Ganges and Jumna”.
1 See Bühler, S. B. E. vol. II, p. xlix. The river Narmadā-(Narbadā) is the
boundary between North and South. Making voyages by sea' causes loss of caste
(Baudh. , Dharma Sūtia, II, 1, 2, 2).
2 Baudh. I, 1, 2, 9 f. Baudhāyana may be the Kāņva referred to in the next
paragraph) as an authority. He was probably himself a southerner of the eastern coast.
Cf, Bühler S. B. E. vol. XIV, p. xxxvi f.
>
## p. 217 (#251) ############################################
X]
THE DHARMA SŪTRAS
217
a
9
>
.
Constant references to the opinions of earlier authorities, indefinitely
cited as 'some,' show that our extant Sūtras are but a moiety of the mass
lost. Naturally the later authors know by name more authorities than do
the earlier. Āpastamba discusses 'those whose food may be eaten’and cites
a certain Kāņva who declares that 'who wishes may give'; then a Kautsa,
whose opinion is that he who is holy (punya), may give ; then Vārshyāyaṇi
who says that anybody may give,' because, if it is a sinner and the sin
remains with him, the receiver cannot suffer, but if it does not remain
with him (the giver), then the giving acts as a purification (Ap. , Dh. S. ,
I, 19, 3 f. ). Again the same author discusses theft. Anyone who takes
, )
what belongs to another is a 'thief'; so teach Kautsa, Hārīta, and Kāņva ;
but Vārshyāyaṇi says that there are exceptions. 'Seeds ripening in the pod
and food for a draught-ox' may be taken (without theft), though 'to take
too much' is a sin. Hārīta's opinion is that the owner's permission must
first be given (Ap. , Dh. , S. , I, 28, 5).
These texts in any case are more or less erroneous transmitters of
older law. Thus the Sūtra law for manslaughter or murder enjoins that
one who has killed a warrior shall give for the expiation of his sin a bull
and a thousand cows. To whom? The commentator (a priest) says that
the passage means give to the priests (Āp. , Dh. S. , I, 24, 1,) whereas the
corresponding rule in Baudhāyana (I, 10, 19, 1) says that the fine shall be
given to the king ; and in both passages the commentator explains that
the 'expiation for sin' may mean to remove the enmity of the murdered
man's relatives', which latter explanation is historically the earlier and
probably the true explanation, as it is a parallel to the law permitting
compensation for murder as found among other Āryan nations.
Since, in distinction from the Gșihya Sūtras, the Dharma Sūtras have
to do with society rather than with family, it is here that we find the
beginning of civil and criminal law, although legal punishments are still
retained in part under the head of penance, and the conditions of
inheritance, which depend on the family, are partly explained under
domestic duties, for these include (as we have seen) the rite of marriage,
apropos of which is first defined the family (gotra gens) into which one may
marry. The rule is that a man shall not give his daughter to one belonging
to the same gotra, that is, having the same family name? , or, in the case of
priests, descended from the same Vedic seer, or to one related on the
mother's side within six degrees. Then the rules for inheritance, assuming
the meaning of the Sapinda as one within six degrees, make Sapindas
the heirs after or in default of sons. The Sapindas here are males only.
The widow is excluded, and the daughter (according to Āpastamba) inherits
only in default of sons, teacher, or pupil, these, however, being recommended
1 Cf. Bühler's explanation, S. B. E. vol. II p. 78.
2 Generally speaking we may say that exogamy is the rule, but epic literature
records cases of marriage between near relations (cousins).
1
## p. 218 (#252) ############################################
218
(ch.
LIFE AND CUSTOMS IN THE SUTRAS
9
>
to employ the inheritance for the spiritual good of the deceased. Probably
the general rule anticipates not the death of the owner but a division
of property among the sons during his lifetime. The king inherits in default
of the others named, and some say that among the sons only the eldest
inherits. These rules are sufficiently vague, but local laws are also provided
for in the additional rule : In some countries gold, (or) black cattle,
(or) black produce of the earth (grain or iron ? ) is the share of the
eldest' (Āp. , Dh. S. , II, 14, 7). Then in regard to what the wife receives, the
Sūtra leaves it doubtful whether the rule 'the share of the wife consists
of her ornaments and wealth received from her relations, according to some
(authorities),' is to be interpreted in such a manner that 'according to some'
refers only to the last clause or to the whole.
What is obvious is that the whole matter of inheritance was as yet not
regulated by any general state law. Different countries or districts of India
have different laws ; different authorities differ in regard to the interpreta-
tion of these laws; and, finally, different texts of Vedic authority contradict
by inference the rule to be got from them. Thus because one Vedic text says
‘Manu divided his wealth among his sons', it is implied that there should be
no preference shown to the eldest ; but, on the other hand, another
Vedic text says they distinguish the eldest by the heritage', which
countenances the preference shown to the eldest. Now this last point,
despite the desire for conciseness, demands consideration at length, so
the maker of the Sūtra takes it up, arguing that a mere statement of fact is
not a rule. For example (he says), the dictum ‘a learned priest and a he. goat
are the most sensual beings' is a statement, but cannot be taken as
rule. Hence, he says, the statement ‘they distinguish the eldest' is not a rule.
But the question remains, why then should the other statement, 'Manu
divided his wealth,' be regarded as a rule ? The subject of inheritance
is treated first by Baudhāyana under the head of impurity, where he
says simply that Sapindas inherit in default of nearer relations, and
Sakulyas (remoter relations) in default of Sapindas ; but afterwards he
adds that the eldest son, in accordance with the quotations cited by
Āpastamba, may receive the best chattel, or the father may divide
equally among his sons. Here also the fact that the same subject is treated
in different sections shows that as yet the matter of civil law was not treated
systematically but incidentally.
It is no part of the present discussion to enter into the confusing
details of the laws of inheritance; only to show in what state were these laws
at the time of the Sūtras. The latest Sūtra, however, already stands on
a level with the formal law-books, and, for example in this matter of
inheritance, is not content with the vague ‘sons' of the earlier authors
but makes a formal classification of the (later legal) 'twelve sons',
six
a
1
## p. 219 (#253) ############################################
X]
ROYAL DUTIES
219
of whom are entitled to inherit as 'heirs and kinsmen' while six (kinds) are
‘kinsmen but not heirs', among the last being the son of a Çūdra wife.
Civil law is in general discussed in the Sūtras under the head of royal
duties ; for it is assumed that the king administers justice both civil and
criminal. It is his part to pay attention to the special laws of districts,
castes (jāti), and families, and make the four orders (varņas, castes in a
general sense) fulfil their duties. The summary, in the following order,
includes punishing those who wander from the path of duty, not injuring
trees that bear fruit, guarding against falsification of weights and measures,
not taking for his own use the property of his subjects (except as taxes),
providing for the widows of his soldiers, exempting from taxation a learned
priest, a royal servant, those without protectors, ascetics, infants, very old
men, students, widows who have returned to their families, unmarried girls,
wives of servants, and pradattās (doubtful, perhaps girls promised in
marriage) ; but first and foremost, the king is to protect all in his realm
(Vasishțha XIX, 1-24). This quaint summary of royal duties does not even
belong to the early Sūtra period but derives from a text, which in some
regards is practically, as it is called, a law-book (Çāstra). It reflects, as do
the elaboration of details and additions casually made, the fact that even
at this comparatively late period the king was still a small local rāja, not
an emperor.
Although we may agrec in general with the judgment of Bühler to the
effect that the Dharma Çāstra of Gautama takes temporal precedence over
the extant Dharma Çāstras and Dharma Sūtras", yet it is historically as
important to remember that this judgement was tempered by the considera-
tion that interpolations occur in the work of Gautama, and that in its
present form the language ‘agrees closer with Pāṇini's rules than that of
Āpastamba and Baudhāyana. The title itself of Gautama's work is Çāstra
not Sūtra, and it is obvious from his chapter on kings that sundry works
called Dharma Çāstras were in vogue, for he says : "The administration of
justice (shall be regulated by) the Veda, the Dharma Çāstras, the Angas, and
the Purāņas (and Upavedas)'(XI, 19), and though the word “Upavedas'
occurs in but one manuscript, and logically Dharma is included under
Anga, yet it is not necessary to assume an interpolation for these words,
especially as Gautama mentions Manu among teachers of the law, from
‘some' of whom he cites, though not by name. The Atharvaçiras, a late
work, is also known to him (XIX, 12). It may then be questioned whether
each and every rule of Gautama can bc cited as being an integral part of the
"earliest law-book. '
The royal duties as described by Gautama are few. After stating that
all the ‘reborn (men of the three upper castes) are to study, offer sacrifice,
S. B. E. vol. II. p. liv.
## p. 220 (#254) ############################################
220
[ch.
LIFE AND CUSTOMS IN THE SÜTRAS
1
and give alms, and that the priest in addition is to teach, perform sacrifice
for others, and receive alms, or, if he does not do the work himself, to
practise agriculture and tradel, Gautama says that a king's special addition-
al duty is to protect all beings, to inflict proper punishment, support learned
priests and others unable to work, those free of taxes and temporary
students, to take measures for ensuring victory, to learn how to manage a
chariot and use a bow, to fight firmly, to divide the spoils of battle equitab-
ly, to take a tax of one-tenth, one-eighth, or one-sixth (of produce) to force
artisans to pay one day's work monthly, to proclaim by crier lost property,
and, if the owner be not found in a year, to keep it, giving one-fourth to
the finder (but all treasure-trove belongs to the king), and to protect the
property of infants. In the following section the author says that the king
is the master of all except the priests ; that he is to be moral and impartial,
worshipped by all except Brāhmans, who shall honour him (ibid. xi, 1 f. );
that he must protect the castes (orders) and different stages of the (açramas),
and, with the assistance of his chaplain fulfill all his religious duties, as enu-
merated above. Authoritative in the realm shall be all rules of castes
(jāti), and families (kula), as well as district-rules not opposed to (Vedic)
tradition, while for their respective orders (varga) ploughmen, traders,
herdsmen, money-lenders, and artisans may make their own rules (ibid. 21).
In this resume of royal duties there is no indication or implication of
any power greater than that of a small king. But the later Sūtra of Āpas-
tamba indicates the beginning of that system of government by proxy
which obtains in the Çāstra of Manu and other Smțitis. Nor is Āpastamba's
account of royal duties otherwise without interest, since it shows just such
a combination of old and new as characterises the Sūtra period. Te begin
with, after discussing caste-duties in general, Āpastamba describes the town
where the king is to live :
I will now explain the duties of a king. He shall build a town (pur), and a
dwelling (v? Çma), each with a door facing south. The dwelling (Bühler, 'palace') is
within the pur, and to the east of the dwelling shall be a hall called the invitation'
(guest) place. South of the pur shall be an assembly-house (sabhā), having doors on
the south and north sides so that it shall be in plain view within and without. There
shall be fires in all these places (burning) perpetually, and offering to the Fire-(god) shall
there be made regularly, just as to the sacred house-fire.
The rites involving the goblins of disaster and disease have naturally
a prominent place in the domestic ritual of the Gșihya Sūtras and afford
us glimpses of an otherwise unknown pantheon. The wife herself, who has
so little to do with texts, must go outside her house and offer food to
'the white demon with black teeth, the lord of bad women,' and if she
bears a child the husband must daily, till the wife's confinement ends, offer
rice and mustard in the fire near the door where the wife is confined,
dispersing demons whose names are given : 'Çanda, Marka, Upavīra,
,
Çaundikeya, Ulūkhala, Malimlucha, Droņāsa, Chyavana,' all indicative
of trouble, as are those that follow (apparently a supplementary list),
'Ālikhat, Animisha, Kimvadanta, Upaçruti, Haryaksha, Kumbhiņ, Çatru,
Pātrapāņi, Nșimaņi, Haņtrimukha, Sarsha pāruņa, Chyavana, avaunt. '
But if the child falls ill with epilepsy, the 'dog-disease,' the father cures him
by covering him with a net and murmuring,
Kūrkura, Su-Kūrkura, Kūrkura (it is) who holds ſast the children ; scat (chech
chet ! ), dog, let him go ; reverence to thee, Sisara, barker, bender, true the gods have
given thee a boon, and hast thou chosen my boy ? Scat, dog, let him go (as before).
True, the Bitch of heaven, Saramā, is thy mother, Sisara is thy father, and Yama's
black and speckled dogs thy brothers ; but scat, dog, let him go? .
s
The demon attacking the boy is here called Kumāra, the cult is
obviously demoniac. In general, the Sūtras of this class are concerned not
with the greater sacrifices, which are discussed in the Crauta Sūtra, called
the Havis and Soma sacrifices, but with the so-called great sacrifices of
food cooked (pāka) and offered on special noon-days and at funeral feasts,
or seven in all, including offerings to serpents as well as to demons and
gods.
The last of these domestic 'cooked-food' sacrifices introduces a
feature :
On the full moon day of the month Chaitra he makes (images of) a pair of
animals out of meal ; (he offars) them and jujube leaves (to the gods); to Indra and
Agni a figure with prominent navel ; and balls to Rudra (Cārkhyana, Gpihya Sūtra,
IV. 19)
These images of meal representing living beings are partly due to the
new feeling of pity for animals and the desire not to injure life, which plays
a part in Brāhmanism as well as in Buddhism. It must be admittted,
however, that economy had something to do with the substitution of animals
of meal for real animals, but ostensibly it is a Vishņuite trait. The general
1 Pāraskara. Gyihya Sūtra, I, 16, 23 f.
2 lb. 24.
8 From the full moon of the month Crāvana, offerings to soakes have to be made
daily till it is safe to sleep on the ground again. This is called the Pratyavarohaņı
and occurs on the full moon day called Agrahāyaņi, when one may 'descend again' (from
the high couch).
new
## p. 208 (#242) ############################################
208
[Ch.
LIFE AND CUSTOMS IN THE SUTRAS
a cow.
rule in this regard is that attributed to Manu : ‘Animals may be killed
(so said Manu) at the Madhuparka and Soma sacrifice and at the rites for
Manes and gods. ' But it is an old rite of hospitality to kill a cow for a
guest! ; and, as a matter of form, each honoured guest is actually offered
The host says to the guest, holding the knife ready to slay the
cow, that he has the cow for him ; but the guest is then directed to say :
Mother of Rudras, daughter of the Vasus, sister of the Adityas navel
of immortality (is she). Do not kill the guiltless cowr; she is (Earth itself),
Aditi, the goddess. I speak to them that understand. ' He adds, My
sin has been killed and that of so-and-so ; let her go and eat grass. But
if he really wants to have her eaten, he says, 'I kill my sin and the sin of
so-and-so' (in killing her), and though in many cases the offer of the cow is
thus plainly a formal piece of etiquette, yet the offering to the guest was not
complete without flesh of some sort ; and it is clear from the formulas that
any of the worthiest guests might demand the cow's death, though as
the 'six worthy guests' are teacher, priest, father-in-law, king, friend,
and Āryan ‘reborn' man, and all of these were doubtless well grounded in
that veneration for the cow which is expressed above by identifying her
with Earth (as Aditi), there was probably seldom any occasion to harrow
the feelings of the cow-revering hosta. Pāraskara mentions only the cow
but Çānkhāyana (G. S. II, 15, 1) already substitutes a goat as a possible
alternative ; he also mentions the gods to which this animal is sacred,
that is, he seeks to make the animal offered to the guest a sacrifice to a god.
Thus he
says that if the animal is offered to the teacher and killed it is 'sacred
to the Fire. god'; if it is offered to a king, it is sacred to Indra, and if to a
friend (mitra) it is sacred to Mitra. Similar additions may be traced in
many particulars, sometimes found by comparing one text with another,
sometimes clearly interpolated.
The Sūtras, while they do not recognise the sects of later days, yet
point to the different conception of deity embodied in the two great modern
sects worshipping Rudra-Çiva and Vishņu. Thus, as above, Rudra and the
Rakshasas are also associated in the rule : When one repeats a text sacred
to Rudra, to the Rakshasas, to the Manes, to the Asuras, or one that con-
tains an imprecation, one shall touch water' (Çankh. G. S. , I, 10,9). On
the other hand, when the bridegroom leads the bride to take the seven steps,
which form part of the wedding ceremony, he murmurs a blessing at every
step: 'One for sap, two for juice, three for prosperity, four for comfort, five
for cattle, six for the seasons, Friend ! be with seven steps (mine) ; be thou
devoted to me'. And after each clause he says 'may Vishņu lead thee. '
Similarly, the fact that Vaiçravana (Kubera and Içāna (Rudra-Çiva) are
1 Chipter IV', p. 101.
2 Pāraskara, Gțihya Sülra, 1, 3, 26.
## p. 209 (#243) ############################################
X
MARRIAGE CEREMONIES
209
>
>
9
worshipped ‘for the bridegroom' point to the phallic nature of these cognate
spirits (Pār. , G. S. , I, 8, 2 ; Çānkh. , G. S. , I, 11, 7).
The Gșihya Sūtras show that there was no one rite of universal accep-
tation in those ceremonies most intimately connected with domestic felicity.
Indeed, the author of the Āçvalāyana Grihya Sūtra (I, 7, 1) says expressly
that in the matter of weddings, 'customs are diverse,' and he gives only that
which is common usage. Thus he tells how the bride is to go about the
fire, mount the stone, pour out grain, gaze at the pole-star, etc. , but does
not mention other rites which other Gțihya Sūtras enjoin. Some of these,
however, are of universal interest ; and a comparison of the Hindu cere-
monies with those of other Aryan-speaking peoples shows that in all pro-
bability the Indian ritual has preserved elements reaching far back into
prehistoric times? .
Thus in the ceremony it is universal usage to walk the seven steps to.
gether and for the bridegroom to murmur, as he takes the bride's hand :
“This am I, that art thou, that art thou, this am I ; Heaven am I and Earth
art thou ; the (feminine) Rich (Rigveda verse) art thou, the Saman am I.
Be thou devoted to me,' and to make the bride mount a stone as an emblem
of firmness. But special rules are that women shall come to the bride's
house and eat and drink brandy and dance four times ; and that merry girls
shall escort the bridegroom to the bride's house, and that he must do all
the foolish (? ) things they tell him to d (except when taboo is con-
cerned). (Çārkh. , G. 8. , I, 12, 2). Some measure of values may perhaps
be obtained from the statement that the fee to the priest who performs the
marriage-ceremony is a cow, given by the bridegroom, if the groom is of
the same caste as the priest, but a village if the groom is 'royal', Rājanya,
that is a nobleman of 'kingly order, and a horse if the groom is of the third
estate (farmer, trader). Obviously the succeeding rule, which is not unique,
countenances a sort of sale in that it adds : “(The bridegroom must give)
to the one who has the daughter one hundred (cows) together with a
chariot. ' The same rule is found in the Dharma Sūtras (Āpastamba, II,
13, 12) with the explanation that the gift must be returned, as a sale is not
allowed –which only points back to an earlier period when the sale of
daughters was allowed.
1 On this point, cf. Haas and Weber, Indische Studien, vol. v ; L. von Schroeder,
Die Hochzeitsgebrä'lche der Esten und etniger anderer finnisch-ugrischer Volkerschaften
in Vergleichung mit denen der indogermanischen Volker (1888) ; M. Winternitz, Das
altindische Hochzeitsrituell. . . mit Vergleichung der Hochzeitsgebräuche bei den übrigen
indogermanischen Volkern (1892); also a paper by the last writer on the same subject
in the Transactions of the National Folk-lore Society (Congress, 1891-2), and one by Th.
Zachariae, ‘Zum altindischen Hochzeitsrituell' (Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Mor.
genlandes, vol. XVII, pp. 135 f. , and 211 f. ).
## p. 210 (#244) ############################################
210
[CH,
LIFE AND CUSTOMS IN THE SUTRAS
The distinction among the orders mentioned in the gifts above is only
one of innumerable passages in which, as a matter of course and without
thought of any other social order, the castes are named as priest, noble or
warrior, and 'people', the last terms embracing all those ‘reborn', who are
not priests or warriors or slaves. The slaves, Çūdras and lower orders, are
recognised as part of the social structure. The name itself suggests that the
Çūdras were originally a conquered people, as Karian became synony-
mous with slave at Athens. Yet the Çūdras were not Pariahs but members
of the household, who took part in some of the domestic rites.
The test of caste is not marriage alone but defilement by eating and
touching what is unclean. In this regard the Sūtras show only the begin.
ning of that formal theory of defilement which results in a pure man of the
upper castes being defiled by the shadow of an impure man, and in the taboo
of all contact with the impure. According to Gautama (Dharma Sūtra, XVII,
I f. ), Brāhman may eat food given by any of the 'reborn' who are worthy
members of their caste, and if in need of food to support life he may take
food and other things even from a Çūdra. Food forbidden is that defiled
naturally by hairs or insects falling into it and that touched by woman dur-
ing her courses, by a black bird (crow), or by a foot, etc. , or given by an
outcast, a woman of bad character, a person accused, an hermaphrodite, a
police-officer (dandika), a carpenter, a miser, a jailer, a physician, a man who
hunts without using the bow (i. e. a non-Aryan snarer of animals), a man who
eats refuse or the food of a multitude, of an enemy, etc. The list continues
with the taboo of food offered disrespectfully and of certain animals,
Āpastamba (Dharma S. , I 6, 18, 1 f. ) allows the acceptance of gifts, includ-
ing a house and land, even from an Ugra (low caste or mixed caste), though,
like the later law-books, his code states that a priest may not eat in the
house of anyone of the three orders (varņas) belong him ; but he may
eat the food of any other priest, and according to 'some' he may eat the
food of people of any caste except Çūdras and even their food in times of
distress. Forbidden by him is the food of an artisan, of people who let
houses or land, a spy, an unauthorised hermit (Buddhist ? ), besides that of
surgeon, usurer, and others. Caste is varņa or jāti, 'colour' and 'kin,' the
former embracing the latter, as a social order including clans or families.
Even in the all-important matter of marriage, caste is not so important as
family. The only test, when one seeks a wife, according to Çānkhāyana, is
that of the family : ‘They ask the girl in marriage, reciting the clan-names. '
The text of Āçvalāyana expressly mentions as a form of marriage that in
which the bridegroom kills the relatives and rapes the weeping girl, evident-
ly a form once countenanced as well as enumerated among possible forms;
at any rate it bars out all examination of the bride's social position. Indeed
the marriage rules permit the marriage of a Çūdra woman, though as the
:
1
## p. 211 (#245) ############################################
X]
CASTE AND FAMILY
211
>
>
>
last of four wives, with a member of the highest caste (e. g. Pār. , G. S. , 1, 4,
11), whose offspring, of course, being ‘mixed' or impure, is not a member of
the Āryan 'reborn,' but nevertheless is recognised legally. And what shall
we say of those who are not ‘reborn' although Āryans ? The rule in this
case is universal that, if priest, warrior, or member of the third estate fail to
be ‘reborn in the Veda,' i. e. if such a one is not duly initiated into his
social order at the proper time, he loses his prerogatives and becomes an
‘outcast'. 'No one should initiate such men, nor teach them, nor perform
sacrifice for them, nor have intercourse with them, and further, 'A person
whose ancestors through three generations have been thus outcast is exclud-
ed from the sacrament of initiation and from being taught the Veda,' that
is, they become Vrātyas or entirely outcast persons with whom one may not
even have intercourse unless they perform special ritest.
In general the Gșihya Sūtras may be said to be the later scholastic
codification of rules, formulas, and rites long practised, concerned chiefly
with the orderly progress of an individual ideal life, and incidentally with
such ceremonies as naturally occur in such a life, that is, besides rites from
babyhood to marriage, fixed moon-rites etc. , those concerned with building,
holidays, burial, etc. That they are not of Vedic age in their present form,
though in substance reverting in part to Brāhmaṇa beginnings, may be con-
cluded from their obvious posteriority in respect of language and metre
(where verses are cited) to the Brāhmaṇas, not to speak of earlier Vedic
texts, as well as from the fact that several Sūtras emanate from districts
scarcely known even by name to the Brāhmaṇas. The general order of
arrangement in the Gșihya Sūtras is one conditioned by the subject matter
which is to reveal the whole duty of man as a householder. Most of them
begin with the marriage and continue with the birth of a child, the
ceremonies at conception and at various stages before birth, at the birth it.
self, at the naming of the child, when he sees the sun, when he is fed, when
his hair is cut, when he becomes a student, and when he returns home from
his Guru (tutor) and becomes a householder. Then the child, now grown to
a man, marries and the circle begins again. Finally the rite for the burial
is described. A few texts take up the round of life at another point, that
where the student-life begins. This is the procedure in the case of some of
the Black Yajurveda texts (for example, the Mānava and Kāțhaka Sūtras),
but it makes no difference where one begins; each Sūtra follows out the life
to the end, and the general uniformity shows that, whatever be the minor
discrepancies and divergences of opinion (of which the authors are
themselves well aware), the Gșihya Sūtras as a whole are based upon one
model, and that, whether in the northern or southern districts, the lives of
1 See Paraskara, Grihya Sülra, II, 5, 40 f. , and Weber Ind. Literaturgesch. p. 73 f. ,
Eng. trans. p. 67.
a
## p. 212 (#246) ############################################
212
[ch.
LIFE AND CUSTOMS IN THE SUTRAS
9
3
orthodox Āryans were governed by a remarkable conformity of ritual. It is
not improbable that, as has been suggested by Professor Oldenberg, many
of the rites prescribed as general rules were nothing more than formulas of
secret magic owned at first by certain families and afterwards become unis
versal property?
The specimen given above will suffice to show the artless style of
these didactic Sūtras. They have in fact no style save that attained
by scrupulous brevity. In the following paragraphs we shall seek rather
to illustrate certain phases of the Gșihya Sūtras as indicative of religious and
magical beliefs and of the social environment in which they were produced,
or at least for which they were intended.
We may begin with reverting to the cure of epilepsy already mentioned.
In the course of childhood the boy may be attacked by the dog-demon
(epilepsy). What is the father to do? The names of the canine demons
have been mentioned above with a parallel passage containing more of
the same sort. These are to be averted by a sort of honorific propitiation.
They are lauded ; but their objectionable behaviour in this special case is
deprecated. The author of our Sūtra contents himself with this. But
a rival author or two (Hiraṇyakeçin, G. S. , II, 2, 7, 1 f. ; Āpastamba,
2
Grihya Sūtra, VII, 18, 1) are not content with the method here advocated.
According to them, the father must make a hole in the roof of the royal
gaming-hall and pull the boy through it, lay him on his back on dice strewn
about, and then, while a gong is sounded, recite the deprecatory words
to the dog-demons and pour curds and salt over the boy. Several items of
this recipe are of interest, the avoidance of the door, the use of salt
and curds to frighten demons, the gong for the same purpose to be beaten
on the south side of the hall. These may be said to be universal antidotes;
peculiar is the use of the dice, which has no parallel in the similar situations
offered by the Sūtra. Finally the fact that the father makes a hole in
the roof of the gaming-hall shows that it is made of thatch (easily repaired)
and leads to the question what sort of architecture is normally to be
found implied in the Sutras. The gaming-hall is the public gambling-
place which a king is directed to build for the use of his subjects, and
curiously enough, with the exception of the house-holder's own dwelling, it
is almost the only reference to edifices found in the Sūtras. On the other
hand, all the dicta of the Sūtras show that such life as is depicted is
supposed to be country life ; the district and the village are the geographical
entities. Cities are not ignored but are despised”. Thus there are no
1 Compare the admirable discussion of the position of the Gșihya Sūtras by
Prof. Oldenburg in S. B. E. vol. XXX.
2 Apastamba, Dharma Sūtra, I, 32, 21, let him avoid going into towns', and
Baudhāyana, Dharma Sūtra, II, 3, 6, 33, 'It is impossible for one to obtain salvation,
who lives in a town, covered with dust,'
## p. 213 (#247) ############################################
X]
RELIGIOUS AND MAGICAL BELIEFS
213
a
>
>
ceremonies for urban life. But there is a rite for ploughing, when sacrifice
is made to Açani (the thunder-bolt) and to Sītā (the furrow), as well
as to other bucolic deities, Aradā, Anaghā, etc. , as to the greater bucolic
gods, Parjanya and Indra and Bhaga, with similar offerings on the occasion
of the 'furrow sacrifice,' the 'threshing-floor sacrifice,' when one sows,
reaps, or takes in the harvest, all indicating that the life portrayed is that
of the village agriculturist, who must even 'offer a sacrifice at mole-heaps
to Akhurāja, the king of moles' (Gobhila, Gșihya Sūtra, IV, 4, 28 f. ;
ibid. 30 f. ). So the constant injunctions to go out of the village,” to
sacrifice at a place where four roads meet, or on a hill, etc. , imply life in
villages even for householders and scholars rather than in towns (Gobhila,
III, 5, 32-35).
Besides the introduction of evil spirits and bucolic divinities into the
ritual of the domestic service, we find in the Sūtras for the first time
the recognition of images of the gods, which must be implied by the
regulations concerning the deities Içāna Midhushi, and Jayanta (ʻlord,'
'bountiful one,''conqueror') as well as the lord of the field,' Kshetrapati,
who are moved about and given water to drink (Āp. , G. S. , VII, 19,
13; ibid. 20, 1-3 and 13).
When a boy is initiated he is made to mount a stone with the
adjuration to be ‘firm as a stone' which elsewhere is confined to the bride,
and is then given in charge to‘Kashaka (Kaçaka), Antaka, Aghora,
Disease, Yama, Makba, Vaşini, Earth and Vaiçvānara, Waters, Herbs,
Trees, Heaven and Earth, Welfare, Glory, the All-gods, all the Bhūts, and
all the gods' (Hiraṇyakeçin, G. S. , I, 2, 6, 5). In this list of demons
and deities to whom the boy is given in charge, Vaşini as the 'ruling
goddess' is noticeable. She is probably the mother-goddess who despite
all Vedic influence always was the chief spiritual village-power identified
with Çiva's wife in various forms. Perhaps too, the recognition (in a rite to
procure increase of cattle) of a god described merely as 'He who has
a thousand arms and is the protector of cow-keepers' (Gaupatya), may be a
veiled allusion to Krishņa-Vishņu (Gobhila, IV, 5, 18).
As the Gộihya Sūtras in distinction from the Dharma are concerned
with domestic superstitions, these may rightly be considered their peculiar
contribution to the history of India. Of political and social life they
contain almost nothing except as confined within the bounds of the family.
The regular routine of the normal life contains a sufficiency of such
superstitions, though the underlying reason for them is due in some cases,
more to mechanical adjustment to a supposed harmony than to spiritual
fears. This is the case for example in the regulation that the initiation
of the Brāhman, Kshatriya, and Vaiçya shall take place, respectively,
in spring, summer, and autumn, in the eighth, eleventh, and twelfth
>
>
## p. 214 (#248) ############################################
214
[ CH.
LIFE AND CUSTOMS IN THE SŪTRAS
years after conception, the respective seasons being supposed to represent
the castes, as the years represent the metres regarded as peculiar to these
castes. Deeper lies the origin of the following :- the rite to drive out of
the bride the influence deadly to the husband and to convert it into
an influence deadly to her possible paramour (Hir. G. S. , I, 7, 24, 1 f. ); the
prayer that the 'weeping women' (demons) and Vikeçi may not torment her,
nor the Piçāchas of the womb, who devour flesh and bring death (ibid.
6,
19, 7); the scattering of rice and other grains on the heads of the newly
wedded pair (ibid. 21, 6); and the corresponding rite according to which
the husband ties barley about the wife's head, here expressly to have
'
offspring' (Āp. , G. S. , VI, 14, 7). Naturally the conjugal relations offer a
fruitful field for this sort of thing. Thus we have a rite to make a
husband subject to his wife as well as to make her co-wives subject to
her (ibid. III, 9, 5, f. ) and another very peculiar rite, the object of which
is to keep the wife faithful, in which she is regarded much as is the
slave around whom, when suspected of estrangement, urine is poured from
a horn to keep him magically at home (Hir. , G. S. , I, 4, 14, 2).
Another subject claiming the attention of the Sūtra-maker is the
efficacy of amulets. These are tied upon the priests, as a sort of final
expression of good-will, in the Āçvayuja rite. They are made of lac and
herbs (Gobh. , III, 8, 6). Minor superstitions abound. If one yawns, one
must say, “May will and wisdom abide in me,' evidently a phase of
the popular belief that the soul may escape in a yawn or sneeze (Hir. ,
G. S. I, 5, 16, 2). Signs of ill-luck which must be averted by sacred
formula are found in the presence in the house of a dove, of bees,
or an anthill, in the budding forth of a post, etc. (ibid. I, 5, 17, 5). The
transmission of sin is illustrated by the dictum that if one touches a
sacrificial post the faults committed at the sacrifice are incurred (ibid. 16,
16); also by the injunction that when one's hair is cut a well-disposed
person should gather it up and hide it away, as the well-disposed person
(the mother, for example) thus 'hides the sin in the hair,' probably a
refinement on the original notion of not losing one's soul-strength at
the hands of some ill-disposed person (ibid. I, 2, 9, 18 ; cf. Āçv. , I, 17, 10,
etc. , where the formula is 'for long life'). Whether the objection to
certain trees as liable to cause eye-trouble, etc. , is grounded in fact or
fancy, causing the injunction to transplant them, may be questioned, but the
original cause has been lost in the maze of superstition, which makes the
· Açattha tree injurious on the east side of the house, the Plaksha on
the south, the Nyagrodha on the west, and Udumbara on the north.
Before speaking of the Dharma Sūtras in particular it will be necessary
here to settle the question as to what is meant by the Aryan, so often
mentioned in all the Sūtras. While not lacking in moral connotation,
>
## p. 215 (#249) ############################################
X]
DHARMA SŪTRAS
215
)
so that as a common adjective ārya meant noble in heart as well as in race,
it is only in the democracy of religious philosophy that such a person
as an Āryan slave or barbarian was conceivable. Practically Ārya was
synonymous with ‘reborn' and indicated a person of the three upper
castes in good standing, antithetic to Çūdra and other low-caste or out-
caste persons. Yavanas (Greeks) are the most esteemed of foreigners, but
all Yavanas are regarded as sprung from Çūdra females and Kshatriya
males. Gautama says that sundry authorities hold this viewl. Such rules
as that given by Gautama (XII, 2) in the case of the violation of an
Āryan woman by a Çūdra, when compared with Āpastamba, Dh. S. , II,
,
26, 20, and 27, 9, prove conclusively that Ārya is ‘noble in race'as
distinguished from the 'black colour' (ibid. I, 27, 11, with the preceding
'non-Aryans'). Mr Ketkar in his History of Caste in India (p. 82), is
rather rash in stating that there was no racial discrepancy felt between
Āryan and Dravidian. It is true that those who were out-caste were no
longer called Aryang, but no Çūdra was ever regarded as Āryan, any
more than he could be 'reborn'. Ārya indicated racial distinction from the
times of the Rigveda onwards.
We have seen that the Grihya Sūtras practically recognise life only as
lived in villages. In the Dharma Sūtras, as these are later and have
to do with wider relations, the town (pur, nagara) appears as a larger
unit, though how much larger it is not easy to say ; and when we
remember that pur is after all only a stronghold or fort, and nagara
is anything larger than a village, we must be cautious of too ready belief in
large cities. Everything indicates on the contrary that life was still chiefly
that of small places and kings were only petty chieftains. There was not
supposed to be any school or even studying done in town. The Dharma
Sūtra of Gautama, regarded as the oldest of extant Dharma Sūtras, says
expressly that one should not recite the holy texts at any time in a town ;
and it is assumed, as in the Gșihya Sūtras, that such life as is described
passes normally in villages. Even in the description of the royal residence
(v. inf. p. 220), the hall has a thatched roof. The king still stands up
in propria persona and hits a thief with a cudgel; and, if the king fails to
strike, the 'guilt falls on the king' (Gaut. Dh. S. , XII, 43). The commenta-
tators, apparently aware of the incongruity in applying such a rule to the
kings of their day, attempt to restrict its application as intended for specially
evil thieves (of gold) ; but it is in fact a general rule even as late as
Āpastamba (Dh. S. , I, 25, 4), who says : 'A thief shall loosen his hair and
appear before the king carrying a cudgel on his shoulder. With that
(cudgel) he (the king) shall smite him ; if he dies his sin is expiated, but,
if the king forgives him, the guilt falls on him who forgives ; or he (the
1 Dh. Cāstra, IV, 21 (erroneously rendered 'offspring of male Cūdras and female
Kshatriyas' in S. B. E. vol. II, p. lvi). This passage referring to Yavanas is unique in the
Sūtras. They are Bactrian and other Asiatic Greeks. See Chap. XXII.
2
## p. 216 (#250) ############################################
216
(ch.
LIFE AND CUSTOMS IN THE SUTRAS
i
a
1
thief) may throw himself into a fire or die by starvation. Thus the later
author seeks to excuse the king (but not the thief).
The Dharma Sūtras add to the data of social life material evidence
which shows that there were recognised customs not approved in one part
of the country but doubtfully admitted as good usage because locally
approved in other parts. For, in discussing usage, Baudhāyana (Dh. S. , I,
1,17 f. ) expressly says that customs peculiar to the South are to eat in the
company of an uninitiated person, in the company of one's wife, to eat
stale food, and to marry the daughter of a maternal uncle or of a paternal
aunt, while customs peculiar to the North are to deal in wool, to drink rum,
to sell animals that have teeth in the upper and in the lower jaws, to follow
the trade of arms, and to go to sea. He adds that to follow these practices
except where they are considered right usage is to sin, but that for cach
practice the local rule is authoritative, though Gautama denies this?
Baudhāyana also admits the doctrine that a priest who cannot support him-
self by the usual occupation of a Brāhman may take up arms and follow the
profession of a warrior ; though here again his opinion is opposed to that
of the earlier Gautama, who argues that such an occupation on account of
its cruelty is not fitted for a priest. Whether the Gautama here represented
as opposed be the Gautama whose Sūtra has come down to us may be
doubted, but the two passages show that caste-integrity was not regarded as
essential, for no one could be a warrior and retain the mode of life deemed
proper for a priest.
The geography of the Sūtras illustrates very forcibly the limited reach
of interest at the same time that knowledge of a wider country was thoroughly
disseminated. Kalinga on the eastern coast is even the subject of versifi-
cation, 'He sins in his feet who visits the Kalingas,' and one who travels to
their country must perform a purificatory sacrifice; as must they who visit
the Ārattas (in the Punjab) or the Pundras and Vangas (in Bengal), while
the inhabitants of the country lying about Multān, Surat, the Deccan,
Mālwā, western Bengal, and Bihār all are declared by Baudhāyana to be of
mixed origin and · (by implication) their customs are not to be followed.
The 'country of the Āryans' embraces in fact only the narrow district
between the Patiala district in the Punjab and Bihār, and between the
northern hills (Himālayas) and those of Mālwā ; some even confine the
definition of Āryāvarta (ceuntry of the Āryans) to the district between the
Ganges and Jumna”.
1 See Bühler, S. B. E. vol. II, p. xlix. The river Narmadā-(Narbadā) is the
boundary between North and South. Making voyages by sea' causes loss of caste
(Baudh. , Dharma Sūtia, II, 1, 2, 2).
2 Baudh. I, 1, 2, 9 f. Baudhāyana may be the Kāņva referred to in the next
paragraph) as an authority. He was probably himself a southerner of the eastern coast.
Cf, Bühler S. B. E. vol. XIV, p. xxxvi f.
>
## p. 217 (#251) ############################################
X]
THE DHARMA SŪTRAS
217
a
9
>
.
Constant references to the opinions of earlier authorities, indefinitely
cited as 'some,' show that our extant Sūtras are but a moiety of the mass
lost. Naturally the later authors know by name more authorities than do
the earlier. Āpastamba discusses 'those whose food may be eaten’and cites
a certain Kāņva who declares that 'who wishes may give'; then a Kautsa,
whose opinion is that he who is holy (punya), may give ; then Vārshyāyaṇi
who says that anybody may give,' because, if it is a sinner and the sin
remains with him, the receiver cannot suffer, but if it does not remain
with him (the giver), then the giving acts as a purification (Ap. , Dh. S. ,
I, 19, 3 f. ). Again the same author discusses theft. Anyone who takes
, )
what belongs to another is a 'thief'; so teach Kautsa, Hārīta, and Kāņva ;
but Vārshyāyaṇi says that there are exceptions. 'Seeds ripening in the pod
and food for a draught-ox' may be taken (without theft), though 'to take
too much' is a sin. Hārīta's opinion is that the owner's permission must
first be given (Ap. , Dh. , S. , I, 28, 5).
These texts in any case are more or less erroneous transmitters of
older law. Thus the Sūtra law for manslaughter or murder enjoins that
one who has killed a warrior shall give for the expiation of his sin a bull
and a thousand cows. To whom? The commentator (a priest) says that
the passage means give to the priests (Āp. , Dh. S. , I, 24, 1,) whereas the
corresponding rule in Baudhāyana (I, 10, 19, 1) says that the fine shall be
given to the king ; and in both passages the commentator explains that
the 'expiation for sin' may mean to remove the enmity of the murdered
man's relatives', which latter explanation is historically the earlier and
probably the true explanation, as it is a parallel to the law permitting
compensation for murder as found among other Āryan nations.
Since, in distinction from the Gșihya Sūtras, the Dharma Sūtras have
to do with society rather than with family, it is here that we find the
beginning of civil and criminal law, although legal punishments are still
retained in part under the head of penance, and the conditions of
inheritance, which depend on the family, are partly explained under
domestic duties, for these include (as we have seen) the rite of marriage,
apropos of which is first defined the family (gotra gens) into which one may
marry. The rule is that a man shall not give his daughter to one belonging
to the same gotra, that is, having the same family name? , or, in the case of
priests, descended from the same Vedic seer, or to one related on the
mother's side within six degrees. Then the rules for inheritance, assuming
the meaning of the Sapinda as one within six degrees, make Sapindas
the heirs after or in default of sons. The Sapindas here are males only.
The widow is excluded, and the daughter (according to Āpastamba) inherits
only in default of sons, teacher, or pupil, these, however, being recommended
1 Cf. Bühler's explanation, S. B. E. vol. II p. 78.
2 Generally speaking we may say that exogamy is the rule, but epic literature
records cases of marriage between near relations (cousins).
1
## p. 218 (#252) ############################################
218
(ch.
LIFE AND CUSTOMS IN THE SUTRAS
9
>
to employ the inheritance for the spiritual good of the deceased. Probably
the general rule anticipates not the death of the owner but a division
of property among the sons during his lifetime. The king inherits in default
of the others named, and some say that among the sons only the eldest
inherits. These rules are sufficiently vague, but local laws are also provided
for in the additional rule : In some countries gold, (or) black cattle,
(or) black produce of the earth (grain or iron ? ) is the share of the
eldest' (Āp. , Dh. S. , II, 14, 7). Then in regard to what the wife receives, the
Sūtra leaves it doubtful whether the rule 'the share of the wife consists
of her ornaments and wealth received from her relations, according to some
(authorities),' is to be interpreted in such a manner that 'according to some'
refers only to the last clause or to the whole.
What is obvious is that the whole matter of inheritance was as yet not
regulated by any general state law. Different countries or districts of India
have different laws ; different authorities differ in regard to the interpreta-
tion of these laws; and, finally, different texts of Vedic authority contradict
by inference the rule to be got from them. Thus because one Vedic text says
‘Manu divided his wealth among his sons', it is implied that there should be
no preference shown to the eldest ; but, on the other hand, another
Vedic text says they distinguish the eldest by the heritage', which
countenances the preference shown to the eldest. Now this last point,
despite the desire for conciseness, demands consideration at length, so
the maker of the Sūtra takes it up, arguing that a mere statement of fact is
not a rule. For example (he says), the dictum ‘a learned priest and a he. goat
are the most sensual beings' is a statement, but cannot be taken as
rule. Hence, he says, the statement ‘they distinguish the eldest' is not a rule.
But the question remains, why then should the other statement, 'Manu
divided his wealth,' be regarded as a rule ? The subject of inheritance
is treated first by Baudhāyana under the head of impurity, where he
says simply that Sapindas inherit in default of nearer relations, and
Sakulyas (remoter relations) in default of Sapindas ; but afterwards he
adds that the eldest son, in accordance with the quotations cited by
Āpastamba, may receive the best chattel, or the father may divide
equally among his sons. Here also the fact that the same subject is treated
in different sections shows that as yet the matter of civil law was not treated
systematically but incidentally.
It is no part of the present discussion to enter into the confusing
details of the laws of inheritance; only to show in what state were these laws
at the time of the Sūtras. The latest Sūtra, however, already stands on
a level with the formal law-books, and, for example in this matter of
inheritance, is not content with the vague ‘sons' of the earlier authors
but makes a formal classification of the (later legal) 'twelve sons',
six
a
1
## p. 219 (#253) ############################################
X]
ROYAL DUTIES
219
of whom are entitled to inherit as 'heirs and kinsmen' while six (kinds) are
‘kinsmen but not heirs', among the last being the son of a Çūdra wife.
Civil law is in general discussed in the Sūtras under the head of royal
duties ; for it is assumed that the king administers justice both civil and
criminal. It is his part to pay attention to the special laws of districts,
castes (jāti), and families, and make the four orders (varņas, castes in a
general sense) fulfil their duties. The summary, in the following order,
includes punishing those who wander from the path of duty, not injuring
trees that bear fruit, guarding against falsification of weights and measures,
not taking for his own use the property of his subjects (except as taxes),
providing for the widows of his soldiers, exempting from taxation a learned
priest, a royal servant, those without protectors, ascetics, infants, very old
men, students, widows who have returned to their families, unmarried girls,
wives of servants, and pradattās (doubtful, perhaps girls promised in
marriage) ; but first and foremost, the king is to protect all in his realm
(Vasishțha XIX, 1-24). This quaint summary of royal duties does not even
belong to the early Sūtra period but derives from a text, which in some
regards is practically, as it is called, a law-book (Çāstra). It reflects, as do
the elaboration of details and additions casually made, the fact that even
at this comparatively late period the king was still a small local rāja, not
an emperor.
Although we may agrec in general with the judgment of Bühler to the
effect that the Dharma Çāstra of Gautama takes temporal precedence over
the extant Dharma Çāstras and Dharma Sūtras", yet it is historically as
important to remember that this judgement was tempered by the considera-
tion that interpolations occur in the work of Gautama, and that in its
present form the language ‘agrees closer with Pāṇini's rules than that of
Āpastamba and Baudhāyana. The title itself of Gautama's work is Çāstra
not Sūtra, and it is obvious from his chapter on kings that sundry works
called Dharma Çāstras were in vogue, for he says : "The administration of
justice (shall be regulated by) the Veda, the Dharma Çāstras, the Angas, and
the Purāņas (and Upavedas)'(XI, 19), and though the word “Upavedas'
occurs in but one manuscript, and logically Dharma is included under
Anga, yet it is not necessary to assume an interpolation for these words,
especially as Gautama mentions Manu among teachers of the law, from
‘some' of whom he cites, though not by name. The Atharvaçiras, a late
work, is also known to him (XIX, 12). It may then be questioned whether
each and every rule of Gautama can bc cited as being an integral part of the
"earliest law-book. '
The royal duties as described by Gautama are few. After stating that
all the ‘reborn (men of the three upper castes) are to study, offer sacrifice,
S. B. E. vol. II. p. liv.
## p. 220 (#254) ############################################
220
[ch.
LIFE AND CUSTOMS IN THE SÜTRAS
1
and give alms, and that the priest in addition is to teach, perform sacrifice
for others, and receive alms, or, if he does not do the work himself, to
practise agriculture and tradel, Gautama says that a king's special addition-
al duty is to protect all beings, to inflict proper punishment, support learned
priests and others unable to work, those free of taxes and temporary
students, to take measures for ensuring victory, to learn how to manage a
chariot and use a bow, to fight firmly, to divide the spoils of battle equitab-
ly, to take a tax of one-tenth, one-eighth, or one-sixth (of produce) to force
artisans to pay one day's work monthly, to proclaim by crier lost property,
and, if the owner be not found in a year, to keep it, giving one-fourth to
the finder (but all treasure-trove belongs to the king), and to protect the
property of infants. In the following section the author says that the king
is the master of all except the priests ; that he is to be moral and impartial,
worshipped by all except Brāhmans, who shall honour him (ibid. xi, 1 f. );
that he must protect the castes (orders) and different stages of the (açramas),
and, with the assistance of his chaplain fulfill all his religious duties, as enu-
merated above. Authoritative in the realm shall be all rules of castes
(jāti), and families (kula), as well as district-rules not opposed to (Vedic)
tradition, while for their respective orders (varga) ploughmen, traders,
herdsmen, money-lenders, and artisans may make their own rules (ibid. 21).
In this resume of royal duties there is no indication or implication of
any power greater than that of a small king. But the later Sūtra of Āpas-
tamba indicates the beginning of that system of government by proxy
which obtains in the Çāstra of Manu and other Smțitis. Nor is Āpastamba's
account of royal duties otherwise without interest, since it shows just such
a combination of old and new as characterises the Sūtra period. Te begin
with, after discussing caste-duties in general, Āpastamba describes the town
where the king is to live :
I will now explain the duties of a king. He shall build a town (pur), and a
dwelling (v? Çma), each with a door facing south. The dwelling (Bühler, 'palace') is
within the pur, and to the east of the dwelling shall be a hall called the invitation'
(guest) place. South of the pur shall be an assembly-house (sabhā), having doors on
the south and north sides so that it shall be in plain view within and without. There
shall be fires in all these places (burning) perpetually, and offering to the Fire-(god) shall
there be made regularly, just as to the sacred house-fire.
