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.
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.
Cambridge History of India - v1
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. He shall put up as guests in
the hall of invitation learned priests. . . and in the assembly-house he shall establish a
1 This and the permission to teach for money are not in accord with the usual
rules of the Sūtras. The practice of Brāhmans bocoming ‘gentlemen farmers and sleep-
ing partners in mercantile or banking firms managed by Vaiçyas' is not countenanced in
other Sūtras (see Buhler's note to Gautama, x, 5) and probably the permission to teach
for money is intended only for priests in distress.
2 An exception in the case of treasure trove is made in the case of a priest being the
finder, and ‘some' say that anybody who finds it gets one-sixth. In the rules for taxes, if
the stock is cattle or gold the tax according to‘some' one fiftieth and if it merchandise
one-twentieth, while one sixtieth is the tax on roots, fruits, flowers, herbs, honey, meat,
grass, and firewood (Gaut. , X, 25 f. )
a
## p. 221 (#255) ############################################
X]
TAXES, STATUS OE WOMEN, ETC.
221
>
>
>
>
>
>
gaming. table, sprinkle it with water, and throw down on it dice made of Vibhitaka
(nuts), sufficient in number, and let Aryans play there they are) pure men of honest
character. Assaults at arms, dances, singing, concerts, etc. , should not take place except
in houses kept by the king's servants. . . Let the king appoint Āryans, men of pure and
honest character, to guard his people in villages and towns, having servants of similar
character ; and these me must guard a town (nagara) from thieves for a league
(yojana), in every direction ; villages for two miles ( a kos or quarter of a league). They
must pay back what is stolen within that distance and collect taxes (for the king).
A learned priest and women are not taxed, nor are children before
puberty, temporary students, or ascetics, or slaves who wash feet, or blind,
dumb, deaf, and diseased persons. The king goes personally into battle
and is exhorted not to turn his back and not to use poisoned weapons or
to attack those who supplicate for mercy or are helpless (Äpastamba, II,
5, 10, 11), such as those who have ceased to fight or declare themselves
cows (by eating grass, a sign of submission) (Baudh. , I, 10, 18, 11, ; Gaut. ,
X, 18).
Taxes and inheritance form the chief subjects of civil law together
with the vexed question of the status of women. Women may not on
their own account offer either the Vedic Çrauta sacrifices or the Grihya
sacrifices. A woman is ‘not independent'(Baudh. II, 2, 3, 44; Gaut. , XVIII,
1), either in respect of sacrifice or of inheritance. Widows, if sonless,
are expected to bear eons by the levirate marriage (Baudh. , II, 2, 4, 9).
Suttee is not acknowledged. Women are property and come under the
general rule : 'A pledge, a boundary, the property of minors, an open or
sealed deposit, women, the property of a king or of a learned priest are not
lost by being enjoyed by others' (Vas. , XVI, 18).
In proving property, documents, witnesses, and possession are admit-
ted as proof of title by the late Sūtra of Vasishțha (XVI, 19), and if the
documents conflict, the statements made by old men and by gilds and
corporations are to be relied upon (Vas. , XVI, 15), an interesting passage
as it shows what importance was ascribed to the gilds (freni) of the time.
In criminal law, only Āpastamba recognises the application of ordeals
(Dh. S. , II, 11, 3 ; cf. 29, 6). The ordeals, here merely refered to, consist in
the application of fire, water, etc. , according to the later law-books
but are not defined in the Sūtras. Assaults, adultery, and theft are
the chief subjects discussed in the Sūtras under this head. The fines
of the later law are generally represented here by banishment or corporal
injury. Most of the regulations are dominated by caste-feeling. A Çūdra
who commits homicide or theft or steals land has his property confiscated
and suffers capital punishment (Āp. , Dh. S. , II, 27, 16) ; but a Brāhman
priest for such crimes shall be blinded (ibid. 17). A Kshatriya a (warrior)
who abuses a Brāhmaṇa (priest) is fined one hundred (coins); Vaiçya
(farmer) must pay half as much again for the same offence ; but if a
Brāhman abuses a Kshatriya he pays only fifty coins (kārshāpaņas), and only
>
## p. 222 (#256) ############################################
222
[ Ch.
LIFE AND CUSTOMS IN THE SUTRAS
1
>
>
>
twenty-five if he abuses a Vaiçya, while if he abuses a Çūdra he pays nothing
(Gaut. , XII, 8 f. ), etc. The same caste-interest works outside of criminal
,
law.
Thus the legal rate of interest is set at (the equivalent of) fifteen per
cent. per annum (five măshas a month for twenty kärshāpaņas, Gaut. , X! I,
29 ; Baudh. , 1, 5, 10, 22) ; but according to Vasishtha (II, 48), 'two, three,
four, five in the hundred is declared in the Smriti to be the monthly interest
according to caste. ' This means that the highest caste pays two, the next
caste three, and so on (limited by the scholiast to cases on loans without
security). The same author prohibits Brāhmans and Kshatriyas from
being usurers; but Baudhāyana says that a Vaiçya may practise usury (Vas. ,
II, 40 and Baudh. , I, 5, 10, 21). That there was, however, notable laxity
in carrying out the supposed inflexibility of caste-rules is evident from the
fact that the law-makers expressly permit the upper castes to take to the
occupation of the lower when in need of sustenance. Even the Brāhman
.
priest who neglects to say his prayers may at the king's pleasure be forced
to perform the work of Çūdras (Baudh. , II, 4, 7, 15). Thus, with certain
restrictions as to what he sells, etc , a priest or warrior may support life
by trade and agriculture (Vas. , II, 24 f. ). But a man ‘reborn' who persists
in trade cannot be regarded as a Brāhman, nor can a priest who lives as
an actor or as a physician (ihid. III, 3). In other words, as may be con-
cluded from the very laws inveighing against them, at the time of the
Sūtras there were many nominal members of the priestly and royal orders
who lived as farmers and traders, perhaps even as usurers (a special law
prohibits this, Vas. ; II, 40, cf. Manu, X, 117), not only acting the part of
gentleman farmers but living as humble ploughmen (Vas. , II, 33).
As touching the outer world, as one is directed to avoid going into
towns, so one should avoid visiting foreign places and 'not learn a language
spoken by barbarians' (Vas. , VI, 41 ; Āp. , I, 32, 18). In religion, as
to be expected, denying the authority of the Vedas, carping at the teaching
of the Vedic seers, and wavering in regard to any traditional duty is to
'destroy one's soul' (Vas. , XII, 41), and there is no salvation for a man
who devotes himself to epicurean ways or to captivating men or to philology
çabdaçāstra, Vas. , X, 20). On the other hand the Upanishad doctrine that a
priest who is learned and austere and repeats the sacred texts is not tainted
with sin, though he constantly commit sinful acts, is a morally destructive
teaching already legalised (Vas. , XXVI, 19). The highest named god is
Brahmā or Prajāpati, to whom, after the manner of the epic, verses of legal
character are assigned. Philosophically the Sūtras are dominated by the
Vedānta Ātman-theory, which appears to be known as a system to
Āpastamba, whose Sūtra seems to have been a work which arose among the
Andhras of the south-eastern coast, and probably is not older than the
was
1
## p. 223 (#257) ############################################
X]
RELATIVE AGES OF THE SUTRAS
223
>
second century B. C. It recognises, alone among Sūtras, a named Purāņa
(the Bhavishya, II, 24, 6) and its archaic effect linguistically, which in large
measure determined Bühler in his conjecture that this Sūtra might revert to
the fifth century, may well be due to the fact that the Andhras retained
linguistic peculiarities long after Pāniņi fixed the northern usage. Āpas-
tamba knows the Atharvaveda, as does Vasishțha, who appears to have
been a still later writer. It is true that Bühler arranged a chronological
series of Sūtras of the law in the order Gautama, Baudhāyana, Vasishtha
and Āpastamba ; but in doing so he minimised the late characteristics of
Vasishtha (who alone mentions 'documents' as legal proofs); and in his re-
mark (S. B. E. XIV, pxvii) concerning the fourth Veda he appears to have
overlooked the passage at VI, 4, where the four Vedas are mentioned. It is
also quite probable that the passage which seems to make Baudhāyana
earlier than Vasishtha is interpolated, and Bühler himself admits that many
other passages have been tampered with. Whatever the earlier text may bave
been, the present text, with its free use of Çloka verse, its recognition of
Dharma Çāstras, its citations from Manu, Vishņu, etc. , and its possible
allusion to the Romans (Romaka, XVIII, 4), seems to be the latest of the
legal Sūtras, though containing much older material. In general, the age
to which the Sūtras may be assigned cannot well be earlier than the
seventh or later than the second century B. C. They represent both the
views of different Vedic schools and different localities, from the Andhra
country in the S. E. to the countries of the N. W. , where probably the
school of Vasishtha is to be sought? . Probably the Gșihyas represent the
earlier Sūtras ; the Dharmas as a whole come later : perhaps 300 B. C.
would represent the earliest.
1 For Bühler's views regarding Apastamba, as dating from the third to the fifth
century B. C. , see S. B. E. vol. XIV, p. xlii. The strongest proof that Apastamba was a
Southerner lies in II, 17, 17, where he says that ‘Northerners' pour water into a priest's
hand at funeral feasts. That he followed Baudhāyana is undoubted ; but for historical
use it nust also be remembered that only the first two of the four books of
Baudhāyana are genuine and the latter half may be much later.
## p. 224 (#258) ############################################
CHAPTER XI
1
THE PRINCES AND PEOPLES OF EPIC POEMS
The Sūtra literature does not lack connexion with the epics, to
which we now turn. In the Gộihya Sūtra of Çānkāyana, for example,
occur the names of Sumantu, Jaimini, Vaiçampāyana, and Paila, who are
teachers of the great epic Mahābhārata ; and the list of revered teachers,
and no less revered species of literature, mentioned in the Sūtra of
Āçvalāyana includes the Bhārata and Mahābhārata, while the Çāmbhavya
Sūtra also mentions the Mahābhārata (it omits Bhārata, perhaps as included
in the greater name). Although the words are assumed by modern
scholars to be interpolated, the reason given, because otherwise it would
make the Sūtra too late? , has never been very cogent, since the end of the
Sūtras and beginning of the epics probably belong to about the same time.
As an indefinite allusion not to a special epic poem but to the kind
of poetry are also to be noticed such early references as that of Āçvalāyana
(III, 3, 1) to Gāthās, hero-lauds, tales and ancient legends.
Epic poetry is divided by the Hindus themselves into two genera, one
called 'tales and legends' (Itibāsa and Purāna) and the other called 'art-
poem' or simply ‘poem' (Kāvja, the production of a Kavi or finished
poet) ; but the compilation named Mahābbārata is both Itihāsa-Purāņa, its
original designation, and then Kāvya till the introductory verses exalt it as
such. In its origin it was undoubtedly a popular story of the glorified
historical character which attaches to tribal lays even to-day. The
second epic, the Rāmāyaṇa, has always stood as the type and origin of the
refined one author poem, and whatever may have been the date of its
germ as a story, as an art-product it is later than the Mahābhārata.
Thus the oldest references which may indicate epic poetry point
rather to the story of the Bharatas than to the story of Rāma. These
references, however, in any event are not nearly old enough to warrant the
assumption of immense antiquity made by the native tradition. The
• language of both epics is not Vedic but a popular form of Sanskrit, which
1 Weber, Ind. Lit. , p. 63=Eng. trans. , p. 58.
224
## p. 225 (#259) ############################################
XI]
THE MAHĀBHĀRATA
225
was developed by the bards and became the recogoised language of
narrative poetry ; and their metre is the final reproduction of Vedic metres
in modern form. Both language and verse are not widely different from
those of the latest Sūtras. We may reasonably conclude, then, that
the latest Sūtras and the epics belong to the same period, and that they
represent two contemporary styles of literature, the former priestly and the
latter secular.
There can be no doubt that, so far as much of their subject-matter
is concerned, the epics and the Purāņas are the literary descendants
of the stories and legends (Itihāsas and Purāņas) which are mentioned in
literature from the time of the Atharvaveda onwards ; and the particular
legend or historical tale (the two are confused) which is embedded in the
Mahābhārata or 'great epic of the Bharatas' is also not wholly without
scholastic affinities. Just as the Brāhmaṇas held the kernel of the Gșihya
Sūtras, so the great epic through its promulgator, as traditionally recorded,
is connected with the school of the White Yajurveda. Parāçara is a name
especially common in this Veda, occurring often in its genealogical lists ;
and the epic acknowledges the Çata patha as the greatest of Brāhmaṇas,
while the heroes of the epic are particularly mentioned in the Brāhmaṇa,
and indeed in such a way that Janamejaya, prominent in the epic, is treated
as a recent personage by the authors of the latter part of the Brāhmaṇa,
though the epic treats him as a descendant of the chief epic hero. The
explanation of this is not such a mystery as it seemed to Weber,
who was unable to reconcile the facts that the same person the
descendant of the later family and yet appeared as an immediate pre-
decessor or contemporary of the earlier. The explanation is simply that at
the time of the eleventh Kānda of the Çatapatha Brāhmaṇa, Janamejaya
to the priestly author was an historical character, while to the epic poet he
was legendary, and the poet himself was, if not a bard, a domestic
chaplain probably incompetent to analyse history, but anxious to give his
tale a noble frame.
Other early allusions to epic characters only show that the epic
which we now possess was unknown. Vaiçampāyana and Vyāsa are
mentioned as early as the Taittirīya Araṇyaka, but not as authors or
editors of the epic which is now their chief claim to recognition. The word
mahābhārata is used by Pāṇini, but only as an adjective which might
be applied to anything great connected with the Bharatas, a hero or town as
well as a war or a poem. But above all, the Mahābhārata epic is at
bottom the story of a feud between Kurus and Pāņdus, and the Pāņdus are
unknown to the early literature, either Brāhmaṇas or Sūtras. The idea that
the original epic was a poem commemorating a war between Pañchālas and
Kurus, which was ably developed by Lassen (Ind. Alterthümskunde, 1, pp.
was
## p. 226 (#260) ############################################
226
.
PRINCES AND PEOPLES OF THE EPIC POEMS
[ch.
592 f. ), and adopted with modifications by Weber (Ind. Literaturgesch,
pp. 126 and 203=Eng. trans. , pp. 114 and 186), is an ingenious attempt to
account for what is assumed to have existed. As a matter of fact a
Mahābhārata without Pāņdus is like an Iliad without Achilles and
Agamemnon : we know of no such poem. The Kurus and Pañchālas are foes
in the epic but only as the Pāndus ally themselves with the latter. The
Kurus of the epic, however, are doubtless the Kurus celebrated in
ancient times ; even the family records show that the epic reflects the glory
of these old aristocrats. Thus the names Ambā and Ambikā as wives of a
. Kuru in the Çatapatha Brāhmaņa are preserved in the name Ambā( Ambikā)
as mother of the king of Kurus in the epic. The first occurrence of the name
Pāņu which can be dated seems to be in a vārtika or supplementary rule
to Pāņini iv, 1, 44, attributed to Kātyāyana (c. 180 B. c. ). The Pānļus,
whatever may have been their antiquity, first come into view with the
later Buddhist literature, which recognises the Pandavas as a mountain
clan, and possibly in the myth mentioned by Greek writers in regard to a
Hindu Heracles and his wife Pandaia, though the latter is indeed of little
weight.
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. He shall put up as guests in
the hall of invitation learned priests. . . and in the assembly-house he shall establish a
1 This and the permission to teach for money are not in accord with the usual
rules of the Sūtras. The practice of Brāhmans bocoming ‘gentlemen farmers and sleep-
ing partners in mercantile or banking firms managed by Vaiçyas' is not countenanced in
other Sūtras (see Buhler's note to Gautama, x, 5) and probably the permission to teach
for money is intended only for priests in distress.
2 An exception in the case of treasure trove is made in the case of a priest being the
finder, and ‘some' say that anybody who finds it gets one-sixth. In the rules for taxes, if
the stock is cattle or gold the tax according to‘some' one fiftieth and if it merchandise
one-twentieth, while one sixtieth is the tax on roots, fruits, flowers, herbs, honey, meat,
grass, and firewood (Gaut. , X, 25 f. )
a
## p. 221 (#255) ############################################
X]
TAXES, STATUS OE WOMEN, ETC.
221
>
>
>
>
>
>
gaming. table, sprinkle it with water, and throw down on it dice made of Vibhitaka
(nuts), sufficient in number, and let Aryans play there they are) pure men of honest
character. Assaults at arms, dances, singing, concerts, etc. , should not take place except
in houses kept by the king's servants. . . Let the king appoint Āryans, men of pure and
honest character, to guard his people in villages and towns, having servants of similar
character ; and these me must guard a town (nagara) from thieves for a league
(yojana), in every direction ; villages for two miles ( a kos or quarter of a league). They
must pay back what is stolen within that distance and collect taxes (for the king).
A learned priest and women are not taxed, nor are children before
puberty, temporary students, or ascetics, or slaves who wash feet, or blind,
dumb, deaf, and diseased persons. The king goes personally into battle
and is exhorted not to turn his back and not to use poisoned weapons or
to attack those who supplicate for mercy or are helpless (Äpastamba, II,
5, 10, 11), such as those who have ceased to fight or declare themselves
cows (by eating grass, a sign of submission) (Baudh. , I, 10, 18, 11, ; Gaut. ,
X, 18).
Taxes and inheritance form the chief subjects of civil law together
with the vexed question of the status of women. Women may not on
their own account offer either the Vedic Çrauta sacrifices or the Grihya
sacrifices. A woman is ‘not independent'(Baudh. II, 2, 3, 44; Gaut. , XVIII,
1), either in respect of sacrifice or of inheritance. Widows, if sonless,
are expected to bear eons by the levirate marriage (Baudh. , II, 2, 4, 9).
Suttee is not acknowledged. Women are property and come under the
general rule : 'A pledge, a boundary, the property of minors, an open or
sealed deposit, women, the property of a king or of a learned priest are not
lost by being enjoyed by others' (Vas. , XVI, 18).
In proving property, documents, witnesses, and possession are admit-
ted as proof of title by the late Sūtra of Vasishțha (XVI, 19), and if the
documents conflict, the statements made by old men and by gilds and
corporations are to be relied upon (Vas. , XVI, 15), an interesting passage
as it shows what importance was ascribed to the gilds (freni) of the time.
In criminal law, only Āpastamba recognises the application of ordeals
(Dh. S. , II, 11, 3 ; cf. 29, 6). The ordeals, here merely refered to, consist in
the application of fire, water, etc. , according to the later law-books
but are not defined in the Sūtras. Assaults, adultery, and theft are
the chief subjects discussed in the Sūtras under this head. The fines
of the later law are generally represented here by banishment or corporal
injury. Most of the regulations are dominated by caste-feeling. A Çūdra
who commits homicide or theft or steals land has his property confiscated
and suffers capital punishment (Āp. , Dh. S. , II, 27, 16) ; but a Brāhman
priest for such crimes shall be blinded (ibid. 17). A Kshatriya a (warrior)
who abuses a Brāhmaṇa (priest) is fined one hundred (coins); Vaiçya
(farmer) must pay half as much again for the same offence ; but if a
Brāhman abuses a Kshatriya he pays only fifty coins (kārshāpaņas), and only
>
## p. 222 (#256) ############################################
222
[ Ch.
LIFE AND CUSTOMS IN THE SUTRAS
1
>
>
>
twenty-five if he abuses a Vaiçya, while if he abuses a Çūdra he pays nothing
(Gaut. , XII, 8 f. ), etc. The same caste-interest works outside of criminal
,
law.
Thus the legal rate of interest is set at (the equivalent of) fifteen per
cent. per annum (five măshas a month for twenty kärshāpaņas, Gaut. , X! I,
29 ; Baudh. , 1, 5, 10, 22) ; but according to Vasishtha (II, 48), 'two, three,
four, five in the hundred is declared in the Smriti to be the monthly interest
according to caste. ' This means that the highest caste pays two, the next
caste three, and so on (limited by the scholiast to cases on loans without
security). The same author prohibits Brāhmans and Kshatriyas from
being usurers; but Baudhāyana says that a Vaiçya may practise usury (Vas. ,
II, 40 and Baudh. , I, 5, 10, 21). That there was, however, notable laxity
in carrying out the supposed inflexibility of caste-rules is evident from the
fact that the law-makers expressly permit the upper castes to take to the
occupation of the lower when in need of sustenance. Even the Brāhman
.
priest who neglects to say his prayers may at the king's pleasure be forced
to perform the work of Çūdras (Baudh. , II, 4, 7, 15). Thus, with certain
restrictions as to what he sells, etc , a priest or warrior may support life
by trade and agriculture (Vas. , II, 24 f. ). But a man ‘reborn' who persists
in trade cannot be regarded as a Brāhman, nor can a priest who lives as
an actor or as a physician (ihid. III, 3). In other words, as may be con-
cluded from the very laws inveighing against them, at the time of the
Sūtras there were many nominal members of the priestly and royal orders
who lived as farmers and traders, perhaps even as usurers (a special law
prohibits this, Vas. ; II, 40, cf. Manu, X, 117), not only acting the part of
gentleman farmers but living as humble ploughmen (Vas. , II, 33).
As touching the outer world, as one is directed to avoid going into
towns, so one should avoid visiting foreign places and 'not learn a language
spoken by barbarians' (Vas. , VI, 41 ; Āp. , I, 32, 18). In religion, as
to be expected, denying the authority of the Vedas, carping at the teaching
of the Vedic seers, and wavering in regard to any traditional duty is to
'destroy one's soul' (Vas. , XII, 41), and there is no salvation for a man
who devotes himself to epicurean ways or to captivating men or to philology
çabdaçāstra, Vas. , X, 20). On the other hand the Upanishad doctrine that a
priest who is learned and austere and repeats the sacred texts is not tainted
with sin, though he constantly commit sinful acts, is a morally destructive
teaching already legalised (Vas. , XXVI, 19). The highest named god is
Brahmā or Prajāpati, to whom, after the manner of the epic, verses of legal
character are assigned. Philosophically the Sūtras are dominated by the
Vedānta Ātman-theory, which appears to be known as a system to
Āpastamba, whose Sūtra seems to have been a work which arose among the
Andhras of the south-eastern coast, and probably is not older than the
was
1
## p. 223 (#257) ############################################
X]
RELATIVE AGES OF THE SUTRAS
223
>
second century B. C. It recognises, alone among Sūtras, a named Purāņa
(the Bhavishya, II, 24, 6) and its archaic effect linguistically, which in large
measure determined Bühler in his conjecture that this Sūtra might revert to
the fifth century, may well be due to the fact that the Andhras retained
linguistic peculiarities long after Pāniņi fixed the northern usage. Āpas-
tamba knows the Atharvaveda, as does Vasishțha, who appears to have
been a still later writer. It is true that Bühler arranged a chronological
series of Sūtras of the law in the order Gautama, Baudhāyana, Vasishtha
and Āpastamba ; but in doing so he minimised the late characteristics of
Vasishtha (who alone mentions 'documents' as legal proofs); and in his re-
mark (S. B. E. XIV, pxvii) concerning the fourth Veda he appears to have
overlooked the passage at VI, 4, where the four Vedas are mentioned. It is
also quite probable that the passage which seems to make Baudhāyana
earlier than Vasishtha is interpolated, and Bühler himself admits that many
other passages have been tampered with. Whatever the earlier text may bave
been, the present text, with its free use of Çloka verse, its recognition of
Dharma Çāstras, its citations from Manu, Vishņu, etc. , and its possible
allusion to the Romans (Romaka, XVIII, 4), seems to be the latest of the
legal Sūtras, though containing much older material. In general, the age
to which the Sūtras may be assigned cannot well be earlier than the
seventh or later than the second century B. C. They represent both the
views of different Vedic schools and different localities, from the Andhra
country in the S. E. to the countries of the N. W. , where probably the
school of Vasishtha is to be sought? . Probably the Gșihyas represent the
earlier Sūtras ; the Dharmas as a whole come later : perhaps 300 B. C.
would represent the earliest.
1 For Bühler's views regarding Apastamba, as dating from the third to the fifth
century B. C. , see S. B. E. vol. XIV, p. xlii. The strongest proof that Apastamba was a
Southerner lies in II, 17, 17, where he says that ‘Northerners' pour water into a priest's
hand at funeral feasts. That he followed Baudhāyana is undoubted ; but for historical
use it nust also be remembered that only the first two of the four books of
Baudhāyana are genuine and the latter half may be much later.
## p. 224 (#258) ############################################
CHAPTER XI
1
THE PRINCES AND PEOPLES OF EPIC POEMS
The Sūtra literature does not lack connexion with the epics, to
which we now turn. In the Gộihya Sūtra of Çānkāyana, for example,
occur the names of Sumantu, Jaimini, Vaiçampāyana, and Paila, who are
teachers of the great epic Mahābhārata ; and the list of revered teachers,
and no less revered species of literature, mentioned in the Sūtra of
Āçvalāyana includes the Bhārata and Mahābhārata, while the Çāmbhavya
Sūtra also mentions the Mahābhārata (it omits Bhārata, perhaps as included
in the greater name). Although the words are assumed by modern
scholars to be interpolated, the reason given, because otherwise it would
make the Sūtra too late? , has never been very cogent, since the end of the
Sūtras and beginning of the epics probably belong to about the same time.
As an indefinite allusion not to a special epic poem but to the kind
of poetry are also to be noticed such early references as that of Āçvalāyana
(III, 3, 1) to Gāthās, hero-lauds, tales and ancient legends.
Epic poetry is divided by the Hindus themselves into two genera, one
called 'tales and legends' (Itibāsa and Purāna) and the other called 'art-
poem' or simply ‘poem' (Kāvja, the production of a Kavi or finished
poet) ; but the compilation named Mahābbārata is both Itihāsa-Purāņa, its
original designation, and then Kāvya till the introductory verses exalt it as
such. In its origin it was undoubtedly a popular story of the glorified
historical character which attaches to tribal lays even to-day. The
second epic, the Rāmāyaṇa, has always stood as the type and origin of the
refined one author poem, and whatever may have been the date of its
germ as a story, as an art-product it is later than the Mahābhārata.
Thus the oldest references which may indicate epic poetry point
rather to the story of the Bharatas than to the story of Rāma. These
references, however, in any event are not nearly old enough to warrant the
assumption of immense antiquity made by the native tradition. The
• language of both epics is not Vedic but a popular form of Sanskrit, which
1 Weber, Ind. Lit. , p. 63=Eng. trans. , p. 58.
224
## p. 225 (#259) ############################################
XI]
THE MAHĀBHĀRATA
225
was developed by the bards and became the recogoised language of
narrative poetry ; and their metre is the final reproduction of Vedic metres
in modern form. Both language and verse are not widely different from
those of the latest Sūtras. We may reasonably conclude, then, that
the latest Sūtras and the epics belong to the same period, and that they
represent two contemporary styles of literature, the former priestly and the
latter secular.
There can be no doubt that, so far as much of their subject-matter
is concerned, the epics and the Purāņas are the literary descendants
of the stories and legends (Itihāsas and Purāņas) which are mentioned in
literature from the time of the Atharvaveda onwards ; and the particular
legend or historical tale (the two are confused) which is embedded in the
Mahābhārata or 'great epic of the Bharatas' is also not wholly without
scholastic affinities. Just as the Brāhmaṇas held the kernel of the Gșihya
Sūtras, so the great epic through its promulgator, as traditionally recorded,
is connected with the school of the White Yajurveda. Parāçara is a name
especially common in this Veda, occurring often in its genealogical lists ;
and the epic acknowledges the Çata patha as the greatest of Brāhmaṇas,
while the heroes of the epic are particularly mentioned in the Brāhmaṇa,
and indeed in such a way that Janamejaya, prominent in the epic, is treated
as a recent personage by the authors of the latter part of the Brāhmaṇa,
though the epic treats him as a descendant of the chief epic hero. The
explanation of this is not such a mystery as it seemed to Weber,
who was unable to reconcile the facts that the same person the
descendant of the later family and yet appeared as an immediate pre-
decessor or contemporary of the earlier. The explanation is simply that at
the time of the eleventh Kānda of the Çatapatha Brāhmaṇa, Janamejaya
to the priestly author was an historical character, while to the epic poet he
was legendary, and the poet himself was, if not a bard, a domestic
chaplain probably incompetent to analyse history, but anxious to give his
tale a noble frame.
Other early allusions to epic characters only show that the epic
which we now possess was unknown. Vaiçampāyana and Vyāsa are
mentioned as early as the Taittirīya Araṇyaka, but not as authors or
editors of the epic which is now their chief claim to recognition. The word
mahābhārata is used by Pāṇini, but only as an adjective which might
be applied to anything great connected with the Bharatas, a hero or town as
well as a war or a poem. But above all, the Mahābhārata epic is at
bottom the story of a feud between Kurus and Pāņdus, and the Pāņdus are
unknown to the early literature, either Brāhmaṇas or Sūtras. The idea that
the original epic was a poem commemorating a war between Pañchālas and
Kurus, which was ably developed by Lassen (Ind. Alterthümskunde, 1, pp.
was
## p. 226 (#260) ############################################
226
.
PRINCES AND PEOPLES OF THE EPIC POEMS
[ch.
592 f. ), and adopted with modifications by Weber (Ind. Literaturgesch,
pp. 126 and 203=Eng. trans. , pp. 114 and 186), is an ingenious attempt to
account for what is assumed to have existed. As a matter of fact a
Mahābhārata without Pāņdus is like an Iliad without Achilles and
Agamemnon : we know of no such poem. The Kurus and Pañchālas are foes
in the epic but only as the Pāndus ally themselves with the latter. The
Kurus of the epic, however, are doubtless the Kurus celebrated in
ancient times ; even the family records show that the epic reflects the glory
of these old aristocrats. Thus the names Ambā and Ambikā as wives of a
. Kuru in the Çatapatha Brāhmaņa are preserved in the name Ambā( Ambikā)
as mother of the king of Kurus in the epic. The first occurrence of the name
Pāņu which can be dated seems to be in a vārtika or supplementary rule
to Pāņini iv, 1, 44, attributed to Kātyāyana (c. 180 B. c. ). The Pānļus,
whatever may have been their antiquity, first come into view with the
later Buddhist literature, which recognises the Pandavas as a mountain
clan, and possibly in the myth mentioned by Greek writers in regard to a
Hindu Heracles and his wife Pandaia, though the latter is indeed of little
weight.
