FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[188]The participation of all the Gotras of the Brahmans, who claim to be derived from the Rishis, in the composition of the Rigveda, has been acutely and convincingly proved by M. MÃ¼ller. "Hist. of Sansk. Lit." p. 461 ff.[189]A. Weber, "Z. D. M. G." 10, 389 ff.[190]Strabo, p. 717. Lassen, "Ind. Alterth." 1, 840; 2, 215-223. M. MÃ¼ller considers that the use of writing was known to the Indians before 600B.C., but nevertheless is of opinion that the Veda was written down later, and allows no written work to the Indians before 350B.C., the date at which he fixes Panini: "Hist. of Sansk. Lit." p. 311, p. 477 ff. Since, however, the Brahmanas date from between 800 and 600B.C., which is M. MÃ¼ller's opinion, it is hardly credible that controversies, and discussions, and examples, such as we find largely in the Brahmanas, could have received a fixed form if they merely referred to groups of poems retained in the memory only, though of considerable extent. That the Brahmanas existed in memory only seems to me to be quite impossible, considering their form. How could Ã‡aunaka, about the year 400B.C.as M. MÃ¼ller supposes, write sutras to facilitate the understanding of the Brahmanas, if the latter were not in existence in writing? A. Weber has observed that in Panini the 60 pathas of the first nine books of the Ã‡atapatha-Brahmana are quoted, and the 30 and 40 Adhyayas of the Aitareya and Kaushitaki-Brahmanas. In my opinion, the fact so acutely and convincingly proved by M. MÃ¼llerâ€”that the Rigveda is allotted to all the Gotras of the Brahmans, is strongly in favour of the composition of the Vedas in a written form; the tradition of the Gotras and the schools would never have given equal attention to all. If the Brahmanas, which cite the Vedas accurately in their present arrangement, and speak not only of syllables but of letters, arose between 800 and 600B.C., it appears to me an inevitable conclusion that the Vedas must have existed in writing about the year 800B.C.[191]Kaegi, "Rigveda," s. 3.[192]Madhusudana, in M. MÃ¼ller, "Hist. of Sansk. Lit." p. 122; cf. p. 173, 467.[193]Roth, "Zur Literatur des Veda," s. 11. A. Weber, "Vorlesungen," s. 83, 84. Westergaard, "Aeltester Zeitraum der Ind. Gesch." s. 11. For the legends of the Puranas on the origin of the black and white Yajus, which allow the superior antiquity of the first, see M. MÃ¼ller,loc. cit.p. 174, 349 ff.[194]Lassen, "Ind. Alterth." 1, 776.[195]A. Weber, "Vajasaneya-SanhitÃ¦ specimen," p. 33.[196]"Rigveda," 1, 33, "Ye AÃ§vins, come with the three and thirty gods."[197]Burnouf, "Commentaire sur le YaÃ§na," p. 34 ff., and below.[198]"Rigveda," 3, 9, 9; A. Weber, "Ind. Studien," 9, 265. Yajnavalkya gives 33,000 gods; later we find 330 millions.[199]Manu, 3, 69-74, 141-148, 158, 187-238, 266-274, 282, 283. 4, 25, 26. 11, 7. Of. Roth in "Z. D. M. G." 8, 471 ff.[200]Manu, 5, 26-28; 54-56.[201]Manu, 3, 94-118.[202]Manu, 2, 101-103.[203]Manu, 11, 216.[204]Manu, 11, 212.[205]Manu, 11, 211.[206]Manu, 11, 108-116. Even to this day it is a custom in Bengal for a man whose cow has died to wander from house to house with a rope round his neck, to imitate the lowing of a cow, and without uttering a word go on begging until he has collected enough to buy a substitute.[207]Oder sich selbst entmannen, und seine Scham in der Hand sÃ¼dostwÃ¤rts (d. h. dem Reiche Jama's zu) wandern, bis er todt hinstÃ¼rzt. [Cf. Manu, 11, 104, 105.][208]"Rigveda," 3, 62.[209]Manu, 3, 84 ff.[210]Manu, 2, 76-78; A. Weber, "Ind. Studien," 2, 188, 305.[211]Der, welcher im Angesicht des Feuers, der Sonne, des Mondes, einer Cisterne, einer Kuh, eines Dvidscha, oder gegen den Wind urinirt, wird seiner ganzen Schriftgelehrsamkeit beraubt werden. Der Brahmane darf seinen Urin nicht lassen, und seine Excremente nicht niederlegen, weder auf den Weg noch auf Asche, noch auf eine Kuhweide, noch auf einen AmeisenhÃ¼gel, noch auf den Gipfel eines Berges, noch in ein Loch, welches lebende Wesen bewohnen kÃ¶nnen, weder gehend noch stehend. Nachdem er die Erde mit Holz und BlÃ¤ttern und trockenen KraÃ¼tern bedeckt hat, kann er seine BedÃ¼rfnisse schweigend, in sein Gewand gehÃ¼llt und verhÃ¼llten Hauptes, verrichten. Bei Tage muss er dabei sein Gesicht nach Norden wenden, bei Nacht gegen SÃ¼den. Lassen sich die Himmelsgegenden in der Dunkelheit gar nicht unterscheiden, oder hat der Brahmane einen Ueberfall durch RÃ¤uber oder wilde Thiere zu befÃ¼rchten, so kann er sein Angesicht dahin richten, wohin es ihm beliebt. Niemals aber darf er Excremente ansehen, weder seine eigenen noch fremde. [Manu, 4, 45 ff.][212]The daily duties which the Brahmans have now to perform, are given in Belnos, "Daily Prayers of the Brahmins."[213]Manu, 1. 87-91; 2, 31, 32.[214]Muir, "Sanskrit Texts," 3, 149, 150.[215]Manu, 2, 69-76; 164-168; 173-181. On the reading of the Veda in the schools cf. Roth, "Zur Literatur und Geschichte des Veda," s. 36.[216]Manu, 2, 66, 67; 3, 1.[217]Manu, 6, 1-8, 22, 23, 76, 77.[218]Manu, 6, 69, 79-85, 96.[219]Manu, 6, 38.[220]Talboys Wheeler, "Hist. of India," 2, 247.

[188]The participation of all the Gotras of the Brahmans, who claim to be derived from the Rishis, in the composition of the Rigveda, has been acutely and convincingly proved by M. MÃ¼ller. "Hist. of Sansk. Lit." p. 461 ff.

[189]A. Weber, "Z. D. M. G." 10, 389 ff.

[190]Strabo, p. 717. Lassen, "Ind. Alterth." 1, 840; 2, 215-223. M. MÃ¼ller considers that the use of writing was known to the Indians before 600B.C., but nevertheless is of opinion that the Veda was written down later, and allows no written work to the Indians before 350B.C., the date at which he fixes Panini: "Hist. of Sansk. Lit." p. 311, p. 477 ff. Since, however, the Brahmanas date from between 800 and 600B.C., which is M. MÃ¼ller's opinion, it is hardly credible that controversies, and discussions, and examples, such as we find largely in the Brahmanas, could have received a fixed form if they merely referred to groups of poems retained in the memory only, though of considerable extent. That the Brahmanas existed in memory only seems to me to be quite impossible, considering their form. How could Ã‡aunaka, about the year 400B.C.as M. MÃ¼ller supposes, write sutras to facilitate the understanding of the Brahmanas, if the latter were not in existence in writing? A. Weber has observed that in Panini the 60 pathas of the first nine books of the Ã‡atapatha-Brahmana are quoted, and the 30 and 40 Adhyayas of the Aitareya and Kaushitaki-Brahmanas. In my opinion, the fact so acutely and convincingly proved by M. MÃ¼llerâ€”that the Rigveda is allotted to all the Gotras of the Brahmans, is strongly in favour of the composition of the Vedas in a written form; the tradition of the Gotras and the schools would never have given equal attention to all. If the Brahmanas, which cite the Vedas accurately in their present arrangement, and speak not only of syllables but of letters, arose between 800 and 600B.C., it appears to me an inevitable conclusion that the Vedas must have existed in writing about the year 800B.C.

[191]Kaegi, "Rigveda," s. 3.

[192]Madhusudana, in M. MÃ¼ller, "Hist. of Sansk. Lit." p. 122; cf. p. 173, 467.

[193]Roth, "Zur Literatur des Veda," s. 11. A. Weber, "Vorlesungen," s. 83, 84. Westergaard, "Aeltester Zeitraum der Ind. Gesch." s. 11. For the legends of the Puranas on the origin of the black and white Yajus, which allow the superior antiquity of the first, see M. MÃ¼ller,loc. cit.p. 174, 349 ff.

[194]Lassen, "Ind. Alterth." 1, 776.

[195]A. Weber, "Vajasaneya-SanhitÃ¦ specimen," p. 33.

[196]"Rigveda," 1, 33, "Ye AÃ§vins, come with the three and thirty gods."

[197]Burnouf, "Commentaire sur le YaÃ§na," p. 34 ff., and below.

[198]"Rigveda," 3, 9, 9; A. Weber, "Ind. Studien," 9, 265. Yajnavalkya gives 33,000 gods; later we find 330 millions.

[199]Manu, 3, 69-74, 141-148, 158, 187-238, 266-274, 282, 283. 4, 25, 26. 11, 7. Of. Roth in "Z. D. M. G." 8, 471 ff.

[200]Manu, 5, 26-28; 54-56.

[201]Manu, 3, 94-118.

[202]Manu, 2, 101-103.

[203]Manu, 11, 216.

[204]Manu, 11, 212.

[205]Manu, 11, 211.

[206]Manu, 11, 108-116. Even to this day it is a custom in Bengal for a man whose cow has died to wander from house to house with a rope round his neck, to imitate the lowing of a cow, and without uttering a word go on begging until he has collected enough to buy a substitute.

[207]Oder sich selbst entmannen, und seine Scham in der Hand sÃ¼dostwÃ¤rts (d. h. dem Reiche Jama's zu) wandern, bis er todt hinstÃ¼rzt. [Cf. Manu, 11, 104, 105.]

[208]"Rigveda," 3, 62.

[209]Manu, 3, 84 ff.

[210]Manu, 2, 76-78; A. Weber, "Ind. Studien," 2, 188, 305.

[211]Der, welcher im Angesicht des Feuers, der Sonne, des Mondes, einer Cisterne, einer Kuh, eines Dvidscha, oder gegen den Wind urinirt, wird seiner ganzen Schriftgelehrsamkeit beraubt werden. Der Brahmane darf seinen Urin nicht lassen, und seine Excremente nicht niederlegen, weder auf den Weg noch auf Asche, noch auf eine Kuhweide, noch auf einen AmeisenhÃ¼gel, noch auf den Gipfel eines Berges, noch in ein Loch, welches lebende Wesen bewohnen kÃ¶nnen, weder gehend noch stehend. Nachdem er die Erde mit Holz und BlÃ¤ttern und trockenen KraÃ¼tern bedeckt hat, kann er seine BedÃ¼rfnisse schweigend, in sein Gewand gehÃ¼llt und verhÃ¼llten Hauptes, verrichten. Bei Tage muss er dabei sein Gesicht nach Norden wenden, bei Nacht gegen SÃ¼den. Lassen sich die Himmelsgegenden in der Dunkelheit gar nicht unterscheiden, oder hat der Brahmane einen Ueberfall durch RÃ¤uber oder wilde Thiere zu befÃ¼rchten, so kann er sein Angesicht dahin richten, wohin es ihm beliebt. Niemals aber darf er Excremente ansehen, weder seine eigenen noch fremde. [Manu, 4, 45 ff.]

[212]The daily duties which the Brahmans have now to perform, are given in Belnos, "Daily Prayers of the Brahmins."

[213]Manu, 1. 87-91; 2, 31, 32.

[214]Muir, "Sanskrit Texts," 3, 149, 150.

[215]Manu, 2, 69-76; 164-168; 173-181. On the reading of the Veda in the schools cf. Roth, "Zur Literatur und Geschichte des Veda," s. 36.

[216]Manu, 2, 66, 67; 3, 1.

[217]Manu, 6, 1-8, 22, 23, 76, 77.

[218]Manu, 6, 69, 79-85, 96.

[219]Manu, 6, 38.

[220]Talboys Wheeler, "Hist. of India," 2, 247.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Index Next