11

11. In default of neighbours and other persons conversant with the state of the matter, and of trees and other boundary marks, the king shall fix the boundary of his own accord. He shall distribute the ground intermediate between the two villages, which has become the subject of a contest, between the two litigant parties, and fix landmarks between the two. Viramitrodaya, p. 460. IVIanu VIII, 265; Ya^wavalkya II, 153.

*I4. When the boughs (or offshoots) of trees grown on the field of one man should take root in the field of another man, they must be known to belong by right to the owner (of that field), because they have sprung forth in another field (than the stem of the tree).

*i5. A cross-road, the sanctuary of a deity, a street, and a public road must not be obstructed by (a place for) ordure, a terrace, a pit, an aqueduct, the edge of a thatch (syandanika), or the like (obstructions).

1 6. Should any one cause such obstruction through inadvertency or by force, the king shall impose on him a fine of the highest degree.

* 1 7. The (erection of a) dike in the middle of another man's field is not a prohibited act, as it may be productive of considerable advantage, whereas the loss is trifling. That is to be desired as (com- parative) gain where there is (a slight) loss (only).

*i8. There are two sorts of dikes (or water- courses), one (called kheya) which is dug into the ground, and (another called bandhya) which prevents the access of water. A kheya dike serves the pur- pose of irrigation, a bandhya dike serves to keep the water off.

* 19. No grain is (ever produced) without water;

14. This rule seems to be intended principally for banyans and the like trees covering a large area with their offshoots. The Nepalese MS. omits vv. 13, 14, 16.

15. The term syandanika is variously explained as denoting either the projecting roof or the eaves of a house.

1 8. Kheya means literally ' what is capable of being dug,' and bandhya ' what is capable of being stopped.' What is meant by these two terms may best be seen from the next paragraph.

but too much water tends to spoil the grain. An inundation is as injurious (to growth) as a dearth of water.

* 20. If a man were to put in repair a dike erected long ago, but decayed, without asking the permission of the owner, he shall not have (the use and) profits of it.

* 21. However, after the death of the owner or of another man sprung from the same race (who has succeeded to his property), he may repair the dike, after having been authorized to do so by the king.

* 22. By acting otherwise he will get Into trouble, in the same way as the hunter (of the tale). The shafts of him are spent in vain who hits again and again one who has been hit already.

"^^ 23. When the owner of a field is unable (to cul- tivate it), or dead, or gone no one knows whither, any stranger who undertakes Its cultivation un- checked, (by the owner or others) shall be allowed to keep the produce.

* 24. When the owner returns while the stranger

20. With the owner's permission, any man may restore a dike, &c., which has fallen into decay. Viramitrodaya, p. 468. Ya^wa- valkya II, 157. Read pravmtam in the text.

21. The authority of the king is required, because, without it, the profits of the dike would have to be enjoyed by the king himself. See Ya^navalkya II, 157.

22. The tertium comparationis in this simile has to be sought in the vanity of the effort only. Manu (IX, 73) applies the same simile to seed, i.e. semen virile spent in vain on the field, i.e. wife of a stranger.

23. 'Unable' (to cultivate the field) through want of means. * A field,' one which has become a desert. Vivada^intamawi, p. 64.

24. * The owner,' or his son or other (descendant). 'The whole expense incurred in tilling the waste,' the cost of converting the desert into cultivated ground. Viramitrodaya, pp. 469, 470.

is engaged in cultivating the field, (the owner) shall recover his field, after having paid (to the cultivator) the whole expense incurred in tilling the waste.

25. A deduction of an eighth part (shall be made), till seven years have elapsed. But when the eighth year arrives, (the owner) shall recover the field cul- tivated (by the other, as his independent property).

* 26. A tract of land (which has not been under cultivation) for a year is called Ardhakhila (half- waste). That which has not been (under cultivation) for three years is called Khila (waste). That which has not been under cultivation for five years is no better than a forest.

27. A field which has been held by three genera- tions in succession, and a house which has been inherited from an ancestor, cannot be estranged (from its legitimate owner) by force of possession, except when the king wills it so.

* 28. When grain has been destroyed by cows or

25. It appears from an analogous text of Katyayana that this rule is intended for those cases where the owner is unable to pay for the expense incurred by the cultivator. Katyayana says, * If through want of means (the owner) do not repay the expense entailed by the cultivation of the waste, the cultivator shall be allowed to keep the produce minus an eighth part. During eight years he may keep the (annual) produce (minus an eighth). After that period, it shall belong to the proprietor.'

26. These definitions are inserted here, because the previous rules according to the commentators apply to a desert or forest only, the cultivation of which causes considerable difficulty and expense.

28-42. Narada's eleventh title of law, though called 'Boundary Disputes,' is in reality a collection of all legal rules relating to fields. Manu and those who follow him treat the subject of damage done by cattle to crops or grass as a section of the chapter on 'Disputes between master and herdsman,' which title of law is wanting in the Narada-smrz'ti.

Other cattle crossing a fence, the herdsman deserves punishment in that case, unless he should have done his best to keep the cattle off.

* 29. When grain has been destroyed (altogether), with the root, the owner of it may claim a corre- sponding quantity of grain (as damages); the herds- man shall be corporally punished; and on his master he shall impose a fine.

* 30. A cow within ten days after her calving, a full grown bull, a horse, and an elephant shall be kept off carefully. The owner of any one out of these animals is not liable to punishment (should they do mischief).

* 31. For (mischief done by) a cow he shall inflict a fine of one Masha; for (mischief done by) a female buffalo, two Mashas; in the case of a goat or sheep (trespassing) with its young, the fine shall amount to half a Masha.

■^'^32. The (owners of) elephants and horses shall not have to pay any fine; for they are looked upon as protectors of (the king's) subjects. Impunity is (likewise) granted to (the owner of) a strayed cow,

29. The author of the Vtramitrodaya (p. 450) observes ex- pressly that the term vadha denotes corporal punishment, and not execution, in this place. The other commentators agree with him. ManuVIII, 241; Ya^^avalkya II, 161; Gautama XII, 26; Vishwu V, 146. The Nepalese MS. omits this paragraph.

30. The reason why horses and elephants have to be kept off is given in paragraph 32. Horses and elephants were used for the purposes of war principally. ManuVIII, 242; Ya^wavalkya II, 163, (fee.

31. Vishwu V, 140-144; Gautama XII, 22-25; Ya^wavalkya

32. 33. Manu VIII, 242; Vishwu V, 150; Ya^wavalkya II, 163. The Nepalese MS. has ' a pregnant cow' for ' a strayed cow.'

of one that has recently calved, and of one un- manageable.

33. (As also to the owner of) one that has lost her way, or broken down, or stuck (In marshy ground), or (of) a bull marked with the sign of con- secration. Four times (the amount of the damage done) is declared (to be the fine) in the case of (a cow) whose nostrils have been pierced and who abides in the field.

* 34. When the cattle lie down in the field (after grazing), the fine to be inflicted shall be double; when they remain (in the field for the night), it shall be four times (the ordinary amount); when they graze in the sight (of the keeper), that man shall be punished even as a thief.

'"" 35. When cows, straying through the fault of

33. The genuineness of this paragraph appears doubtful, because some of the propositions contained in it are nearly identical with the rules laid down in the paragraphs immediately preceding and follow- ing it. Besides, the language of this paragraph is obscure, and it is not given in any commentary nor in the Nepalese MS. The solemn ceremony of setting a bull at liberty and consecrating him to the gods, with a mark on each flank, is described by Vishwu, chapter LXXXVI, and in the Gr/hya-sutras. Piercing the nostrils of a barren cow is mentioned as an offence by Manu VIII, 325. It does not become clear why damage done by a cow of this sort should be a greater offence than damage done by an ordinary cow.

34. ' When they lie down in the field/ after having eaten their fill. * When they remain/ when they spend the night in the field, after grazing. Vivada>^intama?zi, 6^agannatha, &c. ' In the sight of the keeper: ' thus according to 6^agannatha (Colebrooke's Digest, III, 4, 46). The correctness of his interpretation is confirmed by Ya^Tzavalkya II, 162. According to the Vivada/^intamam (p. 67), the meaning is this, that the cattle are allowed to graze by the keeper, in the sight of the proprietor of the field, and in spite of the remonstrances of the latter. Vishwu V, 145; Ya^/lavalkya II, 160, 162.

their keeper, have entered a field, no punishment shall be inflicted on the owner of the cows; the herdsman (alone) is punishable (for the damage done by them).

* 36. When (a herdsman) has been seized by the king or (devoured) by an alligator, or struck by Indra's thunderbolt, or bitten by a serpent, or fallen from a tree,

* 37. Or killed by a tiger or other (ferocious animal), or smitten by a disease of any sort, no offence can be imputed either to the herdsman or to the owner of the cattle.

* 38. When a man claims damages for grain con- sumed by cattle (grazing in his field), that quantity of grain must be restored to him (by the owner of the cattle), which has been consumed in the field in the estimation of the neighbours.

* 39. The cows shall be given up to their owner, and the grain to the husbandman. In the same way a fine shall be imposed on the herdsman when grain has been trodden down (by cows).

36. ' Seized by the king,' employed in the king's business. See Colebrooke's Digest, III, 4, 52.

37. This paragraph is omitted in the Nepalese MS.

38. Gautama XII, 26; Manu VIII, 241; Ya^wavalkya II, 161. The Nepalese MS. inserts a spurious verse here, the first half of which is identical with Manu IX, 37, and the second half identical with Narada XI, 22.

39. The meaning of the injunction to give up the cows seems to be this, that the owner of the cows shall not at once recover them, when they have been seized by the proprietor of the field, after doing damage in the field. The VivadaX'intamawi has a different reading of this clause: gavatraw? gomina deya/w. This is explained as meaning that ' blades of corn must be made good by the owner of cattle.' Similar readings are found in other com- mentaries as well. Apastamba II, 11, 28, 5.

40. When a field is situate on the borders of a village, or contiguous to a pasture ground, or adjacent to a high road, the herdsman is not repre- hensible for the destruction of grain (in that field), if the field is not protected by a fence.

*4i. On (that side of) the field which faces the road a fence shall be made over which a camel cannot look, nor cattle or horses jump, and which a boar cannot break through.

* 42. A householder's house and his field are con- sidered as the two fundaments of his existence. Therefore let not the king upset either of them; for that is the root of householders.

43. When his people are flourishing, the religious merit and the treasure of a king are sure to be in a flourishing state as well. When (the people) cease to prosper, (his merit and his treasure) are sure to abate as well. Therefore he must never lose sight of (that) cause of prosperity.

■^^ I. That title of law in which the legal rules for women and men regarding marriage and the other

40. 'Pasture ground/ a meadow reserved for feeding cows or other cattle. Ratnakara. See Colebrooke's Digest, III, 4, 27. Manu VIII, 238, 240; Vishwu V, 147, 148; Gautama XII, 21; Ya^wavalkya II, 162.

42. This maxim shows that the compiler of the Narada-smrz'ti wrote for an essentially agricultural people.

(mutual relations between them) are laid down is called The Mutual Duties of Husband and Wife.

2. When a woman and man are to unite (as wife and husband), the choice of the bride must take place first of all. The choice of the bride is suc- ceeded by the (ceremony of) joining the bride and bridegroom's hands. Thus the ceremony (of mar- riage) is twofold.

3. Of these two parts (of the marriage ceremony) the choice of the bride is declared to lose its binding force, when a blemish is (subsequently) discovered (in either of the two parties). The Mantra (prayer), which is recited during the ceremony of joining the bride and bridegroom's hands, is the permanent token of matrimony.

4. When a Brahman, Kshatriya, Vai^ya, or ^S^tidra takes a wife, it is best for him to take her out of his own caste; and so is a member of her own caste the (most eligible) husband for a woman (of any caste).

5. A Brahman may marry three wives of different caste, in the direct order of the castes; and so may

2. The Smmi-writers, as a rule, do not mention the act of vara;?a, ' choice of a bride,' at all. It appears from the next para- graph that Narada also does not place it on a par with the ceremony of marriage, which is indissoluble for life.

3. The ' choice of the bride,' or betrothal, being dissoluble on the discovery of a blemish (in either party), it follows that the act of joining the bride and bridegroom's hands, i. e. the ceremony of marriage, must be indissoluble. See, too, paragraph 28. The particular Mantras to be recited during the marriage ceremony are given in the Gr/Tiya-siitras.

4. Apastamba II, 6, 13, i; VasishMa VIII, i; Gautama IV, i; Manu III, 12; Yaj^?lavalkya I, 55.

5, 6. It is important to note that Narada belongs to that group of Smr/ti-writers who recognise the legitimacy of marriage unions between Brahmans and SMrz, women. Baudhdyana I, 8, 16, 1-5;

a vS'tidra woman take a husband of any of the three castes above her own.

6. For a Kshatriya, two wives differing (from him) in caste are permitted; for a Vaiiya, a single wife differing (from him) in caste. (On the other hand), a Vaii"ya woman may take a husband of two different castes; and a Kshatriya woman may take a husband of one different caste.

7. Sagotras and Samanapravaras are ineligible for marriage up to the fifth and seventh degrees of relationship respectively, on the father's and mother's side.

* 8. The man must undergo an examination with regard to his virile; when the fact of his virile has been placed beyond doubt, he shall obtain the maiden, (but not otherwise.)

*9. If his collar-bone, his knee, and his bones (in

VasishMa I, 24, 25; Vish«u XXIV, 1-4; Manu III, 12-14; Yd^wavalkya I, 56, 57.

6. The somewhat laconic terms of the original may be para- phrased as follows: A Kshatriya may marry a Vai^ya and a SMm woman, besides a wife of his own caste. A Vaijya may marry a ^Siadra woman, besides a wife of his own caste. A Vaijya woman may either take a Vaijya husband, or she may wed a Kshatriya or a Brahman. A Kshatriya may either take a Kshatriya husband, or she may marry a Brahman.

7. A Sagotra is a relative bearing the same family name(laukika gotra). A Samanapravara is one descended from the same Rzshi (vaidika gotra). See Professor Biihler's notes on Gautama XVIII, 6; Apastamba II, 5, 11, 15. Manu III, 5; Apastamba II, 5, 11, 15-16; Gautama IV, 2-5; Vasish/^a VIII, 1,2; Baudhayana II, i, 31-38; Vish;2u XXIV, 9, 10; Manu III, 5; Ya^wavalkya I, 53.

8. Ya^?iavalkya I, 55. It should be observed, however, that the eligibility of impotent men or eunuchs for marriage is recognised in the Code of Manu (IX, 203), and that such men are very commonly married now-a-days.

9. The curious disquisition on impotency is quoted in such an

general) are strongly made; if his shoulders and his hair are (also) strongly made; if the nape of his neck is stout, and his thigh and his skin delicate; if his gait and his voice is vigorous;

* 10. If his semen, when thrown into water, does not swim on the surface; and if his urine is rich and foamy: by these tokens may a potent man be known; and one impotent by the opposite characteristics.

*ii. Fourteen species of impotent men are dis- tinguished by the sages, according to the rules of science, including both the curable and incurable. The rules regarding them shall be given in order.

* 1 2. One naturally impotent, one whose testicles have been cut out, a Pakshasha/^fl^l^a, one who has been deprived of his potency by a curse of his spiritual guide, or by illness, or by the wrath of a deity,

*i3. One jealous, a Sevya, one whose semen is (evanescent) as air, a Mukhebhaga, one who spills'

early compilation as Apararka's Commentary of the Ya^wavalkya- smrz'ti (twelfth century), which goes far to prove its genuineness. Apararka's gloss on this passage, scanty as.it is, has proved useful in elucidating some of the difficult terms occurring in it, and in es- tablishing the correct readings. Besides, I have been able to avail myself of some valuable remarks, kindly communicated to me by the late Dr. Haas, the well-known connoisseur of Indian medicine. 10. An analogous text is quoted from the Smr/ti of Katyayana. ' He is called impotent whose urine froths not and whose faeces sink in water, and whose generative organ is deficient in erection or seminal juices.' See Colebrooke's Digest, V, 5, 330.