14

14. For the rules regarding the procreation of a Kshetra^a son, see XII, 80-88. Gautama XXVIII, 35-39; Vasish//^a XVII, 47-50; Vishwu XVIII, 1-3 1; Baudhayana II, 3, 10; Y%«a- valkya II, 125; Manu IX, 149-156.

ig. The writers of the Bengal school give this text its plain

*i6. A father who is diseased, or angry, or ab- sorbed by (sinful) worldly interests, or who acts illegally, has not the power to distribute his property (as he likes).

* 1 7. The son of a maiden, a son obtained through a pregnant bride, and one born of a woman (whose transgression was) unknown (at first and is found out subsequently): of these, the mother's husband is regarded as the father, and they are declared to be entitled to shares of his property.

*i8. A maidens son, whose father is unknown and whose mother is not legally married (to his father), shall give a funeral ball (of rice) to his maternal grandfather and inherit his property.

^^* 19. Those sons who have been begotten by one or by many on a woman not authorized (to raise issue to her deceased husband), shall all be dis-

meaning, viz. that a father may distribute his property among his sons as he pleases. They add, however, that in doing so he must be guided by lawful motives, such as compassion on an incapable son, partiality for a pious son, and the like. See Dayabhaga II, 74j 75; Colebrooke's Digest, V, i, 32. The Mayiikha, on the other hand, declares that this rule of Narada had legal force in the former ages of the world only. See Mandlik's Mayukha, p. 35 (transl. p. 43). Ya^wavalkya II, 116.

16. This rule ' relates to the case where the father, through perturbation of mind occasioned by disease or the like, or through irritation against any one of his sons, or through partiality for the child of a favourite wife, makes a distribution not conformable to law.' Colebrooke's Dayabhaga II, 83. The Mitakshara (I, 2, 13, 14), cutting down the privileges of the father everywhere, interprets this rule as a prohibition of any other mode of unequal distribution except that by which the customary deductions are made in favour of the eldest son, &c.

17, 18. Manu IX, 170-172; Y^wavalkya II, 129; Vishwu XV, 10-17; VasishMa XVII, 21-23.

19. Regarding the rule of Niyoga, or appointment of a married

inherited; they are the sons of their (respective) begetters only.

* 20. They shall offer the funeral ball (of rice) to their begetter, in case their mother had been obtained for a price; if no price has been paid for her, they shall give the funeral ball to the husband (of- their mother).

*2i. One hostile to his father, or expelled from caste, or impotent, or guilty of a minor offence, shall not even take a share (of the inheritance), if he is a legitimate son; much less so, if he is a (Kshetra^a) son of the wife (only).

*2 2. Persons afflicted with a chronic or acute disease, or idiotic, or mad, or blind, or lame (are also incapable of inheriting). They shall be main- tained by the family; but their sons shall receive their respective shares (of the inheritance).

* 23. The sons of two fathers shall give the funeral

woman or widow to raise offspring to her husband, see XII, 80-88; Manu IX, 143.

21, 22. Manu IX, 201-203; Apastamba II, 6, 14, i, 15; Gautama XXVIII, 23, 40, 43; Vasish/Zm XVII, 52, 53; Baudhd- yana II, 3, 37-40; Vishnu XV, 32-37; Y%«avalkya II, 140, 141.

21. The commentators are at variance as to the precise meaning of the term 'hostile to his father.' Thus the Sarasvativilasa declares it to denote one who forgets himself so far as to say, ' He is not my father/ The Dayakramasahgraha says it means one who beats his father. According to G^agannatha and the Ratnakara, it means * one who attempts his father's life or commits other hostile acts against him (maraTzadikrzt), and who fails to offer the customary funeral oblations to his father after his death.' See Colebrooke's Digest, V, 4, 320.

22. Atrophy or pulmonary consumpt'on is instanced as a chronic, and leprosy as an acute disease, in the Ratnakara. See Colebrooke's Digest, loc. cit.

23. ' The adoptive father,' literally ' the man who owns the

ball (of rice) and the water oblations to each of the two (fathers) singly, and shall receive one half of the property left by their natural and adoptive fathers.

* 24. That portion (of the property) which belongs to a reunited coparcener is declared to be absolutely his own. So when one of the sharers has no issue it shall go to the rest (after the death) of those who are childless.

*2 5. If among several brothers one childless should die or become a religious ascetic, the others shall divide his property, excepting the Stridhana.

mother ' (Kshetrika). The ' son of two fathers ' is no doubt one procreated by Niyoga on the wife of one impotent, &c. It is not equally clear why he is to obtain one half only of the property left by his two fathers, as he is elsewhere declared to succeed to both. According to the Ratnakara, this rule * relates to the case where the natural father has a son begotten in lawful wedlock, and the husband of the mother also has by some means (katha/Tz^it) obtained male issue by himself begotten.' See Colebrooke's Digest, V, 4, 242. — Ya^wavalkya II, 127; Manu IX, 145, 190; Baudhayana II, 3, 18, 19.

24. For several other interpretations of this difficult text, see Colebrooke's Digest, V, 8, 433, It has to be observed, however, that the reading translated here differs from the reading translated by Colebrooke.

25, 26. The fact that the widow is invested with a claim to maintenance merely under this text, whereas the leading texts of Y%«avalkya and Vishwu constitute her heir to the property of a husband who has died without leaving male issue, has caused some difficulty to the commentators. Thus Madana says that this text must be held applicable to the widow of an undivided or reunited coparcener only, who is given a mere claim to maintenance by all writers of the Mitakshard school. The writers of the Bengal school, on the other hand, recognise the widow's right of inherit- ance in the case of undivided coparceners even. It appears, how- ever, from the order of heirs given in 49-51, that Narada does not make the widow an heir in any case.

25. Manu IX, 212; Ya^wavalkya II, 138; Vishnu XVII, 17; Gautama XVIII, 21.

*26. They shall make provision for his women till they die, in case they remain faithful to the bed of their husband. Should the women not (remain chaste), they must cut off that allowance.

*2 7. If he has left a daughter, her father's share is destined for her maintenance. They shall main- tain her up to the time of her marriage; afterwards let her husband keep her.

*28. After the death of her lord, the relations of her husband shall be the guardians of a w^oman who has no son. They shall have full authority to control her, to regulate her mode of life, and to main- tain her.

*29. When the husband's family is extinct, or contains no male, or when it is reduced to poverty, or when no one related to it within the degree of a Sapinda, is left, the fathers relations shall be the guardians of a woman.

*30. It is through independence that women go

27. 'They shall maintain her,' literally 'they shall give her a share.' See par. 13, where a share is allotted to an unmarried sister. The maintenance of the daughter includes, no doubt, the obligation to defray the expense of her marriage. Ya^^avalkya

28. All the commentators declare that the right of guardianship goes in the order of proximity. ' Thus, without (her guardian's) consent, she may not give away anything to any person; nor indulge herself in matters of shape, taste, smell, and the like; and if the means of subsistence be wanting he must provide her main- tenance.' Gagannatha. See Colebrooke's Digest, IV, i, 13.

29. The Nepalese MS. and the commentaries insert the following text here: * ' If both families are extinct, the king is declared to be the protector of a woman; he shall provide for her and punish her when she has swerved from the path of duty.'

30,31. Vasish//^aV, i, 2; Baudhayana II, 3, 44, 45; Gautama

to ruin, though born in a noble family. Therefore the Lord of creatures has assigned a dependent con- dition to them.

*3i. The father protects her during her infancy, the husband protects her when she is grown up, and the sons (protect her) in her old age. A woman is unfit to enjoy independence.

*32. What is left (of the father's property), when the father's obligations have been discharged, and when the father's debts have been paid, shall be divided by the brothers, in order that the father may not continue a debtor.

*33. For those (brothers), for whom the initiatory ceremonies have not been duly performed by their father, they must be performed by the (other) brothers, (defraying the expense) from the paternal property.

XVIII, I; Manu IX, 3; V, 148; Y^wavalkya I, 85; Vish«u XXV, 12,13.

30. * They go to ruin,' i. e. they are guilty of disloyalty and other offences; thus, because they do not know what is legal for those who live exactly according to sacred ordinances, and because they cannot be instructed, they would violate the duties of their class and the like. Gagannatha. See Colebrooke's Digest, IV, I, 4.

32. The term pitndayebhyo, ' when the father's obligations have been discharged,' is differently explained by different commentators. Thus Varadara^a (Burnell's Vyavaharanirwaya, p. 18) says it denotes the father's funeral rites and the like. A^yuta, as quoted in Cole- brooke's Dayabhaga I, 47, note, refers it to sums of which payment has been promised by the father. Manu VIII, 166; IX, 104; Baudhayana II, 3, 8; Gautama XXVIII, i; Ya^«?a- valkya II, 117. Read dattvarwaw in the text.

33. There appears to be some doubt as to what is meant here by the term sawskara, ' initiatory or sacramental ceremonies,' some commentators including the ceremony of marriage in that term, and others declaring the initiatory ceremonies to terminate with the investiture with the sacred thread. Ya^wavalkya II, 124.

*34. Or, no paternal wealth being left, the initiatory ceremonies must be invariably performed for their brothers by those previously initiated con- tributing (the required) funds from their own portions.

*35. One who, being authorized to look after the affairs of the family, charges himself with the management (of the family property), shall be sup- ported by his brothers with (presents of) food, clothing, and vehicles.

* 36. When the fact of a legal partition should be called into question, the decision of the dispute (which has arisen) among the sharers shall be founded on (the testimony of) kinsmen, the written deed recording the division of the estate, and the separate transaction of business.

*37. Among unseparated brothers, the perform- ance of religious duties Is single. When they have come to a partition, they have to perform their re- ligious duties each for himself.

35. Some commentators explain this text as having reference to one who generously declines to take his share at the time of partition. His share shall be made up afterwards by the other brothers contributing severally a portion of their shares. However, there seems to be more foundation for the opinion of those com- mentators who interpret this text as ordaining the allotment of a preferential share or the presentation of special gifts to the manager of the family property. See Colebrooke's Digest, V, 2, 108.

36. The commentators observe that the contest here referred to does not turn on the mode but on the fact of partition. See Cole- brooke's Digest, V, 6, 381. The business here referred to consists of agriculture and the like acts, according to the Mitakshara. Y%«avalkya II, 149.

37. The term 'religious duties,' according to the Mitakshara, relates principally to the five Mahaya^was, ' great sacrifices ' or ' sacraments.' Before division they are performed by one brother, generally the eldest brother, as representative of the rest. Manu IX, III; Gautama XXVIII, 4.

*38. Giving, receiving, cattle, food, houses, fields, and servants must be regarded as separate among divided brothers, and so must cooking, religious duties, income, and expenditure (be kept separate for each of them).

*39. (The acts of) giving evidence, of becoming a surety, of giving, and of taking, may be mutually performed by divided brothers, but not by unsepa- rated ones.

*40. If (brothers or others) should transact such matters as these publicly with their co-heirs, they may be presumed to be separate in affairs, even though no written record (of the partition) be in existence.

*4i. Those brothers who for ten years continue to live separate in point of religious duties and business transactions, should be regarded as separate; that is a settled rule.

*42. When a number of persons, the descendants of one man, are separate in point of (the performance of) religious duties, business transactions, and work-

38. * Giving and receiving,' without consulting each other. Pur- chase of ' cattle ' and the like. See Colebrooke's Digest, V, 6, 380. The upshot of a long discussion of this text by Gagannatha is this, that none of the acts mentioned here may be regarded as conclusive evidence by itself, a great deal of collective evidence of all sorts having to be adduced in each case. See Colebrooke's Digest, V,

41. The term 'brothers' is here used to denote coparceners generally. Smrni^andrika XVI, 14. The Sarasvativilasa (§ 812, Foulkes) contests the correctness of this interpretation. The Nepalese MS. does not give this paragraph, and it is elsewhere attributed to Br/haspati.

42, 43. 'Religious duties,' prescribed observances, such as the five great sacrifices (Mahay a^as). ' Business transactions,' such as

ing Utensils, and do not consult each other about their dealings,

*43. They are quite at liberty to perform, accord- ing to pleasure, all (such transactions as) the gift or sale of their own shares. They are (in fact) masters of their own wealth.

*44. One born after partition shall receive his father's property exclusively. Or, if other sharers have reunited with the father, they shall come to a division (with the son born after partition). Such is the law.

*45. The legitimate son of the body, the son begotten on a wife (Kshetra^a), the son of an (appointed) daughter, the son of a maiden, the son received with the wife, the son secretly born,

*46. The son of a remarried woman, the son cast off, the adopted son, the son bought, the son made, and the son who has offered himself, are declared to be the twelve sons.

*47. Among these, six are kinsmen and heirs, and six are not heirs (but) kinsmen. Each pre- ceding one is declared to be superior (to the one

trading and the like acts. ' Working utensils,* such as household furniture, the separate possession of which is indicative of partition. The meaning is that, when they are separated thus, each may give, sell, or otherwise dispose of (his share). Mayukha, p. 51 (transl. p. 76).

44. Manu IX, 216; Ya^wavalkya II, 122; Gautama XXVIII, 29; Vishwu XVII, 3. This text is not found in the Nepalese MS., nor is it commonly quoted in the Digests.

45-47, 49. Manu IX, 158-184; Vishwu XV, 1-29; Vasish/^a XVII, 12-39; Baudhayana II, 2, 3, 14-32; Ya^wavalkya II, 128-132.

45, 46. Regarding the meaning of the technical terms in this text, see the corresponding portion of the Code of Manu, and the notes on them in Professor Biihler's translation.

following next), and each following one inferior (to the preceding one).

[48. Where some doubt arises in regard to a house or field, the possession of which has suffered an interruption, (the doubt) may be removed by consulting a writing, or persons who know all about the enjoyment (of the property in question by its occupant), or witnesses.]

*49. After their father's death, these (sons) shall succeed to his wealth in order. Whenever a superior son is wanting, the one next to him in rank is entitled to succession.

*50. On failure of a son, the daughter (succeeds), because she continues the lineage just like (a son); both a son and a daughter continue the lineage of their father.

*5i. On failure of daughters, the Sakulyas (are to succeed) and (after them) the Bdndhavas; next, a member of the same caste. In default of all, that (wealth) goes to the king,

48. This text, which comes in very awkwardly between pars. 47 and 49, is apparently spurious, as has been pointed oat long ago by Professor Biihler. It is not given in the Nepalese MS.

50. G^imutavahana and other writers of the Bengal school restrict the daughter's right of succession, as declared in this text, to those daughters who are neither barren nor widowed. See Dayabhaga IV, 2, 10. However, there is nothing in the words of the original to warrant this restriction. Apastamba II, 6, 14, 4.

51, 52. ManuIX, 185-189; Ya^wavalkya II, 135, 136; VasishMa XVII, 81-84; Vishwu XVII, 4-14; Apastamba II, 6, 14, 2-5; Gautama XXVIII, 21, 41, 42.

51. The term Sakulya is apparently used to denote the agnates, and Bandhava to denote the cognates. Therefore the last term sa^ati cannot be referred to blood-relationship at all, and must denote con- nexion by membership of the same caste. It is true that the com- mentators explain it as denoting descent from the same y?/'shi. See Colebrooke's Digest, V, 8, 448.

* 52. Unless it should be the property of a Brahman. A king devoted to duty must allot a maintenance to his women. Thus has the law of inheritance been declared.

* I. Whatever act is performed by force (sahas) by persons inflamed with (the pride of) strength, is called Sahasa (a heinous offence); sahas (force) means strength in this world.

* 2. Manslaughter, robbery, an indecent assault on another man's wife, and the two species of insult, such are the four kinds of Heinous Offences.

* 3. It is again declared to be threefold in the law-books, viz. (heinous offences) of the first, middle- most, and highest degree. The definition of each kind shall be given as follows.

* 4. Destroying, reviling, disfiguring or otherwise

52. 'His women,' i.e. the women of the deceased proprietor. Vi^wanejvara, Nilaka«//^a, and other commentators declare that the term stri, 'woman,* cannot denote the legitimate wives of a deceased heir, and must therefore mean his concubines. This in- terpretation has been called forth, no doubt, by the fact that, in the opinion of these commentators, the inheritance of one sonless belongs to the widow in the first instance, and does not go to others, where a legitimate widow is in existence.

XIV, I. The term Sahasa, Hterally 'violence,' is used to denote violent deeds or heinous offences of every sort. Manu VIII, 332; Ya^navalkya 11, 230.

2. This text is omitted in the Nepalese MS.

4. * Destroying,' i.e. totally annihilating the fruits and other objects mentioned in this text. ' Reviling,' i. e. abusing, using bad

XIV, 9- inheritance; heinous offences. 203

(injuring) fruits, roots, water and the like, or agri- cultural utensils, Is declared to be Sahasa of the first degree.

* 5. (Injuring) in the same way clothes, cattle, food, drink, or household utensils, is declared to be Sahasa of the middlemost degree.

* 6. Taking human life through poison, weapons or other (means of destruction), indecent assault on another man's wife, and whatever other (offences) encompassing life (may be imagined), is called Sa- hasa of the highest degree.

* 7. The punishment to be inflicted for it must be proportionate to the heaviness of the crime, (so however as) not to be less than a hundred (Pawas) for Sahasa of the first degree, whereas for Sahasa of the middlemost degree the punishment is declared by persons acquainted with the law to be no less than five hundred (Pa;^as).

* 8. For Sahasa of the highest degree, a fine amounting to no less than a thousand (Pa;/as) is ordained. (Moreover) corporal punishment, con- fiscation of the entire property, banishment from the town and branding, as well as amputation of that limb (with which the crime has been committed), is declared to be the punishment for Sdhasa of the highest degree.

* 9. This gradation of punishments is ordained for every (caste) indiscriminately, excepting only corporal punishment in the case of a Brahman. A Brahman must not be subjected to corporal punishment.

language. * Disfiguring,' injuring so far only as to leave the form intact. Viramitrodaya, p. 499.

8, 9. The ambiguous term vadha in these two paragraphs is

* lo. Shaving his head, banishing him from the town, branding him on the forehead with a mark of the crime of which he has been convicted, and parading him on an ass, shall be his punishment.

* 1 1. Those who have committed Sdhasa of either of the two first degrees are allowed to mix in society, after having been punished, but if a man has com- mitted Sahasa of the highest degree, no one is allowed to speak to him, even when he has received punishment.

*I2. Theft is a special kind of it. The difference between (Sahasa and theft) is as follows. Sahasa is where the criminal act consists of a forcible attack, theft is where it is done by fraud.

*i3. That (theft) is again declared to be three- fold by the wise, according to the (value of the) articles (purloined), whether articles of small, mid- dling, or superior value have been stolen.

* 14. Earthenware, a seat, a couch, bone, wood, leather, grass, and the like, legume, grain, and prepared food, these are termed articles of small value.

*I5. Clothes made of other material than silk, cattle other than cows, and metals other than gold, are (termed) articles of middling value, and so are rice and barley.

explained as denoting corporal punishment, and not execution, by the commentators.

9, 10. Gautama XII, 46, 47; Vish«u V, 2-8; Ya^Tiavalkya II, 270; Manu VIII, 124, 379-380.

12. * A criminal act' (adhi.^), i.e. injuring another man's pro- perty; 'through a forcible attack,' i'^. violently, is called theft equivalent to Sahasa; a criminal act done * by fraud ' is called ordinary theft. Viramitrodaya, p. 490. Manu VIII, 332.

13. Y%-rlavalkya II, 275. 14. Manu VIII, 326-329.

^16. Gold, precious stones, silk, women, men, cows, elephants, horses, and what belongs to a god, a Brahman, or a king, these are regarded as articles of superior value.

17. Taking away by any means whatsoever the property of persons asleep, or disordered in their intellect, or intoxicated, is declared to be theft by the wise.

18. Where stolen goods are found with a man, he may be presumed to be the thief. (The pos- session of) stolen goods may be inferred from a luxurious mode of life. Suspicion arises where a man is seen in bad company or indulges in extravagance.

*i9. Those who give food or shelter to thieves seeking refuge with them, or who suffer them (to escape) though able (to arrest them), partake of their crime themselves.

* 20. Those who do not come to offer assistance, when people are crying out (for help) within their hearing, or when property is being taken away, are likewise accomplices in the crime.

* 21. That series of punishments, which has been ordained by the wise for the three kinds of Sahasa, is equally applicable to theft, according as it concerns one of the three species of articles in their order.

22. When cows or other (animals) have been lost,

16. See the Indian law of prescription, where the property of Brahmans and kings is declared to be exempt from the ordinary rules regarding limitation. Manu VIII, 323.

19. Those who give food or any other assistance to a thief, or who suffer a thief to escape though able to seize him, have to be punished like thieves. Vivada^intama«i, p. 93. Manu IX, 278; Ya^Tiavalkya II, 276.

20. Manu IX, 275. This text is omitted in the Nepalese MS.

or when (other) property has been taken away forcibly, experienced men shall trace it from the place where it has been taken.

23. Wherever the footmarks go to, whether it be a village, pasture ground or deserted spot (the inhabitants or owners of) that place must make good the loss, unless they can prove the footmarks to go out of that place again.

24. When the footmarks are obscured or in- terrupted, because (they lead to) broken ground or to a spot much frequented by other people, the nearest village or pasture ground shall be made responsible.

25. Where two persons have gone the same road, the offence, as a rule, shall be imputed to him who stood charged with other crimes before, or who associates with suspicious characters.

26. Kand^ldiS, executioners, and other such per- sons, as well as those who are in the habit of roaming at night, shall institute a search (after the thieves) In the villages; those living outside (of inhabited places) shall search (for them) outside.

27. When the thieves are not caught, the king must make good (the loss) from his own treasury. By showing himself remiss (towards criminals), he would incur sin and would offend both against justice and his own interest.

23. Yag'Tlavalkya II, 271. 24. Ya^Tlavalkya II, 272.

*i. Abusive speeches, couched in offensive and violent terms, regarding the native country, caste, family, and so forth (of a man), are termed Abuse, (a title of law.)

* 2. It is divided into three species, called re- spectively Nish/^ura, Ai^lila, and Tivra. The punish- ment for each increases in severity according as the insult is of a more (or less) serious nature.

* 3. Abuse combined with reproaches has to be regarded as Nish/>^ura; abuse couched in insulting language is A^lila; charging one with an offence causing expulsion from caste is called Tivra by the learned.

* 4. Hurting the limbs of another person with a hand, foot, weapon or otherwise, or defiling him

XV, XVI, I. Thus, e.g. when a man says, * The Gau^as (Bengalis) are quarrelsome,' he abuses another man's native country. When a man says, * Brahmans are very avaricious,' he abuses another man's caste. When he says,' The Vijvamitras are a ferocious race,' he abuses another man's family. The clause ' and so forth ' is added, in order to include abusive speeches levelled against learned men, artizans, or the like persons, whose learning or art has been abused. * Violent terms,' i.e. terms which ought never to be used. MitaksharS, p. 285; Viramiirodaya, p. 482.

3. ' Abuse combined with reproaches ' is when e. g. a man says,

* What a fool,' or ' What a rascal.* ' Abuse couched in insulting language ' is when a man says, * I will visit your sister,' or the like.

* Charging one with a mortal sin causing expulsion from caste/ such as e. g. the drinking of spirituous liquor. See loc. cit.

with ashes or other (impure substances), Is termed Assault.

* 5. There are three species of that also, as It may be either light, or of a middling sort, or heavy, according as It consists in the raising (of a hand or weapon for the purpose of striking a blow), or In an unexpected attack, or In striking a wound.

* 6. Stealing articles of small, middling, or su- perior value. Is called the three kinds of Sahasa; there the thorny weeds (sinners) should be extirpated.

''''■ 7. In both kinds (of insult) five cases are dis- tinguished, when the respective Innocence or guilt of the two parties has to be established.

* 8. When two parties have been guilty of insult, and both have commenced to quarrel at the same time, they shall suffer the same punishment, in case that no difference (in their respective culpability) becomes apparent.

* 9. He who Is the first to offer an Insult Is decidedly criminal; he who returns the Insult Is likewise culpable; but the one who began shall suffer the heavier punishment (of the two).

6. The above translation of this paragraph follows the reading of the MSS. If that reading be correct, this paragraph contains a rule relating to the subject of theft or Sahasa. The quotations have a different reading, under which this paragraph has to be closely connected with the preceding one, and has to be referred equally to the three degrees of assault.

7. The Nepalese MS. and the commentaries insert the following paragraph here: * ' When an insult has occurred between two men engaged in a violent quarrel, he who suffers the insult patiently is struck, but the offender is punishable.'

8-10. The one who has first commenced a quarrel shall receive

the heavier punishment of the two. That man is liable to punishment

^ who persists in hostility. When it is impossible to ascertain any

*io. When both parties are implicated equally, he of the two shall receive punishment who follows up his attack, whether he was (originally) the aggressor or the defendant.

*ii. If a 6vapcLka, Meda, Kdiud^Xdi, cripple, one who gains his substance by killing (animals), an elephant-driver, one deprived of his caste for non- performance of the ceremony of initiation, a slave, or one who treats a Guru or spiritual teacher with disregard,

* 1 2. Should offend a superior, he shall be punished by whipping him on the spot. Nor do the sages regard bodily injury done to a man of this stamp as (an offence equal to) theft.

* 1 3. Should any such low person, abhorred by men, insult another man (his superior), that man himself shall punish him. The king has nothing to do with the penalty (to be inflicted on him).

* 14. For these people are the refuse of human society, and their property is (likewise) impure. The king also is at liberty to whip them, but he must not amerce them with a fine.