of purification occupies there a very important position. Various things render a person impure; such as the death of a relative, the birth of a child, the touching of certain objects, and various other matters.1 Even inanimate objects may become impure, and rules are laid down for their purification. The most usual mode in which defilement is caused, is by contact with something unclean, and twelve secretions or excretions of the human body are declared to possess that quality. The defilement, where animate objects are concerned, is not merely of the body. Even after death, the touch of a Sudra obstructs the passage of the deceased Brahman to heaven. On the other hand, death is, in certain cases, considered as an act of purification; such is the case with the soldier slain in battle.* It is evident, therefore, that the defilement had relation to the soul as well as the body. Moreover, the ideas connected with impurity could not be restricted to physical causes. The outward is the sign of the inward uncleanness, and the latter may have a physical cause only in a secondary sense. However caused, the impurity is the same, and although not equally heinous in all cases, it requires to be removed by analogous ceremonies. Hence it is that actions, which are in reality perfectly indifferent, have come to be equally criminal with those which clearly offend the moral sense.

We now see where the moral system, enforced in the laws of Menu, is defective. It is evident that, to the compiler of those laws, immorality and impurity were practically the same. To be in a condition of impurity is to be in a state of sin, and that which will remove

the former will get rid of the latter.

the following passage:

1 Menu, ch. v., v. 58 seq.

3 Do. ch. v., v. 104.

Sacred

We see this from learning, austere

2 Do., ch. v., v. 111 seq. 4 Do., v. 98

devotion, fire, holy aliment, earth, the mind, water, smearing with cow dung, air, prescribed acts of religion, the sun, and time, are purifiers of embodied spirits. But of all pure things, purity in acquiring wealth is pronounced the most excellent, since he who gains wealth with clean hands is truly pure; not he who is purified merely with earth and water. water. By forgiveness of injuries, the learned are purified; by liberality, those who have neglected their duty; by pious meditation, those who have secret faults; by devout austerity, those who best know the Veda. By water and earth is purified what ought to be made pure; a river, by its current; a woman, whose thoughts have been impure, by her monthly discharge; and the chief of twice-born men, by fixing his mind wholly on God. Bodies are cleansed by water; the mind is purified by truth; the vital spirit by theology and devotion; the understanding by clear knowledge." 1 There is much that is good in this passage, but it conveys the idea of a want of definiteness in the conception of what constitutes morality. As Mr Wilson remarks,2 the great moral duties are not unfrequently commanded by Menu; but then it is in such a way that the legislator can hardly have had any very precise idea of what constitutes the grounds of obligation. It seems, indeed, as though, notwithstanding his recognition of those duties, they were to him ceremonial rather than moral. That ceremonial lapses were placed on the same footing as moral ones, is shown by various passages, such as the following: "Not a mortal exists more sinful than he who, without an oblation to the manes or gods, desires to enlarge his own flesh with the flesh of another creature.' In a preceding verse, it is said, "the twice

1 Menu, ch. v., v. 105 seq. 3 Menu, ch. v., v. 52.

2 loc. cit., vol. i. p. 399, note.

born man, who has intentionally eaten a mushroom, the flesh of a tame hog, or a town cock, a leek, or an onion, or garlick, is degraded immediately;" and it is added that the twice-born man must perform a harsh penance annually to purify him from the unknown taint of illicit food, "but he must do particular penance for such intentionally eaten." 1 The fact would seem to be that, to the compiler of the laws of Menu, the test of sinfulness was impurity, instead of the reverse, as a true idea of morality would have led him to believe. Such a notion is in the true spirit of the primitive stage of thought, where everything is right but that which is forbidden by some competent authority, which can, on the other hand, impress with the stamp of immorality the most indifferent actions.

There is also the peculiarity about the laws of Menu that the criminality of the actions forbidden depends upon the persons concerned in them. From their character as "twice-born" the members of the three higher classes have certain moral privileges, so to speak, which the Sudras do not possess. Crimes when performed by the latter towards the former are always more sinful than under the reverse circumstances. Thus it is said, that with whatever member a low-born man shall assault or hurt a superior, even that member of his must be slit; "" while there is no provision as to assault by a superior on an inferior man, unless it be the general ones that a blow attended with much pain is to be punished by a fine as heavy as the presumed suffering, and that "in all cases of hurting a limb, wounding, or fetching blood, the assailant shall pay the full expense of a perfect cure. Those who commit great violence are declared to be more grievous offenders than a de

" 3

1 Menu, ch. v., v. 19, 21.

3 Do., 286, 287.

2 Do., ch. viii., v. 279.

famer, or thief, or a striker with a staff;1 but the twiceborn are authorised to take arms when "their duty is obstructed by force," and on certain other occasions. Killing under those circumstances is no crime, or when in defence of the slayer's preceptor, or of "a Brahman deeply versed in the scripture." There are no such provisions in favour of the Sudra. A man of the servile class who commits adultery with the wife of a twiceborn man is to lose the part offending, and his whole substance, if the woman was unguarded; but if she was guarded (and a priestess), then he is to be put to death. On the other hand, the Brahman who commits adultery with a guarded woman of the military class or the mercantile class is to be fined a thousand panas, and the same fine is to be paid for the like offence with a guarded woman of the servile class by a soldier or a merchant ; while adultery by a Brahman with an unguarded woman of the servile class is to be punished by a fine of five hundred panas. The soldier or merchant would seem, under the same circumstances, to be unpunishable. There is an apparent exception to the rule which requires the lower classes to be punished more severely than the higher for similar actions, in the provision that the fine of a Sudra for theft is to be eightfold, that of a Vaisya sixteenfold, that of a Kshatriya two-and-thirtyfold, but that of a Brahman at least four-and-sixtyfold. This can only apply, however, to thefts punished by fine, and although there is not the same distinction of classes made as to theft as in relation to other crimes, yet it is clear that there must have been such a distinction. For, not only is theft from priests made specially criminal,5 but the stealing of men and women of high birth, and also of precious gems, is declared to be deserving of Do., 374 seq.

1 Menu, ch. viii., v. 345.

4

* Do., 337, 338

2 Do., 348 seq.

5 Do., 314, 325.

3

death,1 a punishment which is not to be inflicted on a Brahman, though convicted of all possible crimes, as the greatest of all crimes is the slaying of a Brahman.2 This comparative freedom of the highest class from punishment is of great significance, and it is expressly enacted. Thus it is declared "for crimes by a priest (who had a good character before his offence), the middle fine* shall be set on him; or (if his crime was premeditated) he shall be banished from the realm, taking with him his effects and his family; but men of the other classes who have committed those crimes (though without premeditation) shall be stripped of all their possessions ; and if their offence was premeditated, shall be corporally or even capitally punished (according to circumstances)."

15

The "transcendental system of law" embodied in the Institutes of Menu cannot be properly understood without reference to the dogmas of emanation and transmigration, of which, indeed, it is merely a practical expression. It is declared to have been disclosed by the all-wise Menu "from his benevolence to mankind," and it must be kept devoutly concealed from persons unfit to receive it. Its aim is to enable man to escape from the bondage of the material life, and hence the morality of any act is estimated by its influence in aiding in this result, and its immorality in preventing its attainment. Defective as this view undoubtedly is, it is nevertheless founded

1 Menu, ch. viii., v. 323.

2 Do., 380, 381. Mr Wilson, however, points out that this immunity from capital punishment has not always been adhered to. loc. cit., vol. i. p. 262 note.

3 A similar rule applies to penances, the severity of which depends on the class of the person injured by the action to be expiated. (See Menu, ch. xi., v. 127 seq.)

4 500 panas. Do., viii. 138.

5 Do., ch. ix., v. 241, 242. The priest who commits adultery is to have his head shaved, where the punishment of other classes would be loss of life. Do., viii. 379.