Verse 8.213

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

यदि संसाधयेत् तत् तु दर्पात्लोभेन वा पुनः ।
राज्ञा दाप्यः सुवर्णं स्यात् तस्य स्तेयस्य निष्कृतिः ॥ २१३ ॥

yadi saṃsādhayet tat tu darpātlobhena vā punaḥ |
rājñā dāpyaḥ suvarṇaṃ syāt tasya steyasya niṣkṛtiḥ || 213 ||

If, through arrogance or greed, the man should seek to recover it, he should be made by the King to pay one gold-piece, as an expiation for that theft.—(213)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Seeking to recover it’—i.e., filing a suit before the King, with a view to recover it in the manner of a debt;—when, on being asked to pay back what he has already received, the man files an application before the King, saying ‘Having given the money to me he seeks to take it away from me’; the ‘recovering’ of the gift consisting, in this case, of its being confirmed.—This is done cither ‘through arrogance or greed’;—this describes the causes of the action mentioned before.

The penalty for the man who does this act shall be ‘one gold-piece’;—‘as an expiation for that theft’;—lest people think that the man, being regarded as a thief, should suffer the penalties prescribed for theft, the author has laid down the penalty as ‘one gold piece.’ And yet he has used the word ‘theft’ with a view to preclude the notion that the man is not a ‘thief,’ since what he has taken was given to him and he did not take it away himself. The meaning thus is that, though the man is a ‘thief,’ yet his punishment, as here laid down, shall consist of ‘one gold piece’ only, but in all other respects, he is to be treated as a ‘thief.’—(213)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Saṃsādhayet’—‘If he tries to enforce the fulfilment of the promise by a complaint before the king’ (Medhātithi);—if he tries to obtain the money forcibly or refuses to refund it’ (Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Govindarāja);—‘if he should withhold the repayment’ (Rāmacandra, who reads ‘Sandhārayet’);—‘if the man should really perform the act for which he had begged, then the man who had promised to pay, but did not pay, (or having paid, took it back), should be made to pay to him a Suvarṇa, by way of fine, for not fulfilling his promise’ (Nandana, who has been misrepresented by Hopkins).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 137), which explains the meaning to be—‘if, through annoyance or greed, he should accomplish the purpose (artham sādhayet
), then he should be fined by the king one Suvarṇa.’

It is quoted also in Aparārka (p. 782), which adds the following explanation:—‘If on being asked to refund, the man, through annoyance or greed, does not refund the money, but complain before the king with a view to establish the fact that the gift should not be taken back,—then he should be forced to refund the money’;—and in Kṛtyakalpataru (94a).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Arthaśāstra (p. 94).—‘If a gift is made under fright,—for fear of punishment, or blame or calamity,—the man accepting the gift should be punished as a thief;—so also one who offers and accepts a gift in anger for the injuring of a third person.’

(See texts under 212.)