Note on thieves and the history of stealing

Note: this text is extracted from Book V, chapter 24:

“Thereupon that chaplain departed with downcast countenance, having lost his wealth. For of what calamities is not the blinding of the mind with excessive greed the cause? And so those two rogues Śiva and Mādhava long remained there happy in having obtained the favour of the delighted king”

This is the first of several excellent “thieving” stories which appear in the Ocean of Story. The history of stealing plays a very important part in both fact and fiction in India. The “Art of Stealing in Hindu Fiction” has recently been treated by Bloomfield in two most entertaining and instructive papers, Amer. Joum. Phil., vol. xliv, part ii, pp. 97-133; part iii, pp. 193-229, 1923. I shall have occasion to refer to these again. The arch-thief of Hindu fiction is Mūladeva, whom Bloomfield identifies with Karṇīsuta, Goṇīputraka, Goṇikāputra and Goṇikāsuta. We shall meet him in the fifteenth vampire story, Chapter LXXXIX, in the “Story of the Magic Pill,” and also in the last story of the whole work. He is supposed to have written a famous manual of thievery entitled Steyaśāstra-pravartaka or Steyasūtra-pravartaka.

The science is regarded with the utmost seriousness, and thieving was regularly taught to a selected number of pupils, a high standard of mutual regard existing between teacher and pupil. See J. J. Meyer’s remarks on thieves’ practices in his introduction to Daśa Kumāra Charita, or The Story of the Ten Princes, p. 15 et seq.

Among the numerous extracts from thieving stories collected by Bloomfield, I will here quote a Tamil story, reported by De Rosairo in The Orientalist, vol. iii, p. 183. Apart from the excellence of the tale itself it affords a good parallel to the ascetic practices of the rogue Śiva in our text, showing to what a degree of risk and personal discomfort the expert thief must be prepared to go.

A king wishes to study the art of stealing, in order to mete out more perfect justice. His learned minister presents before him a notorious thief and pilferer. After the king has dismissed all attendants, he expresses his desire to become the thief s pupil. To his surprise, the thief pleads ignorance of the art of stealing, and asserts that he has been most unjustly accused. The king dismisses him, but on the next day misses his signet-ring off his ring-finger. The thief, though asserting his innocence, is condemned to be impaled upon a three-pronged stake. But the king, uneasy in his mind, disguises himself, and goes in the still of the night to the place of execution. As he comes near he hears the thief, in pitiful accents, address the Almighty Creator, pleading his innocence, and calling for vengeance from heaven on the head of him who had judged him so wrongly and pronounced so unjust and heavy a punishment. The king has the thief set free, but on the next morning the thief appears once more, and, with expressions of respect and civility, presents to his Majesty the lost signet-ring.

When asked to explain, the thief says:

“May it please your Majesty, I have the ring because I played my part with alacrity and decision. Should your Majesty wish to follow my profession, there would be no difficulty in doing so, if you could but behave as I did—namely, maintain a lie even when put to extreme trial. My behaviour is the first lesson in the art your Majesty is desirous of being taught.”

For the practices of modern thieves see Russell, Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces, vol. i, pp. 234, 248; vol. iv, pp. 190, 191, 472-474, 483-487, 606-608; and Kennedy, Criminal Classes of Bombay, 1908.— n.m.p.