Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi

by Ganganatha Jha | 1920 | 1,381,940 words | ISBN-10: 8120811550 | ISBN-13: 9788120811553

This is the English translation of the Manusmriti, which is a collection of Sanskrit verses dealing with ‘Dharma’, a collective name for human purpose, their duties and the law. Various topics will be dealt with, but this volume of the series includes 12 discourses (adhyaya). The commentary on this text by Medhatithi elaborately explains various t...

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

अकन्येति तु यः कन्यां ब्रूयाद् द्वेषेण मानवः ।
स शतं प्राप्नुयाद् दण्डं तस्या दोषमदर्शयन् ॥ २२५ ॥

akanyeti tu yaḥ kanyāṃ brūyād dveṣeṇa mānavaḥ |
sa śataṃ prāpnuyād daṇḍaṃ tasyā doṣamadarśayan || 225 ||

If a man, through malice, speaks of a maiden as ‘not a virgin’ he should receive the punishment of one hundred, if unable to prove her impurity.—(225)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Not a virgin’ —i.e., one who has already had sexual intercourse. If a man speaks of a maiden as such, but is unable to prove her guilt, he should he fined one hundred coins.

Others have held the view that, in view of the fact that the penalty prescribed is too small in comparison with the serious nature of the defamation, the text should he taken as referring to the actual utterance of the exact words ‘not a virgin;’ specially as we cannot get over the significance of the particle ‘iti,’ (‘as’);—the sense thus being that the man is to be fined one hundred, only when ho actually defames the maiden as a ‘non-maiden.’

“What difference does this make?”

The explanation is as follows:—When the man defames the maiden as a ‘non-virgin,’ if he is asked—‘How is she a non-virgin?’—and he replies—‘she is immodest, cruel, and prone to using obscene language,—all which is not proper for virgins,’—hut cannot prove it, then it is that he is to be fined only one hundred,—i.e., when all that he alleges is the absence in the girl of such qualities as should he present in all maidens (and does not accuse her of having actually lost her virginity).

Or, the term ‘virgin’ may he taken as denoting juniority of age; and the meaning of the text explained as follows:—When a man is seeking a certain girl in marriage, if some one should come and tell him behind the back of the girl’s relations—‘that girl is not a maiden, she is too young—or too old,’—then the guardian of the girl complains to the king—‘my girl is extremely handsome and this man is maligning her to the prospective bridegroom, because he is himself desirous of having her’; thereupon if the defamer is proved guilty,—as he is, when he is found to have made the allegations when the girl was actually of the right age,—then he is fined ‘one hundred.’—(225)

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Yājñavaklya (1.66).—‘If the bridegroom relinquishes the bride when she has no defects, he should he punished; and if he falsely accuses her of defects, he should he lined a hundred.’

Viṣṇu (5.47; Aparārka, p. 96).—‘If one speaks of a blemishless girl as having a blemish, he should be fined the highest amercement..’

Nārada (12.3).—‘The selection of the bride loses its binding force when a blemish is subsequently discovered in her.’

Do. (12.31).—‘Let no man calumniate a faultless maiden; neither must one calumniate a faultless suitor. When however, there is an actual defect, it is no offence if they dissolve their mutual agreement.’

Do. (12.34-36).—‘When a man, from hatred, declares a maiden to have lost her virginity, he shall pay 100 Paṇas as tine, unless he is able to give proofs of her disgrace. When a man, after having plighted his faith to a maiden, abandons her although she is faultless, he shall be fined and made to marry the maiden, even against his will. Affliction with a chronic or hateful disease, deformity, loss of virginity,—these are declared to be the defects of a maiden.’

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: