Verse 8.289

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

चर्मचार्मिकभाण्डेषु काष्ठलोष्टमयेषु ।
मूल्यात् पञ्चगुणो दण्डः पुष्पमूलफलेषु च ॥ २८९ ॥

carmacārmikabhāṇḍeṣu kāṣṭhaloṣṭamayeṣu |
mūlyāt pañcaguṇo daṇḍaḥ puṣpamūlaphaleṣu ca || 289 ||

In the case or leather and leathern vessels, and in that of those made of wood or clay, the fine shall be five times their value; as also in the case of flowers, roots and fruits.—(289)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Between ‘carma’ and ‘cārmika’ we have the copulative compound, and between the compound thus formed and the term ‘bhāṇḍa’ we have the Determinate Compound. Or, there is Determinate Compound between ‘carma’ and ‘cārmika,’ and Copulative Compound between the compound thus formed and the term ‘bhāṇḍa.’

‘Leathern’ means made of leather; and ‘leathern vessels’ meant are the leather-bottle and such other articles.

‘Leather’—stands for the mere skin of the cow and other animals, not made into anything.

Or, the term ‘leathern vessel’ may stand for such vessels as are made of leather only, while ‘leathern vessel’ for those that are only bound up with leather.

Vessels ‘made of wood’—the mortar, the pestle, the board and so forth.

‘Clay’ is a form of earth, i.e., earth hardened into the form of stone; and vessels made of these are the cooking utensils, etc.

In the case of damage done to these ‘the fine shall be five times their price’; and the satisfaction of the owner has of course got to be brought about.—(289)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 352), which adds the following notes:—‘Cārmikam’, ‘shoes and other leather goods,’—some people explain that in the expressions ‘carmacārmikam’, the first ‘carma’ serves the purpose of making the meaning clearer,—‘kāṣṭhamayam’, the Prostha and such things,—‘loṣṭṛamayam’, the jar and such things,—the fine equal to five times the value of the flowers eta is one that has been laid down by Bṛhaspati also, but elsewhere Manu has laid down the fine to be hundred and more times the value of the flower etc.,—and these are to be reconciled by the view that the exact fine in each case is to be determined by the quality of the flower etc., damaged;—it has to be noted that the satisfaction of the injured party has to be seemed in these cases also.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 820).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.288-289)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.288.