The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c21.42

v1.c21.42

We have seen that the Gṛihya Sūtras practically recognise life only as lived in villages. In the Dharma Sūtras, as these are later and have to do with wider relations, the town (*pur*, *nagara*), appears as a larger unit, though how much larger it is not easy to say; and when we remember that *pur* is after all only a stronghold or fort, and *nagara* is anything larger than a village, we must be cautious of too ready belief in large cities. Everything indicates on the contrary that life was still chiefly that of small places and kings were only petty chieftains. There was not supposed to be any school or even studying done in town. The Dharma Sūtra of Gautama, regarded as the oldest of extant Dharma Sūtras, says expressly that one should not recite the holy texts at any time in a town; and it is assumed, as in the Gṛihya Sūtras, that such life as is described passes normally in villages. Even in the description of the royal residence (*v. inf.* p. 247), the hall has a thatched roof. The king still stands up *in propria persona* and hits a thief with a cudgel; and, if the king fails to strike, the 'guilt falls on the king' (Gaut., *Dh.S.*, XII, 43). The commentators, apparently aware of the incongruity in applying such a rule to the kings of their day, attempt to restrict its application as intended for specially evil thieves (of gold); but it is in fact a general rule even as late as Āpastamba (*Dh.S.*, I, 25, 4), who says: 'A thief shall loosen his hair and appear before the king carrying a cudgel on his shoulder. With that (cudgel) he (the king) shall smite him; if he dies his sin is expiated, but, if the king forgives him, the guilt falls on him who forgives; or he (the thief) may throw himself into a fire or die by starvation.' Thus the later author seeks to excuse the king (but not the thief).