The Social Organisation in North-East India in Buddha's Time c17: Chapter XI. Casteless Professions
The Social Organisation in North-East India in Buddha's Time c17
- Language
- English
Chapter XI. Casteless Professions
c17.2
But from these despised and shunned portions of the population the guilds of tradesmen and most of the manufacturers with which we have had hitherto to do, are far removed. Between these there is a multiform and chaotic society which resists more or less every attempt at classification and about which there can be no talk of an organisation according to castes in that age. To this belong the great number of manufacturers standing outside their corporation and exclusively in the service of the king—namely, contractors and artists, the wandering dancers and musicians who move from village to village, showing their skill, and the tramps who consider every means good which helps them to earn their livelihood, and further, the herdsmen, huntsmen and fishermen living in the country, in the forest and in mountains, and finally, the mass of labourers and slaves.
c17.3
In the lawbooks we find the rule that the kings could make the artisans work one day in the month for him;¹ the Jâtakas know nothing of this; on the other hand, artisans are mentioned who seem to have worked only for him. In the Kusa Jâtaka there appear three distinct artisans in the pay of the king in the following order: a court potter (râja-kumbhakâra V. 290)—we meet with one in the Cullakaseṭṭhi Jâtaka (I. 121), where it is described how he seeks on horseback to burn pots for the royal court—a basketmaker (râjupaṭṭhâka naḷakâra. V. 291) in the king's service and a court gardener (râjamâlakâra V. 292). The designation of these as "court purveyors" seems to me to refer to a special position which raises them above their otherwise low or even despised rank and makes improbable their being members of a corporation, in the same way as in the case of the barber working in the royal court whose occupation as barber ranked certainly among the lowest professions. This court barber was no unimportant person in the king's court, he sometimes even stands in friendly intercourse with his employer.¹ "Friend," (samma kappaka I. 137) so addresses the king in the Makhâdeva Jâtaka his barber, while asking the latter to inform him if he finds any grey hair on his head. The many small personal services for which people wanted him—as such there are mentioned in the introduction to the Sigâla Jâtaka (II. 5), shaving the beard, curling the hair, placing the dice-board in position, etc.—seem to have made him indispensable for the king, the royal ladies, the princes and princesses. Also the position of a court barber is sometimes described as highly lucrative: in the Makhâdeva Jâtaka it is narrated that the Videha king when he renounces worldly life gives a village to his barber which brought him 100,000 (satasahassuṭṭhānaṃ gāmavaraṃ. I. 138).
c17.4
¹ Manu VII. 138; X. 120.
c17.5
¹ Upâli, the barber of the Sakyas, seems in the Cullavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka (VII. 1. 4) to be a personal friend of the Sakyas. Cf. Oldenberg, Buddha, p. 158, Note.
c17.6
Even the king’s cook (rañño sûda V. 292) does not hold an insignificant position in the royal household, at least not in that of a king who was such a “gourmand” as King Bhojanasuddhika,¹ whose dinners cost, according to the description in the Dûta Jâtaka (II. 319), 100,000 every time and consisted of a hundred different dishes. Still in the Kusa Jâtaka, the occupation of a cook is described as one to be practised by slaves or hired labourers (dāsakammakarehi kattabbam. V. 293).
c17.7
¹ Literally, “one who is very particular, scrupulous with regard to eating.” Cf. the expression used in the Upasāḷha Jātaka (II. 54) of a Brāhmaṇa, namely, susānasuddhika, which signifies something like ,, scrupulous, superstitious with regard to the cremation ground.”
c17.8
A special office in the royal court was that of the estimator (agghakāraka. I. 124;
c17.9
agghâpanikaṭṭhâna. I. 126) whose work consisted in estimating the value of elephants, horses, precious stones, gold, etc., and in paying the owners of wares their proper price. In the Suppâraka Jâtaka the work of an estimator was given to a blind fisherman who exchanges his work for service in the Court. He determines as valuer the things which are most heavily taxed. Thus he knows by merely touching with the hand that a carriage which should serve the king as a State carriage is built with the wood of a perforated tree or that a costly garment is eaten by mice at one place; he receives, however, from the king only eight kahâpaṇas for every valuation. Not willing to accept a payment which according to him is suitable for a barber (imassa dâyo nahâpitadâyo. IV. 138), he leaves the service of the king and returns to his fisherman’s village.
c17.10
Besides the men who had to look to the daily needs of the king and his Court, a whole army of skilled men of every kind surrounded the person of the king in the courts of the powerful princes of that time. Thus, we come across musicians (gandhabba I. 384; II. 250), dancers and singers (nâṭaka IV. 324; naccagîtâdisu kusalâ, II. 227); elephant tamers (haṭṭâcariya, II. 221) and archers (dhanuggaha, II. 87; V.
c17.11
128). Whilst, moreover, these skilled men in ancient India, as we shall see, were of little respectability and the arts practised by them were mostly unprofitable, the artists in the service of the king did not seem to have been from the pecuniary point of view in a bad way. An archer demands from the king an annual salary of 100,000 (ekasaṃvaccharena satasahassam, II. 87). The king agrees to this; on the other hand, the old archers (porāṇaka-dhanuggaha) consider the salary too high. Still better paid is another dhanuggaha; he receives daily 1,000 (devasikaṃ sahassam labhitvā rājānaṃ upaṭṭhahi, V. 128) and incurs in this way the displeasure of the rest of the king’s servants. These figures, though, as everywhere in Indian sources, bad as a statistical material, point to a respectable and lucrative profession. Probably the archer was entitled to high salaries, as he could render the king valuable services, whether in hunting or in war.
c17.12
About the salaries of the other Court artists there are found in the Jātakas only a few general statements. An old musician (gandhabba) informs the king that his pupil wants to serve him and adds, “Fix the nature of the salary” (deyyadhammam assa jānātha, II. 250), to which the king replies, “He shall get one-half of your salary.” To this the pupil, however, does not agree; he demands equal salary, as he knows his art quite as well as his teacher. A musical tournament ordered by the king ends the matter in this way, that the vanquished scholar at a sign from the king was belaboured with stones and clubs and killed, whilst the teacher receives much money from the king and the residents.
c17.13
Similarly in the Upâhana Jâtaka mention is made of a pupil of an elephant tamer (hatthâcariya, II. 221) who demands the same salary as his teacher. The king announces by beat of drum, “To-morrow a teacher and his pupil will both exhibit their skill in elephant-taming; who wants to see must come to the palace.” The night before the performance, the teacher instructs the elephant to commit all kinds of mistakes, so that when given the order “Go forward,” it goes backwards, and when ordered to go backwards, it goes forward, etc. The consequence is, that next day, as the elephant does the reverse of what it is ordered to do by the pupil, the angry crowd kills him by throwing stones and beating him with sticks.
c17.14
That many of the artists mentioned here, especially, the archers, belong as much to the class of “Court people” as, for example, the executioner or the gate-keeper, I do not consider impossible.
c17.15
Like the latter, they were paid by the king; like these they were attached to the king's service which they could not quit against the wish of their master. Whoever among them—like the court barber in the Gaṅgamâla Jâtaka—wants to lead the homeless life, must get the permission of the king (râjânaṃ pabbajjaṃ anujânâpetva, III. 452). But they are distinguished from the râjabhoggas or râjaññas, by which I understand only the "royal officers," by their purely private character. They hold no public position and their work is confined to personal service which they render to the king and his family.
c17.16
On account of the comparatively great respectability and the high salary which the Court artists enjoyed, the effort of most of the artists was to get into the king's service; as, however, this fell to the lot of only a very few, others tried to serve under rich private persons. Very often we meet with artists in the service of young tradesmen whom they help, along with other parasites, to squander their paternal property: jumpers, runners, singers, dancers, etc., receive each one of 1,000 from the squandering and pleasure-seeking seṭṭhi's son (laṅghanadhâvanagîtanaccâdîni karontânaṃ sahassaṃ dadamâno, II. 431) and make him in a short time a beggar. In contrast with these parasitic artists, there were many who earned their bread with difficulty by catering for the amusement of people at festivities. We read of a dancer (naṭa III. 507) who lives in a village not far from Benares and goes with his wife into the town, where he gets money through dancing and singing which accompanies his lyre (vīṇā). As, however, such festivities, in spite of their frequency, formed only an occasional break in their daily life, the dancers led at other times a thoroughly miserable life, as did the dancing family (naṭakakula, II. 167) in the Ucchiṭṭhabhatta Jātaka in which the Bodhisatta was reborn. This family maintained itself by begging and even the Bodhisatta had no other way of earning a livelihood than through alms.
c17.17
It seems to me that by this naṭa or naṭaka we are not to understand actors, as in later times, for in our text dramatic performances are nowhere described. A sort of pantomime which is performed by two dancers is no doubt described; probably, in this we are to look for a fore-runner of the later Indian drama. "At that time there were"—so it is narrated in the Suruci Jātaka (IV. 324)—"two skilled dancers, named 'Dull ear' and 'White ear'; they tried to make the king laugh. One of these, 'Dull ear,' set up at the gate of the palace a big tree called Atula, threw a ball of rope and climbed, after attaching the rope to a branch of the tree, the Atulamba tree with the help of the rope. The tree of Vessavaṇa¹ is also called Atulamba. Now the servants of Vessavaṇa arrested him, hacked his body to pieces and let these pieces fall. The other dancers joined the pieces together and sprinkled them with water, upon which the dancer revived and danced in a garment of flowers. The other dancer, ‘White ear’ set up a funeral pyre and went with his followers into the fire. When he disappeared and the funeral pyre was burnt out, people sprinkled water upon the ashes. On this, the dancer rose with his followers and danced, decked in a garment of flowers.”
c17.18
¹ Skr. Vaiśravaṇa, patronymic of Kubera.
c17.19
If the dances described here are more than a creation of the narrator’s fancy, jugglery must have reached in ancient India a comparatively high stage, as their explanation can only be sought in mirrors which give the spectator the illusion of a person climbing the rope or going into the fire. That the concave mirror, this most important instrument in modern magic, was known in ancient India, is in itself undoubtedly highly improbable. Still a passage in Śaṅkara’s commentary on the Vedānta,² where reference is made to jugglery exactly similar to the first trick in our text, presupposes likewise the use of a mirror; "The highest God"—so runs the passage—"is only as much different from the acting and enjoying individual called Vijñánátman, created by ignorance, as the magician climbing a rope with shield and sword is different from the same magician really standing on the ground."
c17.20
² Quoted by Deussen, System des Vedanta, p. 322.
c17.21
It is in an illusion of the spectator that probably the trick of the sword-eater consists, of whom it is narrated in the Daṣaṇṇaka Jātaka that he swallows a sword thirty-three feet long and having a sharp edge.
c17.22
We make the acquaintance of a special kind of dancers in the "jumpers," the langhananaṭaka of the Dubbaca Jātaka, namely, an acrobat who knows how to jump over a number of lances sunk in the ground and placed one behind the other. The Boddhisatta who is born in an acrobat family, learns from a naṭaka the art of jumping and tours with his teacher exhibiting his art. "His teacher, however"—so it is said further (I. 430) —"knew how to jump over four lances, not over five." Now one day he appeared in a village and placed, while he was drunk, five lances on the ground, one behind the other, with the intention of jumping over them. Then the Boddhisatta said, "You don't know the art of jumping over five lances, my teacher; take away one lance, for if you try to leap over the five lances, you will be pierced by the fifth lance and die." "You don't know what I can do," answered the teacher in a drunken fit, and leaps, without paying heed to his pupil's words, over the four but is fixed by the fifth, as the madhuka¹ flower is fixed on its stem, and falls to the ground crying loudly."
c17.23
¹ Bassia latifolia.
c17.24
In the same category of touring jugglers who exhibit their art in the court of princes or in festivities for the entertainment of the people, the snake charmers (ahiguṇṭhika) of our text are to be placed. Of such an ahiguṇṭhika it is said in the Sâlaka Jâtaka (II. 267), that he has trained an ape to which he has given an antidote² and which he then allows to play with a snake and that in this way he earns a livelihood. Another snake charmer has likewise trained an ape; when a festival (ussava) is announced, he keeps it in the house of a grain merchant, travels seven days and then lets his snakes play (ahiṃ kīḷāpento). (III. 198).
c17.25
² Osadha = Skr. aushadha, herb, medicine. It appears that in ancient times the snake tamers used to make themselves and the animals which they allowed to play with the snakes proof against snake-bite through some plant juice. On the other hand, the practice, so common among Indian snake-charmers to-day, of extracting the poison teeth, was introduced later. This is only mentioned in the paccuppannavatthu, namely, in the introduction to the Mûlapariyâya Jâtaka, where the monks whose pride Buddha curbs, are compared to snakes whose teeth have been extracted (uddhaṭadâṭhâ viya sappâ II. 259).
c17.26
At such exhibitions and popular festivals in ancient India, music was not wanting: either the dancers themselves made singing and playing on the lute accompany their dances or there came professional musicians to the festivals, in order to practise their art for money. Instruments, mostly very primitive, on which in India even to-day jugglers play as an accompaniment of their dances and skilful performances,¹ were to some extent in existence at that time: besides the lute (vīṇā), we find the drum (bheri) and the conch (saṅkha) mentioned in our text. A drummer (bherivādaka I. 283), who, as mentioned in the Bheri Jātaka, lives in a village, goes with his son to the city, as he hears that in Benares a festival (nakkhatta) is announced, in order to play here on the drum in the circle of those who take part in the festival; he acquires by his play a good deal of money. The same is said in somewhat different words in the Saṅkhadhamana Jātaka of a conch-blower (saṅkhadhamaka, I. 284).
c17.27
¹ Cf. Schlagintweit, Indien in Wort und Bild, 2nd Edn., Vol. II., p. 174.
c17.28
As there were drummers and conch-blowers in the king's service—edicts of the king, announcements of public sports, execution, etc., were made known in the city by beat of drum or by the blowing of the conch—and others who played on their instruments at popular festivals, so we find, along with the already-mentioned court musicians, also some who were employed by private persons on festive occasions. Tradesmen of Benares who come to Ujjenî on a business tour make an appointment and come to a place of amusement, carrying with them garlands, perfumery, ointment, food and drink. Then they fetch a musician and that the best (jeṭṭha-gandhabba) in Ujjenî (te tam pakkosâpetvâ attano gandhabbam kâresum II. 249). As the tradesmen, accustomed to the performance of the court musicians of Benares, are not satisfied with his work, he returns the reward paid him and travels with them to Benares. Here he becomes the pupil of the old court musician and meets with a sorry end in the way already described.
c17.29
That in these artists, as described in the Jâtakas, we have something similar to castelike organisation, is obviously highly improbable. And still these professions in course of time developed into castes: in Manu we find naṭa mentioned among the mixed castes, the forerunners of the modern naṭas or naṭakas who wander in the villages of Hindustan as jugglers, buffoons, actors, acrobats, snakecharmers and exhibit their skill for money or for presents.¹ A tendency towards organisation, towards combination based upon a common profession, as we, I believe, can assume, is present in ancient times even among these classes of Indian people; as proof of this we have the oft-mentioned circumstance that professions were hereditary in artist families: we have already made the acquaintance of a dancer family (naṭakakula), of a drummer or conch-blower family (bherivâdākakula I. 283; saṅkhadhamakakula, I. 284); the son of an elephant-tamer (hatthâcariya, II. 221) practises the art of his father, and the son of an acrobat learns the art of jumping (laṅghanasippaṃ sikkhitvā I. 430). To this add that these professions were very little respectable and that in consequence, people compelled men who earned their livelihood by the practice of these, probably to live outside the city; thus it is said of a dancer, as well as of a drummer who goes to Benares for a festival, that he lives in a village not far from Benares. Nevertheless, these artists, at any rate, in ancient times, lacked all essential conditions for the formation of a caste: neither the feeling of race-community—a factor which is of great importance in the formation of the despised castes—nor the need of external organisation could cause them to be formed into a close corporation; rather compelled by their profession to restless wandering, necessity made them seek such other means of earning money as opportunity offered.
c17.30
¹ Nesfield, Caste System p. 6.
c17.31
Often the life of such touring people was spent in the manner, described in the Tittira Jâtaka (III. 541) :
c17.32
“He has (as porter of the tradesmen) wandered in Kâlinga kingdom, he has engaged in trade, stick in hand, he walks over the country road.¹ With dancers he has wandered with hunters; with sticks he has fought with the crowd.
c17.33
¹ Saṅkupatha? lit., “a path studded with nails.”
c17.34
“He has caught birds, he has measured (corn) with the *âlhaka* measure, he has (at a dice-game, with regard to false players) removed the dice, he has transgressed² the moral laws, he has staunched the blood of (the punished),³ his
c17.35
² Samyamo abbhatīto is explained by the commentator with the words: *jīvikavuttim nissāya pabbajanteṅeva sīlasamyamo atikkanto*, “inasmuch as for earning a livelihood he embraced the homeless condition, he transgressed the moral prescriptions.”
c17.36
³ Abbūhitaṃ pupphakaṃ aḍḍharattaṃ. The commentator adds by way of explanation: “To earn a livelihood he brought criminals whose hands and feet were chopped, to a hall and returning at about
c17.37
hands are burnt by taking hot food (during begging).”
c17.38
Here is given us in a brief form the picture of the life of an Indian tramp and of the sphere in which his destiny unfolded itself: dancers, hunters, club-fighters, players—this is the society in which the adventurous period of his life is spent. Finally, after trying all possible occupations he earns his living by begging as a fraudulent ascetic (duṭṭha-tāpasa).
c17.39
Although more settled than these wandering occupations, the rural professions of herdsmen, huntsmen, fishermen do not seem in ancient times to have come under the organisation of caste, as, on account of their work, they inclined more towards a solitary life. Only when we see them in great number in the town or united into a village community can we suppose the existence of organisations similar, for example, to those of the artisans. In a sea-port town (paṭṭanagāma. IV. 137) the son of an elder among the fishermen after the death of his father steps into his shoes. He becomes blind, however, later, and takes to the service
c17.40
midnight, he stopped the blood flowing out of the wounds with kuṇḍaka (the red powder, which is found in the rice corn under the husk) and smoke.”
c17.41
of the king, as he cannot any more follow the occupation of a fisherman, although he, as mentioned in the passage of the Suppâraka Jâtaka in question, “was the elder among the fishermen.”
c17.42
Noteworthy as an example of the fact that the thorough-going division of work characteristic of the social life of India of to-day is a factor of ancient origin, is the circumstance that the different designations of fishermen appear to coincide with the names of modern fishermen castes and point to this, that even at that time there were special branches in the profession of fishermen whose work was so precisely defined. Thus, the fishermen with nets and baskets (jâlakuminâdini khipitvâ macche gaṇhanti, I. 427) were called Kevattas¹ (II. 178, 124); the angling fishermen were called bâlisika (I. 482; III. 52) on account of their fishing pole (balisa).
c17.43
¹ = Skr. kaivarta, by which, as we saw above, in the Brahmanical system, a certain mixed caste is understood. Kewat is even in these days a name of a class of fishermen. Cf. Nesfield, Caste System, p. 9.
c17.44
Also among hunters we find this moment of division of work which surely must have become important in the later development of the castes: the huntsman pursuing the deer is called migaluddaka (III. 49, 184) or simply, luddaka; a bird-hunter (sakuṇaluddaka, II. 161) we come across in the Kakkara Jâtaka, nay, even a quail-catcher (vaṭṭakaluddaka, I. 208) is represented. In the Kuruṅgamiga Jātaka (I. 173) a gāmavāsiyaṭṭakaluddaka is mentioned, i.e., a hunter living in the village who prepares an ambush in tall trees under which he has noticed traces of the deer and from there kills the animal.
c17.45
Much less than in the case of the casteless professions hitherto treated, is mention made of an external co-ordination or any organisation whatever in the case of the serving classes, as they were composed of all possible elements of the population differing in point of race and professional work. He who suffered shipwreck in the struggle with the waves of life and was rendered poor must have been forced even at that time—whatever might be his descent—to win his bread by service. We read of a poor gahapati who supports himself and his mother by working as a hired labourer (bhatiṃ katvā III. 325); he complains that he earns only one or half a māsaka¹ and that his mother can with difficulty be supported. The three Brāhmaṇa daughters of the Suvaṇṇahaṃsa Jātaka have, as their supporter is dead, to serve in other families and pass their days in trouble (paresam bhatiṃ katvâ kicchena jîvanti, I. 475). Of course, these members of the aristocratic castes formed a small fragment of the serving classes; the majority was formed by the classes of the population in whom the profession of a hired labourer was as much hereditary as the poverty connected with it. The Bodhisatta, re-born in a poor family (daḷiddakula), as described in the Kummâsapinḍa Jâtaka, works, when he is grown-up, for money at a *setthi's* and maintains his livelihood in this way (III. 409; similarly, III. 444). The payment which falls to the lot of the day-labourers seems, according to the Jâtakas, to be so miserable as to be hardly sufficient to enable them to eke out their livelihood. As the *gaha-pati* through his paid works earns no more than one or half a *mâsaka*, so also it is said of a *bhataka* who supports himself by carrying water (udakabhatim katvâ III. 446) that he has saved half a *mâsaka*. With such a low pay and owing to the impossibility of gaining access to any higher profession, the possibility seems to be wholly excluded—and in this it has a certain resemblance with a caste—of the Indian hired labourer emerging out of his miserable position: born and bred in poverty, he bore his sad lot as a nature-necessity in order to leave it to his children as a legacy.
c17.46
¹ = Skr. mâshaka, a coin of small value.
c17.47
Those day-labourers enjoyed a comparatively favourable position who were in the service of one and the same employer for a long time or permanently. Every big land-owner, every rich tradesman had, according to the Jâtakas, along with his slaves, a number of day-labourers in his service. One's own people (attano purisâ), the bondsmen, to whom in the Sâlikedâra Jâtaka (IV. 277) the Brâhmaṇa gives a portion of the rice fields for guarding, are contrasted with the bhataka who gets a salary (bhati) for watching and who is held responsible for any damage and has to pay a compensation according to the appraisement of the owner (brâhmaṇo sâliṃ agghâpetvâ mayhaṃ iṇaṃ karissati). In the house of the pious Brâhmaṇa Dhammapâla even the slaves and labourers (dâsakammakarâ IV. 50) give alms; they obey the moral prescriptions and observe the fasts. That in the Visayha Jâtaka the slaves and day-labourers (dâsakammakaraporisa) are reckoned among the property of a seṭṭhi has already been mentioned (p. 262). Of another seṭṭhi, it is narrated in the introduction to the Mayhaka Jâtaka, that at the sight of a begging monk whom he sees coming with a full alms pot from his house, he cannot restrain his thoughts: "If my slaves or labourers (dâsâ vâ kammakârâ vâ III. 300) had received this food, they would have done more difficult work ; alas, this is really a loss for me.”
c17.48
According to the Gaṅgamâla Jâtaka, these labourers were taken care of in the house of their master ; they did not, however, live there but went to their lodgings in the evening (sabbe attano attano vasanaṭṭhânâni gatâ III. 445). Probably these were, like the residences of poor people generally, outside the city. The already-mentioned water-carrier lived with a poor woman who likewise supports herself by carrying water, at the northern gate of Benares. “Living by the side of the gate” signified apparently something like “poor, lowly.” “I am the daughter of one living by the side of the gate” (dhîtâ dvâravasinô V. 441), says the poor girl in the Kuṇâla Jâtaka to the king in reply to his question whose daughter she is.
c17.49
If now the position of these hired labourers was in no respect enviable, they still enjoyed a certain freedom, as they in all probability could change their masters when they liked. On the other hand, the slaves (dâsa) had absolutely no freedom ; they were, just like the cow, devoid of any rights and were absolutely at the mercy of their masters.
c17.50
In Manu (VIII. 415), seven kinds of slaves are enumerated : those who are captured in the field (during war) (dhvajâhṛita), those who serve in return for maintenance (bhaktadāsa) those that are born in the house (gṛhaja), those that are bought (krīta), those that are received as gifts (datrima) those that are inherited from the father (paitrika) and those that are made slaves by way of punishment (daṇḍadāsa). If we exclude the bhaktadāsa as not belonging properly to the class of bondsmen and also the daṇḍadāsa, there remain four classes which reduce to the three mentioned in the Vinaya Piṭaka (Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga, Saṅghādisesa I. 2. 1), as we can put "those that are born in the house" and "those inherited from father" on one side and "those acquired by gift or purchase" on the other. Here these classes are distinguished: those that are born in the house, those that are bought with money and those that are captured in a war (dāso nāma anto jāto dhanakkito karamarānito). That the daṇḍadāsa mentioned by Manu in the last sentence is not mentioned here, must seem strange, as we have in the Jātakas an example of a slave robbed of his freedom as a punishment. The village superintendent (gāmabhojaka) of the Kulāvaka Jātaka, who has spoken ill of the inhabitants of the village before the king, is condemned to lose not only his property but also his freedom: the king makes him the slave of the village inhabitants (taṃ ca tesañ ñeva dāsaṃ katvâ I. 200). We also find "those that are acquired by purchase" and "those that are born in the house" represented in our text. A Brâhmaṇa is sent by his careless wife who pretends to be unable to do household work, to beg money that she may have a female slave (dâsî). The Brâhmaṇa begs 700 kahâpaṇas, a sum which he considers sufficient for buying a female or male slave (alam me ettakam dhanam dâsi-dâsamûlâya III. 343). The fraudulent slave Kaṭâhaka who deserts his master and whom we already know (p. 170), is "a slave born in the house"; he is born on the same day as the son of his master, a seṭṭhi of Benares, and is educated along with him. Of slaves captured in war, from which class in the oldest times the slaves were probably exclusively recruited, no mention is made in the Jâtakas; at least in the passages of our source which tell us of wars between neighbouring kings, no mention is made of prisoners of war; only of robbers (paccanta-vâsino corâ) it is mentioned in the Cullanârada Jâtaka that they plunder a village and capture its inhabitants and make them slaves (karamare gahetvâ IV. 220).
c17.51
Owing to the complete absence of legal rights of the slaves, their work differed with the individual temperament of their master.
c17.52
Sometimes in our source the relation in which the slaves stood to their master is represented as a familiar one and their treatment as quite humane. The family of the Brâhmaṇa agriculturist in the Uraga Jātaka consists of six members; the Brâhmaṇa, his wife, his son, his daughter, his daughter-in-law and the female slave. "They all"—so it is said further (III. 162)—"lived together in harmony and amity." As, however, the son of the Brâhmaṇa dies and is burnt without a tear and without a moan, Sakka, disquieted by such conduct and forced to quit his heavenly seat, asks the slave, "My daughter, in what relation did you stand to this." "He was my master!" "Surely, he has at times molested and oppressed you and therefore you are glad at his death and do not weep." "O lord, don't speak so, never saw anybody like him; patient, loving, sympathetic was the son of my master and loved me as a child reared on the breast." To a similar familiar relationship between the female slave and the master, the Nânacchanda Jātaka (II. 428) also points; the purohita whom the king asks to demand a favour, asks, besides the members of his household, also the slave Puṇṇâ¹ what her desire is. And the slave desires, humble as she is, a mortar, a pestle and a sieve.¹
c17.53
¹ Probably, a shortened form of puṇṇamamanathiâ, "one whose desire is fulfilled, the contented."
c17.54
¹ Udukkhalamusalañ c'eva suppañ ca. II. 428. All the three implements the slave obviously used for crushing and winn wing rice. Also the slave Rohini of the Rohini Jātaka uses the mortar for pressing rice (vihipharaṇa, I. 248).
c17.55
All the same, the examples quoted do not justify our inferring a specially favourable position for the slaves of ancient India; other passages of our text speak clearly of the miserable lot of the bondsmen who frequently had to put up with thrashing, imprisonment and bad food. For this reason, the slave Kaṭāhaka, who has learnt to read and write along with the son of the family and who is otherwise clever and knows the art of speaking, discharges the duties of a store-keeper (bhaṇḍāgārika), but is afraid lest he should lose one day this office. "Not always," he reflects within himself, "will one care to let me have the office of a store-keeper; one good day some defect will be noticed in me and then people will thrash me, lock me up, brand me and give me the food of a slave to eat" (tāḷetvā bandhitvā lakkhaṇena aṅketvā dāsaparibhogena pi paribhuñjissanti I. 451). A female slave, who is sent by her master to work at other people's place for money, is thrown into a corner of the house and struck with a stick, as she cannot bring any money back to the house (I. 402).
c17.56
The work which the slaves had to do was naturally extremely manifold and differed with the social position of the master and the intelligence of the slave. Many might be employed, like the slave Kaṭāhaka, in higher employments, like those of the store-keeper, treasurer or private secretary; as a rule, however, the work of the slaves was of a lower nature. The slave Piṅgalā in the Silāvimamsa Jātaka (III. 101) before she can go to a rendezvous must wash the feet of her master; only when he is tranquillised does she sit on the door-sill and await his pleasure. With considerable detail the duties of a slave are described in the Kaṭāhaka Jātaka. The slave Kaṭāhaka who gives himself out as the son of his master and marries the daughter of a Seṭṭhi friendly to his master, hears that his master has gone to the country and is afraid that he may come to him. He resolves to meet him and propitiate him by doing a slave's work (dāsakammam katvā I. 452). Everywhere he explains loudly how little respect other young people show to their parents, as they sit at the same table with them, instead of serving them; he himself would, when his elders took their meals, set before them the dishes, place the spitoons in their position, take particular care of their drink and stand behind them with a brush; up to the most common performances.
c17.57
he enumerates all services which a slave must render to his master (yâva sarîravalañjanakâle udakalasam âdâya paṭicchannaṭṭhânagamanâ sabbam dâsehi sâmikânam kattabbakiccam pakâsesi I. 453).
c17.58
On account of the lowness of such services, the slave himself was considered of little worth by a master who treated him humanely. The female slave Puṇṇâ receives from her master, the purohita, who asks her what she wishes, the epithet jammî “ the low, contemptible.” “ Son of a slave ” (dâsiputtra) was a term of reproach; when in the Nigrodha Jâtaka (IV. 41) the senâpati is informed that his friend is there, he comes in angrily and cries, “ Who is that friend? He is a despised son of a slave. Throw him out!” “ Servant of a slave’s son ” (dâsiputtaceṭaka I. 225)—so addresses in the Nanda Jâtaka the bold slave his master.
c17.59
In spite of their low status the slaves occupied in Indian society a different position from that of the despised castes who will occupy our attention in the next chapter. They could not, like the latter, be regarded as impure, because their work brought them constantly into close contact with their master whom they helped to dress and undress and assisted in the care of their body, whose food they prepared and whom they served at dinner. As they lived together with the families to which they belonged, they lacked the local isolation and external combination of the despised castes; they were, in consequence of this, as little a "caste" as the slaves of the Greeks and Romans, in whom we find the same categories and similar relations, so far as conduct and legal position are concerned. Also the Indian slaves resembled those of the ancient classical ages in this, that under certain circumstances they could obtain freedom. We read of such "freed slaves" in the Sona-Nanda Jâtaka; as the rich Brâhmaṇa renounces the world, he disposes of his property and sets his slaves free (dâsajanam bhujissam katvâ V. 313). It is true, according to Manu (VIII. 414), a Sûdra, even when he is set free by his master, is not released from his condition of slavery: "for who can take away that which is in-born in him?" Still the view expressed here is only a consequence of the Brahmanical system which in practice did not have much importance. In reality, a slave set free—proof of this is not, however, to be got from the Jâtakas—probably either served as a day-labourer or adopted some other profession, for which he possessed the means or the skill.
Linked texts (3)
- Jātaka — Pāli
- Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
- Vinayapiṭaka — Pāli