Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Shudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c13: Chapter VII: Peasanthood and Religious Rights

Śūdras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order down to circa A.D. 600 c13

Language
English

Chapter VII: Peasanthood and Religious Rights

c13.1

(circa A.D. 300—600)

c13.2

The Smṛtis of Viṣṇu, Yājñavalkya, Nārada, Bṛhaspati and Kātyāyana¹ constitute the main source for the study of the position of the śūdras in this period. Of these the *Yājñavalkya* seems to have been the most important because of the authority it came to enjoy in Northern India in subsequent times. Perhaps its provisions reflect more faithfully than do the other Smṛtis the developments in society during the Gupta period. This law-book either undoes or ignores the extremist measures of Manu against the śūdras, and provides the punishment of branding and banishing even for the brāhmaṇas.²

c13.3

¹ Kane gives the following dates for these Smṛtis: *Viṣṇu* A.D. 100-300, *Yājñavalkya* A.D. 100-300. *Nārada* A.D. 100-400, *Bṛhaspati* A.D. 300-500, *Kātyāyana* A.D. 400-600. *Hist. Dh. S.*, ii, pt. I. p. XI. Although *Viṣṇu* and *Yāj.* seem to be earlier, roughly all these law-books can be treated as authorities for the Gupta period.

c13.4

² *Yāj.*, II. 270; *Viṣṇu*, V.

c13.5

We can only guess the regions to which the lawgivers belonged. Yājñavalkya probably flourished in Mithilā,³ and Nārada seems to have been from Nepāl.⁴ Other lawgivers also may have lived in the north, and hence their works reflect the conditions obtaining mainly in Northern India.

c13.6

³ Hopkins thinks that this is scarcely possible to be true of *Yāj.* (*Mutual Relations of the Four Castes in Manu*, p. 31), but this is consistent with *Yāj.*'s popular attitude in several matters.

c13.7

³ Hopkins, *CHI*, i, 279.

c13.8

⁴ *Ibid.*, 280.

c13.9

These Smṛtis expand the texts of the Dharmasūtras, and in many cases reproduce the verses of Manu.⁵ New information can be obtained only from the variants, which do not always have direct bearing on the subject of our study.

c13.10

⁵ In its original form the *Bṛhaspati Smṛti* may have been read as a running commentary on Manu's Code. *GOS*. No. LXXV, Introd., p. 118.

c13.11

The information gleaned from the Smṛtis is sometimes corroborated and supplemented by the Smṛti sections of the *Mahābhārata* and the Purāṇas. Hopkins holds that masses of didactic matter were intruded into the epic between 200 B.C. and A.D. 200.¹ This seems to be true of several verses of the *Śānti Parvan*, which are exactly similar to those in Manu. But variants in the *Śānti Parvan* and the *Anuśāsana Parvan* seem to be more in line with the Smṛti sections of the Purāṇas, which belong to a later period. Hopkins himself thinks that the swollen *Anuśāsana Parvan* was separated from the *Śānti* and recognised as a separate book in the period A.D. 200-400.² There is no reference to the Smṛti contents of the Purāṇas in the pre-Christian era.³ The chapters dealing with the duties of the varṇas in the *Viṣṇu*,⁴ the *Mārkaṇḍeya*,⁵ the *Bhaviṣya*,⁶ and the *Bhāgavata*⁷ Purāṇas may be roughly assigned to the Gupta period.

c13.12

¹ Hopkins, *The Great Epic of India*, pp. 397-98.

c13.13

² Ibid., Cf. CIII, i, 258.

c13.14

³ Hazra, *Purāṇic Records on Hindu Rites aud Customs*, p. 5.

c13.15

⁴ Ibid., p. 175.

c13.16

⁵ Ibid., p. 174.

c13.17

⁶ Ibid., p. 188.

c13.18

⁷ Probably the first half of the sixth century A.D. *Ibid.*, p. 177.

c13.19

A characteristic feature of the Smṛti writings of this period is their Vaiṣṇavite leanings. This is noticeable particularly in the *Viṣṇu Smṛti*, the *Bṛhaspati Smṛti*,⁸ the *Viṣṇu Purāṇa*,⁹ and the *Matsya Purāṇa*.¹⁰ Probably the worship of Kṛṣṇa and the influence of Vaiṣṇavism account for the more liberal views that are so largely represented in the great epic.¹¹ As will be shown later, the Vaiṣṇavite tendencies liberalised the brāhmaṇical attitude towards the śūdras, who were granted narrow but definite rights in the sphere of religion.

c13.20

⁸ G.O.S., No. LXXXV, Introd., p. 173.

c13.21

⁹ Hazra, *op. cit.*, p. 19.

c13.22

¹⁰ Ibid., p.

c13.23

⁵¹ In the *Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa* there are a few chapters which indicate the influence of Vaiṣṇavism (*Ibid.*, p. 18.)

c13.24

¹¹ Cf. Hopkins. *Ethics of India*, p. 241.

c13.25

Information supplied by the works of Kālidāsa and Śūdraka is also in the spirit of the Smṛtis. Kālidāsa is a portrayer of varṇāśrama ideals,¹ and the same seems to be true of Śūdraka.²

c13.26

¹ Dasgupta, Hist. of Sansk. Lit., Introd. p. XXX.

c13.27

² It is said that Śūdraka was a great brāhmaṇa minister. J. Charpentier, JRAS, 1923, pp. 596-97.

c13.28

The Buddhist works Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and Vajrasūci also supply some information about the position of the śūdras. The former was compiled before A.D. 443,³ but the date of the latter is not so certain. It does not seem to be the work of Aśvaghoṣa, who flourished in the post-Mauryan period, for it does not find place in the list of his works mentioned by the Chinese pilgrim I-tsing.⁴ The Chinese translation, done between A.D. 973-981, ascribes it to the Buddhist logician Dharmakīrti, who in all probability flourished in the fifth century A.D.⁵ Quotations from the Manu Smṛti in the Vajrasūci show that the latter belonged to a later period. The major Buddhist and Jain⁶ commentaries, which probably belong to this period, also give some incidental references about the subject of our study.

c13.29

³ Suzuki, Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Introd., p. XLIII.

c13.30

⁴ S. K. Dey, Hist. of Sansk. Lit., p. 71.

c13.31

⁵ Dasgupta, op. cit., p. 532, fn. Keith ascribes him to the 7th century A.D. (HSL, Preface, p. XXII).

c13.32

⁶ Motichandra has used them for describing the dress and costumes in the Gupta period (Bhāratīya Veśa-bhūṣā, Ch. ix).

c13.33

Technical works such as the Nitisāra of Kāmandaka, the Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata,⁷ the Kāmasūtra of Vātsyāyana,⁸ the Amara-kośa of Amarasimha and the Bṛhat Samhitā of Varāhamihira⁹ throw welcome light on the conditions of the śūdras during this period.

c13.34

⁷ The third cen. A.D. seems to be the probable date of this work. (The Age of Imperial Unity, p. 270). Cf. 2nd cen. A.D. (M. Ghosh, Nāṭyaśāstra, Tr., Introd., p. LXXXVI); Also see Dasgupta, His. of Sansk. Lit., p. 522.

c13.35

⁸ Schmidt assigns it to the 2nd cen. B.C. (Quoted in Dasgupta, Hist. of Sansk. Lit., p. 645) and H. P. Sastri to the first cen. A.D.; but Banerjee Sastri, Chakladar, Jolly and Winternitz ascribe it to the 3rd-4th cens. A.D. (Soc. Life in Anc. India, pp. 33-37). Chakladar thinks that Vātsyāyana flourished in western India (Ibid., p. 96).

c13.36

⁹ Varāhamihira is ascribed to the period A.D. 505-587, and all his works are placed in the middle of sixth cen. A.D.

c13.37

Some information can also be gleaned from those portions of the *Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra* and the *Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa* which deal with iconography. Although the former seems to have been a work of the Gupta period,¹ the latter seems to have been a compilation of post-Gupta times, and hence can be used only as a secondary piece of evidence.

c13.38

¹ Banerjea, *Development of Hindu Iconography*, pp. 28-29.

c13.39

Inscriptions do not mention the śūdras as a varṇa, but land grants repeatedly refer to the tax-paying peasants and artisans and indicate the process through which aboriginal tracts were annexed to brāhmaṇical society. A few epigraphs speaks of the artisans' guilds. All this helps us to determine the nature of changes in the social and economic conditions of the śūdras.

c13.40

The familiar maxim that the duty of the śūdra is to serve the three other varṇas² recurs in the texts of the Gupta period. Just as in Manu, it is claimed that he should particularly serve the brāhmaṇas.³ In the *Śānti Parvan* a ruler boasts that in his kingdom the śūdras duly serve and wait upon the other three orders without any malice.⁴

c13.41

² *Kāmandaka Nītisāra*, II. 21; *ŚP*, 60. 26; 92. 2; *Anu. P.* (SE), 9. 18; *Bhāg. P.*, XI. 17.19; *Bhav. P.*, i, 44.27; *Mārk. P.*, 28. 3-8; *Viṣṇu P.* III. 8.32 and 33.

c13.42

³ *Āśvamedhika P.* (SE), 97.29.

c13.43

⁴ *Ch.* 78. 17.

c13.44

The *Anuśāsana Parvan* holds that the śūdras are workers (*karmakaras*)⁵ and states that there would be no workers if there were no śūdras.⁶ There is no doubt that a considerable section of the śūdras continued to be employed as wage earners, for all the eleven synonyms for wages occur in the *śūdra-varga* of the *Amarakośa*.⁷ Similarly names of various types of hired labourers and servants are also listed in the same section. There are four names for wage earners, two for carriers, two for porters and eleven for domestic servants (*bhṛtyas*).⁸

c13.45

⁵ *Anu. P.* (SE), 208.34.

c13.46

⁶ *Ibid.*, 208. 33.

c13.47

⁷ *AK*, II. 10. 38-39.

c13.48

⁸ *AK*, II. 10. 15-18.

c13.49

The bhṛtakas (wage earners) were divided by Nārada and Bṛhaspati into three categories : i.e. those who served in the army, those who were engaged in agriculture and those who carried loads from place to place.¹ The first were considered the best, the second the middle, and the third the lowest type of workers.²

c13.50

¹ Nārada, V. 23; Bṛhaspati, XV. 12 and 13.

c13.51

² Ibid.

c13.52

Although the porters and carriers were considered the lowest type of workers, they seem to have been the nonetheless important sections of labourers, for provisions relating to the conditions of their work occupy some space in the law-books of the period. These carriers were mostly employed by the merchants and were held responsible for the ware placed under their charge, except in the case of losses caused by fate or the state.³ The porters could be variously punished for giving up their work at various stages. Nārada lays down that one who abandons merchandise, which he had agreed to convey to its destination, shall give a sixth part of his wages;⁴ he shall be compelled to pay twice the amount of his wages, if he raises difficulty at the time of starting⁵ — a rule which is also supported by Yājñavalkya.⁶ But according to the other provisions of the latter lawgiver if the porter gives up his work after having started it, he shall pay ¼, if on the way, and if in the midway the whole of it.⁷ The corresponding obligation on the hirer to pay wages to the porter does not seem to have been so effective. Nārada ordains that a merchant who does not take a conveyance or beasts for draught or burden, after having hired them, shall be made to pay ¼ of the hire; and the whole if he leaves them halfway.⁸ This provision applies only to the owners of conveyances or animals most probably to the cart-owners cum drivers, and not to the human beings who acted as beasts of burden. Nevertheless, the parallel Nepalese version, which is considered as true reading,⁹ states that, if the porter strikes work through the fault of his employer, he shall be rewarded for as much as has been finished by him.¹

c13.53

³ Viṣṇu, V. 155-56; Yāj., II. 197; Nār., VI. 9.

c13.54

⁴ VI. 6-7.

c13.55

⁵ VI. 3.

c13.56

⁶ Yāj., II. 198.

c13.57

⁷ Ibid.

c13.58

⁸ VI. 7.

c13.59

⁹ SBE, xxxiii, 140-41.

c13.60

¹ *Ibid.*, fn. on VI. 6.

c13.61

We have some idea of the wages of the workers who were employed as agricultural labourers and cowherds. Yājñavalkya, Nārada and Kātyāyana repeat the rates of payment as prescribed in the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya. According to this a cultivator should get 1/10 of the crop, a herdsman 1/10 of the butter and pedlar 1/10 of the sale proceeds as his wages.² Such a statement seems to be conventional in nature, and does not take into account the changes in wages during the Gupta period. These can be deduced from variant passages found in the *Śānti Parvan* and the law-books of Nārada and Bṛhaspati. As regards the wages of a herdsman the *Śānti Parvan* states that, if he keeps six kine for others, he should get the milk of one cow.³ It adds that for keeping a hundred cows a pair of animals will be given to the herdsman.⁴ Nārada gives a lower rate of remuneration. For tending a hundred cows a heifer shall be given as wages every year, for tending 200 cows a milch cow shall be given, and in both cases the cowherd shall be allowed to milk all the cows every eighth day.⁵ This works out at the rate of the milk of one cow for tending eight cows and modifies Nārada’s statement in which he lays down the conventional rate of 1/10 of butter as wages for a herdsmen. Contemporary Jain sources show that these provisions were often approximately followed in practice. We hear of a herdsman who was given the whole milk of a cow or a buffalo on the eighth day.⁶ In another case the remuneration is much higher; a cowherd received 1/4 of the milk produced as his wages.⁷ Thus there was a definite advance in the wages of herdsmen. Moreover, provisions for the possession of animals indicate the relatively independent status of the herdsman, who was supposed to own his own house and patch of land for fodder.

c13.62

² *AŚ*, III. 13; *Yāj.*, II. 194; *Nār.*, VI. 2.3; *Kātyā.*, verse 656.

c13.63

³ *Ch.* 60. 24.

c13.64

⁴ *Ibid.*

c13.65

⁵ *Nār.*, VI. 10.

c13.66

⁶ *Piṇḍa Niryukti*, pp. 368-369.

c13.67

⁷ *Bṛhatkalpa Bhāṣya*, 2. 358.

c13.68

The *Śānti Parvan* and the *Bṛhaspati Smṛti* lay down higher rates of wages for agricultural labourers than the other texts of around this period. Thus, according to the former, if a cultivator is supplied with seeds and other accessories, he may take a seventh part of the yield.¹ *Bṛhaspati* is more liberal. According to him the workers engaged in cultivation (*sira-vāhakas*) should be given ¼ of the produce if they are provided with food and clothing.² If they work without being given food and clothing by their employer, they should be given ⅓ of the produce.³ Obviously these provisions apply to the agricultural labourers and not to the sharecroppers who supplied their own seeds, oxen and implements. There is no justification for the view that the *sira* land was identical with the *sitā* land of Kauṭilya.⁴ While the *sitā* was crown land, the *sira* was in the possession of individuals, who employed labourers for its cultivation.⁵

c13.69

¹ *ŚP*, 60. 25. The *Śānti Parvan* provisions refer to the vaiśya herdsmen and agricultural labourers, but they may have applied to the śūdras as well.

c13.70

² *Bṛ*., XVI. 1-2.

c13.71

³ Ibid.

c13.72

⁴ Pran Nath, *Eco. Cond. in Anc. India*, p. 158.

c13.73

⁵ Cf. s. v. sir, Wilson, *A Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms*, p. 485.

c13.74

The rates of payment prescribed by *Bṛhaspati* suggest that towards the end of the Gupta period wages of agricultural labourers were doubled. Further, the fact that they worked without the provision of food and clothes indicates the rise of a new stratum of labourers, who possessed resources to meet their requirements and were consequently less dependent on their employers. Thus it is clear that during this period there was a definite increase in the wages of herdsmen and agricultural labourers, which meant consequent improvement in the economic position of a considerable number of śūdras.

c13.75

There is also some information about the condition of domestic servants. The *Kāmasūtra* informs us that, in addition to food and drink, servants (*bhṛtyas*) should receive their wages monthly or annually.⁶ The *Śānti Parvan* emphasises that the śūdra servant must be maintained by masters of the three higher varṇas.⁷ But it repeats the old rule that he should be given worn out umbrellas, turbans, beds and seats, shoes and fans, and torn clothes by the twice-born.¹

c13.76

⁶ *Kāma. S.*, IV. 1.33 & 42 with comm.

c13.77

⁷ ... *avaśya bharaṇīyo hi varṇānām śūdra ucyate*. *Śānti P.*, 60. 31.

c13.78

¹ *Ibid.*, 60. 32-33.

c13.79

The *Śānti Parvan* repeats the myth that the śūdra was created by Prajāpati as the *dāsa* of the three other varṇas.² And hence he is required to practise the *dāsa-dharma*.³ But this does not mean that all the śūdras were slaves. On account of the prevalence of slavery⁴ some of the śūdras may have been slaves. But they were not slaves employed in producing activities. Although Nārada mentions fifteen kinds of slaves,⁵ both he and Bṛhaspati make it clear that they are employed only in impure work.⁶ This consists in sweeping the gateway, the privy, the road, removing the leavings of food, ordure, wine etc. and rubbing the master's limbs or shampooing the secret parts of his body.⁷ On the other hand those engaged in producing activities, namely agricultural labourers or porters, are looked upon as doing pure work.⁸ Therefore there is hardly any evidence of slaves being employed in production, either by individuals or by the state, such as we find in the pre-Mauryan and Mauryan periods.

c13.80

² *Ibid.*, 60. 27.

c13.81

³ *Anu. P.*, (*SE*) 208. 34.

c13.82

⁴ There is a simile of sale and purchase of slaves in a Gupta inscr. (*CII*, iii, No. 6, l. 2.). The *Br.* refers to the *dāsalekhyam*, a deed for the sale of slaves (VI. 7). In the *Mṛcchakaṭika* slavery was in vogue as an institution permitted by the state (*IHQ*, v, 307).

c13.83

⁵ *Nār*, V. 26-28. Of these slaves some *are* slaves improperly called according to the citation in the *Vivādārṇava-setu*, where it is attributed to Bṛhaspati (H. T. Colebrooke, *A Digest of Hindu Law*, ii, 12). Six classes of slaves seem to have been mentioned in contemporary Jain works (Jain, *Life as Depicted in Jain Canons*, p. 107).

c13.84

⁶ *Nār*., V. 5; *Bṛ*., XV. 15-16.

c13.85

⁷ *Nār*., V. 6-7.

c13.86

⁸ *Ibid.*, V. 23-25.

c13.87

The period shows a number of other signs which indicate the general weakening of the institution of slavery and the increasing freedom of the śūdras from the obligation to serve as slaves. As it is shown earlier, Kauṭilya's laws of manumission of slaves generally apply to those who are born of āryan parents or are āryans themselves. But Yājñavalkya introduces a very important principle when he asserts that nobody can be reduced to slavery without his consent; such a person has to be emancipated.¹ According to the commentary of Jagannātha Tarkapañcānana this means that a śūdra, a kṣatriya or a vaiśya employed in servile work without his own consent shall be released by the king.² Thus the above provision completely reverses Manu’s precept, which provides for the forcible enslavement of a śūdra.³

c13.88

¹ balāddāsikṛtaścaurairvikṛtaścāpimucyate. Yāj., II. 182.

c13.89

² Colebrooke, op. cit., ii, p. 25.

c13.90

³ This theory is, however, repeated by Kātyā., verse 722.

c13.91

In the earlier texts members of the three upper varṇas or their sons born of śūdra wives cannot be reduced to slavery. But there is no indication of such a special privilege for the twice-born in the Smṛtis of the Gupta period. Yājñavalkya, Nārada and Kātyāyana state that slavery should take place in the natural (anuloma) order of the varṇas and not in the reverse (pratiloma) order, that is to say, a slave should be of lower varṇa than his master.⁴ Kātyāyana, however, makes the claim that slavery is provided for the three lower varṇas and not for the brāhmaṇas.⁵ Nevertheless, these provisions imply that the śūdras were no longer singled out for enslavement.

c13.92

⁴ Yāj., 11. 182-83; Nār., V. 39; Kātya., verse 716.

c13.93

⁵ Verse 715. Cf. Viṣṇu, V. 154.

c13.94

Nārada and Bṛhaspati strongly deprecate the attitude of the wretch who, being independent, sells himself.⁶ The Anuśāsana Parvan states that a person should not sell others; how much more one’s own children.⁷ Although rules for manumission of slaves (especially āryan) are found in Kauṭilya, the ceremony for their emancipation is first laid down by Nārada.⁸ All this may have undermined the slave system.

c13.95

⁶ vikṛṇīte svatatntro yaḥ samātmānaṃ narādhamah, sa jaghanyatamaḥ tu eṣāṃ so’pi dāsyānna mucyate. Nār., V. 37; Br., XV. 243.

c13.96

⁷ Anu. P., 45. 23 quoted in Kane, Hist. Dh. S., ii, pt. I, p. 182.

c13.97

⁸ Nār., V. 42-43. Cf. rules of manumission in Kātyā., verse 715. Nārada, however, adds that certain classes of slaves cannot be manumitted (V. 29) except by the favour of the owner.

c13.98

Nārada states that in local disputes a class of people known as the vargins may be called as witnesses in cases concerning their respective classes.¹ According to Kātyāyana, among those to whom the term *nāyaka* applies are the leaders (*nāyakas*) of dāsas.² Thus the prevalence of organisation among slaves may have further weakened the institution of slavery.

c13.99

¹ Quoted in *Dharmakośa*, i, pt. 1, p. 299.

c13.100

² Kātyā., verse 350.

c13.101

There seems to be, however, sufficient evidence of the existence of women slaves, who served as maid-servants in the houses of the wealthy. The word *dāsisabham* (multitude of women slaves) is used in the *Amarakośa* as an illustration of words showing multitude.³ Jain works of the period show that numerous female slaves and maid-servants were recruited from tribal peoples.⁴

c13.102

³ AK, III. 5.27.

c13.103

⁴ Jain, *op. cit.*, pp. 362-65. The *Bṛhatkalpa Bhāṣya-gāthā* refers to three *nāpita-dāsis* (6094).

c13.104

For the rest, the general condition of the slaves remained unchanged in the Gupta period. They could be beaten, put in fetters,⁵ and were considered unreliable.⁶ They had no status in law,⁷ and were treated as an item of property either to be owned in common⁸ or to be divided among the coparceners.⁹ Nārada and Kātyāyana repeat the dictum of Manu that the dāsa has no right to property,¹⁰ but Kātyāyana also states that the master is not entitled to that money which the slave gets by selling himself openly.¹¹

c13.105

⁵ Ghoshal, *The Classical Age*, p. 558., Kātyā., verses 962-63., *Mṛcchakaṭika*, VIII. 25.

c13.106

⁶ *Mṛcchakaṭika* (Karmarkar’s edn.), p. 309.

c13.107

⁷ Kātyā., verse 92.

c13.108

⁸ *Viṣṇu*, XVIII. 44.

c13.109

⁹ Kātyā., verse 882; *Bṛ.* (SBE), XXV. 82-83.

c13.110

¹⁰ *Nār.*, V. 41; Kātyā., verse 724.

c13.111

¹¹ Verse 724. This could not have been possible without the consent of the master. Kane prefers the reading of the *Vivādacintāmaṇi*, Kātyā., p. 267. fn. on verse 724.

c13.112

In spite of all this the general weakening of slavery during the Gupta period seems to be evident. After the conquests of Samudra Gupta and Candra Gupta II we do not come across any large-scale wars in Gupta times. Therefore the possibility of acquiring slaves through conquest seems to have been exhausted. The system of slavery was further undermined because of the shrinkage of the market. In Greece and Rome, where it prevailed on a wide scale, it was connected with the money market. This was also partly true of India. The wide use of metallic money facilitated the sale and purchase of slaves for about a thousand years from about *circa* 500 B.C. But the paucity of coins from towards the end of the sixth century may have weakened the practice of dealing in slaves. Although the category of purchased slaves (*kriita dāsa*) exists in the later law-books, their number may not have been very large. Similarly lesser use of money would mean less of moneylending and reduce the number of those who were held as pledge or mortgage and made slaves. However metallic money seems to have decreased markedly only towards the end of the sixth and the beginning of the seventh century. And this phenomenon itself was a consequence of the decline of trade and towns¹ and the rise of a new type of economy in which various services were paid through land grants, and the donated villages came to form some kind of new, self-sufficient economic units catering to their own needs as well to those of the beneficiaries.²

c13.113

¹ R. S. Sharma, “Decay of Gangetic Towns in Gupta and post-Gupta ‘Times’”, *Journal of Indian History*, Golden Jubilee Volume, pp. 135-50.

c13.114

² *Ibid.*, *Indian Feudalism*, Ch. I.

c13.115

A significant factor which contributed to this development was the fragmentation of land through the processes of partitions and gifts. The laws of inheritance as laid down in the Dharmaśāstra, the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya, and the law-books of Manu and even of Yājñavalkya never refer to the partition of landed property, which, is mentioned for the first time in the codes of Nārada³ and Bṛhaspati.⁴ This may suggest that in the middle or towards the end of the Gupta period big joint families, owning large stretches of land, began to break into smaller units. Once the principle of the partition of land was recognised, the increasing density of population in the fertile river valleys of Northern India, after the earlier phases of settlements, was bound to accelerate the pace of the fragmentation of arable plots of land. The pressure of population on land is indicated by an epigraphic record of the 5th cen. A.D., which shows that it was not possible to obtain 1½ *kulyavāpa* of land at one place in northern Bengal; it had to be purchased in smaller plots at four different places.¹ The purchase was made for the purpose of making gifts, which we have numerous examples during this period. Land grants, made to the brāhmaṇas and temples, further helped the process of fragmentation. We no longer hear of large plots of 500 *karisas* or of the state farms of the Mauryan period. Epigraphic references to arable units of one *kulyavāpa* or of 4, 2 and 1 *droṇavāpas* do not suggest big plots.² According to Pargiter a *kulyavāpa* was a little larger than an acre.³ But if the *kulyavāpa* measure of land prevalent in the Cachar district of Assam be considered identical with the *kulyavāpa*,⁴ the area of the latter would be about 13 acres. Since one *kulya* is equal to 8 *droṇas*, it would appear that the average plots of land in north Bengal varied from seven acres to three acres. During the same period a survey of the land grants made by the Maitraka rulers of Valabhī in Gujarat shows that the average plot of land did not exceed two or three acres in size.⁵ Naturally smaller holdings made it uneconomical to employ a large number of śūdra slaves and labourers. While some may have been employed in twos or threes, others may have been dispensed with.

c13.116

³ *Nār.*, XIII. 38.

c13.117

⁴ *Br.*, XXVI. 10, 28, 43, 53 & 64.

c13.118

¹ *EI*, xx, Inscr. No. 5, ll. 5-11; S. K. Maity, *The Economic Life of Northern India in the Gupta Period*, pp. 50-51.

c13.119

² *EI*, xx, Inscr. No. 5. ll. 5-11.

c13.120

³ *IA*, xxxix, 215-16.

c13.121

⁴ *Bhāratavarsha*, 1349, pt. I, p. 384 (quoted in *History of Bengal*, i, 652).

c13.122

⁵ Krishnakumari J. Virji, *Ancient History of Saurashtra*, pp. 246-47, 267ff.

c13.123

It has been suggested that during the Gupta period land grants to brāhmaṇas served to promote village settlements by private enterprise.⁶ This may have been the case in the undeveloped areas in Central and South India but not in northern Bengal, where it was difficult to obtain land at one place, or in Gujarat. Possibly either the waste and undeveloped land was settled with surplus śūdra population, for the old peasants would not like to shift from settled areas, or aboriginal cultivators were enrolled as śūdras in the brāhmaṇical social organisation. Although in the traditional social hierarchy śūdras were required to serve as slaves and hired labourers, the new śūdras were either peasants or sharecroppers. Hence in Gupta and post-Gupta texts it became necessary to call them cultivators.

c13.124

⁶ Kosambi, *JAOS*. lxxv, 237.

c13.125

The traditional view that vaiśyas were peasants recurs in the literature of this period¹ In the *Amarakośa* words for cultivators are listed in the *vaiśya-varga* (section).² But there are reasons to think that śūdras were also becoming peasants. Like Manu, Viṣṇu and Yājñavalkya show that land was rented out to the śūdra for crop.³ This would suggest that the practice of leasing land to śūdra sharecroppers was growing stronger. Gradually they established permanent possession over the land. A Pallava land grant of this period (A.D. 250-350) informs us that four sharecroppers (*ārdhikaḥ*) remained attached to the land even when it was gifted away to brāhmaṇas.⁴ The grant also mentions the transfer of two kolikas,⁵ who may have been peasants or agricultural labourers of the Kol tribe.⁶ Another Pallava land grant of the same period speaks of the transfer of a plot of four *nivartanas* cultivated by a person called Atuka,⁷ who may also have been a sharecropper. This would suggest that at least in some cases the śūdra sharecroppers of the state could not be dispossessed of the land even when it was transferred to others.

c13.126

¹ *ŚP*, 60. 24-26, 92. 2.

c13.127

² *AK*, II. 9. 6.

c13.128

³ *Manu*, IV. 253 and *Viṣṇu*, LVII. 16 use the term *ārdhikaḥ*, but *Yāj.*, I. 166, uses the term *ardhasirikaḥ*.

c13.129

⁴ *EI*, i, Inscr. No. 1. l. 39. The term *ārdhikaḥ* has been wrongly rendered by Bühler as a labourer (*Ibid.*, p. 9).

c13.130

⁵ The *kulikas* are mentioned as a people in *Bṛ.* (*Saṃskāra*, 404). They also appear in a list of peoples in a Pāla inscription of the 11th cen A.D. *EI*, xxix, Inscr. No. 1, l. 39.

c13.131

⁶ The Kols are an important group of aboriginal people of the Muṇḍā stock in Chotānāgpur.

c13.132

⁷ *EI*, viii. Inscr. No. 12, l. 6.

c13.133

Nārada includes the *kināśa* (peasant) among those who are not fit to be examined as witnesses.¹ Asahāya, a commentator of the 7th cen. A.D.,² explains the term kināśa as a ‘śūdra’. ³ This interpretation seems to be correct, for next to the kināśa the son of a śūdra wife is also declared by Nārada to be an incompetent witness.⁴ This shows that śūdras were probably considered as peasants. This is also corroborated by Bṛhaspati, who provides a very severe corporal punishment for the śūdra, acting as a leader in boundary disputes relating to fields.⁵ It is obvious that they could lead these disputes only as owners of fields. The Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa defines the village as a settlement where śūdras are numerous and cultivators thrive.⁶ Some of these cultivators may have been śūdras. Kātyāyana lays down that, if a person cannot pay his debt, he should be made to work it off; if he is unable to work, he should be sent to jail. But this law applies only to the members of the three lower varṇas who are cultivators, and not to the brāhmaṇas.⁷ The Bṛhat Saṃhitā states that the outbreak of fire in the south would cause pain to the ugras and vaiśyas, and its outbreak in the west to the śūdras and cultivators.⁸ This may suggest that śūdras and cultivators were regarded as closely connected with one another. Thus the above references indicate that śūdras were gradually becoming peasants.

c13.134

¹ Nār., I. 181.

c13.135

² The Age of Imperial Unity, p. 299.

c13.136

³ kināśaḥ śūdraḥ kadaryo vā. Comm. to Nār., I. 181.

c13.137

⁴ Nār., I. 181.

c13.138

⁵ yadi śūdro netā syāt ... Br., XIX. 6.

c13.139

⁶ tathā śūdrajala-prāyaḥ svasamṛddhikṛṣibalāḥ Mārk. P., 49. 47. Cf. Refs. to śūdra villages in the Anuśāsana Parvan, Ch. 68 (quoted in Bandyopadhyaya, Economic Life and Progress in Ancient India p. 329).

c13.140

⁷ ... karṣakān kṣatravit-śūdrān samahīnāmstu dāpayet. Kātyā., verses 479-80. The context here shows that the term karṣakān qualifies the phrase kṣatravit-śūdrān. In his translation Kane treats the term karṣakān as an independent noun (Tr., verses 479-80), but this does not seem to fit in with the tenor of the passage, which introduces karṣakān between the terms brāhmaṇa and kṣatravit-śūdrān. cf. Kātyā., verse 586.

c13.141

⁸ Bṛ. Saṃ., 31. 3.4.

c13.142

The land grants of this period, made in Central India, repeatedly refer to the tax-paying kuṭumbins and kārus (artisans).⁹ Land transactions from Bengal mention the names of the *kuṭumbins* who are informed of the gifts or the sale of land.¹ It is beyond doubt that the *kārus* were *śūdras*. This applies also to the *kuṭumbins*. The latter have been taken as cultivators² or houseslaves.³ It is also suggested that the *kuṭumbins* belonged to the professional artisan classes who cultivated land as a subsidiary means of livelihood.⁴ But it seems that, in contrast to the *kārus*, the *kuṭumbins* were cultivating householders. In the early Pāli texts they appear as householders of substance,⁵ and may have been vaiśyas. In the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya the sharecropping *kuṭumbins* have been taken as *śūdras* by T. Ganapati Sastri.⁶ The tax-paying cultivator families of the Gupta period may have included both vaiśyas and *śūdras*. But the position seems to have changed substantially in subsequent times. The kurmis, who constitute a numerous cultivating caste in West Bengal, Bihar and U.P. and are placed in the category of *śūdras*, seem to correspond to the *kuṭumbin*. The same is true of the kunbi caste found in Maharashtra and parts of Madhya Pradesh.

c13.143

⁹ CII, iii, Inscr. No. 60, l. 12; No. 27, l. 6; No. 26, l. 6.

c13.144

¹ D. C. Sircar (ed.) *Select Inscriptions*, i, Bk. III, no. 40A, line 5. no. 42, line 3.

c13.145

² Fleet, *CII*, iii, p. 123.

c13.146

³ Kielhorn, *EI*, iii, 314.

c13.147

⁴ Pran Nath, *op. cit.*, p. 157.

c13.148

⁵ *s. v.* kuṭumbika, *Pāli-Eng. Dict.*
6. *AŚ*, i, 13.

c13.149

Again, if the interpretation of the term *uparikara* as a tax levied on temporary peasants is accepted,⁷ it would appear that the *dāsas* and *karmakaras*, who worked in the fields of the state or of the individual proprietors in the early period, were now being temporarily provided with lands.

c13.150

⁷ Fleet, *CII*, iii, p. 98; Ghoshal, *Hindu Revenue System*, pp. 191, 210. For other views see Barnett, *JRAS*, 1931, p. 165; Sircar, *Select Inscrs.*, i, p. 266, fn. 5.

c13.151

Perhaps it was on account of the rise in the number of cultivators, pressure of the increasing population on land, and the inability of the new peasant to pay higher taxes, that the burden of land revenues was reduced from 1/4th to 1/6th of the produce.⁸ Bṛhaspati lays down that the king should take 1/6, 1/8, or 1/10th of the produce according to the nature and yield of cultivation.⁹

c13.152

⁸ *Raghuvamśa*, XVII. 65; *Nār.*, XVIII. 48; *Bṛ.*, *Āpaddharma*, 7.

c13.153

⁹ *Bṛ.*, 1. 43-44. In the text the term *kināśa* is used, which, according to the comment of Asahāya on Nār. I. 131, means a *śūdra*.

c13.154

In the first half of the 7th cen. A.D. Hsüan Tsang describes śūdras as a class of agriculturists,¹ a description which is confirmed by the *Narasimha Purāṇa*, where agriculture is laid down as the duty of the śūdras.² But it seems that this significant development took place during Gupta times. The view that the farmer population was largely composed of śūdras³ seems to be more true of the Gupta period than of earlier times. Perhaps never in any earlier period was there such a great accession to the numerical strength of the śūdras. In order to assimilate numerous aboriginal tribes and foreign elements Manu made a far greater use of the fiction of *varṇasaṃkara* (intermixture of varṇas) than was done by his predecessors. In the majority of instances the mixed castes were lumped with the śūdras⁴ in respect of their hereditary duties. But the new śūdras do not seem to have been recruited as slaves and hired labourers like their old counterparts. They pursued their old occupations and were probably taught new methods of agriculture,⁵ which gradually turned them into tax-paying peasants. Thus while the aborigines benefited from the knowledge of civilised life imparted to them by brāhmaṇical society, the latter could overcome its internal weaknesses by the addition of new producing masses.

c13.155

¹ "The fourth class is that of the śūdras or agriculturists; these toil at cultivating the soil and are industrious at sowing and reaping". Watters, *On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India*, i, 168.

c13.156

² *Narasimha Purāṇa*, 58. 10-15. This Purāṇa was known to Al-Birūni (Sachau, i, 130), and hence its latest compilation may be placed in the 10th cen. A.D.

c13.157

³ Hopkins presumably uses the word 'slaves' in place of śūdras. *CHI*, i, p. 268.

c13.158

⁴ K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, *Aspects of the Soc. and Pol. System of Manu*, p. 108.

c13.159

⁵ Kosambi, *JAOS*, lxxv, 41.

c13.160

It is possible to risk a hypothesis about the process which led to the peasanthood of the śūdras. Around the third century A.D. the vaiśya-śūdra social formation was afflicted with a deep social crisis. The crisis is clearly reflected in the descriptions of the Kali age in those portions of the Purāṇas which belong to the third and fourth centuries A.D. Emphasis on the importance of coercive mechanism (*daṇḍa*) in the *Śānti Parva* and description of anarchy (*arājakata*) in the epics possibly belong to the same age and point to the same crisis. The Kali age is characterised by *varṇasaṃkara*, i.e., intermixture of varṇas or social orders, which implies that vaiśyas and śūdras, i.e., peasants, artisans and labourers either refused to stick to the producing functions assigned to them or else vaiśya peasants declined to pay taxes and the śūdras refused to make their labour available. Since collection of taxes by royal officers was made difficult, religious and probably administrative services began to be remunerated through land grants. The process created a class of landlords between the king and the peasants who were mostly vaiśyas in the settled areas, and thus downgraded the vaiśyas. Similarly when tribal chiefs created difficulties, brāhmaṇas were planted in the tribal areas through land grants. In the backward and aboriginal areas the grants to brāhmaṇas and others led to the spread of iron-plough agriculture, preservation of cattle, spread of agricultural calendar, diffusion of the knowledge of *āyurveda* medicine and thus contributed to increase in overall agricultural production and also to the submission of the tribals to the state. In the process the grants brought to the brāhmaṇical fold a large number of aboriginal peasants who came to be ranked as śūdras. Śūdras therefore began to be called peasants and agriculturists in early medieval texts.

c13.161

It may be suggested, very tentatively, that this transition was facilitated by the use of iron on an extensive scale. The *Amarakośa* gives seven names for iron and two names for iron rust,¹ and a Buddhist commentary of the period makes a detailed classification of metals.² The *Amarakośa* also gives five names for ploughshare,³ which may indicate ready supply of this most important agricultural implement and intensive cultivation of land. Without a plentiful supply of such implements former dāsas, karmakaras, aboriginal peoples and the growing number of new families among the higher varṇas could not have carried on agriculture. That there was plentiful supply of iron tools can be inferred from the export of iron goods to the Roman empire in the first two Christian centuries where it had to be eventually banned. The art of making steel had started about from *c.* 200 B.C.;¹ and so widespread had become the use of iron objects that now it was being used for non-utilitarian purposes. The greatest example of such use is the Mehrauli iron pillar. Unfortunately no attention has been paid to the excavation of various phases of village settlements in Northern India, which might throw light on the extent of the use of iron agricultural implements during earlier times. For the lawgivers inform us that hired labourers were supplied with implements, which had to be returned to the masters at the end of the work.² But these labourers could not become agriculturists without their own implements, which were probably provided for them by the growing iron industry of the period.

c13.162

¹ *AK*, II. 9. 98 and 99.

c13.163

² *Vibhaṅga Aṭṭhakathā*. p. 63 quoted in *s. v.* loha in *Pāli-Eng. Dict.* As is evident from the Mehrauli Iron Pillar of Candra, the technical knowledge in iron-working reached its high watermark during this period.

c13.164

³ *AK*, II. 9. 13.

c13.165

¹ Information from H. C. Bharadwaj of Banaras Hindu University.

c13.166

² *Yāj.*, II. 193; *Nār.*, V. 4.

c13.167

During this period śūdra artisans maintained their importance. The earlier lawgivers permit arts and crafts to the śūdras only when they fail to earn their livelihood through the service of the three higher varnas, but this condition is now waived,³ and handicrafts are included in the normal occupations of the śūdras.⁴ These crafts are defined by Bṛhaspati as working in gold, base metals, wood, thread, stone and leather.⁵ The *Amarakośa* list of craftsmen, which occurs in the *śūdra-varga*, gives two names each for general artisans, heads of their guilds, garland makers, washermen, potters, bricklayers, weavers, tailors, painters, armourers, leather workers, blacksmiths, shell-cutters and workers in copper.⁶ The list gives four names for goldsmiths and five names for carpenters.⁷ Amara also includes players on drums, water, flute and *vīṇā*,¹ actors, dancers and tumblers in the *śūdra-varga*.² Thus the list would suggest that all varieties of arts and crafts were practised by śūdras.³

c13.168

³ This view, however, is repeated in the *Bhāg. P.*, XI. 18. 49.

c13.169

⁴ *Kām. N. S.*, II. 21; cf. IV. 54-56; *Mārk. P.*, 28. 3-8; *Viṣṇu P.*, III. 8. 32-33; *Yāj.*, I. 120: *Viṣṇu*, III. 5; *śūdrasya* ... *sarvaśilpāni*, *Bṛ.*, *Saṃskāra*, verse 530.

c13.170

⁵ *Bṛ.*, XIII. 33.

c13.171

⁶ *AK.*, II. 10. 5-10.

c13.172

⁷ *Ibid.*, II. 10. 8 and 9.

c13.173

¹ *Ibid.*, II. 10. 13.

c13.174

² *Ibid.*, II. 10. 12.

c13.175

³ Some of these people such as garland makers, goldsmiths, washermen, actors, dancers etc. are also mentioned in the *Kāmasūtra* (I. 4.28, V. 2. 12, VI. 1.9), probably providing for the luxuries of the *nāgaraka*.

c13.176

The old provision that artisans should work for a day in a month for the king is repeated by Viṣṇu.⁴ This rule continued to work in practice, for an inscriptions of the sixth century A.D. in Western India states that forced labour (*viṣṭi*) should be imposed on smiths, chariot-makers (*rathakāras*) barbers and potters by the elders (*vārikena*)⁵ Vasiṣṭha states that no taxes should be imposed on the earnings of craftmanship.⁶ In post-Mauryan times, however, taxes seem to have been confined to weavers only,⁷ but during this period there began the practice of levying taxes from the artisans. The *Śānti Parvan* lays down that artisans and traders should be taxed after taking into account conditions of production and the nature of their crafts. Assessment may be made on the basis of the number of commodities produced, and taxes may be collected in kind.⁸ It is beyond doubt that artisans paid taxes to the state, for this fact is repeatedly mentioned in the inscriptions of this period. A Pallava inscription of A.D. 446 from Southern India informs us that blacksmiths leather workers, weavers and even barbers paid taxes to the king.⁹ All this testifies to the material progress and growing importance of some sections of śūdra artisans. The commentary on a passage of the *Kāmasūtra* suggests that a śūdra could accumulate earnings through the occupations of craftsmen, actors, etc. and could thus become a *nāgaraka*, i.e. a respectable and dignified citizen.¹

c13.177

⁴ *Gaut. Dh. S.*, X. 31-33, *Vas. Dh. S.*, XIX. 28; *Manu*, VII, 138; *Viṣṇu* III. 32.

c13.178

⁵ It is not clear whether this was done for the sake of the king or the village elders. *JRASB*, series III. xvi, p. 121, Law No. 72.

c13.179

⁶ XIX. 37.

c13.180

⁷ Supra, ch. VI.

c13.181

⁸ *ŚP.*, 88. 1-12. Note on 12 in Cr. Ed., *Rāja Dharma*, Pt. II, Fas. 19, p.

c13.182

⁶⁶⁸ Cf. 87. 16-77.

c13.183

⁹ *EI.* xxiv, Inscr. No. 43, ll.18-19. The inscr. also refers to the imposition of the marriage tax, a custom which prevailed till recent times in Northern India.

c13.184

¹ I. 4. 1.

c13.185

Provisions for the payment of taxes show that artisans were no longer employed and controlled by the state in the same manner as they were in the Mauryan period. Probably artisans living in the capital² were attached to the king. But the frequent mention of artisans in villages shows that they were far more numerous in the rural areas, where they lived and worked more or less independently.

c13.186

² *Bṛ.* I. 34. This is also provided in the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya.

c13.187

The strengthening of the guilds contributed to the growing importance of artisans. Guilds (*śreṇis*) came to be regarded as the constituent elements in the organisation of capitals or towns.³ Evidently these were the associations of artisans⁴ and traders. While the earlier law-books and the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya enjoin the king to pay respect to the customs of the guilds (*śreṇidharma*),⁵ those of the Gupta period instruct the king to enforce the usages prevalent in the guilds.⁶ Bṛhaspati lays down that whatever is done by the heads of guilds towards other people, in accordance with prescribed regulations, must be approved by the king, for they are declared to be the appointed managers of affairs.⁷ He also warns that, if the usages of localities, castes and *kulas* are not maintained, the people will get discontented and wealth will suffer thereby.⁸ Thus it seems that the guilds were free to act in whatever way they liked, and the king was bound to accept their decision.⁹ In other words they seem to have been more or less independent units of production, practically free from the control of the state. They continued their old functions of receiving money as deposits, paying interest on them and obviously investing them in their trades, as would appear from an inscription of the guild of oil-pressers of Indore in the fifth century A.D.¹ Such activities naturally promoted their material prosperity, which is evident from the construction and the repair of the temple of the Sun by the silkweavers of Mandasor in the fifth century A.D.² It would be wrong to think that when the power of the brāhmaṇical priesthood began to predominate guilds began to decline.³ Not only the increasing power of the guild was recognised by brāhmaṇical lawgivers, but the two guilds mentioned in the inscriptions of the Gupta period were either patronised by the brāhmaṇas or had brāhmaṇical associations.⁴

c13.188

³ *Ak.* II. 8. 18.

c13.189

⁴ There are references to the guild of artisans (*śilpisaṃgha*) in the *Raghuvamśa* XVI. 38 and to masons under the master-builder in the *Pañcatantra*, pp. 4-5.

c13.190

⁵ *Gaut.*, XI. 21-22; *Manu*, VIII. 41 and 46; Mookerji, *Local Government in Ancient India*, pp. 125-31.

c13.191

⁶ *Nār.*, X. 2; cf. *Viṣṇu*, V. 168 uses the term *saṃvid*; *teṣāṃ vṛttiṃ pālayet*, *Yāj.*, II. 192, cf. I. 361.

c13.192

⁷ *Bṛ.*, XVII. 18.

c13.193

⁸ *Ibid.*, I. 126.

c13.194

⁹ Majumdar, *Corporate Life in Ancient India*, p. 62.

c13.195

¹ *CII*, iii, Indore Copper-plate Inscr. of Skanda Gupta (A.D. 465).

c13.196

² *CII*, iii, Inscr. No. 18, pp. 80-85.

c13.197

³ Narsu, *Essentials of Buddhism*, p. 141.

c13.198

⁴ In the *tailaka śreṇi* of Indore money was desposited by a brāhmaṇa, and the silkweavers erected temple to the Sun, a brāhmaṇical deity.

c13.199

The rules governing the relations between the employer and the employees indicate some improvement in the position of various categories of workers, who were recruited from the śūdra community. We have seen that in the case of non-performance of work Kauṭilya prescribes a fine of 12 paṇas, which comes to from five to twenty times the amount of wages prescribed by him.⁵ But most lawgivers of the Gupta period provide a fine of double the amount of wages, in case the worker does not perform his work after having taken his wages.⁶ Bṛhaspati, however, prescribes an additional fine according to the ability of the worker.⁷ Viṣṇu ordains that, if a worker does not complete his work, he should pay all his wages to the employer and a fine of 100 paṇas to the king.⁸ But this provision of his is counterbalanced by another, which lays down similar punishment for the employer if he dismisses the worker when the work is incomplete.¹ In this connection Bṛhaspati introduces certain provisions which are not found in the other law-books of the period. In one of them he just uncritically takes over the rule of Manu that, if the worker does not carry out his stipulated work out of pride although he is physically fit, he shall forfeit his wages and be subjected to a fine of eight kṛṣṇalas.² But this lawgiver adds that, in case the worker does not complete his work, he shall be deprived of his wages and proceeded against in a court of law.³ Like Viṣṇu, Bṛhaspati safeguards the interests of the workers by stating that, if the employer does not pay wages to a worker who has completed his work, he shall be awarded proper punishment by the king.⁴ Nārada adds that in such a case the employer shall be compelled to pay the wages with interest.⁵ This was obviously meant to enforce his general rule, which makes it obligatory on the master to pay regular wages, as agreed upon, to the servant hired by him.⁶ Reference has already been made to another provision of his, which states that, if the porter strikes work through the fault of the employer, he shall be rewarded for as much as has been done by him.⁷ It is likely that this rule may have been extended to other classes of workers.

c13.200

⁵ *AŚ*, III, 14; Supra, p. 168.

First 200 of 680 passages. Read on

Linked texts (37)