Ancident Law-makers.

Evening Star, Issue 8569, 16 July 1891, Page 3

Ancident Law-makers.

Putting Moses aside, the earliest of lawgivers is Manu—indeed, the estimate of his date commonly accepted goes beyond the highest attributed to the transcriber of the Pentateuch. Sir William Jones thought it might be 3,000 bc„ Elphinstone 900 b c. ; 1,300 b c. is favored by modern ctaronologists. 1 The version now in use has an antiquity of twenty-seven centuries or thereabouts, which is respectable enough. Manu is said to have been a king, of course, and no one can deny it; but the name is suspicious. The first chapter of his 'lnstitutes' deals with the creation; the second with education, which is devoted principally to- religious functions; the third with marriage and the duties of a house-father from manhood to the funeral rites; the fourth with domestic morals, which include the various means of getting a living; the fifth with diet, purification, and women; the sixth with devotion, which regulates the life of hermits and wandering faquirs; the seventh with government and public law ; the eighth with civil and criminal law ; the ninth with trading and working people; the tenth with mixed castes; the eleventh with penance and expiation ; the twelfth with final beatitude. Every one of these chapters is full of interest. So they would be, indeed, if they set down with a like minuteness the customs and feelings of a European race in that very early time; but the interest is multiplied indefinitely when we observe that the Code of Manu is still, for the most part, the rule of life, public and private, amongst a hundred millions of our fellow creatures at the least. Sir George Birdwood Bays:—"For nearly 3,000 years it has suppressed all sense of nationality and public spirit in India, while fostering to the utmost the self-con-tained life of the petty religious communities which possess no other bond of union but that of a religion organised expressly to bring the forces of progress inherent in every Aryan race into subjection to a dominant priesthood." The 'lnstitutes' of Manu are, in fact, the title deeds of the Brahman caste, which make it absolute master of the human race. The military and the trading castes hive also their interest therein, but it is quite subordinate. As for the mere "people," the Sudras, a great space indeed is allowed them, but only for the purpose of reviling. No name were they to carry unless it were a word expressive of contempt. If a Sudra insulted one of the higher caste his tongue was slit; if he sat in a Brahman's presence, he was to be branded—if on the same carpet, to be put to death ; if he even listened to the reading of the Sacred* Books, boiling wax was poured into his ears. If he were murdered the penalty was tho same aB that for killing a dog or a crow. He was forbidden to possess property. If his employer should emancipate him he could not become free ; " for of a state which is natural to him by whom shall he be divested ?" A thousand of such incredible regulations are laid down, and theoretically they still remain in force It may be added that the ' Institutes,' so exhaustive upon almost every social matter, contain no word about the performance of handicrafts—a strange fact; and that civilisation is battling with the laws of Manu at this day over the question of child marriage. The story of Solon is so familiar that we cite only a few of his more interesting laws. He forbade any citizen to stand neutral in times of sedition or public danger, declaring it leas criminal in tbe abstract to take the wrong side than to forbear striking a blow when the interests of the country are at stake. So, also, he laid down that any citizen who refused to help an officer of justice when called upon should be prosecuted. This question has been raised in our own police courts of late. He forbade the giving of dowry, or even troßneau, beyond three sets of dresses and household gear; and the marriage of persons disproportionate in age. To him we owe the maxim that the reputation of the dead is sacred, and he enforced it by law. We have not so much respect for the grave in these times. Solon first allowed every man to dispose of his property by will as he pleased. He discouraged restlessness in women by decreeing that they should not take more than three " dresses " when they left town ; that the basket containing their luggage should not be more than a cubit square; that they should not travel by night unless in a vehicle with a torch borne before them. The name of Lycurgus is even more familiar than that of Solon, and from the nature of his laws they have less particular interest than any others; a system expressly devised to check all human feelings and occupations, save those connected with war, must needs have a very narrow escape. Moreover, the legislation of Lycurgus—to assume that he was a living person—was never transcribed. The Roman Numa ia more promising. Of his laws, that which strikes us most is the prohibition of all statusß or representations of the Deity, and all sacrifices of blood. For a hundred and seventy years after bis time Roman temples contained no figure of man or beast, and the offerings made were of wine, cakes, flowers, and such like. It was Numa, also, who first established a religious community of maidens in Europe, unless we put faith in Druidio legends, which a wise man is very loth to do. The Greeks, humane and rational as ever, admitted only widows past child-bearing. Religion, indeed, occupied the most of Numa's laws. When we read his cheerful answer to the messengers who reported that the Sabine* were advancing— " and I am sacrificing !"—it seems an exeerpt from the acts of some mediaeval saint and king. Nevertheless, Numa carried through the work to which he was called, welded all classes of citizens into one community, and laid the base of civilisation. That any one of these four lawgivers ever lived may be doubtful, but nobody can prove that they did not, and their legislation at least is indisputable.—London ' Evening Standard.'