THE CODE INSCRUTABLE

India. When I say "code" do not imagine a modern code. I use the word in a very restricted meaning; the laws of the four great castes of India, to say nothing of the three hundred lesser ones, are far too unsettled and numerous to admit of being codified. Code here means a collection of a feu' of the laws and customs of the four great castes, principally of the Brahman or priestly class which rules India. The Brahman caste, according to tradition, derive their laws and religious customs from Menu (or Manu), the first created man and the holiest of legislators. It was these laws as they stood in 1794 that Sir William Jones translated from the original Sanskrit. Gentoo literally taken means mankind, but Europeans have always translated it Hindu. Mr. Halhed took his material from the Persian, a learned Brahman having effected the translation into that language from the Sanskrit. The influence of Menu is suffi ciently dominant in Mr. Halhed's text that I may, for my purposes, refer to both translations as a code of Menu laws. The excerpts to follow are taken indiscriminately without reference to either translator. I might mention that Mr. Warren Hastings, in 1772, was responsible for the first glimpse of Brahman laws in English, as he was Mr. Halhed's patron. But as the purpose of this article is not to deal seriously with the laws of India but merely to point out a few odd passages in this very imperfect and incomplete collection, I will not further delay my purpose. Sir William Jones in his preface to his translation of " Menu Laws" says: "The work now presented to the European world contains an abundance of curious matter extremely interesting both to specu lative lawyers and antiquaries, with many beauties which need not be pointed out and with many blemishes which cannot be justified or palliated. It is a system of despotism and priest-craft, both, indeed, limited by law, but artfully conspiring to give mutual checks. It is filled with strange

461

conceits in metaphysics and natural philoso phy, with idle superstitions . . . with minute childish formalities, but with a style that sounds like the language of legislation and extorts a respectful awe." All of this is very true, but unfortunately, as Mr. Halhed remarks, indecency is a word unknown to the law, and good taste prevents the great majority of these strange conceits from appearing in an article in the English language. Such others as are admissible I will give, with as much unity as is possible under the circumstances. Almost every race has a figure of speech which conveys its idea of Justice. It will be obvious that the Hindu simile is logical, since the cow and the bull with them are sacred animals. The code runs: "The divine form of justice is represented as a bull, and the gods consider him who violates justice as one who slays a bull: let the king, therefore, and his judges beware of violating justice." The only infallible friend of mankind is justice, for — "The only firm friend who follows men even after death is justice; all others are extinct with the body." The effect of injustice was far-reaching. Who shall deny the wisdom of this?" "Of injustice in decisions, one fourth falls on the party in the cause, one fourth on his witnesses, one fourth on all the judges and one fourth on the king. Of that king who stupidly looks on while an unworthy judge decides causes, the kingdom itself shall be embarrassed like a cow in deep mire." If our own judges were faced by the following fate for miscarriage of justice the standard of the bench might be faultless. In this passage, however, it is probable that the destruction referred to is to come after death. "Where justice is destroyed by iniquity and truth by false evidence, the judges who basely look on without giving redress shall also be destroyed." "It must be remembered that the penalties