Questions of King Milinda Part 02

SR No.: 007682
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: T W Rhys Davids
Publisher: Oxford
Publication Year: 1894
Total Pages: 2240
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 38 MB

Page 518

CHAPTER XVI, 3-II.
37
all unmagisterial proceedings-which, though it be a custom, is to proceed unauthorisedly—the species are five', which consist in having demonstrated, getting upon, striking, having caused a wound, and having slain.
9. Of those subject to the magistrate (patkârrado-hômônd) the twelve species are divided into four sections of three each. 10. One section are the hearing who are seeing, they to whom a dispute which is verbal [is demonstrable; the hearing who are not seeing, they to whom a dispute which is verbal 3] is not demonstrable; and the seeing who are not hearing, they to whom even a dispute which is demonstrable is not verbal. II. And with these three, who are in one section, there is magisterial investigation; and the magistrate, unless (bavâ hat) risk for the body be certain, is then irresistible; which is as though it be said that to restrain by
4
1 These five grades of unauthorised retribution are analogous to the five grades of personal outrage mentioned in Vend. IV, 17.
'Pahl. zatam, 'a blow, assault, striking,' is used throughout, instead of zâkham (Pers. za'hm), which latter word does not occur in these two books of the Dînkard, except in the form zakhamihastano in Bk. IX, Chap. VIII, 6. The Farhang-î Oîm-aêvak also uses zatôm in the same sense, in its oldest MSS.; and Dd. V, I has zatam. Darmesteter suggests that zatam and zâkham are both traceable to an original zathma, or zathema.
The words in brackets are omitted by mistake in the MS.
The ambiguity, mentioned in the latter clause of this section, appears to lie in these words, which mean either 'but if' or 'only if.' Such ambiguity must have existed in the original Pahlavi text of the Nask, and probably indicates that the earlier part of this section is a summary of the Pahlavi version of the original Avesta text, while the latter part is a summary of the Pahlavi commentary upon that version. As the same ambiguity occurs, without comment, in 12, where the meaning seems tolerably certain, it is doubtful if the commentator's opinion can be adopted.
Digitized by
Google