"Don't drink water from a goat's hoof, you'll become a kid."

Russian Folk Tale

The article is devoted to the analysis of a number of contexts found in religious and legal monuments of Ancient India. The considered fragments are devoted to the protection of property. Contrary to the established tradition, in this study, the emphasis on the topic of theft is shifted from legal issues to issues of cultural anthropology. The censure of theft in ancient India, according to sources, is closely related to religious ideas about the mechanism of ritual desecration transmitted through things. The basis of the prohibition of theft, therefore, is such a system of representations, according to which each thing in a certain sense is a continuation of its owner. Physical contact with an object is equivalent to physical contact with its owner. If the item is found in the possession of another person, including as a result of theft, then part of the sins of its former owner passes to the new owner. In the caste-based society of ancient India, such beliefs were the main motivation for censuring theft.

Keywords: property, property, gift, treat, theft, magic.

The problem of the ancient man's attitude to his property is traditionally considered by historians in a legal way, leaving little chance for other angles of view. Meanwhile, it is enough to replace the word "attitude"with the word "experience", as the approach to the problem will radically change. For the topic of "a person's experience of his property" 1 is no longer so much in the legal sphere as in the field of cultural and anthropological research.

From the moment a person began to fix legal norms, the first and probably one of the main issues of any legal system was the protection of property. The laws of Hammurabi, Hittite laws, Draconian laws, Old Testament texts, Laws of the XII Tables, and many other monuments of early law (or religious legal texts) impose the most severe taboo on other people's property. The most severe penalties follow for trespassing on another person's property. The idea that theft is a grave sin is as old as the institution of private property itself. However, it can be seen that depending on which culture generates a ban on trying to appropriate someone else's property, there is also a question of how this ban is motivated.

1 For the first time this phrase was used in a similar context in his work by I. S. Klochkov (see [Klochkov, 1983, p. 47]).

page 29
The topic of theft in early cultures, one way or another, should begin with questions about the perception of the nature of a thing by a person of traditional society and the nature of the connection of this thing with its owner. In traditional society, a thing is significant, unique, has a sacred meaning and essence, its state is close to animate existence2, it often retains not only the name of its creator, but also has a name itself. The importance of an ancient object, coupled with the sanctity of property rights, moves the topic of material culture, and then the specific question of the condemnation of theft, from the field of law to the sphere of historical psychology, putting us before the problem of direct experience of the possession of property by a person.

Turning to the issue of motivating the ban on theft in India, it should be understood that, like any other aspect of human life in ancient Indian culture, the topic of encroachment on other people's property in sources should not be considered in isolation from ritual and caste issues. For the texts themselves that relate to this problem intersperse legal material with questions of a completely different kind - ritual, everyday, etc. [Istochnikovedenie..., 1984, p. 4]. 285-286]. As a result, the researcher of the problem of ownership in the Indian material finds himself at the junction of two topics that are rarely considered in the scientific literature in a complex. The analysis of ancient Indian law and the study of ritual and caste issues almost always occur in isolation from each other, although the legal topics of ancient Indian didactic texts in principle cannot be considered in isolation from the issues of the specific worldview of the creators of these monuments (caste, ritual purity, desecration, etc.). The ancient Indian dharmashastras themselves should not be literally identified with legal sources in the usual sense of the word, because no less than the Old Testament "Deuteronomy", they have the characteristics of religious literature.

A classic example of the traditional approach for indological historiography is the work of L. Stembach, who, based on the texts of the smriti genre, analyzes in detail the typology of ancient Indian contributions (Stembach, 1965). R. S. Sharma's analysis of the economic history of India does not, in principle, concern the religious aspect of the issue [Sharma, 1987]. The situation is similar in Russian historiography, as, for example, is evidenced by a number of works by A. M. Samozvantsev [Samozvantsev, 1978; Samozvantsev, 1998]. At the beginning of one of the articles on the relevant topic, the author draws readers ' attention to the fact that we are talking about the formation of law within the ritualistic culture, and, consequently, texts covering the problems of property are guided by other values (rather than ancient monuments) [Samozvantsev, 1998, p.275]. However, he does not return to this idea and mainly analyzes the terminology of property relations, primarily land. The final conclusion also has nothing to do with the original premise and is reduced to observations that land ownership was conditioned by membership in the community and was linked to issues of land cultivation and income extraction from it [Samozvantsev, 1998, p.304].

Thus, the authors who touch upon the topic of property relations in Ancient India, in general, consider the problem in a legal and economic way, because, from the point of view of a modern person, property issues should in principle lie in the legal and economic spheres. However, it is unlikely that this logic is quite fair in relation to ancient cultures. In addition, attention should be paid to the specifics of the texts that are used as sources.-

2 It is noteworthy in this context that the rituals provided for a person can be "duplicated" in relation to their property. For example, when performing the rite of royal ablution in the text of Varahamihira, the same actions can equally be performed on the royal elephant and horse (Varahamihira's Brhatsamhita, 48.87).

page 30
it is used to the minimum extent. Meanwhile, in a society whose life is determined primarily by the caste hierarchy, and in a culture that is all based on ritual-magical ideas, one should not completely separate legal topics and legal norms from the socio-cultural features of the worldview of the inhabitants of the region.

With this thought, let us turn to the problem of theft in ancient Indian texts. This theme is widely represented in normative literature (sutras and sastras), in monuments of the epic tradition, in dramas3, and in prose. The issue is discussed in more detail, of course, in the normative monuments. At the same time, it is noteworthy that in Indian ritual and legal didactics, contexts that directly refer to the topic of theft are significantly less than in the Laws of Hammurabi or the Laws of the XII Tables. Last but not least, this is due to the very genre of monuments that include questions of this kind.4
The punishment of a thief within the framework of the administration of justice in the human world, in fact, differs little from that established by the legal traditions of other cultures, fluctuating most often between a fine and the death penalty, including the possibility of branding the thief, maiming, expelling, etc. (see, for example: Visnusmrti, 5.1-18). However, retribution awaits the ancient Indian thief, unlike all other thieves, twice: during this life and in the next birth, as we will discuss in more detail below 5. The cardinal difference lies in one of the main interpretations of the ban on theft and in the religious and ritual context of its censure.

It is obvious that the Indian tradition of dharmashastra literature considers theft (steya) not only as a crime in the legal sense of the word, but also as a grave religious sin (mahapataka) (Manavadharmasastra, XI. 55).6. Manusmriti puts it on a par with the consumption of illicit food (Manavadharmasastra, XI.153-162) and illicit sexual intercourse (Manavadharmasastra, XI.170-179). Within the framework of ritual and caste themes, both violation of the rules of eating and violation of sexual taboos are traditionally considered as the most dangerous for a person's status. It is unlikely that such a positional arrangement of the theme in the text can be regarded only as a feature of this monument. This is also the case, for example, in the Vishnu Dharmashastra (51.1-78): penance for consumption of forbidden food and drink; (52.1-17): penance for theft; (53.1-9): penance for desecrating sexual relations, etc.7 All these violations are listed in the same row. Assigned to

3 Despite the seriousness of the condemnation of theft by ancient Indian monuments, the image of the thief Sharvilaki, who sneaked into the house of Charudatta, the main character of the Shudraki drama "Clay Cart", cannot but attract attention. The comic character, frustrated by the poverty of the "client", constantly refers the audience to the "theft science" - his presentation of the" basics of the profession "seems to imitate quoting a certain shastra of the" science of theft " [Shudraka, Act III].

4 The genre of shastra itself is referred by tradition to the so-called smriti - "sacred tradition" [Wintcrnitz, 1920, S. 532, Dwivcdi, 1985-1986, p. 43]. By the same tradition, the provisions contained in them were considered not as laws, but rather as a set of rules that bring stability and well-being to the world, which serve as the key to the successful implementation of any human act [Pollock, 1990, I, p.302; Pollock, 1990, II, p. 19]. Therefore, the sastras, unlike legal monuments, are not so much imperative as recommendatory in nature and, accordingly, use not an imperative, but a desirable mood.

5 We are talking about punishments in future births, because many cultures provide for posthumous punishments in the afterlife for the criminal.

6 For the sake of justice, it should be noted that theft is designated as a sin by, say, the Biblical tradition - and the Old Testament tradition, which calls a curse on the thief's head (Dt. XVII. 17), and the New Testament version, which excludes the thief from reaching heaven (1 Corinthians VI. 10). However, in the biblical books, the contexts that deal with the sinfulness of theft primarily imply the moral aspect. In the Indian tradition, the situation obviously looks different.

7 The similarity of the dharmashastra texts of Manu and Vishnu has been repeatedly noticed in the literature [Kornssva, 2007, pp. 42-43]. For many reasons (primarily of chronological order), the influence of Manu on Vishnu is obvious [Kane, vol. 1, pp. 116-117]. However, the logic by which themes appear side by side can hardly be explained only by the mutual influence of monuments.

page 31
for such sinners, the thief (stena, taskara) must go through the appropriate cleansing procedures, perform penance, because the sins that require purification, atonement (prayascitta) can deprive a person of his social status. At the same time, the cleansing carried out does not completely remove the problem of trial and punishment. Both aspects exist as if in different planes.

The considered fragments of the dharmashastras of Manu and Vishnu are typologically similar, mainly dealing with the topic of religious sins (including theft) and prescribed atonement (prayascitta) in each particular case. However, it is worth noting that in monuments of a different genre, as well as in other parts of the same text of Manusmriti, the topic of theft can be considered in a different way. It looks different in the eighth Book of Manu, which lists 18 reasons for judicial proceedings that are textbook for the Indian tradition (VIII. 3-8). This is also the tone of the conversation about theft in the third and fourth books of the Arthashastra. All three passages are much closer to the concept of "legal proceedings" in the modern sense of the word. The fundamental difference between these fragments and those discussed above is primarily that the king is the arbiter of justice, the topic of legal proceedings is thus included in the presentation of the dharma of a kshatriya (king), the material is grouped in the appropriate sections and maintained in the appropriate key. In a remarkable way, the difference in content and style of the passages dealing with justice, Brahminism, and" political " traditions correlates with Biruni's observations (LXXI. 281).

Confirmation of the close connection of encroachment on other people's property with ritual-caste issues is found in another part of the Manu text (IV. 201), as well as in close contexts of the Yajnavalkya dharmashastra (1.159), and then in a later monument - the Vishnu dharmashastra (64.1). They all deal with the same situation in a similar way and formulate a prohibition: one should not perform ablution in a foreign body of water (Manavadh-drmasastra: paraklyanipanesu na snayaddhi kada sapa; Yajnavalkya-smrti: panca pindananuddhrtya nasndyatparavarisu; Visnusmrti: para-nipanesu na snanam acarei), because the person performing ablution stained with sins (Manavadharmasastra: duskrtamsena lipyate) the owner of the reservoir. Thus, only Manu provides a clear explanation of the prohibition, but it is obvious that all three texts have the same rationale in mind. The situation does not qualify as "theft", but it can certainly be considered in the context of encroachment on someone else's property or, at least, as illegal contact with someone else's property.

Following the same logic, the Manu text promises to transfer part of the sin of the owner of movable and immovable property (cart-uapa, bed - sayya, well - kira, house - grha, etc.) to the person who appropriated it without the owner's consent (lit. "undone" - adatta - IV.202). For the same reason, one should probably not wear shoes (upanah), clothing (vasa), sacred cord (upavita), jewelry (alahkara) and other things of another person (IV.66). Finally, in the ninth book of the same text, the situation is fully revealed: a virtuous king (nrpah sadhur) who embezzles a sinner's property is stained by his sins (tena dosena lipyate - IX.243)8 and consequently loses his virtue. On the one hand, positionally, this passage in the shastra appears in the context of the topic of crimes, on the other hand, the situation can obviously extend even wider: to receive taxes, gifts, treats, etc., i.e., to any contact with a material object that has another owner.

Representations of this kind in the Shudraka drama " The Clay Cart "are reflected in the words of the brahmana Charudatta:" You can not keep in the inner chambers what a hetaera wore " [Shudraka, p.187]. We are talking about the ritually clean interior of the brahmin's dwelling. The hetaera, from the point of view of the caste Hindu, is a dangerous creature,

8 In the context of such representations, the image of the king receiving a share of his religious merits for protecting his subjects also becomes clearer.

page 32
unclean. In the light of such representations, a passage from the same drama takes on a special meaning. The jewels of the hetaera Vasantasena, taken for safekeeping to the house of the brahmana Charudatta, are the subject of concern and discontent of Charudatta's friend Maitreya. The latter is even ready to give these "vile things" to a thief who has entered the house, so long as they do not harm the owner of the house by their presence.

Finally, the verb used in such contexts (Manavadharmasastra, IV.201; IX.243, etc.) also draws attention to itself. The primary meaning of lip-is associated with literal physical contamination 9 (cf. Manavadharmasastra, IV. 56) and only then with ritual desecration. The corresponding color gets an idea of the nature and mechanism of the impact of someone else's property on the thief.

This logic makes one wonder: what should be the consequences of giving a gift in this case? Can a gift made by a person who is burdened with sins taint the recipient of the gift? The importance of the gift institution for Indian classical culture is perhaps disproportionately greater than for most other traditional societies. Giving is placed on a par with asceticism and sacrifice in the work of purification from sins (Mahabharata, XIV.3.4-10). Making a gift is an indispensable condition for acquiring piety, a guarantee of a better birth in the future, an obligatory component of a significant part of important ceremonies (anointing to the kingdom, wedding, other rites of passage), etc. Food gifts are an essential part of gifts, which makes the very fact of transfer especially dangerous from the point of view of a person of caste society. The Indian tradition regulates the rules of gifting at length, proclaiming norms that can be harmful to both parties if not observed. Rules are established about what (and to whom) can be given, from whom the gift can be accepted (Manavadharmasastra, IV. 84; IV. 207), who can be given (Manavadharmasastra, IV. 186-194).

Numerous plots built around the theme of giving, presented in texts of various genres, allow us to make a curious observation. To a lesser extent, the list of acceptable gift items is regulated by tradition 10. By the way, this list is quite extensive: from household members, younger relatives (for example, the gift of Kunti by her father to his childless friend-Mahabharata, 1.104) to the values offered by gurus as tuition fees in descending order: land, gold, cows, horses, umbrella, shoes, grain, clothing, etc. (Manavadharmasastra, 11.245-246). The amount of dakshina can be regulated as a special case of giving, because too small a sum will harm the giver (Manavadharmasastra, XI.39-40). However, the main subject of discussion remains the ranking of acceptable "transaction counterparties". From which it clearly follows that the main thing for the qualitative characterization of any object in the material world is precisely the personality of the owner, present and future, because it is she who gives the thing certain qualities, good or bad, and makes the gift good or harmful. Of course, the subject of the gift should not and cannot be dealt with so fluently. However, in the context of the issue under discussion, the most important of all existing aspects is the system of relations between a thing (food, etc.) and its owner.

Such a reverent attitude to the objects of the material world and the establishment of an indissoluble connection between a thing, its owner and its recipient (thief), of course, was born not from legal practice, but primarily from the specifics of ideas about the essence of relationships and contacts between people and their things. At the same time, it is obvious that the tradition itself extends this whole system of ideas to any situations in which a person is affected.-

9 According to the Small Petersburg Dictionary: bestreichen, bcschmicrcn, bcsudcln [Bohtlingk, 1884, s. v. lip-J.

10 We can say that the very fact of giving is given a sacred meaning, regardless of the value of the object of the gift. This is perfectly illustrated by the story of Ashoka Sangha giving half of the amalaki fruit to her [Ashokavadana, 2003, pp. 129-131].

page 33
the property, its owner and a certain third party who is in contact with this property in one way or another are involved. The texts clearly demonstrate the existence of personal connections between a person and the material world around him - their mutual involvement and mutual influence. Ideas of this kind are in good agreement with the" law of participation " developed by L. Levi-Bruhl [Levi-Bruhl, 2012, p. 43 et al.]. Extending it to situations with property, we actually see a mystical ownership of property to the owner. There are widely known magical practices that exploit this connection: influencing a person through his thing. However, in our case, the situation looks like a mirror image: the thing, or rather its former owner through the thing, is able to influence the new owner.

In Indian texts, the term for property relations is rendered by the word svamya, regardless of what or whom it is about. Svamya can extend to both inanimate objects and people - the daughter (svamya rights of the father), the wife (svamya rights of the husband; see, for example, Manavadharmasastra, V. 152). Sometimes property relations are referred to by another word - svamitva (Visnusmrti, 17.02) the owner is respectively nominated as svamin.

The word svamin has a broad meaning and wide usage. It can get different values in different contexts. The main one in most texts, regardless of the genre and era of their creation, is mainly "master", "owner", "lord" (Manavadharmasastra, VIII. 150, 229, 230); accordingly, asvamin is a non — owner (VIII.197). While retaining the basic connotation of meaning, the same word can also denote other persons typologically similar to the "master": a husband, a landlord, and quite often a royal person (Manavadharmasastra, VII.167, IX.294; Kautiliya Arthasastra, VI. 1.1-2, VIII. 1.5, VIII. 1.7, etc.). In this sense, it is identical to the Latin dominus (Smirin, 1985, p. 6), as well as to the Greek atokrachtr (Mayrhofer, 1956-1972, s.v. svamin). Both terms-svamya and svamin-are derived from the root sva - - "own", "own", which in the St. Petersburg dictionary, focusing on numerous contexts, is not only interpreted as a possessive pronoun, but also has "essence"as a peripheral meaning, The "self" and even the" I "("das Ich") [Böhtlingk, 1889, vol.VII, p. 230].

The interpretation of the term, respectively, can be as follows: svamin - the "owner" that is endowed with this "self", owns a certain "essence". Developing the same interpretation further, we can assume that this "self" in a certain sense turns out to be identical with the property of a person-animate and inanimate, 11 that is, what makes a person a master. It is through terminology that the idea of the supremacy of the owner over the property, the master over the household and material values, the father over the children, the husband over the wife, the king over the kingdom is thus expressed - to which the rights of svamya apply. The establishment of an indissoluble connection between a person and his property demonstrates the way of "expressing the relation to have in terms of the relation to consist of" (Romanov, 2003, p. 243-244), which is characteristic not only for Ancient India, but also for many other ancient cultures (Romanov, 2003, p. 243-244). by confining or attributing it to his flesh..."[Perepelkin, 1966, p. 9] 12.

11 Blurring the boundaries between animate and inanimate, property and subjects is a characteristic feature. For example, V. M. Smirin drew attention to the fact that in the institutions of Gaius, a source that preserved archaic elements of Roman law, the slave of a person is mentioned both among his "things" (res) and among "persons" (personae) [Smirin, 1985, p.21]. On the same plane lie the ideas identified by I. S. Klochkov in the worldview of the inhabitants of ancient Mesopotamia, who not only established personal relations between a person and his property, but also endowed this property with their own "soul", "destiny" [Klochkov, 1983, p.7].

12 This is also the nature of the idea of the kingdom as the "flesh" of the king, as reflected in Indian monuments (Romanov, 1978, p. 26).

page 34
The image of the epic Karna, a true hero, who has been compared by researchers to the Greek Achilles and the German Siegfried (Grinzer, 1974, p.318), can be considered significant in this system of representations. In the context of the theme of property, the most important features of this character are not his courage and heroism, but a number of plots based on ideas about the order and meaning of gift exchange. Karna's permanent attributes are the magic shell he was born in and the magic earrings that guarantee his invulnerability. There is a well-known story about how the god Indra in the form of a brahmana wanted to receive earrings and a carapace from Karna as a gift (Mahabharata, III. 294). Having vowed not to refuse a gift to the brahmans, Karna tries to offer an equivalent substitute - "women with gold necklaces or villages with fat flocks" 13. However, Indra is adamant and offers an exchange. The wonderful earrings and carapace that belong to Karna are, in the truest, physical sense of the word, part of it. The plot of giving the armor to Indra looks like a literal cutting off (krt) of the armor from his body with a sword.

M. Moss once wrote about such a system of views, however, on a completely different material. Referring to the theory of Maori law and religion, he pointed out a special category of property (the so-called taonga), which has a close connection with the individual and is a conductor of some magical, religious and spiritual power [Moss, 1996, p.96]. A little later, based on ideas of this kind, he discusses the potlatch system, writes::

"...it is quite clear that in Maori law, the legal connection, the connection by means of things, is the connection of souls, since the thing itself has a soul, comes from the soul. It follows that to give something of your own to someone is to give something of your "I"... In this system of ideas, it is considered clear and logical to return to another what is really a part of his nature and substance, since to accept something from someone is to accept something from his spiritual essence, from his soul. It would be dangerous and fatal to keep this item in your possession... " [Moss, 1996, p. 100].

It is interesting that this system of perception of the material world was noticed not only by historians, but also by psychologists who worked with the material of later epochs. So, the famous American scientist W. As early as the end of the nineteenth century, James formulated the problem of understanding a person's personality, which, as he believed, should be solved based on what exactly a person considers himself. James pointed out that it is very difficult for a person to draw a clear line between what is a person and what belongs to him. He also introduced the concepts of "material Ego", "social Ego" and "spiritual Ego" as part of the task (James, 1902). The same problem was later repeatedly considered by specialists in child psychology. Thus, G. Allport drew attention to the fact that the sense of one's own identity in a small child increases identification not only with one's own name, but also with clothes and favorite things (cited in [Osorina, 2008, p.39]). Indeed, it is precisely in the case of children that the almost mystical connection that small owners establish between themselves and their property is clearly visible. This connection does not allow them to easily replace "their own things" with functionally similar ones and is one of the root causes of the notorious "child greed", an important and indispensable stage of a child's psychological development.

Let's return to the Indian material. If property is understood as an integral part of a person-owner, if it is an" extension " of a person outside the body [Klochkov, 1983, p. 49], then a number of consequences follow from this thesis. In particular, the results of not only the appropriation, but also the refusal of a person from property are very characteristic. For if property is really a significant component of a person's essence, breaking ties with it must have important consequences for the individual-

13 Translated by Y. V. Vasilkov and C. JI. Nsvslsvoy.

page 35
This is an important step. The need for a person to move from one status to another to give up property and other attributes of their usual life is an indispensable condition. A hermit who goes into the forest leaves his clothes and jewelry behind. So, for example, the actions of Pandu and his wives going to the forest look like: they take off their clothes and jewelry and, giving them to the brahmans, as it were, leave them in this world to enter a different state in a new status (Mahabharata, I. 110). Lopamudra, marrying the ascetic Agastya, leaves all her jewels and fine clothes, putting on bast and antelope skin, entering, like her husband, on the path of asceticism and breaking with her past life (Mahabharata, III. 95).

Before becoming a Buddhist monk, a person renounces property and family ties. The rejection of property symbolizes the rejection of the usual life and, accordingly, rebirth, a change in the essence of a person. The opposite situation, but carrying the same semantic load, is the receipt of objects marking the acquisition of a certain status (clothing and a begging bowl for a brahmacharin; clothing of a forest hermit, in which he puts on, leaving the material attributes of a past life "in the world"). The same meaning is attached to the tradition of putting on new clothes before a ritual or after rites that "transmit" a new quality or status to a person — the tradition of putting on new clothes for a child before an upanayana (Ashvalayana-grhyasutra, 1.9.10), the king before and after purifying rites (Varahamihira's Brhatsamhita, 48.50; 48.74), etc. there are a number of objects of the real world that play the role of an indicator of the status of their owner. These can be a staff and a begging pot, an umbrella, or jewelry. These items are traditionally linked to a certain social status of their owner.

If property is understood as an integral part of a person-owner, as an "extension" of a person outside the body, as an integral part of the socioritual status, then coming into contact with this property, in essence, is equivalent to physical contact with its owner. In the context of Indian culture, this point is much more significant than in any other society. Obviously, any physical contact with someone else's property, such as contact with its owner, can, due to various circumstances, be fraught with ritual desecration. Therefore, we can talk about the possibility of a literal physical influence of the qualities of a thing (identical to the qualities of its owner) on the state of a person who is going to appropriate it or contact it in any other way. It is for this reason that it is not the object and circumstances of the gift that are most strictly regulated, as mentioned above, but the persons involved in the gift exchange situation. For their status, especially that of the original owner, affects the qualities of the thing that it bestows on the recipient of the gift.

The difference between the legal thought of India and the legal norms of other regions, therefore, is that in addition to affecting a person's reputation, and after the punishment incurred - and on his physical condition, theft in Ancient India can cause irreparable damage to his social status in ritual and caste terms. Theft in the literal sense of the word can " mar " (lip-) him and his reputation, which, developing the idea further, affects his condition both in this life and in the next births. This is undoubtedly one of the most powerful arguments against theft in the context of Indian culture.

Identification of a thing and its owner includes some other aspects. The same range of ideas can be developed in the context of the topic of gifts and treats, which, while not being theft, at the same time act within the framework of the topic of alienation of property in general and food in particular. It seems logical that by taking a thing / food not only against the will of the owner, but also with his consent - that is, as a gift/treat, physically contacting it, a person automatically receives a certain "part" of its owner, joins his essence. This, as mentioned above, leads to a whole range of prohibitions and restrictions regarding the issues of who should not accept gifts and food from.

page 36
For example, Vishnu's dharmashastra states that one should not accept gifts from his brothers (57.1-2). 14 Manu strongly discourages accepting gifts from the nekshatriya king, from butchers, tavern keepers, etc., i.e., from persons who are ritually dangerous (IV.84).

The topic of the impact on the status of a person of the gift he accepts was also considered in the above-quoted work of M. Moss, just on the Indian material. M. Moss noted that " gifts, givers, things given should be considered in relation...", because in the other world a person will be reborn "together with the essence of those from whom he took food..." [Moss, 1996, p.193]. However, nowhere did Moss extend this sequence of events to the topic of theft, although both the gift and the theft-alienation of property differ only in the degree of voluntary nature, and accordingly their results should be typologically similar. At the same time, the above-mentioned degree of voluntary transmission in the context of Indian material is much less fundamental than in other ancient cultures. However, it would be more correct to express this idea as follows: theft and donation, of course, are considered by sources in completely different contexts and are evaluated in completely different ways. However, as a situation of transfer of a material object in a certain sense, they can have typologically similar results.

Thus, an idea is formed about a certain close relationship between the external world-first of all, its material side, and the internal world of a person, including his ritual status and his physical state. In the end, the relation of a certain similarity of object and subject is established (stolen and stolen, giver and gifted, treater and eater), they are in a certain sense identified with each other through the object that connects them. A relationship of this kind is akin to the magical connections that Edmund Leach, following J. R. R. Tolkien, created in the first place. Fraser characterizes it as contagious, i.e., magic based on the "law of contact" [Leach, 2001, p. 37; Fraser, 1980, p. 22 et al.]. D. K. Zelenin considered contagious magic as the basis of various kinds of property prohibitions [Zelenin,1934, p. 44]. M. Moss believed that it was the main element of the law of contact. that all property is protected from encroachment by a force based precisely on the "idea of infection": "... personal properties, diseases, life, luck... they can be transmitted along the sympathetic chain... In case of a symbolic infection... images merge, resulting in a relative identity of things and beings that are in contact" [Moss, 2000, pp. 156-157].

Thus, as a result of the transfer of property, regardless of the circumstances, a sympathetic chain of the following type is established: the properties of the owner of the thing (food, water), identical to the properties of the thing itself (food, water), pass along with the thing (food, water) to the new owner (including the thief). The latter, through the appropriated (received as a gift) thing (food, water), acquires the properties of its former owner.

A certain causal relationship is built up, which creates the effect of close contact and mutual influence of all three components of the chain. A stolen or donated item acts as a mediator of the properties of the original owner. Representations of the same kind obviously create some restrictions on tactile contacts between different age-caste groups, both directly and through a material "intermediary" 15.

Within the framework of the same system of ideas, the idea of diverse consequences for the thief or recipient of a gift outside of this earthly existence is developed.

Vratya-14 this term in different epochs and in different Indian sources could be called different characters, united only by the fact that they are all despised beings.

15 Tradition considers mainly the negative consequences of interactions of this kind. The question that naturally arises, whether a diametrically opposite situation is possible, does not have an explicit answer, but, of course, deserves special attention to a greater extent than the format of this work allows.

page 37
Thus, the text of the Manu (IX.51-52) establishes a direct relationship between the potential damage to the thief (physical) from a stolen item. The same idea is found in the dharmashastra text of Yajnavalkya (III. 210 (211)). The dharmashastra of Vishnu states that the stealer of horses will be lame (45.14), the stealer of words will be mute (45.12), and the stealer of lamps will be blind (45.20). The same monument states: in a future birth, a person loses what he stole in the present birth (yad yat parebhyas tv adadyat/ purusas tu nir-ahkusah / tena tena vihinah syad / yatra yatrabhijayate, 52.15). These Indian contexts are most likely a classic example of speculative reasoning characteristic of the shastra genre [Nikolskaya, 2003, p. 11-14]. However, the idea of the total interrelation of actions, objects of the material world and physical qualities of a person in the past, present and future is important in this case.

It is obvious that the retribution for theft offered by dharma texts is based on the principle of a specific causal relationship, according to the logic according to which, for example, in a significant part of ancient judicial sources, punishment affects the "sinful" human organ. The laws of Hammurabi prescribe that the son who strikes his father should have his hand cut off (section 195), and that the adopted son of a zikrum eunuch or priestess who says to them, "You are not my father, you are not my mother" should have his tongue cut off (section 192). The crime of using the word in the Indian legal system is also followed by cutting off the tongue (Visnusmrti, 5.23), pouring boiling oil into the mouth (Visnusmrti, 5.24); the hand is lost to the person who committed a large theft (Visnusmrti, 5.81), etc.

It seems that the main idea that can be traced in the texts is formulated in the above passage of Vishnu's dharmashastra: the taker of others will be deprived of this in the next birth (yad yat parebhyas tv adadyat / purusas tu nir-ahkusah / tena tena vihinah syad / yatra yatrabhijayate, Visnusmrti, 52.15). I will repeat for clarity: the one who steals another's sight will be deprived of it in a future birth; horses ("other people's legs") - will become lame, etc. Finally, the one who deprives another of his means of subsistence - a beggar (Visnusmrti, 45.30). Punishment is thus likened to a crime. In other words, we have before us the classical Talion principle, which for a person of European culture is primarily associated with the Old Testament provision "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", but is also present in a significant part of the ancient sudebniks16.

Strictly speaking, all the contexts discussed above are only one side of the topic. There are many aspects that are mostly left out of view: the theme of beggary and treats, and logically related perception of the theme of property through associations with the eater and food, the idea of turning absorbed beggary into a part of oneself (sva) [Romanov, 2003, p. 243], etc. However, it seems that exactly the side of the issue that was analyzed above is the foundation on which the whole system of ideas about the relationship between a person and property is built, on which the corresponding view of theft is formed.

There is no reason to assume that in general terms, views of this kind were not characteristic of other traditional cultures. For example, talking about the principles of codification of everyday human behavior based on Romanian materials, T. V. Tsivyan gives a number of examples that vaguely echo Indian stories: you should not put a child in someone else's cradle - it will take away another child's growth; you should not eat bread from which another person bit, if you do not want him to became your enemy, etc. [Tsivyan, 1985, pp. 163-164]. Some analogies, if desired, can be found in the lower strata of Russian culture: this is, for example, a belief,

16 For example, in the Laws of the XII tables: "if it causes self-harm... then let the same thing be done to him" (VIII.2). This is also the origin of the old Babylonian rule, according to which, if a built house collapses and the owner's son is killed under its rubble, it is not the builder who is to be executed, but his son (Laws of Hammurabi, § 230).

page 38
Finally, the quotation from the Russian folk tale included in the epigraph of this work, which is a plot-forming part of the narrative, is connected with ancient ideas of a similar kind.

The problem of censuring theft in Ancient India, considered mainly on the basis of didactic texts, paints the following picture. It is obvious that the indissoluble unity of a person and his property, which appears as a red thread through most contexts related to property and its alienation, is a sign of early cultures of very different origins, found in many sources and everywhere. Over time, the organic connection between a person and a thing begins to weaken [Weinberg, 1986, pp. 83-84]. However, views of this kind do not disappear without a trace and are subsequently refracted in the light of traditional ideas for each culture, giving in each case their own results. In the ancient Indian tradition, reinterpreted in a ritual-caste context, they gave rise to one of the motivations for prohibiting the appropriation of other people's property.

list of literature

Ashvalayana-grihyasutra / Translated by A. A. Vigasin and N. B. Belyaeva// History and Culture of Ancient India, Moscow, 1990.
Ashokavadana / Translated by O. O. Goncharsnko // Drevnyj Vostok i antichnij mir [The Ancient East and the Ancient World], Issue VI, Moscow, 2003.

Biruni. India / Translated by A. Khalidov and Yu. M. Zavadovsky, Moscow, 1995.

Weinberg I. P. People in the culture of the ancient Near East. M., 1986.

Vishnu-smriti / Translated and commented by N. A. Kornsson, Moscow, 2007.

Grintsur P. A. Drevneindiyskiy epos [Ancient Indian epos]. Moscow, 1974.

James W. Scientific Foundations of Psychology, St. Petersburg, 1902.
Laws of the XII tables / / Textbook on the history of ancient Rome / Edited by S. L. Utchsnko, Moscow, 1962.

Zakony Hammurani [Laws of Hammurani], translated by L. A. Lipin and edited by V. A. Yakobson, in Khrestomatiya po istorii Drevnego Vostoka, Moscow, 1997.
Zelenin D. K. Property prohibitions as survivals of primitive communism. L., 1934.

Source studies of the history of the Ancient East, Moscow, 1984.
Klochkov I. S. Dukhovnaya kul'tura Vavilonii: chelovek, sudba, vremya [Spiritual Culture of Babylonia: man, fate, time]. Moscow, 1983.

Kornssva N. A. Predislovie [Preface] / / Vishnu-smriti, Moscow, 2007.
Lsvi-Bruhl L. Primeval thinking, Moscow, 2012.
Personal Culture and communication. Logic of the relationship of symbols, Moscow, 2001.
The Mahabharata. The Book of the Forest (Aranyakaparva) / Translated by Ya. V. Vasilkova and S. L. Nsvslsvoy. Moscow, 1987.

Moss M. An outline of the general theory of magic / / Social functions of the sacred. St. Petersburg, 2000.

Moss M. Ocherk o dare [Essay on the gift]. Moscow, 1996.

Nikolskaya K. D. Ancient Indian " science of politics "(historical and cultural aspects). Authorsf. diss. ... cand. ist. Moscow, 2003.

Osorina M. V. Secret world of children in the space of the adult world. SPb., 2008.

Psrspslkin Yu. A. Private property in the representation of the Egyptians of the Old Kingdom. Issue 16 (79). Moscow-L., 1966.

Romanov V. N. Ancient Indian ideas about the tsar and the kingdom// Bulletin of Ancient History. 1978. № 4.

Romanov V. N. Istoricheskoe razvitie kul'tury [Historical development of culture]. Psychological and typological aspect, Moscow, 2003.
Samozvantsev A.M. Teoriya sobstvennosti v Drevnoi Indii [Theory of Property in Ancient India]. Moscow, 1978.

Samozvantsev A.M. Property in ancient India / / Private property in the East. Moscow, 1998.

Smirin, V. M., Patriarchal representations and their role in the public consciousness of the Romans, Kul'tura drevnego Rima, T. N., Ed. by E. S. Golubtsov, Moscow, 1985.

Tsivyan T. V. Mythological programming of everyday life // Ethnic stereotypes of behavior, L., 1985.
Sharma R. S. Drevneindiyskoe obshchestvo [Ancient Indian Society]. / Trans. from English, Moscow, 1987.

Shudraka. Glinyanaya povozka / Translated by V. Vorobyov-Dssyatovsky / / Classical Drama of Ancient India, Leningrad, 1984.
Bohtlingk O. Sanskrit-Worterbuch in kurzerer Fassung. Vol. V. St. Petersburg, 1884. Vol. VII. 1889.

Dwivcdi R.C. Concept of the Sastra // Indologica Taurinensia. Vol. XIII, 1985-1986.

Kane P.V History of Dharmasastra. Ancient and Medieval, Religious and Civil Law. Vol. 1-5. Poona, 1930-1962.

page 39
Kauttiiya Arthasastra / A Critical Edition with a Glossary by R.P. Kanglc. Bombay, 1992.

Mahabharata / Critical Edition by Sukthankar. Poona, 1971-1976.

Manavadharmasastra: The Code of Mann / Critically cd. by J. Jolly. London, 1887.

Mayrhofcr M. Kurzgefabtes etymologisches Worterbuch des Altindischen. Heidelberg, 1956-1972.

Naradasmrti / Critically cd. with an Introd., Annotated Transl. and Appendices by R. Larivicrc. Vol. 1-2. Philadelphia, 1989.

Pollock Sh. Playing by the Rules // Indian Art in the Sastric Tradition. Stuttgart, 1990(1).

Pollock Sh. The Idea of Sastra in Traditional India // Indian Art in the Sastric Tradition. Stuttgart, 1990(2).

Stcrnbach L. Juridical Studies in Ancient Indian Law. Delhi, 1965.

Varahamihira's Вrhatsamhita / Ed. and Transl. by M.R. Bhat. Vol. I-II. Delhi, 1993.

Visnusmrti. Vol. 1-2. Varanasi, 1962.

Winternitz M. Geschichte der indischen Literatur. Bd. 3, Leipzig, 1920.

Ydjnavalkya-smrti / With the comment. Mitaksara of Vijnancsvara, Notes, Variant readings, etc. / Ed. by Narayan Ram Acharya. Bombay: Nirnayasagara Press, 1949.

page 40

Permanent link to this publication: