TH

ANCIENT AND MODERN HINDU GILDS.

I.

HE gilds of India can be traced back to about 600 B. C. But it is probable that they are still older, for when they are first mentioned it is as a factor of considerable importance in the state. Nevertheless, although the earliest law-books recognize the authority of the gilds, they do not assign to them so conspicuous a position as does the later law, and we may therefore regard the first six centuries before our era as a period of development in the life of the gilds, when these associations still had much to gain. But what they still lacked they had gained completely by the third or fourth century A. D.; and it is not likely that they ever possessed more power than they did at that time, although they have maintained a very autocratic position down to our own century, and even now in certain districts are practically the rulers of the business world about them.

Unfortunately the oldest texts make no clear statement in respect of the powers of the gilds or of their organization. But their growth in influence may be inferred from two typical rules of the law-books. Gautama, about 600 B. C., says: "Laws of districts, castes, and families, when not opposed to sacred texts, are an authority," and then adds to this the words: "Ploughmen, merchants, herdsmen, money-lenders, and artizans (are also authority) for their respective classes." Here local usage and the laws of castes still stand preeminent. But

1 As I cannot quote the original texts (here and in the following passages from the ancient literature) I will comprise in one note most of the references made to my authorities in the order given. G. xi. 20-21 (Vas. i. 17; xix. 7), xv. 18; Y. i. 360; M. viii. 41 (B. i. 1, 2, 3−7), 46; Vas. xvi. 15; M. viii. 219, 221; Brihas. viii. 9. On the possibility of gilds in the Brahmanic period, compare the use of other words for corporations and the early use of the later technical word in TS. iii. 4, 5, 1; AV. i. 9, 3; Ait. Br. iii. 30, 3; Kaushit. Up. ii. 20; and compare the púja and grámayájaka, G. xv. 16; Mbh. iii. 200. 7; M. iv. 205; iii. 151, 164; Yáj. i. 161, 360; ii. 192; M. iii. 154; V. x. 4. In Buddhistic literature, the following passages: Cullav. v. 8; vi. 1, 4; Maháv. i. 7, 1; viii. 1, 16ff.; Ep. Ind. ii. p. 98. From the Epic, further, Mbh. v. 34, 49; xii. 88, 29-30; 59, 49; 140, 64; xv. 7, 8; iii. 249, 16; xii. 107, 10-32; ii. 5, 80; xii. 36, 19; xii. 321, 143; Nár. i. 40, 155; x. I; Brihas. xvii. 5ff.

in Manu's law-book, completed about the time of the Christian era, we read: "A king should enforce his own law only after a careful examination of the laws of castes and districts, gildlaws, and family-laws," where the laws of the gilds are already reckoned as on a par with those of castes and families.

If the king was bound to respect the laws of the gilds, he was none the less expected to see that the members of the gild followed their own laws. These laws were in fact as authoritative as royal decrees. This is a point often touched upon in the early law-books, where (in the words of Yájñavalkya, whose code belongs to the beginning of our era) "the king must discipline and establish again on the path (of duty) all such as have erred from their own laws, whether families, castes, gilds, associations, or (people of certain) districts."

Till the time of Vishnu's law-book, third century A. D., no one of these gilds appears as preeminent, but in this work "metal-workers and smiths of silver and gold" are mentioned particularly, though this preeminence may be due to accident. But the circumstance is interesting, because exactly these gilds became the chief gilds of ordinary towns, and because they were very likely the first to band together in self-defence, all the gilds originating in this way, but the goldsmiths perhaps first of all, since the old law in regard to smiths was so extremely severe as to call for some union on their part.1

All compacts made by gilds as corporate bodies come under the general law of compacts, and both the older and later law-books content themselves with saying on this point that "the king should see to it that gild-compacts are enforced;" while in regard to compacts made by the gild-members for their own observance, the older law enjoined that the king should banish the member who violated any agreement made by the association to which the offender belonged.

1 The old law in regard to a goldsmith found guilty of defrauding was based on the principle that a goldsmith can most easily deceive, and that when he does so he is the vilest of sinners." The king is therefore directed to see to it that a goldsmith found guilty of cheating shall be chopped up into very small pieces with sharp knives, whereas ordinary thieves or cheats are merely beheaded. By uniting together and ostracizing a guilty member, the gild could inflict a punishment which, if it was not so severe, probably had a still more deterrent effect.

The reason why the gilds came into prominence just when they did is doubtless because it was at that period that the Buddhists arose, who reached the acme of their power in the period from the third century B. C. to the fourth century A. D. In accordance with this fact stands, too, the special prominence of gild-life in the eastern part of India, the home of Buddhism. As the Buddhists placed the warrior-caste before the priest-caste and gave unrestricted freedom to the third estate, it is not wonderful that gild-life is characteristic of a Buddhistic environment. The same, however, is true in regard to the Jains, a rival heretical sect, which also arose in the sixth century B. C. Hence it is, that on the one hand, early Buddhistic literature, from 350 B. C. onwards, teems with references to the gilds and speaks of the Heads of Gilds as of the highest social position, while on the other hand the seat of gild-power to-day is still found among the Jains (the Buddhists having left India), and especially among the descendants of those who claim to have come originally from the eastern seat of Buddhistic and Jain culture. Even in the earliest Buddhistic sculptures we find reference to gilds and gildmasters. From the literature we see that the Heads of Gilds were great house-holders who were not only high state officials but on occasion became kings, at all times being represented as in the social set of kings and princes, friends and intimates of the various Rájas of Oudh and Benares. They bore, too, the same name conferred to-day on the Heads of Gilds, namely Sheth, meaning optimus, the Heads being in name as in fact a literal aristocracy. The Sheth in old times was often addressed simply as house-holder, but with the connotation of landowner, landed-proprietor. From the law it appears that there were gilds of various sorts, but the only prominent one in Buddhist literature is that of the merchants, those members of the "third caste" so oppressed by Brahmanism, so liberated by Buddhism. The Sheth who is a House-holder (a higher title) is sometimes the king's treasurer, as if the word (literally "houselord") meant ruler of the king's house, for he is the chief official of the kingdom. The Sheth's office, either as treasurer or simple Sheth, was, however, hereditary. Such, in Buddha's day,

were the great Sheth families of Benares and the neighboring towns. They represent a cross-cut through the ancient system of castes, a plutocracy perpetuating itself as an aristocracy. This view was adopted by the Brahmans themselves, who soon after this period began to make a sharp distinction between the very wealthy and the ordinary members of the third estate, who still remained a despicable caste "created for the king to devour;" till the new democratic tendency finds expression in the words of the epic sage, who says: "That which is called the wealthy is a very important member of the state; for verily a man with money is the top of all creation." The great epic is full of allusions to the gilds. Their power is reckoned as equal to that of the army; their Heads must be "talked over" by spies when the king would subdue another kingdom; they are "supported by union," and the king is especially charged not to tax them too heavily, lest they become disaffected, which is represented as a very great calamity. As the epic was probably completed soon after if not before our era, it is interesting to notice that perhaps the modern Pancháyat was already known at that date. For in one of the didactic portions mention is made of the "five, valliant and wise" who in each town "preserve order." They are expressly stated to be a united body "among the people," that is in the country. There is also one passage where the later Mahájans may be referred to in the epic. For many centuries this word (literally "big people") has designated the masters of the more important gilds as well as the gilds themselves. Nowadays it is usually applied in the eastern part of India to wealthy bankers and goldmerchants. The passage in the epic, however, does not certainly use the word in its modern sense, and it is several centuries before the word occurs again in its modern meaning.

In the law-books of Nárada and Brihaspati, assigned to the fifth and sixth centuries of our era, some new legal material in regard to gilds is found. We learn that the gild is governed by a board of from two to five persons. The villages are directed to "take the advice" of such a Pancháyat, which oversees the affairs of smaller associations as well as its own. Banishment is the punishment of anyone who injures the joint

our relations with foreign states is devolved on the President." At the following session President Jackson sent a message to Congress in which he stated that it was unnecessary to discuss the constitutional question, for "on the ground of expediency" he thought it better "that the expediency of recognizing the independence of Texas should be left to the decision of Congress." An interesting discussion followed in the House, John Quincy Adams opposing any form of words which would imply that Congress had the right to give recognition. The opposition was successful. An appropriation for a diplomatic agent "to the independent republic of Texas" was changed so that the agent should be sent "to the Republic of Texas whenever the President of the United States shall receive satisfactory evidence that Texas is an independent power and that it is expedient to appoint such a minister." Under this appropriation the agent was actually accredited.

It has been claimed that Congress recognized the independence of Hayti and Liberia in 1862, but the act merely authorized the appointment of diplomatic representatives to these republics, and fixed their rank and pay. It had substantially the same effect as the appropriation for Texas just quoted.

In 1864, the House of Representatives, against the protest of Mr. Blaine, passed a resolution claiming that Congress had the right to prescribe our foreign policy and recognize new powers, and that the President was obliged to respect that policy in diplomatic negotiations. President Lincoln and Secretary Seward took the opposite ground, and the Senate (which up to very recent years has always maintained the prerogative of the executive department, to which in a sense it belongs) paid no attention to the matter.

In 1876 Congress passed a joint resolution requesting the Secretary of State to convey a complimentary message from it to the Republic of Pretoria (the Transvaal); but President Grant vetoed the resolution on the ground that it inadvertently infringed upon the constitutional rights of the executive, saying: "If Congress can direct the correspondence of the Secretary of State with foreign governments, a case very different from that now under consideration might arise, when that