Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-h4f6x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-28T06:25:17.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ordeals: an economic vindication of ancient Indian “nonsense”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

Harald Wiese
Harald Wiese*
Affiliation:
University of Leipzig
*
wiese@wifa.uni-leipzig.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ordeals (by fire, by water, etc.) are a judicial institution in which defendants try to prove their innocence by divine judgement. In a recent law and economics paper, Leeson (2012) suggests that (medieval) ordeals “work” because, and if, ordeal takers have sufficient belief in them and because the priests administering ordeals “manipulate” them in an appropriate manner. We find that Leeson's theory also helps us understand Indian ordeals. Interestingly, some dharma texts require that the accuser agrees to the ordeal too, a requirement absent in Leeson's theory. We extend Leesons's model accordingly.

Keywords

OrdealsDecision theoryGame theory

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of SOAS , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , October 2016 , pp. 513 - 534
Copyright
Copyright © SOAS, University of London 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Brick, David. 2010. “The court of public opinion and the practice of restorative ordeals in pre-modern India”, Journal of Indian Philosophy, 38, 25–38.Google Scholar
Derrett, J. Duncan M. 1978. “Ancient Indian ‘nonsense’ vindicated”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 98, 100–06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, Robert. 1992. A Primer in Game Theory. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Lariviere, Richard W. 2003. The Nāradasmṛti. Critical Edition and Translation. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Lariviere, Richard W. 1981. The Divyatattva of Raghunandana Bhaṭṭācārya: Ordeals in Classical Hindu Law. New Delhi: Manohar.Google Scholar
Lariviere, Richard W. 1984. “An institution designed to control potential abuses of ordeals in Classical Hindu law: the Śiraḥ”, Journal of the Oriental Institute of Baroda, 34, 35–9.Google Scholar
Leeson, Peter T. 2011. “Trials by battle”, Journal of Legal Analysis, 3, 341–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, Peter T. 2012. “Ordeals”, Journal of Law and Economics, 55, 691–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, Peter T. and Coyne, Christopher J.. 2012. “Sassywood”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 40, 608–20.Google Scholar
Olivelle, Patrick. 2000. Dharmasūtras. The Law Codes of Āpastamba, Gautama, Baudhāyana, and Vasiṣṭha. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Olivelle, Patrick. 2005. Manu's Code of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Olivelle, Patrick. 2009. The Law Code of Viṣṇu. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Patkar, Madhukar M. 1978. Nārada, Bṛhaspati and Kātyāyana. A Comparative Study in Judicial Procedure. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers.Google Scholar
Schlagintweit, Emil. 1866. Die Gottesurtheile der Indier. Munich: Verlag der königl. Akademie.Google Scholar
Shastri, Hari Prasad. 1959. The Ramayana of Valmiki. London: Shanti Sadan.Google Scholar
Scriba, Karl. 1902. “Die Fragmente des Pitāmaha. Text und Übersetzung”, Dissertation, Julius-Maximilians-Universität zu Würzburg. Druck von W. Drugulin (Leipzig).Google Scholar
Stenzler, Adolf Friedrich. 1855. “Die indischen Gottesurtheile”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 9, 661–83.Google Scholar
Strauch, Ingo. 2002. Die Lekhapaddhati-Lekhapañcāśika. Briefe und Urkunden im mittelalterlichen Gujarat. Berlin: Reimer Verlag.Google Scholar