Hindu Law and Custom (Recht und Sitte) c7.240

c7.240

In the law of debt Brh. distinguishes between four kinds of sureties (11, 40) instead of the three of Nār. (1, 118). In chapter 8 he deals with documents in minute details. He extends the law of partnership even to the joint undertakings of farmers, craftsmen, architects, musicians and robbers (14, 20-32). He keeps closer to M. than to Nār., yet he agrees with the latter in many definitions. He too mentions the Dināra (10, 15) like Nār. Accordingly it appears that the account of the Skandapurāṇa, referred to in § 7, about the successive redactions of M. by Bhṛgu, Nār. and Brh., in spite of its mythical character, approximately agrees with the actual state of affairs ; yet however, there is no great distance of time between Nār. and Brh. Brh. should be assigned to about the sixth or the seventh century A.D. because already from the ninth century onwards he is quoted by the commentators as an inspired Seer. For the quotations from Brh., in Dhammasats which lead us to a similar result, see § 13. The passage (27, 21) about the Pārasīkas indicating an intimate intercourse with the Persians is also worthy of notice. The Bṛh. quotations about other features of Dharma, some of which may be traced in the small Bṛh. (§ 6), are comparatively far fewer in number than those about Vyavahāra; perhaps like Nār. the latter formed a separate work on law proper. From the reference to the Vājasaneyaka-mantra, VS 20, 20, in a text of Bṛh. about Snāna¹, it cannot be concluded that Bṛh. was a Vājasaneyin, for the same Mantra is cited elsewhere too, e.g., in Vi. 64, 21.