nal Asiatic Society,
Bombay Branch, vol. ix.]

[Footnote 106: Sir William Jones fixed their date at 1280 B.C.;
Elphinstone as 900 B.C. It has recently been stated that they could
not reasonably be placed later than the fifth century B.C.]

[Footnote 107: A very useful indication of the age of the
Dharma-sutras, as compared with the metrical Dharma-_s_astras or
Sa_m_hitas, is to be found in the presence or absence in them of any
reference to written documents. Such written documents, if they
existed, could hardly be passed over in silence in law-books,
particularly when the nature of witnesses is discussed in support of
loans, pledges, etc. Now, we see that in treating of the law of debt
and debtors,(A1) the Dharma-sutras of Gautama, Baudhayana, and
Apastamba never mention evidence in writing. Vasish_th_a only refers
to written evidence, but in a passage which may be interpolated,(A2)
considering that in other respects his treatment of the law of debt is
very crude. Manu's metrical code shows here again its usual character.
It is evidently based on ancient originals, and when it simply
reproduces them, gives us the impression of great antiquity. But it
freely admits more modern ingredients, and does so in our case. It
speaks of witnesses, fixes their minimum number at three, and
discusses very minutely their qualifications and disqualifications,
without saying a word about written documents. But in one place (VIII.
168) it speaks of the valuelessness of written agreements obtained by
force, thus recognizing the practical employment of writing for
commercial transactions. Professor Jolly,(A3) it is true, suggests
that this verse may be a later addition, particularly as it occurs
_totidem verbis_ in Narada (IV. 55); but the final composition of
Manu's Sa_m_hita, such as we possess it, can hardly be referred to a
period when writing was not yet used, at all events for commercial
purposes. Manu's "Law-book" is older than Ya_gn_avalkya's, in which
writing has become a familiar subject. Vishnu often agrees literally
with Ya_gn_avalkya, while Narada, as showing the fullest development
of the law of debt, is most likely the latest.(A4)

See Brihatsa_m_hita, ed. Kern, pref., p. 43; _Journal of the R. A.
S._, 1875, p. 106.

A1: "Ueber das Indische Schuldrecht von J. Jolly," p. 291.

A2: Jolly, l. c., p. 322.

A3: L. c., p. 290.

A4: Jolly, l. c., p. 322. He places Katyayana and B_ri_haspati after
Narada, possibly Vyasa a