sixty yojanas. "However near, &c." (26, 2); however near, (within the space of forty yojanas ;) if the name of the countries differ, and a river intervene, they are called different countries. Some thus explain the texts. But others hold, that, if a river, or large body of water, of the same name with the countries, intervene, (such as the river Sindhu and others), the countries, however near, are called distinct countries: thus the eastern bank of the dangerous river Sindhu and is a different province from the western bank, both provinces bearing the same name with the river and so l'ánchanada or the region of five rivers, (meaning the Sindhu and other streams), is the name of a country.

"And so, whence intelligence, &c." (26, 2): this must be understood as a description similar to the distance of sixty yojanas. Or it may be thus explained: a place within a country of the same name is distant; no other country intervening, a bordering province is more distant; another country intervening, the remoter province is most distant: thus north Ra'd'ha* is distant from south Ra'd'ha; Magadha is more distant; Cás, most distant. Many other cases may occur, but these may be settled in a similar mode under the texts quoted.

What is the rule if the merchant's place of abode were near? The stock must be kept so long as the heir be expected to appear. In fact, on all occasions, sufficient time should be allowed a specifick period is merely mentioned illustratively. The king may appropriate the stock of a deceased trader, at the expiration of one year, after ascertaining from his kinsmen in the same town, that there is no heir in a distant country, if it were supposed that such an heir existed. But if it happen that an heir afterwards appear, and, proving his right of inheritance, claim the stock, what shall be done in that case? Without relying on the king's property in that stock, it should be delivered to that heir, even though it have been given to some other person; for a gift without ownership is void. Let it not be objected, that the king is consequently guilty of theft; for there is no theft in disposing of property, not knowing it to belong to another.

Shall the king pay interest or not? He shall not pay interest; the text of SAMVERTA (Book I, v. 72) forbidding interest on a sum which was not originally known to be due.

It must be noticed, that a specifick time is appointed by Sages for the custody of stock by the king; but no specified period being appointed for the custody of it by a partner or a stranger, the principal stock would be annihilated if such person were entitled to a tenth part of it for every moment of its custody: therefore one-tenth part of it shall be received for the custody of the stock until it be sold; but if it be abandoned in the interval, wages only shall be received. If it happen that the goods are sold the next day after they were bought, a tenth part shall be received even for one day's custody; and the same allowance must necessarily be admitted, even for one year's custody, if the sale be made at that interval of time; for no specifick period having been appointed for custody, a share cannot be allowed on that account. Custody by the king has been ordained, not the transaction of business regarding the stock; but if the business be transacted by the king's own choice, through the channel of his officers, he shall receive a greater proportion of the stock.

* Pronounced Rár; the region west of the Bhagirať hí river.

SECT II-On Partnership among Priests jointly

officiating at holy Rites.

28.

NÁREDA:-Should a priest officiating at holy rites be disabled, let another in like manner perform his work, and receive from him the stipulated share of the gratuity.

"Disabled;" the term is so explained in the Retnácara and VivádaChintameni. The expression "in like manner," extends the law of commerce to this case: but in commerce, if one partner be disabled, his work shall be performed by another; and RAGHUNANDANA, in the Malamása tatwa, admits the extention of the law for secondary cases to the primary or principal case. In the former text (18) the same word signifies "disabled ;" and the sequel expresses, that "the heir shall undertake the work." The exposition therefore appears accurate.

"Another;" his son or other heir; on failure of an heir, a partner able to perform the work; or if there be none such, a stranger. This must be understood, as it has been already declared in the preceding section: but the substitute does not receive wages as in commerce, for he would be a hireling if he received wages generally; and a reward equal to a tenth part is not proper in this case. Thus a priest, engaged in a sacrifice, falls sick after the first day; afterwards, a substitute performs his work during ten days; if the substitute received a tenth part, and the priest first engaged received the whole of the residue, their rewards would be very disproportionate : but in commerce there is no such disproportion, for the substitute is paid by the trader out of his own stock. On this consideration the Sage propounds the reward: "and receive from him, &c. ;" meaning, that the law of commerce is not extended to this part of the case.

"Stipulated" what has been stipulated by the substitute for the performance of the work, and has been promised by the priest who was first engaged.

29.

VRIHASPATI :-So, if one of several persons, jointly engaged in sacrificing or other work, should be disabled from acting in it, let his part of it be performed by a kinsman, or by all the other associates.

"Work;" sacrifice or the like.

The Retnácara.

MISRA inserts this text with an observation, that "VRIHASPATI declares the law generally." It is inserted by both, under the title of Priests officiating at holy rites: the inference will be mentioned.

So, if one of several persons jointly engaged in commerce or other business by a man disqualified through incapacity or otherwise, should be disabled from acting in it, his part of it should be performed by a kinsman ; or, on failure of a kinsman, by all the other associates. Such is the meaning of the text.

It may be so in commercial cases; but how should that be done in the instance of a sacrifice? for, a sacrifice being performed for the benefit to

accrue therefrom, it is contrary to rule that the work of one should be performed by another; and two such rites cannot be performed at once by the same person, since it is forbidden to perform at once two rites of a different nature. The answer is, it may be performed according to the distinctions of sacrifice if a hundred thousand sacrifices be undertaken, five or six persons being engaged to officiate as Hótá, or reader of the Rigvéda, should one be disabled, his part of the work may be performed by the others; and all admit that the Hótá may officiate as Brahma, or superintending priest.

If this text, expressing work generally, be considered by MISRA as relating to all cases, whether commercial or otherwise, why has it not been inserted in the first section on Partnership among Traders? The answer is, it is inserted here to show that such a rule exists in regard to partnership among priests officiating at holy rites. It should not be objected, that this text relates to commerce only, because it coincides with the text of NÁREDA on the subject of commerce (18). Its application to holy rites, deduced from the comprehensiveness of the expression, cannot be abandoned; and all difficulties are removed by admitting this rule in partnership among officiating priests. SANC'HA and LIC'HITA concur also in directing the substitution of a kinsman.

30.

SANC'HA and LIC'HITA:-If an officiating priest die before the sacrifice be completed, his kinsman sprung from the same original stock, or his pupil, shall complete his part of the work; but if he have no kinsman, let another priest be engaged.

It is implied, that his kinsman, or pupil, should complete his part of the work as a favour conferred on him: if they do not perform it, another person must be sought. The next in succession need not be selected, as in cases of inheritance; for the same rule of substitution is applied by VRĬHASPATI to the other associates, and the law is the same in commercial cases. But if they require a share of the gratuity, it must of course be given.

Is not the text superfluous; for, the general law acquires that, if the father be disabled, the son must perform what should have been done by him? No: for, should the sacrificer say, "this man has fallen sick, I appoint another to perform his part of the work, his son shall not perform it;" the text would serve to prevent such conduct. It therefore appears, that, if a priest engaged to officiate at solemn rites be disabled, the substitute should be appointed by him. The priest being bound to perform the rites by an engagement in this form, "I will act according to the best of my knowledge;" should he be disabled, it is proper that he should provide the substitute; otherwise he would be guilty of a moral offence, not effecting the work he had engaged to perform and it must be understood that the form of appointment is this: "I engage you to perform such a work undertaken by me."

31.

YÁJNYAWALCYA :-A man of crooked ways let the other partners expel without profit; and let a partner unable to act appoint another man to act for him: this law is declared for partnership among priests who jointly officiate at holy rites, and among husbandmen or artificers.

Tt

This shows, that the person unable to act should make the appointment in commerce, the substitute should be chosen by him, not by the other partner; and that law being extended to partnership among priests by the terms of the text, it appears that the person who is unable to act should appoint the substitute.

VÁCHESPATI BHATTACHARYA holds, that another priest should be engaged by the sacrificer, if the priest first engaged be defiled; for his defilement disqualifies him for appointing a substitute. Even in other similar cases, another priest should be appointed by the sacrificer. But it is not incongruous to say, that another priest should be appointed with the approbation of the priest first engaged.

:

If the son or pupil of the person who is unable to act be not equally skilled with the father in performing the rites undertaken, the sacrificer may reject him such is the induction of common sense. But if the person appointed by the officiating priest be equally capable with himself, he should not be rejected or if the sacrificer cannot produce a person superior to him who was selected by the officiating priest, then also the person engaged by the officiating priest shall perform the work: or should the officiating priest provide a substitute equal to himself, and the sacrificer provide one superior to him, even then the person provided by the officiating priest shall perform the work; for it is not proper that the sacrificer should now require a person of superior qualifications. In the same mode, further rules may be established.

32.

MENU :-If an officiating priest, actually engaged in a sacrifice, abandon his work, a share only in proportion to his work done shall be given to him, by his partners in the business, out of their common pay, If he abandon his work, by reason of sickness or the like, a share of the sacrificial fee shall be given to him in proportion to his work done.

The Retnácara. So likewise VÁCHESPATI and CULLÚCABHATTA. But if he wickedly abandon his work, a distinction is taken, which will be mentioned.

33.

MENU :-But if he discontinue his work without fraud, after the time of giving the sacrificial fees, he may take his full share, and cause what remains to be performed by another priest.

In sacrifices and other holy rites celebrated according to the forms of MADHYANDINA, the fees are directed to be paid in the middle of the ceremony. In such a case, if an officiating priest be disabled after the payment of the fees, he may take his full share, and cause the work to be completed by another. Such is the exposition of CULLÚCABHATTA; but MISRA, giving the same exposition, explains "another priest," a son, &c.: this, however, may be understood as also intended by CULLÚCABHATTA.

"His full share;" his share on a partition with the other officiating priests. If there be no son, what shall be done? It should not be said that causing the work to be performed by another, the disabled priest should give him wages: or if he perform it as a favour, there is no objection to the omission of wages: but the expression "he may take his full share,”

supposes the work to be completed by his own son. Were it so, the text would be superfluous. Nor should it be said that the text intimates this distinction; if the disability arise before the fees are paid, the sacrificer should engage another priest, and, dividing the gratuity, pay a share to each; but if the fees have been paid, the priest who has received his fee may appoint another selected by himself. There is no ground for a distinct preferable right of the officiating priest and sacrificer, to appoint the substitute before, or after, the payment of the fee. Until the sacrifice be completed, there is apprehension of failure in the ceremony; else what remain, need not be performed.

To this question some reply, the fee received by the officiating priest becomes his absolute property. How should the substitute, afterwards completing the work, be entitled to receive a share of it from him; for the sacrificer's act of religion would be impaired, if he gratified one priest out of the property of another? Therefore should a person different from the son or other heir complete the work, he is entitled to receive some additional recompense from the sacrificer. The fee for a specifick part of the ceremony having been already paid, how should a gratuity be afterwards payable to the substitute, since it is not ordained by the law? This objection is wrong; for the general law shows that fees should be paid by way of recompense.

34.

Purána :-The man who obtains, by false pretences, a Brahmana's recital of holy texts, or pays not the due reward, will certainly go to a region of torment.

This is moral law, not the law of judicial procedure; consequently, should the sacrificer defy hell, whence shall the substitute who completes the work obtain his wages? Labour unrewarded is not consistent with judicial law. Should he not therefore receive a recompense from the officiating priest? and even though a gratuity be given to him by the sacrificer, shall he not receive a share of the fee from the officiating priest? Since MENU directs that the priest first engaged may take his full share, a fee by way of recompense from the employer, being required by moral law, should also be established as requisite under the law of judicial procedure; for the text intends it. But when a son is the substitute, he is sufficiently recompensed by the gratuity paid to the father; consequently there is no difficulty, even though another fee be not paid.

The substitute should be appointed by the officiating priest, even in this case (namely, where the fees have been already paid); for he has agreed to perform the work but if the priest, not afraid of violating his engagement, refuse to appoint another person, let the sacrificer engage another priest, that his business may be effected; whether it be a sacrifice according to the forms of MADHYANDINA, or other solemn rites, such as the jyotishtóma and the like. In this case, if the fee have not been already paid, the share should be subdivided; but if it have been paid, it is obvious that the full share shall be retained, and a separate recompense be given to the substitute.

It should not be argued, that the act is perfect at the moment when the sacrificer has engaged the priests. As hunger is not satisfied before victuals are prepared, merely by commencing their preparation; so the benefit of solemn rites, yet unperformed, is not secured by the mere undertaking.