The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c23.55

v1.c23.55

¹ In his *Lectures on the Ancient History of India* (Calcutta, 1919), Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar argues that the legal parts of the twelfth book of the epic revert to a period earlier than Kauṭilya; and that the 'beginnings of Indian thought in the sphere of Arthaçāstra' are to be assigned to the seventh century B.C. The first thesis is based on the theory that verse precedes prose in legal diction, which is certainly not demonstrable. The second is only another way of saying that the subject-matter of the Dharma Sūtras is probably older than their present form, and that Kauṭilya had numerous predecessors, which is probable. The chief discrepancy between Manu and Kauṭilya is that the former represents a state conceived as a smaller kingdom; the latter's purview is not only more exhaustive but wider, e.g. he discusses the 'Arabian steeds' in the king's stud (known to both epics) and cites as authorities later writers. On the whole, as with the Jātakas, it would be well not to accept as undoubtedly of 'c. 400 B.C.' all the data of the Kauṭilīya Arthaçāstra.