Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Sanskrit Literature c31: XXIII. The Science of Politics and Practical Life (Arthaçāstra, Nītiçāstra)

A History of Sanskrit Literature c31

Language
English

Contents

XXIII. The Science of Politics and Practical Life (Arthaçāstra, Nītiçāstra)

1. The Origin of the Arthaçāstra

c31.s1.1

THE Vedic literature, permeated as it is with religion, affords a quite false impression of the Vedic Indian as a person given to reflection and religious practices without regard to practical life. Nothing, of course, can be farther from the truth; the East, in lieu of bowing low before the West in disdain or otherwise, confronted Alexander with an obstacle which he did not attempt to penetrate, and his garrisons had soon after his death to be withdrawn. If we are to judge India aright, we must add two other objects to the Dharma, religious, and moral duty which is dwelt on in the Vedic texts. Already the *Hiraṇyakeçi Gṛhyasūtra*¹ knows of the three objects in life, Dharma, Artha, politics and practical life in general, and Kāma, love. The epic² recognizes this set, the *Viṣṇu Smṛti*³ and *Manu* accept it, it is found in Patañjali,⁴ in Açvaghoṣa, and in the *Pañcatantra*. The older system, however, no doubt combined these subjects as parts of Dharma in the wider sense; the Dharmasūtras deal with royal duties, capitals and countries, officials, taxes, and military preparations as they do with justice, and the epic,⁵ in a list of authorities of the science of kings (*rājaçāstra*) includes Bṛhaspati, Viçālākṣa, Uçanas, Manu, son of Pracetas, and Gauraçiras, who pass also for authorities on Dharma. The *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad*⁶ incidentally shows that a wide knowledge of the arcana of love was prevalent in Brahmanical circles, the holy Çvetaketu becoming a recognized authority later on the topic. Gradually there must have sprung up schools⁷ who studied Artha and Kāma in themselves, and this is attested to us by the Smṛtis and the epic.

c31.s1.2

¹ ii. 19. 6.

c31.s1.3

² i. 2. 381.

c31.s1.4

³ lix. 30.

c31.s1.5

⁴ On Pāṇini, ii. 2. 34, Vārttika 9.

c31.s1.6

⁵ xii. 58. 1 ff.

c31.s1.7

⁶ vi. 3.

c31.s1.8

⁷ *Contra*, Jacobi, SBA. 1912, pp. 838 ff.; cf. Hillebrandt, ZDMG. lxix. 360; Jolly, ZDMG. lxvii. 95.

c31.s1.9

Doctrines of Artha seem early to have found, like those on Dharma, expression in didactic verse. The *Mahābhārata*¹ assures us that Brahman, the creator, was the author of a work in 100,000 sections on the three topics, that Çiva as Viçālākṣa reduced it to 10,000 in consideration of the brevity of life, that Indra brought it down to 5,000, and that finally Indra's work, called *Bāhudantaka*, from an epithet of his, was reduced by Bṛhaspati to 3,000, and by Uçanas to 1,000, sections. The *Kauṭilīya Arthaçāstra* mentions Bṛhaspati, Bāhudantīputra, Viçālākṣa, and Uçanas as authorities, and the *Kāmasūtra* ascribes Dharma to Manu, Artha to Bṛhaspati, and Kāma to Nandin. The epic itself contains sections which deal with polity, such as Kaṇika's lecture to Dhṛtarāṣṭra² regarding the merciless destruction of enemies, several of Vidura's speeches,³ and other scattered sections, while we may find traces⁴ of actual use of a formal *Arthaçāstra* in one or two passages. There is no doubt that the Smṛtis of Manu,⁵ Yājñavalkya,⁶ and Viṣṇu⁷ made use of texts of this sort in compiling their contents, and both Yājñavalkya⁸ and Nārada⁹ expressly provide that in case of divergence between Arthaçāstra and Dharmaçāstra the latter must prevail. That in fact it did is, of course, a very different question; as we have seen, the Dharma texts are ideal as compared with the Arthaçāstra; they deal after all with duty and morality as the basis of law; the Arthaçāstra is concerned with profit, and it is not concerned with religion or duty save in so far as it can use the former to advance the interest of the prince, or the latter is good policy to win popular affection, for instance, in a conquered state. But none the less the Arthaçāstra or, as it is equally called, Nītiçāstra, science of conduct, Rājanīti, conduct of kings, or Daṇḍanīti, policy of punishment, was respected by the poets who lived at royal courts; Bhāsa in his *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa* and *Pratimānāṭaka*, Kālidāsa, Bhāravi, Māgha, and their followers show their skill in Nīti as they do in Kāma. It was left to the Buddhists to protest as does the *Jātakamālā*,¹⁰ where the royal doctrine that right should be followed only so far as it does not conflict with profit, is hotly denounced and the science of Nīti condemned. In this, however, Buddhism merely showed its incapacity for accommodating itself effectively to Indian conditions of life and thought.

c31.s1.10

¹ xii. 59. 28 ff.

c31.s1.11

² i. 140.

c31.s1.12

³ v. 33, 36 f., 39.

c31.s1.13

⁴ xv. 5–7.

c31.s1.14

⁵ vii. 155 ff.

c31.s1.15

⁶ i. 344 ff.

c31.s1.16

⁷ iii. 38 ff.

c31.s1.17

⁸ ii. 21.

c31.s1.18

⁹ i. 39.

c31.s1.19

¹⁰ ix. 10; xxxi. 52.

c31.s1.20

² Ed. R. Shama Sastri, Mysore, 1909 (2nd ed. 1919); trans. Bangalore, 1915 (2nd ed. 1923). Also ed. T. Gaṇapati Sāstrī, TSS. 79, 80, and 82; J. Jolly and R. Schmidt, Lahore, 1923–5; trans. J. J. Meyer, Hanover, 1925 f. On the varied and often excellent treatises on it, see Jolly, *Zeit. f. vergl. Rechtswissenschaft*, xli. 305–18. See also G. B. Bottazzi, *Precursori di Niccolo Machiavelli in India ed in Grecia, Kauṭilya e Tucidide* (1914), who ignores the fact that Thucydides’ own ideal is that of Perikles (ii. 34 ff.) differing *toto caelo* from Kauṭilya; cf. Grote, *Hist.*, ch. xlviii.

c31.s1.21

Bṛhaspati, as we have seen, ranks in the epic as a founder of the science, and Bhāsa cites a *Bārhaspatya Arthaçāstra*¹ as an object of study by Brahmins. But the text, which has come down to us under that style, is a modern production of uncertain but late date, which contains little if anything of the old doctrines of the school even as we know them from the *Kauṭilīya Arthaçāstra*. By its condemnation of heretics it shows that it has advanced to the Dharma standard rather than that of Artha.

c31.s1.22

¹ Thomas, *Le Muséon*, 1916, i. no. 2.

2. The Content and Form of the Kauṭilīya Arthaçāstra

c31.s2.1

As usual we find as the earliest preserved text a work exhibiting every sign of a long prior development, which, however, by reason of its completeness has deprived earlier treatises of the possibility of survival. The *Arthaçāstra* made known to us in 1909, is unquestionably one of the most interesting works in Sanskrit, because it affords a vast amount of detailed information about the practical side of Indian life as opposed to the spiritual, and, while in parts it covers ground touched on in the treatises on Dharma, it does so with a wealth and accuracy of detail which is completely other than the often vague generalities which are the stock-in-trade of these texts. As we have it, the book is divided into fifteen great sections, Adhikaraṇas, and 180 subdivisions, Prakaraṇas, but this division is crossed by one into chapters, Adhyāyas, which are marked off from the prose of the work by the insertion of verses summing up the doctrine expounded above. There is the possibility that this division is secondary, possibly also the verses which mark it out.

c31.s2.2.1

Adhikaraṇa i deals with the bringing up and education of a prince. He is to study philosophy including Sāṁkhya, Yoga, and the Lokāyata, religion including the Vedas and Vedāṅgas—the *Arthaçāstra* accepts wholesale the Brahmanical theory of the castes and their duties,—economics, agriculture, pastoral pursuits, trade and industry, and polity, Daṇḍanīti. The ministers of the king, his council, are described, and above all his spies who serve him to secure a firm hold over all within the realm, high and low, from the princes of his house who aim at his death to the humblest people; his emissaries abroad are spies as well as ambassadors, and spies serve to keep him informed of all that happens to his neighbours. His duties are enumerated, a crushing burden in seeming. His harem receives elaborate attention and insistence is laid on the dangers to which he is exposed in it, historic examples being heaped up of kings slain there. But not only in the palace, but also in streets and all public places, elaborate precaution is necessary for the royal safety from assassination. In the following book we have given in detail the duties of a vast army of inspectors, showing the detailed control of administration exercised in an Indian state. In iii law is discussed, while in iv is taken up the topic of the repression of evil-doers by police action and heavy penalties;

c31.s2.2.2

cheating doctors and tradesmen are among those denounced, while measures are taken to prevent artificial increase of prices, adulteration, use of false weights, &c. Book v is instructive; it explains how a king can rid himself of a minister of whom he is tired, either by sending him on an expedition and providing bravos to set on him and slay him at the front, or by procuring these ruffians to allow themselves to be captured with weapons on them in the royal presence, when they confess that they were agents of the obnoxious minister who is then promptly disposed of. But not less ingenious are the means of extorting taxes to fill the treasury. The peasantry and handworkers are to be cajoled or threatened into parting with their goods, spies are to induce rich men to offer benevolences, miraculous appearances of temples and statues are to bring crowds flocking and tolls from them,¹ or secret agents are to pretend that there are demons in trees and collect gold to ban them, or rich men can be accused of crime, and their goods and lives forfeited. Heretics also may be plundered. With excellent taste there follows a chapter on the remuneration of the royal entourage, ranging from 48,000 to 60 *paṇas* yearly. In vi we come to more serious things; the seven elements of politics are described, the king, minister, land, fort, treasure, army, and ally, and this is followed by a purely formal analysis of inter-state relations carried out in much detail, but without life or reality.

c31.s2.2.3

Book vii deals with the six possible causes of action, peace, war, neutrality, preparation to march out, alliance, and doubtful attitude, while viii enumerates the evils that may arise from a king’s addiction to hunting, gambling, women, and drink, and the misfortunes which fire, water, or other cause may bring on a land. Books ix and x deal with war; the king is given abundant ruses to avoid a fair fight; if he must do so, he encourages the soldiers by assuring them that he is a paid servant of the state like themselves, asks them to be true to their salt, and is aided by astrologers, priests, and bards in his efforts. But cunning is better, and in xi we are told how the king is to sow dissension in and destroy the cohesion of hostile aristocracies of warriors, for which purpose women will readily serve. In xii further means by which a weak king may aggrandize himself are adduced; spies, secret agents, bravos, poisoners, including women, can give aid, whether by murdering the enemy king, or poisoning food, or bringing about the fall of walls at places of pilgrimage. In xiii we are told how a king can capture a fortified city by spreading the view of his omniscience and enjoyment of divine favour. The former he can attain by stating things that he has learned secretly from spies, the latter by addressing and receiving replies from a statue in which an agent is concealed.

c31.s2.2.4

Or an enemy king can be tempted to hold conversation with an alleged ascetic who is four hundred years old and is about to renew his life by entering into fire; the king is asked to attend with his family the miracle, and, when thus off his guard, is disposed of, as indeed he deserves to be. But we do hear also of a genuine capture by force of arms, followed by maxims for securing the affection and loyalty of a conquered people. He is to adopt their dress and customs, respect and share in their religion, by land grants and immunity from taxation attract the favour of the upper classes, in all ways surpass the virtues, if any, of his defeated foe, because these means are the mode adapted to secure his end. With xiv we come to the Aupaniṣadika, or secret part, consisting of recipes to enable one to murder, to cause blindness or madness, and so on. A man is taught also how to make himself invisible, to see in the dark, to fast for a month, to walk unharmed through fire, to change his colour, to send men and beasts to sleep; the text is extremely obscure, but we cannot reject it on that ground or because of its—to us worthless—character. The last book gives a plan of the work, and sets forth with examples thirty-two methodological principles used in the discussion, a number contrasting remarkably with the five or six elsewhere known.

c31.s2.3

¹ The bartering of statues referred to by Patañjali is not here noticed; cf. chap. xxi, § 2.

c31.s2.4

The *Arthaçāstra* has often been regarded as comparable to the works of Machiavelli,¹ but there is a certain misunderstanding in such a view. The work is in no sense intended as a treatise on political philosophy; the author remains throughout on the basis of Brahmanical belief. For discussions of fundamental issues such as the relation of right and might, of fate and human endeavour, even the origin of the kingship, we must go to the epic or Buddhist texts.² The *Arthaçāstra* accepts the existence of the three aims of life, Dharma, Artha, and Kāma; it holds Artha the most important, but makes no effort to determine the relation of the three or to derive them from any rational basis. It is content to hold that government is essential to them all; without it there would be the reign of anarchy in which fish eats fish; under the sceptre the four castes and their ordered ways of life prosper, Dharma, Artha, Kāma are fulfilled. The state, we may say with Machiavelli and Mussolini, is all in all, but the *Arthaçāstra* means something quite definite by the state, namely an order of society which the state does not create, but which it exists to secure. The ways of a king, for the text assumes that rule must be royal, are dictated by the necessity of preserving his power; as Hobbes logically and deliberately, so the *Arthaçāstra* implicitly argues, the king's duty of securing the welfare of the system of which he is protector gives to him a morality of his own. It is not much use comparing with this such dicta as Spinoza's¹ *uniuscuiusque ius potentia eius definitur*, or the Hegelian theory of the state; these are philosophical doctrines based on reasonings which the *Arthaçāstra* does not touch. What we have instead is the carrying out quite consistently of the doctrine that the end, the maintenance of a firm rule, justifies the means, coupled with the assumption that a reign of peace between neighbouring states is not to be dreamed of, so that in addition to maintaining peace in the realm the king must always be prepared for foreign war. In the use of means to secure obedience and to defeat enemies the *Arthaçāstra* is as ruthless as Machiavelli: spies abound, the harem and the royal family are suspect, and princes are deliberately debauched to prevent their rending, like crabs, their parent; orthodox as is the work, it advocates the shameless use of religion as a cloak for baseness. Moreover, it lacks the redeeming quality of Machiavelli, his historical method which makes him turn at every hand to the facts of history; at best the *Arthaçāstra* gives us names of kings who came to grief by one fault or another. Nor have we anything to compare with Machiavelli's investigations as to the best form of government for a state, in which he reveals his preference for a measure of democratic rule. The *Arthaçāstra* recognizes the risks run by a king from court intrigues, military oligarchical factions, false ministers, unruly heads of gilds; it even seems to recognize him as no more than a servant of the state, but of control by the people or constitutional limitations it knows nothing.

c31.s2.5

¹ C. Formichi, *Salus Populi, Saggio di scienza politica* (1908). Cf. Meinecke, *Die Idee der Staatsräson* (1924).

c31.s2.6

² See Hillebrandt, *Altindische Politik* (1923).

c31.s2.7

¹ Eth. iv. 37 sch.

c31.s2.8

The form of the work is said to be a prose Sūtra with Bhāṣya, commentary, both by the same hand, but we cannot with certainty say what was intended to be Sūtra, what comment; the headings of chapters are clearly too slight to form the Sūtra, and a collection of Sūtras ascribed to Cāṇakya is merely a list of maxims rather of the didactic moral type than suited to the *Arthaçāstra*. The work, therefore, is rather a blending into one of the two elements. Occasional verses, usually Çlokas, but sometimes Triṣṭubhs, are inserted, and each chapter as we have the text ends with a few verses summarizing its effect. The dryness of mere exposition in dogmatic form is broken here and there by the exposition of a series of views of authorities; thus, as regards choice of ministers the issue is developed by setting out the divergent opinions of Bhāradvāja, Viçālākṣa, Parāçara, Piçuna, Kauṇapadanta, Vātavyādhi, Bāhudantīputra, and Kauṭilya, who in this case accepts the conclusion of Bāhudantīputra. The view that this is a sober setting down of actual views may be regarded as implausible in the extreme; it is doubtless rather a device, introduced to lend liveliness and to set out conflicting views which might actually or more often conceivably be held. The same device is adopted in Buddhist texts, where possible philosophical opinions are asserted to be actually held.

c31.s2.9

The language of the text is as a rule correct, occasional irregularities being often probably due to the manuscript tradition rather than the author. It naturally abounds in rare words drawn from technical science, and hence the meaning is often obscure. There is much effective expression of shrewd and hard common sense, and as usual the author appears to best advantage in pithy verses:

c31.s2.10

*prajāsukhe sukhaṁ rājñaḥ prajānāṁ ca hite hitam*
*nātmapriyaṁ hitaṁ rājñaḥ prajānāṁ tu priyaṁ hitam.*

c31.s2.11

‘In the happiness of his people lies the happiness of the king, in their well-being his well-being; his own pleasure is not the king’s well-being, but the pleasure of his people is his well-being.’

c31.s2.12

*yathā hy anāsvādayituṁ na çakyaṁ: jihvātalaṣthaṁ madhu vā viṣaṁ vā*
*arthas tathā hy arthacareṇa rājñaḥ: svalpo ’py anāsvādayituṁ na çakyaḥ.*
*matsyā yathāntas salile caranto: jñātuṁ na çakyās salilaṁ pibantaḥ*
*yuktās tathā kāryavidhau niyuktā: jñātuṁ na çakyā dhanam ādadānāḥ.*

c31.s2.13

‘Even as what lies on the tongue, be it honey or poison, cannot but be tasted, so a little at least of the royal gold that a minister handles must be savoured by him. Even as when fish move within the water one cannot know if they drink water or not, so it is impossible to say of ministers entrusted with business whether or not they help themselves to the royal treasure.’

c31.s2.14

*nakṣatram atipṛcchantam bālam artho 'tivartate*
*artho hy arthasya nakṣatraṁ kiṁ kariṣyanti tārakāḥ?*

c31.s2.15

‘The fool who ever asks fortune of the stars wealth passeth by; wealth is the star of wealth; what can the stars avail?’

c31.s2.16

*sādhanāḥ prāpnuvanty arthān narā yatnaçatair api*
*arthair arthāḥ prabadhyante gajāḥ pratigajair iva.*

c31.s2.17

‘Men of action achieve their ends, even if it cost hundreds of efforts; wealth is won by wealth as elephants by decoy elephants.’ In the last stanza we find an example of the figure Dīpaka:

c31.s2.18

*yena çastraṁ ca çāstraṁ ca Nandarājagatā ca bhūḥ*
*amarṣeṇoddhṛtāny āçu tena çāstram idaṁ kṛtam.*

c31.s2.19

‘This book was composed by him who in impatience rescued the science of politics, the practice of arms, and the realm which had passed under the rule of Nanda.’

3. The Authenticity of the Arthaçāstra

c31.s3.1

The current belief¹ which ascribes the *Arthaçāstra* to Cāṇakya or Viṣṇugupta or Kauṭilya, minister of Candragupta, rests on the verse just cited, on statements at the end of i. 1 and ii. 10 where Kauṭilya—the variant Kauṭalya has no value, being obviously a correction—appears as the author, and in the latter of which he claims to have gone through all the sciences and to have had regard to practice (*prayoga*), while a verse added at the very end, after the last colophon, says that Viṣṇugupta composed both the text and the comment, apparently because he noticed that in other cases there was discrepancy between these two important elements of a scientific work. These statements are taken to offset the fact that, by using the phrase *iti Kauṭilyaḥ* to give normally the deciding opinion in discussions, one would conclude that the work was not by the author, but was the product of a school which followed his views, as in the case of Jaimini or Bādarāyaṇa in the philosophical Sūtras. It must, however, be noted that under the explanation of Apadeça in the last book is cited one of Kauṭilya's sentences, from which the prima facie conclusion is that Kauṭilya is cited as an authority, not as the author. The case, therefore, must be solved by considerations of general probability based on what we know of Cāṇakya, and what we find in or are told about the work.

c31.s3.2

¹ Jacobi, SBA. 1911, pp. 732 ff., 954 ff.; 1912, pp. 832 ff.; ZDMG. lxxiv. 248 ff., 254, and the editors other than Jolly. Against this view see Winternitz, GIL. iii. 518 f.; Bhandarkar, POCP. 1919, i. 24 ff.; Keith, JRAS. 1916, pp. 130 ff.; 1920, p. 628; EHR. 1925, pp. 420 f.; JCL. vii. 275 f.

c31.s3.3

It is significant that, though we hear of Cāṇakya in the Purāṇas and later texts as the minister of Candragupta, and though the *Mudrārākṣasa* makes an interesting figure of him, we have not the slightest reference there or elsewhere to his literary activity. Doubt has even been cast on his historic character, for Megasthenes, the ambassador of Seleukos who spent a considerable time at the court of Candragupta, does not mention him; but, owing to our fragmentary knowledge of Megasthenes, this argument cannot be stressed. Nor can we make much progress by discussing the probability whether an Indian statesman would write memoirs like Bismarck, for, while the indifference to morality and the insistence on distrust as a quality of a wise king are common to both, there is all the difference in the world between the detailed accounts of real events in which he figured given in Bismarck's *Gedanken und Erinnerungen*¹ and the absolutely general and very pedantic utterances of the *Arthaçāstra*, which never anywhere hints that its author had any knowledge of the overthrow of the Nandas and the wars which brought Candragupta his empire and the cessions made by Seleukos. His sovereign's name, his family, what is still more amazing his country, his capital, are passed over in absolute silence by this alleged ancient statesman meditating in his days of retirement on the maxims of policy. The rules laid down are those which might be valuable for a moderate-sized state, and ignore entirely the issue of the government of an empire such as that of Candragupta. So complete does the impossibility of such silence appear to be that one critic,² accepting the genuineness of the ascription, explains the book as written before Candragupta acquired the empire. This is a candid admission but really serves to prove that the claim is absurd.

c31.s3.4

¹ Stuttgart, 1898.

c31.s3.5

² Smith, EHI. p. 146.

c31.s3.6

Efforts have naturally been made to find at least striking resemblances between the account given in the *Arthaçāstra* and the fragments of Megasthenes. The effort is a complete failure;¹ coincidences there are many in number, but on matters which hold good of India generally in the period before and after Christ. The vital resemblances of important detail are absolutely lacking, even when we put aside all those statements of the Greek author which rest doubtless on misunderstandings or are obscurely reported. The *Arthaçāstra* knows nothing of the wooden fortification of Pāṭaliputra but provides for stone work; it ignores the boards of town officials without any head of each, but engaged in co-operation which Megasthenes specifies; it knows nothing of the commander-in-chief of the fleet, and a regular navy such as Candragupta must have used, but which was probably of minor account in many states. The care of strangers, escorting them to the border, seeing after their effects if deceased, are unknown to the *Arthaçāstra*, which does not provide for the registration of births and deaths, while the work of Megasthenes' board in selling old and new manufactured articles contrasts strikingly with the highly developed commercial and industrial conditions envisaged by the *Arthaçāstra*. Megasthenes' statement as to the king's ownership of the land is supported by other Indian evidence; it is not the view of the *Arthaçāstra*; Megasthenes describes a knowledge of minerals far less advanced than that of the *Arthaçāstra* which knows much of alchemy; the taxes of Megasthenes are simple as compared with the numerous imposts of the text, and, while Megasthenes ignores writing, the *Arthaçāstra* is full of rules on registration, the preparation of royal documents, and recognizes passports.²

c31.s3.7

¹ Stein, *Megasthenes und Kauṭilya*, SWA. 1921.

c31.s3.8

² The metre of the work is not early, and its grammatical irregularities are not primitive; Keith, JRAS. 1916, pp. 136 f.

c31.s3.9

If we abandon the unhappy identification, the date becomes difficult to settle. We may, however, note that Patañjali does not know the work, that the knowledge of alchemy suggests acquaintance with Greek science,³ and that the term *suruṅgā*, mine, is doubtless borrowed from Greek syrinx, probably not until after the Christian era.⁴ Moreover, it seems most probable that the *Arthaçāstra* knew and used the Smṛtis of Manu, Yājñavalkya, and Nārada at least; in the case of Yājñavalkya the case appears to be proved;¹ where that text penalizes operations on boils, the *Arthaçāstra* sensibly excludes operations on dangerous boils, and in other cases it takes up the language of the Smṛti. The identity of the exhortation to the soldiers with a verse of Bhāsa may denote borrowing, but, as Bhāsa's date is uncertain, this does not help much to a definite result. The text was doubtless known to Daṇḍin who mentions its length, 6,000 Çlokas (i. e. sets of thirty-two syllables), and considers it as recent, unless we put this down to dramatic propriety in his notice; Bāṇa recognizes it, and Kālidāsa's remarks on hunting were perhaps taken from it. This accords well with the fact that the *Kauṭilīya* and Cāṇakya are known to the *Nandīsūtra* and *Anuyogadvāra-sūtra* of the Jain canon in the middle of the fifth century A.D., and that Varāhamihira in his *Bṛhatsaṁhitā* has parallel matter, while Caraka's medical treatise enumerates thirty-six special devices as compared with thirty-two of the last book of the text. Further, the work is before the *Kāmasūtra*, whose date, as will be seen, may be the fourth century A.D., before Vātsyāyana's *Nyāyabhāṣya*, and before the *Tantrākhyāyika* or *Pañcatantra*, perhaps of the same period. That the work was a product of *c.* 300, written by an official attached to some court, is at least plausible, if it cannot be proved. Whether anything goes back to Cāṇakya is an insoluble question. The author may have lived in the south, since he refers to the pearls, diamonds, shells, and gems of that part, and South Indian and Ceylonese gems bulk largely in the chapter on the examination of gems, but this is conjecture, for the fact that manuscripts exist only in the south is not of much importance.

c31.s3.10

³ Jolly's ed., pp. 42 f., against Ray, *Hist. of Hindu Chemistry*, ii. 31; R. V. Patvardhan, *POCP.* 1919, i, p. clv.

c31.s3.11

⁴ Stein, ZII. iii. 280 ff.; Winternitz, IHQ. i. 429 ff.

c31.s3.12

¹ As shown by T. Gaṇapati Śāstrī, TSS. 79, pp. 8 ff. A defence of the antiquity of the work is given by Narendranath Law (*Calc. Review*, Sept. Dec. 1924) and K. P. Jayaswal (*Hindu Polity*, App. C), but neither of these authors explains why the author knows nothing of an empire or Pāṭaliputra. ‘Credo quia impossibile’ is still, it appears, not obsolete.

c31.s3.13

The literature known to the text included Vedas, Vedāṅgas, epic, didactic and narrative, Purāṇas, Itivṛttas, Ākhyāyikās, and probably a large number of texts on special sciences such as examination of jewels, agriculture, military matters, architecture, alchemy, veterinary art, and other topics. The theory that the information given in the text was merely derived from fellow experts is contradicted by the express assertion of the text and all probability. The text also knew Jain legends, Jain gods and technical terms, while its version of epic legends is by no means always derived from the great epic, but may be paralleled in the Vedic and Buddhist literature. All this coincides with the date above suggested as likely.

4. Later Treatises

c31.s4.1

The later works are of minor importance. Based mainly on the *Arthaçāstra* is the *Nītisāra*¹ of Kāmandaki, who hails Cāṇakya as his master. But it is not merely a redaction of the *Arthaçāstra*. It is simplified by the omission of the details regarding administration in books ii–iv of that text, and of the subject-matter of the last two books. Moreover, in book iii and elsewhere it delights in didactic morality which is foreign to the *Arthaçāstra*. On the other hand, some parts of the original are taken up with special zest as in ix–xi; the theory of foreign policy is there developed into its fullness of theoretical elaboration, without any relation to history. In xvi–xx we find a repetition of the advice of the *Arthaçāstra* to engage in treacherous warfare wherever possible on the ground that, as that text says and the *Tantrākhyāyika* repeats:

c31.s4.2

¹ Ed. BI. 1849–84; TSS. 14, 1912.

c31.s4.3

*ekaṁ hanyān na vā hanyād iṣuḥ kṣipto dhanuṣmatā*
*prājñena tu matiḥ kṣiptā hanyād garbhagatān api.*

c31.s4.4

‘The archer’s arrow may slay one, or it may not; the cunning of the wise can slay foes ere they are even born.’ The *Kāmandakīya* is written in easy verses, and not only is it divided into cantos like an epic, but its commentator ascribes to it the character of a great Kāvya.² The praise is naturally not deserved, and, since the discovery of its original, its importance, not very great, is much diminished.

c31.s4.5

² Jacobi, SBA. 1912, p. 836.

c31.s4.6

Its date can be determined only very vaguely. It is not known to the *Pañcatantra* in its oldest form nor to Kālidāsa, who both rather use the *Arthaçāstra*; even Daṇḍin seems to be unaware of it, but Bhavabhūti’s mention of a nun Kāmandakī may have significance, though that dramatist, like Viçākhadatta in his *Mudrārākṣasa*, used the *Arthaçāstra*. Vāmana¹ knows it (*c.* 800), so that the date may be *c.* 700, though others have put it contemporaneous with Varāhamihira. Its presence on the island of Bali in the Kawi literature is of no importance, as it was not till the tenth century that that literature flourished to the greatest extent.²

c31.s4.7

¹ iv. 1. 2.

c31.s4.8

² Kuhn, *Der Einfluss des arischen Indiens auf die Nachbarländer* (1903), p. 19.

c31.s4.9

Much more interesting is the *Nītivākyāmṛta*³ of Somadeva Sūri, the interesting author of the *Yaçastilaka*, who lets us know that he wrote that work before this treatise on royal duties. Deeply as he is indebted to the *Arthaçāstra*, his spirit is quite different. The details of administration and war interest him not at all, and he is definitely far more of a moral teacher, advising kings how to behave well and prudently rather than with cunning. Thus, like the Smṛtis, he enjoins the use of ordeal, not of torture, as does the *Arthaçāstra*. His attitude throughout is but slightly affected by his Jain views. He entirely accepts the rule of the castes, disapproves intermarriage, demands from each caste adherence to its own duties, and can find a place for a good Çūdra who observes purity and devotion to his work. He recommends the practice of not taking life, but without any special insistence, and for a king he recommends the Lokāyata, or materialistic philosophy, on the score that ascetic principles and practices are absurd in him.

c31.s4.10

³ Ed. Bombay, 1887–8; Jolly, ZDMG. lxix. 369 ff.

c31.s4.11

Somadeva's style is his own; it consists of short pithy sentences, quite unlike the abbreviated Sūtras, for he is always clear, and more lively than the smooth verses of Kāmandaki. He shows here as in his *Yaçastilaka* a remarkable depth of reading; thus he alludes to the story of the *Pañcatantra* of the priest whom rogues cheated into believing the goat he was carrying a dog, and to the plot of Bhavabhūti's *Mālatīmādhava*. He tells also the famous tale of the ingratitude of man as contrasted with the gratitude of animals in the shape of the tale how an ape, a snake, a lion, and an archivist were rescued from a well by Kāṅkāyana and how, while the former all proved their appreciation, the man brought about the death of his benefactor. It is, however, significant of the mode in which literary property was treated in India that he only indirectly alludes to Cāṇakya, whence his information was so largely derived.

c31.s4.12

Interesting also from the point of view of the complete dependence on Brahmanical science of Jain politicians is the *Laghu Arhannīti*¹ of Hemacandra (1088–1172), which is an abbreviation of his large work on this topic in Prākrit. Written in Çlokas it deals with war (i), with punishments (ii), law (*vyavahāra*) in iii, and penances (iv). Interesting as a sign of the Jain influence on Hemacandra is his insistence that war is in itself undesirable because of the loss of life it involves and his insistence on humanity in conducting hostilities; he condemns the use of poisoned or heated weapons, stones, or masses of earth, and demands quarter for ascetics, Brahmins, those who surrender, and all kinds of weaklings. In law he follows the eighteen heads of the Smṛti of Manu, and in penances he is quite orthodox, imposing them for taking meals with unsuitable persons.

c31.s4.13

¹ Ed. Ahmedabad, 1906.

c31.s4.14

Of Brahmanical texts there may be mentioned also the *Yuktikalpataru*² ascribed to Bhoja, and the *Nītiratnākara*³ of Caṇḍeçvara, the jurist. Like the *Nītiprakāçikā*, the *Çukranīti*⁴ is a work of quite late date which mentions the use of gunpowder and is of no value whatever as evidence for early Indian usage or philosophy.

c31.s4.15

² Cf. Sarkar, *Hindu Sociology*, i. 12 f.

c31.s4.16

³ Haraprasād, *Report I*, p. 12.

c31.s4.17

⁴ Ed. Sarkar, New York, 1915.

5. Ancillary Sciences

c31.s5.1

The term Arthaçāstra at least in the later Indian view covers a number of minor sciences the results of which appear in part in the *Arthaçāstra*. In the case of practically all of these we have no certainly early works, and those extant are probably the results of long developments which, however, produced nothing of commanding influence. Archery, Dhanurveda, was naturally an old and respectable science among a warlike people, but none of the extant works can be assigned with any certainty to an early date; their authors include Vikramāditya, Sadāçiva, and Çārṅgadatta. Architecture, Çilpa- or Çilpi-çāstra, Vāstuvidyā, is represented by various anonymous works including the *Mayamata*, *Sanatkumāravāstuçāstra*, *Mānasāra*, and Çrīkumāra’s *Çilparatna* (16th cent.); many of the texts are written in a mere pretence of Sanskrit and their verses are extremely rude.¹ Elephants have been more fortunate in that the *Hastyāyurveda* in the form of a dialogue between king Romapāda of Aṅga and the ancient sage Pālakāpya² has been preserved; the age of this curious compilation is quite uncertain. The *Mātaṅgalīlā*³ of Nārāyaṇa on the other hand has a distinctly modern form, being written in part in elaborate metre; it recognizes Pālakāpya's claim to be the father of the science. The science of horses, Açvaçāstra, is ascribed to another sage Çālihotra, who sometimes figures in a more general way as a patron of learning in respect of elephants and other animals. It bears also, in its aspect as dealing with their diseases, the styles of Açvacikitsā, Açvavaidyaka, or Açvāyurveda. Of personal authors we have the *Açvāyurveda* of Gaṇa, the *Açvavaidyaka* of Jayadatta and of Dīpaṃkara, the *Yogamañjarī* of Vardhamāna, and the *Açvacikitsita* of Nakula.⁴ Bhoja again is credited with a *Çālihotra*,⁵ which treats in 138 verses of the care of horses and their diseases.

c31.s5.2

¹ A *Vāstuvidyā* is ed. TSS. 30, 1913; cf. *Madras Catal.*, xxiii. 8755 ff.

c31.s5.3

² Ed. ĀnSS. 26.

c31.s5.4

³ Ed. TSS. 10, 1910.

c31.s5.5

⁴ Ed. BI. 1887. Cf. Haraprasād, *Report I*, p. 10.

c31.s5.6

⁵ Jolly, *Munich Catal.*, p. 68; G. Mukherje, IHQ. i. 532 ff.

c31.s5.7

The importance of jewels rendered it natural that a science of them, Ratnaçāstra, Ratnaparīkṣā, should develop, and Varāhamihira shows himself familiar with the examination of jewels. The texts extant, which give very varied information regarding jewels as well as legends concerning them, are of unknown but very probably late date; they include the *Agastimata*, the *Ratnaparīkṣā* of Buddha Bhaṭṭa, the *Navaratnaparīkṣā* of Nārāyaṇa Paṇḍita and minor texts.⁶ Not inappropriately may be mentioned here the counter science of stealing, for the *Mṛcchakaṭikā* reminds us, as do other texts, of the existence of a regular manual of practice for thieves. One text which is extant, *Ṣaṇmukhakalpa*,⁷ insists in this connexion on a sound knowledge by a thief of magic, just as we have seen the *Arthaçāstra* stresses the value of that accomplishment to a politician.

c31.s5.8

⁶ Ed. L. Finot, *Les lapidaires indiens* (1896).

c31.s5.9

⁷ Haraprasād, *Report I*, p. 8.

c31.s5.10

On music we have, beside the important if obscure information given in the *Nāṭyaçāstra*, much late literature, which deals comprehensively with the whole topic, the kindred subject of singing, arrangements for concerts and so forth. These include the *Saṅgītaratnākara*¹ of Çārṅgadeva (13th cent.), and the *Saṅgī-tadarpaṇa*² of Dāmodara which follows it with additional matter derived from other sources. The late *Rāgavibodha*³ of Soma-nātha (1609) deals with Rāgas, musical modes, and includes fifty pieces of the author’s own composition for the lute with notation. Our knowledge, however, of Indian music in the earlier period is limited.⁴

c31.s5.11

¹ Ed. ĀnSS. 35, with Kallinātha’s comm. (1450).

c31.s5.12

² Simon, ZDMG. lvi. 129 ff.; comm. by Çiṅga (1330); P. R. Bhandarkar, POCP. 1919, ii. 421 f.

c31.s5.13

³ Simon, SBayA. 1903, pp. 447 ff.; ZII. i. 153 ff. See also V. G. Paranjpe, POCP. 1919, ii. 427 ff.

c31.s5.14

⁴ See E. Felber, *Die indische Musik der vedischen und der klassischen Zeit* (1912); H. A. Popley, *The Music of India*; R. Simon, ZDMG. lx. 520 ff.; WZKM. xxvii. 305 ff. On Bharata’s *Nāṭyaçāstra*, xxviii cf. T. Grosset, *Contribution à l’étude de la musique hindoue* (1888); P. R. Bhandarkar, IA. xli. 157 ff. For late works see *Madras Catal.*, xxii. 8717 ff. See also A. B. F. Rahamin, *The Music of India* (1925).

c31.s5.15

On painting little that is early has survived; the *Viṣṇudhar-mottara*⁵ of uncertain but not early date contains a section on this topic.

c31.s5.16

⁵ Trans. S. Kramrisch (Calcutta, 1925). The references to literature in P. Brown’s *Indian Painting* are inaccurate. See also V. Smith, *History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon* (1911); Havell, *Indian Sculpture and Painting* (1908); Lady Herringham, *Ajanta Frescos* (1915); A. K. Coomaraswamy, *Arts and Crafts of India and Ceylon* (1913); *Rajput Painting* (1916); *Mediaeval Sinhalese Art* (cf. Kramrisch, IHQ. i. 111 ff.); *The Influence of Indian Art* (1925); G. Roerich, *Tibetan Painting* (1925); L. Binyon, *L'Art asiatique au British Museum* (1924). Cf. the *Sādhanamālā*, ed. Bhattacharya (1925), his *Buddhist Iconography*, &c.

Linked texts (42)