Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Sanskrit Literature c31.s1: 1. The Origin of the Arthaçāstra

A History of Sanskrit Literature c31.s1

Language
English

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Alexander with an obstacle which he did not attempt to penetrate, and his garrisons had soon after his death to be withdrawn.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.

Linked texts (14)