A History of Sanskrit Literature c31.s2.8

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.