Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Sanskrit Literature c31.s4: 4. Later Treatises

A History of Sanskrit Literature c31.s4

Language
English

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.

Cites (10)