State and Government in Ancient India c8.s2.28

c8.s2.28

It is true that the name Kauṭilya is not very complimentary ; we need not however on that account doubt his historicity, because a number of his predecessors like Vātavyādhi and Kauṇapadanta had equally unflattering names. Nor can it be argued that Kauṭilya is later than Bhāsa, because the verse *Navaṁ śarāvaṁ* etc. occurring in Book X Chap. 2 of the *Arthaśāstra* is to be seen in *Pratijñā-Yaugandharāyaṇa* of Bhāsa. Kauṭilya never fails to mention the names of his sources ; he has mentioned by name a number of earlier writers on polity ; had he borrowed the above verse from Bhāsa, he would also have mentioned his name. The *Arthaśāstra* introduces this verse along with another with the remark ‘*Apīha ślokau bhavataḥ*’, ‘There are these two verses’, showing clearly that they were traditional ones ; both Kauṭilya and Bhāsa have obviously borrowed from the mass of floating popular verses. To argue that Kauṭilya was not a historical figure because his name is not mentioned by Megasthenes would have had some force, if the entire work of the Greek ambassador had come down to us ; as only fragments of the book are available, it is quite possible to presume that the name may have been mentioned in some of the lost chapters. Similarly Patañjali’s silence about Kauṭilya cannot go against his historicity. It is true that he mentions Mauryas and also the *sabhā* of Chandragupta. But the point at issue is whether there was an occasion for Patañjali to refer to Kauṭilya and whether he is still silent. No *sūtra* of Pāṇini or *vārtika* of Kātyāyana called for such a reference in the commentary. It may be pointed out that Patañjali is also silent about Aśoka and Bindusāra. Are we to conclude that they did not exist because of this silence ? The argument that the chemical and metallurgical knowledge presupposed by Book. II, Chap. 12 of the *Arthaśāstra* is too advanced for the 3rd century B. C. will hardly carry any conviction when it is remembered how our knowledge of the development of these subjects in ancient India is very meagre.