Social Life in Ancient India: Studies in Vatsyayana's Kamasutra c5.s3.37

c5.s3.37

What has been said above with regard to Prof. Jolly's theory about the date of the Kāmasūtra applies with equal force to what Prof. M. Winternitz has observed on the same subject in the third volume of his *History of Indian Literature* where he has arrived at the same conclusion as Dr. Jolly and on the very same grounds, though independently. Thus the Professor observes : "That it (the *Kāmasūtra*) is later than the Kauṭilīya-Arthaśāstra cannot be doubted. But it can hardly be much later; for the great similarity between the two books makes it clear that the Kāmasūtra is separated from Kauṭilya only by a short interval. If we place the latter, say, in the third century after Christ, then the Kāmasūtra of Vātsyāyana is to be placed somewhere in the fourth. But it is nothing more than a guess."³ Here it will be seen that Winternitz also has nothing more to fix the date than the mere guess that Kauṭilya and Vātsyāyana cannot be separated by more than a century. As in the case of Jolly, Winternitz's failure to establish the third century for Kauṭilya necessarily leads to the rejection of the fourth century for Vātsyāyana.