Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c13: Appendix II. Megasthenes and Kauṭalya

The Mauryan Polity c13

Language
English

Contents

Appendix II. Megasthenes and Kauṭalya

c13.2

An endeavour is made here to examine briefly the differences and the similarities between Megasthenes’ *Fragments* and the *Kauṭalīya* and see how the differences so called are really minor and mostly imaginative. A comparison is instituted here as it falls within the scope of the present work. In this particular the plan followed is to a large extent that of Otto Stein in his *Megasthenes und Kauṭilya*¹ where he has exhaustively dealt with this question.

c13.3

¹ Wien. 1921.

1. Roads

c13.s1.1

Among the public institutions examined by Stein are first the roads. According to Megasthenes,² “The length from west to east as far as Palibothra can be stated with greater certainty, for the royal road is measured by schoni, and is in length 10,000 stadia.” The Greek expression in the *Indika* means the Indian *rāja mārga* or royal road. And it is argued that in the *Kauṭalīya* the road which goes from west to east is not the royal road but the high road which is a trade route (*vaṇik-patha*).³ This is an *argumentum ex silentio*, and it may be that Kauṭalya was aware of it and he had no occasion to mention it.

c13.s1.2

² Fg. 4.

c13.s1.3

³ *Megasthenes und Kauṭilya*, pp. 17 and 18. Cp. *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. 7, ch. 2.

2. Milestones

c13.s2.1

Secondly, the following are the remarks of Megasthenes on the milestones¹: "They (Agoranomen) construct roads, and at every ten stadia set up a pillar to show the bye-roads and distances." In the opinion of Schwanbeck,² the *schoenus* which with Eratosthenes coincides with the Indian measurement of distance, *yojana*, is a measure of 40 stadia of four *krośas*. While we do not meet with the term *krośa* as an official measurement in the *Arthaśāstra*, the term is not unknown to Aśokan inscriptions. According to the seventh Pillar Edict of Aśoka at intervals of eight *kos* the roads were marked by trees and fountains of water.³ Mile-stones might have been used or might not have been used. It may be as Stein suggests that Megasthenes has imported the Persian or Egyptian idea into India.⁴ If this were established it would not detract the value of the *Arthaśāstra* which portrays a state of affairs actually obtaining in the land. It, on the other hand, tends to reduce the intrinsic value of Megasthenes' writings on India.⁵

c13.s2.2

¹ Fr. 34.3.

c13.s2.3

² P. 48, Cal. ed.

c13.s2.4

³ Fleet, *J.R.A.S.*, 1906, p. 401 ff.

c13.s2.5

⁴ *Op. cit.*, p. 21; Barnett, *Ind. Ant.*, p. 107; and Smith, *Early History*, p. 135.

c13.s2.6

⁵ Cp. *Glories of Magadha*, p. 61.

3. Measurement of land

c13.s3.1

With regard to the measurement of land, Megasthenes has the following observation⁶:—"Some (Officials) superintend the rivers, (and) measure the land as is done in Egypt." It is argued that whereas the *Arthaśāstra* mentions measurements of landed property of the village perhaps for purposes of taxation, Megasthenes seems to refer to a general measurement of lands in vogue. Scholars like Law¹ and Mookerjee² have accepted the theory that the measurement of land was in practice in Ancient India. It is true that the measurement in the Arthaśāstra refers only to the village and its borders, and at the same time one cannot agree with Prof. Stein that Megasthenes refers to a general measurement of lands. That this is only a supposition of Dr. Stein, and that Megasthenes must have meant only the village measurement is evident from Strabo whom the learned scholar himself has quoted. "Strabo speaks about the land measurement of Egypt in order to fix the limits of the property which were damaged by the floods of the Nile."³ Fixing the borders of the property must necessarily refer to the landed property of every village and not to a general land measurement though Strabo has not mentioned the particular expression 'village'. One of the functions of officials like the Gopa and the Sthānika in the Kauṭalīya is the survey and the measurement of lands.⁴

c13.s3.2

⁶ Fg. 34.

c13.s3.3

¹ Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity, p. 112.

c13.s3.4

² Ibid., Int., p. 36.

c13.s3.5

³ Stein, p. 22.

c13.s3.6

⁴ See Mookerjee, Int., p. 36.

4. Irrigation canals

c13.s4.1

Speaking on irrigation, Megasthenes observes⁵ that the officials supervise waterways (McCrindle, sluices) which can be closed, and out of which water is let out slowly so that all may have access to it. Prof. Stein would not accept the rendering by McCrindle⁶ of the Greek expression in the *Indika* as sluices. He interprets it as any waterway that could be shut up. We can accept Stein's interpretation as it well fits in with the use of the term in the *Arthaśāstra*,—*Setubandha*.¹ The term is also used in another sense, *viz.*, connection by iron railings. With this we are not concerned now. *Setubandha* is a construction of a dam or bridge to shut out or let in water. This is the generally accepted interpretation and no purpose is served by twisting it and interpreting it in other ways. It has been accepted on all hands that one of the means of India's irrigation was by means of canals and channels and this finds an unmistakable expression in the extant *Arthaśāstra*.²

c13.s4.2

⁵ Fg. 34.

c13.s4.3

⁶ Meg. und Kauṭilya, pp. 22-27. See also Barnett, Antiquities of India, p. 107.

c13.s4.4

¹ Bk. II, ch. 1; Bk. VII, ch. 14.

c13.s4.5

² Bk. II, ch. 24.

5. Two harvest seasons

c13.s5.1

Dr. Stein next examines the mention of the two crops in the course of the year by Megasthenes who speaks also of the fertility of the soil and a double rainfall, one in the winter season and the other in summer.³ Wheat, rice, *bospore*, sesamum and millet are mentioned. Megasthenes who had heard of the agricultural industry from report—because there is no statement that he went into the country-parts outside the Capital—could not furnish more details than these. Kauṭalya mentions the crops of the rainy season and crops which could be raised in other seasons also. The fertility of the soil and the raising of two crops, summer and winter, can be easily proved from the *Arthaśāstra* and especially the chapter entitled *sītādhyakṣa*.⁴

c13.s5.2

³ Fg. I and II.

c13.s5.3

⁴ Bk. II, ch. 24; *cp.* *Meg. und Kaut*, pp. 27-28.

6. Fortress at Pāṭaliputra

c13.s6.1

On the fortification of Pāṭaliputra says Otto Stein:—"The fragments of Megasthenes refer to Pāṭaliputra and its fortification. In the *Arthaśāstra* however there is no mention of Pāṭaliputra."¹ Megasthenes also speaks of several cities situated on the banks of rivers or on the sea-coast built of wood instead of brick and of cities on other commanding situations built of brick and mud.² Strabo on the other hand mentions wooden buildings all round, which is not a fact. Rhys Davids³ speaks of fortifications in India built of stone walls in the 6th century B.C. Kauṭalya refers unmistakably to walls of stone. Therefore Strabo could not be credited with full knowledge of facts about India. There were certainly wooden portions in the buildings. This is true even of houses built to-day. N. N. Law has shown that houses of wood were indeed common in the fourth century B.C. side by side with stone.

c13.s6.2

¹ P. 28.

c13.s6.3

² Fg. 26.

c13.s6.4

³ Buddhist India, p. 96.

c13.s6.5

An attempt has been made by Stein to compare the description of Pāṭaliputra with that found in the *Kauṭalīya*.⁴ It may be that Kauṭalya describes the fortress, its construction and plan from actual conditions, and not as mere theory. On that account it does not stand to reason that Kauṭalya has purely drawn his materials for the construction of a fortress from Pāṭaliputra. It may be that Pāṭaliputra served him as the basis for constructing his theory of a fortress. But we cannot expect Kauṭalya who writes a general treatise on statecraft to follow the details and measurements of Pāṭaliputra. Though the *Arthaśāstra* was for the time being intended for Candragupta, it was a textbook on Polity for all time, and for all kings, and for all places. Therefore Kauṭalya could not have prescribed only one standard,—the model of the fortress at Pāṭaliputra. On the other hand he mentions different kinds of fortresses such as *nadīdurga*, *vanadurga* with respective measurements in details. Some may have four gates and some twelve gates. Some may have one trench around and others three trenches. It all depends on the environs and eminence where such fortress is erected. For the construction of a fortress is purely dependent on topographical and geographical circumstances. By sheer accident, some measurements or details of Megasthenes may coincide with the *Kauṭalīyan* description, as for example, Pāṭaliputra in the form of a square, the wall of Arrian to the *prākāra* of the *Kauṭalīya*, etc. On this account we cannot proceed to compare the two because Kauṭalya is certainly not describing the fort at Pāṭaliputra but is describing how and in what manner a fort could be erected at such and such a place.

c13.s6.6

⁴ Meg. und Kauṭ., p. 30 ff.

c13.s6.7

Connected with this is the theory that as Kauṭalya does not mention Pāṭaliputra he could not have been the Minister of Candragupta. It is very probable that there was no occasion for Kauṭalya to mention his Capital city by this name. It may be repeated again that Kauṭalya’s mission was not to sketch Candragupta’s administration, though Candragupta seems to have based his administration on the model suggested. His purpose was to write a scientific treatise on administration which his King Candragupta and his successors as well might use with profit and advantage to themselves. In such a treatise there would certainly be no occasion for mentioning the city of Pāṭali, and the mere omission of this fact cannot be seriously advanced as an argument for or against establishing the authenticity of the work.

7. Houses and property

c13.s7.1

Megasthenes says¹ that the houses and property of Indians were left generally unguarded. This observation is the outcome of the idealistic tendency of Megasthenes to establish the honesty of Indians. This does not mean that there was no theft of any kind or robbers of any sort. Human nature being what it is, it is impossible to think of a state of affairs at any time and in any clime, where robbery was totally absent and where transparent honesty prevailed. What Megasthenes evidently means is that the administration of the land was under such powerful hands that none dared to commit crime of any sort. Nothing more can be deduced from this statement.

c13.s7.2

¹ Fg. 27; Stein, p. 41; cp. Bk. III, ch. 8.

8. On Elephants

c13.s8.1

Dr. Stein has examined at length the passages of the Kauṭaliya² on elephants with the relevant statements of the Indika under different headings: (a) places where they are caught, (b) their height, (c) age, (d) hunting, (e) stalls, (f) size, (g) feeding, (h) training, (i) diseases and their remedy. It is gratifying to note that under almost all these items he finds more points of resemblance between the Greek account and the *Arthaśāstra*. The minor differences under this section are with regard to age. According to Kauṭalya elephants which are 40 years old are the largest, those of 30 medium size, and those of 5 and 20 of the lowest class.¹ But the Greek accounts refer to elephants aged 200 and 300 years. Commonsense tells us that this portion of the account must be an exaggeration, perhaps to glorify the importance of those animals for the state in respect of war, traffic, etc. It is unfortunate that such incorrect statements have found a place in their documents. In regard to particulars about hunting, it is only a question of details which do not legitimately belong to the province of a work on polity.

c13.s8.2

² Op. cit., p. 47-ff.

c13.s8.3

¹ Arrian, Fg. XVII.

9. On Horses

c13.s9.1

The fragments available do not furnish details in respect of the training, feeding, and housing of horses. Dr. Stein remarks: "What Megasthenes has given is hardly worth comparing, nor very much has he left to speak with definiteness." The statement that no bridles were used for horses is contradicted by himself. In Fg. 35 it is said that "the professional trainers break them in by forcing them to gallop round and round in a ring"—a kind of training that is mentioned with certain modifications by Kauṭalya.² In this connection it may be pointed out that the statement of Megasthenes that the elephants and horses were the monopoly of the king and that no private person had the right to enjoy them has been contradicted by other Greek writers. Strabo and Arrian definitely state that these animals were as much private property as that of the state.¹ The Kauṭalīya on the other hand nowhere commits itself to a statement that these animals were the sole property of the king. A perusal of the several connected chapters shows that these animals were used also as private property though preference was certainly given to the king who required their frequent use especially for purposes of war. Thus under these heads there is little or nothing worth comparison and the points of coincidences outweigh those of differences.²

c13.s9.2

² Meg. und Kaut., pp. 58-60.

c13.s9.3

¹ Arrian, Fg. XVII.

c13.s9.4

² Meg. und. Kaut., pp. 58-60.

10. On metals and mines

c13.s10.1

Prof. Stein agrees with Jolly when he says that Megasthenes mentions only silver, gold, bronze, iron, and tin, whilst the list of Kauṭalya includes more metals like copper, lead, *vaikarantaka*, mercury, and brass, and shows that that period must have been an infant stage of knowledge with regard to metals whilst that of the Kauṭalīya shows a highly developed knowledge in both chemical and technical sciences. Stein concludes thus⁴:—"The enumeration of these metals with details as to shape, colour, and quality, ability to work upon the metals, and finally, the many kinds of officials for almost every branch of the mining industry, overseers and inspectors of mines, of useful metals (lohādhyakṣa), of coinage, of salt, of gold, of goldsmith, and legal regulations with regard to private management,—all these demonstrate that in this field there is a higher culture than in the Greek reports commencing with Megasthenes. Undoubtedly here we find a more recent epoch." The above conclusions are untenable for the following reasons:—

c13.s10.2

³ Op. cit., p. 61.

c13.s10.3

⁴ Pp. 63-64.

c13.s10.4

(a) The report of Megasthenes does not simply mention only these five metals and does not say that India knows only of these and no other. We shall quote Megasthenes¹: "And while the soil bears on its surface all kinds of fruits which are known to cultivation, it has also under ground numerous veins of all sorts of metals, for it contains much gold and silver, and copper and iron in no small quantity, and even tin and other metals are employed in making articles of use and ornament, as will be the implements and accoutrements of war."² Thus Megasthenes mentions by name five metals but is careful to speak also of "other metals." It is a significant phrase. It shows that other metals and their use were well known. Apparently he did not seem called upon to give a complete list of metals known. In fact they were so many that he used the term "other metals" advisedly.

c13.s10.5

¹ Fg. 1.

c13.s10.6

² Cf. Jolly, Intro., p. 35; Keith, *Sanskrit Lit.*, p. 460.

c13.s10.7

(b) It is also evident from the above passage that these metals were put to different uses, jewellery, arms of war, etc. This means that there were different flourishing industries and the work was done by skilled labourers. It seems that these industries were under the supervision of the state and its officials. Nevertheless private enterprise was not discouraged. Private people could take to these manufactures after obtaining the necessary licence. Even mines were exploited by private people with licences previously obtained. To turn the metals into articles of utility requires naturally a sound knowledge of melting, smelting, moulding, and other chemical and technical processes.

c13.s10.8

(c) Metallurgy and alchemy are not recent growths in India as the learned German scholar would have it. It has been already shown¹ that there were ancient works on metallurgy and alchemy as is evidenced by the Kauṭalīya itself. It is a wrong reading of Indian history, to repeat what has been already said, that Indian culture began with or after Alexandar’s invasion to India. The Buddhist Jātakas,² the Rāmāyaṇa,³ and other ancient works, composed before Alexander invaded India, knew of different arts and crafts connected with metals.⁴

c13.s10.9

¹ See above, pp. 16-17.

c13.s10.10

² G. Bühler: *Indische Palaeographie*, p. 17; Fick’s *Social Organisation*, translated by S. K. Maitra, (1920) *Intro.*, pp. ix-x.

c13.s10.11

³ According to Prof. Jacobi, *Das Rāmāyaṇa, Geschichte und inhalt*, (Bonn, 1893), the date suggested is before 500 B.C. Prof. Keith suggests the fourth century B.C. (*J.R.A.S.*, 1915, pp. 38 ff).

c13.s10.12

⁴ J. J. Meyer, *Intro.*, pp. 45-47.

c13.s10.13

(d) To say that Megasthenes’ account betrays an infant stage of India’s technical sciences is a contradiction in terms. His mention of other metals as well as their different uses show as much an advanced stage as that portrayed in the Arthaśāstra. We are not able to find any difference between the two versions except the fact that Megasthenes does not mention much by way of workmanship in metals. If we rely on literary tradition, advancement of metal culture has reached a great stage before Kauṭalya’s time. It continued to keep its level and maintain its prestige with greater glory and success under the Mauryas, because the Mauryas gave the country tranquillity and peace which are so essential for the progress of any business or industry. It may however surmised that it had become decadent under the Nandas and revived under the Mauryas with greater vigour and fresh enthusiasm. Whatever may be the truth, the fact remains that there is no warrant to call the statement in Megasthenes' records as infantine and that in the *Arthaśāstra* as progressive culture. It is something like the proverb "Give the dog a bad name and hang it".¹

c13.s10.14

¹ J. J. Meyer, *Intro.*, p. 29.

11. Institution of Marriage

c13.s11.1

Discussion then centres around the forms and the institution of marriage.² Megasthenes says³: "They marry many wives, whom they buy from their parents, giving in exchange a yoke of oxen. Some they marry hoping to find in them willing helpmates; and others for pleasure and to fill their houses with children." The system of polygamy and the longing for children which are referred to by Megasthenes are in conformity with the prescriptions of the *Dharmaśāstras* and the *Arthaśāstra*. Kautalya says⁴ the giving in marriage of a girl for two cows is called the *Ārṣa* form of marriage, and this is what Megasthenes means by giving in exchange a yoke of oxen. The motives for marriage, such as securing helpmates, etc., is, in other words, an incorrect report of what he had heard about the eight accepted forms of marriage, of which four were popular. While the *prājāpatya*, and the *daiva*, aim at the higher ideal of the woman being the helpmate and life-partner in weal and woe, the *gāndharva* aims merely at the enjoyment of pleasure. As regards the longing for many children it is a fundamental principle of the ancient Hindus that the real aim of marriage is to secure offspring. With their belief of life after death, and the existence of awards and punishments in the other world as a consequence of actions in this world, they developed the idea of feeding the departed ancestors (*śrāddha*) and thus invoking their blessings and goodwill. It is only the son who could perform various religious ceremonials due to his ancestors without any grudge, and the idea was further developed that a man who had no issues would suffer eternal hell in spite of all his other good actions and pure conduct. The idea was that a sonless person must at least adopt a son who would be able to propitiate his spirit. Thus the religious element entered into the social institution and marriage became a sacrament on that account. Hence giving birth to a son came to be considered a sacred duty to the family and to the departed manes and ultimately to God. So Megasthenes must have been told of this complex principle, at once religious and biological, and he was not able to distinguish the significance attached to sons in the Hindu family.

c13.s11.2

² Stein, p. 64.

c13.s11.3

³ Fg. 27.

c13.s11.4

⁴ Bk. III, ch. 2. See Mookerjee, *Intro.*, p. xl.

c13.s11.5

It is amusing to find the remark of Megasthenes who says "since they have no slaves they have more need to have children around them to attend to their wants."¹ This is only an assumption of the Greek visitor but not a fact. It is not correct to state that there were no slaves in those days. Megasthenes had apparently confused slaves and servants. He has taken servants to be slaves attributing the ideas of his own country. Every family could not afford to have servants, and absence of servants in certain families must have obviously driven Megasthenes to this conclusion, or his statement in this respect is incorrect as many others are. But what is more important is that we find coincidences between the two versions as regards the institution of marriage.¹

c13.s11.6

¹ Fg. I.

c13.s11.7

¹ *Meg. und. Kaut.*, pp. 64-69.

12. On writing

c13.s12.1

Passing on to the question and practice of writing, Stein quotes Megasthenes who is of opinion that "there were no written laws in ancient India and that the people were ignorant of writing and that they trusted to memory in all the business of life."² These statements are again a distorted version of actual conditions obtaining in the land. Megasthenes must have been evidently told that the laws of the land were contained in the *smṛtis*, and the *smṛtis* were remembrances in the form of codes of Vedic injunctions which every judge was expected practically to carry in his head. The judicial officers were so well posted with the laws and customs of the land that they decided cases without reference to the codes of law and this fact must have induced Megasthenes to draw the conclusion that they had no written laws, and to make a further inference that they were ignorant of writing. Evidently Megasthenes did not care to enquire deeply into things he saw and heard. He had gathered a few facts at haphazard and he perhaps thought it worth his while to put them in black and white along with his own impressions. Most of them have unfortunately remained as impressions and have not carried us much farther. Thus far and no further is the impression which the *Indika* makes on us at present.

c13.s12.2

² Fg. 27.

c13.s12.3

We had occasion to refer to the question of writing in India and tried to show how writing had been in existence centuries before Megasthenes came as the ambassador to the Indian Court. Prof. Stein, who has examined all the available Greek records, shows on the authority of Nearchos the existence of the custom of writing in B.C. fourth century.¹ And this fits in well with the *Kauṭalīya* which speaks of different kinds of written documents (*patra*, *śāsana*), art of writing (speech, style, and logic), as well as defects of writing, and the materials of writing.² In fact the whole chapter 10 is full of interesting materials as regards writing and its technique. The term *tāla* occurs in various places in different connections. In the chapter on royal writs the phrase *kālapatra* occurs. If we may venture a conjecture it may be *tālapatra*, and *k* for *t* could have been plausibly the mistake of the copyist. If we are to take it as *kāla*, then the word *patra* must evidently refer to *tālapatra* (palmyra leaves) as can be gathered from contemporary and earlier records.

c13.s12.4

¹ *Meg. und. Kaut.*, p. 70.

c13.s12.5

² Bk. II, ch. 10.

c13.s12.6

Bühler speaks of leaves of *tāḍa-tāla* and *tāḍi-tāla* as writing materials of the Buddhists.³ H. P. Śāstri also speaks of two kinds, narrow and broad, called *tala* and *teḍet*.⁴ Megasthenes⁵ and Arrian¹ refer to *tāla*, and even to-day in spite of the growing popularity of paper, orthodox pandits prefer to write in the palmyra leaves especially the writing of horoscopes. Tradition is so strong in India that even now when our boys are sent to school on the first day they are sent with a palmyra leaf with alphabets inscribed thereon. It therefore stands to reason that palmyra leaves were used as writing materials from earliest times known to literary history. If Megasthenes was not fully posted with the correct information at least we have the evidence of other Greek writers such as that of Nearchos, which falsifies the theory of Megasthenes and bears testimony to the statement of the *Kauṭalīya*.² These well-authenticated documents give the lie direct to the statement of Max Müller that the art of writing did not exist in India before the 4th century B.C.³ Haraprasad Śāstri has drawn attention to an important data which may be adduced as a serious argument for the ancient character of the *Gṛhya-sūtras*. In the list of the *saṃskāras* of the *Gṛhya-sūtras* of old, the first initiation into the mystery of learning is not mentioned as a sacrament, while the *Arthaśāstra* mentions it definitely. Therefore some time after the composition of the *Gṛhyasūtras* and much earlier than the *Arthaśāstra* the art of writing must have been evolved. A pre-Buddhist work like the *Vāsiṣṭha Dharmasūtra* refers to written documents (*lekhya*). This art had advanced so much that bad writing was discouraged.⁴

c13.s12.7

³ *Palaeography*, p. 89.

c13.s12.8

⁴ *Mag. Lit.*, p. 63.

c13.s12.9

⁵ Fg. 50.

c13.s12.10

¹ VIII, 3.

c13.s12.11

² Cf. Jolly, *Intro.*, p. 35. Keith, *Sans. Lit.*, p. 460.

c13.s12.12

³ History of Sanskrit Literature.

c13.s12.13

⁴ *Magadhan Literature*, pp. 61-62.

c13.s12.14

Let us take again other subjects and institutions which have been examined by Dr. Stein. Under the general heading,—the King, he discusses massage, bodyguard, daily work, justice, sacrifices, hunting, drink, income, army, kingly surroundings, name, and dynasty.¹ We shall now proceed to see how far both the *Arthaśāstra* and the *Indika* concur or demur in these respects.

c13.s12.15

¹ *Meg. und. Kauṭ.*, ch. V.

c13.s12.16

✓(a) The massage of the body of the king seems to have been a familiar custom with the ancient kings. *Arthaśāstras* like the *Kauṭalīya* and the *Purāṇas* like the *Agni Purāṇa* mention this, among the daily routine of the Indian king. This fact is also recorded by Megasthenes. It is the duty of the *Samvāhaka*.² But Megasthenes has added that the king was being massaged when the court was in session. Either it was a fact or a simple case of imagination of the Greek writer. What is of importance to us is that both agree in the main particulars. Even women were engaged for this purpose as is referred to by both the authorities.³

c13.s12.17

² Bk. I, ch. 21.

c13.s12.18

³ See Fg. 27; *Ar. Śās.*, I, 12; I, 20; *Agni*, ch. 280; *Meg. und. Kauṭ.*, pp. 73-4.

c13.s12.19

✓(b) The *Arthaśāstra* speaks of a bodyguard of soldiers protecting the king. The statement that women armed with bows and arrows guarded the king in the palace is in correspondence with the *Kauṭalīya*.⁴ Evidently Megasthenes refers to these details when he simply mentions that just in front of the palace the bodyguard and a portion of the army were quartered.⁵ (c) With regard to the administration of justice, both the authorities do not mention the king as the administrator of justice. Both mention, however, judicial officers. But according to Megasthenes the king is present almost the whole day in the court.¹ This evidently refers to the engagement of the king in the court to decide cases of appeal.² This interpretation alone would be consistent with the statement of Megasthenes which definitely mentions a body of judges to administer justice and deliver judgment.³ Curtius is perhaps right when he says⁴ that the king's citadel was ever open to those who approached it. It could not be entirely an exaggerated statement, for the same is mentioned about Aśoka. It was expected of every righteous monarch to render justice without delay. Prof. Stein however contends that Curtius speaks of kings in general and not Candragupta in particular.⁵ Whatever this may be there seems to have been a practice in Ancient India that the king was always accessible to the people. The Arthaśāstra prescribes thus: “When in the court he shall never cause his petitioners to wait at the door, for, when a king makes himself inaccessible to his people and entrusts his work to his immediate officers he may be sure to engender confusion in business and to cause thereby public disaffection, and make himself a prey to his enemies. He shall, therefore, personally attend to the business of gods and heretics, of Brahmans learned in the Vedas, of cattle, of sacred places, of minors, of the aged, the afflicted and the helpless and of women. All this is in order (of enumeration) or according to the urgency or pressure of representations. All urgent calls he shall hear at once, but never put off; for when postponed they will prove too hard or impossible to accomplish."¹

c13.s12.20

⁴ Bk. I, ch. 1.

c13.s12.21

⁵ Fg. 27; Bk. I, ch. 20.

c13.s12.22

¹ Fg. 27.

c13.s12.23

² Bk. I, ch. 19.

c13.s12.24

³ Fg. 32 and 33.

c13.s12.25

⁴ VIII, 9.

c13.s12.26

⁵ P. 81.

c13.s12.27

¹ Śāma Śāstri Trans., p. 40; Bk. I, ch. 19.

c13.s12.28

(d) According to Megasthenes the king goes out during sacrificial sessions.² Commenting on this passage Lassen is right when he maintains that this does not refer to the daily sacrifices but only to special sacrifices.³ This is corroborated by the Kauṭaliya.⁴ Here it is said that the king goes out of the palace on certain occasions—festivals, fairs, processions, or sacrificial sessions. The fact that Megasthenes has mentioned only the occasion of sacrifices shows that he must have personally witnessed the king attending an yajña outside the palace. Otto Stein thinks⁵ that it refers to the daily sacrifices and contends that Megasthenes' statement is not provable. Megasthenes does not say expressly that the king goes out daily, and even if he has so expressed he must be in the wrong, for Vedic sacrifices could not be done in all the seasons of the year. Certain periods of the year are prohibited as inauspicious for the performance of sacrifices. Hence the learned scholar's view cannot be accepted in the light of the passage in the Arthaśāstra.

c13.s12.29

² Fg. 27 and 33.

c13.s12.30

³ Ind. Alt., II, p. 270.

c13.s12.31

⁴ Bk. I, ch. 20, 21.

c13.s12.32

⁵ P. 83.

c13.s12.33

(e) The Indika reports that whenever the king set out for hunting, the roads were always blocked by ropes and when the king was leaving the city, portions of streets reserved for the king were cleared of dangers and dangerous persons. He was also accompanied by women.¹ The phrase of Megasthenes “portions of streets reserved for the king” evidently means rāja-mārga or the royal road of Kauṭalya, the main street or streets of the capital city. Kauṭalya says that whenever the king went out of the city or came into it, the royal road was to be guarded on both sides by staff-bearers and was to be clear from armed persons, ascetics and the crippled. It is said that he was further policed by the representatives of the ten tribes.² The hunting forests were free from highway robbers, snakes, and enemies. In the chapter entitled ātmarakṣitakam, mention is made of the armed women appointed for the personal safety of the king.³

c13.s12.34

¹ Fg. 27.

c13.s12.35

² Bk. I, ch. 20.

c13.s12.36

³ Bk. I, ch. 21.

c13.s12.37

(f) Megasthenes reports that the Indians are not addicted to drinking.⁴ Evidently Megasthenes moved with those members of the community who were bound by the law of the land to forsake alcoholic drinks and wine. This we see from the Arthaśāstra where there is a prohibition for the Brahmans. From the same work there is evidence to demonstrate that the other classes were not prohibited from taking these drinks, though some restrictions were placed on their use. Thus Megasthenes in this particular cannot be said to be correct.⁵

c13.s12.38

⁴ Fg. 27.

c13.s12.39

⁵ See, for more details, the chapter on Sūrādhyakṣa, Bk. II, 25.

c13.s12.40

(g) Megasthenes speaks of the state ownership of land. In other words, the king was the owner of all the lands as well as the soil of the state.¹ This is to deny the existence of private property as an institution. That there was the king's property as distinguished from private holdings no one can deny. Kauṭalya deals largely with crown lands and their regulations. Kauṭalya also mentions private holdings which are apparently communal as can be gathered from the prescriptions. In all disputes about boundary marks and fields and gardens it is the elders of the village or even neighbourhood who decided them. The state could only appropriate holdings which have ceased to be enjoyed by any person.² This means that unclaimed property became state property.³ In this connection attention may be drawn to the monograph of Bernhard Breloer, entitled *Kauṭaliya Studien I, Das Grundeigentum in Indien*, where he makes a comparative study of modern land revenue systems with those which obtained in the Maurya times as is evidenced by the Greek accounts and the *Arthaśāstra*.⁴ Megasthenes says: "Besides the land tribute, they pay into the royal treasury a fourth part of the produce of the soil."⁵ But Kauṭalya says that one-sixth of natural produce was to be paid to the king.⁶ Other rates were one-third or one-fourth. This means that land revenue varied from one-sixth to one-third according to the seasons. Megasthenes was apparently not able to distinguish between rent and tax. It is possible that he was not aware of the legal conditions prevailing in the land. If what Megasthenes said refers only to crown lands, then there is agreement between the *Indika* and the *Kauṭalīya*.¹

c13.s12.41

¹ Fg. 1 and 33.

c13.s12.42

² Bk. III, ch. 9.

c13.s12.43

³ See also Bk. III, ch. 8.

c13.s12.44

⁴ Published by Kurt Schroeder, Bonn., 1927.

c13.s12.45

⁵ Fg. 1.

c13.s12.46

⁶ Bk. VII, ch. 1.

c13.s12.47

¹ *Meg. und Kauṭ.*, pp. 95-100; cp. *Glories of Magadha*. p. 60.

c13.s12.48

(h) Under the head, army, we shall simply quote the conclusion of O. Stein. What Kauṭalya says agrees with Megasthenes that the king was staying in the Head-quarters, but at which time and on what occasion it cannot be said. That the king was directly taking part in the wars is admitted only in a restricted way. He went to the war but he did not take the personal leadership in the army, but it was entrusted to qualified men. His relation to the army was that of the highest War-master. He inspected the four divisions of the army, and a portion of the army served as his body-guard.²

c13.s12.49

² *Meg. und Kauṭ.*, pp. 106-7.

c13.s12.50

(i) In four different places of the *Indika*³ there are statements which definitely mention that the Indians do not know slavery. It has been pointed out how Megasthenes was wrong if servants were also slaves. Kauṭalya mentions a number of slaves with the prescription that an Ārya slave could regain his liberty by a compensation price.⁴ There were both male and female slaves. In this particular Megasthenes' report is decidedly incorrect and if such portions of the report are not correct, one is tempted to ask, what amount of credit can be given to the other portions of the same report? During his brief sojourn, Megasthenes apparently took some notes at random and that in an indiscriminate manner. Therefore it is not right on our part to use such doubtful materials as authorities and build theories upon them unless they are corroborated by other evidences.¹

c13.s12.51

³ Fg. 1, 26, 27, 41.

c13.s12.52

⁴ Bk. II, ch. 13; Bk. II, ch. 27.

c13.s12.53

¹ *Meg. und Kaut.*, p. 115; cf. Jolly's Intr., pp. 38-9.

c13.s12.54

(j) In Fg. 2 Megasthenes refers to the king of Indians, Sandrakottas.² Says S. Levi: "The identity recognised by William Jones of the Indian Chandragupta and the Sandrakottas of the historians of Alexander remains the cornerstone of all Indian chronology."³ The contention of Otto Stein is that Kauṭalya does not mention either King Chandragupta or the name of his dynasty in his work. No doubt the name Candragupta does not occur. But it should be noted as a matter of profound significance that the term Narendra has been used and according to scholars Narendra is only a synonym for Candragupta.⁴ There is again an indirect reference to the Maurya dynasty in the last verse.⁵ Here it is said that the Nanda dynasty had been uprooted and the new dynasty has become *fait accompli*. Taking into consideration these two unmistakable references, though still indirect they are, we must credit the work with the worth which it deserves. The sum and substance of these different verses shows the hand of the minister of Candragupta and it will be a spurious argument to advance these views in deciding the authenticity of this all important treatise on ancient Indian Polity.

c13.s12.55

² *Cp.* Arrian V.

c13.s12.56

³ *Journal of Dept. of Letters*, Cal. IX, p. 12. Cp. Rapson, *Ancient India*, pp. 20-21 (1916).

c13.s12.57

⁴ Bk. II, ch. 10. See above pp. 86 and 303.

c13.s12.58

⁵ Bk. XV, ch. 1. Cp. Keith, *Sans. Lit.*, p. 459.

c13.s12.59

How is it, then, it has been asked, that Megasthenes has failed to mention such a far-famed minister Cāṇakya as tradition makes him out to be? The following reasons among others may be adduced in reply:—

c13.s12.60

(i) The head of the administration according to the prevalent conception of those times was always the king. The king being considered an all-important factor it would be meaningless and derogatory to glorify the minister however illustrious he might have been, and this, by a foreign minister to the court, would be out of place. (ii) There might have been an occasion when his name could have been mentioned. To testify to this we are not in possession of the complete Indika. To judge from the extant fragments it will be illogical and unreasonable. After all the name of the king is mentioned only once though other statements have been repeated oftentimes. (iii) Or it may be that the minister had gone out of office when Megasthenes visited the Court. For he came to India 20 years after the accession of the king. That Megasthenes had been to India several times before this has not been conclusively proved. And again granting that Cāṇakya was still in power when Megasthenes came, his name had become so much a commonplace one that Megasthenes did not think it worth his while to mention him. (iv) Or as has been surmised Kauṭalya was not living at the time of the visit. Thus probabilities can be answered by other possibilities also. Lastly, (v) as Keith suggests this argument cannot be stressed owing to our fragmentary knowledge of Megasthenes.¹

c13.s12.61

¹ History of Sans. Literature, p. 459.

c13.s12.62

In a long chapter (III) Otto Stein considers the question of castes and professions comparing Megasthenes and the *Kauṭalīya* and trying to find out marked differences which amount indeed to little. Megasthenes writes¹: "The whole population of India is divided into seven castes of which the first is formed by the collective body of philosophers which in point of number is inferior to the other classes but in point of dignity pre-eminent over all. . . . The second caste consists of husbandmen who appear to be far more numerous than the others . . . The third caste consists of the neatherds and shepherds and in general of all herdsmen who neither settle in towns nor in villages but live in tents. . . . The fourth caste consists of the artizans. . . . The fifth caste is the military. It is well organised and equipped for war, holds the second place in point of numbers, and gives itself up to idleness and amusement in the times of peace. . . . . The sixth caste consists of the councillors and assessors—of those who deliberate on public affairs."

c13.s12.63

¹ Fg. 1. 40 and 41.

c13.s12.64

Dr. Stein has examined the Greek terms occurring in different places for caste, and has come to the conclusion that the expression of Megasthenes could not be interpreted as caste.² Schwanbeck, however, has attempted to identify these seven divisions as caste divisions: (1) Philosophers, Brahmans; (2) Husbandmen, Vaiśyas; (3) Herdsmen, Niṣādas and other lower castes; (4) Artizans, Vaiśyas and Śūdras; (5) the Military, Kṣatriyas; (6) a mixed caste, overseers; (7) Councillors and assessors, Brahmans. Though this is an explanation in a way it is not very satisfactory. There is some truth in Pischel's remark that Megasthenes has confounded castes and classes.¹ It is more reasonable to assume that Megasthenes has been told of the caste system and the chief regulations underlying the system.² He must have also learnt that the principle of division was at best a division of labour, castes being based on professions. As he has divided all the professions into seven kinds he has divided the wholy body of the people into seven classes. Evidently Megasthenes' classification was according to professions and not castes. As the professions were more or less hereditary, especially so at that time, Megasthenes could have easily taken the community of peoples following a certain profession to form a separate caste by itself. From all Greek accounts we gather that the class of philosophers was constituted by Brahmans and Śramaṇas.³ The husbandmen were agricultural people who belonged to the Śūdra caste. According to Kauṭalya every village must have not less than 100 families and not more than 500 families of agricultural people of the Śūdra caste.⁴ Again that the Śūdra caste was numerically strong is attested to in so many words by Kauṭalya.⁵ There is further the prescription of the Arthaśāstra that the king shall protect agriculture from devastation of any sort. Such of those undesirables as would cause disturbance to the work of the villagers who are wedded to their fields were subject to severe punishment.⁶ This is all in keeping with Megasthenes' account.⁷ About neatherds and shepherds the account of Megasthenes is proven from the *Arthaśāstra* almost throughout.¹ As regards hunters though Megasthenes is in agreement with Kauṭalya a discovery is made, *viz.*, Kauṭalya does not mention wandering hunters, those who live in tents.²

c13.s12.65

² *Op. cit.*, p. 120-21.

c13.s12.66

¹ See p. 51 of B. Breoler, K. Studien, 1.

c13.s12.67

² See Fg. 1, 41, especially last sentences.

c13.s12.68

³ See Strabo XV, p. 711-13.

c13.s12.69

⁴ Bk. II, ch. 1.

c13.s12.70

⁵ Bk. IX, ch. 2.

c13.s12.71

⁶ Bk. II, ch. 1.

c13.s12.72

⁷ Cp. Jolly, Intro., pp. 37-38.

c13.s12.73

¹ Stein, *op. cit.*, p. 134; *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. II, ch. 24 and also ch. 29.

c13.s12.74

² P. 136.

c13.s12.75

Of artisans Megasthenes says: "Of these some are armourers while others make the implements which husbandmen and others find useful in their different callings. This class is not only exempted from paying taxes, but even receives maintenance from the royal exchequer."[³] Evidently state employees are referred to here. According to the *Arthaśāstra* we find the state engaging itself in industries like weaving, in manufactures of arms and armour, where, besides free labourers, artisans were employed and paid for their services. One of the regulations laid down by Kauṭalya is that agricultural people should be supplied with the necessary implements by blacksmiths, carpenters, borers, rope-makers, snake-catchers, and similar workmen.⁴ Kauṭalya speaks of both time and piece wages.⁵ There is a definite ruling where it is said 'artisans shall be provided with wages and provision in proportion to the amount of work done. The menials were paid a monthly salary of 1¼ *paṇa*."[⁶] Excepting private workmen who undertook some industry after previously obtaining a licence to carry on that industry we do not come across passages where there is a definite injunction that these artisans in the state employ were taxed. If O. Stein means by his statement¹ that people other than those in the state employ, he is right. But that Megasthenes is not concerned with these but only with those in the state employ is evident from the circumstances in which his statement is made.²

c13.s12.76

³ Fg. 1, 41.

c13.s12.77

⁴ Bk. II, ch. 24.

c13.s12.78

⁵ Bk. II, ch. 23.

c13.s12.79

⁶ Bk. II, ch. 24.

c13.s12.80

¹ *Steuern haben die Handwerker zu Zahlen*, p. 147.

c13.s12.81

² See also Bk. IV, ch. 1.

c13.s12.82

The Greek writer has the following on warriors. "They have only military duties to perform. Some make their arms and others supply them with horses and they have still others to attend on them in camp, who take care of their horses, clean their arms, drive their elephants, prepare their chariots and act as their charioteers. As long as they are required to fight they fight and when peace returns they abandon themselves to enjoyment; the pay which they receive from the state being so liberal that they can with ease maintain themselves and others besides".³ As regards military duties Kauṭalya gives it as the function of the Kṣatriyas.⁴ That their pay was liberal is seen from the list contained in the *Arthaśāstra*. The chiefs of the military corporations, the chiefs of the elephants, horses, chariots, and of the infantry, each, got 8,000 *paṇas*. The superintendents of the infantry, cavalry, chariots, and elephants were paid 4,000 *paṇas* respectively. The chariot-driver, the physician of the army, and other non-military officials employed in training horses and other animals got 2,000 *paṇas* each. The pay of the trained soldier was 500 *paṇas*. This means that the pay of a trained soldier exceeded four times that of an artisan. The arsenal department and the departments under the superintendents of horses and of elephants bear testimony to the fact that the state employed a large number of people to minister to the wants of the soldiers. All the necessary arms and armour, animals, and servants were supplied to the soldiers whenever they went out on a campaign. They were not allowed to have any arms without licence. The state regulated their keeping of arms and armour.

c13.s12.83

³ Arrian, XII.

c13.s12.84

⁴ Bk. I, ch. 3; cp. Bk. IX, ch. 2.

c13.s12.85

That the military men gave themselves up to idleness and amusement in times of peace is no exaggeration either of Arrian or Megasthenes for the matter of that.¹ It is obvious that Megasthenes is referring to the hereditary army which was dependent for its existence on the state. In times of peace the soldiers composing this constituent did not take to any other profession and earn their livelihood. War or no war they had their regular and fixed salary, and in times of peace they could lead a free life and enjoy life in their homes and family.² The only call during this period on their time was drill, for, without constant drilling the army might lose its efficiency. This is certainly not the case with the other kinds of armies—such as the hired, the corporation of soldiers, the army of an ally, and the army of wild tribes.³ These were recruited if necessary, on the eve of certain engagements for the time being. When the work was over they were disbanded. They had perhaps to take to their old professions and earn their living. Megasthenes was not concerned with them. He knew of the Kṣatriya hereditary force and referred to it.

c13.s12.86

¹ Stein, p. 162.

c13.s12.87

² Bk. IX, ch. 2.

c13.s12.88

³ Ibid.

c13.s12.89

The Overseers who moved about the country and reported to the king or their immediate superiors must undoubtedly refer to the Cāras or intelligence officers to whom several sections are devoted by Kauṭalya.¹ To ensure efficiency the chief feature of ancient administrative practice was to let loose on officials of every department, special commissioners to watch their movements and proceedings. Their function was to see that the officials of the state did not lend themselves to temptations of any sort including corruption, miscarriage of justice, and disloyalty to the state. If the Cāras heard reliable information about a certain official abusing his power and position, then a report was made in secret. The Government took action not at once but only after it was confirmed by three independent sources.² Apparently members of this intelligence department must have been influential and powerful so as to attract the notice of a foreign ambassador. When he learnt about their status in the administration he referred to them by mistake as a caste engaged for that purpose. In fact members of all castes including the Niṣādhas (hunters) were appointed to this purpose and Megasthenes had misunderstood the true conditions in India. This is again another instance why we should not attach great value to these Greek accounts.

c13.s12.90

¹ Bk. I, ch. 10-12.

c13.s12.91

² Bk. I, ch. 12.

c13.s12.92

Again the councillors and the assessors are "those who deliberate on public affairs. It is the smallest class looked at from their number but the most respected, on account of the high character and wisdom of its members; for, from their ranks the advisers of the king are taken, and the treasurers of the state and the arbiters who settle disputes. The generals of the army also, and the chief magistrates, usually belong to this class.”¹ Megasthenes is again committing a mistake by confounding professions with classes. Evidently he refers to the different kinds of councillors and ministers who guided the ship of the state. The qualifications expected of these ministerial officers were more than what Megasthenes could say. “Native, born of high family, influential, well trained in arts, possessed of foresight, wise, of strong memory, bold, eloquent, skilful, intelligent, possessed of enthusiasm, dignity and endurance, pure in character, affable, firm in loyal devotion, endowed with excellent conduct, strength, health and bravery, free from procrastination and fickle-mindedness, affectionate and free from such qualities as excite hatred and enmity—these are the qualifications of a ministerial officer (*amātya sampat*).”² When such officers are put to the test and not found wanting, they were appointed as judges of civil and criminal courts, revenue collectors, chamberlains, prime ministers, in fact, as the head of every department in the state.³ As regards the minister Kauṭalya recommends three or four for deliberative purposes but he holds that the number will depend on the circumstances of the case in question.⁴ Thus Megasthenes is right in every detail except that he entitles the system as a class or a caste. Otto Stein raises a question here¹ why Megasthenes has not mentioned officials in the country parts and surmises, perhaps rightly, that he had little or no knowledge of the conditions of the flat land and his osbervations were merely confined to the capital city of Pāṭaliputra.

c13.s12.93

¹ See also Arrian, XII.

c13.s12.94

² Bk. I, 9, Trans., p. 15.

c13.s12.95

³ Bk. I, ch. 10.

c13.s12.96

⁴ Bk. I, ch. 15.

c13.s12.97

¹ Meg. und Kauṭ., p. 196.

c13.s12.98

In his endeavour to establish a thesis Dr. Stein has not left a stone unturned. The following minor differences are stated:—(a) Megasthenes says, "there are usages observed by the Indians which contribute to prevent the occurrence of famine among them."² The Arthaśāstra on the other hand gives details as to what one should do when famine occurred.³ In the absence of details and from a general statement we cannot draw any inference. Perhaps Megasthenes might have meant 'to prevent the spread' instead of 'prevent the occurrence'. If we simply substitute 'spread' for 'occurrence' there is every agreement with Kauṭalya. (b) "The simplicity of their laws and their contracts is proved by the fact that they seldom go to law. They have no suits about pledges or deposits nor do they require either seals or witnesses but make their deposits and confide in each other."⁴ From the Arthaśāstra we gather distinctly different conditions. The law has become territorial and even complex in character. Many a contract is mentioned with elaborate rules guiding every one of them.⁵ Both courts, civil and criminal, are mentioned as well as the cases which come under the cognisance of such courts. Regulations about pledges and deposits and seals are elaborately laid down in chapters xi and xii of Book III. Witnesses, their payment, eligibility, and punishments, are also given in instructive detail.¹ One has to concede that this disagreement is distinct and clear. The one explanation that can be offered is that "in his anxiety to idealise the facts he has overdrawn the picture to such an absurd length that we could give no credit possibly to his other statement also."² Equally significant is the statement that while false witnesses suffered mutilation Kauṭalya has recommended only fines.³ (c) Arrian writes: "The custom of the country prohibits intermarriage between the castes, for instance, the husbandman cannot take a wife from the artisan caste, nor the artisan a wife from the husbandman caste. Custom also prohibits any one from exercising two trades or from changing from one caste to another. One cannot, for instance, become a husbandman if he is a herdsman or become a herdsman if he is an artisan. It is permitted that the sophist only can be from any caste: for the life of the sophist is not an easy one, but the hardest of all."⁴

First 160 of 331 passages. Read on

Linked texts (74)