Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c5.s2: Sec. ii. Contemporary Literature

The Mauryan Polity c5.s2

Language
English

Contents

Sec. ii. Contemporary Literature

c5.s2.1

From the accounts given in the Purāṇas one fact emerges, namely, that Kauṭalya was the moving spirit during the reign of the first emperor of the Mauryan dynasty, if not also of the second. Recently a notable work on ancient Indian polity entitled *Kauṭalya’s Arthaśāstra* was discovered by Śāma Śāstri of Mysore who edited and then translated it. The editor of this remarkable treatise and other scholars, European and Indian, examined its antiquity and came to the only possible conclusion that this work must be the work of the famous Minister of Candragupta Maurya. But scholars like Professors Keith and Winternitz have questioned the authenticity of the work and they hold, in spite of a volume of opinion based on facts to the contrary, that it belongs to the School of Kauṭalya and that it must have been a composition of the second or third century after Christ. The following pages are based on the theory that *Kauṭalya’s Arthaśāstra* is a work of the fourth century before Christ and it will not be out of place here to examine the arguments for, and against, the theory and arrive at some definite conclusion.

Identification of Cīna

c5.s2.t1.1

It is said that “The mention of Cīna (cīnapaṭṭaśca cīnabhūmijaḥ) is remarkable in 300 B.C. and impossible if the name is derived from the Thsin dynasty (247 B.C.).”¹

c5.s2.t1.2

¹ Keith in J.R.A.S., 1916, p. 136. Cp. Nag, Les Theories Diplomatiques, p. 118.

c5.s2.t1.3

The identification of Cīna with China is indeed incongruous. Many a country in the Himālayan tracts is mentioned among the flourishing Jānapadas in ancient Indian epic and Purāṇic literature. In the Vāyu Purāṇa² the Cīna country is located in the Himālayan regions. The suggestion³ that the term refers to Shīna, the Gilgit tribe which still retains the word as well as the silk industry is probable. The reference, then, is possibly to the Shin race which must have been famous for silk manufacture in those days. Again in interpreting this term we must take into account the circumstances under which it is used by the author. The Arthaśāstra in its reference to the silk of the Shin country distinguishes it from other kinds by calling it the Cīnapaṭṭa and this shows that the ancient Cīnas spoke a language related to Sanskrit. It is stretching the argument too far to say that these words have any kind of affinity to the Chinese language. What is more reasonable is that these were Himālayan peoples and indigenous tribes perhaps of Kṣatriya origin. From the chapter in which the term occurs it can be gathered⁴ that the empire had to import furs and skins from the neighbouring country called Bālhava. Bālhavi, according to the commentator Bhaṭṭasvāmin, is again Himālayan deśa.⁵ Added to this is the fact that Ch and Sh (Shin, Chin) can be interchanged in Shin, *e.g.*, push—puch.¹ Thus this will be no argument for pushing down the date of the Kauṭalīya. Above all the derivation of the name Cīna from the Dynasty of Thsin rests on doubtful premises.²

c5.s2.t1.4

² Chap. 58, 83.

c5.s2.t1.5

³ See K. P. Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, Part I, p. 212.

c5.s2.t1.6

⁴ Arthaśāstra, XI. 2.

c5.s2.t1.7

⁵ Vide Bhaṭṭasvāmin’s Commentary, p. 42, published in J.B.O.R.S., Vol. XI, Pt. II. Unfortunately we are not in possession of the whole

c5.s2.t1.8

¹ *Hindu Polity*, Part I, p. 212.

c5.s2.t1.9

² See *Ency. Brit.*, 9th ed., Vol. V, p. 626, on China.

The Philological Data

c5.s2.t2.1

The following is another argument. “The metre of the ślokas (300 in number) in the *Arthaśāstra* is far more classical in type than that of the *Rāmāyaṇa* itself, and it contains correct Triṣṭubh stanzas in regular metre which is clear proof of comparatively recent date. . . . This fact, coupled with the fact that the language is not markedly archaic, suggests that we cannot look for a very early date for the work.”³ This leads us to examine the philological data which find mention in the work.⁴

c5.s2.t2.2

³ See Jolly’s edition of the *Arthaśāstra*, Intro., p. 5.

c5.s2.t2.3

⁴ See K. V. Rangaswāmi Aiyangar’s *Some Aspects of Indian Polity*, pp. 120-123.

c5.s2.t2.4

The data furnished in the *Arthaśāstra* do not seem at first sight to follow Pāṇini. The inference is that either the Kauṭalīya was a pre-Pāṇinīyan work or Kauṭalya rejected Pāṇini’s classification and preferred the old Vedic philology. Pāṇini’s date itself is a bone of contention among

c5.s2.t2.5

of this commentary as is the case with the other commentary Nayacandrika published in the Punjab Sanskrit series. We are thankful to the late Gaṇapati Śāstri for his full and learned commentary on this all important book.

c5.s2.t2.6

scholars, the lowest limit being B.C. 350.¹ Considered from different points of view there is no warrant to place the work before Pāṇini. It would appear that Kauṭalya must have known the work but rejected, as Patañjali, the great commentator on Pāṇini, did in regard to some details, *e.g.*, classification of speech. The *Mahābhāṣya*² like the *Arthaśāstra* classifies the parts of speech as four while Pāṇini and his school lay down twofold classification of the parts of speech.³

c5.s2.t2.7

¹ See A. A. Macdonell, *India’s Past*, pp. 36-37 (Oxford, 1927).

c5.s2.t2.8

² Vol. I, p. 3, Ed. Kielhorn.

c5.s2.t2.9

³ *Suptiṅantam Padam* I.4.14. The term used in the *Arthaśāstra* *Nāmākhyātopasarganipātāḥ*, II. 10.

c5.s2.t2.10

On this account can one call Patañjali pre-Pāṇiniyan or can he be credited with ignorance of Pāṇini? Apparently there was one set of scholars, perhaps a conservative school, who still clung to Vedic philology in spite of the rich fruits of the Pāṇiniyan school. There is evidence to show that Kauṭalya was not ignorant of the Pāṇiniyan rules. In Bk. II, chap. 10, he shows himself familiar with *Aṣṭādhyāyī*, a book of eight chapters in *sūtras*. Kauṭalya mentions names of some *gaṇas* like *prādi* and *cādi* found in Pāṇini’s *gaṇapāṭha*. Further there are found in the treatise some technical terms of Sanskrit grammar. There are, on the other hand, facts which bear out the statement that Kauṭalya follows the Vedic system of philology. First, mention is made of the fourfold classification of the parts of speech.⁴ Secondly, Kauṭalya uses the term *avyaya* in the masculine gender. But the *Liṅgānuśāsana* traditionally ascribed to Pāṇini uses the word in both the masculine and neuter genders. Pāṇini distinctly classifies it under neuter gender.¹ It may be remembered in this connection that the *Liṅgānuśāsana* is an important work consisting of 183 *sūtras*. It prescribes rules for determining the gender of nouns. For "unlike modern languages Sanskrit has a gender for every noun not necessarily determined by the sex."² In the same way we come across a large number of *upasarga* and *nipāta*.³ The *Arthaśāstra* enumerates letters of the alphabet as sixty-three: *akārādayo varṇāḥ Triṣaṣṭiḥ*. The Pāṇinīyan *Śikṣa* also says that the alphabet consists of 63 or 64 letters, these being divided into five classes. Whether it is a *bona fide* work of the great grammarian is seriously questioned in different quarters. The book commences with a salutation to Pāṇini, and Pāṇini is often repeated in the verses which are 59 in number dealing with a variety of metres. Here as in the *Kauṭalīya* the author speaks in the third person which is a feature of all ancient works. The *Vyākaraṇa*, which constitutes the teachings of Pāṇini,

c5.s2.t2.11

⁴ *Varṇasamghātaḥ padam|* *Taccaturvidham Nāmākhyātopasarganipātāśceti|* *Tatra nāma satvābhidhāyi|* *Aviśiṣṭaliṅgam ākhyātam Kriyāvāci|*

c5.s2.t2.12

*Kriyāviśeṣakāḥ prādaya upasargāḥ|*
*Avyayāścādayo nipātāḥ|*
—*Arthaśāstra*, II.10.

c5.s2.t2.13

Cp. Kātyāyana Prātiśākhya otherwise known as Vājasaneyi Prātiśākhya, Ch. VIII, sūtra 47-50. Yāska's Nirukta, I.1.1; I.1.4. For *nipātaḥ*, see ibid. I.1.5 to I.3.6. Nirukta, Vol. II (Bibliotheca Indica). *Pūrvāṣṭaka*. See also Weber, *Indische Studien*, Vol. IV, Part II. ¹I.1.6; I.3.; I.1.37. ²H. P. Śāstri, *Magadhan Lit.*, p. 32 (1923) Patna. ³II.10. Cp. Macdonell, *Sans. Lit.*, p. 267.

c5.s2.t2.14

furnishes us with 14 alphabetical sūtras, Māheśvara sūtras or Pratyāhāra sūtras, consisting of 42 letters of which nine are vowels and thirty-three are consonants. Notwithstanding these, there is justification for concluding that Pāṇini is distinctly older than Kauṭalya even though the lowest limit of 350 B.C. is to be finally established.

c5.s2.t2.15

Again the argument that the work contains correct *triṣṭubh* stanzas in regular metre and the metre of the *ślokas* is far more classical than that of the *Rāmāyaṇa* is no proof of the later date of the *Arthaśāstra*, but is a proof positive as to the antiquity of the epic, the *Rāmāyaṇa*. India was familiar with classical metre and *triṣṭubh* *ślokas* in the sixth century B.C. if not earlier. We know that as many as 43 stanzas occur in the *Bṛhaddevata* whose approximate date is fixed as later than 500 B.C. and earlier than 400 B.C.¹ On this account, therefore, to bring down the age of the work is inconclusive.

c5.s2.t2.16

¹ See The *Bṛhaddevata*, edited by A. A. Macdonell, Part I, Intro., pp. xxii-xxiii.

c5.s2.t2.17

In regard to the archaic style, the *Arthaśāstra* certainly cultivates the peculiar archaic style of the sūtras and this is itself an evidence for an early date. Dr. Keith is of opinion that the language is not markedly archaic.² It is difficult to accept this view. For a reference to Appendix III of Gaṇapati Śāstri’s edition of the *Arthaśāstra* furnishes the following among other *ārṣa* words: *ādēyāt, mārgāyukaḥ, ākāṅkṣēta, paścānhaḥ, pārañcikam, varṣārātram, rajjunā, apakrāntavyam*. It is further interesting to note that Jolly accepts this fact. He says: "Such archaic style is peculiar to Vālmīki, Vyāsa, Bhāsa and Kauṭalya."

c5.s2.t2.18

² J.R.A.S., 1916, p. 137.

c5.s2.t2.19

Again the classical style of the ślokas and the metre need not be reckoned as serious arguments. Their evidence is not of much value in determining the date of a piece of composition. Whatever that may be, the apparent non-conformity to Pāṇinīyan rules, the markedly archaic style, and the system of philology which is distinctly Vedic, show that the author of the extant *Arthaśāstra* must have been considerably ancient.

The evidence of the Mahābhāṣya

c5.s2.t3.1

Yet another argument is that the Mahābhāṣya nowhere mentions Kauṭalya or the *Arthaśāstra*, as also the Rājadharma sections of the *Mahābhārata*. In his introduction to the edition of the *Arthaśāstra* Jolly himself has pointed out the futility of an *argumentum ex silentium*.¹ Absence of notice of a certain person or book is no warrant to conclude the non-existence of the person or the book. Patañjali did not mention Kauṭalya because there was no occasion for him to do it. Has he mentioned the name of Aśoka? On that account could we relegate the ancient Emperor Aśoka to the realm of pure mythology? It has been well said that the author of the Mahābhāṣya was not writing a history of Sanskrit literature.²

c5.s2.t3.2

¹ Introduction, p. 25.

c5.s2.t3.3

² Hindu Polity, I, p. 208.

The evidence of the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas

c5.s2.t4.1

As regards the Rājadharma section of the *Mahābhārata* it is difficult to accept the theory that that section must have been introduced in much later times. The Mahābhārata, at least a very considerable portion of it, is an early work, earlier than the Dharmaśāstras and the Jātakas. From the manuscript of its commentary by Vimala Bodhācārya we can gather some astronomical data which give the clue to arrive at the date of the Mahābhārata War. From this the epoch of the War is presumed to be the same as that of the Vedānga Jyotiṣa (11th or 12th Century B.C.).¹ Examining the date of the composition of the Mahābhārata "the archaic style, words and metre of the so-called duṣkara or difficult verses of the Mahābhārata furnish an additional proof in support of such a remote antiquity claimed for the epic on astronomical grounds."² "From a reference to the solstitial colure in the Ardhāśleṣa and Śraviṣṭha, it can be concluded that the Mahābhārata proper is as old as the 10th century B.C."³ If the Mahābhārata proper can be assigned to the 10th century B.C. the Rājadharma section cannot be an addition after a lapse of ten centuries and more. Again, the matter contained in the Rājadharma section is probably older than that in the extant Arthaśāstra. This section of the Mahābhārata like the Arthaśāstra aimed at collating the different views so as to give them a practical shape for use to the man at the apex of the State. Mention is here made of different authors on polity but no mention is made of Kauṭalya. Again that Kauṭalya is indebted to the Mahābhārata is seen from the several references⁴ which he makes to it. Perhaps Kauṭalya found the Rājadharma section of the Mahābhārata loose in its presentation, discussing subjects off-hand, and with no pre-conceived plan. Hence he felt the necessity for a systematic and analytical and elaborate treatment of the whole subject, and there is no gainsaying that he has succeeded in it. In regard to the Purāṇas some of them are admittedly older works than the Kauṭalīya and this is revealed to us by the fact of Kauṭalya’s acquaintance with the Purāṇas. The Upaniṣads like the Chāndogya¹ and the Dharmasūtras like that of Āpastamba² mention the Purāṇa.³ Āpastamba refers distinctly to the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa also.⁴ The opinion of Weber and Max Muller⁵ that the extant Purāṇas are independent of the works designated by that title in Vedic literature is not shared by Bühler who is disposed to believe that the existing Purāṇas are not altogether independent of those mentioned in the Vedic works.⁶ That the Purāṇas had attained celebrity and influence in the latter half of the Vedic period is obvious. And it is in no way incompatible that Kauṭalya was familiar with their contents.

c5.s2.t4.2

¹ See Annual Report of Mysore Arch. Dept. for 1927, p. 8 ff. Cp. Pradhan's Chronology of Ancient India, Ch. XXIII.

c5.s2.t4.3

² Ibid., p. 14.

c5.s2.t4.4

³ Ibid., p. 15.

c5.s2.t4.5

⁴ Bk. I.6: IV.8.

c5.s2.t4.6

¹ II.3.

c5.s2.t4.7

² I.6.19.13; I.10.29.7.

c5.s2.t4.8

³ See Bühler's article, Ind. Ant., Vol. 25, pp. 323-28.

c5.s2.t4.9

⁴ II.9.24.6.

c5.s2.t4.10

⁵ Ans. Sans. Lit., pp. 40-42.

c5.s2.t4.11

⁶ S.B.E., Vol. II, Intro., pp. xxviii and xxix, especially the footnote.

Kauṭalya, a figure of mythology?

c5.s2.t5.1

It is indeed a strange position taken by Jolly that after all Kauṭalya may be a figure of pure mythology.⁷ His theory is based on three grounds. First, Greek reports do not mention him. Secondly, Hemacandra relates marvellous stories about Kauṭalya. Thirdly, the minister Rākṣasa in the Mudrārākṣasa is probably a myth, why should not Kauṭalya be mythical as well? The first is an *argumentum ex silentium* which Jolly himself has decried. There is nothing surprising about the fact that legends have grown round the person of Kauṭalya. Every hero and heroine of note is raised aloft by mythological and legendary stories invented by the fertile brains of the writers. It is one of their accepted ways of glorification of the hero or heroine as the case may be. Apart from the legends which have grown around the epic heroes and heroines we can point to a number of such legends regarding others, for example, Aśoka. There are some Buddhist books like the *Divyāvadāna* where several legendary stories are narrated about that great monarch, some of them incredible and verging on the border of absurdity. On the strength of these legends could we portray the character of Aśoka in a light different from the established one? We cannot seriously attach any importance to the legends and begin to build a theory on them. As regards Rākṣasa in the *Mudrārākṣasa* it has not been proved on any evidence that the character of Rākṣasa is a myth, though Professor Jolly speaks of it as probable. It has been well said that from unknown to unknown is not a logical step.¹ Such straining and twisting cannot carry us very far. On the other hand, they leave us at the original place whence we started. The attempt made by Prof. Jolly to make out Kauṭalya to be a legendary figure cannot be treated more seriously than Bishop Whately’s similar effort in regard to Napoleon I in his book entitled “Historical Doubts concerning Napoleon.”¹

c5.s2.t5.2

⁷ Introduction, p. 34.

c5.s2.t5.3

¹ Hindu Polity, Vol. I, p. 210.

c5.s2.t5.4

¹ Referred to by J. J. Meyer in his Introduction (pp. liii-iv) *Das Altindische Buch Vom Weltund Staatsleben* (Leipzig).

c5.s2.t5.5

*Greek and other foreign influence?*

c5.s2.t5.6

Kauṭalya refers to a scientific treatise on Metallurgy called Śulbadhātu Śāstra (Copper), and mentions alchemy which was a late growth on the tree of Indian science, besides making a reference to suruṅgā which is from the Greek word syrinx.² These statements only reflect a tendency among some scholars to characterise all technical treatises as post-Alexandrian. It is wrong to think of a history of ancient India to commence with Alexander’s march to India. India has a much older history and a more hoary civilisation and culture, the beginnings of which are still a puzzle to specialists in archæology, anthropology, biology, geology, and scientific history. We cannot fix with any satisfaction the actual origins of science and scientific knowledge in this country or any country whatsoever. From Alberuni³ it is seen that India knew alchemy before Christ and now the theory of its Arabian origin falls to the ground. Vyāḍi to whom is attributed a knowledge of alchemy may be identified with ācārya Vyāḍi, the author of the Saṅgraha, a work on Pāṇini’s School of Vyākaraṇa to which Patañjali was indebted.⁴ As regards the argument that suruṅgā is from the Greek word syrinx it is obvious that the terms śulba and suruṅgā are words borrowed from the Dravidian languages. While the term suruṅgā is seen almost in the same form in the chief Dravidian languages Tamil,¹ Kannaḍa, and Telugu, the word śulba has its proto-type in the Dravidian śeppu or śembu.² Thus the term suruṅgā need not necessarily be from the Greek expression syrinx. Syrinx has been frequently employed in siege warfare of Ancient India. It was in use in India when Alexander invaded it Granting the word suruṅgā is derived from the Greek term it cannot be denied that the use of syrinx was known to India before Alexander's invasion. For in much earlier times the Greeks were living on the western borders of India on the Kabul river and also under the Persians in the Punjab as is evidenced by the use of Greek letters on Persian coins of that time.³ There is again not much force in the argument advanced with reference to Indian alchemy. Jolly and Schmidt basing their authority on later texts on Indian alchemy believe that between the two possible hypotheses of a Greco-Syriac or of an Arabian source, the former derivation is more probable. They conclude that alchemy might have been imported into India at the commencement of the Christian era. But Dr. P. C. Roy has proved that its origin and growth are ‘the outcome of purely indigenous traits’.⁴ Thus these arguments lose their value in the light of more positive evidence to the contrary.

c5.s2.t5.7

² Jolly, Intro., pp. 33-34. *Z.I.I.*, Vol. III.2. 1925. O. Stein’s essays, pp. 280-318; M. Winternitz *Suruṅgā and the Kauṭaliya Arthaśāstra*, *I.H.Q.*, Vol. I, p. 429 f.

c5.s2.t5.8

³ Ch. XVII, *Alberuni’s India* by Sachau (Trübner’s Orient: Series, London).

c5.s2.t5.9

⁴ See Bhartṛhari’s *Vākyapadīya*, Kāṇḍa, II, 483-5 (Benares Sans. Series, 1887).

c5.s2.t5.10

¹ See Śilappadikāram, Canto XIV, 1. 65; Maṇimēkalai, Canto XII, 1. 79.

c5.s2.t5.11

² Q.J.M. Society, Vol. XVI, pp. 40-41, A. R. Sarasvati's article.

c5.s2.t5.12

³ See Hindu Polity, Part I, pp. 147-148 and 210.

c5.s2.t5.13

⁴ See History of Hindu Chemistry, Vol. II, ch. i and v (1909).

Priority of Bhāsa

c5.s2.t6.1

Again the contention that Kauṭalya was indebted to the dramatist Bhāsa from whose *Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa* he has quoted a verse is true. Kauṭalya makes no pretension that the verse in question is his own. He clearly makes us understand that it is a quotation from his statement *apiha ślokau bhavataḥ*. It is difficult to accept the theory that Bhāsa was a later writer and Kauṭalya must have therefore lived after him. The date of Bhāsa has been as much a vexed question as that of Pāṇini or even Kauṭalya. A number of dates ranging from the 6th century B.C. to the 7th century A.D. has been assigned by scholars mostly from imaginative reasoning. The discoverer and the learned editor of Bhāsa’s plays M. M. Gaṇapati Śāstri has, thoroughly and in detail, examined the views of all critics and has come to the conclusion that Bhāsa is pre-Kauṭaliyan. He assigns 5th or 6th century B.C. to Bhāsa basing his arguments on indisputable evidence.¹ This learned view of one Mahāmahopādhyāya is confirmed by the equally learned view of another Mahāmahopādhyāya Haraprasāda Śāstri who accepts without any reserve the priority of Bhāsa to Kauṭalya on different grounds of which two may be cited here. (1) The king of the country mentioned in the *bharatavākya* of every one of Bhāsa’s plays is one of the Nanda dynasty which preceded the Mauryas. (2) Bhāsa belongs to one of the older schools of Dramaturgy, and is unacquainted with the rules laid down in the *Bharata Nāṭya Śāstra* (now published in the Kāvyamālā series. H. P. Śāstri continues: "I have got a curious confirmation of the existence of the dramaturgy in Ancient India in the fact that Kauṭalya has classed Kuśilavas or actors with the Śūdras. Nāṭyaśāstra says that the original Kuśilavas were all Brahmans or better still of divine origin but they ridiculed the Ṛṣis and therefore they were cursed to become Śūdras. So their Śūdra-hood is later than the origin of the drama. As in Cāṇakya’s time they were classed to be Śūdras, we are to infer that at that time drama was an old institution."¹

c5.s2.t6.2

¹ *Bhāsa’s Plays—A Criticism*, pp. 74-75.

c5.s2.t6.3

¹ See *Bhāsa's Plays*, p. 54, footnote.

c5.s2.t6.4

Fortified then by the consolidated opinions of two Mahāmahōpādhyāyas of no mean repute we are inclined to assign Bhāsa to a period of antiquity not earlier than the 6th century B.C. It would not be therefore unreasonable to assign to the Kauṭalīya 4th century B.C.

c5.s2.t6.5

*Yājñavalkyasmṛti* and *Arthaśāstra*.

c5.s2.t6.6

Equally inconclusive is the effort of some scholars to fix the date of *Yājñavalkyasmṛti* in the 3rd century A.D.² and to bring down the *Arthaśāstra* to a later date on the evidence of several parallel passages. The close affinity of both the *Arthaśāstra* and the *Dharmaśāstra* of Yājñavalkya lands us in the difficulty to determine which was the earlier. There are three schools of thought. One holds the view that Yājñavalkya was a pre-Kauṭalīyan writer. The second view is that whatever be the date of Yājñavalkya he drew his materials from Kauṭalya. The third school maintains that Kauṭalya lived in or about the third century A.D. (one date for the Yājñavalkyasmṛti), and the composition of the *Arthaśāstra* must have been about that date. Though arguments advanced by each school of thought are supported by evidence of some kind or other, the substantive weight of the argument is cast on the side of the first school of thought whose staunch supporter is the late Gaṇapati Śāstri. In the introduction to his edition of the *Arthaśāstra* the learned Indologist has examined this question in a scholarly spirit and his conclusion must appeal to every impartial student of Sanskrit literature. It would not be out of place to refer to some of his arguments as they are of much consequence.

c5.s2.t6.7

² The law-book of Yājñavalkya has been recently the subject of critical study by two German scholars. J. J. Meyer argues that individual authors were at the bottom of the law-books of ancient India in his learned work *Uber das Wesen der altindischen Rechtsschriften* (Leipzig, 1927). This assumption is questioned by Hans Losch in his new book *Die Yājñavalkya Smṛti* (Otto Harrassowitz, Leipzig, 1927). This provoked a reply from Meyer, in his *Gesetzbuch und Purāṇa* (Breslau, 1929). Here Meyer reaffirms the position which he has originally taken, in regard to the authorship of Yājñavalkyasmṛti.

c5.s2.t6.8

(a) Viśvarūpācārya alias Sureśvarācārya in his commentary *Bālakrīḍā* on the Yājñavalkya Smṛti¹ gives quotations from the *Arthaśāstra* of Bṛhaspati and Viśālākṣa, the predecessors of Kauṭalya Gaṇapati Śāstri says: “It is the proper practice of a commentator that he should supply deficiencies in the statements of an author advisedly left out to be learnt from other sources by having recourse to those writers who are known either as ancient or contemporary authority to the author himself, but not to those that are posterior to the author.” He did not quote Kauṭalya because the latter was posterior to Yājñavalkya.²

c5.s2.t6.9

¹ T. S. S., No. 74.

c5.s2.t6.10

² P. 6, Intro., Vol. I.

c5.s2.t6.11

(b) Yājñavalkya, the author of the Smṛti, who studied his Yajurveda under Vaiśampāyana, was a contemporary of Sūta of Purāṇic celebrity referred to in the *Arthaśāstra*.¹ In dealing with Pratiloma marriages Kauṭalya defines Sūta as a son begotten of a Brahman woman by a Kṣatriya and Māgadha as a son begotten of a Kṣatriya woman by a Vaiśya. At the same time he takes care to restrict the application of his definition in the case of Sūta-Paurāṇika and Māgadha, the panegyrist, both sprung up from the holy sacrificial ground of king Pṛthu.² "It is certain that centuries must have intervened between Sūta and Kauṭalya before the latter could have believed in the works of Sūta as Purāṇas of archaic celebrity."³

c5.s2.t6.12

¹ Bk. III, ch. 7.

c5.s2.t6.13

² Bk. III, ch. 12.

c5.s2.t6.14

³ Vol. I, Intro., pp. 6-7.

c5.s2.t6.15

(c) Shāma Śāstri's contention is that Yājñavalkya and not Kauṭalya would have to be regarded as the borrower, for there are certain technical terms which Kauṭalya appears to have used in a more original and appropriate sense. For example, *śapathavākyānuyoga* of the *Kauṭalīya* means 'trial of a criminal on oath' whereas Yājñavalkya's *ayuktam śapatham* means 'an improper oath'. The term *ayukta* in the *Kauṭalīya* means 'an official' while *ayogya* of Yājñavalkya means 'improper'. Gaṇapati Śāstri has pointed out against this, that *śapatha* of the *Smṛti* is in the opinion of Kauṭalya an unauthorised demand for statements on oath.⁴ Similarly *yoga* and *niyoga* mean a 'privilege'. One having *yoga* is *yukta* and one deserving of *yoga* is *yogya*. Thus the difference between *yogya* and *yukta* is but nominal, and both really mean the same thing. It is then evident, as the learned scholar concludes, that Kauṭalya was indebted to the smṛtis and his position in respect of the smṛtis was that of a commentator. It therefore follows that the contention that Yājñavalkya is posterior to Kauṭalya is untenable.¹

c5.s2.t6.16

⁴ Ibid., p. 9: Jolly's Intro., p. 18.

c5.s2.t6.17

¹ See Introduction, Trivandrum ed., Vol. I, p. 9; cp. Jolly, Intro., p. 18; Shāma Śāstri (1919) Ed. Intro., p. vii f; see also Yāj. Smṛti with Viśvarūpa Commentary T.S.S., 74, Intro., p. iv-viii.

Evidence of the Pañcatantra

c5.s2.t7.1

A number of passages can be quoted from the Pañcatantra where explicit references are made to Kauṭalya and his Śāstra.² In a recent Annual Report (1927) of the Mysore Archæological Department the question of the date of the Kauṭalīya Arthaśāstra has been re-opened and an endeavour is made to reaffirm the generally accepted date of the work 350 to 300 B.C.³ It is generally agreed that the stories in the Pañcatantra⁴ are based upon the political maxims propounded in the Kauṭalīya. The Report referred to above says: "The titles, such as separation of friends, winning of friends, war and peace, the loss of one's acquisition and hasty action, given to the five books of the Pañcatantra are political ideas explained in no work earlier than the Arthaśāstra." Again there is reason to believe that the author of the Pañcatantra is indebted to the Arthaśāstra for the use of the word prakṛti in the technical sense of sovereigns to be considered in time of war.⁵ The interpretation of the term in this sense is Kauṭalya's own coining (svasaṃjñā).

c5.s2.t7.2

² Arthaśāstrāṇi cāṇakyādīni —Bk. I.1. sa auśanasabārhaspatya cāṇakyamatavittadanuṣṭhātā|

c5.s2.t7.3

³ See p. 15 ff.

c5.s2.t7.4

⁴ Ed. by J. Hertel and Dr. F. Edgerton.

c5.s2.t7.5

⁵ mitraprakṛti and ariprakṛti (Ar. Śās., Bk. VIII, ch. 2; Tantrayukti, Bk. XV, Ch. I.

c5.s2.t7.6

The author of the *Pañcatantra* uses again the very words of Kauṭalya when dealing with the objects of *lokayātrā*.¹

c5.s2.t7.7

¹ P. 1.1.

c5.s2.t7.8

This is not all. Some more passages are borrowed from different portions of the *Arthaśāstra*. According to Hertel the Kashmirian recension of the *Pañcatantra* which bears the title *Tantrākhyāyikā* dates from about 200 B.C. It can be presumed that the *Arthaśāstra* which is repeatedly quoted must have been very familiar for a good number of years before the *Pañcatantra*. At the least an interval of a century would not be too high. Even Prof. Keith concedes that "it is however perfectly possible that the *Arthaśāstra* is an early work and that it may be assigned to the first century B.C. while its matter very probably is older by a good deal than that."²

c5.s2.t7.9

² J.R.A.S., 1916, p. 137.

Religious Data

c5.s2.t8.1

An examination *in extenso* of the religious data³ afforded by the *Arthaśāstra* shows that it belongs to a period when the Vedic religious practices and rituals were in vogue. Great significance is indeed attached to the performance of *yajñas* or sacrifices⁴ and there is an unreasoned belief in the efficacy and fruitfulness of such sacrifices. Whenever the kingdom or king was visited by *vyasana* or dangers, providential or otherwise, prayers were offered to the Vedic deities⁵ like Indra, Varuṇa, Agni, Aśvins, Jayanta and others.

c5.s2.t8.2

³ See author's article on the *Religious Data in the Arthaśāstra*, *Zeitschrift für Indologie*, Vol. VII.2 (1929).

c5.s2.t8.3

⁴ Bk. iii, ch. 14.

c5.s2.t8.4

⁵ Bk. iv, ch. 3; Bk. xiii, ch. 1-2; Bk. ii, ch. 4.

c5.s2.t8.5

Belief was then current that by propitiating these Gods calamities of all sorts could be averted, or at least modified to a considerable extent. Even the worship of nature and nature deities like the rivers and mountains is seriously recommended. Worship of snakes, rats, and other similar creatures is not unknown. A recommendation is also made for achieving objects desired through spells, incantations, and mystical rites prescribed in the *Atharvaveda Saṃhitā*. The sacred books recommended for regal and other studies¹ are the three Vedas and their six Aṅgas besides the Ithihāsa which is also mentioned under the category of the Vedic literature. Hindu social polity of *varṇa-dharma* and *āśramadharma* is explained and too much insistence is made on the principle of *svadharma* the fundamental basis of all *varṇāśramadharma* system. A high place is given to the *śrotriya*—the ideal Brahman—who is the veritable master of all sacred literature and who puts into practice the ideals contained in those books. The Purohita is glorified and he occupies a social status, equal, if not higher than the reigning chieftain of the land.²

c5.s2.t8.6

¹ Bk. I, ch. iii.

c5.s2.t8.7

² See author's *Hindu Administrative Institutions*, p. 123 ff.

c5.s2.t8.8

There is little or no trace of Buddhism or Jainism. There is indeed a mention of heretical sects especially monastic. Though Kauṭalya was not against *sannyāsa* still he did not allow people to indiscriminately don the robes of a Sannyāsin³ on one day and give them up on the morrow if it did not suit their purpose. Absence of direct reference to Buddhism or Jainism leaves one with the impression that these religious movements had not gained sufficient currency or enough influence in the country. These and other details which are scattered all through the pages of the work lead us on to the conclusive observation that the work belongs to an earlier epoch of Hinduism when the Vedic religion held firm sway in the minds of the people. The religious data furnished may possibly go to support an early date for the composition of the work probably not later than 300 B.C.

c5.s2.t8.9

³ Bk. II, ch. 1.

Astronomical Data

c5.s2.t9.1

In fixing the date of the composition of the *Arthaśāstra* the astronomical evidence comes in very handy. Two Indian scholars have independently examined this question and the results of their investigations have been curiously identical. These are the late Rājarāja Varma of Trivandrum and L. D. Swamikannu Pillai.¹

c5.s2.t9.2

¹ See *Some Aspects of An. Ind. Polity*, pp. 123-127; 153-154. See also Jacobi's observations in *Indian Antiquary*, Vol. 47, pp. 157-161 and pp. 187-195.

c5.s2.t9.3

The Chapter 20 of Book II of the *Arthaśāstra* gives us enough details to arrive at a satisfactory calculation. The term *yuga* is used in the sense of a period of five years which is, in other words, the Vedic quinquennial cycle.² That Kauṭalya is indebted to the *Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa* is evident. Among the regal studies mentioned are the four Vedas and six Aṅgas of which Jyotiṣa or astronomy is one.³ Kauṭalya says that the equinox is in the months of *caitra* and *āśvayuja*⁴ (vernal and autumnal equinox), and it increases or diminishes by three muhūrtas once in every six months. This means that the length of the day and night (ahorātra) may vary to the maximum extent of three muhūrtas or one and a half muhūrtas (72 minutes) before 6 A.M. and one and a half muhūrtas after 6 P.M. (local time). Says Swamikannu Pillai: "It will be seen from Table XIII appended to my Indian Chronology that this condition will be satisfied only above the thirtieth parallel of latitude where a maximum variation of about 70 minutes is attained in the moment of sunrise."¹

c5.s2.t9.4

² Cp. *Vāyu Purāṇa*, ch. 31.28: 50.183, etc. I have discussed this at some length in my forthcoming paper on *Some Aspects of Vāyu Purāṇa*.

c5.s2.t9.5

³ Bk. I, ch. iii.

c5.s2.t9.6

⁴ Bk. II, ch. xx.

c5.s2.t9.7

¹ *Some Aspects of An. Ind. Polity*, p. 124. ² Bk. II, ch. xx. ³ Ibid. ⁴ *Some Aspects of An. Ind. Polity*, p. 123. ⁵ Bk. II, ch. xx.

c5.s2.t9.8

Another statement that 'no shadow is cast at noon in the month of Āṣāḍha'² affords a positive clue that the author is a native of the tropics.

c5.s2.t9.9

Again according to the Arthaśāstra the solar month consists of 30½ days whereas the lunar month consists of 29½ days. Thus the lunar year is said to consist of 354 days and the solar year 366 days. In the five-year cycle the difference between the solar, and the lunar, years is sixty days. These are characterised as adhimāsas.³ Thus "the position of the solstices as well as the occurrence of intercalary months and other items of lunisolar calendar in the Arthaśāstra, are in agreement with the conclusions of the Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa".⁴

c5.s2.t9.10

The Arthaśāstra knows of the sexagesimal system when it says two nālikas equal one muhūrta⁵

c5.s2.t9.11

15 muhūrtas equal a day, or a night and 30 *muhūrtas* equal one day and a night or 60 *nāḷikās*.

c5.s2.t9.12

According to Dr. Burgess the sexagesimal system of Hindu astronomy was borrowed from the Greeks.¹ This implies that the *Jyotiṣa Vedāṅga* which has become a popular work in pre-Kauṭalīyan days (4th century B.C.) must have been written after India's contact with the Greeks. It is an untenable position. *Jyotiṣa Vedāṅga* is an ancient production belonging at least to the later half of the Vedic Period. It holds the field as a valuable piece of scientific composition. If Greece could develop in the direction of sexagesimal system, could not India develop also in that line? Further that the sexagesimal system is exclusively Greek in origin has not been proved. It is just possible that India developed this system on independent lines.

c5.s2.t9.13

¹ J.R.A.S., 1893, p. 753.

Linked texts (26)