Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c5.s2.t2: The Philological Data

The Mauryan Polity c5.s2.t2

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (8)