The Mauryan Polity c5.s2.t5.1

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