A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c12.s2.54

c12.s2.54

Mitramiśra differs from both the above writers in his treatment of the concept of kingship. Indeed he follows the example of the great scholiasts of the former period in extending the duties of kingship to all rulers of kingdoms and even to the subordinate officials. His argument like that of the earlier writers depends upon verbal interpretation combined with the idea of the necessary relation between protection and the collection of taxes. He observes, after quoting the first verse of Manu’s seventh chapter, “In these cases too (namely, those of the texts cited by the author in the above context from the Smṛitis and Purāṇas), in the following words explaining kingly duties ‘I shall explain the kingly duties’ etc., the term king (rājan) implies by derivative interpretation a king possessing the lordship of a kingdom. This is the correct interpretation, for by the above-quoted reasoning (*viz.* that of Vijñāneśvara) the word king (rājan) would signify the Kṣatriya in general.” Further on he writes, “Though this body of kingly duties is explained with reference to kings, it must be understood to apply in some sense to one engaged in protecting a part of a kingdom etc., who may be of a different caste. For in the extracts (from the Manusamhitā), ‘I shall speak of kingly duties’ and ‘what conduct the king (nṛipa) should follow,’ the word ‘nripa’ is separately used, and the collection of taxes has protection for its object, while protection (itself) depends upon the exercise of the sceptre.’”cont∗