A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c8.s3.84

c8.s3.84

We have thus far considered those doctrines of the nature of the king's office, which were properly interpreted by the teachers whom we are now considering, as pleas for the king's authority over his subjects. Let us proceed to examine the principles laid down by the same writers which tend to limit that authority. As in the Dharmasūtras, so in this case it appears that protection is insisted upon as the cardinal duty of the king. This indeed, if we are to trust the references in the Sāntiparvan, is the view even of those teachers who are pronounced exponents of the monarchic cult. Thus in one place seven specified authors of treatises on the science of polity including Brihaspati and Indra are quoted by Bhīṣma as placing protection in the fore-front of the king’s duties. Again the Wind-god, in the course of the address from which we have already quoted, declares that the king acquires a fourth part of the spiritual merit earned by his well-protected subjects. It is further to be observed that the doctrine of divine ordination of the Kṣatriya which, as we have seen, is put forth in one of the extracts of the Mahābhārata is so framed as to involve the king’s divine duty of just government rather than his divine right to rule. Finally, it may be mentioned that one of our present authors, in stressing the essential duty of protection, virtually imposes a limitation upon the duty of the subjects with reference to their ruler, as conceived by these thinkers. In Chapter LVII of the Śāntiparvan Bhīṣma quotes two verses from Prāchetasa Manu’s discourse on the kingly duties. Prāchetasa Manu is included in the list of seven authors of treatises on the kingly science and he was no doubt the founder of the school so often quoted by Kauṭilya. Now in the above verses