Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c32.s1: P. 4—Arthaśāstra (Kautilīya)—Its authorship and date

Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times c32.s1

Language
English

P. 4—Arthaśāstra (Kautilīya)—Its authorship and date

c32.s1.1

Recently the controversy about the date of this work has revived. Dr. Jolly (*Arthaśāstra of Kautilya*, Lahore, 1923, Intro. pp. 1—47) has pronounced the work to be a piece of forgery of about the 3rd century A.C. (pp. 43, 47): 'we might abide by the 3rd century as the probable date of the A.,' 'the real author was a theoretician' and Kauṭilya himself a 'fabulous minister' (p. 47).

c32.s1.2

(i) *Authorship.

c32.s1.3

To take up the latter thesis first, Jolly's arguments are:

c32.s1.4

(*a*) 'the traditional accounts of K. do not refer to K. in the capacity of a teacher or author of literary compositions,'

(*b*) 'nor is his name ever mentioned by Megasthenes,'

(*c*) 'nor does the latter writer's description of India bear out the theory that he was a contemporary of K.'

(*d*) 'Patañjali in his Mahābhāshya refers to the Mauryas and to the *sabhā* of Chandragupta, he is silent about K.'

(*e*) 'K. is a mere nickname denoting falsehood or hypocrisy, which could hardly have been devised by the renowned minister of Chandragupta himself.'

(*f*) 'Nor does the character of the work stamp it the production of a statesman, filled as it is with pedantic classification and puerile distinctions, like all the Śastras composed by Paṇḍits.'

c32.s1.5

*Jolly's Conclusion*—"The real author" therefore "was a theoretician, no statesman but perhaps an official in a state of medium size" (p. 47). 'The ascription of the work to K. or Chāṇakya was entirely due to the myths current regarding that fabulous minister who was looked upon as the master and creator of the art of polity and as the author of all the floating wisdom on the subject of Nīti' (p. 47).

c32.s1.6

Argument (*a*) is contradicted by the latter portion of the conclusion, admitting that K. is traditionally regarded 'as the author' etc. Such tradition in literature does exist, *e.g.* Jaina—'Kodilliyam a false śāstra' in the Nandi Sūtra cited by Dr Shāma Sastry, AŚ. (1909), Upodghāta, IX, and Sanskrit—Pañcha-tantra, Kamandaka, Daṇḍin ('revered teacher'), Medhātithi, etc.

c32.s1.7

Argument (*b*) is disposed off by the simple answer: where is the book written by Megasthenes? Find that first, as we cannot build a hypothesis on a book not yet found.

c32.s1.8

Argument (*c*) evidently refers to a theory started on the supposition that K. knows no large empire but only a small kingdom, as he has the maṇḍala or prakṛiti theory of neighbours and records the existence of republics and a policy towards them. The supposition is contradicted by fact: K. says that the Imperial tract (*chakravarti-kshetra*)¹ lies between the Himalayas and the Ocean, 92² thousand yojanas in the straight line (as the crow flies). It is hardly possible to imagine a state without neighbours, a policy towards neighbours will have to be postulated by any statesman however large his empire may be. Then we know that there were a number of neighbours in the South who were reduced in the next reign—*i.e.*, of Bindusāra.³ When Chadragupta took the North-Western provinces from the Greeks, it does not follow that he took the land without its rulers, republics generally, who were existing under the system of Alexander. The *Saṅgha-vritta* lays down a policy towards the republics which it assumes to be under the king's sphere of influence, be they in (1) the Punjab (2) Afghanistan (Kamboja), (3) Western India, or (4) North Bihar. There were therein parties in favour of the suzerain and parties against him (AŚ. He was to sow the seed of dissension, patronize some, instal or depose one of the leaders (p. 376). Now we know that in no other than the early Maurya time Afghanistan, the Punjab, Western India and North Bihar at one and the same time were under the sphere of one Indian king. The fact that K. hardly tolerates sub-kings is one which is only compatible with the Maurya times. Under the Śuṅgas the imperial policy changes; it becomes largely feudal (see the local *rājās* in the inscriptions)

c32.s1.9

¹ IX. 1, p. 338.

c32.s1.10

² Śaṅkarārya's reading, KNS., I. 39.

c32.s1.11

³ *J. B. O. R. S.*, II. 81.

c32.s1.12

(*d*) Patañjali, it is true, does not refer to Kauṭilya. But Jolly ought to have shown any sūtra of Pāṇini or a Vārtika of Kātyāyana or a comment of Patañjali which could be the occasion of a mention

c32.s1.13

of Kautilya. If Patañjali does not mention Bindusara, Aśoka, Rādhagupta or the Buddha, is that a reason to hold that they did not live? Patañjali was not writing history.

c32.s1.14

(*e*) Names are not devised by the bearers: they are given by parents. It is difficult to get rid of names, and no sensible man cares to change an awkard name, *e.g.*, *Śunahśepha*, *Piśuna*, *Fox*. As it has been repeatedly pointed out,¹ *Kautilya* was a *gotra* name coming down from generations. The forefather who bore the name *Kutila* or *Kautili* is answerable to Dr. Jolly and not Kautilya Vishnugupta. *Chāṇakya* [the name derived from the father according to Hindu literature'] is mentioned in a painted inscription in the Bijayagadh cave (Mirzapur) in Gupta script of the 4th century A.C., a photograph of which has been brought by Rai Saheb M. Ghosh, Curator, Patna Museum. It reads *Chānakya-roshah*.

c32.s1.15

¹ *J. B. O. R. S.*, II. 97-80, n.

c32.s1.16

(*f*) If all the Sastras composed by Paṇḍits have puerile distinctions and pedantic divisions, it is a literary fault of Kautilya's country; he could not escape the traditional mannerism in letters. The style of a certain European country is heavy and pedantically detailed in the eyes of other Europeans. That style, be the author a college professor or a statesman lecturing on statecraft, cannot be avoided by the native. To me, the details and theories of the AS. are such that no theoretical writer, *i.e.*, the contemptible 'Pandit' could have written it. This is in fact admitted by Jolly when he says that the writer was probably an official knowing administration. The admission itself contradicts the 'Pandit' 'thoretician' theory. 'The A. deals with internal and external policy and may be designated as an ancient Imperial Gazetteer of India, as a manual of political economy and polity' (Jolly, 1-2). Again, 'the general tendency of the A. is thoroughly realistic and worldly' (Jolly p. 3). The onus on Dr. Jolly is very heavy to prove that the author is some one other than the named and acknowledged (*e.g.*, by Śaṅkarārya, Bāṇa, Daṇḍin, Kāmandaka, and others) author of the work. Forgery is to be proved, not merely asserted, and proved by the party alleging it. It is for the reader to see if Dr. Jolly has discharged that onus. In my opinion he has not.

c32.s1.17

(ii) *Date.

c32.s1.18

Now let us take the theory of date.

c32.s1.19

One has to agree when Dr. Jolly, very rightly, says that there is a rare unity of plan and structure pervading the whole work (p. 5). The device beginning with contents and ending with the notes on the system of the work which unifies the whole work, and the cross references in the body of the work leave no doubt that the whole work is by one and the same author. There is also common ground when he shows that the book as we have it (I may add, but for faulty readings and copyist's mistakes) is the same which existed about 400 A. C. (pp. 8, 9, 12.) Thirty quotations in the Tantrākhyāyikā, and citations in later books prove it Thus the question in controversy is reduced to this, when was the AŚ. written between 300 B. C. and 400 A. C. (This limit is further narrowed down by Jolly's view, rightly held, that Vātsyāyana had before him the AŚ. while writing the Ś. and he takes the time of the KŚ., to be "the fourth cen. or so," and consequently places the AŚ. in the third century A. C. (pp. 29, 43).)

c32.s1.20

Arguments for the third century A. C. Date.

c32.s1.21

Arguments of Jolly for the third century date are:

c32.s1.22

1. That both Kauṭilya and Bhāsa have a verse (नवं शरावं etc.) in common, and K. takes it as a quotation, hence he must have borrowed it from Bhāsa whose date is 3rd çen A. C. (p. 10).

c32.s1.23

2. That K. and Yājñavalkya agree in their laws; that K. therefore converts Y's. laws into sūtras (p. 17), and Y's. date is the same i. e. 3rd cen. A. C. (p 47).

c32.s1.24

3. That the Mahābhāshya nowhere mentions the A.

c32.s1.25

4. That the Rājadhārma in the Mahā-Bhārata and the Dharma Sūtras is in an embryonic condition as compared with the A.'s detailed provisions and advanced condition of life (p. 30).

c32.s1.26

5. That the A. knows the Purāṇas.

c32.s1.27

6. That one of the Kāmaśāstra sections, the Vaiśika, is mentioned by K. (p. 32).

c32.s1.28

7. That the A. knows technical terms of Sanskrit grammar and is acquainted with Ashṭādhyāyī (p. 32).

c32.s1.29

8. That astrology and divination are known to it and two planets are mentioned by name in it.

c32.s1.30

⁹ That it knows a book on metallurgy called śulbadhātu śāstra (on copper) (p. 33).

c32.s1.31

10. That it knows many technical treatises *e.g.* on mining, architecture, finance, jewels, alchemy, etc. "His work is the outcome of a long period of literary activity in the field of polity rather than the production of a creative genius—another reason for not fixing its age-limit too high" (p. 33).

c32.s1.32

11. That "the minister (R.) in the Mudrā-Rākshasa is probably a myth, why should not K. be mythical as well" (p. 34). The Greeks do not mention him. The rise of a new dynasty might have 'given a start to the invention of myths' (p. 34).

c32.s1.33

12. That K. refers to alchemy which was 'a late growth on the tree of Indian Science' (p. 34).

c32.s1.34

13. That K. mentions *Suranga* which is from the Greek term Syrinx.

c32.s1.35

14. That the description of India by Megasthenes and the Aśoka inscriptions do not show such an advanced stage as the A. (p. 31),

c32.s1.36

*e.g.*, the A. knows state monopoly of mines, superintendents of mint, metal, mineralogy, chemical skill in producing coins, ornaments, etc., while Megasthenes refers to five metals only and Strabo says that Indians are inexperienced in the art of mining and smelting.

c32.s1.37

15. That the A. mentions written documents, while Megasthenes says that the Indians did not know writing.

c32.s1.38

16. That Megasthenes does not mention the premia on coins, taxes on gambling, liquors, road-cess etc. which the A. describes.

c32.s1.39

17. That the description of Megasthenes agreeing with the A. proves nothing as the A. agrees also with the Chinese pilgrims and Alberuni.

c32.s1.40

18. That Pāṭaliputra is nowhere mentioned (p. 43). Geographical horizon of the author indicates that the book was written in the South from where it has been discovered.

c32.s1.41

19. That the A. gives the opinion of K. by name: this comes under the definition of *apadeśa* of the A. proving that K. could not himself have written the work.

c32.s1.42

20. That the opinions of others cited are imaginary, the names being taken from the Mahā Bhārata (pp. 31, 44).

c32.s1.43

Examination of Jolly's arguments:

c32.s1.44

1. The verse 'navaṁ śarāvaṁ' etc. is a memorial verse used in exhorting soldiers in war. Exhortation to soldiers is as old as history; the verse is based on a primitive belief which is reminded thereby—that the faithless soldiers will go to hell. If we consider the following point, it will be evident that it is not possible for K. to have borrowed from Bhāsa, but that he must have borrowed either from some other book or as he implies, अपीह श्लोकौ भवतः, from floating, current memorial verses. The point is that K. gives two verses and the Navam ś. one is the second, reading after the first (X. 3). Without the first it is incomplete. Bhāsa has only the latter one. How could it be said then that K. borrowed from Bhāsa?

c32.s1.45

2. It is perfectly true that there is a close agreement between Y. and K. in laws. I have discussed the point in my Tagore lectures. Here I shall take up only one datum which completely disposes of the question of priority. K. uses a term *Yukta* meaning an official, which occurs in Aśoka's inscription as *Yuta*. The latter term none could understand before the publication of the A. as the term in literature subsequent to A. has gone out of use altogether. Y. could not understand it as used in the A. : 'युक्त-कर्म चायुक्तस्य' 'an official act of a non-official' (as pointed out by Dr. Shama Sastry in his first edition of the the A Intro., p. X.), and he uses *yogya* 'proper' अयोग्यो योग्यकर्मकृत्, II 235) where K. gives *Yukta*, and *ayogya* 'improper' where K. has *a-yukta*. This can only be explained on the hypothesis that Y. versified the laws of K. and in places could not understand it. Jolly tries to meet this by saying that the demand for statement on oath being unauthorized was 'improper' and therefore the difference is purely nominal. But how could any one explain, even by straining, अयोग्यो योग्यकर्मकृत् 'an incapable man doing a work which should be done by a competent man' on the theory of 'nominal difference'?

c32.s1.46

Then, K. uses verses at times; if he was going to borrow from Y. why should he have turned verses into Sūtras? The more rational process is to versify sūtras, and Y. followed that. There is no case made out for supposing a reverse process.

c32.s1.47

As Y. is assigned to the 3rd cen. A. C., and *Yukta* has so long ceased to have the technical sense that a legal author could not understand it, the date of A. should be some centuries before 200—300 A. C.

c32.s1.48

3. Occasion for the mention of the A. is to be shown in the Mahābhāshya before we can deduce anything from the silence. Many Vedic works are not mentioned by Patañjali, for that reason no one can say that they did not exist. He was not writing a history of literature.

c32.s1.49

4. The Dharma Sūtras deal with Dharma laws, while the A. deals with artha principles and laws. The subject of the DhS., is not political science but Dharma law. The subject of politics being principal in one and incidental in the other, no comparison can be instituted for the purposes of chronology. I would demur to characterize the M. Bh. Raja dharma as being in embryonic state; in the theory part it is more developed than the A. Then, every inferior writer does not change chronology. Some Tagore lectures after those of Dr. Jolly are far inferior; they for that reason could not be placed in a time earlier than his.

c32.s1.50

5. The oldest Dharma Sūtra knows Purāṇic literature. Āpastamba mentions the Bhavishya Purāṇa (II. 24, 6, p. 98), and "Purāṇa" again in II. 9. 23, 3. The Bhavishya existed according to Pargiter's researches very early. *Purāṇa* is mentioned as early as the Chhandogya Upanishad (I. 3).

c32.s1.51

6. The *Vaisika* book was written by Dattaka at Paṭaliputra before Vātsyāyana. Their is nothing to show that it or any other *Vaisika* was not written before 300 B C.

c32.s1.52

7 Knowledge of Pāṇini does not go against the 300 B.C. date of K. (See *ante*, p 33, *n.*). Also note the pre-Pāṇinean use (Cf. Macdonell, HSL., p. 267 in the A. of *nāma ākhyāta, upasarga* and *nipāta* (II. 10). In other words, Pāṇini's terms had not become established fully as in the time of Patañjali and later

c32.s1.53

8. Divination is as old as the Atharva-Veda The origin of astrology has been already shown to be Mesopotamian.¹ The Greeks and Hindus both borrowed from the same source. No argument of chronology can be based on the mention of two planets. The fact that the planets as they appear in Greek astrology and later Indian literature do not find place in the A. is an argument in favour of an early date for the A. Metallurgy, particularly knowledge of working copper, must have been known in a country where copper coins, silver coins, alloys in coins, 'white metal' (or nickel? brought to Alexander in the Punjab), bronze, iron, glass, etc. have been worked for centuries before Alexander and Chandragupta, as proved by the positive evidence of finds (punch-marked coins, utensils at Paṭaliputra and other places). Recently Rai Sahib M. Ghosh has found cast iron in the Maurya strtaum at Paṭaliputra Cast glass seals have been found with Maurya and pre-Maurya lettering by Dr. Spooner and the Rai Sahib at Paṭaliputra (JBORS, Sep 1924). Seven metals are known as early as the Yajurveda (Vaj S., XVIII. 13, XXIII. 37).

c32.s1.54

¹ JBORS., 1919, p. 604; *Ind. Ant.*, 1918 p. 112.

c32.s1.55

9—10. The argument is against the theory of fanciful quotations in the A S. If there was a long previous literary activity, the quotations are natural. If before the A., *i.e.*, before Alexander, there were technical treatises, K. could not make every science begin after the Greek invasion. Why should the existence of treatises be a reason to fix the date too low and not 'too high' (a term too ambiguous to meet) is not explained by the learned scholar.

c32.s1.56

11. It is not proved that 'Rākshasa' is a myth. From unknown to unknown is not a logical step. Further, if one minister is mythical why all others be mythical? If the Greeks do not mention him, it is K.'s ill-luck. Non-mention by the Greeks, though it may take away the distinguished character of a human being, cannot disprove the very existence of a man. Moreover, where have you got the complete writings of the Greeks (*i.e.*, Megasthenes)? Rise of a new dynasty *may* give rise to myths, at the same time it *may not*, or may on one point and may not on others.

c32.s1.57

12. Dr. Jolly knows the Hindu theory that alchemy was born in India before the Christian era.¹ In any case it is not yet proved where the so-called science first made its appearence. In connexion with alchemy in later Indian literature we have the mention of Constantinople (Rūma); if we connect the AS with later alchemy we have to come down to Muhammadan times. Jolly therefore has to postulate a probable "Greco-Syriac" origin and to place that hypothetical origin in the 1st cen. A.C. But one hypothesis cannot prove another. We must have a proven fact that alchemy is not original to India and that it was borrowed by India from a 'Greco-Syriac' original and from nowhere else. The very fact that we have alchemy before 300 A.C. in India shows that we have to give up the theory of Arabian origin and admit that there was an earlier stratum, either Indian or foreign. We cannot go further than that because nothing can be proved at this stage beyond that. *Rūma* and *Barbara* as found in later literature must refer to another and a subsequent importation.

c32.s1.58

¹ Alberuni (XVII) gives the name of Vyāḍi before the Christian era. Vyāḍi must have had predecessors.

c32.s1.59

13. Syrinx was employed in sieges in India in Alexander's time. K. living both before and after Alexander's invasion can very well use the term. Besides, some Greeks had been living on the Indian frontier earlier and under the Persians in the Punjab, as Greek letters are found on Persian coins struck in India (see above, p. 147).

c32.s1.60

14. Aśoka's inscriptions do not undertake to give a gazetteer of the administrative system. Can any one attach the slightest importance to the Greek allegation that Hindus did not know smelting when we have coins, ornaments (*e.g.*, the fine gold ring found at Pāṭaliputra) cast iron, cast glass seals etc. of the Maurya and pre-Maurya times? The Greeks themselves mention the fine vases carried in front of Chandragupta and gold vine in his palace. If Megasthenes mentions only five metals, his knowledge is poor as in so many other instances (seven castes, writing, etc.). Seven metals are known to the Y. Veda alone. In the absence of his original book we cannot say what he actully said and of which part of India.

c32.s1.61

15. Megasthenes himself says that there were registers kept on the roads to find out distances and there were mile-stones. The Jātakas mention written tablets; seals, and inscriptions of Aśoka prove writing to have existed and been largely employed in the Maurya times. Could writing suddenly appear with Alexander? Aśoka two generations later publishing his inscriptions all over India (unless to be read by Greeks and explained to Indians!) and his father Bindusāra writing to the Greek king disprove the utterly untenable assertion.

c32.s1.62

16. Megasthenes' 'tax on articles sold' would include octroi and general taxes of the A. Besides, Megasthenes' work is not before us.

c32.s1.63

17. If agreement between Megasthenes and the A. proves nothing, how can disagreement prove anything?

c32.s1.64

18. The non-mention of Pāṭaliputra proves nil The trade route to the South for the sake of shell, diamond, gems, pearls, etc, was no doubt important. At the same time the A. mentions Kāśī, Nepal, Kukura, Lichchhavi, Malla, Kamboja, Kuru, Pāñchāla, Surāshṭra, Madra etc. His horizon is predominently Northern.

c32.s1.65

So many MSS. have come out in the South. Did all these authors (Bhāsa, etc.) belong to the South for that reason?

c32.s1.66

19. The A. being avowedly based on old works, and the Sūtra and Bhāshya being combined in one treatise, every sūtra having original opinion of the author necessarily became *apadeśa* As Fleet has pointed out and almost every Hindu knows, it is a very ancient and even current practice to give the author's name in his composition in this country It appears odd to a foreigner, but it is commonplace in this country.

c32.s1.67

²⁰ As Mahamahopadhyaya Ganapati Sastri has shown (A S. II, intro.) quotations from Viśālāksha and Brihaspati are extant in literature. I may add to them by pointing out quotations from Śukra (Uśanas) and Brihaspati in the *Ṭīkā* to the Nītivākyāmṛita published by Paṇḍit

c32.s1.68

Nathūrama Semin of Bombay, and from the Mānava AŚ. pointed out above (p. 8).

c32.s1.69

In the face of these quotations nobody will be heard to say that the authorities in the A. are imaginary.

c32.s1.70

Jolly has rightly ignored such untenable views as for instance ‘that the style of the A. is not archaic’ and ‘that geographical data prove a late date’.¹

c32.s1.71

¹ Mention of *Chīna* is innocuous, for *Chīna* which invariably comes along bwit *Darada* or other Himalayan countries in ancient Sanskrit literature clearly refers to ‘*Shina*,’ the Gilgit tribe still retaining the word and having mulberry tree and silk industry. See the article in Ency. Brit. on ‘China,’ and the identification by Sir George Grierson in LSI., X., Part 4, p. 5, n [‘but I would suggest that in this (Manu X. 44) and ‘similar passages, they are the great Shin race, still surviving in Gilgit and the vicinity.’] It may be added that the Chīnas were regarded to have been of Kshatriya origin. They spoke a language of Sanskrit base as shown by the AŚ. which says that the silks produced in Chīna-country bore the names *kauteya* and *chīnapaṭṭa*. Neither *kauteya* nor *paṭṭa* (Skt. *pattra*) is a Chinese word. All the members of the group where Chīna occurs are Himalayan peoples. *Chīna* alone cannot jump over thousands of miles away into China. In the same Chapter (XI. 11) chīna-*si* furs or skins are mentioned as coming from Bālhava, which according to Bhaṭṭasvāmin is a Himalayan country. Gilgit and Cashmere still produce both skins and silk. Interchange between *ch* and *sh* (Shin=Chīn) is common in Shin, e.g. *push*-*puch*. Similarly, *ālakanda* of the AŚ. (p. 78) is misunderstood as being connected with Alexandria on a wrong philology. Alexandria becomes *alasadda* as in the *Milinda P.* A coral variety is called *ālakandaka* in the AŚ. Any root-like thing is *kanda* in Sanskrit. A coral-shoot will be called *kanda*. *Ala* means yellow (orpiment, orpiment-colour)—*āla-kandaka*=‘root-coral with yellow tinge.’

c32.s1.72

(iii) *New Arguments for the Fourth Cen. B. C. date.

c32.s1.73

There are pieces of evidence in the A. which are compatible only with the fourth century B. C. date.

c32.s1.74

(i) The use of *Yukta* which is only known to the Maurya times, and the ‘geographical horizon’ in laying down the policy towards the republics can only refer to the Maurya times. In the first century B. C. and the 1st or 2nd century A. C. there was no power, no ‘king’ (for whom Kauṭilya wrote the Saṅgha Vṛitta policy) who had from Videha to Afghanistan under him.

c32.s1.75

(ii) Take again the term *Yuga*, meaning five years (II. 20). This is known to the Jyotisha Vedāṅga, and is not known to the literature of the early centuries including the Mānava Dharma Śāstra.

c32.s1.76

(iii) Take also the datum that the rainy season started in *Śrāvaṇa* (Śrāvaṇa-proshṭhapadayoścha Varshā), *i.e.*, in the author's time the rainy season began in Śrāvaṇa, unlike today when it begins in the middle of Āshāḍha. Now, season falls back about one day and a half every century:—

c32.s1.77

"In consequence of this difference the beginning of Varsha, or the "rainy season, in the times of Alexander and Aśoka, would have "fallen just one month earlier than at present."¹

c32.s1.78

¹ Cunningham, *Indian Eras*, p. 3.

c32.s1.79

(iv) See also (AŚ., *ibid*) आषाढे मासि नष्टच्छायो मध्याह्नो भवति. This could be written only in the North (Pāṭaliputra) and not in the South.

c32.s1.80

(v) The political data taking us to the Maurya times, we have further materials to hold that the book could not have been written in the later Maurya times. The position of the Śākyas and Ājīvakas could not be low as in the A. (III. 20),² they being grouped together with or as Śūdra monks. Under Aśoka or his successors it was not likely that a law hostile to them would have been promulgated. Again, the sarcasm of Patañjali that the Mauryas were fond of money (gold), finds corroboration in the A. that the Maurya sovereign did institute 'archas' or worships for making money.³ Now Aśoka could not have done it, he was too conscientious and religious for that. His descendants were also religious. The datum of Patañjali and the A. thus should refer either to Chandragupta or to Bindusāra, and under both sovereigns K served.

c32.s1.81

² Munich MS., Shama Sastry's trans., p. 251 n.

c32.s1.82

³ *I. A.*, 1918, p. 51

c32.s1.83

The heterodox Jaina and Buddhist and the orthodox Brahmin literatures assert that Kauṭilya was the minister of Chandragupta. The Buddhist and the Jaina books treat him as having been a rascal, debasing coins and making money, making conquests and killing men, etc. The Purāṇas, on the other hand, show him to be an able minister. How could such contrary and human details be given to a person imaginary? His condemnation and awkward Gotra name are proof to my mind of his historical existence. If we look into the A. it answers both characterizations of K., the heterodox and orthodox. He would put down the heterodox, and the heterodox would find him a bad man.

c32.s1.84

(vi) If the Purāṇas turn out to be true in asserting the existence of Chandragupta, why should we not believe them about Kauṭilya? If K. existed, why should we not take the book to be his, especially when we find the last but one verse in the book, giving the authorship, to have been in the book before Kāmandaka who paraphrases it in his introduction?

c32.s1.85

[Jolly, (though without assigning any reason) also takes the Śloka to be contemporary with the composition of the book.¹ ]

c32.s1.86

(vii) If the book existed before Vātsyāyana, and Kāmandaka ascribed it to K., the onus is on him who wants to ascribe the authorship to another to prove that and disprove the evidence of the A. itself corroborated as it is by Vāt. and Kām., Daṇḍin and Medhātithi, Pañcha T. and Tantrākhyāyikā.

c32.s1.87

(viii) There is motive for promulgating a Dharma Śāstra ascribing it to a Ṛishi, but there is no such motive in ascribing a material book to another. Besides, Kauṭilya is not a Ṛishi. Earlier AŚ books had Ṛishis as authors. If a Paṇḍit writing the book wanted to foster it on another, he would have ascribed it to some Ṛishi and a name unhated by a large section of the community (Buddhists and Jainas).

c32.s1.88

(ix) The Purāṇas seem to give a second name of Chandragupta as *Narendra*.² There is evidence that not only the name of the author is in the book, but also the name of the king, ‘*Narendra*,’ whose monogram or mark ‘*Narendrāṅka*’ is directed in the A. to be put on arms (V. 3, p. 247; see also नरेन्द्रारक, II. 10).

c32.s1.89

² *JA.*, 1918, p. 55.

c32.s1.90

(x) Only the empire of the early Mauryas could take note of exports and imports from Mahāvīsi (AŚ. II. 11) (=Mahāvṛisha of the Veda),³ the raisin wine *mṛidvī* of Afghanistan (Arachosia), the weights and measures of the Śibi (II. 19) and Mekalā and Magadha at the same time, of Uttarāpatha and Dakshiṇāpatha simultaneously, and provide punishment [from Pāṭaliputra] for defaming the Gandhāra country (above p. 156,*n.*). And only a minister very highly placed could have all the fiscal and military information which are contained in the A. Punishments for turning women into nuns, and for monks leaving families unprovided for could be laid down (II.¹) only in early Maurya rule of the first two emperors. Raising a prince on the unmarried daughter of a king (while even Niyoga is condemned in the Śuṅga times, *e.g.*, in the M. Dh. Ś.), knowledge of the epics different from the ones we have, are all indications of an early and pre-Śuṅgan date.

c32.s1.91

¹ The first Śloka giving the author's name was in the book before Daṇḍin who gives the identical measure of the book just preceding and says that the work was composed as an abridgement by Vishṇu-gupta for the Maurya, almost quoting the words of the A. as in the śloka and the previous passage.

c32.s1.92

³ M & K, *V.I.* II, 142, 346.

Linked texts (14)