History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c4.7

v1.c4.7

Sec. 14 *The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya.* There is a perennial stream of articles and works inspired by the Arthaśāstra. Some of them that appeared after this work was sent to the press and some that had appeared before but had been omitted through oversight are noticed here. Dr. Stein has a note on the word ‘suruṅgā’ occurring in the Arthaśāstra and its connection with the Greek word ‘syrinx’; (vide I. H. Q. vol. I. pp. 429-432) and holds that the Arthaśāstra must be later than the 2nd century B. C. The same scholar contributes a note on ‘Pāṇḍyakavāṭa’ occurring in the Arthaśāstra II. 11 (in I. H. Q. vol.IV p. 778) and concludes from comparison with Bṛhat-saṁhitā and other works that the list of countries cannot be earlier than 6th century A. D. I am glad to note that the veteran *savant* Dr. Jolly (in ‘Zeitschrift für Indologie and Iranistik’ for 1927 pp. 216-221) approves of my view that the original name was Kauṭilya and not Kauṭalya. In the Nidhanpur plate of Bhāskarvarman (E. I. vol. 19 p. 245, at p. 248) donees of Kauṭilya-gotra are mentioned. The verse in the second Act of the Mālatīmādhava of Bhavabhūti (**गुणापेक्षाशून्यं कथमिदममुष्यान्तमथवा कुतोपत्यस्नेहः कुटिलनयनिष्णातमनसाम् ।**) contains a hit at the name Kauṭilya and his teaching. Mr. E. H. Johnston contributes in the J R A S for 1929 pp. 77-102 an article on ‘two studies in the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya,’ wherein he examines the works of Aśvaghoṣa, the Laṅkāvatāra and the Jātakamālā and holds that the Arthaśāstra is not much earlier than Aśvaghoṣa and not later than 250 A. D. It is gratifying to see that from the untenable position of relegating the Arthaśāstra to the 3rd century A. D., western scholars are receding to the first century of the Christian era. Prof. Benoy Kumar Sarkar contributes an appreciative and lengthy review of Dr. Meyer's work ‘Das altindische Buch vom Welt-&c’ in the Indian Historical Quarterly for 1928 pp. 348-383. Dr. Meyer has brought out another work ‘on Hindu Law-books and their relation with one another and with Kauṭilya’ (über das Wesen der altindischen Rechtsschriften &c.). This work compels admiration for the author's patience and industry, but is seriously marred throughout by wild generalisations, perverse and startling propositions unsupported by weighty evidence. He makes Gautama the latest of the Smṛtis and Nārada one of the earliest, places Nārada several centuries before the Christian era, regards the compiler of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti as a stupid brāhmaṇa. He is blissfully ignorant of the references to Gautama occurring in the Tantravārtika, which I collected in my paper on ‘the Tantravārtika and the dharmaśāstra literature’ (JBBRAS vol. I new series for 1925 pp. 66-67). He propounds the absurd theory that the Brāhmaṇas were people like gypsies roving about in bands without any morals or principles of conduct. I can agree with some of his conclusions, viz. the non-existence of a Mānavadharmasūtra, the non-existence of a floating mass of verses on which authors of dharmaśāstra could draw. Mr. Batakrishna Ghose submits Dr. Meyer’s work to a scholarly and trenchant criticism in I. H. Q. for 1928 vol. IV. pp. 570-592. Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar has recently published in a book-form his lectures on ‘some aspects of ancient Hindu polity.’ Vide I. H. Q. vol. V (1929) p. 780 for an article on ‘salaries and allowances in Kauṭilya’.