Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s14: 14. The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s14

Language
English

Contents

14. The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya

v1.c6.s14.1

This epoch-making work was first published by Dr. Shamasastri in 1909 in the Mysore Sanskrit Series and was also translated by him. Pandit T. Ganapati Sastri of Trivandrum has published the work with his own commentary called Śrīmūla. Dr. Jolly and Dr. Schmidt edited the text with a valuable introduction and the commentary, called Nayacandrikā, of Mādhavayajvan on portions of the text in the Punjab Sanskrit series at Lahore. In this work the edition of 1919 by Dr. Shamasastri has been used. This work has given rise to frequent and furious controversies about its authorship, its authenticity and its age and it cannot be said that we have heard the last of this din of controversy. Moreover this work has inspired besides numerous articles in journals several monographs, some of which have somewhat high sounding titles, such as Narendranath Law's 'Studies in Ancient Indian Polity,' Dr. P. Banerji's 'Public Administration in Ancient India,' Ghosal's 'History of Hindu Political Theories,' Majumdar's 'Corporate Life in Ancient India,' Benoy Kumar Sarkar's 'Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus,' Jayasval's 'Hindu Polity,' Prof. S. V. Visvanathan's 'International Law in Ancient India (1925)'. It is not possible to discuss at great length all the problems about Kauṭilya here. Only a brief statement can be attempted. For fuller study reference may be made to the following works and papers :— Hillebrandt's 'über das Kauṭilyaśāstra und Verwandtes' (Breslau 1908), Z D M G vol. 67, pp. 49-96 (Dr. Jolly), Z D M G vol. 68, pp. 345-359 and vol. 69, p. 369 ff; J R A S 1916, pp. 130-137 (Prof. Keith), I. A. for 1918, pp. 157-161 and pp. 187-195 (Dr. Jacobi translated by Dr. Sukthankar), Dr. Kalidas Nag's 'Les Théories Diplomatiques de l'Inde ancienne et l'Arthaśāstra' (Paris 1923) and its translation in 'Journal of Indian History' vol. V, Dr. Otto Stein's 'Megasthenes und Kauṭilya' (Vienna 1922), K. V. Rangasvami Ayyangar's lectures on Ancient Indian Polity (Madras 1916), Dr. Winternitz in Calcutta Review 1924 and in his history of Indian Literature (vol. III, pp. 509-524), I. A. for 1924, pp. 128-136 and 141-146 (Dr. Jacobi translated by Prof. Utgikar); Dr. Johann J. Meyer's 'Das altindische Buch vom Welt- und Staatsleben das Arthaśāstra des Kauṭilya' (Leipzig, 1925) and Prof. N. C. Bandopadhyaya's exposition of the social ideal and political theory of Kauṭilya. The Indian Antiquary for 1925 (pp. 175 and 201) gives an exhaustive bibliography on the date of Kauṭilya.

v1.c6.s14.2

The Kauṭilīya is the oldest extant work on Arthaśāstra. Though Arthaśāstra and Dharmaśāstra are often contradistinguished on account of the difference of the two śāstras in ideals and in the methods adopted to reach them, Arthaśāstra is really a branch of Dharmaśāstra as the former deals with the responsibilities of kings for whom rules are laid down in many treatises on *dharma*.¹⁵¹ For this reason and the further reason that the Kauṭilīya contains two sections (called dharmasthīya and kaṇṭakaśodhana) on the administration of justice, the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya deserves careful consideration in this work. According to the Caraṇavyūha of Śaunaka, Arthaśāstra is an Upaveda of Atharvaveda. The purpose of this Śāstra as stated in the Kauṭilīya itself is ‘to prescribe means for securing and preserving (power over) the earth’.¹⁵² Yājñavalkya distinctly states (II. 21) that in case of conflict between Dharmaśāstra and Arthaśāstra, the rule is that the former prevails ¹⁵³. Nārada also (I. 39) says the same thing.¹⁵⁴ From comparatively ancient times Cāṇakya *alias* Kauṭilya or Viṣṇugupta has been credited with the composition of a work on Arthaśāstra. The Kāmandakīyanītisāra ¹⁵⁵ pays a glowing tribute of praise to Viṣṇugupta, who, singlehanded, brought about the downfall of Nanda, bestowed the earth on Candragupta and distilled from the ocean of Arthśāstra the quintessence, his work on politics. Kāmandaka further tells us that he looked upon Viṣṇugupta as his *guru*.¹⁵⁶ The Tantrākhyāyikā (H. O. S. vol. 14) which is certainly not later than 300 A. D. pays homage to Cāṇakya the Great as one of the authors of treatises on Politics.¹⁵⁷ Daṇḍin in his Daśakumāracarita (section VIII, p. 131, 2nd edition B. S. Series) says that the teacher Viṣṇugupta compressed Daṇḍanīti for the sake of the Maurya king into six thousand ślokas and quotes passages from Cāṇakya.¹⁵⁸ Bāṇa associates the work of Kauṭilya with harsh and cruel expedients.¹⁵⁹ The Pañcatantra identifies Cāṇakya and Viṣṇugupta and speaks of Cāṇakya as the author of Arthaśāstra (*vide* part I. p. 2 ed. by Kielhorn part II. p. 65 and part III. 50 ed. by Bühler). Kauṭilya figures very largely in the Purāṇas (*vide* Pargiter's 'dynasties of the Kali age' pp. 69-70 and Viṣṇupurāṇa 4. 24. 26-28). He has a prominent place in the Bṛhatkathā of Guṇāḍhya, as appears from the works of Kṣemendra and Somadeva. The Mṛcchakaṭika (I. 39 B. S. series) refers to Cāṇakya. The Mudrārākṣasa identified Cāṇakya and Kauṭilya and suggests the derivation of the latter name from 'Kuṭila' (crooked).¹⁶⁰ Some of the above items of information are supported by the personal references contained in the Arthaśāstra itself. At the end of the first chapter of the first *adhikaraṇa*, Kauṭilya is said to be the author of the Śāstra and at the end of the 10th chapter of the second *adhikaraṇa* Kauṭilya is said to have laid down the rules for royal edicts for the sake of the king.¹⁶¹ The last verse¹⁶² tells us that he who impatiently wrested the earth from the Nanda king composed the work and after the colophon a verse tell us that seeing the differing interpretations of bhāṣyakāras on the Arthaśāstra, Viṣṇugupta himself composed the sūtra and the bhāṣya.

v1.c6.s14.3

¹⁵¹ ‘धर्मशास्त्रान्तर्गतमेव राजनीतिलक्षणमर्थशास्त्रमिदं विवक्षितम्’ मिता० on Yāj. II. 21.

v1.c6.s14.4

¹⁵² तस्याः पृथिव्या लाभपालनपायः शास्त्रमर्थशास्त्रमिति। कौ. 15. 1. So also the very first sentence is ‘पृथिव्या लाभे पालने च यावन्त्यर्थशास्त्राणि पूर्वाचार्यैः प्रस्थापितानि प्रायशस्तानि संहृत्यैकमर्थशास्त्रं कृतम्।’

v1.c6.s14.5

¹⁵³ अर्थशास्त्रात्तु बलवद्धर्मशास्त्रमिति स्थितिः।

v1.c6.s14.6

¹⁵⁴ यत्र विप्रतिपत्तिः स्याद्धर्मशास्त्रार्थशास्त्रयोः। अर्थशास्त्रोक्तमुत्सृज्य धर्मशास्त्रोक्तमाचरेत्॥

v1.c6.s14.7

¹⁵⁵ यस्याभिचारवज्रेण वज्रज्वलनतेजसः। पपात मूलतः श्रीमान् सुपर्वा नन्दपर्वतः॥ एकाकी मन्त्रशक्त्या यः शक्त्या शक्तिधरोपमः। आजहार नृचन्द्राय चन्द्रगुप्ताय मेदिनीम्॥ नीतिशास्त्रामृतं धीमानर्थशास्त्रमहोदधेः। समुद्दधे नमस्तस्मै विष्णुगुप्ताय वेधसे॥ काम. I. 4-6.

v1.c6.s14.8

¹⁵⁶ ‘विद्याश्चतस्र एवैता इति नो गुरुदर्शनम्।’ काम० II. 6; ‘चतस्र एव विद्या इति कौटिल्यः’ कौटिलीय I. 2.

v1.c6.s14.9

¹⁵⁷ मनवे वाचस्पतये शुक्राय पराशराय ससुताय। चाणक्याय च महते नमोस्तु नृपशास्त्रकर्तृभ्यः॥ verse 2.

v1.c6.s14.10

¹⁵⁸ 'इयमिदानीमाचार्यविष्णुगुप्तेन मौर्यार्थे षड्भिः श्लोकसहस्रैः संक्षिप्ता।' दशकुमार० VIII; सत्यमाह चाणक्यः 'चित्तज्ञानानुवर्तिनोऽनर्था अपि प्रियाः स्युः । दक्षिणा अपि तद्भावबहिष्कृता द्वेष्या भवेयुः' दशकुमार VIII. Compare कौटिलीय V. 4 verses at the end.

v1.c6.s14.11

¹⁵⁹ 'येषामतिनृशंसप्रायोपदेशनिर्घृणं कौटिल्यशास्त्रं प्रमाणम् ' कादम्बरी p. 109 (Peterson).

v1.c6.s14.12

¹⁶⁰ कौटिल्यः कुटिलमतिः स एष येन क्रोधाग्नौ प्रसभमदाहि नन्दवंशः । मुद्राराक्षस I.

v1.c6.s14.13

¹⁶¹ सुखग्रहणविज्ञेयं तत्त्वार्थपदनिश्चितम् । कौटिल्येन कृतं शास्त्रं विमुक्तग्रन्थविस्तरम् ॥ कौटिलीय I. 1; सर्वशास्त्राण्यनुक्रम्य प्रयोगमुपलभ्य च । कौटिल्येन नरेन्द्रार्थे शासनस्य विधिः कृतः ॥ कौटिलीय II. 10.

v1.c6.s14.14

¹⁶² येन शास्त्रं च शस्त्रं च नन्दराजगता च भूः । अमर्षेणोद्धृतान्याशु तेन शास्त्रमिदं कृतम् ॥ दृष्ट्वा विप्रतिपत्तिं बहुधा शास्त्रेषु भाष्यकाराणाम् । स्वयमेव विष्णुगुप्तश्चकार सूत्रं च भाष्यं च ॥

v1.c6.s14.15.1

The first question that arises for consideration is the authenticity of the work, that is, the question whether it can be the work of the famous minister of Candragupta Maurya, who was a contemporary of Alexander, and who must therefore have flourished about 320 B.C. This question very largely depends upon the age of the work. But other considerations, more or less of a subjective character and depending upon the absence of certain things from the Kauṭilīya, must be dealt with first. Jolly, Keith and Winternitz hold that the extant Kauṭilīya is not the work of the Maurya minister. One argument, viz. that a person like Cāṇakya who had to build a vast empire such as that of Candragupta and who was bent down with the cares of the empire could not have found time to write such a work, may be brushed aside as entirely futile, being a purely subjective argument. Some persons may say that he could have found time, just as Sāyaṇa and Mādhava could find in later days, to write such a work in the midst of all cares, while others may deny the possibility of such a thing. Similarly most of the arguments from the silence of the Kauṭilīya are also quite unconvincing and lead to no certain and universally acceptable conclusion. The non-mention of Pāṭaliputra or of the empire of Candragupta is of very little use in deciding the question of the authenticity of the work.

v1.c6.s14.15.2

The argument of Stein and Winternitz that in Megasthenes' account of India no great person named Cāṇakya or Kauṭilya appears and that the former's account of the condition of India does not tally with that presented by the Kauṭilīya is of very little weight. We have no means for finding out what proficiency Megasthenes had acquired in the languages of India so as to be able to hold conversation with all sorts and conditions of men. Besides it is well known that Megasthenes' writings have been handed down in a fragmentary state and that he often spins his own yarns. Megasthenes declares the Indians to be unacquainted with writing. But no Western scholar would now subsribe to the view that writing was unknown in India about 320 B. C. Dr. Jolly himself has to remark that the idealising tendency in Megasthenes greatly impairs the trustworthiness of his statements (p. 40, Introduction to Kauṭilīya). This question of the authenticity of the work is bound up with the question whether it can be the work of an individual author or whether it is the product of a school. Hillebrandt vehemently argues that it is the product of a school and Jacobi as vehemently repudiates that hypothesis. The great stumbling block according to many scholars in the way of regarding Kauṭilya as the author of the work is the fact that the views of Kauṭilya are cited by name about 80 times in the work itself almost always in opposition to the views of other teachers.

v1.c6.s14.15.3

But there is nothing specially to be wondered at in this. In order to avoid looking too egotistic, ancient authors generally put their own views in the third person as said by early writers like Medhātithi and Viśvarūpa.¹⁶³ It has to be admitted that the first person singular also is used by ancient writers, though rarely.¹⁶⁴ Jacobi (I. A. for 1918 p. 188) and Keith are both wrong in thinking that the view of Kauṭilya is criticized by Bhāradvāja in V. 6. Kauṭilya states his position first and then mentions the view of his predecessor.¹⁶⁵ Dr. Jolly (Intro. to Kauṭilīya p. 44) is wrong in his explanation of Apadeśa (in XV. 1.¹⁶⁶). That word is applied to passages which mean ‘this or that author says this or that’ and the Kauṭilīya cites from his own work a case of the statement of various views on a certain point. These words do not at all indicate that according to the Arthaśāstra Kauṭilya was a stranger. Keith thinks (J. R. A. S. 1916 p. 135) that as Kauṭilya is derived from Kuṭila, an author will not cite his own views under such an epithet. It is not unlikely that Cāṇakya acquired the epithet Kauṭilya on account of his methods in dealing with the Nandas and that as he did so from no purely selfish motives but for ridding the country of such tyrants as the Nandas are represented to have been, he might have come to relish the name given to him by the people.

v1.c6.s14.15.4

It has to be noted in this connection that many of the writers quoted in the Kauṭilīya bear nicknames (such as Piśuna, Vātavyādhi, Kauṇapadanta). This leads to the question as to whether the name is Kauṭilya or Kauṭalya. Hillebrandt seems to imply that all mss. employ the first form, while Pandit T. Ganapatisastri says his mss. support the latter form though in the first few pages he prints Kauṭilya. Mss. of the Kādambarī, the Pañcatantra and other works support the form Kauṭilya and the Mudrārākṣasa does the same by pointedly hinting at the etymology.

v1.c6.s14.16

¹⁶³ 'प्रायेण ग्रन्थकाराः स्वमतं परापदेशेन ब्रुवते' मेधातिथि; on याज्ञ. I. 2 विश्वरूप says 'किं तु भगवतेव परोक्षीकृत्यात्मा निर्दिश्यते स्वप्रशंसानिषेधात्।'

v1.c6.s14.17

¹⁶⁴ यास्क says 'तान्यप्येके समामनन्ति ... तत्समामने' निरुक्त VII. 13; vide याज्ञ. I. 56. (न तन्मम मतं यस्मात् &c.) and II. 133.

v1.c6.s14.18

¹⁶⁵ एवमेकैश्वर्यममात्यः कारयेदिति कौटिल्यः। नैवमिति भारद्वाजः।

v1.c6.s14.19

¹⁶⁶ एवमसावाहेत्यपदेशः। 'मन्त्रिपरिषदं द्वादशामात्यान् कुर्वीतेति मानवाः षोडशेति बार्हस्पत्याः विंशतिमित्यौशनसाः, यथासामर्थ्यमिति कौटिल्यः' इति.

v1.c6.s14.20

A com. on the Kāmandakīyanītisāra styles the Kauṭilīya as Kuṭalabhāṣya and Kuṭala is said to be a *gotra*. The form Kauṭalya is said to occur in an inscription at Gaṇeśar in Dholka dated Vikrama Saṁvat 1291 (i. e. 1234-35 A. D.). Vide Indian Historical Quarterly vol. I. p. 786. It is very difficult to decide between the rival claims of the two forms, but it appears that the form of the name, Kauṭalya, is due to a later attempt to solve the difficulty of an author parading his views as those of a man nicknamed "crooked". Whether Kuṭala or Kauṭalya was known as a gotra ṛṣi in ancient times is extremely doubtful. Neither the Āśvalāyana-śrauta-sūtra (Uttaraṣaṭka, 6th chap., 10th Kaṇḍikā) nor the Āpastamba-śrautasūtra (24. 5-10) mentions Kuṭala among the several gotra groups. In later works on *gotras*, we find the name in several forms. In the Pravaradarpaṇa of Kamalākara Kauṭali is said to be one of the Jāmadagnya-Vatsa group of the Bhṛgus (p. 156, edited by P. Chentsalrao, Mysore) and Kauṭilya is assigned to the Yaska group of the Bhṛgus (p. 158). The Pravaramañjarī enumerates the Kauṭilyas (p. 32, of the edition by P. Chentsalrao, Mysore) among the Yaska group of the Bhṛgus, also among the Śaradvanta group of the Gautamas, a branch of the Āṅgirasas, (p. 161) and Kauṭili as one of the Bhṛgus (p. 42). We have to remember that so early a writer as Kāmandaka (who was well known to Bhavabhūti and Vāmana's Kāvyālaṅkārasūtravṛtti) who is assigned to the third centery A. D., and the Tantrākhyāyikā distinctly assign a work on politics to the minister of Candragupta. No weighty arguments have been advanced so far why this tradition vouched for so early should be disregarded. Keith finds it impossible that in the words 'six thousand ślokas' used by Daṇḍin the word śloka could mean a unit (in prose) of 32 letters. But Daṇḍin is evidently repeating the words that occur in the Arthaśāstra itself at the end of the first chapter.¹⁶⁷

v1.c6.s14.21

¹⁶⁷ **शास्त्रसमुद्देशः पञ्चदशाधिकरणानि सपञ्चाशदध्यायशतं साशीतिप्रकरणशतं षट्श्लोकसहस्राणीति ।** These words of the Kauṭilīya must mean 6000 units of 32 letters and nothing else.

v1.c6.s14.22

Before proceeding to discuss the age of the Kauṭilīya, it is advisable to say a few words on the form, style and contents of the work. The work is divided into 15 adhikaraṇas, 150 chapters, 180 topics and contains 6000 ślokas (i. e. units of 32 letters). The work is in prose interspersed with a few verses. Each chapter has at the end at least one verse and sometimes more. A few verses occur also in the midst of some chapters as in I. 8, I. 15, II. 10, II. 24, V. 6, VII. 5, VII. 6, VII. 9, VII. 13, X. 3, XIII. 4. There are about 340 verses excluding *mantras*. Almost all these verses are in the Anuṣṭubh metre, only eight verses being in the classical Indravajrā or Upajāti metres (in II. 9, II. 10 and X. 3). In our utter ignorance about the literature on Arthaśāstra prior to Kauṭilya it is impossible to say how many of these verses are borrowed and how many are of his own composition. There can be no doubt that some of these verses were composed by him (e. g. the two verses in I. 10, where the views of Ācāryas are given, and the words ‘etat Kauṭilya-darśanam’ occur). It appears that some verses are clearly quotations. For example, the verse ‘nāsya guhyam’ at the end of I. 15, and the verse ‘saṁvatsareṇa patati’ at the end of IV. 7 are Manu 7. 105 and 2. 180 respectively. The last occurs in Baud. Dh. S. II. 1. 62 and also in Vas. I. 22. The two verses in the Upajāti metre in X. 3 ‘yān yajñasanghaiḥ’ and ‘navam śarāvam’ occur respectively in the Parāśaradharmaśāstra (chap. III. p. 12 of Jīvānanda, part II) and in the Pratijñā (IV. 3¹⁶⁸). It is noteworthy that they are introduced with the words ‘apīha ślaukau bhavataḥ’ and follow a quotation from or summary of a Vedic passage. Twelve verses in VII. 9 are introduced with the words ‘tatraitad bhavati’ and may be quotations. A few of the verses bear a close resemblance to verses of other works; e. g. the verse ‘pṛṣṭaḥ priyahitam brūyāt’ (in V. 4) which is very similar to Manu. 4. 138. In some cases he connects verses with his own words, e. g. the words ‘kurvataśca’ with ‘nāsya guhyam’ (at the end of I. 15) and the last verse of II. 25. The style of the Kauṭilīya is simple and direct. It is not concise like that of the Vedānta or Vyākaraṇa sūtras. It resembles the dharmasūtras of Gautama, Hārīta and Śaṅkha-Likhita, but is not as archaic as that of Āpastamba. According to the commentaries the several headings of the prakaraṇas are sūtras and the contents of them the bhāṣya (vide Nayacandrikā pp. 137, 143-44 &c., edited by Dr. Jolly). It abounds in numerous technical and rare terms. It is generally in accordance with Pāṇini's grammar, though such un-Pāṇinean words as ‘pāpiṣṭhatama’ (in VII. 11) rarely occur. It employs the word ‘avyaya’ in the masculine (II. 10), while Pāṇini (I. 1. 37) employs ‘avyayam’.

v1.c6.s14.23

¹⁶⁸ The manner in which the गात्रसेवक brings in this verse does not show that it is the author's own. The verse is preceded by the words शृण्वन्तु भवन्तः and is probably put in as a weighty utterance from some ancient source.

v1.c6.s14.24

The whole work on account of its careful arrangement of topics and unity of design impresses one as the product of a single brilliant mind. The Kauṭilīya sheds such valuable light on the social, economic, political and religious life of ancient India and contains information on so many topics that it is not possible to convey any idea of its contents in a brief summary. The subjects of the fifteen *adhikaraṇas* are:— I. the discipline of the king, sciences to be learnt by him, the place of Ānvīkṣikī and politics, qualifications of ministers and purohita and their temptations, the institution of spies, council meetings, ambassadors, protection of princes, duties towards harem, king's personal safety; II. about superintendents of various state departments, founding villages, pastures and forests, forts, duties of the chamberlain (*sannidhātā*), the commissioner for revenues from forts, country, mines, forests, roads &c.; accountant-general's office; embezzlement of public funds; royal edicts; examination of precious stones for the treasury and mines; superintendent of gold (i. e. of coins issued from the mints); superintendent of store-house (of agricultural produce &c.), of commerce, of forests, of arms, of weights and measures, of tolls, of weaving, of liquor houses, of slaughter houses, of prostitutes, of shipping, of cows and horses, of the capital and cities; III. Administration of justice, rules of procedure, forms of marriage, duties of married couples, strīdhana, twelve kinds of sons; other titles of law; IV. removal of thorns, protection of artisans, merchants, remedies against national calamities such as fires, floods, pestilence, famines, demons, tigers, snakes, etc; suppression of those who live by foul means; detection of juvenile crime; arrest of criminals on suspicion, accidental or violent deaths, torture to extort confessions; protection of all kinds of state departments; fines in lieu of cutting off of limbs, sentence of death with or without torture; intercourse with maidens; punishment of fine for various wrongs; V. conduct of courtiers, award of punishment for treason, replenishing of treasury in case of emergency; salaries of state servants, qualifications of courtiers, consolidation of royal power; VI. constitution of the maṇḍala, seven elements of sovereignty, qualities of king, peace and arduous work as the source of prosperity; sixfold royal policy; threefold *śakti*; VII. circle of states is the field for the employment of the six lines of policy; the six *guṇas* (saṁdhi, war, neutrality, marching, taking shelter and dvaidhībhāva); causes leading to the dwindling and disloyalty of armies; combination of states; saṁdhi for the acquisition of a friend, gold or land; an enemy in the rear; recouping of lost strength; a neutral king and a circle of states; VIII. about *vyasanas* (vices and misfortunes) of the several elements of sovereignty; troubles of the king and the kingdom; troubles of men and of the army; IX. work of an invader, proper time for invasion, recruitment of the army, accoutrements, internal and external trouble, disaffection; traitors, enemies and their allies; X. about war; encamping the army, march of the army, battle-fields, work of infantry, cavalry, elephants &c.; array of troops for battle in various formations; XI. concerning corporations and guilds; XII. concerning a powerful enemy; sending an envoy; intrigues, spies with weapons, fire and poison and destruction of stores and granaries; capture of the enemy by stratagems; final victory; XIII. capture of forts; sowing dissensions; enticing of king by stratagem; spies in a siege; restoring peace in a conquered country; XIV secret means, strategems for killing an enemy, producing illusive appearances; medicines and incantations; XV division of this work into sections and their illustrations.

v1.c6.s14.25

It would be interesting to say a few words separately on the chapter about judicial administration. Dr. Jolly has collected together the passages of the Kauṭilīya on judicial administration that bear a very close resemblance to the several works on ancient Indian Law (vide Z. D. M. G. vol. 67, pp. 51-90). It will be seen therefrom that there is the greatest correspondence between the Kauṭilīya and Yājñavalkya. It is no doubt true that many passages from Manu and Nārada agree closely with those of the Kauṭilīya but not to the same extent as those of Yājñavalkya. A few striking examples are quoted below.¹⁶⁹ The question then arises whether there is borrowing and if so who the borrower is. The agreement in phraseology is so close that it must be regarded as a case of borrowing and in my opinion it is the Yājñavalkyasmṛti that borrows. The reasons are many. Yājñavalkya represents on numerous points of law a very great advance upon the doctrines of Kauṭilya. Kauṭilya does not contain distinct directions upon the four stages of a law suit (plaint, reply, proof and judgment) nor upon the threefold aspects of proof (documents, witnesses, prescription). Yājñavalkya goes into all these matters. The Kauṭilīya does not recognise the widow or mother as heir to a sonless man; Yājñavalkya does so. Kauṭilya does not mention the *bandhus* as heirs; he hardly says anything about re-union.¹⁷⁰ The Kauṭilīya divides the strīdhana of a woman dying during her husband's lifetime among her sons and daughters, while Yāj. prefers the daughters to the sons.¹⁷¹ It is not necessary to multiply examples. It goes without saying that Yājñavalkya represents a far too advanced stage of juristic principles than the Kauṭilīya and so must be later than the latter by several centuries. The Kauṭilīya agrees very closely with Manu also, but considerations of space prevent me from going into the points of agreement. There are however numerous fundamental points on which Manu and the Kauṭilīya disagree.

v1.c6.s14.26

¹⁶⁹ (a) अभियुक्तो न प्रत्यभियुञ्जीत अन्यत्र कलहसाहससार्थसमवायेभ्यः । न चाभियुक्तेऽभियोगोस्ति । कौ. III. 1; अभियोगमनिस्तीर्य नैनं प्रत्यभियोजयेत् । कुर्यात्प्रत्यभियोगं च कलहे साहसेषु च ॥ याज्ञ. II. 9-10; (b) प्रतिरोधकव्याधिदुर्भिक्षभयप्रतीकारे धर्मकार्ये च पत्युः । कौ. III. 2; दुर्भिक्षे धर्मकार्ये च व्याधौ संप्रतिरोधके । गृहीतं स्त्रीधनं भर्त्ता न स्त्रियै दातुमर्हति ॥ याज्ञ. II 147; (c) सोदर्याणामनेकापितृकाणां पितृतो दायविभागः । कौ. III. 5; अनेकपितृकाणां तु पितृतो भागकल्पना । याज्ञ. II. 120;
(d) नष्टापहृतमासाद्य स्वामी धर्मस्थेन ग्राहयेत् । देशकालातिपत्तौ वा स्वयं गृहीत्वोपहरेत् । कौ. III. 16; नष्टोपहृतमासाद्य हर्तारं ग्राहयेन्नरम् । देशकालातिपत्तौ च गृहीत्वा स्वयमर्पयेत् ॥ याज्ञ. II. 169; (e) वानप्रस्थयतिब्रह्मचारिणामाचार्यशिष्यधर्मभ्रातृसमानतीर्थ्या रिक्थभाजः । कौ. III. 16; वानप्रस्थयतिब्रह्मचारिणां रिक्थभागिनः । क्रमेणाचार्यसच्छिष्यधर्मभ्रात्रेकतीर्थिनः ॥ याज्ञ. II. 137.

v1.c6.s14.27

¹⁷⁰ But see 'अपित्रद्रव्या विभक्तपितृद्रव्यैः सह जीवन्तः पुनर्विभजेरन्' कौ. III. 5. This contains a reference to reunion.

v1.c6.s14.28

¹⁷¹ जीवति भर्तरि मृतायाः पुत्रा दुहितरश्च स्त्रीधनं विभजेरन् । अपुत्राया दुहितरः । तदभावे भर्ता । कौ. III. 2; अप्रजःस्त्रीधनं भर्तुर्ब्राह्मादिषु चतुर्ष्वपि । दुहितॄणां प्रसूता चेच्छेषेषु पितृगामि तत् ॥ याज्ञ. II. 145.

v1.c6.s14.29.1

Kauṭilya allows *niyoga* even in the case of Brāhmaṇas (last verse of III. 6 and at the end of I. 17 about kings). Manu first speaks of Niyoga and then condemns it (vide 9. 57-63 and 9. 64-68). As Bṛhaspati refers to this fact in Manu's work,¹⁷² it appears that the passages condemning *niyoga* were put in probably earlier than the fitst centuries of the Christian era. Though Kauṭilya speaks of almost the same 18 titles as those in Manu (8. 4-7) almost under the same names, there is a slight difference. Manu has no such title as *Prakīrṇaka*. Kauṭilya speaks of upanidhi and extends the same rules to Nikṣepa, while Manu speaks of the title as Nikṣepa. The ancient dharma-sūtras do not give the technical names of the eighteen titles of law, though some of them do occur therein. Vākpāruṣya and daṇḍapāruṣya occur in G. Dh. S. (12. 1) and Vas. (17.61). Baud. seems to have known the term 'Strīsaṅgrahaṇa' (Dh. S. II. 2.54). *Steya* occurs in all. Gautama speaks of *nidhi* (Dh. S. 12. 39). Manu positively says (9. 155) that the son of any member of the first three *varṇas* from a Śūdra woman does not inherit his father's wealth (though the preceding verses 151-154 seem to lay down different rules), while Kauṭilya allows such a son a share when there are sons born to a Brāhmaṇa from wives of higher castes or one third when he has no other sons (III. 6). Manu expressly mentions the mother and paternal grandmother as heirs (9. 217), while Kauṭilya appears to ignore them.

v1.c6.s14.29.2

Manu prohibits the remarriage of widows (V. 161-165), while Kauṭilya allows not only widows to remarry, but also wives whose husbands have not been heard of for a year or more according to circumstances (III. 4). Kauṭilya allows a wife to desert her husband, if the latter is of a bad character, has become a traitor to the king, endangers her life or has become an outcaste or impotent¹⁷³ (last verse of III. 2). Kauṭilya further seems to have allowed divorce which is unknown to any other known lawgiver, but he bases it only on the ground of mutual hatred and says that a marriage in the approved forms cannot be dissolved¹⁷⁴ (III. 3). Manu is very harsh upon gamblers and asks the king to supress gambling and banish gamblers (9. 221-224), while Kauṭilya only brings gambling under the control of the king for the purpose of detecting thieves &c. (III. 20). Manu first allows a Brāhmaṇa to marry even a Sūdra woman and then condemns such a thing (III. 13-19), while Kauṭilya does not condemn such unions. These divergences and others lead us to conclude that the Kauṭilīya is much older than the extant Manusmṛti, which is in many matters carried away by puritanic zeal, while its older portion is more in harmony with the spirit of the Kauṭilīya. Therefore the Kauṭilīya is long anterior to the time when the extant Manusmṛti took its present form. The Kauṭilīya refers to the opinion of the Mānavas in five places.

v1.c6.s14.29.3

Two of the views ascribed to the Mānavas by Kauṭilya are the sama as those which Kāmandaka (II. 3 and XI. 67) ascribes to Manu. According to the Mānavas, the *vidyas* to be studied by a prince were three, viz. trayī, vārtā and daṇḍanīti, what is called ānvīkṣikī being but a branch of trayī; and the council of ministers was to consist of twelve. The Manusmṛti (7. 43) appears to regard the *vidyās* as four and lays down (7. 54) that the Council should consist of seven or eight *sacivas*. Bühler and others on account of this difference in the views of the Mānavas and the Manusmṛti thought that Kauṭilya was referring to the Mānvadharmasūtra. In my humble opinion the evidence for the existence of a Mānavadharmasūtra is practically nil, as detailed above in section 13. From the references to Svāyambhuva Manu and Prācetasa Manu contained in the Mahābhārata, particularly in the Śānti and Anuśāsana *parvans* it appears that there were two works in verse on *dharma* and politics attributed to these two or there was one work containing both. These works were subsequently recast as the Manusmṛti. It is therefore that some difference is noticed between the views ascribed to the Mānavas and the extant Manusmṛti. Besides there is no real conflict in the matter of *vidyās*. The Manusmṛti does not positively say that the *vidyas* are four and not three; it simply says from whom trayī and the other three are to be learnt. The Manusmṛti (in 7. 60) allows more ministers than seven or eight.

v1.c6.s14.29.4

It is possible that in recasting several changes were made. The third opinion of the Mānavas quoted by Kauṭilya is about the fine to be imposed upon officers of the state occasioning loss of revenue (II. 7). The other two views of the Mānavas quoted are concerned with the fine to be imposed on false witnesses and for forcible seizure of jewels¹⁷⁵ &c. It must be admitted that in the extant Manusmṛti there is nothing exactly corresponding with these views. But from this fact no one conclusion alone can be drawn. There may be a mistake in quoting, or there may be interpolations, it may be that some of the verses in the original Manusmṛti have dropped out or that Kauṭilya is quoting not the Manusmṛti itself, but the views of works based on or explanatory of Manu. It is noteworthy that Bṛhaspati¹⁷⁶ contains a verse very similar to the views on sāhasa attributed to the Mānavas. We shall see below that Bṛhaspati's work was more or less a supplement of Manu. The only authors or schools, besides the Mānavas, cited by name in the dharmasthīya section are the Bārhaspatyas and the Auśanasas. It is remarkable that the well-known and ancient Dharmasūtrakāras like Gautama, Āpastamba, Baudhāyana, Vasiṣṭha, Hārīta are nowhere quoted by name. It is noteworthy that in the dharmasthīya section Kauṭilya several times quotes the views of ācāryas and of some others under the word "apare". Some of these views correspond closely with the discussions in the ancient dharmasūtras.

v1.c6.s14.29.5

One of these is the question as to whom the child belongs, to the begetter or to him on whose wife it is begotten. Kauṭilya first quotes the view of the ācāryas that it belongs to the husband of the mother of the child, then says that some hold that it belongs to the begetter, while Kauṭilya holds that it belongs to both.¹⁷⁷ It is to be noted here that both Baud. and Āp. say that according to the Brāhmaṇas the sons belong to the begetter, while Vasiṣṭha says there is a dispute on the point, both views being supported by ancient authorities. Gautama speaks of both views and at last (18. 23 "dvayorvā") seems to come to the same conclusion as Kauṭilya. It is not unlikely that Kauṭilya has in mind this discussion in the Dharmasūtras and also in Manu (9. 48-54 where the view is that the child belongs to the husband of the woman). Some of the other views attributed to ācāryas are that a woman could visit the houses of her husband's relations, of prosperous men, of village headmen, of female ascetics &c. (III. 4); that very poor men could divide even waterpots at a partition (III. 5); that the master who did not employ a servant ready to work according to agreement had to pay the wages agreed upon as if the work had been finished (compare Viṣṇu V. 157); he who forcibly confined a man or woman or who by force released another from imprisonment was to be fined between 500 and 1000 (III. 17);

v1.c6.s14.29.6

that disputes of a remote date shall not be complained of and that he who is the first to complain wins, since one runs (to court) as one cannot bear the pain (III. 19); that in a complaint by one gambler against another, the successful party has to pay the fine called pūrvasāhasa and the defeated party the fine called madhyasāhasa (III. 20).

v1.c6.s14.30

¹⁷² बृहस्पति's word are 'उक्तो नियोगो मनुना निषिद्धः स्वयमेव तु', vide कुल्लूक on मनु 9. 68 for the whole quotation.

v1.c6.s14.31

¹⁷³ नीचत्वं परदेशं वा प्रस्थितो राजकिल्बिषी । प्राणाभिहन्ता पतितस्त्याज्यः क्लीबोपि वा पतिः ॥ कौ०.

v1.c6.s14.32

¹⁷⁴ अमोक्ष्या भर्तुरकामस्य द्विषती भार्या । भार्यायाश्च भर्ता । परस्परं द्वेषान्मोक्षः । अमोक्षो धर्मविवाहानामिति । कौ०.

v1.c6.s14.33

¹⁷⁵ कूटसाक्षिणो यमर्थमभूतं वा नाशयेयुस्तद्दशगुणं दण्डं दद्युरिति मानवाः। कौ. III. 11; 'रत्नसारफल्गुकुप्यानां साहसे मूल्यसमो दण्ड इति मानवाः। कौ. III. 17.

v1.c6.s14.34

¹⁷⁶ स्त्रीपुंगोहेमरत्नानि देवविप्रधनं तथा । धौपेयं यत्तमं द्रव्यमेषां मूल्यसमो दमः । बृहस्पति quoted in व्यवहारमयूख on साहस.

v1.c6.s14.35

¹⁷⁷ परपरिग्रहे बीजमुत्सृष्टं क्षेत्रिण इत्याचार्याः । माता भस्त्रा यस्य रेतस्तस्यापत्यमित्यपरे । विद्यमानमुभयमिति कौटिल्यः । कौ. III. 7. Compare गौ. ध. सू. 18. 9-13, बौ. ध. सू. II. 2. 34-36; आप. ध. सू. II. 6. 13. 5-8 (where the the three verses as in Baud. occur); वसिष्ठ 17. 6-9.

v1.c6.s14.36

The foregoing discussion about the dharmasthīya section shows that in the sphere of the administration of justice, Kauṭilya is far in advance of the dharmasūtras of Gautama, Āpastamba and Baudhāyana and so is much later than these (though in certain matters such as the rights of women to succeed to males he closely agrees with Gautama and Āpastamba), while he is earlier than the extant Manusmṛti (though not earlier than the oldest kernel of the Manusmṛti) and very much earlier than Yājñavalkya.

v1.c6.s14.37

The question of the date of the Kauṭilīya can be settled only approximately and for that we have to rely only on the internal evidence. The external evidence does not carry us far; we can only say that the Kauṭilīya is certainly not later than the 2nd century A. D., since Kāmandaka, the Tantrākhyāyikā, and Bāṇa, speak of it with admiration. No one claims it to be earlier than 300 B. C. Even Keith who assigns it a late date and cannot place it earlier than 100 B. C. at the most has to admit (J R A S 1916, p. 135) that for a precise date we have no real ground.

v1.c6.s14.38

The Kauṭilīya quotes five schools by name: Mānavaḥ (five times), Bārhaspatyaḥ (6 times), Auśanasaḥ (7 times), Pārāśarāḥ (4 times), Āmbhiyaḥ (once) and the following individual authors; Kātyāyana (1), Kiñjalka (1), Kauṇapadanta (4), Ghoṭakamukha (1), (Dīrgha) Cārāyaṇa (1), Parāśara (2), Piśuna (6), Piśunaputra (1), Bāhudantiputra (1), Bhāradvāja (7, once as Kaṇiṅka Bhāradvāja), Vātavyādhi (5), Viśālākṣa (6). He either differs from all these authors or they differ from each other in all the places where they are cited. All the individual authors that are cited only once occur on the same page (except Bahudantiputra). He quotes the views of *ācāryas* over fifty times and in each case differs from them. "Ācāryas" means the ancient authors on the śāstra collectively. Even the Nirukta quotes certain views as those of ācāryas. Kauṭilya is cited about 80 times. The Kāmasūtra of Vātsyāyana mentions a Ghoṭakamukha and a Cārāyaṇa. Whether they are identical with the authors cited by Kauṭilya is extremely doubtful. The Mahābhārata mentions among writers on Daṇḍanīti the following who occur in the Kauṭilīya also:—Bṛhaspati, Manu, Bhāradvāja, Viśālākṣa, Śukra (the same as Uśanas) and Indra (probably Kauṭilya's Bāhudantīputra), whose abridgment of Brahmā's work is called Bāhudantaka in the Śāntiparva (chap. 59).

v1.c6.s14.39

According to the Nayacandrikā, Piśuna, Bhāradvāja, Kauṇapadanta and Vātavyādhi stand for Nārada, Droṇācārya, Bhīṣma and Uddhava respectively (pp. 73, 69, 74, 91).

v1.c6.s14.40

The Mahābhārata mentions other writers on politics, viz. Gauraśiras, Kaśyapa, Utathya, Vāmadeva, Vasuhoma, Kāmandaka, (Śāntiparva 123. 11) and a few others which are not found in the Kauṭilīya.

v1.c6.s14.41

The Kauṭilīya knows the four Vedas, the charms and incantations of the Atharvan, the six *aṅgas*, includes under itihāsa, Purāṇas, Dharmaśāstra and Arthaśāstra; it knows the Sāṅkhya, Yoga and Lokāyata¹⁷⁸ schools of thought. It mentions Mauhūrtikas, Kārtāntikas (astrologers), Jupiter and Venus. It refers to dhātuśāstra (Metallurgy). Sanskrit was the official language and in the Śāsanādhikāra it mentions such *guṇas* of composition as mādhurya, audārya, spaṣṭatva, which show the beginnings of the Alaṁkāra śāstra. There is nothing to wonder at in this. In the second century A. D. we have the inscription of Rudradāman, which enumerates the guṇas of Kāvya. The Kauṭilīya does not mention edicts on stone or copper. It refers to Vaiśikakalājñāna (II. 27). The Kauṭilīya closely agrees with the Kāmasūtra in several respects, and the two works contain several identical passages (such as the list of kings that fell victims to intrigues and about *trivarga*). Keith argues from this that the Kauṭilīya and the Kāmasūtra are not separated by a long interval and that it is a late work. Dr. Jolly also is of the same opinion (p. 24 Intro. to Arthaśāstra). If the Kāmasūtra held up the Kauṭilīya as its model, then the two works would certainly look very much alike. There are points of difference between the two works, e. g. they differ in their attitude towards flesh-eating and the Kāmasūtra speaks of planetary influence and *lagna*, while the Kauṭilīya is silent on these points and only condemns in general terms the consulting of stars. We must note here that the Kauṭilīya (IX. 4) speaks of consulting *nakṣatras*, which were known from the earliest Vedic period and some of which were looked upon as auspicious for sacrificial purposes even in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (S. B. E. vol. 44, pp. 1-2) and the Śrauta and Gṛhya sūtras. The Kauṭilīya follows the Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa in the system of a *yuga* of five saṁvatsaras, in prescribing two intercalary months in a *yuga* and in saying that at the end of one *ayana* the variation between the length of the day or the night comes to six muhūrtas (vide II. 20). Keith argues that the ślokas in the Kauṭilīya are more classical than even those of the Rāmāyaṇa and that it contains correct Triṣṭubh stanzas which are wanting in the Bṛhaddevatā (a work of the 4th century B. C.). But this argument can produce no impression on those scholars who ascribe the Rāmāyaṇa to the 5th century B. C. or earlier. Nor is the date of the Bṛhaddevatā beyond the pale of discussion. There is no consensus of opinion among scholars as to the exact time when classical ślokas and correct Triṣṭubhs first came into vogue. It is to be noted that the Kauṭilīya defines *pada* as varṇasaṅghāta and not as in Pāṇini (sup-tiṅantam padam).

v1.c6.s14.42

¹⁷⁸ लोकायत occurs in the महाभाष्य on वर्णका तान्तवे (पा. VII. 3. 45). Vide Kielhorn vol. III., pp. 325-326.

v1.c6.s14.43

Among the countries and peoples frequently mentioned by Kauṭilya, several are interesting. He speaks of silks from the land of the Cīnas¹⁷⁹ and blankets from Nepal. Keith says that the name Cīna being derived from the Thsin dynasty in China (which began its rule in 247 B. C.) this would show that the Kauṭilīya could not have been composed about 300 B. C. No one however knows how the word Cīna was derived and besides as Keith admits the passage may be an interpolation. He speaks of the *Saṅgha* of the Vṛṣṇis (1. 6) and the *Śreṇis* (corporations) of Kṣatriyas in the countries of Kāmbhoja and Surāṣṭra that lived by vārtā (agriculture and trade) and by the profession of fighting and the corporations of the Licchcivika, Vṛjika, Mallaka, Madraka, Kukura, and the Kurupañcālas that live on the title ‘rāja’ (XI. 1). Some of these tribes such as the Licchavis, Vṛjis (Vajjis in Pāli) and Mallas are well-known from ancient Buddhist works. What is meant by ‘rājaśabdopajīvinaḥ’

v1.c6.s14.44

¹⁷⁹ तथा कौशेयं चीनपट्टाश्च चीनभूमिजा व्याख्याताः। कौ. II. 11.

v1.c6.s14.45

is not quite clear. It probably means that the organisation of the Licchavis and others was on democratic lines and that there was very keen competition for the honour of being elected the chief or president of those corporations, the latter being designated ‘rāja’.¹⁸⁰ The Nayacandrikā explains that they bear the proud designation of ‘rāja’ but are penniless (and so can be easily employed in military service as mercenaries). We are told that the breed of horses from Kāmbhoja, Sindhu, Āraṭṭa and Vanāyu was the best and that Bāhlika, Pāpeya, Sauvīra and Taitala breeds were of middle quality. The Kauṭilīya speaks of Mleccha tribes and tells us that among them one's own children could be sold or pledged without incurring punishment (III. 13).

v1.c6.s14.46

¹⁸⁰ In the Jātakas (Fausböll vol I., p. 504 and vol. III., p. 1) reference is made to the 7707 *rājas* of the Licchavis in Vesāli.

v1.c6.s14.47

There is hardly any distinctive reference to things Buddhist except one passage (III. 20) where a fine of one hundred (*paṇas*) is prescribed for him who invited to dinners in honour of gods or Manes a Buddhist (Śākya), an Ājīvaka, a śūdra ascetic.¹⁸¹ This shows that the work was written at a time when Buddhism was yet not a wide-spread religion and had not secured an honourable place among the people. The Ājīvika was a well-known sect in ancient India, said to have been founded by Makkhali Gosāla (vide V. A. Smith's Aśoka, pp. 134, 198 of edition of 1909, I. A. 1912, p. 286, ‘Dialogues of Buddha’ I, p. 71, n. 1, Journal of Bihar & Orissa Society, 1926, pp. 53-62). Aśoka bestowed some caves on them. Kauṭilya says that weights should be made of iron or of stones from Magadha and Mekala (country near the sources of the Narmadā).¹⁸²

v1.c6.s14.48

¹⁸¹ शाक्याजीविवादीन् वृषलप्रव्रजितान् देवपितृकार्येषु भोजयतः शत्यो दण्डः। कौ. III. 20.

v1.c6.s14.49

¹⁸² प्रतिमानान्यायोमयानि मागधमेकलशैलमयानि । कौ. II. 19.

v1.c6.s14.50

It is extremely doubtful whether the Kauṭilīya knew the extant text of the Mahābhārata. Most of the stories used as illustrations in the Kauṭilīya occur in the Mahābhārata (e. g. Aila, Duryodhana, Haihaya Arjuna, Vātāpi, Agastya, Ambariṣa, Suyātra i. e. Nala). But in some cases there is slight divergence between the two works, e. g. Janamejaya is said to have perished through having attacked Brāhmaṇas in anger, while the Mahābhārata (XII. 150) gives a different version; Kauṭilya says (IV. 8) that Māṇḍavya, though not a thief, declared himself to be a thief while the Mahābhārata (I. 107. 9) says that he spoke nothing; Kauṭilya mentions Jayatsena as the opponent of Nala (VIII. 3) in gambling, while the Mahābhārata gives his name as Puṣkara; the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa do not know that a Jāmdagnya ruled long as a king.¹⁸³ Kauṭilya seems to have known the Purāṇas. He says (III. 7) that *sūta* and *māgadha* of the Purāṇas are quite different¹⁸⁴ from members of the mixed castes called sūta and māgadha and includes Purāṇa (I. 5) among the subjects of royal study grouped under the head of *itihāsa*.

v1.c6.s14.51

¹⁸³ शत्रुषद्वर्गमुत्सृज्य जामदग्न्यो जितेन्द्रियः । अम्बरीषश्च नाभागो बुभुजाते चिरं महीम् ॥ कौ. I. 6.

v1.c6.s14.52

¹⁸⁴ पौराणिकस्त्वन्यः सूतो मागधश्च ब्रह्मक्षत्राद्विशेषतः ।

v1.c6.s14.53

Kauṭilya exhibits a wonderful knowledge of herbs and drugs and Dr. Jolly thinks that his *Materia Medica* is more extensive than even Suśruta's. But the dates of Caraka and Suśruta are far from being settled and no approximately certain conclusion can be drawn from the drugs mentioned in the Kauṭilīya. Kauṭilya speaks of ‘rasada’ (one who administers mercurial poison) and prescribes banishment for those who trade in or administer ‘rasa’ for money in order to do away with a person secretly (IV. 4.) In II. 13 he speaks of gold that is ‘rasa-viddha’ (amalgamated with mercury) and in II. 12 of liquids containing gold (rasāḥ Kāñcanikāḥ) and of Hinguluka. Dr. Jolly thinks that this knowledge of metallurgy and alchemy is of Graeco-Syriac origin and so the Kauṭilīya is a work of the third century A. D.

v1.c6.s14.54

It is of great importance to note that Kauṭilya lays down (II. 4) that in the midst of the fort were to be constructed the temples of Śiva, Vaiśravaṇa, the Aśvins, Lakṣmī and Madirā (Durgā ?) and niches were to be set apart for Aparājita, Apratihata, Jayanta and Vaijayanta and that the tutelary deities of the gates were to be Brahmā, Indra, Yama and Senāpati (i. e. Skanda). We know from the Mahābhāṣya¹⁸⁵ (Kielhorn Vol. II. p. 429) on Pāṇini (V. 3. 99 ‘jīvikārthe cāpaṇye’) that the Mauryas set up images out of greed for money and that in its day images of Śiva, Skanda and Viśākha were worshipped.

v1.c6.s14.55

¹⁸⁵ ‘अपण्य इत्युच्यते तत्रेदं न सिध्यति । शिवः स्कन्दः विशाख इति । किं कारणम् । मौर्यैर्हिरण्यार्थिभिरर्चाः प्रकल्पिताः । भवेत्तासु न स्यात् । यास्त्वेताः संप्रति पूजार्थास्तासु भविष्यति । महाभाष्य.

v1.c6.s14.56

The foregoing discussion clearly shows that the Kauṭilīya has certainly an ancient atmosphere about it, and that all that has so far been gathered from it agrees with its traditional date of 300 B. C. and no cogent arguments have been yet brought forward that would compel us to assign it a date later than the above by six centuries.

v1.c6.s14.57

Two commentaries on the Kauṭilīya have been brought to light so far, one composed by Bhaṭṭasvāmin being called Pratipadapañcikā and the other the Nayacandrikā of Mādhavayajvan. Both are fragments. The first was published in the Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society (1925-1926, vol. XI and XII) by Messrs. K. P. Jayasval and A. Banerji-sastri. The com. is incomplete and begins with the 8th adhyāya of the 2nd adhikaraṇa and reaches up to the 36th adhyāya of the adhikaraṇa. The commentary on the whole work must have been very extensive, as the portion already printed on a part of the 2nd adhikaraṇa alone occupies 214 pages. This commentary quotes the explanations of previous commentators in the words 'anye', 'apare'. It quotes several ślokas of Bṛhaspati on the blemishes of diamonds and on prakāśa-taskaras. The commentary Nayacandrikā contained in Dr. Jolly's edition (Lahore) also is incomplete and begins with the 7th adhyāya of the 7th adhikaraṇa and breaks off in the 4th adhyāya of the 12th adhikaraṇa. It also refers to the views of its predecessors in the words 'kecit' &c. (vide pp. 35, 61, 62, 104, 115, 131, 191). It discusses various readings (pp. 136, 183, 188, 193 &c.).

v1.c6.s14.58

Dr. Shamasastri includes in his edition 571 sūtras attributed to Cāṇakya. Their relation to the Kauṭilīya is a subject which requires careful investigation. In my own opinion they are later than the Kauṭilīya. It would be beyond the scope of this work to enter into details. Vide Dr. Jacobi's article in Indian Historical Quarterly, vol. III., pp. 669-676.

v1.c6.s14.59

There are several *nīti* collections attributed to Cāṇakya and published several times in different parts of India. All of them are later than the Kauṭilīya and are compilations of maxims and fine sayings. One of them the Cāṇakya-rājanītiśāstra (published in Calcutta Oriental series, 1921, 2nd edition) contains 660 verses and was compiled under Bhojarāja. Several other compilations pass under the names Vṛddha-Cāṇakya, Laghu-Cāṇakya &c. All these are passed over here from considerations of space and utility.

Linked texts (25)