History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s14.15
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s14.15
- Language
- English
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.