History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.205
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.205
- Language
- English
v4.c62.205.1
Manu (VII. 217-220) warns the king against poisoning 'The king should partake of food that is well examined and prepared by servants that are trust-worthy (lit. as if they were his own self), that know the proper times (for dining), that cannot be won over and over the food spells destroying poison should have been muttered. He should mix up in all that he partakes medicines that are antidotes against poison and should always wear gems that work against poison. Only women devoted to him and well examined and found safe as regards their dress and ornaments should be allowed to touch him when fanning or bathing him or applying perfumes to his body. The king should take care in this way as regards his vehicles, bed, food, bath, applying perfumes and all ornamentation'. Kām. VII. 8 and Matsya 219.10 are very similar to Manu VII. 220. Kauṭilya (I. 17) states that the king should first secure his personal safety against his sons and wives and then the security of the kingdom against near and distant enemies. He first deals with safety from his own sons, the princes. The opinions of various authors on polity are cited (some of which have been noted above) viz. secret punishment (acc. to Bhāradvāja), keeping under guard in one place (acc. to Viśālākṣa), keeping the prince in a fort under the boundary guard (acc. to the Pārāśaras), keeping the prince away from his own kingdom in a fort belonging to a feudatory (acc. to Piśuna), sending him to his maternal relations (acc.
v4.c62.205.2
to Kauṇapadanta), making the prince addicted to sensual pleasures (acc. to Vātavyādhi), proper pre-natal care and proper education after birth about dharma and restraint (acc. to Kauṭ.). This symposium shows how the problem of the king's safety against bad princes taxed the ingenuity of all ancient writers on Arthaśāstra and how Kauṭilya advocated the only reasonable course possible. The Matsyapurāṇa, chap. 220, also relies on training, discipline and gradual transfer of responsibility and advises the imprisonment of a bad prince in a well-guarded place furnished with comforts suitable to his position¹¹⁴. In I. 20 Kauṭilya gives practical hints against the danger of fire and poisons: e. g. he says that poisonous snakes will not enter a building provided with Jīvantī, Śvetā and other plants; that cats, peacocks, mongoose and spotted deer when let loose eat serpents, that certain birds like parrots, *mainas*, malbar bird shriek when they suspect snake poison, the heron loses his consciousness in the vicinity of poison; the pheasant (jīvañjīvaka) feels exhausted; the young cuckoo dies; the eyes of *cakora* become redder¹¹⁵. Kām. (VII. 10-13) repeats the words of Kauṭ. 1.20 and the Matsya (219. 17-22) refers to the effects of poison on the same birds and a few others. The Matsyapurāṇa in chap. 219-220 closely follows Kauṭ. and Kām. and appears to be based on them (e. g. Matsya 219. 30 latter half is the same as Kām. VII. 24 first half). Vide Yaśastilaka III. pp.
v4.c62.205.3
511-512 for the effects of poison on birds almost in the same words as those of Kauṭ. and Kām. Vide Śukra I. 326-328. Kauṭ. I. 21, Kām. VII. 15-26, Matsya 219. 9-32 state that part of the food for the king should first be cast into fire and offered to birds and the effects noted, they dwell at great length on the different tints of the flames of fire and of the smoke when different kinds of food are cast into fire, they point out the actions and gestures of the poisoner, they prescribe that the cook and the doctor giving medicines for mixing in food as antidotes should be made to partake of the food and then the king should himself partake of it. The king has to be careful in the harem, when receiving presents or anything sent by others, when sitting in a conveyance or riding a horse or travelling in a boat or when attending festivals (Kauṭ. I. 20-21, Kām. VII. 28-47). Kauṭ. I. 20 and Kām. (VII. 44 and 50) advise the king not to trust women and even the queen and to approach even the queen after she has been examined by men 80 years old and women over 50 years in the harem and found¹¹⁶ safe. Kauṭ. (I. 20) and Kām. (VII. 51-54) both name seven kings that met death in their queen's chambers by the stratagems of the queens themselves or those that were incited by them; viz.
v4.c62.205.4
Bhadrasena killed by his brother concealed in the chamber of his queen (who was in love with the king's brother), the king of Karūṣa killed by his own son who had concealed himself under the bed of the queen (who was angered by the king's promise to give the kingdom to the son of a rival queen), the king of Kāśi killed by his queen who mixed fried rice with poison pretending that it was honey; the queen of the king of Sauvīra killed him with a jewel in her girdle that was smeared with poison; Vairantya was killed by his queen with her anklet smeared with poison; Jalūtha (or Jāruṣa in Kām.) was killed with a mirror (with a razor-like edge) covered with poison; Vidūratha was killed by his queen who had concealed a weapon in her braided hair. The Harṣacarita (VI) of Bāṇa mentions with additional details the cases of Bhadrasena king of Kaliṅga killed by his brother Vīrasena, the king of Karūṣa (Dadhra by name), Kāśīrāja (named Mahāsena) whose queen Suprabhā killed him to secure the kingdom to her son, Jārūtha king of Ayodhyā, Vairantya named Rantideva, Vidūratha of the Vṛṣṇis killed by Bindumatī, the Sauvīra king Vīrasena killed by queen Haṁsavatī. In the Bṛhatsaṁhitā (77. 1-2) two of these, Vidūratha and Kāśīrāja, are mentioned, but the latter is said to have been killed by his estranged queen with an anklet smeared with poison. Medhātithi on Manu VII. 153 quotes four of these seven. The Nītivākyāmṛta (rājarakṣāsamuddeśa 35-36, pp.
v4.c62.205.5
231-232) sets out six other examples of kings killed by their queens. The king has also to beware of treachery from ministers and officials. Kauṭ. (in I. 10) describes how ancient writers devised methods of ascertaining the purity or impurity of ministers by putting before them allurements regarding dharma, wealth, sexual desires and playing on their fears and gives it as his own opinion that temptations that have direct reference to the king or queen should not be placed in the way of the ministers. In the Harṣacarita VI, Skandagupta, the commander of the elephant arm of Harṣa's army, warns the Emperor against putting trust in everybody and gives 19 instances of kings that met misfortunes, death or destruction through their own carelessness and the stratagems of those about them (apart from the seven mentioned above and two more who fell victims to the wiles of their queens). Some of them are famous and deserve mention here, viz. the king of Vatsa (i. e. Udayana) who was imprisoned by the soldiers of Mahāsena that jumped out of a faked elephant; Maurya Bṛhadratha killed by his Senāpati Puṣyamitra (called ‘anārya’ by Bāṇa on account of his treachery to his master); Kākavarṇa Saiśunāri (Śaiśunāgi?), Sumitra, son of Agnimitra, whose head was cut off by Mitradeva while the king fond of dancing was in the midst of actors; the Śuṅga Devabhūti killed by his minister Vasudeva; Candragupta (of the Gupta dynasty) who dressed as a charming woman cut off the king of Śakas;
v4.c62.205.6
the foolish Maukhari king Kṣatravarman killed by bards. Vide Kāmasūtra V. 5.30 for two other examples of the Ābhīra king Koṭṭarāja and Jayatsena king of Kāśi. The Nītivākyāmṛta (Dūtasamuddeśa) p. 171 states that Cāṇakya killed one of the Nandas through a *dūta* and that two other kings met death from presents of poisoned clothes and a jewelled box containing snake poison. The Yaśastilakacampū (III. pp. 431-432) sets out many instances of kings that met with death from the wrath or the machinations of their ministers, purohita &c.