Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity (Based on the Arthashastra of Kautilya), Vol. I c3: An Introductory Essay on the Age and Authenticity of the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya

Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity (Based on the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya), Vol. I c3

Language
English

An Introductory Essay on the Age and Authenticity of the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya

c3.1

By PROF. RADHAKUMUD MOOKERJI, M.A., Premchand Roychand Scholar, Author of *A History of Indian Shipping*, etc.

c3.2

IN response to the request of Mr. Law, I have much pleasure in saying a few words on the probable age of the now famous work, the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya, the importance of which for the history of culture can hardly be overestimated. To students of Indian history in particular, an approximate determination of the period to which the *Arthaśāstra* relates itself is a most pressing problem demanding immediate solution, for on that will depend much of the reconstruction of early Indian history, as well as a true interpretation and appreciation of ancient Hindu culture. The *Arthaśāstra*, as will be amply evident from Mr. Law’s *Studies*, is a unique record of the secular and practical activities and achievements of the Hindu genius as distinguished from the intellectual and spiritual, of which there is so much evidence in the extant Sanskrit and Pâli literature, and of which so much has been said and written; and a proper study of this most interesting work is well calculated to remove one of the widespread and deep-rooted misconceptions about ancient Hindu civilization, which is supposed to have distinguished itself only in the sphere of thought, and to have miserably failed in that of action.

c3.3

In the following pages an attempt will be made to summarize the arguments which may be advanced in support of the traditional and widely current view that the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya is the work of Châṇakya, the Minister of Chandra Gupta, and therefore belongs to the fourth century B.C.

c3.4

That Kauṭilya and Châṇakya are names of the same person is well known to students of Sanskrit literature. In fact, Châṇakya is known by several names,¹ which are thus enumerated by Hemachandra in his *Abhidhâ-nachintâmaṇi*:

c3.5

¹ Śaṅkarārya in his *Jayamangalattkā* on Kâmandaka refers to the names thus: “विष्णुगुप्तोऽयेति सांस्कारिकी संज्ञा, चाणक्यः कौटिल्य इति जन्मभूमि गोत्र निबन्धने.” Bâchaspati Miśra in his *तात्पर्य टीका* calls Bâtsyâyana, the author of *Nyâya*-

c3.6

वात्स्यायने मल्लनागः कुटिलश्चणकालजः ।
द्रामिलः पक्षिलस्वामी विष्णुगुप्तोऽङ्गुलश्च सः ॥

c3.7

Equally well known is the fact of Chāṇakya’s connexion with the Emperor Chandra Gupta Maurya, with its political consequences. Evidence of this may be derived from a variety of sources. Thus the *Vishṇupurāṇa* narrates in its prophetic style that “the Brāhmaṇa Kauṭilya shall root out the nine Nandas, inaugurating Chandra Gupta in the kingdom.”¹ So also the *Bhāgavatapurāṇa* has the following: “A Brāhmaṇa will destroy these nine Nandas,

c3.8

¹ XXIV, 6-7: “नवैव तान् नन्दान् कौटिल्यो ब्राह्मणः समुद्धरिष्यति ... कौटिल्य एव चन्द्रगुप्तं राज्येऽभिषेक्ष्यति । ”

c3.9

*bhāshya*, by the name of Pakshilaswāmi. Thus he says: “अथ भगवता अक्षपादेन निःश्रेयसहेतुशास्त्रे प्रणीतेऽप्युत्पादिते च भगवता पक्षिलस्वामिना किमपरमवशिष्यते यदर्थं वार्त्तिककारः ॥” The *Vārttika* is, of course, the well-known Commentary on the *Nyāyabhāshya* by Udyotakara, who wrote it in order to overcome the sophistical arguments and mystifying logic of the Buddhists [“कृतार्किकध्वान्त-विरासहेतोः । करिष्यति तस्य मया निबन्धः ॥”] headed by Diṅnāga as explained by Bāchaspati Miśra [“कृतार्किकादिदम्नाग-प्रभृतयः :”]. This statement, by the way, places the age of the *Nyāyabhāshya* also before that of Buddhist propaganda dating from Asoka.

c3.10

who will inaugurate Chandra Gupta as king."¹ There are also similar references in the *Matsya*, *Vâyu* and *Brahmâṇḍa Purâṇas* to Kauṭilya’s bestowal of the sovereignty on Chandra Gupta.² In his *Sthavirâvalîcharita*, or "Lives of Jaina Patriarchs," Hemachandra gives an account of Châṇakya which, though legendary, agrees with the Purâṇas in making him the extinguisher of Nanda supremacy and supporter of Chandra Gupta. In the *Nandisûtra*, again, which is a Jaina religious work in Prâkrit language, Châṇakya is extolled for the signal success which he achieved as Finance Minister of Chandra Gupta. In the Jaina work *Rishi-maṇḍalaprakaraṇavṛitti* there is a reference to the alliance of Châṇakya with Chandra Gupta, who seized the kingdom by slaying Nanda. Among the Buddhist works recording the same fact may be mentioned Buddhaghosha’s Commentary, *Samantapâsâdikâ*, on the *Vinaya Piṭaka*, as well as the *Mahâvaṃsaṭîkâ* of Mahâ- namasthavira. *Kamandaka* [*Nitisara*] also refers to the overthrow of the Nanda dynasty and the inauguration of Chandra Gupta in a very forcible passage.¹ The same fact, as is well known, has supplied the basis of the drama *Mudrarakshasa*. Finally, we may refer to the evidence of the *Arthasastra* itself, as set forth in one of its concluding verses, where it is stated that the *Arthasastra* is composed by "him who with angry determination rescued (the Brahmana's) learning and (the Kshatriya's) art, as also the mother-country, from the clutches of the Nanda kings."²

c3.11

¹ II, i, 11-12: "नवमष्यान् द्विजः कश्चित् प्रपद्यान् करिष्यति . . . स एव चन्द्रगुप्तं वै द्विजो राज्येऽभिषेक्ष्यति ।"

c3.12

² "कौटिल्यः चन्द्रगुप्तं ततो राज्येऽभिषेक्ष्यति" [Matsya] and "चन्द्रगुप्तं नृपं राज्ये कौटिल्यः स्थापयिष्यति" [Vâyu and Brahmâṇḍa].

c3.13

¹ यस्याभिचार वज्ञेण वज्ञज्वलम् तेजसः । पपात मूखतः श्रीमान् सुपर्वा नन्दपर्वतः ॥ एकाकी मन्त्रशक्त्या यः शक्त्या शक्तिधरोपमः । आजहार नृचन्द्राय चन्द्रगुप्ताय मेदिनीम् । [I, 4-5.] ["Salutation unto one whose fire of energy was like the flash of lightning, and through whose magical powers, that resembled in potency and fury the thunderbolt itself, the widespread, prosperous, powerful, mountain-like dynasty of Nanda was overturned."]

c3.14

² येन शास्त्रं च शस्त्रं च नन्दराजगता च भूः । अमर्षेणोद्धृतान्याशु तेन शास्त्रमिदं कृतम् ॥

c3.15

The "rescue of learning" would be either a vain boast or would seem to favour the traditional Indian view, widely current among orthodox Hindu Pandits and scholars, that all the three works, viz. *Nyayabhashya*, *Kamasutra*, and *Arthasastra*, which So much about the fact of the political association of Kauṭilya with the Emperor Chandra Gupta. We shall now consider the evidence proving that the fact of Kauṭilya’s authorship of *Arthaśāstra* is well known in Sanskrit literature. The two principal sources of that evidence are (1) the *Nītisāra* of Kāmandaka and (2) the *Daśakumāracharita* of Daṇḍī, both of which accept the genuineness of the *Arthaśāstra* as the production of Chāṇakya. Kāmandaka, at the beginning of his *Nītisāra*, says: “Salutation unto the learned Viṣṇu Gupta, who raised the ambrosia of political science out of the vast ocean of the *Arthaśāstra*. As this science is very much liked by kings, I shall make a brief but clear abridgment of the treatise of that learned scholar who was a

c3.16

are acknowledged authorities in their respective subjects, had a common author, and that that author was Chāṇakya. Compare in this connexion the enumeration of Chāṇakya’s names in *Abhidhānachintāmaṇi* quoted above. The boast about “rescue of learning” is also supported by Kāmandaka, who refers to Chāṇakya’s encyclopædic learning in such phrases as “यो बभूव भुवि विश्रुतः,” “वेदविदां वरः,” “विद्यानां पारदृश्वनः,” etc. Another significant fact to be noted in this connexion is the identity of numerous passages in the three works named above, pointing to their common origin. The whole subject, however, deserves a critical investigation.

c3.17

master of all branches of knowledge.”¹ It is hardly necessary for our present purpose to prove by quotations that with Kâmandaka the work of Kauṭilya was not a mere tradition but an actual masterpiece, which has been throughout his *Nītisāra* used as his original authority, even supplying many of his words and phrases. Nay, Kâmandaka has, it may be said, abridged by making omissions: the entire portions of the second, third, fourth and fourteenth Books of the *Arthaśāstra* find no place in the *Nītisāra*. Thus the work of Kâmandaka supplies very good evidence to show that the work of Kauṭilya was a reality. The second piece of evidence bearing on the point is furnished by the *Daśakumāracharita* of Daṇḍin. In the *Somadatta-utpattikathā* [l. 1] there is a reference to both Kauṭilya and Kâmandaka as authorities on Nītiśāstra,² while in the eighth chapter of Part II occurs the following remarkable reference to Kauṭilya³:

c3.18

¹ दर्शनात् तस्य सङ्ग्रहो विद्यानां पारदृश्वनः । राजविद्या प्रियतया संक्षिप्यप्रबन्धमर्थवत् ॥ [I, 7.]

c3.19

² “कौटिल्य-कामन्दकीयादिनीतिपटुकोविदम् . . .”

c3.20

³ “. . . रयमिदानीं चाचार्यविष्णुगुप्तेन मौर्य्यार्थे षड्भिः श्लोक- सहस्रैः संक्षिप्ता . . .”

c3.21

“The science of Daṇḍanīti (Politics) has been of late abridged into 6000 slokas by Achâryya Viṣṇu Gupta for the benefit of the Maurya.” The results of a study of that work, difficult as it is, requiring a knowledge of various other sciences, are ironically described by Vihârabhadra (to dissuade his king from its study) in a long passage which bristles with quotations from the *Arthaśâstra*. Thus one of the results is stated to be that the reader will have to gravely decide what quantity of rice will be required to satisfy his appetite¹ [“बालकुचेरपि हते तण्डुलैः इयद्भिः रयामोदनः सम्पद्यते”]; what quantity of fuel will cook a certain quantity of rice² [“इयत चोदनस्य पाकाय एतावत् इंधन पर्याप्तमिति मानोन्ना-गपूर्बकं देयम्।”]. Next follows a sarcastic enumeration and criticism of the king’s daily duties according to Châṇakya, which closely follows that of the text before us. Thus the following expressions have been borrowed from the *Arthaśâstra*³:

c3.22

¹ Cf. *Arthaśâstra*, Bk. II, ch. xv, where quantities of food are determined for the higher castes (आर्य), lower castes (अवर), for women, and also for children.

c3.23

² Cf. *Arthaśâstra*, Bk. II, ch. xix: “काष्ठपञ्चविंशतिपलं तण्डुलप्रस्थसाधनम्।”

c3.24

³ See the chapter on राजप्रणिधिः of the first Book.

c3.25

“यावद्यजातं बहुः प्रयसेऽष्टमे भागे प्रोतवम्”; “द्वितीये अन्योन्यं विवदमानानां प्रजानां चाक्रोशैः दह्यमानकणैः कथं जीवति”; “तृतीये खातुं भोक्तुञ्च लभते”; “चतुर्थे हिरण्य- प्रतिग्रहाय हस्तं प्रसारयन्नेव उत्तिष्ठति”; “पञ्चमे मन्त्रचिन्तया महात्मायासं अनुभवति ... मिथः सम्भूय दोषगुणो दूतचार- वाक्यानि ... उपजीवन्ति”; “षष्ठे खैरविचारः मन्त्रो वा सेव्यः”; “सप्तमे चतुरङ्गबलः प्रत्यवेक्षण प्रयासः”; “अष्टमे सेनापतिसखस्य विक्रमचिन्ताक्लेशः”; “पुनः उपात्त एव सन्ध्यां प्रथमे रात्रिविभागे मूढ पुरुषाः द्रष्टव्याः”; “द्वितीये भोजनान्तरं ओचित्य इव स्वाध्यायं आरभते”; “तृतीये तूर्यघोषेण संविष्टः”; “चतुर्थपञ्चमी शयीत”; “पुनः षष्ठे शास्त्रचिन्ता काव्यचिन्ता- रभः”; “सप्तमे मन्त्रग्रहः दूतादि प्रेषणानि च”; “अष्टमे पुरोहितादयः अभ्येत्य एनमाज्ञः”।

c3.26

Thus these borrowings of Daṇḍī from the *Arthaśāstra* are a further proof that the work had an actual existence, and that it was the production of Chāṇakya.

c3.27

Among other Sanskrit works which also allude to the *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra* may be mentioned the *Nandisūtra*¹ of the Jainas, the *Pañchatantra*² and the *Nītivākyāmṛita*³ of Somadeva. Lastly, we may refer to the evidence of numerous quotations from Kauṭilya in Mallinātha’s Commentary on Kālidāsa’s *Raghuvaṃśa* and other works.¹ Even Kâlidâsa would appear sometimes to borrow phrases of Kauṭilya’s book.²

c3.28

¹ P. 891, Calcutta ed., quoted in *I. A.*, Jan., 1905, p. 6.

c3.29

² Ch. i.

c3.30

³ Edited in the Kāvyamālā Series, Bombay.

c3.31

¹ E.g. Mallinâth on *Raghuvaṃśa*, Sarga 17, sloka 49: “अत्र कौटिल्यः :—कार्याणां नियोग-विकल्प-समुच्चया भवन्ति अनेनैवो-पायेन नान्येनेति नियोगः अनेन अन्येनवेति विकल्पः अनेन चेति समुच्चयः इति,” which is taken from the *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. IX, ch. vii, pr. 147. *Ibid.*, sloka 55: “अत्र कौटिल्यः :—क्षीणाः प्रकृतयो लोभं जुगुप्सायान्ति विरामताम् । विरक्ता यान्त्यमित्रं वा भर्तारं घ्नन्ति वा स्वयम्,” which corresponds to *Artha.*, Bk. VII, ch. v, pr. 108-110. *Ibid.*, sloka 56: “अत्र कौटिल्यः :—समव्या-योभ्यां सन्धीत हीनेन विसन्धियात्,” which corresponds to *Artha.*, Bk. VII, ch. ii, pr. 101-2. *Ibid.*, sloka 76: “मन्त्रप्रभावोत्साहशक्तिभिः परान् सन्ध्यात् इति कौटिल्यः,” which corresponds to *Artha.*, Bk. VII, ch. xv, pr. 117-120. *Ibid.*, sloka 81: “दुर्बलो बलवत्सेवी वलवच्छक्तिनादिभिः । वर्त्तत दम्भोपनतोभर्त्तर्य्यवमवस्थितः इति कौटिल्यः,” which corresponds to *Artha.*, ibid. *Ibid.*, Sarga 18, sloka 50: “अत्र कौटिल्यः :—धर्माधर्मौ यथा अर्थानर्थौ वाऽर्थाव नयमानौ इत्युच्यता इति,” which corresponds to *Artha.*, Bk. I, ch. i, pr. 1.

c3.32

² Thus the phrase “अभिष्यन्द वमनेन” of *Kumārasambhava*, VI, xxxvii, occurs in Bk. II, ch. i; similarly, *Raghuvaṃśa*, III, xxviii, uses phrases of Kauṭilya, I, v, 8.

c3.33

We have now considered the available evidence proving (1) the political connexion of Kauṭilya with Emperor Chandra Gupta Maurya, and (2) the existence of the Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra as a literary work. It now remains to prove that that work is the production of an individual author and not of a school, as is frequently the case with Indian treatises.

c3.34

Fortunately, the above proposition has been argued at great length and in a quite convincing manner by the learned German orientalist Prof. Jacobi,¹ who successfully combats Hillebrandt's² view that Kauṭilya is not himself the sole author of the *Arthaśāstra*. Hillebrandt based his view on the inference that the expressions “इति कौटिल्यः” and “नेति कौटिल्यः,” occurring no less than seventy-two times in the text, show that it is not the work of an individual author named Kauṭilya but of a school. It is, however, forgotten that the use of the first person and the consequent assumption of prominence or self-assertiveness by an author who wants to refute opposite views is always repugnant to Indian feeling, and the other alternative of writing one's own name in that connexion is invariably followed as a piece of literary etiquette in India. Secondly, to say that a work is the production of a school would mean (i) that its alleged author was the founder of the school traced to him in which discussions lead to definite conclusions and the creation of a tradition which is handed down from teacher to students, and (ii) that the tradition so created is afterwards embodied in a book-form by later students. None of these assumptions would, however, apply to Kauṭilya, considering the historical position of the man who, according to unanimous tradition as explained above, played such an important part not only in the foundation of the Maurya empire, but also in its governance as its first Chancellor with his onerous State duties. As Prof. Jacobi well observes: “One can hardly imagine that Bismarck after his day’s work should have held a conference with the professors of a college over politics and State administration, and it is hardly less improbable to assume that Kauṭilya, the Indian Bismarck, should like an ordinary Pandit surround himself with students, teach them the *Arthaśāstra*, and found a school.” The fact is, that the book begat the school, and not the school the book.

c3.35

¹ *Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften*, xxxviii, 1912, pp. 882-849.

c3.36

² *Das Kauṭilyasāstra und Verwandtes*, Breslau, 1908.

c3.37

Nor do Kāmandaka’s references to Kauṭilya’s work prove it to be the production of a school, as may be easily assumed; for Kāmandaka’s mention of Viṣṇu Gupta, *i.e.* Kauṭilya, as his *guru* cannot be interpreted in the literal sense of the term so as to point to the origin of the *Arthaśāstra* in a school. This is clear from the character of the *Nītisāra* as well as from its contents. It is professedly an abridgment [“संक्षिप्त ग्रन्थ”] of the comprehensive work traced to Kauṭilya, which, though its principal source, is not, however, its only source, and is not also blindly followed. Kāmandaka is not a one-sided follower of his master; he refers to the opinions of other राजविद्याविदः besides the authority of Kauṭilya; and there are points of agreement¹ as well as difference² between the two. Besides, Kāmandaka presents only a small part of the *Arthaśāstra* and omits those very subjects which have a bearing on actual administration and which give so much value to Kauṭilya’s work; for instance, such subjects as administration, control of trade and professions, justice, etc., as also universal maxims of government. The fact of the matter was that Kāmandaka was no practical statesman, but a Pandit fond of disputation and showing off political wisdom; and the use that he has made of Kauṭilya’s work only strengthens our conviction that the work is not scholastically delivered tradition but bears the stamp of an individual author and his times.

c3.38

¹ *E.g.* classification of knowledge.

c3.39

² *E.g.* the theory of the Maṇḍala or political sphere.

c3.40

The same conviction is also borne in upon us by the contents of the *Arthaśāstra* itself and its internal evidence, which we shall now proceed to set forth after Prof. Jacobi.

c3.41

The first piece of internal evidence is furnished by the references of Kauṭilya to his predecessors, which betray the critical tendency unmistakably suggestive of an individual author. Thus Kauṭilya mentions his predecessors no less than 114 times—“एतत् कौटिल्य दर्शनं” occurring only once¹—and in all those numerous references Kauṭilya quotes opinions only to differ from them. This abundance of criticism, opposition and contradiction seems evidently to indicate a strongly marked individuality and a critical personality, and is quite in keeping with the spirit of the concluding verse referred to above about the author’s justly claimed services to learning. Further, if Kauṭilya’s work were the production of a compiler of his school long after Kauṭilya’s death, would there be any interest in the use of such forms as इति कौटिल्यः and नेति कौटिल्यः, and repeatedly establishing that Kauṭilya’s doctrines differed from those of his predecessors? And, in that case, would also the expression “इति आचार्याः,” as applied to opponents, be used by a late student of Kauṭilya’s school when it would also apply to Kauṭilya himself as an आचार्यं?

c3.42

¹ I, x, 6, p. 17.

c3.43

Secondly, we should note the fact that the two greater parts of the Arthaśāstra contain no mention of opposite views, viz. pages 69–156 and 197–253 of the book, comprising parts of Books entitled अध्यक्षप्रचार, कण्टकशोधन, and योगवृत्तं, the last chapter of which treats of the significant subject “What is to happen in cases of imminent vacancy of throne?” Those parts do not treat the general principles so much as practical regulations in detail, such as administration, control of trade and industry, the police, the budget, and the like, about which scholasticism has no need to trouble itself but which are of the greatest moment to the practical statesman. We accordingly find that in his treatment of those subjects Kauṭilya does not take any opportunity for controversy, and stands there all alone with no previous tradition to consider or criticize. This is also evident from the significance of the word “प्रायशः”¹ in the opening line of the book which refers to the previous Âchâryyas.

c3.44

¹ “पृथिव्या लाभे पालने च यावन्ति अर्थशास्त्राणि पूर्व्वाचार्यैः प्रस्थापितानि प्रायशस्तान्य् संहृत्य एकमिदमर्थशास्त्रं कृतम्।”

c3.45

Next, we have to consider how Kauṭilya alludes to his predecessors. He uses both the plural and the singular number in respect of them, and in the former case he means the school,² and in the latter the individual author.³ What is worthy of note is that these sources are mentioned in a definite order⁴ in several places, which is probably not the chronological order, but rather seems to be the order of merit determined by Kauṭilya’s own estimation, or the order determined by his convenience of discussion. The arranging of the Âchâryyas in such an arbitrary order is possible only to a great master, and not to an ordinary writer of a text-book. It may also be noted in passing that the schools mentioned by Kauṭilya were not exclusively the schools of अर्थशास्त्र only, but of धर्मशास्त्र, which comprehended political discussion as a subsidiary topic. It seems that the अर्थशास्त्र did not differentiate itself as an independent school or branch of learning before Kauṭilya.

c3.46

² E.g. मानवाः, बार्हस्पत्याः, औशनसाः, पाराशराः, etc.

c3.47

³ E.g. भारद्वाजः, विशालाक्षः, पिशुनः, कौणपदन्तः, वातव्याधिः, बहुदन्तीपुत्रः, etc.

c3.48

⁴ E.g. I, vi, 4, pp. 18 ff.:—भारद्वाज-विशालाक्ष-पाराशर-पिशुन-कौणपदन्त-वातव्याधि-बहुदन्तीपुत्र । The same order is seen on pp. 32 ff., and on pp. 325 ff.

c3.49

Fourthly, a careful consideration of the style of the *Arthaśāstra* would also indicate its individual authorship. Broadly speaking, the course of literary development in India embraces three well-marked stages: in the *first* stage the previously accumulated tradition or discipline undergoes development in and through a school or schools devoted thereto; the *second* stage is that of the composition of *Sūtras*, which lead to some *siddhāntas*, or definite formulæ and conclusions, the exposition of which is conducted by the school, though the contents receive thereby a further expansion; the *third* stage is that of the composition of *Bhāṣyas*, which lead to freedom from the control of the schools, and ushers in the stage of individual authorship. Thus, while the text-books produced by schools (e.g. the *Śrauta-Dharma-Gṛihya-Sūtras*) show the style of *Sūtras*, the works of individual authors (e.g. Yāska’s *Nirukta*, Patañjali’s *Mahābhāshya*, etc.) bear a different character. They contain dogmatic statements, together with discussion supporting their own views, and the style passes from that of the *Sūtras* to the style of the *Bhāshyas*. Similarly, in Kauṭilya’s work there are some parts characterized by the brevity and dogmatism of the *Sūtras*, while there are other parts in which the author indulges in certain breadth and minuteness of details after the manner of the *Bhāshyas*. Thus the *Arthaśāstra* partakes of the character of both *Sūtra* and *Bhāshya* at the same time, and this is also admitted by the couplelet added at the end of the book, viz.:—

c3.50

दृष्ट्वा विप्रतिपत्तिं बहुधा शास्त्रेषु भाष्यकाराणां ।
स्वयमेव विष्णुगुप्तश्चकार सूत्रं च भाष्यं च ॥

c3.51

Hence the style of the work shows that it belongs to the class of literary works which are not the productions of schools but of individual authors.

c3.52

We shall now discuss the evidence as to individual authorship furnished by passages in the book itself. These passages are given below:—

c3.53

(1) सुखग्रह्यविस्पष्टं तस्यार्थपद निश्चितम् । कौटिल्येन कृतं शास्त्रं विमुक्तग्रन्थविस्तरम् । [I, i.]

c3.54

(2) सर्वशास्त्राण्युपक्रम्य प्रयोगमुपलभ्य च । कौटिल्येन नरेन्द्रार्थे शासनस्य विधिः कृतः । [II, x.]

c3.55

(3) एवं शास्त्रमिदं युक्तं रताभिसम्बन्धयुक्तिभिः । अवाप्तौ पालने चोक्तं लोकस्यास्य परस्य च । [XV, i.]

c3.56

(4) धर्ममर्थं च कामं च प्रवर्तयति पाति च । अधर्मानेर्थविद्वेषानिदं शास्त्रं निहन्ति च । [Ibid.]

c3.57

(5) येन शास्त्रं च शस्त्रं च नन्दराजगता च भूः । अमर्षेणोद्धृतान्याशु तेन शास्त्रमिदं कृतम् । [Ibid.]

c3.58

The suggestion that all these passages might have been later additions to the text cannot stand, because, as pointed out by Prof. Jacobi, “if they are taken out, then the customary metrical conclusion will be wanting in the chapters concerned.” They may therefore be taken to be integral parts of the text.

c3.59

In the first passage the expression “सुखग्रह्यविस्पष्टं,” as pointed out by Prof. Jacobi, is a clear indication of individual authorship, for “so speaks the author of a text-book meant for self-instruction,” for individual learners, and not for the school, for a *Sūtra* need not be सुबोधविविध्रेय, because for its understanding the teacher has to look to the school. This inference is also in keeping with the meaning of the opening words of our text, viz. “पृथिव्या लाभे पालने च यावन्त्यर्थशास्त्राणि पूर्वैराचार्यैः प्रस्थापितानि प्रायशस्तानि संहृत्यैकमियमेर्थशास्त्रं कृतम्।” Here there is a reference to individual authors, the earlier masters, and not to school traditions or schools, as must have been the case had the work of Kauṭilya been the product of a school.

c3.60

The same contention is again supported by the second passage, which refers to practical administration and regulations [शासनाधिकार] which are above scholastic wisdom. Here Kauṭilya claims special merit for his work, for these matters had not been sufficiently handled by previous masters. The personal note of the passage is also unmistakable, for would a mere “school compiler” have thus boasted of laying down regulations for guidance of emperors?

c3.61

Of the next three passages, the first passage relates itself to the opening words of the text, the second promises the attainment of त्रिवर्ग as the end of the *Arthaśāstra*, while the last verse indicates who the author is, not by mentioning his name, which had already appeared twice, but by enumerating his virtues or achievements with incomparably forcible brevity. This is not the language of vain self-glorification, but of one who speaks self-possessed from the height of human fame. But, as Prof. Jacobi well observes, in spite of the self-consciousness undiluted by any sham modesty, one still perceives in the words of Chandra Gupta’s Chancellor a courtly discretion which omits to mention the name of his master whom he had raised to the throne, for in that connexion it would have been supremely indecorous. This graceful self-restraint, this aristocratic reserve, is very significant and well worthy of the man and his position in life. It is only a later author, untrammelled by such discretion or restraint, who can unreservedly mention the name of Emperor Chandra Gupta in connexion with the eulogy of Kauṭilya as Kâmandaka, for instance, has done in the passage quoted above.¹ Lastly, the full significance of the phrase “धर्मेण जज्ञतं” has to be noted.

c3.62

¹ See p. xiii above.

c3.63

When applied to learning, it shows Kauṭilya’s impatience of the narrowness and shallowness of his predecessors, which irritated him into activity, and is also an expression of the contempt of the Statesman for the Professor—of which Bismarck, for instance, made no concealment—a contempt which manifests itself throughout the book in the frequent references to the *Âchâryyas* and their doctrinairisms and the refutation of their teachings, and also in the necessity he felt for treatment of important topics omitted by previous masters but indispensable in a useful hand-book of Politics.

c3.64

We have now considered the internal evidence of the book itself, which proves its genuineness as the production of Kauṭilya. The suspicion which has gathered round the work is due to the fact that literary forgeries have been very common in India, and individual authorship very rare. It is, however, forgotten that these forgeries invariably connect themselves with divine names, with gods and *rishis*, or the *gurus*, e.g. books which passed under the names of Manu, Yâjñavalkya, Vyâsa and the like. But a literary adulteration in respect of a historical personality supported by careful correspondence to the special features of the original (like the *Letters of Phalaris*, for example) is a refined imposture unheard of in India, and totally foreign to her soil. There is also another kind of literary practice in India which involves false naming of authors, and is frequently resorted to in cases where the author does not like to mention his own name but mentions instead that of his patron who brought about the composition of the work, *e.g.* the works going under the name of Bhoja, King of Dhârâ. Such a genesis, however, cannot apply to the work of Kauṭilya, wherein the author attributes to himself the merits of the work. It can, of course, hardly be denied that Kauṭilya must have had co-workers in many parts of his book, especially those which treat of technical details. Public officers of State in charge of the several departments of administration must have supplied to him materials which Kauṭilya has only edited; but this fact of itself does not vitiate the genuineness of the book as the production of Kauṭilya.

c3.65

The universal reverence attaching to epoch-making masterpieces preserves them against the ravages of time and interpolators alike. They never get antiquated, but they become canonical. So has been preserved through centuries Yāska’s Nirukta as well as Patañjali’s Mahābhāshya. This is also true of the Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra, which has further preserved itself by the numbering of its प्रकरण's and the sketching of its contents. Thus the suspicion against the genuineness of the work is unfounded, while the unanimous Indian tradition according to which the Arthaśāstra is the work of the famous Minister of Chandra Gupta is confirmed most decisively, as we have already seen, by a series of internal reasons furnished by the book itself.

c3.66

In this connexion I should like to draw pointed attention to a few other passages in the text which, to my mind, contain indirect allusions and veiled references to the Emperor Chandra Gupta in respect of whom the Arthaśāstra has carefully avoided any direct reference for reasons already explained, and which will no doubt be found to supply additional and valuable links in the chain of reasoning by which we are supporting our thesis that the book is a genuine production of the Minister of Chandra Gupta. These passages are as follows:—

c3.67

(1) अप्रणीतो हि [दण्डः] मात्स्यन्यायमुद्भावयति । बलीय- सान्ग्रसंते दुर्बलमभावे । तेन गुप्तः प्रभवति । [I, iv, 1.]

c3.68

(2) विद्याविनीतौ राजा हि प्रजानां विनये रतः । अनन्यां पृथिवीं भुंक्ते सर्वभूतहिते रतः । [I, v, 2.]

c3.69

(3) तद्विपरीतस्त्वन्यथातुरकोऽपि राजा सद्यो वि- नश्यति । [I, v, 3.]

c3.70

(4) देशः पृथिवी; तस्यां हिमवत्समुद्रान्तरमुदीचीनां योजनसहस्रपरिमाणं अतिर्यक् चक्रवर्तिक्षेत्रम् । [I, ix, 135-6.]

c3.71

The first of these passages easily lends itself to the interpretation that Kauṭilya seeks to justify his action in connexion with the usurpation of the throne by Chandra Gupta, whose strong and righteous administration [यथादंडः and सुविज्ञात प्रणीतो दण्डः] abolished the anarchy and misrule due to the profligacy and unpopularity of the previous Nanda king, who was unable to discharge the primary functions of government, viz. the protection of the weak against the strong [अप्रणीतो हि मात्स्यन्यायमुद्भावयति, etc.]; “तेन गुप्तः प्रभवति” would thus mean “for this reason—the abolition of anarchy and inauguration of order—does गुप्त, i.e. Chandra Gupta,¹ rise and flourish.” This is in all probability the hidden meaning of the passage, though its obvious and superficial sense, drawn from the grammar and context, is different from that suggested. The other three passages have also, to my mind, a common veiled reference to the paramount sovereignty established over the whole of India from the Himalayas to the sea [हिमवत्-समुद्रान्तं, etc.], up to its boundaries in the four directions [चातुरन्तोऽपि राजा], by Chandra Gupta, who reigns as the Lord Paramount, *Chakravarttî*, with none to dispute his rights or share the empire with him [अनन्यां पृथिवीं भुङ्क्ते ।]. Thus, though there are no direct allusions in the *Arthaśāstra* to the sovereignty of Chandra Gupta which might connect it with his times, these indirect and veiled references are, in my opinion, a sufficient compensation for that supposed defect, and they well suit the work of a consummate politician like Chāṇakya, who knew very well what to express and what to suppress in writing about contemporary politics.

c3.72

¹ I owe this suggestion to Mr. K. P. Jayaswal, M.A. (Oxon), Bar.-at-law. I am also deeply indebted to Dr. Brajendra-nath Seal, M.A., Ph.D., for his many invaluable criticisms and suggestions, and to Mr. Law for material assistance.

c3.73

And read between the lines, the *Arthaśāstra* will be found to throw out sure and sufficient hints as to the age of its production.

c3.74

Before I conclude, I should not pass over one other matter of importance in this connexion, viz. the striking correspondence between parts or passages of the *Arthaśāstra* and the accounts of India traced to Megasthenes relating to the period of Chandra Gupta. Such correspondence of the *Arthaśāstra* with a definitely dated document is no doubt of great help in fixing its age. A close study of both will show that the Book of *Arthaśāstra* entitled जनपदनिवेश gives a full view of Indian administration of which only a partial view can be obtained from the observations of Megasthenes [Frag. xxxiv]. This may be indicated as follows :—

c3.75

1. “Of the great officers of State, some have charge of the market, others of the city, others of the soldiers.” This corresponds to the सन्निधाता of the *Arthaśāstra*, under whom were such officers as पण्याध्यक्ष, शुल्काध्यक्ष and the like, who looked after commercial matters, the नागरिक or city magistrate charged with the municipal administration and policing of the city, and lastly such officers as नावध्यक्ष, पत्त्यध्यक्ष, सेनापति, etc., who were in charge of the military.

c3.76

2. “Some superintend the rivers, measure the land . . . and inspect the sluices by which water is let out from the main canals into their branches.” Kauṭilya also mentions provisions for irrigation under the Superintendent of the Admiralty [नावध्यक्ष] for inspection of rivers and watercourses. He also refers to canals and sluices, as in the passage “सेतुभ्योमृगततोयमपारेवदप्योषम्,” etc. [Bk. III, ch. x, 61], and mentions four modes of irrigation, viz. irrigation by hand [हस्तप्रावर्तिम], by water carried on shoulders [स्कन्धप्रावर्तिम], by mechanical contrivances [स्रोत-यन्त्रप्रावर्तिम], and by water from tanks, wells and rivers [नदीसरस्तडाकूपोद्घाटम्]. In the following passage, “वातप्रवर्तिमवर्षिविषायसनतडाककेदारााराम-षण्डवापानां . . .” there is perhaps a reference to the raising of water from wells and tanks by bullocks, and also to devices worked by wind-power, *i.e.* windmills.

c3.77

As regards officers who “measure the land,” a reference may be made to duties of officers called गोप, स्थानिक, etc., in the *Arthaśāstra*, who were entrusted with the very same duties [Bk. II, xxxv, 54–55].

c3.78

3. "*The same persons have also charge of the huntsmen . . .*” In the Arthaśāstra hunters were placed under the immediate control of an officer called विवीताध्यक्ष, the Superintendent of Pastures, whose duties are set forth in detail [Bk. II, xxiii, 52–53].

c3.79

4. "*They collect the taxes and superintend the occupations . . .*” In the Arthaśāstra there is a detailed account of the arrangements for the collection of taxes or revenue. The chief responsible officer was the समाहर्त्ता, under whom were the heads of several departments who collected the revenue for which they were responsible and sent it on to the समाहर्त्ता [II, vi, 24].

c3.80

5. "*They construct roads . . .*” This was done under the superintendence of the समाहर्त्ता [ibid.].

c3.81

6. "*The members of the first body look after everything relating to the industrial arts.*” The Arthaśāstra also [IV, i, 76] speaks of the State supervision of industries, so as to secure proper observance by artizans of rules governing the preparation or manufacture of products [IV, i, 76].

c3.82

7. "*The third body consists of those who inquire when and how births and deaths occur,*”

c3.83

with the view not only of levying a tax, but also in order that births and deaths . . . may not escape the cognizance of Government.” The Arthaśāstra also gives details of census operations carried on by officers termed स्थानिक, गोप, etc. [see II, xxxiv, 54–55, and xxxvi, 56].

c3.84

8. “The fourth class superintends trade and commerce. Its members have charge of weights and measures, and see that the products in their season are sold by public notice.” The officer termed संस्थाध्यक्ष in the Arthaśāstra had also to detect false weights, measures and balances, and check the sale of adulterated goods and of inferior goods passed as superior [see chapter on पौतवाध्यक्षम्]. He also regulated sales.

c3.85

Similarly, Megasthenes’ account of the organization of the War Office, with its six divisions, corresponds very well with what Kauṭilya says about the officers termed नावध्यक्ष, पत्त्यध्यक्ष, हस्त्यध्यक्ष, रथाध्यक्ष, सेनापति, etc. His account of “the seven castes among the Indians,” also, will be found on a closer analysis to correspond to the duties of the four traditional castes as laid down in the Arthaśāstra [see p. 7, I, i, 1]. Among other minor correspondences may be mentioned Megasthenes’

c3.86

reference to elephants turning the scale of victory, which is to be compared with Kauṭilya’s हस्तिप्रमाणं विजयो राज्ञाम् [II, ii, 20]; his reference to “exercising the body by friction” is supported by the duties of the संवाहक, as mentioned in the chapter on आत्मरक्षितकम् [Bk. I]; that about “the care of the king’s person being entrusted to women” is supported by the chapters on आत्मरक्षितकम् [Bk. I] and स्त्र्यध्यक्ष [Bk. II]. His observation that “the king may not sleep during the day-time” is supported by the account of the king’s daily duties in chapter राजप्रणिधिः [Bk. I]; that about “the guard of armed women” by Chāṇakya’s जीवदैः वनिभिः of chapter आत्मरक्षितकं [Bk. I]; that about “enclosures” for the king’s hunting may be compared with मृगवनं विहारार्थं राज्ञः कारयेत् as referred to in the chapter भूमिच्छिद्रविधानं [Bk. II]. The reference about the king’s processions being very well guarded finds its parallel in what Kauṭilya says about them towards the end of the chapter on आत्मरक्षितकम्.¹ Women attendants of the king, on chariots, as mentioned by Megasthenes, are also mentioned by Kauṭilya in his chapter on मविकाध्यक्ष: [Bk. II]. The reference about “houses being left unguarded” as contained in Megasthenes is perhaps connected with the custom mentioned in the *Arthaśāstra* of leaving some parts of every house [“अपिगृहमास्य”] open for all [III, viii, 61]. The mention by Megasthenes of the marriage dowry of “a yoke of oxen” corresponds to Kauṭilya’s गोमिथुनादावा- दार्तः [III, ii, 59]. The practice of the Admiralty “letting out ships on hire for transport of passengers and merchandise” is also referred to in the chapter on नावध्यक्ष. Overseers as a class of officials as mentioned by Megasthenes correspond to the *chāras* of the *Arthaśāstra* about whom so much has been said in its several chapters. Megasthenes’ reference to horses and elephants with persons specially “appointed to take care of them” is amply borne out by the chapters अश्वध्यक्ष and हस्त्यध्यक्ष as indicated above. The reference of Megasthenes to the *Royal Road* from east to west is corroborated by the accounts of roads in the *Arthaśāstra* [VII, xii, 116] in which roads leading to the Himalayas [हिमवत:] and to the west [पूर्वपश्चिम वणिक्पथ:] are specifically mentioned. The precautions against fire as detailed in the *Arthaśāstra* [II, xxxvi, 56, and IV, ii, 78], where ten different remedies are laid down [दशमूलौषधम्] for universal use of householders, as also the municipal regulations by virtue of which, in all the principal roads of a city and in front of royal buildings, vessels filled with water were kept; which forbade building straw houses in the city, and confined those who worked with fire, e.g. blacksmiths, to isolated parts of the city: all these have really a reference to the wooden architecture prevalent in the period as indicated in the chapter on दुर्गविधानं [Bk. II] and also mentioned by Megasthenes [Frag. xxvi].

c3.87

¹ “स्त्रियश्चेभियाने च राजमार्गमुभयतः छतारथं हस्तिभिर-पासरक्षैश्चप्रमजितवदंगच्छेत् . . .”

c3.88

Lastly, the testimony of Megasthenes to the high degree of development which material civilization attained in India is abundantly supported by the detailed information furnished by the Arthaśāstra on the subject. It would take too much space, and is hardly necessary, to prove by quotations the truth of Megasthenes’ remarks [Frag. i] that the Indians are “well skilled in the arts,” and “while the soil bears on its surface all kinds of fruits which are known to cultivation, it has also underground numerous veins of all sorts of metals . . . which are employed in making articles of use and ornament, as well as the implements and accoutrements of war.” The *Arthaśāstra* is a sort of running commentary on the above statements, as will be evident from Mr. Law’s *Studies*, and from most of the chapters of the second Book of the *Arthaśāstra*, entitled अध्यक्षप्रचार.

c3.89

In conclusion, I should also note that some of the technical and peculiar words of the *Arthaśāstra* which were current in its times have been used in the Edicts of Asoka which, according to the theory discussed here, belong to a later age. These are: युता [Rock Ed. III], equivalent to युक्ता: of Kauṭilya (p. 57); राजुका [R. Ed. III], corresponding to रज्जुक in चोररज्जुक of Kauṭilya (p. 232); पाषण्डेषु [R. Ed. V, etc.], which occurs in Kauṭilya (p. 144 and elsewhere); समाज [R. Ed. I], which corresponds to समाज in the phrase उत्सवसमाज of Kauṭilya (p. 121); महामाता [R. Ed. XII], which is equivalent to महामात्र of Kauṭilya (p. 58 and elsewhere), and the like. Among the institutions which are referred to both in Kauṭilya and the Edicts may be mentioned (1) the exemption from slaughter of certain animals and birds specially mentioned both in the Edicts and the *Arthaśāstra*, e.g. चक्रवाक्, शुक, सारिका, हंस, दात्यूह, etc. [R. Ed. V, and Kauṭilya, p. 122]; (2) the zenana system, or the seclusion of women, which is indicated by the word ओरोधने, [R. Ed. V], and is also referred to in Kauṭilya (p. 147) in the words “स्त्रीणामनिकासिनीनाम्,” and also in the chapter सूत्राध्यक्ष of Book II; (3) the planting of medicinal herbs, and fruit-trees along roads, as also the digging of wells as works of public utility, which are mentioned both in the Edicts [e.g. R. Ed. II and Pillar Ed. VII] and Kauṭilya (p. 56 and elsewhere).

c3.90

We have now considered the various arguments which may be advanced to support the authenticity of the *Arthaśāstra* as the production of Kauṭilya, the Minister of Chandra Gupta. Its age thus ascertained, it is difficult to overestimate its importance for the history of culture, and especially Indian culture. As an exposition of an ancient polity it takes its place by the side of the other ancient compilations such as the Babylonish Code of Hammurabi and the works on Greek politics such as those of Aristotle and Plato. The Code of Hammurabi, however, only treats of practical regulations appropriate to a mercantile civilization, which are not parts of any system of polity, while both Aristotle's *Politics* and Plato's *Republic* go to the other extreme of treating only of the theory of the State and Constitution. In the *Arthaśāstra* we find a combination of theory and practice, principles of government, as well as administrative details and regulations, treated with a touch of refreshing realism which is born only of a living experience of actual problems and contact with facts. The system of polity as revealed in the *Arthaśāstra* is complete in all aspects and details, and exhibits those features which are characteristic of India. Agriculture and commerce, arts and crafts for which India is ever noted, receive their due treatment and emphasis in the book; forests and mines, irrigation and famine, land revenue, census, central and municipal government, cattle and livestock, are the eternal topics of Indian administration, conditioned, as every government is, by its natural and historical environment. And when we find that all these familiar problems have been treated in the *Arthaśāstra*—problems which are still exercising the British Government of India at the present day—we cannot but discover the operation of an evolutionary process which is ultimately governing the development of Indian administration through Hindu, Mahomedan and modern times.

c3.91

RADHAKUMUD MOOKERJI.

Linked texts (25)