Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity (Based on the Arthashastra of Kautilya), Vol. I c3.41

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?