Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity (Based on the Arthashastra of Kautilya), Vol. I c3.64

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.