Pre-Buddhist India: A Political, Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey of Ancient India Based Mainly on the Jataka Stories c4.t3: III. The Character of Monarchical Rule

Pre-Buddhist India: A Political, Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey of Ancient India Based Mainly on the Jātaka Stories c4.t3

Language: English

III. The Character of Monarchical Rule

c4.t3.2

The foregoing details, which must have grown tiresome by now, give us a faint vision of the man who was at the helm of the state and Society of the *Jātaka* times, the most important limb of the body-politic.

c4.t3.3

Now we examine his powers and prerogatives, limitations and checks to his autocracy if any, the peoples' voice and their power.

c4.t3.4

The king of the *Jātakas* was a despot, despot in the sense that he was free to exercise his will and pleasure.

c4.t3.5

The king was the highest personage in the state. He was absolutely necessary. All the circumstances we noticed before, *viz.*, the dire necessity of a king, the people's anxiety to perpetuate the line, the traditional high status of the king, all these would, naturally, force the people to repose confidence in him and not to interfere with his doings, so long as they did not vitally affect them. But to idolize him was never their attempt. They were not merely submissive, as their frequent risings will show.¹ The tyrant was not always tolerated.

c4.t3.6

¹ *Cf.* Dicey, *Law and Custom of the Constitution*, p. 74; "....but in any State, however despotic the ruler, there is but limited readiness on the part of his subjects to obey his behests." N. S. Subbarao, *Political and Economic Conditions as Described in the Jātakas*, p. 24.

c4.t3.7

IDEAL The picture of an Ideal king we have already seen before. The ten royal duties and other moral virtues were there. But the typical king of the *Jātakas* does not appear to be prone to act according to them.² It is the other and opposite picture that we have frequently to see through the stories.

c4.t3.8

² *Cf.* Fick, *op. cit.*, p. 100: "....the king shows a double face in the *Jātakas*, which is to be traced to the Buddhistic account of the original legends.

c4.t3.9

We do not think there is any misstatement, it may be overstatement, of facts, when a *Jātaka*³ speaks of a king thus: "With taxes and fines, and many mutilations and robberies, he crushed the folk as it were sugar-cane in a mill; he was cruel, fierce, ferocious. For other people he had not a grain of pity; at home he was harsh and implacable towards his wives, his sons and daughters, to his Brahmin courtiers and the householders of the country. He was like a speck of dust that falls in the eye, like gravel in the broth, like a thorn sticking in the heel." Instances of such oppressive rulers are not rare. An oppressive king sucks the country dry of all wealth.⁴ By relying on the words of his wicked queen an arrogant monarch kills the prince by casting him down the precipice, heels head first, inspite of lamentations, entreaties and even moral arguments of the people, the courtiers and the women.⁵ He even dares to say:

c4.t3.10

³ J., IV, p. 240.

c4.t3.11

⁴ J., IV, p. 224.

c4.t3.12

⁵ J., IV, pp. 193-4-GG. 61-7.

c4.t3.13

"One side the whole world stands, my queen on the other all above;
Yet her I cleave to : cast him down the hill, and get you gone."

c4.t3.14

Another capricious tyrant takes a dislike for all old things and makes a cruel sport of old men and women who have therefore to leave his kingdom.⁶ A king falls in love with the wife of a hermit. "Well", thinks he, "if I seize her by my sovereign power (*issariya balena*) what will he do ? I will take her then". And he orders one of his suites to carry her away to the palace, inspite of her complaints and cries that lawlessness and wrong were the world's way.⁷

c4.t3.15

⁶ J., II, pp. 142-3.

c4.t3.16

⁷ J., IV, pp. 23-4. "adhammo loke vattati ayuttam".

c4.t3.17

POPULAR OPINIONS These and similar instances leave no doubt as to the general autocracy prevailing among the kings. In this connection it would be interesting for our purpose to note some of the popular opinions about the King expressed in the stories. There is no one, so we hear, who does not feel afraid when he hears that it is a king.⁸ Amongst the two—the fowler and the bird Bodhisattathe former, an experienced man, saying that “Kings, verily are fickle-minded (*calacittā*)” is to our mind, more correct than the latter, a protagonist of Law and Morality, who says that “Kings are wise and understand goodly words”.¹ Similarly the hunter of the *Rohantamiga Jātaka*² and the *Hamsa Jātaka*,³ who sets a stag free, seems to pronounce a fact when he says that “Kings are cruel,” *rājāno nāma kakkhalā*. Is it an exaggeration—what a man utters in a *gāthā* in the *Sattigumbha Jātaka*⁴: “Kings are like blazing bonfires and most perilous to come near”? Elsewhere⁵ a sage warns his young novice against sovereign lords whom he compares with snakes which may stain holy men. The experienced old lion speaks out a simple truth that “Kings have many stratagems” *anekamāyā rājāno*.⁶ “Hard are the ways of kings: what will happen no one can tell,” these are the utterances of a learned minister of a king.⁷ The characteristically sound advice given by Vidhura to those who aspire to attain honour in the kings court⁸ we may doubt, and incline to dismiss it as ideological only, but some of the home-truths therein embodied are worth our consideration. For instance, when he says that “the king does not count as a common person: the king must not be paired with anyone else: kings are easily vexed as the eye is hurt if touched by a barley-awn,”⁹ does he not utter the truth as already shown above? “Win favour in the eyes of the Great (i.e., the king) for one day: it is enough for a life-time,” so remarks a learned scholar of the type of Uddālaka.¹⁰ What wonder, then, if the king should become so bold as to say, “I am king of Benares: there is nothing I cannot do.”¹¹

c4.t3.18

⁸ J., VI, p. 85—"Rājā'ti pana vutte abbāyento nāma natthi."

c4.t3.19

¹ J. V. pp. 345, 365—“Rājāno nāma Calacittā....” and “Rājāno nāma puṇṇavantā ca paññāvantā ca subhāsitadubhāsitaññū.” Cf. “....even as water is the refuge of the people, so also is it with kings. If danger arises from them, who shall avert that danger?”—J., III, p. 508.

c4.t3.20

² J., IV, p. 419.

c4.t3.21

³ Ibid., p. 427.

c4.t3.22

⁴ Ibid., p. 432-G. 144. “durāsadā hi rājāno aggi pajjalito yathā.”

c4.t3.23

⁵ J., IV, p. 223-G. 50.

c4.t3.24

⁶ J., III, p. 322.

c4.t3.25

⁷ J., VI, p. 381—“rājakammāni nāma bhariyāni, na ñāyati kiṃ bhavissati.”

c4.t3.26

⁸ J., VI, pp. 292-98-GG. 1266-1309.

c4.t3.27

⁹ Ibid., p. 294-G. 1281.

c4.t3.28

¹⁰ J., IV, p. 299. Similar are the words: “by once conciliating kings a man may live happily all the years of his life” put in Setaketu’s mouth at J., III, p. 235.

c4.t3.29

¹¹ J., III, p. 325—Contrast the utterance of the Gandhāra king before the Yakkha lady, J., I, p. 398.

c4.t3.30

As a matter of fact, we cannot reconcile ourselves with the idea¹² that kings of the *Jātakas* are *not* arbitrary. But we do recognise the fact that the people of those days did not always tolerate, or acquiesce in, the arbitrary or autocratic and despotic deeds of the kings. We have several instances of the powerful risings of the whole people against wicked and unjust kings. Fierce and cruel and like grit in the eye to all folk in his princely days, a king has to suffer severe punishment at the hands of the people for his unjust deeds. “Filled with indignation,” says the story, “the nobles and brahmins and all classes (*Khattiya-Brāhmaṇadayo nagaravāsino*) with one accord cried out,

c4.t3.31

¹² Cf. Sen, op. cit., p. 72.

c4.t3.32

POPULAR REVOLTS.

c4.t3.33

'This ungrateful king does not recognise even the goodness of this good man who saved his majesty's life. How can we have any profit from the king? Seize the tyrant." And in their anger they rush upon the king from every side, and slay him there and then, as he rides on his elephant, with arrows and javelins, stones and clubs and any weapons that come to hand. The corpse they drag by the heels to a ditch and fling it in and then anoint their chosen person to kingship.¹ In another place² an interesting scene is witnessed. A Brāhmaṇa youth has discovered that it is the king himself and his priest who have stolen and concealed a precious treasure. He declares the king a 'thief' and sounds a stirring appeal to the people assembled there:—

c4.t3.34

¹ J., I, p. 326.

c4.t3.35

² J., III, pp. 513-4.

c4.t3.36

"Let town and country folk assembled all give ear,
Lo! water is ablaze. From safety cometh fear.
The plundered realm may well of king and priest complain;
Henceforth protect yourselves, your refuge proves your bane."

c4.t3.37

The people realize that the king who should protect them is himself a thief and determine to kill him, 'that he may not in future go on plundering any more.' With sticks and hammers they go out and beat the king and the purohita till they are dead. The Brāhmaṇa youth is then proclaimed king. Elsewhere³ the people are seen putting the priest to death and then hurrying with sticks and stones to kill the tyrant king himself in a fit of frenzied glee. It is only with 'divine' intervention that the king's life is spared. He is driven out of the city and thrown into an outcaste settlement. Similarly when the people of a country find that their king has developed cannibalistic tastes they at once stir in revolt. They approach the commander-in-chief and ask, "What do you propose to do? How will you proceed now? You have caught the man-eating rogue? If he does not give it up, have him expelled from his kingdom." Now they would not suffer the king to say a word. They expel him.⁴ Last, but not the least, we have an instance of a king having been slain under similar circumstances. The king is lustful, comes across a lovely maiden—Sujātā—the wife of a peaceful villager, and desires to catch hold of her. But on coming to know that the woman is not unmarried, and therefore not easy to get at, he indulges in a savage misuse of his royal power, has the husband arrested on a false charge of theft, and sentences him to capital punishment. Sakka, 'the people's god' comes to their rescue. He drags the king to the place of execution. When the servants lift the axe and chop off a head—it is the king's head. The Bodhisatta is consecrated king amidst the loud approval of the ministers, the Brāhmaṇas, the gahapatis and others.⁵

c4.t3.38

³ J., VI, pp. 156. ff.

c4.t3.39

⁴ J., V, pp. 470. ff.

c4.t3.40

⁵ J., II, pp. 122-4. Sen, op. cit., p. 67, remarks: "The advent of Sakka is a mythical element in the story... Sakka is only a name to conjure with, symbolising divine approval indicating the profound religious basis underlying the duties of a sovereign."

c4.t3.41

Undoubtedly the 'vox populi' was as resonant with revolt as it could then possibly be.

c4.t3.42

How stubborn and demanding are the Sivi-folk of the Vessantara Jātaka?¹ The prince had given away a dearly-prized elephant to the Brāhmaṇas of Kaliṅga. That was his fault in the eyes of the people. And they gather together and ask for an explanation of the prince's conduct:

c4.t3.43

¹ J., VI, pp. 489-93.

c4.t3.44

"The prince and Brahmin, Vesiya and Ugga great and small,
Merchants and footmen, charioteers and soldiers, one and all,
The country landowners, and all the Sivi folk come by,
Seeing the elephant depart, thus to the king did cry:
'Oh Sañjaya, the people's friend, say why this thing was done
By him, a prince of our own time, Vessantara, thy son?'" ²

c4.t3.45

² Ibid., p. 490-GG. 1714-21.

c4.t3.46

and

c4.t3.47

"The bidding of the Sivi people if you refuse to do,
The folk, then will act, methinks, against your son and you." ³

c4.t3.48

³ Ibid., G. 1722.

c4.t3.49

The king proposes to sacrifice his throne rather than 'a trueborn son of his', but the people demand:

c4.t3.50

"Not chastisement doth he deserve, nor sword, nor prison cell,
But from the kingdom banish him, on Vaṅka's mount to dwell." ⁴

c4.t3.51

⁴ J., VI, p. 491, G. 1726.

c4.t3.52

and the king replies:

c4.t3.53

"Behold the people's will! and that I will not gainsay." ⁵

c4.t3.54

⁵ Ibid., G. 1727—"Eso ca Sivinam chando chandam na panudāmase."

c4.t3.55

And even banishment was to be awarded by the people:

c4.t3.56

"Together let the people come and banish him away." ⁶

c4.t3.57

⁶ Ibid., G. 1728. "Samaggā Sivayo hutvā raṭṭhā pabbājayantu tam."

c4.t3.58

How meek does the king appear here! and how bold the people!

c4.t3.59

There is another instance which is highly valued by scholars as showing the limited prerogatives of the king. We refer to the Telapatta Jātaka where a Yakkhinī—an ogress—wife requests the king to hand over to her absolute mastery over his subjects. The king replies: "Sweetheart, I have no power over those that dwell throughout my kingdom; I am not their lord and master. I have only jurisdiction over those who revolt or do iniquity. So I cannot give you power and authority over the whole kingdom."⁷ How far is this statement true? Was the king's authority so much limited in reality? We do not think it was. Instances that we have noticed before speak quite to the contrary. Whether or not he was the lord and master of his subjects, we may not discuss, for that is all theory. But when the king denies his right of transferring the power and authority over his people to another, he may be reminded of many other princes who freely give away that power without any sense of hesitation or any fear of inflicting a blow on the rights of the people'.¹ The king in the *Brahmadatta Jātaka*,² for instance, is prepared to make over his kingdom to an ascetic. In another *Jātaka*³ the king gives away the half of his kingdom to a horse-dealer. Elsewhere⁴ we find the king giving away his kingship to the *purohita* with whom the queenmother was in love. Another king lays his kingdom at the feet of a Bodhisatta⁵ who however refuses it. In another story the king actually divides the kingdom with a jolly poor fellow and the two rule in harmony and friendship.⁶ These instances are sufficient to show that there was nothing, moral or otherwise, that could come in the way of the king transferring his power to anybody he liked. In fact the rule of a country by two kings—*Dvairājya*—did exist as Kauṭilya shows.⁷ So that the above statement cannot be taken as pointing to the real state of affairs, and we demur in attaching so great an importance to this passage as scholars⁸ have done. As a matter of fact, the evidence is inconclusive. The situation is rather anomalous. From what we saw above, it would be, more or less, nearer the truth if we conclude that the king was, as a general rule, autocratic, having no substantial constitutional checks whatsoever,⁹ and that this autocracy varied according to individual kings. This is the impression that lasts on our mind after everything is considered.¹⁰

c4.t3.60

⁷ J., I, p. 398—"Bhadde mahyam Sakalaraṭṭhavāsino na kiñci honti, nāham etesam sāmiko, ye pana rājānam kopetvā akattabbam karonti tesam nevāham sāmiko ti iminā kārupena na sakkā tubhyam sakalaraṭṭhe issariyam ca āññāca dātum."

c4.t3.61

¹ This is recognised by Sen, op. cit., pp. 71-2.

c4.t3.62

² J., III, p. 80; also ibid., p. 353.

c4.t3.63

³ J., II, p. 291.

c4.t3.64

⁴ J., III, p. 392.

c4.t3.65

⁵ J., I, p. 486.

c4.t3.66

⁶ J., III, pp. 448-9—“*Rājā rajjam dvidhā bhinditvā tassa upaddharajjam dāpesi*,” also ibid., p. 11, which, by the way, gives us to know that on such occasions the king would gather the councillors and throw a thread of a pure vermilion across the white umbrella and then hand over the charge of the half of the kingdom to the person concerned.

c4.t3.67

⁷ *Arthaśāstra* VIII 2—“*Dvairājyavairājyayoh dvairājyamanyopakṣa-deṣānurāgā-bhyām parasparasamgharṣena vā vinaśyati*.” See for other instances of this rule by two, Jayaswal, *Hindu Polity*, I, pp. 96-7 The exact interpretation of the term *dvairājya* is however open to doubt : N. N. Law, *I. H. Q.*, I, pp 394-5.

c4.t3.68

⁸ Jayaswal, op. cit., II, pp. 184-5; Sen, op. cit., p. 70.

c4.t3.69

⁹ Sometimes, though, the merits of the *purohita* or other ministers could triumph over the wickedness of the rulers and stop their arbitrary actions, as for instance in J., III, pp. 317 ff.

c4.t3.70

¹⁰ Dikshitar puts a strong case for the limited or constitutional monarchy in Mauryan days in his two works: *Hindu Administrative Institutions*, pp. 71-7; *Mauryan Polity*, pp. 90-101; but on the whole it seems that he has been led away more by sentiment than by unfettered search after truth.

c4.t3.71

The foremost duty with which the king was enjoined by the ‘Law’ was the protection of the people. We see him frequently engaged in wars and frontier-rebellions.¹¹ There he is the leader of the host. The Commander-in-Chief was, of course, there. But in times of grave disturbance he yielded the command to the king.¹²

c4.t3.72

¹¹ J., I, pp. 304, 313, 317, 437; II, pp. 74, 96, 208, 274, 315; III, pp. 8, 400, 497; IV, pp. 189, 446; V, p. 135.

c4.t3.73

¹² J., II, p. 413; VI, p. 393.

c4.t3.74

In times of peace the most prominent work for him was the administration of justice. When we shall come to discuss this aspect of administrative machinery, we shall learn that it was not quite a separate department of the state as we understand it to-day. The king is often an original tribunal, and cases directly come before him for decision. He conducted these cases in his court not only as the highest and ultimate judicial authority, as it may seem to us at first sight, but as a direct court of appeal and the nearest legal authority without any intermediate institution. This was the usual custom,¹ though we may well see that he could not have been the whole and the sole judicial authority when the number of cases increased to the extent which we notice in the stories. A regular post of a justice called the *Vinicchaya-amacca* did exist.² And besides him, other judges were also appointed by the king.³ Very often the king is prompted to summary justice. An innocent ascetic is arrested, on a false suspicion of theft, and brought before the king, and the latter pronounces the sentence at once without examining the case: "Off with him, impale him upon the stake!"⁴ Similarly another innocent man is summarily sentenced to execution by the king.⁵ Sometimes it happens, however, that a protest is made from the side of the minister of justice against an unjust judgment of the king.⁶ But this had very little influence on the normal royal authority. No exact demarcation can be made as to the cases which must go to the king and which must be decided by the judges. But as a general rule criminal jurisdiction seems, as Fick⁷ has rightly observed, to be exclusively exercised by the king. That any person other than the king can pronounce a sentence of death seems to be nowhere mentioned in the *Jātakas*. Serious crimes such as theft, adultery or bodily injury were punished by *rājaññā*, i.e., by the order of the king.⁸ To what extent the person of the king is attached to the administration of justice is beautifully expressed by the following verses:

c4.t3.75

¹ J., I, pp. 176, 371; II, pp. 2, 187; III, pp. 105, 232; IV, p. 29; VI, pp. 31-2; contrast Jayaswal, *op. cit.*, II, pp. 155-6: "The practice of the king hearing original cases must have been given up very early as there is scanty evidence showing that it was ever done in post-Vedic times." His way of reasoning is, nevertheless, worth consideration.

c4.t3.76

² J., II, pp. 181; III, 105.

c4.t3.77

³ J., V, p. 229; VI, p. 131.

c4.t3.78

⁴ J., IV, p. 29.

c4.t3.79

⁵ J., I, p. 371.

c4.t3.80

⁶ J., III, pp. 104 ff.

c4.t3.81

⁷ *op. cit.*, p. 112.

c4.t3.82

⁸ *Ibid.* and note.

c4.t3.83

"The warrior prince takes careful thought, and well-weighed judgment gives:
When kings their judgment ponder well, their fame for ever lives."⁹

c4.t3.84

⁹ J., III, pp. 106-G. 128, 154-G. 5; IV, p. 451-G. 210.

c4.t3.85

and again

c4.t3.86

"Kings should give punishment with careful measure."¹⁰

c4.t3.87

¹⁰ J., IV, p. 451-G. 211.

c4.t3.88

The villagers, though they had their headman to settle disputes, were free to approach the king directly, if they chose to do so.¹¹

c4.t3.89

¹¹ J., II, p. 301, for instance.

c4.t3.90

We are not told what other works of administration the king actually took part in. It appears that he did not take any active part in other branches of administration, as they were independently looked after by the officers nominated for the purpose.

c4.t3.91

It may, however, be interesting to note here some of the privileges and powers of the king that devolved upon him through time-old customs—the Common Law of the Land.

c4.t3.92

One of the powers that he enjoyed was the granting of rewards in the form of villages or towns to persons with whom he was pleased.¹ Sometimes these recipients were the Brāhmaṇas,² but more often, they were the officers of the state³ whose was the greater right, politically speaking. This grant of a village (or villages) meant, of course, the right of the revenue thereof. He had the power of appointing⁴ and deposing⁵ the officers of the state, though their posts were generally hereditary.⁶ It was also in his power to increase or decrease the salaries (vetana) of the officials of the state.⁷

c4.t3.93

¹ J., I, p. 420; VI, p. 344. Fick, op. cit., p. 210; For restrictions on this privilege in other evidences see Jayaswal, op. cit., II, pp. 119-20.

c4.t3.94

² J., II, pp. 166, 310 (brahmadeyam), 420-G. 117; III, p. 229; IV, p. 99-G. 24; at J., V, p. 350, a fowler is the recipient.

c4.t3.95

³ J., I, pp. 138; II, p. 429, G. 117; III, p. 105; IV, p. 80; VI, p. 462-G.1630; at VI, p. 344 it is a merchant's son, a would-be counsellor of the king.

c4.t3.96

⁴ J., I, p. 354; III, p. 206; V, p. 229; VI, p. 131.

c4.t3.97

⁵ J., II, pp. 30, 187, 427; V, p. 134; VI, 131.

c4.t3.98

⁶ J., I, pp. 231, 248, 437; II, p. 46; III, pp. 385, 392, 455; V, pp. 210, 383.

c4.t3.99

⁷ J., VI, p. 295-G. 1285.

c4.t3.100

All unclaimed property, whether lost or stolen, movable or immovable, lapsed to the king. A purohita and his wife renounce their worldly possessions and turn ascetics. The king is informed about this, and sends men to fetch the money, for "masterless money comes to me," says he.⁸ The Gandhāra king sees a lovely lady—a Yakkhinī—and is enamoured of her. On finding that she has no real husband, he tries to capture her, because "treasure trove is a royal perquisite."⁹ Similarly another king, who finds a girl abandoned by her husband, rejoices to get her, because "treasure trove belongs to the crown."¹⁰ However, the rule about the treasure troves is not clear. Contrary to the above instances, we see a farmer appropriating the whole treasure, a bar of gold, which he discovers in the field.¹¹ Perhaps the law was not so strictly observed, though this royal privilege with conditions is also to be found in the Dharmasūtras,¹² and in an elaborate form in Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra.¹³ There is a remarkable statement in a Jātaka¹⁴ that "horses are king's property," which may only mean, however, that only the kings could keep horses.

c4.t3.101

⁸ J., IV, p. 485—"assāmikadhanam amhākam pāpuṇāti." Cf. J. VI, 581.

c4.t3.102

⁹ J., I, p. 398—"assāmika bhandam nāma rājasantakam hoti."

c4.t3.103

¹⁰ J., VI, p. 348—"assāmikabhandam nāma rañño pāpuṇāti."

c4.t3.104

¹¹ J., I, p. 277.

c4.t3.105

¹² Gautama, X, 43; cf. C. H. I., 1, pp. 246-7.

c4.t3.106

¹³ Arthaśāstra, III, 5; 16; IV, 1.

c4.t3.107

¹⁴ J., III, p. 322—"assā nāma rājabhoga."

c4.t3.108

MILK-MONEY. Milk-money, or what Hopkins' would like to call 'love-offering' with regard to the Epic king, was a royal prerogative. Such presents were received from the people of all sorts, on occasions like the birth of a prince or the coronation ceremony.²

c4.t3.109

² J., II, 166; III, p. 408; IV, p. 323, VI, p. 42.

c4.t3.110

TAXES. Apart from these, the king was entitled to other taxes, tithes and tolls which we shall consider while dealing with Fiscal Administration. These enhanced the royal treasury out of which the palace expenditure was settled.

c4.t3.111

AMNESTY. The King could order release of prisoners on special occasions such as the return from Takkasilā³ or marriage⁴ or coronation of a prince⁵ or when the king was exceptionally happy,⁶ or in cases of emergency.⁷

c4.t3.112

³ J., IV, p. 176.

c4.t3.113

⁴ J., V, p. 285.

c4.t3.114

⁵ J., VI, p. 156.

c4.t3.115

⁶ J., VI, p. 327.

c4.t3.116

⁷ J., VI, p. 427.

c4.t3.117

PROCLAMA- TIONS. Proclamations relating to various matters such as restrict orders,⁸ non- slaughter of animals,⁹ public exhibitions of skill,¹⁰ executions,¹¹ getting information from the public¹², or holidays¹³ were issued by his orders.

c4.t3.118

⁸ J., VI, p. 431.

c4.t3.119

⁹ J., III, p. 434.

c4.t3.120

¹⁰ J., II, p. 222, for instance.

c4.t3.121

¹¹ J., I, p. 500.

c4.t3.122

¹² J., IV, p. 91.

c4.t3.123

¹³ J., II, p. 345.

c4.t3.124

The king usually went on his rounds in the city or country in disguise (aññātakavesena) to know the real conditions of his subjects.¹⁴ Visitors to the king were to have their coming to be announced,¹⁵ and had to come in decent attire and manners.¹⁶

c4.t3.125

¹⁴ J., II, pp. 2, 427; IV, p. 370.

c4.t3.126

¹⁵ J., I, pp. 350, 357 etc.

c4.t3.127

¹⁶ J., IV, p. 393; V, p. 482 etc.

c4.t3.128

WHILE OUT. While absent from the capital, the king handed over the charge of government to the ministers—whether as a whole or to particular individuals we have no clear proof.¹⁷ Royal seals (rājamuddikā) seem to have been in vogue apparently for purposes of sealing letters or parcels sent to state-officers.¹⁸

Linked texts (3)

Jātaka — Pāli
Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Gautamadharmasūtra — Gautama (dharmasūtrakāra), Sanskrit