Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t1: Smith, 1908

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t1

Language
English

Smith, 1908

c11.s1.t1.1

The *Arthaśāstra* was naturally unknown in the first edition (1904) of Vincent Smith’s *Early History of India* (Oxford). The Maurya institutions in this work were described chiefly or rather exclusively on the strength of the *Indika* of Megasthenes. In the second edition (1908, pp. 134-136) Smith preserved the material of the first but added three or four footnotes inviting attention to Shamasastry’s paper in the *Indian Antiquary* (1905) as well as translation appearing in the *Mysore Review* since 1907. Besides, he felt that the Greek descriptions had remained “practically uncorroborated when the first edition was published.” So he made it a point to supplement his old account of 1904 with passages from the *Arthaśāstra* in order to throw “much additional light on the matters briefly treated by Megasthenes and his fellow authors.”

c11.s1.t1.2

At this point Smith's attitude to Kauṭalya may be seen from the following extract. "Whoever its author may have been," says he, "that curious work undoubtedly is proved by both external and internal evidence to be of early date. The substance of the precepts and regulations has an extremely archaic aspect, and in my judgment, the polity described is mainly that of the Maurya age. The treatise in fact may be read as a commentary on, and exposition of the notes recorded by the Greek observers." He used it really as something by which the Greek accounts could be corroborated. He was not touched by the Megasthenes *vs.* Kauṭalya problem.

c11.s1.t1.3

The *Kauṭalīya Arthaśāstra* was described by Smith as "Chāṇakya's Art of Government." It was also treated as a work on the "principles and methods of government in ancient India." He considered many of the rules to be puerile or merely theoretical." "On the whole," the document was appraised as "evidently" a "presentation of the facts of actual practice made in the peculiar literary form affected by the Hindu writers of text-books."

c11.s1.t1.4

According to Smith, the suggestions of Kauṭalya concerning the "methods by which a necessitous monarch might extort money were of Machiavellian wickedness."

c11.s1.t1.5

The third edition was published in 1914. But for the present it is necessary to observe that it was the second edition that influenced indology not only in India but also in Germany.

c11.s1.t1.6

Hillebrandt, 1908

c11.s1.t1.7

In 1908 (July 16) lecturing at the Orientalisch-Sprachwissenschaftliche Section of the Sächsische Gesellschaft für Vaterländische Culture (Breslau) on the subject entitled "*Ueber das Kauṭilīyaśastra und Verwandtes*"¹ (On the Kauṭilīyaśastra and Allied Topics) Alfred Hillebrandt began as follows: "At the head of Indian politics stands Chāṇakya also called Viṣṇugupta with the patronymic title Kauṭilya or Kauṭalya, a descendant of Kauṭala."

c11.s1.t1.8

¹ The lecture is to be found in the 86th *Jahresbericht* (Annual Report) of the Gesellschaft.

c11.s1.t1.9

It is interesting to observe *en passant* that the name Kauṭalya was known in Germany already in 1908 (cf. Shamasastry 1905). According to Hillebrandt, Kauṭalya's name was first used by Wilson in 1883 in connection with a citation from the *Daśakumāracharita* where it is said that Kauṭilya composed a *Daṇḍanīti* in 600 *ślokas* for the Mauryas. The annihilation of the Nanda Dynasty and the elevation of Chandragupta to the throne were remembered as Chāṇakya's achievements for a long time in the Indian tradition. *Panchatantra* (III. v. 138, V, v, 47), *Hitopadeśa* (III, 58), *Kāmandakī Nīti* (I. i, 4), *Viṣṇu-Purāṇa* (IV. 24), *Kathāsaritsāgara* (V. 108) and Hemachandra's *Pariśiṣṭa parvan* (VIII. 193) were cited by Hillebrandt as evidences of the Kauṭalyan tradition in Hindu thought.

c11.s1.t1.10

"The entire Indian tradition left no room for doubt as to the existence of a textbook by Kauṭilya," said Hillebrandt; "A *darśana* of politics is mentioned in the *Kāmandakī* (I. 7) and the commentary calls it *Kauṭalyabhāṣya*. In *Kādambarī* also (ed. Peterson, p. 109, 4) the expression *Kauṭilyaśāstra* is found."

c11.s1.t1.11

In modern times the existence of a "work at least partly in prose on a now lost *Śāstra*" about *Rājanīti* (politics) was first suspected by Zachariae in 1883 in his *Beiträge zur Indischen Lexikographie* (p. 43), said Hillebrandt. Quotations from Kauṭilya (Chāṇakya) had been collected by Aufrecht, Zachariae, and himself.

c11.s1.t1.12

He said further: "The existence of a 'book' *Kauṭilyaśāstram* was also considered by Weber to be very probable. Then came the English translation of a part of the text by Shamasastry in the *Indian Antiquary* of Bombay (1905). The second edition of Smith's *Early History of India* (1908) referred to Shamasastry's English translation in the *Mysore Review* (1907)." But at the time of the lecture the English translation was, as he reported, not known to Hillebrandt.

c11.s1.t1.13

Hillebrandt was about this time editing the *Mudrārākṣasa* and interesting himself in Hindu *nītiśāstra* with a view to writing the introduction. Julius Jolly referred him to the two of his own manuscripts of the *Kauṭalya* or *Kauṭilya Arthaśāstra* preserved in the State Library of Munich. With the examination of these two manuscripts may be said to commence Kauṭalyalogy or the study of the authenticity of Kauṭalya and the entire Kauṭalya-complex.

c11.s1.t1.14

In the same lecture at Breslau Hillebrandt described his method as follows: "If we wish to test whether this work corresponds to the text which is described as Kauṭilīya in our citations, it appears to me necessary," said he, "that we should examine as to whether those passages are to be found in these manuscripts or not." The testing was done by him with regard to 50 passages (18 from Aufrecht, 7 from Zachariae, 23 from the commentary on the *Kāmandakī*, 2 from Mallinātha's commentary on the *Raghuvamśa*).

c11.s1.t1.15

Hillebrandt's conclusion was thus worded; "Of these 50 passages 40 can be found in the manuscript, almost entirely word for word, in part with variants. I cannot say whether the remaining ten have been overlooked by me or perhaps may be found in other texts or, may be, were wrongly ascribed to Kauṭilya. But this large number is enough, I believe, for the demonstration, and it might accordingly be accepted that our manuscripts actually contain the lost textbook of Kauṭilya. With this work, then, the study of Indian *Nīti* is placed on a strong foundation. Zachariae is right in his guess about the existence of such a work."

c11.s1.t1.16

The "authenticity" of the *Arthaśāstra* was thereby established. Hillebrandt discussed also its age. He quoted the opinion of Hertel to the effect that the *Urpanchatantra* (original *Panchatantra*) was probably composed in Chāṇakya's life time, that "wooden temples" were built in those days, that Chāṇakya was described with the honorific title of *Mahat* (high souled or great) even before the gods. In *Mudrārākṣasa* also Chāṇakya's reputation was equally if not more held in honour.

c11.s1.t1.17

The *Kāmandakīnīti* devoted five verses to the glorification of Kauṭalya, the *guru* of the author. "In any case the age of the *Panchatantra* determines," said Hillebrandt, "a correspondingly higher age for the *Arthaśāstra*." He suggested that as soon as the text were available in print a comparison with the data of Megasthenes would not be uninteresting. Finally, be it observed that Hillebrandt was even then convinced that the work was the product of Kauṭalya's school (*entstammt nur seiner Schule*) and that Kauṭalya was not the author throughout. But he did not make a definite pronouncement about the date or the age.

c11.s1.t1.18

Hillebrandt’s position should appear to be strong and reasonable so far as the plural authorship of the *Arthaśāstra* is concerned.

c11.s1.t1.19

Hillebrandt invited attention to certain peculiar features of the text.

c11.s1.t1.20

The references to Kauṭalya are sometimes in the form of posing his views as against those of other named professors of *nīti*. Once in a while direct quotations from Kauṭalya are introduced. On other occasions the *āchāryas* are named in a general manner in order to bring into relief Kauṭalya’s opinions quoted as such.

c11.s1.t1.21

These features would arouse suspicion in anybody’s mind against the Kauṭalyan authorship of the *Kauṭalīya Arthaśāstra*. The suspicion of Hillebrandt cannot be explained away especially as to whether it was a Maurya work.

c11.s1.t1.22

It appeared to him, besides, that the manuscript was not complete.

c11.s1.t1.23

The lecture was published separately also as a brochure and contained two more papers: (1) “*Nīti und Mudrārākṣasa*” and (2) “*Viśākhadatta.*” The brochure contains valuable material such as can be used for a history of Hindu political literature. We have given a somewhat extensive summary of Hillebrandt’s lecture in almost his own words² because the Kauṭalya tradition from the earliest times on has been presented by him in a clear manner.

c11.s1.t1.24

² In the foregoing summary even when quotation marks have been used a literal translation has not been attempted.

Cites (11)