Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t13: Winternitz, 1921-24

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t13

Language
English

Winternitz, 1921-24

c11.s1.t13.1

In the third volume of his *Geschichte der Indischen Literatur* (Leipzig, 1921), M. Winternitz devoted a lengthy discussion to the Kauṭalya question (pp. 504-524). In Jolly’s case we know that he at first (1912) believed in the authenticity but began to doubt it in 1914. But in Winternitz’s case there was no question of a change. His very first impression which appears to be recorded in this chapter of his *Geschichte* was against the Indian tradition in every way. In his judgment the work was not the work of an individual and of course not of the minister of Chandragupta. Besides, it was not much older than the *Tantrākhyāyikā* which was considered to belong to the fourth century after Christ (p. 523).

c11.s1.t13.2

In April 1924 he wrote a paper in English on “Kauṭilya *Arthaśāstra*” for the *Calcutta Review*. This was virtually a translation of the German chapter in the *Geschichte*. In that chapter (p. 519) he had simply referred to Stein’s article on “Megasthenes und Kauṭilya” in the *Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften* (Vienna, 1921). But in the meantime Stein’s book came out (1922) and so in Winternitz’s article for the *Calcutta Review* Stein could loom large.

c11.s1.t13.3

Winternitz’s position in the *Calcutta Review* as in the *Geschichte* is as follows: “It would be a precious work,” said he, “even if it were not older than the seventh century A.D. when we find it actually quoted by Dandin. But it would be perfectly invaluable if it really were, as it pretends to be, the work of the minister of Maurya Chandragupta and would thus belong to the fourth century B.C.”

c11.s1.t13.4

It is worth while to recall that Jolly's ideas against the Mauryan antiquity of the *Arthaśāstra* were rendered available in a final form in English in the introduction to his and Schmidt's edition of the text (Lahore, Vol. I. 1923).

c11.s1.t13.5

As in the case of Jolly, the special feature consisted in the incorporation by Winternitz in his paper of all that his pupil Stein in his *Megasthenes und Kauṭilya* (1922) had unearthed presumably against the synchronism of the *Indika* and the *Arthaśāstra*. With this paper of Winternitz's as well as Jolly's introduction to the Lahore edition (1923), then, the controversy over the Kauṭalya question acquired a fresh lease of life.

c11.s1.t13.6

In my way of looking at things, as has been often pointed out, there should not be any difficulty in agreeing with Winternitz that in the *Arthaśāstra* we find "exactly the same predilection for endless and pedantic classifications and definitions as in other scientific works composed by Paṇḍits." No body can overlook the "quibblings" and hair-splitting discussions that mark the book as in the Sākyan (Buddhist) treatises on the *Nikāyas*, for instance.

c11.s1.t13.7

But Winternitz is not right when he maintains that this method of classifying "certainly looks more like the work of Paṇḍits than of a statesman." First, there is no earthly reason why a writer on economics, politics, or international law who is very objective, realistic, endowed with common sense and is interested in the quantitative and statistical aspects of the social sciences should not care to follow the methodology of scientific analysis and literary compositions as prevalent in the academies and universities of his' fatherland. It is a standing joke, for example, in French academic and Anglo-American literary circles that German authors, no matter what their profession or subject of research, must inevitably bring in the terms, "subjective" and "objective," etc. into their discussions.

c11.s1.t13.8

Secondly, there is a subtle assumption in Winternitz's statements to the effect that a Paṇḍit cannot be a statesman or that a statesman cannot be a Paṇḍit. Now this is utterly untenable as an item of human personality, in the East or the West, in classical antiquity or in modern conditions.

c11.s1.t13.9

From the inscriptions of the Pāla Dynasty of Bengal we are aware that Darbhapāṇi was a Paṇḍit as well as a Premier. One can perhaps cite instances from every royal dynasty in India.

c11.s1.t13.10

The *pièce de resistance* in Winternitz's paper as in Jolly's recent arguments is furnished by Stein's conclusions in *Megasthenes und Kauṭilya*. They have already been discussed at the proper place. But one item calls for a special notice. "It is of great importance," says Winternitz, "that Kauṭilya among the different kinds of gold mentions artificial gold made from other metals by chemical process in which mercury is used." And "even P. C. Ray in his excellent history of Indian Chemistry who believes that alchemy is indigenous in India cannot trace it (the use of mercury) any further back than the earliest Tantric text in the fifth or sixth century A.C. In the medical works mercury is mentioned only once in Charaka's treatise, once in the Bower manuscript (fourth century A.D.), and twice in the *Suśruta*. It is entirely unknown in earlier literature." Winternitz concludes, therefore, as follows:—"I am inclined to think that this chapter on minerals is a strong proof of the later origin of the *Arthaśāstra*.''

c11.s1.t13.11

Perhaps, another scholar would be equally entitled to conclude in the opposite manner, namely, "I am inclined to think that this chapter on minerals represents an older landmark for Hindu chemistry than what is yet known."

c11.s1.t13.12

Incidentally, it is very curious that Ray, whose literary sources, i.e., references to the Ayurvedic, Tantric and other passages are but borrowings from what indologists have said, should be conveniently quoted by Winternitz, author of the standard German history of Indian Literature, as an authority on dates of Sanskrit texts.

c11.s1.t13.13

Should the use of mercury be actually known to the *Arthaśāstra*, this treatise ought to be regarded as a new document in the history of Hindu chemistry. But unless strong proof be forthcoming, nobody can be compelled to regard this new discovery as not older than the oldest known documents.

c11.s1.t13.14

Winternitz concedes to Jacobi that Kauṭalya perhaps had officials of different departments as collaborators. But it must be observed, that this ought to be conceded only when one accepted that the author of the *Arthaśāstra* was Chāṇakya the minister. Be this as it may, in regard to Kauṭalya's dependence on others for specialized branches of knowledge one need not quarrel with Winternitz when he believes in the existence of special treatises on architecture, metallurgy, military science etc. in Kauṭalya's time and in the incorporation by him of some of that material in the *Arthaśāstra*.

c11.s1.t13.15

But it is very important to observe that Winternitz has not been able to argue logically in favour of his thesis that "it is at least not very probable that such a highly developed technical literature existed in or before the fourth century B.C." Winternitz's argument here, should there be any, is of the same kind as Jolly's as remarked on in a previous context. Both seem to say, "well, I have been dealing with all this literary stuff of ancient India for more than a generation. Up till now the oldest Hindu texts were not older than the seventh, sixth, fifth, or fourth century A.C. Is it probable that this upstart creature, Kauṭalya, should compel us all at once to revise our conceptions of Indian literary chronology by being declared to be a man of the fourth century B.C.?" Neither Jolly nor Winternitz has been able to produce a single argument to prove why a newly discovered document cannot be older than what they have all along known to be the oldest. Neither has yet been able to demonstrate that what are now discovered to be rather highly advanced, complicated or developed conditions could not by any means be placed within Indian boundaries in centuries before the Christian era.

c11.s1.t13.16

Finally, it is reasonable to agree with Winternitz about the Machiavellian elements in the *Arthaśāstra*. On this point Indian scholars are as a rule very touchy. The subject has been dealt with at length in the other contexts.¹

c11.s1.t13.17

¹ B. K. Sarkar: *The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus* (Leipzig, 1922); "Hindu Politics in Italian" (IHQ., 1925-26), "On some Methods and Conclusions in Hindu Politics" (IHQ., 1926-27).

c11.s1.t13.18

Winternitz's paper on "*Dharmaśāstra* and *Arthaśāstra*" (1926-28)² seeks to give some tentative conclusion about the relations between the *Arthaśāstra* and the *Dharmaśāstra* on the result of a comparative analysis of important contents. In certain topics both these classes of literature can be traced back to the Vedic sources. But in certain topics which belong as a matter of course to the domain of *Dharmaśāstra* Kauṭalya has borrowed from the oldest *Dharma* books. On the other hand, in those topics which belong to the *Arthaśāstra* Kauṭalya is the authority and has been drawn upon by later *Dharma* books (e.g. Viṣṇu, Manu and Yājnavalkya). This is a substantial study and may throw light on the Kauṭalya question.

c11.s1.t13.19

² *Sir Ashutosh Memorial Volume* (Patna) pp. 47-48.

c11.s1.t13.20

Hopkins, 1922

c11.s1.t13.21

Describing the growth of law and legal institutions in ancient India the American indologist E. W. Hopkins says in the *Cambridge History of India*¹ that the *Arthaśāstra* "may date from about 300 B.C." He is not sure, however, as to whether "it is indisputable that this work belonged to the third or fourth century B.C." For the present, he considers it advisable to deal with the *Arthaśāstra* as with the *Jātakas*. That is, it is not advisable to accept *all* its rules as belonging to the time assigned to the work as a whole i.e. to c 400 B.C. Hopkins's footnote indicates that he was influenced by Jacobi's two papers. A cross reference indicates that about the date Hopkins (or perhaps the general editor, E. J. Rapson) is in agreement with Thomas who contributes the chapter on the Maurya institutions.

c11.s1.t13.22

¹ Vol. I. (1922), pp. 294-295.

c11.s1.t13.23

Hopkins therefore accepted the Indian tradition. And this acceptance leads him also to make the statement that the *Kauṭilīya* is "a manual of rules imposed by a practical statesman." In his judgment it is "impossible to suppose that the conditions it depicts are imaginary."

c11.s1.t13.24

According to Hopkins Manu represents a "state conceived as a smaller kingdom" whereas Kauṭalya's purview is "not only more exhaustive but wider."

c11.s1.t13.25

Pargiter, 1922

c11.s1.t13.26

Without much discussion Pargiter¹ takes Kauṭalya for the fourth century B.C.

c11.s1.t13.27

¹ *Ancient Indian Historical Tradition* (London, 1922), p. 54.

c11.s1.t13.28

Charpentier, 1922

c11.s1.t13.29

Writing on the history of the Jains in the *Cambridge History of India* Vol. I. (1922, pp. 151, 164) the Swedish scholar Jarl Charpentier takes the traditional view. He speaks of the *Arthaśāstra* or Manual of Politics which may possibly be the real work of Chāṇakya or Kauṭilya and therefore written about 300 B.C." Chāṇakya is described by him as the "great statesman" with whose "aid" the last of the Nandas was dethroned by Chandragupta the founder of the Maurya dynasty.

Cites (11)