Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t30: Fourth Century B.C.

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t30

Language
English

Fourth Century B.C.

c11.s1.t30.1

Meyer has no objection to believing in the existence of a long tradition of political and technical literature in India previous to the *Arthaśāstra*. But according to him this does not necessarily lead to Winternitz's conclusion that the "fourth century before Christ is at least not probable." Rather, says Meyer, "it cannot be proved and even sounds very unbelievable that in that period the Indians did not possess a very extensive political and economic science."

c11.s1.t30.2

*Arthaśāstra not younger than Dharmaśāstra*

c11.s1.t30.3

In order to prove that the *Arthaśāstra* as a branch of literature is a comparatively late production, Jolly considers it to have been preceded by the *Dharmaśāstra*, and to have arisen as a branch of the latter. This attitude is wrong, says Meyer, who believes that *Dharmaśāstra* is of late growth. In Meyer's judgment the origin of ancient Indian law is not all to be traced to the Brāhmaṇas. The origins even of the religious or "priestly laws" are not to be found in the *Dharmaśāstra* literature. Their "later development" alone can be seen in it. And as for the worldly or secular laws, they arose entirely among other (than Brāhmaṇa) classes of the people and first cultivated by them.

c11.s1.t30.4

The two categories of law are fundamentally opposed to each other, but the secular laws have been later incorporated in and assimilated with the Brāhmaṇic-religious or shamanic-magical laws. The Brāhmaṇizing proceeded very energetically. Even the *Arthaśāstra* was in danger of losing its independent existence and being swallowed up in the *Smritiśāstra*. But the attempts of the Brāhmaṇas have been crowned only with partial success. Meyer's thesis is fully developed in the book, *Ueber das Wesen der altindischen Rechtsschriften und ihr Verhältniss zu einander und zu Kauṭilya* (On the nature of ancient Indian law books and their relations with one another and with Kauṭilya), a work of some 450 pages. That book should really be described as the main introduction to this translation.

c11.s1.t30.5

Meyer comes to the conclusion that the "secular laws" of ancient India had a secular origin. The "more secular" *Arthaśāstra*, i.e., politics as science, however, came to have a "priestly" origin. The authors of this class of literature were mainly Brāhmaṇas.

c11.s1.t30.6

This, however, is not tantamount to saying that the *Arthaśāstra* was originally a branch of *Dharmaśāstra*. Exactly opposite is the relation between the two branches of literature. According to Meyer *Arthaśāstra* was at first a science by itself. The later Brāhmaṇical *Dharmaśāstras* have attempted to annex it to themselves, of course, in the eclectic manner of dilettantes. Such dilettantes are Viṣṇu, Gautama, and especially Manu and Yājnavalkya, who attempted encyclopaedic treatises on the entire magical, religious and civil laws as well as moral welfare. And of course they could not afford to neglect the *rājadharma*.

c11.s1.t30.7

*Arthaśāstra not condemned by the Ṛṣis*

c11.s1.t30.8

Jolly believes that the topics of the *Arthaśāstra* were held as "wicked" by the Brāhmaṇical Ṛṣis. Meyer holds the contrary view. One or two persons may have indulged in such sensitiveness. But for a genuine ancient Indian, i.e., an Indian used to the philosophy of the famous *trivarga*, "it would not have been possible even to dream of condemning the *Arthaśāstra*." With all its ferocities and crookednesses this *śāstra* was in Indian sentiment as important and even as holy as the "sacred" *Dharmaśāstra*. The civic laws arose as a rule out of the folk-consciousness, the consciousness of the masses. The laws and the customs of the local groups, castes, industrial and religious communities, families and tribes are declared by the *Dharmaśāstras* to constitute the foundations of these laws. Naturally, these must have been collected and put together, although not of course in their entirety, long before the *Dharmaśāstras*.

Cites (7)