Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t4: Jacobi, 1911-12

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t4

Language
English

Jacobi, 1911-12

c11.s1.t4.1

In order to vindicate the Indian tradition that the *Arthaśāstra* is the work of Kauṭalya, the "famous minister of Chandragupta," Hermann Jacobi read a paper entitled *Ueber die Echtheit des Kauṭilīya* at the Königliche Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften (K.P.A.W.), Berlin, in 1912 (July 18).¹

c11.s1.t4.2

¹ See the *Sitzungsberichte* of this Academy 1912, pp. 833-834, 836, 848-849. This is available in English transl. (by V. S. Sukthankar) in the *Indian Antiquary* (Bombay) for June-July 1918.

c11.s1.t4.3

The very first item in Jacobi's paper deals with the expressions *iti Kauṭilyah* and *neti Kauṭilyah*. He speaks of the 72 cases² of such reference to Kauṭilya himself in the third person in the body of the *Arthaśāstra*. In 1908 Hillebrandt had raised the suspicion against the unitary authorship attributed to Kauṭalya. That position is challenged by Jacobi.

c11.s1.t4.4

² *S.K.P.A.W.* pp. 832, 837.

c11.s1.t4.5

First, he quotes the view expressed in Shamasastry's introduction to the text (1909) as to the alleged usual practice of ancient Indian authors.

c11.s1.t4.6

Jacobi's own argument is as follows: The *Arthaśāstra* mentions authorities 114 times. It is unthinkable, says he, that the opponents of Kauṭalya should have been called *āchāryas* by the school to whom Kauṭalya was the only *āchārya*. On the other hand, the very fact that disagreements are so often referred to is alleged to indicate the authorship by an individual of extremely critical tendency. It is clear, however, that Jacobi did not present a front attack to the problem involved in *iti Kauṭilyah*.

c11.s1.t4.7

Hillebrandt's position that the *Arthaśāstra* was the work of Kauṭalya's school and not of Kauṭalya himself was challenged by Jacobi. According to Jacobi it is hardly thinkable that Kauṭalya should have been the "founder of an 'academic school'" (*Gründer einer Gelehrtenschule*). He is prepared to believe that the Imperial Chancellor Kauṭalya "made a school," as one may say about Bismarck, "among the statesmen and diplomats" of his time. But it is difficult to believe that Kauṭalya should have established a "school for scholars."

c11.s1.t4.8

Jacobi cannot conceive the “Indian Bismarck” to have functioned like an “ordinary Paṇḍit” as a teacher of *Arthaśāstra* to the pupils around him. On the contrary, it fits in well with the character of a “great statesman” and a ruler of the state, says Jacobi, that just as Frederick the Great did, Kauṭalya should have dealt with his life’s profession or a part of it in a theoretical manner. If, then, there were a school it could have come into existence not from Kauṭalya the person but from his book. In Jacobi’s analysis it is the school that owed its existence to the book and not the book to the school. In this instance the “school”, said he, is to be understood in two senses : (1) as a series of teachers and pupils and (2) the entire body of adherents to the Kauṭalyan doctrines.

c11.s1.t4.9

Jacobi was also convinced that the book as the work of an individual did not suffer from interpolation to which as a rule works of a school are subject. And since the number of chapters along with the topics discussed was indicated by the author himself the text could not be considerably expanded by subsequent copyists. As to whether curtailments were effected would have to be ascertained by a critical examination of the text, said he.

c11.s1.t4.10

On the Kauṭalya-complex Jacobi had another, previous paper. His lecture in 1911 at the K.P.A.W. (Berlin)³ was entitled *Kultur—Sprach—und Literarhistorisches aus dem Kauṭilīya* and dealt with the cultural, linguistic and literary-historical data of the *Arthaśāstra*. There, among other things, he pointed out the discrepancies between the *Arthaśāstra* and the *Kāmandakī*. It is clear according to him that although Kauṭalya has been honoured as the *guru* by the author of the *Kāmandakī* (II. 6), the latter derived his materials from other authorities as well. The *Kāmandakī nīti* is based not on Kauṭalya alone but on *rājavidyā-vidām matam*, i.e., the doctrines of those versed in the science of kings. Thus considered, the existence of a special school alleged to have been established by Kauṭalya is considered by Jacobi to be very questionable.

c11.s1.t4.11

³ *Sitzungsberichte der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften* (Berlin) 1911, p. 642. This is available in English transl. (by N. P. Utgikar) in the *Indian Antiquary* (Bombay 1924).

c11.s1.t4.12

To this position of Jacobi's a reply was presented by Hillebrandt in “Zu Kauṭilya” published in the *Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft* (Leipzig 1915) where the latter sought to maintain his original thesis.

Cites (2)