The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t40: Kauṭalya = Tribonian

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t40

Language: English

Kauṭalya = Tribonian

c11.s1.t40.1

One might suspect that the *Arthaśāstra* was perhaps a primer of lessons on politics to be imparted to a young prince.¹⁴ Breloer is emphatically against this view.

'A mere pedagogic instruction of an uneducated king must be regarded as out of the question in the face of the circumstances. The work was not compiled for an uneducated man. Otherwise it would not be so difficult for us today to enter its contents.

c11.s1.t40.4

'Although Kauṭalya himself says that he has presented his material in an easily comprehensible form and, further, that he has prepared his work or certain portions of it for his prince his statements must not be exploited in the interest of a naïve interpretation.

c11.s1.t40.5

So Breloer comes to the position of Jacobi who represented the standpoint that in the *Arthaśāstra* we are dealing with a "document of administrative law, the outline of a Magna-Charta, if not the legislative work of Kaiser Chandragupta, which would raise the Emperor even above the Roman Kaiser Justinian." Both Chandragupta and Justinian contemplated the expansion of their native law to the whole *Weltreich* (world-empire) and the creation of modern law on the basis of the oldest sources. The old codes were collected, a school of scholars studied the material up into a modern work under the direction of a statesman, here Tribonian and there Kauṭalya. So we get the following equations:

c11.s1.t40.6

(1) Chandragupta = Justinian.
(2) Kauṭalya = Tribonian.

c11.s1.t40.7

In so far as the parallels have been pushed back to the "classical" atmosphere, students of political science as well as indology should feel to be placed on more reasonable and solid ground.

c11.s1.t40.8

Kauṭalya's work is described as *corpus juris universalis*, a collection of norms or rules, about which, however, nobody is sure as to whether it had even the power or sanction of law. But it is to be observed, says Breloer rather too naïvely for the fourth decade of the twentieth century, that in India the law-maker was neither the king nor the state but that the sayings of the old sages were interpreted by law-scholars.¹⁵

c11.s1.t40.9

¹⁵ Vol. III, pp. 6-7.

c11.s1.t40.10

Kauṭalya, we are told, did not himself make the norms or rules. He has pointed it out that he prepared a compilation. According to Breloer this implies in Hindu tradition that except where Kauṭalya introduces conflicting opinions (*apavāda*) and makes some criticism his treatise is to be taken as but the survey of general opinion.

c11.s1.t40.11

It is possible to doubt if a single individual compiled this work in its present form and with its sub-divisions. "Even if the authorship of the Iron Chancellor should be taken to be an historical fact,—which there is hardly any substantial reason to doubt (*woran zu zweifeln kaum ein stichhaltiger Grund zu sehen ist*),¹⁶ it is only with the help of many scholars that like Tribonian he could have brought this compilation of laws together." In spite of that or rather just because of this circumstance, says Breloer, "a single powerful hand, an austere tone and a hard mind cannot be overlooked in this work." Kauṭalya's brain is appraised as follows:—"Both in positive as well as in negative items the unbending opinion becomes manifest which quickly and clearly decides and likewise quickly offers the reasons for the decision almost before they are demanded."

c11.s1.t40.12

¹⁶ Vol. III, p. 10.

Cites (1)

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit