Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A Concise History of Science in India c5.s5: The Arthaśāstra, the Nītiśāstra and Related Arts and Sciences

A Concise History of Science in India c5.s5

Language
English

Contents

The Arthaśāstra, the Nītiśāstra and Related Arts and Sciences

c5.s5.1

By the term the *arthaśāstra* is meant the 'science of interests', and as such it includes within its purview all doctrines and manuals which concern the practical aspects of life, e.g. economics, administration, various arts, crafts and techniques, and politics. Nevertheless, the central theme of *arthaśāstra* is politics, which is also treated in a number of manuals under the title of *Nītiśāstra*, *Daṇḍanīti*, *Rājanīti* and so on.

c5.s5.2

The origin of the subject may be traced to late Vedic times as is evidenced by the use, in the *Hiraṇyakeśī Gṛhyasūtra*, of the terms *dharma*, *artha* and *kāma* representing the three aims of life. That a separate science of *arthaśāstra* had come into existence as a specialized subject of study is attested by the *Smṛtis* of Manu and Yājñavalkya and by the *Mahābhārata*. According to the epic, Bṛhaspati was the founder of this science of polity and might have composed an *arthaśāstra*, but this cannot be the extant *Bārhaspatya-Arthaśāstra* which is a modern manual.c

c5.s5.3

a Renou and Filliozat, p. 74.

c5.s5.4

b Dasgupta, I, p. 79.

c5.s5.5

c Renou and Filliozat, p. 125; Keith (3), p. 452.

The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya

c5.s5.t1.1

The most important text that we now possess is the *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭilya also known as Viṣṇugupta and by the patronymic name of Cāṇakya. A manuscript of the text with a commentary of a small part was first noticed by R. Shamasastry in 1905 and published by him in 1909 in the *Bibliotheca Sanskrita* of Mysore. In view of the great importance of the text, a number of translations and several scholarly studies appeared in quick succession. The work is in prose *sūtra-bhāṣya* style, abounding in obscure technical words of uncertain meaning. Occasionally verses and sometimes *triṣṭubhs* are used; each chapter ends in a few verses summarizing the main points dealt with therein.

c5.s5.t1.2

The book is divided into 15 *adhikaraṇas* (sections) and 180 *prakaraṇas* (subjects) with a second subdivision into 150 *adhyāyas* (chapters). The length of the text is equivalent to 6,000 *ślokas*. From the point of view of the history of science, special importance attaches to the second *adhikaraṇa*, dealing with the duties of government superintendents. Thus there are superintendents who should be able to differentiate between superior and inferior gems of which detailed scientific descriptions are given (chapter xi). Mining and metallurgical operations involve the supervision of several types of superintendents specialized in mining, metallurgy, minting coins, ocean mining, salt manufacture, etc. (chapter xii). The chapter xii contains much useful information about chemical practices. The chapters xiii and xiv dealing with the duties of the superintendent of gold in goldsmiths' office and state goldsmith contain information on the setting of jewels or glass beads in gold, manufacture of beads with round orifice, making of gold alloys with varying proportions of copper and silver, gold assaying, various methods practised in the adulteration of gold and silver and related matters. Characteristics of good and false balances used in goldsmiths' work are described. In chapter xvii, various kinds of trees constituting the forest wealth are mentioned, giving some information on medicinal plants. A detailed discussion of weights and measures and measurement of space and time with astronomical titbits form the subject-matter of chapters xix and xx. Chapter xxiv is full of interest from the point of view of agricultural practices followed in the time of Kauṭilya. Cattle-rearing, animal husbandry, detailed information on horses and elephants, including their upkeep and uses in war and peace, are described in chapters xxix, xxx, xxxi and xxxii. Classification of land, agricultural meteorology, public health and sanitation and several matters of scientific and technical interest also characterize this unique ancient text. By going through the book, a modern reader will get the impression that science and technology received the fullest possible attention and utilization, through the establishment of several government departments charged with one or many technical subjects, for effectively running the governmental administration. Will it be an exaggeration to say that some kind of a science policy existed in India during the time of the *arthaśāstras*?

c5.s5.t1.3

Scholarly opinion is divided on the question of the date of Kauṭilya's *Arthaśāstra*. Shamasastry adduced several arguments to prove that Kauṭilya alias Viṣṇugupta alias Cāṇakya, minister of Candragupta, was the genuine author of the *Arthaśāstra*, we now have it, which was accordingly written between 321 and 300 B.C. Jacobi, Meyer, of mensuration) dating from the sixth or seventh century a.d., which has something of the spirit of Vitruvius.a Bhojadeva's *Samarāṅgaṇasūtra-dhāra* (eleventh century a.d.) is another architectural work which gives besides details of several machines. Some passages give us the impression of the existence of an aeronautical science which is probably the result more of imaginary thinking than of serious scientific investigations. To this class of literature belongs the *Yantrasarvasya Yantra*, also of the eleventh century, which has a chapter on *vaimānika prakaraṇa*.b

c5.s5.t1.4

The third aim of life, the fulfilment of *kāma* (love), formed the subject of serious studies in ancient India, of which the most important text that has come down to us is the *Kāmasūtra* (aphorisms on love) of Vātsyāyana Mallanāga of uncertain date. The work is referred to in Kālidāsa's *Raghuvaṃśa* and *Kumārasambhava*, Varāhamihira's *Bṛhatsaṃhitā* and by Bhavabhuti, Subandhu, Māgha and others. These facts, coupled with archaic *sūtra-bhāṣya* style of the *Arthaśāstra* followed in this work, have led Winternitz to suggest its date as the fourth century a.d., while Keith considers a.d. 500 as reasonable.

Cites (12)