14. Arthashastra of Kautilya

Volume I: Part I pp. 149–256

14. Arthashastra of Kautilya

early. Kumārila, who was a most learned and profound stu- dent of the various branches of Sanskrit literature, nowhere mentioned the Mānavadharmasūtra as studied by followers of the Black Yajurveda, though he mentions Baudhāyana and Āpastamba as studied by theṃ He places the Manusmṛti even higher than the Gautamadarmasūtra and betrays no knowledge of the existence of the Mānavadharmasūtra. Viśva- rūpa who is generally identified with Sureśvara, the pupil of Śankara, remarks that the Mānavacaraṇa is not existent ( or found ).¹ The foregoing discussion will, it is hoped, induce every impartial critic to endorse the conclusion that, on the materials so far available, the theory that the Mānavadharmasūtra once existed and that the extant Manusmṛti is a recast of that sūtra must be held not proveḍ

14. The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya

There are three words in ancient Sanskrit Literature that are used very often in the same sense viz. Arthaśāstra, Daṇḍanīti and Rājaśāstra or Rājanīti or Rājanītiśāstra or simply Nītiśāstra. The Mahābhārata descants on Raja- dharma in several _parvans_, as in Sabhā 5 ( the chapter called _kuccit-prasna_ ), Vanaparva 150, Uddyoga ( chap. 33-34 ). In Sabhā 5 one hundred verses occur on Rajanīti; for example, ( verse 41 refers to 18 _tirthas_ ( state dignitaries ) tested by spies ( as in Kauṭ. I. 12. 20 ), verse 47 refers to _amātyas_ beyond the reach of _upadhas_ ( cf. Kauṭ. I. 10. 1 ff ). The Śāntiparva devotes more than 100 chapters to Raja- dharma from chap. 56. Śānti, chap. 58 ( 1-4 ) names² the expounders of Rājaśāstra (Rājaśāstrapraṇetāraḥ), viz. Bṛhaspati, Viśālākṣa, Kāvya, Indra, Pracetasa Manu, Bharadvāja, Gaurasiraṣ Rājanīti is called “Rājyatantra” in the Malila plate of king Dhruvasena II of the year 323 of Valabhī- Gupta era (i. e. 641-42 A. D.) in JOI. (Baroda), vol. X. No. 2 at p. 127. Rājanīti or Nītiśāstra is described as the nectar or quintessence of the ocean of Arthaśāstra in Kāma- nadakiya Nītisāra (I. 6). Kauṭilya himself employs the word Rājanīti in V. 4. 3. Rājanīti (Government and Politics) is dealt with in Dharmaśūtras and smṛtis also (briefly or at length) as in Gaut. Dh. S. (X-XIII), Manu (VII-VIII), Yājñavalkya (I. 309-68 and II. 1-307 ). Dharmaśāstras deal with all aspects of society and therefore they deal with Rājadharma also. Daṇḍanīti is another name for the Śāstra which has to be considereḍ Daṇḍa literally means ‘a stick or staff’ of a tree for driving cattle (vide Rg. VII. 33. 6 ) but it came to mean also ‘the power of control and punishment’ i. e. it conveys the power of the king or supreme ruler called ‘Daṇḍadhara’ or ‘Daṇḍadhāra’ to dispense justice and to punish wrong-doerṣ The Gaut.¹ Dh. S. (XI. 28 ) states that the word ‘Daṇḍa’ conveys the idea of controlling (or suppressing) and (the king should keep under control (or suppress) those who do not control themselves i. e. Daṇḍanīti is the science of Government. Kauṭilya refers to it in the Arthaśāstra I. 3-4. The Sānti- parva (in 59. 78) gives the derivation of the word ‘Daṇḍa-nīti’ (as ‘Daṇḍena nīyate cedam daṇḍam daṇḍnītir-iti khyātā trīn lokān—abhivartate’) and advises the king to be always ready with the rod of punishment. Manu has a grand apotheosis of ‘Daṇḍa’ (in VII. 14–31), some of the verses occurring in the Matsyapurāṇa chap. 225. The Daśakumāracarita (VIII) narrates that king Ananta-varmā, though endowed with all good qualities, did not feel much interest in Daṇḍanīti and states that ācārya Viṣṇugupta prepared a compendium of it for the Maurya (King). Here the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya is called Daṇḍanīti. The Niti-sāra of Kāmandaka also follows (in II. 15) Gaut. Dh. S. in deriving the word duṇḍu, says that the power of punish-ment is vested in the king and that the rules that guide the king are called ‘Daṇḍanīti’.⁵ This means that the main purpose and province of Daṇḍanīti is to set out the functions of the State and deal with the administration of its different organṣ

Arthaśāstra literally means the scinece of artha. Artha is one of the four puruṣārthas (Dharma, Artha, Kāma and Mokṣa). Manu (II. 224) refers to different views on the respective eminence of these. The Mahābhārata and the Smṛtis were well aware of the great part that artha (material well-being, wealth) played in men’s liveṣ Wealth depended on land and labour. The Mahābhāṣya remarks “a country is called ‘arthavān’ which has cows and crops” (arthavān~ ayam deśa ucyate yasmin gāvaḥ sasyāni ca vartante) on Vārtika 4 in Pāṇ. V. 2. 135 (Kielhorn’s eḍ Vol. II. p. 40). The Droṇaparva (7. 1) speaks of Mānavi Arthavidyā and Vanaparva (35. 21) states that Manu declared Rājadharmaṣ Unless there existed some authority that regulated the people and their doings there would have been chaos and no security. Hence the ruler or the king was the most important institution in society and rules for the king’s guidance were called Rājadharma or Rājanīti. Arthaśāstra therefore came to be identified with Rājanītiśāstra (or simply Nītiśāstra). A special name (viz. Vārtā) was given to the three viz. agriculture, rearing cattle, trade and commerce (vāṇijya) including various artṣ Vide Sabhāparva 5. 83, Vanaparva 150. 30-31, Śāntiparva 59. 33, 68. 35, 268. 3. The epic says ‘Vārtāmūlo hyayam lokastrai yyā vai dhāryate sadā’ ( Śānti 68. 35 ). The Rāmāyaṇa also ( II. 100. 47 ) says ‘this world when it resorts to Vārtā prospers happily ( vārtāyām saṁśritastāta lokoyam sukham-edhate )’. Kauṭilya makes it clear that Arthaśāstra and Vārtā were distinct and yet Vārtā was a subject of study for the king; it was one of the three or four Rājavīdyās ( vide Arthaśāstra I. 4. 4, Manu VII. 43 ). Arthaśāstra in its technical sense is somewhat wider in meaning than Daṇḍanīti and includes politics, economics, law and justice, but was narrower in scope than Dharma- śāstra. It was said to be an Upaveda of the Atharvaveda, according to the Viṣṇupurāṇa¹ III. 6. 28, Vāyu 61. 79 and Brahmāṇḍa 35. 88-89. It is therefore stated by Yāj. ( II. 21 ) that in case of conflict between Dharmaśāstra and Arthaśāstra the former is stronger. The Mit. on Yāj. makes this clear ( vide note below ).¹ Mr. Ramakrishna Kavi first contributed a paper to J. V. O. I. (Tirupati ) Vol. I. pp. 79-89 on Cākṣusiya Artha- śāstra and in Vol. III. ( pp. 99-116 ) published the text of that work in four patalas. In J. V. O. I. Vol. IV he con- tributed an Introduction ( pp. 123-128 ) and notes on the sūtras ( pp. 129-140 and in Vol. VI. pp. 129-140 ). The text of Cākṣuṣīya begins with a verse saying that it is possible for a single man ( or in one birth ) following the path of Nītiśāstra to conquer the earth ‘provided he has the necessary effort ( or determination )’. The first sūtra is ‘Now then I shall expound Arthaśāstra which is the means of accomplishing the goals of human existence’. Then in 67 sūtras it enumerates the topics of Arthaśāstra and covers almost the same topics as are found in Kauṭilya’s Artha- śāstra. A few sūtras ( which are all brief ) may be set out here by way of sample. ( 1 ) Sapta prakṛtayaḥ; ( 2 ) Sapta- vidhā pravṛttiḥ; ( 3 ) Sapta vyasanāni; ( 5 ) tisro vidyāḥ; ( 9 ) Ṣaṭ-triṃsatguṇo rājā; ( 10 ) Pañcaviṁśatiguṇośmātyaḥ; ( 11 ) Ṣaḍviṁśatiguṇaḥ senāpatiriti; and so oṇ The last sūtra is ‘Dvidvidha ācāra iti tadyathā-daivo mānuṣaśceti’. The 2nd paṭala begins; ‘atha sūtrārtham vartayisyāmaḥ’ (we shall comment on the meaning of the sūtras).

Mr. Kavi (Vol. I. pp. 84 ff), relying on the name Cākṣuṣīya (Cākṣuṣa was one of the first seven Manus acc. to Manusmṛti I. 62) and the close correspondence of certain sūtras of the Cākṣuṣīya with the sūtras in Arthaśāstra, holds that Kauṭilya borrows from the Cākṣuṣīya (p. 82 of J. V. O. I. Vol. I). This is quite wrong. The reality is just the opposite of thiṣ It is ridiculouous to hold that the erudite author of the Arthaśāstra had to borrow from a small beginner’s primer for his work of vast extent. Besides, the extant Kauṭilya quotes several individual predecessors such as Kauṇapadanta, Piśuna, Bāhudantiputra, Bhāradvāja (and once Kāṇiṇka Bh. ), Vātavyādhi and Viśālākṣa and a few Patyas and Mānavas, but nowhere mentions the Cākṣuṣīya. Moreover, while the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya or Cāṇakya or Viṣṇugupta is expressly named or quoted or referred to by numerous writers and works from at least the 3rd century A. D., such as the Tantrākhyāyikā, the Kāmasūtra, Kāmāndakīyanītisāra, the Pañcatantra, Bāṇa, Daṇḍin, the Mudrārākṣasa, hardly any writer or work of the centuries from the 3rd to the 8th has been shown to have mentioned the Cākṣuṣīya. Some verses are quoted from the Cākṣuṣīya Arthaśāstra in an anthology called Sūktiratnākara (vide J. B. O. R. S. Vol. XI. pp. 81-84). Mr. Ramkrishna Kavi (in J. V. O. I. Vol. IV. p. 123) says that thirteen verses are quoted from Cākṣuṣīya in Sūktiratnākara, of which only eight are found in the msṣ used by hiṃ

This short primer for beginners in Arthaśāstra quotes a verse, a prose passage and sometimes several verses on most of the sūtras (except on sūtras 36, 38, 43, 45, 51, 52, 55–64). The verses are often preceded by such words as ‘atra ślokāḥ’, thereby intimating that they are quotations from some other work or works; for example, on II. 2 it quotes nine verses which either closely agree with Manu or state the same ideas in similar words viz. Manu IX. 303–11; on II. 3 it says ‘atra ślokāḥ,’ which closely agree with the extant Manu VII. 50–51. On II, 21 the Cākṣuṣīya sets out a prose passage and then a verse which is the same as Manu, (VIII. 26 'ākārāir- iṅgitair-gatyā ... ... ... manaḥ'). On II. 4 it quotes four verses, one of which has the half verse ‘yadenam kṣamāyā yuktam-aśaktam manyate janaḥ’ (which is Udyogaparva 33, 48 and Śānti. 160. 34 ). It is remarkable that at the end of the 2nd patala (on sūtra 24 ) it has a verse in Sragdharā metre. Mr. Kavi states that only one verse in the Cākṣuṣīya (IV. 64, that has nine verses in it ) occurs in Manu (VII. 105 ) but, as shown above, the Cākṣuṣīya quotes (on II. 21) Manu VIII. 26 and adapts several other verses of the Manu- smṛti with slight changeṣ

The publication of the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya was a great event and this work will have an abiding interest and value for all time. Dr. Jolly in his Introduction to his edition of the work described it as ‘perhaps the most precious work in the whole range of Sanskrit Literature’ (p. 1).

It was first published in 1909 by Dr. R. Shama Sastri in the Mysore Sanskrit Serieṣ In 1915 he published an English translation of the whole with an Introductory note by Dr. J. F. Fleet and a Preface dealing with its authenticity and age. Revised editions of the text were published by him in 1919 and 1924 and his son published an edition of the text and translation in 1951. Another edition (in two parts) by Dr. Jolly and Dr. R. Schmidt was published in 1923 by Messrs Motilal Banarasidas of Lahore with an English Intro- duction of 47 pages and (Vol. II) with notes and a Sanskrit commentary called Nayacandrikā by Mādhavayajvan on a large part of the text (i. e. from adhikaraṇa VII to XII). M. M. T. Ganapati Sastri published the Arthaśāstra with his own commentary called Śrīmūla in 1924 in three partṣ Recently Prof. R. P. Kangle edited the text prepared from all the available msṣ material and the University of Bombay published it as the first volume of the text with a glossary (in 1960) and a second volume with an English translation and explanatory notes was published in 1963 and a third volume containing a study of the Arthaśāstra will soon follow. In this revised edition of the first volume of the H. of Dh. Prof. R. P. Kangle's edition of the text published in 1960 has been useḍ

No complete commentary on the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya has yet been discovereḍ The commentaries so far discovered are fragmentary. They are as follows: (1) The Coṃ called Pratipadapañcikā of Bhaṭṭa-svāmin on the 2nd Adhikaraṇa from the 8th Adhyāya to the 36th Adhyāya published in J. B. O. R. S. Vol. XI and XII in all 214 pageṣ ( 2 ) The Nayacandrikā of Mādhava-yajvan published in Dr. Jolly's edition of the Arthaśāstra ( 1923 ), with an Introduction ( pp. 1–47 ) in English ; it begins in chapter 7th of the seventh adhikaraṇa ( on ṣāḍguṇya ) and breaks off in the 4th adhyāya of the 12th adhikaraṇa ; ( 3 ) The coṃ Jayamaṅgalā is available only from the beginning ( 1st Adhikaraṇa ) to end of Chap. 13. 1, a small part of which was published by Shri G. Harihara-Sastri in J. O. R. ( Maḍ ) Vol. XXII. pp. 29–44 on chapters 9–14 of the first Adhikaraṇa. The author is probably the same as the author of the Jayamaṅgalā on the Kāmasūtra. ( 4 ) Nitinirṇīti of Yogghama ; a small fragment discovered along with a nāgurī mṣ of the text, by Muni Jinavijayaji at Patan, concerned with II. 1. 1 to II. 3 and opening of II. 4 and published by him in the Singhi Jain-granthamālā series ( Bombay, 1959 ) ;⁸ ( 5 ) Bhāṣā-vyākhyāna in Malayālaṃ The commentary extends up to the 7th adhikaraṇa only. The coṃ on the first two adhikaraṇas was edited and published in 1930 ( 1st Adhikaraṇa ) and in 1938 ( on 2nd adhikaraṇa ) by Sambasiva Sastri and the coṃ on the 3rd adhikaraṇa was edited and published in 1945 by V. A. Rama-swami Sastri, all at Trivandruṃ The Coṃ on Adhikaraṇas 4–7 was edited by Shri K. N. Ezhuthachan and published by the University of Madras in 1960 ; ( 6 ) Cāṇakyatīkā by Bhikṣu Prabhamati, a fragment, being edited by Mr. G. Harihara Sastri and published in the volumes of the Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, upto pp. 1–188 ; ( 7 ) Commentary called Śrīmūla on the whole of the Kauṭilīya by M. M. Ganapati Sastri, in which he utilizes the material afforded by all the commentaries available to hiṃ

The first commentary, if it dealt with the whole of the Arthaśāstra, must have been very extensive, since the available coṃ on a portion of the 2nd Adhikaraṇa alone covers 214 printed pageṣ That commentary quotes explanations of previ- ous commentators in the words ‘anye’ and ‘apare’ and quotes several ślokas of Bṛhaspati on the blemishes of diamonds and on ‘prakāśa-taskaraṣ’ The Nayacandrikā also refers to the views of predecessors (vide pp. 35. 61, 62, 104, 115, 137, 191 ) and discusses various readings also ( vide pp. 136, 183, 188, 193 &c ). Yogghama’s coṃ ( at least of about the 12th century A. D. ) cites the views of Āmbhiyas in a verse on p. 2.

Besides the English translations of the Arthaśāstra by Dr. Shama Shastri and Prof. Kangle, there is J. J. Meyer’s German translation ‘Das Altindische Buch von welt–und Staatsleken das Arthaśāstra des Kauṭilya’ ( Leipzig, 1925–26 ) and there is a Russian translation edited by Prof. V. I. Kalya- nov ( Leningrad, 1959 ). The Arthaśāstra has been translated into Hindi by several authors and there are translations in Bengali, Gujarati, the four south Indian languages and in Marathi (this last by Messrṣ J. S. Karandikar and B. R. Hivargaonkar, 1927–29 ).

This work has given rise to frequent and furious contro- verses about its authorship, its authenticity and its age and it cannot be said that we have heard the last of this din of controversy. Moreover, this work has inspired, besides nume- rous articles in journals, several monographs, some of which have somewhat high–sounding titles, such as Narendranath Law’s ‘Studies in Ancient Indian Polity,’ Dr. P. Banerji’s ‘Public Administration in Ancient India,’ Ghoṣal’s ‘History of Hindu Political Theories,’ Majumdar’s ‘Corporate Life in Ancient India,’ Benoy Kumar Sarkar’s ‘Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus,’ Jayasval’s ‘Hindu Polity,’ Prof. S. V. Visvanathan’s ‘International Law in Ancient India’ ( 1925 ). It is not possible to discuss at great length all the problems about Kauṭilya here. Only a brief statement can be attempteḍ For fuller study reference may be made to the following works and papers :— Hillebrandt’s ‘über das Kauṭi- lyaśāstra und Verwandtes’ ( Breslau 1908 ), Z D M G. vol. 67, pp. 49–96 ( Dr. Jolly ), Z D M G vol. 68, pp. 345–359 and vol. 69, p. 369 ff; J R A S 1916, pp. 130–137 ( Prof. Keith ), I. A. for 1918, pp. 157–161 and pp. 187–195 ( Dr. Jacobi translated by Dr. Sukthankar ); Dr. Kalidas Nag’s ‘Les Théories Diplomatiques de l’ Inde ancienne et l’ Arthaśāstra ' (Paris 1923) and its translation in ‘Journal of Indian His- tory’ vol. V; Dr. Otto Stein’s ‘Megasthenes und Kauṭilya’ (Vienna 1922), K. V. Rangasvami Ayyangar’s lectures on Ancient Indian Polity (Madras 1916), Dr. Winternitz in Cal- cutta Review 1924 and in his history of Indian Literature (vol. III, pp. 509–524), I. A. for 1924, pp. 128–136 and 141– 146 (Dr. Jacobi translated by Prof. Utgikar); Dr. Johann J. Meyer’s ‘Das altindische Buch vom Welt-und Staatsleben das Arthaśāstra des Kauṭilya’ (Leipzig, 1925) and Prof. N. C. Bandopadhyaya’s exposition of the social ideal and political theory of Kauṭilya. The Indian Antiquary for 1925 (pp. 175 and 201) gives an exhaustive bibliography on the date of Kauṭilya.

While the author was engaged in collecting materials and after the 1st volume of the H. of D. was published in 1930 a very large number of studies of the Kauṭilya and numerous articles on various matters connected with the Kauṭilya have been publisheḍ The present author has to confess that he has not read a good many of theṃ A short list of some of those studies and articles that he has read or consulted is set out here:

Among studies may be mentioned the following:—‘Kauṭa- liya Studien’ by B. Breloer, three volumes (1927–1934) (in German); D. R. Bhandarkar’s ‘Some aspects of ancient Hindu Polity’ (Benares 1929); Prof. Radhakumud Mookerji’s ‘Chan- dragupta Maurya and his times’ (Madras, 1943); ‘Kauṭalya Studies’ by Sten Konow (Oslo, 1945); Prof. K. V. Ranga- swami Aiyangar’s ‘Indian Cameralism’ (Madras 1949); ‘Age of Imperial Unity’ by Dr. R. C. Majumdar (Bombay, 1951); ‘Age of the Nandas and Mauryas’ eḍ by Prof. K. A. Nila- kanta Sastri (Benares 1952, particularly pp. 132–169 and pp. 190–201); ‘L. Inde Classique’ by Professors Renou and Filli- ozat, Tome II (Paris, 1953); ‘The Wonder that was India’ by Prof. A. L. Basham (London 1954); ‘State and Govern- ment in Ancient India’ by Dr. A. S. Altekar (Benares, 1955); ‘A History of Indian Political Ideas’ by Prof. U. N. Ghoshal (3rd eḍ Bombay, 1959); ‘Studies in Kauṭilya’ by M. V. Krishnarao (2nd eḍ 1958); ‘Studies in Hindu Political tho- ught and its metaphysical foundations’ by V. P. Varma (Benares).

Among articles and papers may be mentioned the follo- wing; ‘On the authenticity of the Kauṭilya’ in I. A. vol. 47 (1918) pp. 157–161 and 187–195 (Jacobi's remarks translated by Dr. Sukthankar), I. A. Vol. 53 pp. 128–136 (tr. by Prof. Utgikar); 'Date of Kauṭilya' by Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar (ABORI Vol. VII pp. 65–84; 'The Latest work on Kauti-lya's Arthaśāstra' by Prof. Edgerton (JAOS 1928, pp. 289–322, a review of Meyer's tr.); 'Two Studies in the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya' by E. H. Johnston (in JRAS for 1929 pp. 77–102); The date of K. A. by Dr. Prannath (I. A. Vol. 60 pp. 109–112 and 121–23 (puts it between 484–510, A. D.); 'Geography of Kauṭilya' by H. V. Trivedi ('Indian Culture', Vol. I pp. 247–261); 'Place of the Arthaśāstra in the Litera-ture of Indian Polity' by Prof. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri (ABO-RI, Vol. 28, 1947, pp. 34–95); 'Kautiliyan State, a welfare State' by Dr. B. P. Sinha, JBORS Vol. 40, pp. 178–194 and 'the king in the Kautilian State' by the same author in same journal pp. 277–308; India Antiqua (studies presented to Dr. J. P. Vogel) pp. 136–145; Prof. U. N. Ghoshal on 'System of interstate relations and foreign policy in the early Artha-śāstra State ); 'Kingship and community' in 'Early India' by Charles Drekmeter (Oxford University Press, Bombay 1962, particularly chapters 11–13 pp. 189–244 ).

The Kauṭilya is the oldest extant work on Arthaśāstra. Though Arthaśāstra and Dharmaśāstra are often contradi-nguished on account of the difference of the two śāstras in ideals and in the methods adopted to reach them, Arthaśāstra is really a branch of Dharmaśāstra as the former deals with the responsibilities of kings for whom rules are laid down in many treatises on dharma.⁹ For this reason and the fur-ther reason that the Kauṭilya contains two sections (called dharmasthiya and kaṇṭakaśodhana) on the administration of justice, the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya deserves careful consideration in this work. According to the Caraṇavyūha of Śau-naka, Arthaśāstra is an Upaveda of Atharvaveda. The pur-pose of this Śāstra as stated in the Kauṭilya itself is 'to pre-scribe means for securing and preserving (power over) the earth.'¹⁰ Yājñavalkya distinctly states (II. 21) that in case of conflict between dharmaśāstra and Arthaśāstra, the rule is that the former prevailṣ¹¹ Nārada also (I. 39) says the same thing.¹²

That there was in India a great deal of thinking on politics, economics, law and administration of justice several centuries before Christ is clear from the Mahābhārata and the early Dharmasūtras like those of Gautama, Baudhāyana and Āpastamba. In the Śāntiparva the word Nītiśāstra is frequently used in the sense of political science. For example, Śānti 138. 196 states that ‘aviśvāsa’ (not putting trust in anybody) is briefly the essence of all Nītiśāstraṣ¹³ Vide also Śānti 111. 73, 138. 39 and 43. It has already been shown that the Śāntiparva names several expounders of Nītiśāstra. Bṛhaspatimata is frequently quoted in the great Epic on politics and connected matterṣ Bṛhaspati is said to be the son of Aṅgiras (Ādiparva 76. 19). The Sabhāparva (55. 6) men-tions the opinion of Bṛhaspati that the conduct or life of kings is different from the (rules of) conduct of common meṇ¹⁴ The Udyoga Parva states that Bṛhaspati declared that one should give battle to an (enemical) army which is smaller by one-third than one's own army.¹⁵ Bhīsma-parva quotes the dictum of Bṛhaspati that one who has a small army should present a compact front, while one who has a large army should spread it out¹² and then a reference is made to a ‘vyūha’ called Vajra (19. 7). The same parva speaks of a vyūha called Krauñcāruṇa (in 50. 40) which was suggested to Indra by Bṛhaspati; a vyūha of that kind is mentioned in Droṇa-parvan (7. 25). It is noteworthy that Kauṭilya deals with vyūhas in X. 6 and in the first sūtra refers to the arrangement of a vyūha according to Uśanas and Bṛhaspati. acc. to Bṛhaspati. It is remarkable that the Vajra array referred to above is mentioned in K. X. 6. 35, that a śyena array is mentioned by Kauțilya (X. 6. 12), though not Krauñca and that an array called Śakaţa is mentioned in the Droṇaparva 7. 24, which occurs in Kauțiliya also (at X. 6. 26).

Śānti (69. 23-24) states that Bṛhaspati advises a wise king desirous of securing his kingdom to avoid war and to accomplish his object by the three upāyas, appeasement, offer of gift, or bheda (sowing discord) and to be satisfied with what he would be able to secure by the first three.¹² Śāntiparvan (59. 59) states that, according to the Ācāryas, the vices (vyasanas) of kings are ten in all, either due to Kopa (anger) or to Kāma (lust).¹² The first category consists of six vices, viz. vākpārusya (harshness of speech), daṇḍapārusya (harshness due to physical punishment), arthadūṣaṇa (violation of property) and three others; the vices due to lust are four, viz. hunting, gambling, women and drinking. The Manusmṛti (in VII. 47-8) speaks of ten vices due to lust and eight vices due to anger. The Kautiliya (VIII. 3) reduces the vices due to lust to four and the vices due to anger to three only and holds a long discussion about the comparative harm caused by these. The word Kaṇṭakaśodhana (suppression of criminals) occurs in Śānti 59. 53. According to the view of Bṛhaspati, obtaining of wealth is secured in four ways viz. that due to pāramparya (inheritance from ancestors), that due to good fortune, that due to one’s ardent desire to acquire and that derived from a frienḍ¹⁶ In Sabhāparva (74. 7-8 ) Duryodhana tells his father that acc. to Bṛhaspati enemies should be killed by employing all kinds of meanṣ

In the Vanaparva (32. 61) Draupadi says that her brothers were taught the Nīti of Bṛhaspati and in Vana. 150. 29 it is stated that men are supported by ( or held to the right path) by rules promulgated by Bṛhaspati¹⁷ and Uśanaṣ In the Karṇaparva it is said that a certain Vyūha (array of army) was arranged according to the opinion of Bṛhaspati and Uśanas (31. 12-13). Vide Karṇaparva 46. 27 for Barhaspatya Vyūha. Śalyaparva states that, acc. to Bṛhaspati’s view, a king who is weak should desire to make peace (with a stronger one) or with his equal, while one who is growing in strength should desire conflict.¹⁸ Śānti (23. 15) quotes a gāthā of Bṛhaspati and in 56. 39 quotes a verse from Bārhaspatyasāstra (both quoted in the note) to the effect that low people may disrespect a king who is always forbearing, just as the rider of an elephant desires to sit on the head of it.¹⁹ In Śāntiparva a verse is quoted from Bṛhaspati’s work as recited by Marutta in the section on kings viz. ‘that punishment should follow even in the case of a guru who has become conceited, who fails to distinguish between what is proper to be done or is improper and takes to a bad course of conduct’.²⁰ Śānti (122. 11) speaks of a king as having studied the whole of Bṛhaspatimata and Auśanasāśāstra. Śānti 59. 51 refers to 'Saptāngarājya'; Manu IX. 294 and Kauṭilya (VI. 1. 1) also mention the seven constituent elementṣ Śāntiparva states that Bṛhaspati prescribed Utthāna (effort, endeavour) for kings and as the basis of rājadharma and recites verses thereoṇ¹⁰⁵ Kauṭilya also says that a king should bring about the acquisition of what is not gained (Yoga) and protection of what is obtained by effort (Utthā-nena Yogakṣemasādhanam, I. 7. 1). Vide H. of Dh. Vol. II pp. 914-15, Vol. III pp. 588–589, Vol. V. pp. 1385–6 for a discussion of the meaning of yogakṣema. The passages quoted above from different parvans of the Mahābhārata (not only from Śāntiparva) show that the author of the Mahābhārata had before him a treatise of Bṛhaspati on Arthaśāstra. that it was extensive, contained verses and that it was divided into parts or chapters called 'Adhikāra' like 'adhikaraṇa' in Kauṭilya. It may be noted that Aśvaghoṣa in his Buddhacarita (I. 46) mentions the Rājaśāstras produced by Śukra, son of Bhṛgu and Bṛhaspati, son of Aṅgiraṣ¹⁰⁶ Kālidāsa in Kumārasambhava (III. 6) mentions the Nīti of Uśanaṣ Bṛhaspati's Arthaśāstra appears to have contained a legendary beginning that what Bṛhaspati, the preceptor of the Gods, taught Indra is contained in the treatise of Bṛhaspati. The present Manusmṛti contains a similar assertion that Brahmā taught Manu and the latter taught it to Marīci, Bhrgu and others (Manu I. 35–36 and 58 ) and Bhrgu at the order of Manu transmitted the Śāstra to the sages (I. 60 and 119 ). Such fabulous accounts were introduced in ancient works to heighten the authority of the teaching. The Bārhaspatyas mentioned in the Arthaśāstra were probably those who relied on the treatise of Bṛhaspati, and Kauṭilya differed from their teaching in I. 2. 4–5, V. 15. 48 (they required that 16 persons constituted a council of Ministers), II. 7. 13 (those superintendents who caused loss of revenue should be fined ten times the loss ), in III. 11. 46 ( punishment for witnesses who lead to a wrong judgment ), III. 17. 13 ( on fine for him who instigated another to commit an offence ).

Uśanas is another ancient sage who appears to have composed a treatise on Arthaśāstra. That Kāvyā Uśanas was a sage of hoary antiquity even in Ṛgvedic times would be indicated below ( under Uśanas ). Several passages from Uśanas mentioned in the great Epic would be cited there. The Āśramavāsikaparva states that the Vyūhas called Śakata, Padma and Vajra have been declared in the Śāstra of Uśanas¹⁵⁴ⁿ. The Vyūha called Śakaṭa is mentioned in the Arthaśāstra X. 6. 26 and Vajra in X. 6. 35. The Manusmṛti in VII. 187 mentions six Vyūhas viz. Daṇḍa, Śakaṭa, Varāha, Makara, Sūci, Garuḍa, and in VII. 188 mentions Padmavyūha and Vajra in VII. 191.

It is clear that the author of the Mahābhārata had before him a treatise by Uśanas on Rājanīti, which went into such details as the names of certain Vyūhaṣ Manu (VII. 146 and 151 ) provides that the king should hold in a secret place a meeting of the councillors and sets out the subjects on which the king has to hold counsel with them ( mantrins ) and one verse (VII. 154 )²³ refers to the eightfold actions of the king. and the group of five kinds of spies and Kalpataru (on Raja- dharma p. 108) quotes two verses of Uśanas in which the eight are enumerateḍ Auśanasī-nīti is mentioned in the Mudrārākṣasa just before I. 15.

For Bhāradvāja vide below. Not only in the Mahā- bhārata but also in the Rāmāyaṇa there is a good deal of the principles and phraseology of Arthaśāstra. There is a chapter called Kaccit-praśna in the Rāmāyaṇa (Ayodhyākāṇḍa 100) just as there is one in Sabhāparva (chap. 5). We have ' adevamātrko deśaḥ ' (Rāṃ Ayodhyā 100. 25 as in Kauṭi- liya V. 2. 2 and VI. 1. 8). The same story of king Nṛga, who donated a Brāhmaṇa's cow by mistake and became a chameleon because he did not speedily deal with the dispute, is nar- rated in Anuśāsanaparva 6. 38 and Āśvamedhika-parva 90. 99–100 and in the Rāmāyaṇa, Uttarakāṇḍa, chap. 53. 6-26. Not only in the epics, but in some of the Purāṇas also Rājadharma is treated at some length. For example, the Matsya Purāṇa devotes several chapters (225–229) to Rājadharma that deal with the sahāyas of the king, the conduct of the king's servants, fortress and its equipmentṣ Fate and human effort, the Upāyas, sāma, dāna, bheda, daṇḍa; time for invasion etc.

From very early times, Viṣṇugupta alias Cāṇakya or Kauṭilya has been credited with the composition of a work on Arthaśāstra. The Kāmandakiya-nīti-sāra²⁴ pays a glowing tribute of praise to Viṣṇugupta, who single-handed brought about the downfall of the Nandas and bestowed the earth on Candragupta by the force of his political strategy and who distilled from the ocean of Arthaśāstra the quintessence of ( his work on ) Nītiśāstra. Kāmandaka tells us further that he looked upon Viṣṇugupta as Guru.²⁵ The Tantrākhyā- yikā (the earliest version of the Pañcatantra ), which, accord- ing to Hertel ( H. O. S. ), is not later than 300 A. D., pays its homage to²⁶ Cāṇakya the great, as one of the authors of the treatises on Rājaśāstra along with Manu, Bṛhaspati, Śukra, Parāśara and his soṇ Daṇḍin in his Daśakumāracarita in several places and particularly in section VIII (eḍ of B. S. S. 1891 ) furnishes very important evidence of the names of the author of the Arthaśāstra and actually quotes several passa- geṣ Only a few are mentioned ( in the note ).²⁷ "There are four lores for the King and then says ‘Daṇḍanīti was sum- marised in 6000 Śloka units by the Ācārya Viṣṇugupta for the benefit of the Maurya king’. Then it refers to the ‘forty ways of embezzlement indicated by Cāṇakya’ (i. e. Artha- śāstra II. 8. 20-21 ). It is clear from the Daśakumāra- carita that Daṇḍin regarded Viṣṇugupta as the author of the Arthaśāstra and identified him with Cāṇakya. Let us now turn to the Mudrārākṣasa,²⁸ from which a few passages are quoted below. It refers to Kauṭilya as ‘ Kuṭilamati ’ (of crooked intellect) in I. 7 ‘ Kauṭilyaḥ Kuṭilamatiḥ sa eṣa yena krodhbhāgnau prasabham–adāhi Nandavaṁśaḥ ’, and again in Act IV. 2 there is a reference to the crooked intellect of Kauṭilya (‘api ca kuṭilaṁ Kauṭilyasya praciṇtayatō matim’). Again, in Cāṇakya’s speech in Mudrārākṣasa before I. 22 ‘anyae–ca–Nandam–iva Viṣṇuguptaḥ &c.’ it is clearly shown that Viṣṇugupta and Cāṇakya are identical, according to the author of the Mudrārākṣasa. Malayaketu boasts (V. 22) ‘I am able to uproot Viṣṇugupta and Maurya even if they come (together) with you (Rākṣasa)’. Here the author clearly shows that Viṣṇugupta is identical with Cāṇakya and Kauṭilya. There is a striking passage towards the end of the play after VII. 9, where Cāṇakya addresses Rākṣasa (whom the former has won over to the side of Candragupta) ‘I, Viṣṇugupta, offer salutation to you’ (Viṣṇuguptoham–abhivadaye) and Rākṣasa responds by saying ‘Bho Viṣṇugupta’ when a little before (i. e. before VII. 6) Rākṣasa had said (nivedyatam durātmane Cāṇakyāya.’ These passages establish beyond doubt that, according to Viśakhadatta, Kauṭilya, Cāṇakya and Viṣṇugupta were the names of the same person and, from the way in which abhivādana was performed, it appears that the dramatist believed that Viṣṇugupta was the original name given at the time of Nāmākaraṇa. Manu (II. 121) prescribes that a brāhmaṇa making abhivādana to a person older (than himself) should pronounce his own name with the words ‘here do I bow, so and so by name’. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. II. pp. 336-337 for discussion on abhivādana. There was a great divergence of views about the time when a child was given a name. Vide I. H. Q. (1938) Vol. 14 pp. 24–44 (the author’s paper on giving a name to a child) and H. of Dh. Vol. II pp. 238 ff. Several authorities prescribed that Nāmākaraṇa should primarily be performed on the 10th or 12th day after birth (Bauḍ Gr. II. 1. 23, Pār. Gr. I. 17 and Manu II. 30). There were various rules at different times about what name should be giveṇ One of the rules was that the name may be derived from that of a sage or of a deity or may be the same as the name of an ancestor (Bauḍ Gr. II. 1. 28–29 and Mānavagṛhya I. 18). The name Visnugupta would be in accordance with these rules, but not Cāņakya necessarily. Kauṭilya would only be a gotra name or a nickname. The name Cāṇakya may have been due to the place whence the author’s family came or where he was born, just as Pāṇini is called Sālāturiya from Sālātura occurring in Pāṇ. IV. 3. 93). In the Parisistaparva of Hemacandra (eḍ by Jacobi, Calcutta 1883) on p. 55 of the Introduction it is stated that Cāņaka was a village in Golla District and Cāņakya was born of a Brāhmaṇa called Caņin who resided there. Verse VIII. 339 states that Candragupta became king 155 years after Mahāvīra passed away. His paternal grandfather or some more remote ancestor might have borne the name Canaka and so he was called Cāṇakya (according to ‘Gargādibhyo yañ’ (Pāṇ. IV. 1. 105), Cāņaka being one of the numerous words under ‘Gargādi-gaṇa.’ We have Cārāyaṇa and Kātyāyana (in Artha. V. 5. 11), Cara being included in the Naḍādi-gaṇa (Pāṇ. IV. 1. 99) as the 2nd worḍ Vide the Nīdhānapur plates of Bhāskara-varman (of Kāmārūpa) in E. I. Vol. 19 pp. 115–117 and pp. 248–250, where two hundred and five donees are named together with their gotras (about 25), among which are Kātyāyana, Kauṭilya (four donees of that gotra), Gautama, Jātūkarṇa &. Vide J. I. H. Vol. XXXI. pp. 111–119 where several views are mentioned about the date of the Nīdhānpur plates, S. Bhattacarya assigning them to about 647 A. D. The Harsacarita (VII) mentions several ancestors of Bhāskaravarman, who, according to the Harsacarita, was a contemporary of Emperor Harṣa. There is no doubt that, whatever the exact date of the Nidhanpur grant may be, Bhāskaravarman flourished in the first half of the 7th century.

Daṇḍin flourished not later than 700 A. D.; vide the author’s History of Sanskrit Poetics (eḍ of 1961) pp. 119-120 and the discussion that precedeṣ The date of Mudrārākṣasa is rather debatable. It depends upon what is the correct rea- ding of the last pada in the Bharatavākya.³¹ The Bharata- vākya in the Mudrārākṣasa is put in the mouth of Rākṣasa in some msṣ and in that of Cāṇakya in otherṣ The word ‘Bharatavākya’ literally means ‘the speech of the Bharata or of Bharatas’ (‘Bharatā ityapi naṭāḥ’ says Amarakosa). The Nātyaśāstra does not define the worḍ Therefore, we have to rely upon the practice of early and great Sanskrit dramatists to find what the word exactly implieṣ In some of the great Sanskrit dramas, Bharatavākyas are general in tone, asking for the welfare and happiness of the people (particularly of good men), long and healthy life, good government, good rains, good crops, fame and prosperity to poets &c., as in the Vikra- morvaśīya, Mahāviracarita, Mālatīmādhava, Ratnāvalī, Veṇī- saṃhāra, Mṛcchakaṭika. In the Mālavikā° the last verse requests the queen always to bestow her favours on him and adds that as long as Agnimitra is the protector of the subje- cts, it is not necessary to invoke such blessings as the absence of floods, drought, locusts, invasions &c. The Śākuntala ends on two noteṣ The first half says ‘may the king be assiduous in bringing about welfare to the people and may the literary efforts of those whose learning is great become famouṣ’ The second half is ‘may the self-existent Śiva eliminate re-birth in my case.’ It is difficult to hold that this refers to an indi- vidual actor ( the word ‘ mama’ being there ). It must refer to Dusyanta, who is the last to speak (before the benediction) and possibly there is another suggested meaning that expresses the yearning of the poet Kālidāsa himself. Therefore, it is not quite accurate to say that the Bharatavākya is no part of the drama or that it is a chorus by all the actors ; in that case ‘mama’ in the Śākuntala would be inappropriate. The dramatist was to write the Bharatavākya and it is possible that several dramas though they contained Bharatavākya were not or could not be put on the stage at all. The Bharata- vākya, thought not an essential part of the action of the play, is still said by one of the prominent characters in the play. Avantivarman has nothing to do with the drama or the characters thereiṇ The proper reading is therefore ‘pārthivas- candraguptah.³² It is proper to hold that Cānakya, who is the dominant character of the story of the drama, recites that benedictioṇ The poet Viśākhadatta was the grandson of a sāmanta ( feudatory chief ) Vaţeśvaradatta and the son of Mahārāja ( king ) Bhāskaradatta and therefore it would be a fine piece of flattery if there be an oblique or indirect reference to Emperor ( Mahārājādhirāja ) Candragupta in the words of the drama. The Gupta Emperor Candragupta II ruled till 414 A. D. Vide Fleet's Gupta Inscriptions ( 1888 ) p. 15 and JBORS Vol. 30 pp, 1–46. If the poet flourished under him the drama was composed about 400 A. D. Taking Avanti- varman as the king meant in the Bharatavākya ( which is very unlikely ), the drama must have been composed in the latter half of the 6th century, as Avantivarman took a great part in vanquishing the Hūnas about 582 A. D. Vide I. H. Q. Vol. 30 ( 1930 ) pp. 175–178 and pp. 485–6 for a discussion on Bharatavākya.

The Kāmandakīyanītisāra highly praises Viṣṇugupta as shown above. The date of Kāmandaka is also debatable. I showed so far back as 1911 ( in I. A. for 1911 p. 236 ) that Vāmana in his Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra quoted from some work not available now a half verse ‘Kāmam Kāmandaki nītirasyā rasyā divāniśam’ as an example of one variety of Yamaka. Dr. Jolly in his haste to dispose of evidence against his pet theory treats this in a slipshod manner and gives a note on p. 8 ( of Introduction ) that the ‘8th century seems to be the most likely date ’ of the Nītisāra of Kāmandaka. I showed that Vāmana quotes a half verse not from the Nītisāra but from some work in which occurs the statement 'the dhī ( intellect of some person ) indeed day and night enjoys ( the reading of ) Kāmandaki-nīti'. Vāmana in his own vṛtti on IV. 6. 2 states that Yamakas are treated at length in a work called Hariprabodha. That work is now not available. Vāmana elsewhere expressly says that the examples he gives are mostly from others ( parakiyaiśca puśkalaiḥ ). It would have been a long time before the Nītisāra became famouṣ A work now unknown refers to it and a half verse from that work is quoted as an example of a figure of speech by the rhetorician Vāmana ( from Kashmir ). This might take centurieṣ The Nītisāra may be centuries earlier than 800 A. D. for all we know. Kāmandaka further tells us that he looked upon Viṣṇugupta as his Guru. In the Śāntiparva ( chap. 123 ) there is a dialogue between Kāmandaka and Aṅgariṣṭa, king of Aṅga. The name Kāmandaka is thus comparatively ancient.

There is nothing to prevent us from holding that the Nītisāra of Kāmandaka may belong even to the third century A. D. I am here concerned only with showing that Dr. Jolly did not carefully consider the matter and is wrong in putting the Kāmandakīyanītisāra in the 8th century A. D. when he agreed to put Vāmana about 800 A. D. It is surprising that Winternitz also refers the Arthaśāstra to the 3rd century A.D. ( p. 28 of Cal. Review, April-June, 1924 ). Dr. Jolly un- necessarily parades patent facts e. g. he remarks ( on p. 11 ) that the Bṛhatsaṁhitā ( chap. 78. 1 ) contains nearly the same list of princes killed in their harem as the Arthaśāstra ( I. 20. 15-17 ). In the first place, the list is not quite the same. But, apart from that, one would like to know what conclusion he draws from the fact that the Bṛhatsaṁhitā contains some or most cases of treachery mentioned by Kauṭilya is not clear. As he holds that A. belongs to the 3rd century A. D. it is clear that if there is a borrowing it is Varāhamihira who borrows ( as the latter flourished in the first-half of the 6th century A. D. ). The Harṣacarita ( VI ) mentions these cases and several more. The Nītisāra ( VII. 51-54 ) also mentions these cases of treachery.

The Kathāsaritsāgara of Somadeva ( in the Kathāpīṭha- lambaka chap. 5 verses 108-124 ) refers to the story of Cāṇakya having brought about the death of Yogañanda and placed Candragupta ( pūrvanandasuta ) on the Magadhan throne That work purports to give successfully the contents of the Bṛhatkathā ( I. I. 3 ), avers that it closely follows the original, does not depart even slightly from it and that only the language differs and there is abridgment in it and some detail ( I. 1. 10 ). The Bṛhatkathā of Guṇāḍhya is supposed to have been composed in the Paiśācī dialect about the first century A. D. It is mentioned by Bāṇa in Harṣacarita ( Intro. verse 17 ) and in Daṇḍin's Kāvyādarśa ( I. 38 ). The Bṛhat- kathāmañjarī of Kṣemendra ( II. 216 ) refers to the story that Cāṇakya brought about the death of Yogananda ( by magic ) and placed Candragupta ( described as ' pūrvanandasutaḥ' ) on the throne.

So far I have dealt with works that name Viṣṇugupta, Cāṇakya and Kauṭilya singly or collectively and the dates of which though not very certain can be fixed within narrow limitṣ Now I shall refer to some Purāṇas which mention Candragupta and his minister Kauṭilya. There are five Purāṇas that have chiefly to be considered viz. Vāyu 199, 326–332, Brahmāṇḍa III. 74, Viṣṇu ( IV. 24, 25–33 in prose ), Bhāgavata ( XII. 17 ) and Matsya ( 272. 19–26 ). The Matsya account is rather defective; Vāyu and Brahmāṇḍa agree, Viṣṇu and Bhāgavata agree. All five say in a prophetic vein that Nandas will rule for 100 years, that Kauṭilya would uproot the Nandas and place Candragupta on the throne, the latter will rule for 24 years, his son Bindusāra ( Bhadrasāra in Vāyu ) for 25 years and Aśoka ( grandson ) will rule for 36 yearṣ Some mention nine Maurya kings and others men- tion ten kings, but all agree that the dynasty will rule for 137 years, though there is difference in the number and sequence of kingṣ Four Purāṇas ( except the Matsya ) appear to refer to Guptavaṁśa but do not name even the great conqueror Samudragupta. Therefore, it may be argued with great probability that they took their present form about 320-335 A. D. It is not necessary to enter into details here. Those interested in the Purāṇa historical traditions may refer to pages 842–861 of the fifth volume of the H. of Dh. and to a paper by Mr. H. G. Shastri in JOI ( Baroda ) Vol. IX pp. 387–392. The Dīpavaṁśa, of the 5th century A. D. and a Ceylonese Chronicle, supports the Paurāṇic account so far that Candragupta's son was Bindusāra, whose son was Piyadassī ( or Aśoka or Piyadassanā ) and that Aśoka was crowned king 218 years after the passing away of Buddha ( VI. 14–15 ) and that Candragupta ruled for twenty-four years ( Dipavamsa V. 73 and 100 ), as the purāṇas say. The Mahavamsa ( Geiger's eḍ of 1908, I. 5. 16-20 ) states that Cāṇakya, after killing the 9th Nanda, will anoint as king Candragupta Maurya ( a Kṣatriya ), that he will rule 24 years, his son Bindusara will rule for 28 years, then Asoka, after killing his brothers will be anointed king.

It is known from Greek, Buddhist and Jain sources and Indian inscriptions that Candragupta, Bindusara and Asoka were historic personṣ We know from Greek sources that Candragupta and Seleucus, the successor of Alexander the Great in the East, formed an alliance and that Seleucus ceded parts of Gedrosia ( Baluchistan ), Arachosia ( Kandahara ) and Paropamisadae ( i. e. Kabul ), all of which stretched up to the Indus ), vide Tarn on ‘ the Greeks in Bact- ria and India ’, 1938, p. 100 and Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. VI. pp. 413-14 ( which gives a brief note on what Erato- sthenes says about this treaty ). Similarly, the accounts in Matsya ( 272. 18-23 ), Vayu chap. 99. 326-337 and other purāṇas about Puṣyamitra and his descendants and about the Sātavāhanas have been found to be substantially correct from the Sunga Inscription from Ayodhyā ( E. I. Vol. 20 p. 54 ), Nanaghat, Nasik and other Inscriptionṣ There is no reason, except unreasonable suspicion and prejudice, why the conne- ction of Kauṭilya or Cāṇakya with Candragupta mentioned in the purāṇas ( as in Matsya 272. 22 and Vayu 99. 330-1 ), and the Mahavamsa and other early literature should not be held to be at least probable. The embellishments and fabulous trappings of the story may not be taken seriously. But the core of the story should be accepted as quite probable and should not be rejected unceremoniously. Alexander's was not a conquest of India in the ordinary sense of the word, the sense in which Alexander conquered Persia ( see Tarn in the work cited p. 131 ). Tarn states ( ibid, p. 174 notes 2 and 3 ) that some writers have put forward the theory that in the treaties between Candragupta and Seleucus there was a grant by the Indian king to the Greeks of the right to intermarry in the Kṣatriya-varṇa and Tarn appears to hold that Candragupta's marriage with a daughter of Seleucus might have taken place ( note 3 ). The Cambridge H. of India ( Vol. I. p. 472 ) observes ‘ for Seleucus the task of meeting Candragupta in war proved too great. Seleucus was content to secure a safe retirement and a gift of 500 elephants by the surrender of all the Greek dominions as far as the Kabul valley'. This shows that Candragupta was a very capable man and therefore his cause was espoused by Cāṇakya who hailed from Gāndhāra. Dr. Chhabra (in the Woolner Commemoration Volume pp. 51–52 ) suggests that in the story in the Rāmāyaṇa ( Uttarākāṇḍa 100–101 ) about the war between Bharata and his sons Takṣa and Puşkala on the one hand and Śailūṣa on the other, Śailūṣa stands for Seleucuṣ At present there is nothing but the phonetic resemblance of the two words in favour of this idea.

It is known that Porus first fought with Alexander but later on he became reconciled to him (Tarn's work p. 169); however, other people in North-West India fought desperately with Alexander ( ibid ). Alexander died in 323 B. C. It is highly probable that Parvataka mentioned as the father of Malayaketu in the Mudrārākṣasa is the king Porus who (after first opposing Alexander) had become an ally of the Greeks in Alexander's days ( Tarn pp. 46, 169 ). Some Jaina sources put the accession of Candragupta at 312 or 313 B. C. ( vide Cambridge History of India vol. I, 1922 p. 698 and Bhattasali in J. R. A. S. 1932 pp. 273, 284 ). Tarn suggests that Candragupta seized Magadha in 321 B. C. and completed the conquest of the whole of Northern India (including the countries in the Northwest ) by 312 B. C. ( vide Tarn's work p. 47 ṇ 3 ). Much of this history is conjectural. One thing is quite clear that Candragupta got possession of some territory to the West of the Indus and secured some parts in the Pañjab and also the crown of Magadha. But the sequence of the several events is not clear and not beyond debate. From the Mudrārākṣasa it appears that Candragupta first secured Pañjab (probably with the help of Cāṇakya and his suppor- ters) in addition to what he got ceded by Seleucus, that Cāṇakya was most probably from Gāndhāra, as in his treat- ment of Vākpāruṣya (damage or injury by words) he says ( A. III. 18. 8 ) 'by that (what precedes) are explained the defamation concerning the learning of professional story- tellers and libel of the country of those who come from the country of Prājjūṇaka and Gāndhāra'. As Gāndhāra is specially mentioned here from among the dozens of countries in the continent of India, it follows with great probability that he was born there or had lived there long. The story of Mudrārākṣasa shows that in the times of that author it was believed that Parvataka was killed by foul means, that orna- ments worn by Parvataka had fallen into the hands of Candra- gupta (Act I just before verse 19) and verse 19 refers to five chiefs of North-west India as the most prominent among Mleccha chiefṣ According to Greek sources, Porus was killed before B. C. 318 (Tarn's work p. 46). The Mudrārākṣasa opens when Candragupta had recently occupied the Magadha throne. In Act II of the Mudrārākṣasa we read (before verse 14) that Kusumāpura (the capital of Magadha) had been invested by the army of Candragupta and Parvateśvara which consisted mostly of Śakas, Yavanas, Kirātas, Kāmbojas, Pārasikas and Bāhlikas and supported by the counsels of Cāṇakya. This means that for securing the capital of Magadha soldiers from the Northwest of India had been brought by Candragupta and Parvataka and Cāṇakya had the leading part in that. In Act III after verse 24 Cāṇakya says to Candragupta, 'we have recently secured the kingdom of the Nandas' and in Act IV, 14 Rākṣasa himself tells Malayaketu that the Maurya has recently become king. It seems that Candragupta first gained provinces in Northwest India and then secured Magadha. Besides, in Act IV (before verse five) Malayaketu says that it was the tenth month after his father's death. That shows that within a few months of Parvataka's death, Candragupta had recovered the throne of Magadha and then engaged in a feigned quarrel with Cāṇakya about Kaumudīmahotsava in the capital. A short time before the false quarrel Malayaketu had left the capital. Hence, according to the Mudrārākṣasa, Candragupta came to the throne about 317 B. C. if we accept the identity of Parvataka and Porus (who died in 318 B. C. according to Tarṇ). The Cambridge History of India (vol. I, p. 470) holds that the Mudrārākṣasa dates probably from the 7th century A. D., and that 'we need not question its evidence'.

In the Kādambarī of Bāṇa (first half of 7th century) we have a striking reference to Kauṭilya's work as a cruel³³ work because it mostly contains advice that is 'very wicked'. This shows how Kauṭilya's work had already become unpopular in North India (before the first half of the 7th century) on acco- unt of its vigorous advocacy of the doctrine that the end justi- fies the meanṣ This explains to some extent the paucity of the msṣ of the Arthaśāstra in the whole of India, particularly in North India, from where so far only a fragment of a mṣ of the work has been been recovereḍ The Matsyapurāṇa (7. 63) contains a story in which the speaker (Indra), who is supposed to have interfered with the womb of Diti that contained 49 foetuses and then made them Maruts, is made to say that he committed a wicked deed following the precepts of Artha- śāstra.¹⁶² This is probably a reference to the Kautiliya by the author of the Matsya-purāṇa in the present state of our knowledge. If this be accepted the Arthaśāstra would have to be pushed back at least some centuries before 250-300 A.D., the probable date of the Matsya, as demonstrated in H. of Dh. S. Vol. V. pp. 852, 854.

The extant Arthaśāstra itself claims that it is a work of Kauțilya. (1) This Śāstra (book), that is easy to learn and to understand, that is definite as regards its essence, meaning and words, that is free from prolixity in matter has been com- posed by Kauțilya; (2) Having gone through all śāstras one after another and having secured (knowledge of) the practice (in such matters), Kauțilya composed these rules about edicts for the sake of kings (II. 10. 63). In the very first sentence of his work he states 'this one text-book on the science of polity has been composed mostly by collecting toge- ther (the teachings) of as many treatises as have been establi- shed by ancient teachers for securing the acquisition and protection of the earth (realm); (3) 'This Śāstra (text-book) has been composed by him who, in resentment quickly raised (re-arranged or regenerated) the science of Politics, the wea- pon (to strike down enemies) and the earth that had fallen into the hands of the Nanda kingṣ These three passages along with the occurrence of the words 'iti Kauțilyah'⁷¹ about eighty times and the testimony of comparatively early works and authors like the Mudrārākṣasa (5th or 6th century A. D. probably ), Bāṇa (first half of 7th century A. D. ), the Daśa- kumāracarita make a very strong case for holding Kauṭilya as the author of the work on Arthaśāstra.

At the end of the whole work we find a verse which means ‘on seeing the numerous divergent views of the commentators on the Śāstras (other text-books on politics), Viṣṇugupta himself composed (a work) containing both sūtra and bhāṣya’.¹⁰⁴ This verse is not composed by Viṣṇu- gupta but by some one else. It does not mean that the Arthaśāstra has sūtras and bhāṣya thereoṇ It means that the work includes the form and merits of both sūtras and bhāṣyas thereon i.e. it is very brief when that quality is required and it contains detailed expositions when they are requireḍ He knew that sūtras must above all be ‘alpākṣara’ (concise) and a bhāṣya must explain the meaning of the words of the sūtra and add expository material. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1182, notes 1926–27 about the characteristics of sūtra and bhāṣya. The aphoristic style (in K. A.) may be seen in such passages as I. 2, 1–10, I. 3. 1–15, II. 10. 13–20, III. I. 6–11; the expository style may be seen in VII. 1. 32, V. 5. 7 and long sentences in I. 21. 7, VII. 15. 12. etc. Johnston in his ‘two studies in the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya’ in JRAS for 1929 (pp. 77–102) states that the Laṅkāvatārasūtra was translated into Chinese in 443 A. D., that therefore the main body of the work is not later than 4th century A. D. and that (p. 87) in verses 813–7 the ṛṣis are announced in the following order viz. Pāṇini, Kātyāyana, Yājñavalkya, Vālmīki, Masurākṣa, Kauṭilya and Āśvalāyana. Yājñavalkya is most probably the sage of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Up. Most of the others belong to centuries preceding the Christian era and therefore the name of Kauṭilya, it seems, was known some centuries before Christ and as most of the names are those of authors, Kauṭi- lya should also be regarded as an author in this passage.

The Tantrākhyāyikā (the earliest extant version of the Pañcatantra) which, acc. to Prof. Hertel (the editor in HOS), is certainly not later than 300 A.D., pays homage to Cāṇakya the great as one of the expounders of Rājasāstra (verse 2). Dr. Jolly (Intro. p. 8) wants to put the date of Tantrākhyā- yikā one century later (in order to be able to say that Artha- śāstra might have been composed about 300 A. D.) simply on the ground that the collection of tales was not translated into Pahlavi till about 570 A. D. and since the collection of tales agrees closely with the Pahlavi translatioṇ This is not a tenable argument at all. The Pañcatantra had several versionṣ We do not know what version the Persian translator had before hiṃ He may have translated from a version older than other versions available in India at that time.

Dr. Jolly remarks (on p. 10 of Intro.) that the exhorta- tion to soldiers contained in A. (x. 3) are quite misleading. There are two verses in the exhortation (quoted below),^164a The first occurs in the extant Parāśarasmṛti III. 44, which is comparatively a late smṛti as shown below (under Parāśara- smṛti). Therefore, the first verse (if it is a genuine part of the original Arthaśāstra) might have been borrowed by both A. and Parāśarasmṛti from some other earlier work. The 2nd verse occurs in the Pratijñā-Yaugandharāyaṇam IV. 3 (one of the so-called Bhāsa plays). There is a sharp cleavage of opinion among Sanskrit scholars as to whether all the numerous plays published as Bhāsa’s are the works of the ancient Bhāsa who is praised even by Kālidāsa. The pre- sent author holds that almost all the published plays attri- buted to Bhāsa are not the works of the ancient Bhāsa. Besides, the verses ‘yān yajñasaṁghaiḥ’ and ‘navaṁ śarāvam’ are preceded by the words ‘śṛṇvantu atrabhavantaḥ’ in the speech of the gātrasevaka in the play. So, he appears to be quoting from another source. Further, the Pratijñā shows acquaintance with Arthaśāstra.³⁶ Besides, the king’s exhortation has ‘iti’ at the end of X. 3. 27. The passage ‘vedeśva-pyanuśrūyate ... hantavyah’ has iti at the end and there is iti at the end of the two verses also. The passages (X. 3 29–31) seem to be later additions and there are three itis instead of one in the supposed exhortation of the king. Therefore, if the two verses occur in the A. they are both quotations and further they may have been taken over by the Parāśara Smṛti and the Pratijñā from the Arthaśāstra. Sten Konow in ‘Kauṭilya Studies’ (Oslo, 1945, pp. 1–71) ‘sees no serious objection to the theory of Bhāsa borrowing from Kauṭilya’ (p. 6). Dr. B. M. Barua in Bhārata-Kaumudi vol. I. pp. 85–119 (paper styled ‘Arthaśāstra, a blend of old and new’) seems to hold that both verses in A. X. 3 are traceable in the plays of Bhāsa (p. 99) but he does not condescend to tell his readers in what drama of Bhāsa the first verse ‘Yān yajñasaṁghaiḥ’ occurṣ Dr. Jolly also (Intro. p. 10) is vague about these two verseṣ He does not state from what play the verse ‘Yān yajña°’ is takeṇ The first verse ‘Yān yajñasaṁghaiḥ’ with slight variations is quoted from Viṣṇudharma by Hemādri on Vrata-kāṇḍa vol. II p. 971 (and as stated above it occurs in Parāśara Smṛti also). It is remarkable that even Keith on p. 491 (in B. C. Law Felicita-tion Volume Part I), vaguely says ‘In A. (X. 3) are to be found two verses which apparently are taken from Bhāsa. He never bothered to tell his readers in what play the first verse occurs, just as Dr. Barua and Dr. Jolly do. This is a good example of how sweeping assertions are made by even experienced scholarṣ

Among the circumstances for rejecting the thirteen Trivan-drum plays as the works of the famous Bhāsa, a predecessor of Kālidāsa, may be mentioned the following: (1) the plays have come down anonymously; ( 2 ) verses ascribed to Bhāsa in several anthologies are not found in the thirteen plays; ( 3 ) even verses quoted from a play called Svapnavāsavadattā are not found in the Svapnavāsavadattā ( of Trivandrum ); ( 4 ) that out of thirteen plays five are only one act plays not fit to be called Nāṭakas at all. Vide a paper in Calcutta Review for 1924 ( October–December ) pp. 339-349. Several scholars have placed Bhāsa at the end of the 2nd century A.D. e. g. Sten Konow ( in E. Kuhn Presentation vol. 106 ff. and Losny in J. O. I., Baroda ) vol. XIII No. 1 p. 48. This does not affect those who hold that A. belongs to about 300 B. C.

One question about Candragupta may be briefly mentioned here. Purāṇas give confused accounts, Matsya ( 272. 26 ) and Vāyu ( 99. 326–27 ) state that the kings after Mahāpadma will be born of Śūdra womeṇ But Vāyu states that Mahā-nandi's son from a Śūdra wife will be Mahāpadma. That means that Candragupta was deemed at the time of the Purā-ṇas to be the son of a Kṣatriya from a Śūdra wife. The author of the Mudrārākṣasa ( whether he belonged to the 5th century A. D. or 6th or later ) came long after the Purāṇas, was permeated by Paurāṇic lore and therefore he generally uses the word ‘vṛṣala’ ( which means Śūdra in medieval Sanskrit works ) with reference to Candragupta when speaking of him personally, but in his absence he several times employs merely the word ‘Candragupta’ ( as after I. 12. 14 ) or Vṛṣala ( just before I. 10 ). In II. 18 just before approaching king Candra-gupta occupying the throne Cāṇakya speaks of him as ‘Vṛṣa-lena Vṛṣeṇa rājñām’ ( Vṛṣala, the best of kings ). There is absolutely no evidence to hold that the kingmaker Cāṇakya called him ‘Vṛṣala’. It is the dramatist saturated through and through with Paurāṇika ideas that Kṣatriyas ceased to exist after the Nandas, who applies the word Vṛṣala to king Candragupta. But it must be emphasized that the Mudrārākṣasa also shows that Nandakula was the pitṛkula of Candragupta, acc. to Rākṣasa; vide the words ‘Nandakula-manena pitṛkulabhūtam ghātitam’ ( after IV. 12 ) and V. 19 ‘Mauryossau Svāmiputraḥ.’ It is to be noted that in the Mudrārākṣasa Cāṇakya refers to Candragupta as ‘Vatsa’ also ( just before I. 19 ). Frantic efforts have been made by some writers ( e. g. by Mr. Govind Pai in Gode coṃ volume part III pp. 141–150, particularly p. 146, by Mr. K. C. Seth in I. H. Q. Vol. 13, pp. 641–653, and by H. K. Deb in I. H. Q. Vol. 8, pp. 466-479 ) to explain away the word ‘Vṛśala’ in certain ways such as holding Vṛsala as the Sanskrit equivalent of the word Basileos ( Basileus ) occurring on the obverse of the coins of Menander and Demetrius ( who became king in 190 B. C. ; vide Cambridge History of India, Vol. I. pp. 586, 588 ). But this is a vain effort and has not been accepted by many scholarṣ The Chamberlain’s words on the simple furnishings of Caṇakya’s abode ( Act III before verse 16 ) ‘to him His Majesty Candragupta is a mere Vṛsala and rightly so’ indicate in what sense the word Vṛsala was applied to Candragupta by Viśākhadatta in the Mudrārākṣasa or was understood by the Chamberlaiṇ It should be noted, however, that the word Vṛsala occurs in Ṛg. X. 34. 11 and is applied to the gambler ( ‘so agner-aute Vṛśalaḥ papāda’ ). Here Vṛsala seems to mean ‘a miserable or unhappy person’. In the Ṛgveda ‘la’ is affixed to some words as indicating endearment or sympathy e.g. the word ‘śiśula’ in Ṛg. X. 78. 6. Several papers have been written on the origin of Candragupta such as in B.C. Law presentation Vol. pp. 590-610, by Dr. A. Ghosh in I. H. Q. Vol. VI pp. 271-283 ( which rebuts Śūdra origin ), and by Dr. R. K. Mukerjee in Woolner Commemoration Vol. pp. 93- 99. Rākṣasa speaks of Candragupta as Mauryaputra in the drama ( Act II. 7 ) but ‘Kulāhina’ and in VI. 6 he calls him Vṛsala which word in the context means nothing else but Śūdra ( his words being ‘gatā śīghreṇa śrīrvṛśalam-avinīteva vṛśali). The difficulty is that we have no contemporary record about the status of Candragupta ( i. e. about 320 B. C. ). The views of ancient sages differeḍ Vasiṣṭha ( I. 25 ) expressly states that some allowed even a dvija to marry a Śūdra woman but without the use of Vedic mantraṣ Manu III. 13 (latter half) who allowed a Kṣatriya to marry a woman of his own varṇa or a vaiśya or a śūdra woman condemns in III. 14 such marri- ageṣ It is possible that in the 4th century B. C. a Kṣatriya could validly marry a Śūdra womaṇ Kauṭilya provides ( Arthaśāstra III. 6. 22 ) that in the case of Brāhmaṇas the son born of a śūdra wife should receive one-third of the deceased father’s property as his share and a Sapiṇḍa as heir shall receive two-thirds for the purpose of offering the oblations to the deceaseḍ A learned Astrologer named Viṣṇugupta is mentioned by Varāhamihira in the Bṛhaj-jātaka in two places (VII. 7 and XXI. 3). In the first reference is made to the views of Viṣṇu- gupta, Devasvamin and Siddhäsena about the length of life a man may enjoy based on certain horoscopic indicationṣ On VII. 8 Utpala, himself a great astrologer, remarks that the two verses (VII. 7 and 8) do not appear to be Varāhamihira- ra's, but Utpala explains theṃ In XXI. 3 Varāhamihira refers to the view of Viṣṇugupta that Satyācārya held that Aquarius as the rising sign in a man's horoscope does not betoken good throughout that man's life, while the Yavanas held that it is the Kumbhadvadāsaṁsa at birth that forbodes evil, while Viṣṇugupta challenged both those viewṣ On XXI. 3 the commentary of Utpala (as printed) ascribes the view to two viz., Viṣṇugupta and Cāṇakya, while the coṃ on VII. 7 states that Viṣṇugupta's another name was Cāṇakya. Apart from this confusion probably due to scribes, it has to be said that the astrologer Viṣṇugupta must be entirely different from the author of the Arthaśāstra, since the Arthaśāstra appears to ridicule consulting astrology too much in IX. 4. 26, which means ‘the (coveted) object (or goal) slips from the foolish person who continuously consults the stars, for the object is (the auspicious or favourable) constellation; what will stars do’? Besides, the system of Rāśis is comparati- very a late matter in Sanskrit workṣ In his extensive work Kauṭilya nowhere refers to Rāśis (signs of the Zodiac), much less to their influence on human beingṣ Many renowned persons bear the same name. We have Candragupta Maurya as well as two kings of the Gupta dynasty called Candra- gupta. Similarly, there may have been two or more Viṣṇu- guptaṣ Utpala, the commentator of the Bṛhajjātaka, com- posed a commentary (vivṛti) on the Yogayātrā of Varāha- mihira. On many passages of the Yogayātrā Utpala quotes the Arthaśāstra as ‘Cāṇakya’s’.³⁸ Utpala, a Kashmirian, flourished before 850 A. D. ; vide the present author's note in Journal of Asiatic Society, Bombay, New Series Vol. 33 (1960) pp. 147-149. The Sārāvali of Kalyāṇa-varman (Nir. eḍ 1928), who is earlier than Utpala, but later than Varāhamihira, also cites certain astro- logical views of Cāṇakya in Chapter 6. 3 and 47. 45.³⁹ In the latter passage the view that is cited as Viṣṇugupta's in the Bṛhajjātaka XXI. 3 is cited as Cāṇakya'ṣ As the far- famed Arthaśāstra Viṣṇugupta was known under two more names (Cāṇakya and Kauṭilya) at least from the 5th or 6th century A. D., the date of the Mudrarākṣasa, Viṣṇugupta the Astrologer is cited also as Cāṇakya in the Sārāvalī.

In Kern's edition of the Br. Saṃ (II. 4 after prose passages) a certain verse quoted in the note occurs preceded by the words 'uktam cācāryaviṣṇuguptena', thereby showing that Varāha quotes a verse of Viṣṇugupta with acknowledge- ment. In the edition of M. M. Sudhakara Dvivedi the śloka is preceded by the commentary (of Utpala) "uktam cācārya- viṣṇuguptena tathā hyahā 'apyarṇāvasya."⁴⁰ As this verse refers to Kāla as a deity it is probably taken from an astronomcial, mathematical and astrological work. Probably, it is the same Viṣṇugupta who is quoted in the Bṛhajjātaka.

One of the arguments of Dr. Jolly is that many passages of the Arthaśāstra, particularly from the 3rd and 4th adhi- karaṇas on Dharmasthīya and Kaṇṭakāśodhana (i. e. roughly civil and criminal law) recur almost literally in the Smṛtis of Yājñavalkya, Nārada, and Manu; and he holds that K. was acquainted with the whole body of Dharmaśāstra literature much as we now have it (pp. 12-20). Then he examines Vātsyāyana's Kāmasūtra in relation to Arthaśāstra and holds that there can hardly be any doubt that the Kāmasūtra was deeply influenced by the Arthaśāstra (p. 24). This proposi- tion has been accepted by all those who have written on this subject. But he tacks on another proposition that 'no long interval of time can have passed between the composition of two such cognate productions'. Jacobi does not agree with this at all and the present author also cannot agree with this dictum of Dr. Jolly, for which there is no authority except his own (the dictum that between two cognate productions no long interval can pass). And even the date of the Kāmasūtra as 4th century or so (Dr. Jolly's Intro. p. 29) may be regarded as later by at least a century or more. As regards comparison with the Smṛtis, Jolly puts down 33 passages (on pp. 12-17). Out of these 20 are from Yājñavalkyasmṛti, only 4 from Manu, two from Viṣṇu and one each from Baudhāyana, Kātyāyana, Vyāsa. Excepting the passages from Yāj. and Nārada the rest are so few that no scholar (who is not already prepossessed in favour of it) will agree that they are enough to hold that Kauṭilya is the borrower. Dr. Jolly himself had doubts even about Yāj. as he says (on p. 18 of Intro.) 'It is true that some facts seem to point the other way, so that Y. instead of K. (Kauṭilya) would have to be regarded as the borrower, either directly or through the medium of a common source¹⁰⁵. It will be shown later on that the Smṛti of Yāj. should be held to be the borrower and presents far greater development of juristic provisions than the work of Kauṭilya. Keith, without himself examining the data, holds that Dr. Jolly has proved that Yāj. was used by Kauṭilya and that the evidence is conclusive (at p. 494) of Keith's paper in B. C. Law Felicitation Vol. I. pp. 477-495). This is like one blind man following another blind man (as said in the Mundakopanisad I. 2. 8).

Both Dr. Jolly and Dr. Winternitz rely on the Indica of Megasthenes (while admitting that both M. and K. agree on many points) to show that great divergences exist between the Kauṭilya and the account left by Megastheneṣ There are great infirmities as regards the work (Indica) itself. The original work of Megasthenes has not come dowṇ Only fragments of his work are available. McCrindle (on 'Megasthenes and Arrian' (1877) states at p. 19 'since Strabo, Arrianus and Diodorus have directed their attention to relate nearly the same things, it has resulted that the greatest part of the Indica has been completely lost and that of many passages, singularly enough, three epitomes are extant to which a fourth is added by Plinius'. Therefore, absence of certain matters in his account cannot be used as an argument at all. How can one know what was contained in what has been lost or was not containeḍ An argument from silence is not strong and often bad enough but in this case it is much worse (it really is no argument at all). Besides, the period of M's stay in India is uncertaiṇ The Cambridge History of India Vol. I. ( Ancient India ) p. 472 remarks ‘ M. resided in India for a considerable time and perhaps on more than one occasion at the court of Pātaliputra. The dates of his mission must be later than the campaign of Seleucus (circa 305 B. C.) and earlier than the death of Candragupta (297 B. C.) but the time is otherwise undetermineḍ Prof. Winternitz in Cal. Review ( for April–June 1924 ) states on p. 19 that Megas-thenes came to India as ambassador to Candragupta’s court in 302 B. C. i. e. he resided in India at the most four yearṣ This means that M. stayed at the court of Pātaliputra only for a few yearṣ There is nothing to show whether he had learnt Sanskrit or any other Indian language like Pali.

We should not and cannot totally brush aside the Mud-rārakṣasa. Candragupta and Parvataka, the Nandas and their elimination, Candragupta having employed foreign soldiers and gained large territories in North-west India and even to the West of the Indus river are accepted by almost all scholarṣ The drama also states that Rākṣasa, the former minister of the Nandas, was induced by Kauṭilya to accept the post of chief minister under Candragupta and he himself retired from the political fielḍ One has often to wonder at the ways of some Western scholars of the 20th century. They themselves show that Megasthenes reported matters as exist-ing in India which were quite untrue. Dr. Jolly glosses over this in the following words ( Intro. p. 38 ) ‘the numerous and glaring discrepancies between Megasthenes and Kauṭi-lya are no doubt to some extent due to the idealising tendencies of the Greek writer.’ M. does not speak of the four varṇas, the most distinguishing characteristic of Indian Soci-ety for several centuries before him, but speaks of seven classes in the Indian society of his times ( fragment I. p. 40–44 of McCrindle’s tr., eḍ of 1877 ). M. states that Indians keep no slaves, that agriculturists have a privileged position in that they are exempt from military service and are never to be molested even in times of war. that Indians never took wine except at sacrifices, that Indians do not put out money at . usury ( Fragment XXVII B. McCridle's Tr. ), they have no suits about pledges and deposits ( Fragment XXVII c ), that the Indians have no written laws and are ignorant of writ- ing ( Fragment XXVII ), that no private person was allowed to keep a horse or elephant. It is unnecessary to multiply exampleṣ Dr. Jolly himself is constrained to observe ( on p. 40 of Intro. ) as may be seen from these examples, the idealising tendency in Megasthenes greatly impairs the trustworthiness of his statementṣ¹⁰⁵ This is the view of a favourable critic about the positive statements made by M. Prof. A. B. Keith agrees with Dr. Jolly in this appraisal ( B. C. Law Feli- citation Vol. I. pp. 477-495 ). To describe the false reports he makes as due to his idealising tendency is a euphemistic way of saying that M. told lies, whatever his object might have beeṇ If this is the state of things in the matter of his positive statements, how can any conclusion be drawn from his silence on this or that point or fact ? Prof. A. B. Keith says that M. does not mention by name Kauṭilya or Cāṇakya ( p. 486 of his paper mentioned above ) and insinuates that he was non-existent. As a matter of fact the fragments of M. hardly ever mention the name of any prominent Indian indivi- dual at the Pāṭalīputra court or in the country, except that of Sandracottos ( king Candragupta ). Keith admits this (p. 487 of the paper noted above ). Therefore, non-mention of Kauți- lya or Cāṇakya by M. is worthless as an argument. How non-mention is often worthless as an argument may be illustrated by a striking example. Aśoka in his numerous inscriptions nowhere mentions his great progenitor Candra- gupta ( grand-father of Aśoka ). But both are mentioned several hundred years later in the inscription ( Junagad ) of Rudradāman ( in 150 A. D. ). Besides, it has been shown above that M. came to India during the last years of Candra- gupta's reigṇ If we accept the story of the Mudrārākṣasa, Kauṭilya or Cāṇakya was connected only with the early years of Candragupta's career. By the time M. came to India, Kauṭilya might have been living in a hermitage or might have been deaḍ

It is really surprising how even a veteran and studious scholar like Dr. Jolly cannot have the candidness to say that, in view of the unanimous Indian traditions preserved in Sanskrit works ( such as the Purāṇas, Nītisāra, Tantrākhyā- yikā, Mudrārākṣasa, Kādambarī, Daśakumāracarita ) and in H, D.—24 Jain and Buddhist literature, it is quite possible that Kauṭilya may have been a real person and might have had something to do with Candragupta. Not only does he not do this but proceeds to say ‘it might indeed be questioned whether the prime minister of Sandrakottos is not a figure of pure mythology, as he is not mentioned in the Greek reports concerning Sandracottos and as Hemacandra relates very marvellous stories about hiṃ’ The first part (about non-mention by Megasthenes ) has been dealt with above. (pp. 183-4 ) Hemacandra flourished a thousand or more years after Kauṭilya and, if he gives marvellous stories, the task of the scholar is to separate the chaff from the the solid grainṣ Marvellous legends about prophets and great men have been told in all religious books, and socalled histories in all landṣ Marvellous stories are told in the Pali Jātakas and other works about Gautama Buddha, but nobody denies the existence and mission of Buddha. Dr. Jolly further says that the minister Rākṣasa (i. e. the peculiar name only, I hope) is probably a myth, why should not Kauṭilya be mythical as well. A king requires a minister or ministerṣ The Nandas must have had a minister or ministers and one of them might have been dubbed Rākṣasa for various reasonṣ Supposing the name was wrongly given, there is nothing mythical about it. Rākṣasa occurs not only in the Mudrārākṣasa, but it also occurs in the Pañcatantra III ( verse 138 ) p. 65 of Bühler’s eḍ of 1891 (kūṭalekhyair-dhanotsargaiḥ-dūṣayet śatru-pakṣajam | pradhānapuruṣam – yadvaḍ – Viṣṇuguptena Rākṣasaḥ)”. Dr. Jolly, after having written many things (generally one-sided ) becomes aware that it is the contents of the work that matter most and then begins to consider this in a slipshod way on pp. 34-41. On p. 43 Dr. Jolly reverts to the non-mention of Pātaliputra in the Arthaśāstra. As stated above, non-mention would have hardly any bearing on the question of the authorship of an extensive Arthaśāstra. Here also one matter for consideration is as follows : As said above, Kauṭilya was probably connected with the early career of Candragupta. He therefore wrote the Arthaśāstra for his king (‘Narendrārthe’ in II. 10 ). At first, his kingdom was not very large and was unsettleḍ Therefore, he composed a long section on superintendents ( Adhyakṣapracāra ). From that section it appears that he was an experienced administrator and not a mere pandit, as Keith said in ( JRAS, for 1916 at p. 135 ), as Winternitz is pleased to remark ( in Cal. Review 1924 p. 17 ) and as Dr. Jolly echoes this description ( Intro. p. 47 ). Johnston in JRAS for 1929 p. 101 holds that Kauṭilya must have been an experienced and practical administrator.

Winternitz ( Cal. Review for April-June 1924 ) on p. 18 is sceptical about Kauṭilya's authorship of the Arthaśāstra chiefly on two grounds ; firstly, the words 'iti Kauṭiliyaḥ' occur about 80 times and therefore the reference is to a school and not to a single individual. Some Western writers often indulge in categorical statements about matters Indian on scanty data. We have the examples of Baudhāyana ( a. of a Śrauta and Dharmasūtra ), Jaimini ( author of Pūrvamīmāmsā-sūtra ), Bādarāyaṇa ( of the Vedāntasūtra ), Vātsyāyana ( author of Kāmasūtra ) citing their own names in their workṣ Vātsyāyana is a gotra name. The famous poet Bāṇa speaks of his ancestor as ‘ babhūva Vātsyāyana-gotrasambhavaḥ'. The second ground is the same that Keith advanced in JRAS for 1916 p. 135 viz. that Kauṭilya means crookednesṣ How can an author call himself crookedness incarnate ? Vide Cal. Review 1924 p. 18. Here again a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Kauṭilya is a gotra name. Winternitz appears to have known only one meaning of the worḍ Just as Bharadvāja often mentioned in the Arthaśāstra is a gotra name, so is Kauṭilya ( as shown on p. 91 of the first edition ) and as shown above from the grant of Bhāskaravarman of Kāmarūpa in the first half of the 7th century A. D. in E. I. vol. 19 pp. 115-7 and 248-250, which only confirms his ancestor's grant. Moreover, the Pravara-sūtra of Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra ( Dr. Caland's eḍ ) includes Kauṭilya in the Yaska group of gotras ( vol. III p. 421 ). Besides, the Matsya purāṇa ( Ānaṇ eḍ ) when dealing at length ( in chapters 195-202 ) with gotras and pravaras mentions in chap. 195. 26 ) Kauṭili as a gotra name under Bhṛguvamśa. Therefore, these grounds put forward by Keith and Winternitz are worth nothing.

Another example of easy-going attitudes and want of caution even among some veteran Sanskrit scholars of the West may be mentioned from Dr. Jolly's Intro. to his edition of K. ( p. 11 ). He refers to the fact that Medhātithi on Manu adduces two passages ( on VII. 191 and 205 ) from a work spoken of by him as Samānatantra ( which can be traced to the Arthaśāstra X. 5, last verse and VI. 2. 7 ). Dr. Jolly is so cocksure that he at once jumps to the conclusion that the Arthaśāstra was surnamed Samānatantra, does not even use the words 'it is possible' and refers in support of his dictum to the words 'samānam pūrvena', that occur several times in the Arthaśāstra; (vide e. g. I. 11. 10–12, XIV. 1. 26). All that those words mean is ‘the rest need not be expressly stated but that some words or phrases already occurring in a previous sentence or part are to be understood as meant here also.’ Samānatantra is a technical term in the Nyāyasūtra I. 1. 27–31 and Vatsyāyana-bhāṣya. Tantra means ‘siddhānta’ (‘tantram pradhāne siddhānte’ as Amarakośa says) i. e. a system of thought or philosophy. A siddhānta may be one of four kinds, viz. (1) Sarvatantra, (2) Pratitantra-siddhānta e. g. certain dogmas (such as Prakṛti, Purușa in Sāṁkhya) are common to Yoga i. e. to two systems (though in other matters they differ as the Yoga system does from Sāṁkhya) and are Samānatantra. The 3rd is 'adhikaraṇasiddhānta' and 4th is abhyupagama-siddhānta. The Manusmṛti insists on Dharma (spiritual and moral good) as the principal matter (or goal) and treats artha (material good or well-being) and Kāma (pleasures of sense) as inferior and calls upon all to give up Artha and Kāma that are opposed to Dharma (Manu IV. 176). On the other hand the A. (that is meant for the benefit of rulers ('narendrāthe' as he says) emphatically states 'Artha alone is supreme, for Dharma and Kāma depend upon Artha' (I. 7. 6-7). Thus, though Manu and Arthaśāstra deal with many matters that are common to both, the principles and emphasis are different and hence Arthaśāstra may be called parallel to (though not identical with) Mauusmṛti. It may be noted here that the verse 'Pradīpaḥ sarvavidyānām' (Artha° I. 2. 12) is quoted by the Vātsyāyana-bhāṣya (I. 1) only changing the last pāda into 'vidyoddeśe prakīrtitā'.

Some Western scholars again and again harp on the point of non-mention as a valid ground for arriving at definite or positive conclusionṣ Winternitz (in Cal. Review 1924) could not avoid the temptation of pressing into service the non-mention of Kauṭilya in the Mahābhārata (p. 28). In the first place, Winternitz does not state what date he assigns to the Mahābhārata. Besides, various replies can be given to this useless argument. The great Epic ends upon the note of Dharma ( as the quotations below will show³¹ ) just like Manu’s exhortations above. Even if Kauṭilya flourished before the epic there is no compelling reason why the epic should mention a writer with whom it had a fundamental difference. Other possible replies are that Kauṭilya was a contemporary or flourished slightly later or earlier than the Mahābhārata as we have it.

If one were to write on Western Scholars’ frequent use of non-mention^* of a person or work by other works or authors as a good reason for coming to positive or definite conclusions, a volume would have to be writteṇ But I must add one more glaring instance of this perverse tendency among certain Western writers (and the instance is very relevant here). Dr. Jolly (Intro. to A. p. 47) remarks ‘Patañjali in his Mahā- bhāṣya refers to the Mauryas and to the Sabhā of Candragupta but is silent about Kauṭilya’. The Mahābhāṣya is an exposi- tion of the Vārtikas of Kātyāyana and indirectly of Pāṇini’s sūtras; it is quite wrong to suppose that it is a general work on Sanskrit authors and Literature or a thesaurus of all literary works in Sanskrit and the names of their authors (up to Patañjali’s time). If some historical facts are stated in the Mahābhāṣya they are relevant for the purpose of explaining Pāṇini’s sūtras and their applicatioṇ To take first the reference to the Mauryas : It occurs in the Mahābhāṣya¹⁷⁰ on Pāṇ. V. 3. 99 (Jīvikārthe cāpaṇye). This says that the affix Kaṇ (ku ) is not applied to images of Gods that are meant to be sold, but that are installed for gaining livelihood; e. g. an image of Śiva is called Śiva if it is not meant for being sold but is established for affording a living to the Devalakas (priests of the idol); while if an image of Śiva be meant for sale, it would be designated Śivaka, but would not be applied to idols established by Maurya kings for collecting gold or cash (from the offerings placed before the images). Besides, the plural ‘Mauryaiḥ’ is useḍ That is most important. There were nine or ten Maurya kings, who ruled in all for 137 years (vide p. 171 above ). Therefore, reference is not to Candragupta at all but to his descendants after Aśoka, the last of whom was ultimately liquidated by senānī Puṣyamitra and whose doings Patañjali might have personally known or heard because he was very near in time. There is no occasion or necessity to bring in Kauṭilya here. Then a word must be said about Candraguptasabhā. On Vārtika 7 of Pāṇ. I. 1. 68 (read with Pāṇ. II. 4. 23 ‘sabhā rājamānusyapūrvā’), we get the neuter gender for the compounds ‘inasabham īśvarasabham’, but we have Rājasabhā (not rājasabham), Puṣyamitrasabhā and Candraguptasabhā ) (and not Candraguptasabham &c. ). Here the question is one of pure grammar. It may be noticed that Patañjali mentions the Sabhā of the founder of the Mauryas and also of the destroyer of that dynasty (viz. Puṣyamitra). Aśoka was the greatest of the Mauryas, but owing to his Buddhist proclivities he was probably persona non vrata with Patañjali. Following the logic of Dr. Jolly, Aśokasabhā not being mentioned in Patañjali it could have been argued that Aśoka did not exist or at least there was no Aśokasabhā. His Inscriptions and Buddhist works 14. The Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya vouch for his existence. Well then, the Purāṇas, Jain and Buddhist sources vouch for the existence of Kauṭilya and the A. itself proclaims that it is Kauṭilya's work; besides, writers from the third century A. D. at least onward mention hiṃ Why should not all Western scholars agree on this probabi- lity at least ? Many of them treat Kauṭilya as if he were in the dock and regard themselves as advocates for the prosecu- tion and eager to condemn and annihilate hiṃ I can gauge or surmise the motives of some at least of theṃ But it is not necessary for my purpose here to dwell on theṃ

A. B. Keith (in J. R. A. S. for 1916 pp. 130–137) states that it is perfectly possible that the Arthaśāstra is an early work and may be assigned to the 1st century B. C. while its material is older (p. 137). He, however, held that the verse ‘ Yena śāstram ca śastram ca’ (at the end i. e. in XV. 1. 73) is unlike a statesman and very like the product of a follower who desired to extol his master. This is purely one man's subjective idea about what a person should have done (who flourished two thousand years before him). Jacobi (who assigns Kauṭilya to about 300 B. C. in I. A. Vol. 53 pp. 128– 136 ) and others do not accept Keith's remark at all. Keith (on p. 136 of JRAS for 1916) says that Kauṭilya means fal- sehooḍ This is not accurate. Kuṭila means ‘bent or croo- ked’ as the Amarakośa says and as the Vārtika ‘Anavanakau- ṭilyayor-iti vaktavyam’ on Pāṇ. I. 3. 66 and Patañjali indicates ( Kielhorn's eḍ Vol. I. p. 290 ). In 1945, however, Keith appears to have changed even his first response to the publi- cation of Kauṭilya's work and published a paper (in B. C. Law Presentation Vol. I. pp. 477–196) remarkable for its acrid and supercilious tone, where he observes ‘there is no trace of a commanding intellect in the actual work before us of the type of Frederick the great, Mādhavācārya, Todarmal, Richelieu, Warren Hastings, Woodrow Wilson, Lenin and Churchill.’ Dr. Jolly also (Intro. p. 33) sings the same tune, when he writes ‘this however appears to be certain that his work is the outcome of a long period of literary activity in the field of polity rather than the production of a creative genius, another reason for not fixing its age limit too high’.

Many scholars have contributed papers showing the indebtedness of Kālidāsa, Bhavabhūti and others to the Arthaśāstra. For example, vide Kunhan Raja Felicitation Vol. pp. 48-54 and Proceedings of the 13th All India Oriental Conference, part 2 pp. 102-108 (Dr. Raghavan) for Kālīdāsa's indebtedness to Kauṭilya). No scholar (except Dr. Pran Nath) puts the Arthaśāstra later than the 3rd century A. D. and most scholars place Kālīdāsa between 350 to 450 A. D. Therefore, beyond serving to check or corroborate the text of A. such articles are not of importance in this section and so these matters need not be dwelt upon here.

From comparatively ancient times Cānakya alias Kauṭilya or Visnugupta has been credited with the composition of a work on Arthaśāstra. The Kāmāndakiyanītisāra⁴⁵ pays a glowing tribute of praise to Visnugupta, who, single-handed, brought about the downfall of Nanda, bestowed the earth on Candragupta and distilled from the ocean of Arthaśāstra the quintessence, his work on politicṣ Kāmandaka further tells us that he looked upon Visnugupta as his guru.⁴⁶ The Tantrākhyāyikā (H. O. S. vol. 14) which is certainly not later than 300 A. D. pays homage to Cāṇakya the Great as one of the authors of treatises on Politicṣ⁴⁷ Dandin in his Daśakumāracarita (section VIII, p. 131, 2nd edition B. S. Series) says that the teacher Viṣṇugupta compressed daṇḍanīti for the sake of the Maurya king into six thousand ślokas and quotes passages from Cāṇakya.⁴⁸ Bāna associates the work of Kauṭilya with harsh and cruel expedientṣ The Pañcatantra identifies Cāṇakya and Visnugupta and speaks of Cāṇakya as the author of Arthaśāstra ( vide part I. p. 2 eḍ by Kielhorn, part II. p. 65 and part III. 50 eḍ by Bühler ). Kauṭilya figures very largely in the purāṇas ( vide Pargiter’s ‘Dynasties of the Kali age’ pp. 69–70 and Viṣṇupurāṇa 4. 24. 26–28 ). He has a prominent place in the Bṛhatkathā of Guṇāḍhya as appears from the works of Kṣemendra and Somadeva. The Mṛcchakaṭika ( I. 39, B. S. series ) refers to Cāṇakya. The Mudrārākṣasa identifies Cāṇakya and Kauṭilya and suggests the derivation of the latter name from Kuṭila ( crooked ). Some of the above items of information are supported by the personal references contained in the Arthaśāstra itself. At the end of the first adhikarana Kauṭilya is said to be the author of the Śāstra and at the end of the 10th chapter of the second adhikarana Kauṭilya is said to have laid down the rules for royal edicts for the sake of the king.⁴⁹ The last verse⁵⁰ tells us that he, who impatiently wrested the earth from the Nanda king, composed the work and after the colophon a verse tell us that, seeing the differing interpretations of bhāṣyākaras on the Arthaśāstra, Viṣṇu- gupta himself composed the sūtra and the bhāṣya.

Kauṭilya gives his own definition of Arthaśāstra in Adhikaraṇa XV. 1. It means 'means of the subsistence of men are artha ( wealth ) i. e. the earth ( land ) inhabited by meṇ The science which is the means of gaining and pro- tecting that earth is the science of Artha ( Politics ) ( Manu- ṣyāṇām vṛttir-arthaḥ manuṣyavati bhūmirityarthaḥ ; tasyāḥ pṛthivyā lābhapālanopāyaḥ śāstram-arthaśāstram-iti ). The Kauṭilya appears to employ the word Nītiśāstra in the sense of Arthaśāstra in V. 4. 3 ( anātınavān hi nītiśāstradveṣād- anarthyasamyogādvā prāpyāpi mahad-aiśvaryam na bhavati. The very first sentence of the Arthaśāstra foreshadows the definition of the term in XV. 1 viz. ‘this single ( treatise ) on the science of Politics has been composed mostly by bringing together ( the dicta of ) as many treatises on the science of politics as have been composed ( established ) by former teachers for the acquisition and protection of the earth¹⁰⁵. The first question that arises for consideration is the authenticity of the work, that is, the question whether it can be the work of the famous minister of Candragupta Maurya, who was a contemporary of Alexander, and who must there- fore have flourished about 320 B. C. This question very largely depends upon the age of the work. But other considera- tions, more or less of a subjective character and depending upon the absence of certain things from the Kautiliya, must be dealt with first. Jolly, Keith and Winternitz hold that the extant Kautiliya is not the work of the Maurya minister. One argument, viz. that a person like Caṇakya who had to build a vast empire such as that of Candragupta and who was bent down with the cares of the empire could not have found time to write such a work, may be brushed aside as entirely futile, being a purely subjective argument. Some persons may say that he could have found time, just as Sāyaṇa and Mādhava could find in later days, to write such a work in the midst of all cares, while others may deny the possibility of such a thing. Similarly, most of the arguments from the silence of the Kautiliya are also quite unconvincing and lead to no certain and universally acceptable conclusioṇ The non-mention of Pāṭaliputra or of the empire of Candragupta is of very little use in deciding the question of the authenticity of the work. The argument of Stein and Winternitz that in Megasthenes’ account of India no great person named Caṇakya or Kauṭilya appears and that the former’s account of the condition of India does not tally with that presented by the Kautiliya is of very little weight. We have no means for finding what proficiency Megasthenes had acquired in the languages of India so as to be able to hold conversation with all sorts and conditions of meṇ Besides, it is well known that Megasthenes’ writings have been handed down in a fragmentary state and that he often spins his own yarnṣ Megasthenes declares the Indians to be unacquainted with writing. But no Western scholar would now subscribe to the view that writing was unknown in India about 320 B. C. Dr. Jolly himself has to remark that the idealising tendency in Megasthenes greatly impairs the trustworthiness of his statements ( p. 40, Introduction to Kauṭiliya ). This question of the authenticity of the work is bound up with the question whether it can be the work of an individual author or whether it is the product of a school. Hillebrandt vehemently argues that it is the product of a school and Jacobi as vehemently repudiates that hypothesiṣ The great stumbling block according to many scholars in the way of regarding Kauṭilya as the author of the work is the fact that the views of Kauṭilya are cited by name about 80 times in the work itself, almost always in opposition to the views of other teacherṣ But there is nothing specially to be wondered at in thiṣ In order to avoid looking too egoistic, ancient authors generally put their own views in the third person as said by early writers like Medhātithi and Viśva-rūpa.⁵¹ It has to be admitted that the first person singular also is used by ancient writers, though rarely.⁵² Jacobi (I. A. for 1918 p. 188) and Keith are both wrong in thinking that the view of Kauṭilya is criticized by Bhāradvāja in V. 6. Kauṭilya states his position first and then mentions the view of a predecessor.⁵³ Dr. Jolly (Intro. to Kauṭilya p. 44) is wrong in his explanation of Apadeśa (in XV. 21).⁵⁴ That word is applied to passages which mean 'this or that author says this or that' and the Kauṭiliya cites from his own work a case of the statement of various views on a certain point. These words do not at all indicate that according to the Arthaśāstra Kauṭilya was a stranger. Apadeśa is one of the 32 tantrayuktis (devices or patterns of the tantra i. e. the system propounded in the work). It should be noticed that all the 32 tantrayuktis are exemplified from the Kauṭiliya itself and in illustrating the word 'apadeśa' in Adhikaraṇa 15 the author quotes an example (out of many in the work itself) from its first adhikarana. Apadeśa seems to mean 'a statement or declaratioṇ' The word Apadeśa occurs also in IV. 8. 2. The words of Dr. Jolly (Intro. p. 44) are rather misleading. He says 'the numerous references to opinions of K. in the body of the work are in the Tantrayukti chapter explained as coming under the head of Apadeśa'. K. is exem- plifying the various devices ( yuktis ) that have to be emplo- yed in expounding his systeṃ The three opinions including his own have already been stateḍ There are many examples of apadeśa in the work apart from the one mentioned in XV ( as on I. 8, I. 17. 4–22, II. 7. 11–15, VIII. 1, VIII. 3 ). Keith thinks ( J. R. A. S. 1916 p. 135 ) that as Kauṭilya is derived from Kuṭila, an author will not cite his own views under such an epithet. It is not unlikely that Cāṇakya acquired the epithet Kauṭilya on account of his methods in dealing with the Nandas and that as he did so from no purely selfish motives but for ridding the country of such tyrants as the Nandas are represented to have been, he might have come to relish the name given to him by the people. It has to be noted in this connection that many of the writers quoted in the Kauṭilīya bear nicknames ( such as Pīśuna, Vātavyādhi, Kauṇapadanta ). This leads to the question as to whether the name is Kauṭilya or Kauṭalya. Hillebrandt seems to imply that all msṣ employ the first form, while Pandit T. Ganapatisastri says his msṣ support the latter form though in the first few pages he prints Kauṭilya. Msṣ of the Kādam- bari, the Pañcatantra and other works support the form Kauṭilya and the Mudrarākṣasa does the same by pointedly hinting at the etymology. A coṃ on the Kāmandakīyani- Kāuṭiliya as Kuṭalabhāṣya and Kuṭala is said to be a gotra. The form Kauṭalya is said to occur in an insc- ription at Ganesar in Dholka dated Vikrama Samvat 1291 ( i. e. 1234–35 A. D. ). Vide Indian Historical Quarterly vol. I. p. 786. It is very difficult to decide between the rival claims of the two forms, but it appears that the form of the name, Kauṭalya, is due to a later attempt to solve the diffi- culty of an author parading his views as those of a man nicknamed “crookeḍ” Whether Kuṭalar or Kauṭalya was known as a gotra ṛṣi in ancient times is extremely doubtful. Neither the Āśvalāyana-śrauta-sūtra ( Utterṣaṭka, 6th chap., 10th Kaṇḍikā ) nor the Āpastamba-śrauta-sūtra ( 24. 5–10 ) mentions Kuṭala among the several gotra groupṣ In later works on goṭras, we find the name in several formṣ In the Pravaradarpana of Kamalākara Kauṭali is said to be one of the Jāmadagnya-Vatsa group of the Bhṛgus ( p. 156 edited by P. Chentsalrao, Mysore ) and Kauṭilya is assigned to the Yaska group of the Bhṛgus ( p. 158 ). The Pravaramañjari enumerates the Kauṭilyas ( p. 32, of the edition by P. Chentsal- rao, Mysore ) among the Yaska group of the Bhrgus, also among the Śāradvanta group of the Gautamas, a branch of the Āṅgirasas ( p. 161 ) and Kauṭili as one of the Bhrgus ( p. 42 ).

In connection with the Arthaśāstra of K. the following questions arise ( and arguments on them become mixed up ). I. Was there a person called Kauṭilya or Cāṇakya, who helped king Candragupta and was his minister; II. Did he write a work on Polity; III. Was the work in prose or verse or both; IV. Is the extant Arthaśāstra substantially the same work that was originally written by Cāṇakya or Viṣṇugupta mentioned in a verse occurring at the end in some msṣ the same as Kauṭilya or Cāṇakya or different.

The preceding pages contain answers to some of these questionṣ On the available evidence there is hardly any doubt that Kauṭilya and Cāṇakya are names of the same person and that he helped Candragupta in the early part of his career ( reply to question I ); Kauṭilya or Cāṇakya was the author of the extant Arthaśāstra as stated in the work itself and in the Tantrākhyāyikā, Kādambarī and Daśakumāracarita (reply to question II ). The work was in prose with a verse or verses at the end of each chapter and sometimes in the middle also. This will be elaborated a little later ( reply to question III ). The extant work is substantially the same as originally written, but it is likely that some matter was interpolated later. Some portions dropped out owing to its unpopularity ( evidenced by Bāṇa ) and the great lack of msṣ of the work; same possible interpolations have been pointed out in several places ( reply to Question IV ); Viṣṇugupta is the name given at Nāmākaraṇa and Viṣṇugupta, Cāṇakya and Kauṭilya are the names of the same person ( reply to V ). It has been shown that the Nītisāra ascribes the work to Viṣṇugupta, the Tantrākhyāyikā speaks of Cāṇakya as the author of a nīpa- śāstra, the Kādambarī ascribes the Śāstra to Kauṭilya, the Daśakumāracarita identifies Viṣṇugupta and Cāṇakya and the Mudrārākṣasa gives the three names as those of the same persoṇ

The Purāṇas are mainly concerned with the periodic creation and destruction of the world, the royal dynasties and their doings ( i. e. with history ) and holy places, penances, vratas, contents of the Vedas, their auxiliary lores ( i. e. Vedāṅgas ), the composition and number of the Purāṇas and Dharmaśāstra matters ( and much of this in a prophetic vein ) and they hardly ever refer to secular works except in compara- tively later Purāṇaṣ There is no wonder, therefore, that even when some of them refer to Kauṭilya as instrumental in uprooting the Nandas and placing a strong and capable ruler like Candragupta on the Magadha throne ( that is history, Vaṁśa and Vaṁśānucarita ), they are generally silent about the names and authors of secular works like the Artha- śāstra and the works of poets and dramatists like Bhāsa and Kālidāsa.

Before proceeding to discuss the age of the Kauṭilīya, it is advisable to say a few words on the form, style and contents of the work. The work is divided into 15 adhikararas, 180 chapters, 180 topics and contains 6000 ślokas ( i. e. units of 32 letters ). The work is in prose interspersed with a few verseṣ Each chapter has at the end at least one verse and sometimes more; for example, at the end of VII. 3 there are 15 verses, 14 at the end of VII. 18, 12 at the end of VIII. 5, 8 at the end of VII. 6 and VII. 13. Even in the middle of some chapters occur some verses, excluding mantras e. g. in I. 8 ( one ), I. 15 ( 2 ), II. 10 ( 12 ), II. 24 ( 5 ), V. 6 ( 1 ), VII. 5 (9), VII. 6 ( 1 ), VII. 13 ( 2 ), X. 3 ( 2 ), XIII. 4 ( 1 ), XIV. 2 ( 1 ). There are about 375 verses in all ( excluding mantras, but including some obvious quotations ). Almost all verses are in the Anuṣṭubh metre; there are 2 classical Upajātis in II. 9 ( 32-33 ), 5 Upajātis in II. 10, one Puṣpitāgrā in II. 12 ( 10 ); in all eight verses that are not Anuṣṭubh. Some scholars are inclined to regard the chapter on Śāsanas as a later interpola- tion, principally on the ground of the number of verses in it that are not Anuṣṭubhṣ This is wrong. It we look to the Mahābhāṣya that quotes Kārikās and verses in metres other than Anuṣṭubh, we shall have to hold that long before 150 B.C. ( the generally accepted date of the Mahābhāṣya ) many classical metres had been developed; for example, kārikās in Āryā metre ( on Pāṇ. I. 1. 57 and on I. 2. 51, on Pāṇ. VI. 1. 77 and VII. 1. 78 there are Kārikās in Indravajrā, on I. 4. 109 there is Vidyunmālā, there is Vasantatilaka on Vārtika I on Pāṇ. III. 2. 26 ( Kielhorn's eḍ Vol. II. p. 102 ), there is a Rucirā on p. 409 vol. III. There are such quotations as 'asidvitīyos- nusāsāra Pāṇḍavam' ( Kielhorn vol. I. p. 426 on II. 2. 26 ), which is a Vaṁśasthapāda. The largest number of verses occurs in Adhikaraṇa VII ( 89 verses ), then come Adhikaraṇa. II (71 verses) and Adhikaraṇa I (with 46). The smallest Adhikaraṇa is XI (with less than three printed pages and has only one verse) and the longest Adhikaraṇa is the second dealing with Adhyakṣapracāra and covering nearly one-fourth of the whole work. In the absence of early works on Arthaśāstra prior to Kauṭilya it is almost impossible to say how many of the verses in K. are borrowed or how many are his own compositioṇ There can be no doubt that some of these verses are his own composition e. g. the two verses (16–17) at the end of I. 10, where respectively the views of the ācāryas and of Kauṭilya ( iti Kauṭilya-darśanam ) are set forth must he held to be his owṇ It may be said that some verses are quotationṣ For example, the verse ‘ nāsya guhyam pare ’ at end of I. 15, connected with his own word (‘ kurvataśca ’) in the last sentence, is a quotatioṇ But a difficulty arises that this verse is almost the same as Manu VII. 105 and similar to Śānti 140–24. Similarly, the verse ‘ Saṁvatsareṇa patati &c. ’ ( Artha. IV. 7. 28) is almost the same as Śānti 165. 37, Manu XI. 180, Bauḍ Dh. S. II. 1. 62, Vasiṣṭha I. 22 and Viṣṇu Dh. S. 35. 3–5 first half). In this case it is difficult to say who borrows from whom, but it is probable that Kauṭilya borrowed from Śāntiparva or Bauḍ A half verse⁵⁵ in A. III. 14. 27 ( anāhitāgniḥ śatagur-ayajvā ca sahasraguḥ ) is found in Manu XI. 14, Śāntiparva 165. 9 and in Gaut. Dh. S. 18. 26–27 ), all three in another connection). A. III. 7. 1–2 (in prose) have almost the same idea and words as Manu 8. 332.⁵⁶ It is noteworthy that they are introduced with the words 'apiha ślaukau bhavataḥ' and follow a quotation from or summary of a Vedic passage. Twelve verses in VII. 9 are introduced with the words 'tatratad bhavati' and may be quotationṣ A few of the verses bear a close resemblance to verses of other works; e. g. the verse 'prṣṭaḥ priyahitaṁ brūyāt' (in V. 4) which is very similar to Manu. 4. 138. In some cases he connects verses with his own words, e. g. the words 'kurvatāsca' with 'nāsya guhyam' (at the end of I. 15) and the last verse of II. 25. The style of the Kauṭilīya is simple and direct. It is not concise like that of the Vedānta or Vyākaraṇa sūtraṣ It resembles the dharmasūtras of Gautama, Hārita and Śaṅkha-Likhita, but is not as archaic as that of Āpastamba. According to the commentaries the several headings of the prakaraṇas are sūtras and the contents of them the bhāṣya (vide Nayacandrikā pp. 137, 143-44 &c., edited by Dr. Jolly). It abounds in numerous technical and rare termṣ It is generally in accordance with Pāṇini's grammar, though such un-Pāṇinean words as pāpiṣṭhatama' (in VII, 11) rarely occur. It employs the word 'avyaya' in the masculine (II. 10. 19), while Pāṇini (I. 1. 37 employs 'avyayam'.

A. employs such gerunds as 'nistārayitvā' in IV. 12. 38, 'pravāsayitvā' in XII. 4.4 and 'abhimantrayitvā' in XIV. 3.45.

The whole work on account of its careful arrangement of topics and unity of design impresses one as the product of a single brilliant minḍ Like a modern work it gives an exhaus- tive table of contents, divides the work into fifteen Adhikar- ṇas, these into chapters and prakaraṇas and often refers to its own remarks in a preceding or following chapter e. g. in I. 12. 17 K. refers to spies spoken of in Kaṇṭakaśodhana (i. e. in IV 4. 3), in VII. 3. 6. (ābāliyasam vā yogam-ātiṣṭhet) he refers to Adhikaraṇa XII. which is labelled 'Ābāliyasum'; On XIII. 1. 14 (tena parapakṣaṁ-utsāhayet-yathoktaṁ purastāt) he refers to I. 14. 6 ff; in XII. 2. 8–9 (yathā saṅghavṛtte ca vyākhyātaṁ, yogavāmane ca yaduktaṁ, ātmarakṣitake &c. ) he refers to XI. 1, XIII. 2 and I. 21 respectively. The 15th Adhikaraṇa (on Tantrayuktis) contains 32 references to previous passageṣ The Kauṭilīya sheds such valuable light on the social, economic, political and religious life of ancient India and contains information on so many topics that it is not possible to convey any idea of its contents in a brief summary.

The subjects of the fifteen adhikaraṇas are:— I. The discipline of the king, sciences to be learnt by him, the place of Ānvīkṣikī and politics, qualifications of ministers and purohita and their temptations, the institution of spies, council meetings, ambassadors, protection of princes, duties towards harem, king's personal safety ; II. about superintendents of various State departments, founding villages, pastures and forests, forts, duties of the chamberlain ( sannidhātā ), the commissioner for revenues from forts, country, mines, roads &c. ; accountant-general's office ; embezzlement of public funds ; royal edicts ; examination of precious stones for the treasury and mines ; superintendent of gold (i.e. of coins issued from the mints ) ; superintendent of store-house ( of agricultural produce &c. ), of commerce, of forests, of arms, of weights and mea- sures, of tolls, of weaving, of liquor houses, of slaughter houses, of prostitutes, of shipping, of cows and horses, of the capital and cities ; III. Administration of justice, rules of procedure, forms of marriage, duties of married couples, strīdhana, twelve kinds of sons ; other titles of law ; IV. removal of thorns, protection of artisans, merchants, remedies against national calamities such as fires, floods, pestilence, famines, demons, tigers, snakes etc. ; suppression of those who live by foul means ; detection of juvenile crime ; arrest of criminals on suspicion, accidental or violent deaths, torture to extort confessions ; protection of all kinds of State departments ; fines in lieu of cutting off of limbs, sentence of death with or without torture ; intercourse with maidens ; punishment of fine for various wrongs ; V. conduct of courtiers, award of punishment for treason, replenishing of treasury in case of emergency ; salaries of State servants, qualifications of courtiers, consolidation of royal power ; VI. constitution of the maṇḍala, seven elements of sover- eignty, qualities of king, peace and arduous work as the source of prosperity ; sixfold royal policy ; threefold śakti ; VII. circle of States is the field for the employment of the six guṇas ( sandhi, war, neutrality, march- ing, taking shelter and dvaidhibhāva ) ; causes leading to the dwindling and disloyalty of armies ; combination of States ; sandhi for the acquisition of a friend, gold or land ; an enemy in the rear, recouping of lost strength ; a neutral king and a circle of States; VIII. about vyasanas (vices and misfortunes) of the several elements of sovereignty: troubles of the king and the invader, proper time for invasion, recruitment of the army, accoutrements, internal and external trouble, disaffection; and their allies: X. about war; encamping the army, march of the army, battle-fields, work of infantry, cavalry, elephants &c., array of troops for battle in various formations; XI. concerning corporations and guilds; XII. Ābalīyasam (concerning the attitude or conduct of the weaker king)¹⁸³ XII. concerning a powerful enemy; sending an envoy, intrigues, spies with weapons, fire and poison and destruction of stores and granaries; capture of the enemy by stratagems; final victory: XIII. capture of forts; sowing dissensions; enticing of king by strategem; spies in a siege; restoring peace in a conquered country; XIV. secret means, stratagems for killing an enemy, producing illusive appearances, medicines and incantations; XV division of this work into sections and their illustrationṣ

It would be interesting to say a few words separately on the chapter about judicial administratioṇ Dr. Jolly has collected together the passages of the Kauṭiliya on judicial administration that bear a very close resemblance to the several works on ancient Indian Law (vide Z. D. M. G. vol. 67, pp. 51-90). It will be seen therefrom that there is the greatest correspondence between the Kauṭiliya and Yājñavalkya. It is no doubt true that many passages from Manu and Nārada agree closely with those of the Kauṭilīya but not to the same extent as those of Yājñavalkya. A few striking examples are quoted below.⁵⁷ The question then arises whether there is borrowing and if so who the borrower iṣ The agreement in phraseology is so close that it must be regarded as a case of borrowing and in my opinion it is the Yājñavalkyasmṛti that borrowṣ The reasons are many. Yājñavalkya represents on numerous points of law a very great advance upon the doctrines of Kauṭilya. Kauṭilya does not contain distinct directions upon the four stages of a law suit (plaint, reply, proof and judgment) nor upon the threefold aspects of proof (documents, witnesses, prescription). Yājñavalkya goes into all these matterṣ The Kauṭilīya does not recognise the widow or mother as heir to a sonless man; Yājñavalkya does so. Kauṭilya does not mention the bandhus as heirs; he hardly says anything about re-unioṇ⁵⁸ The Kauṭilīya divides the strī-dhana of a woman dying during her husband's lifetime among her sons and daughters, while Yāj. prefers the daughters to the sonṣ⁵⁹ Kauṭilya differs from all Dharmaśāstra authors ( including Yāj. ) in allowing a divorce on account of mutual hatred between husband and wife (III. 3. 16 'parasparam dvesān-mokṣaḥ ). Kauṭilya ignores the widow or mother of a person as an heir, while Yāj. II. 135 recognises them as heirs if one dies without a son or daughter and the extant Manu smṛti also prescribes that the mother of a person dying child-less would succeed as heir to him and if the mother also be dead the father's mother would inherit ( IX. 217 ). It is not necessary to multiply exampleṣ It goes without saying that Yājñavalkya represents a far too advanced stage of juristic principles than the Kauṭilya and so must be later than the latter by several centurieṣ The Kauṭilya agrees very closely with Manu also, but considerations of space prevent me from going into the points of agreement. There are however numerous fundamental points on which Manu and the Kauṭilya disagree.

Kauṭilya allows niyoga even in the case of Brāhmaṇas ( last verse of III. 6 and at the end of I. 17 about kings ). Manu first speaks of Niyoga and then condemns it ( vide 9. 57–63 and 9. 64–68 ). As Bṛhaspati refers to this fact in Manu's work,⁶⁰ it appears that the passages condemning niyoga were put in probably earlier than the first centuries of the Christian era. Though Kauṭilya speaks of almost the same 18 titles as those in Manu ( 8. 4–7 ) almost under the same names, there is a slight difference. Manu has no such title as Prakīrṇaka. Kauṭilya speaks of upanidhi and extends the same rules to Nikṣepa, while Manu speaks of the title as Nikṣepa. The ancient dharma-sūtras do not give the technical names of the eighteen titles of law, though some of them do occur thereiṇ Vākpāruṣya and Daṇḍapāruṣya occur in G. Dh. S. ( 12. 1 ) and Vaṣ ( 17. 61 ). Bauḍ seems to have known the term ‘Strisaṅgrahaṇa’ ( Dh. S. II. 2. 54 ); steya occurs in all. Gautama speaks of nidhi ( Dh. S. 12. 39 ). Manu positively says ( 9. 155 ) that the son of any member of the first three varṇas from a Śūdra woman does not inherit his father's wealth ( though the preceding verses 151–154 seem to lay down different rules ), while Kauṭilya allows such a son a share when there are sons born to a Brāhmaṇa from wives of higher castes or one third when he has no other sons ( III. 6. 22). Manu expressly mentions the mother and paternal grandmother as heirs ( 9. 217 ), while Kauṭilya appears to ignore theṃ Manu prohibits the remarriage of widows (V. 161-165 ), while Kauṭilya allows not only widows to remarry, but also wives whose husbands have not been heard of for a year or more according to circumstances (III. 4. 37-38 ). Kauṭilya allows a wife to desert her husband if the latter is of a bad character, has become a traitor to the king, endangers her life or has become an outcaste or impotent⁶¹ (last verse of III. 2 ). Kauṭilya further seems to have allowed divorce which is unknown to any other known lawgiver, but he bases it only on the ground of mutual hatred and says that a marriage in the approved forms cannot be dissolved⁶² (III. 3. 19). Manu is very harsh upon gam- blers and asks the king to suppress gambling and banish gamblers (9. 221-224 ), while Kauṭilya only brings gam- bling under the control of the King for the purpose of detecting thieves &c. (III. 20. 2 ). Manu first allows a Brāh- maṇa to marry even a Śūdra woman and then condemns such a thing (III. 13-19 ), while Kauṭilya does not condemn such unionṣ These divergences and others lead us to conclude that the Kauṭilya is much older than the extant Manusmṛti, which is in many matters carried away by puritanic zeal, while its older portion is more in harmony with the spirit of the Kauṭilya. Therefore, the Kauṭilya is long anterior to the time when the extant Manusmṛti took its present forṃ The Kauṭilya refers to the opinion of the Mānavas in five placeṣ Two of the views ascribed to the Mānavas by Kaut- ilya are the same as those which Kāmandaka (II. 3 and XI. 67 ) ascribes to Manu. According to the Mānavas, the vidyās to be studied by a prince were three, viz. trayī, vārtā and daṇḍanīti, what is called ānvīkṣikī being but a branch of trayī; and the council of ministers was to consist of twelve. The Manusmṛti (7. 43) appears to regard the vidyās as four and lays down (7. 54) that the Council should consist of seven or eight sacivaṣ Bühler and others on account of this difference in the views of the Mānavas and the Manusmṛti thought that Kauṭilya was referring to the Mānavadharma- sūtra. In my humble opinion the evidence for the existence of a Mānavadharmasūtra is practically nil, as detailed above in section 13. From the references to Svāyambhuva Manu and Prācetasa Manu contained in the Mahābhārata, parti- cularly in the Śānti and Anuśāsana parvans it appears that there were two works in verse on dharma and politics attri- buted to these two or there was one work containing both. These works were subsequently recast as the Manusmṛti. It is therefore that some difference is noticed between the views ascribed to the Mānavas and the extant Manusmṛti. Besides, there is no real conflict in the matter of vidyāṣ The Manusmṛti does not positively say that the vidyās are four and not three; it simply says from whom trayī and the other three are to be learnt ( VII. 43 ). The Manusmṛti (in 7. 60 ) allows more ministers than seven or eight. It is possible that in recasting several changes were made. The third opinion of the Mānavas quoted by Kauṭilya is about the fine to be imposed upon officers of the State occasioning loss of revenue ( II. 7 ). The other two views of the Mānavas quoted are concerned with the fine to be imposed on false witnesses and for forcible seizure of jewels⁶³ &c. It must be admitted that in the extant Manusmṛti there is nothing exactly corresponding with these viewṣ But from this fact no one conclusion alone can be drawṇ There may be a mistake in quoting, or there may be interpolations, it may be that some of the verses in the original Manusmṛti have dropped out or that the Kauṭilya is quoting not the Manusmṛti itself, but the views of works based on or explanatory of Manu. It is noteworthy that Bṛhaspati⁶⁴ contains a verse very similar to the views on the sāhasa attributed to the Mānavaṣ We shall see below that Bṛhaspati's work was more or less a supplement of Manu. The only authors or schools, besides the Mānavas, cited by name in the dharmasthīya section are the Bārhaspatyas and the Auśānasaṣ It is remarkable that the well-known and ancient Dharmasūtrakāras like Gautama, Āpastamba, Baudhāyana, Vasiṣṭha, Harīta are nowhere quoted by name. It is note- worthy that in the dharmasthīya section the Kauṭiliya several times quotes the views of ācāryas and of some others under the word “apare”. Some of these views correspond closely with the discussions in the ancient dharmasūtraṣ One of these is the question as to whom the child belongs, to the begetter or to him on whose wife it is begotteṇ Kauṭilya first quotes the view of the ācāryas that it belongs to the husband of the mother of the child, then says that some hold that it belongs to the begetter, while Kauṭilya holds that it belongs to both.⁶⁵ It is to be noted here that both Bauḍ and Ap. say that according to the Brāhmaṇa texts the sons belong to the begetter, while Vasiṣṭha says there is a dispute on the point, both views being supported by ancient authoritieṣ Gautama speaks of both views and at last ( 18. 13 “dvayorvā” ) seems to come to the same conclusion as Kauṭilya. It is not unlikely that Kauṭilya has in mind this discussion in the Dharma- sūtras and also in Manu ( 9. 48–54 where the view is that the child belongs to the husband of the woman ). Some of the other views attributed to ācāryas are that a woman could visit the houses of her husband's relations, of prosperous men, of village headmen, of female ascetics &c. ( III. 4 ); that very poor men could divide even waterpots at a partition ( III. 5 ); that the master who did not employ a servant ready to work according to agreement had to pay the wages agreed upon as if the work had been finished ( compare Viṣṇu V. 157 ); he who forcibly confined a man or woman or who by force released another from imprisonment was to be fined between 500 and 1000 ( III. 17. 10 ); that disputes of a remote date shall not be complained of and that he who is the first to complain wins, since one runs ( to court ) as one cannot bear the pain ( III. 19. 19 ); that in a complaint by one gambler against another, the successful party has to pay the fine called pūrvasāhasa and the defeated party the fine called madhya- sāhasa ( III. 20. 3 ).

The foregoing discussion about the dharmasthīya section shows that in the sphere of the administration of justice, Kauṭilya is far in advance of the dharmasūtras of Gautama, Āpastamba and Baudhāyana and so is later than these (though in certain matters such as the rights of women to succeed to males he closely agrees with Gautama and Āpastamba ), while he is earlier than the extant Manusmṛti (though not earlier than the oldest kernel of the Manusmṛti) and very much earlier than Yājñavalkya.

The Adhyakṣapracāra (adhikaraṇa II) contains much original matter, though adhyakṣas were known before Pāṇini and although Manu VII. 81 provides that the king should appoint various clever adhyakṣas, no work gave an elaborate treatment of the work they were to do. Similarly, though Manu (IX. 252-53) emphasizes that the king should sup-press kaṇṭakas, there is hardly any treatment in Manu of that topic. All matters dealt with in some chapters of this section IV do not deal with criminal matters but rather un-social or reprehensible matterṣ K. is conscious of this in IV. I. 65. ‘The king should prevent from troubling the country those who are really thieves but are not known as thieves such as traders, artisans, actors, mendicants, jugglers and others’. This shows that Kauṭ. was a very capable administrator. He mentions about twenty-five departments and the adhyakṣas over theṃ The most important adhyakṣa was the Samāhartṛ (Revenue Commissioner) in II. 6 and 35. Other important officers were the Pradeṣṭṛs (Magistrates) (IV. 1). Three of them were of the rank of ministers and were charged with the work of suppressing criminals or undesirable personṣ A. provides (in IV. 9. 1) that the Samāhartṛ and the magistrates (pradeṣṭāraḥ) should check the heads of departments and their subordinates and in (IV. 3. 16) provides for the punishment by fines of judges (Dharmasthas) if they threaten, upbraid or drive away a litigant or are guilty of other misconduct (IV. 9. 13-16). K. also provides for the punishment of magistrates in IV. 9. 20. K. shows great originality and makes elaborate provisions for the several departments of the State and his section on Adhyakṣas occupies a little less than one-fourth of the whole work. It should be noted that from II. 10 p. 48 up to III. 3. p. 101 and again from III. 20. p. 129 to V. 5. p. 160, K. makes no reference to divergent views at all.

The question of the date of the Kauṭilīya can be settled only approximately and for that we have to rely only on the internal evidence. The external evidence does not carry us far; we can only say that the Kauṭilya is certainly not later than the 2nd century A. D., since Kāmandaka, the Tantrākhyāyikā and Bāṇa, speak of it with admiratioṇ No one claims it to be earlier than 300 B. C. Even Keith who assigns it a late date and cannot place it earlier than 100 B. C. at the most has to admit (J. R. A. S. 1916, p. 135) that for a precise date we have no real grounḍ

The Kauṭilya quotes five schools by name: Mānavāḥ (five times), Bārhaspatyaḥ (6 times), Auśanasāḥ (7 times), Pārāśarāḥ (4 times), Āmbhiyaḥ (once); and the following individual authors; Kātyāyana (1), Kiñjalka (1), Kauṇapadanta (4), Ghoṭakamukha (1), Dīrgha Cārāyaṇa (1), Parāśara (2), Pīśuna (6), Pīśunaputra (1), Bāhudantīputra (1), Bhāradvāja (7, once as Kāṇinka Bhāradvāja), Vātavyādhi (5), Viśālākṣa (6). He either differs from all these authors or they differ from each other in all the places where they are citeḍ All the individual authors (except Bahudantīputra) that are cited only once occur in V. 5. 11 on the same page. Kauṭilya quotes the views of ācāryas about 53 times and in all cases (except in VII. 11. 37-38) he negatives their opinionṣ The word ‘Ācāryāḥ’ means all or the great majority of the ancient authors on a śāstra collectively. Vide the author’s paper on ‘the meaning of Ācāryāḥ’ in BORI. Silver Jubilee Vol. 1942, pp. 206-213. Kauṭilya is cited 83 times against some author or other (except in three cases viz. in III. 4. 36, VII. 15. 11, XIII. 4. 5). It is clear from A. that a difference is made by it between schools (such as the Mānavāḥ &c ) and individual authorṣ It has been shown above that works on Arthaśāstra composed by Bṛhaspati and Uśanas existed before the Mahābhārata and the Droṇaparva (7. 1) speaks of ‘Mānavi Artha-vidyā’. If the work had been the product of a school, then instead of ‘iti Kautilyaḥ’ we would have had the words ‘iti Kautilyaḥ’ or ‘Kautilyāḥ’. Besides, those learned scholars (like Dr. Jolly, Keith and Winternitz) who assign the work to the 3rd century A.D. are quite unable to point to any person who could have been the author of the work in the 3rd century A. D. There is no Cāṇakya or Kauṭilya who is known from inscriptions or literary works or traditions even as having flourished in the 3rd century A. D. and having been a great writer on Arthaśāstra. The Arthaśāstra employs the word ‘apare’ also in III. 7. ¹⁰⁶ and the word ‘eke’ twice in IX. 1. ²⁸ and ³⁰. The Kāmasūtra of Vātsyāyana mentions a Ghoṭakmukha and a Cārāyana. Whether they are identical with the authors cited by Kauṭilya is extremely doubtful. The Mahābhārata mentions among writers on Daṇḍanīti the following who occur also :—Bṛhaspati, Manu, Bhāradvāja, Viśālākṣa, Śukra ( the same as Uśanas ) and Indra ( probably Kauṭilya's Bāhudantīputra ), whose abridgment of Brahma's work is called Bāhudantaka in the Śāntiparva ( chap. 59 ).

According to the Nāyacandrikā, Piśuna, Bhāradvāja, Kauṇapadanta and Vātavyādhi stand for Nārada, Droṇācārya, Bhīṣma and Uddhava respectively ( pp. 73, 69, 74, 91 ).

The Mahābhārata mentions other writers on politics, viz. Gauraśiras, Kāśyapa, Utathya, Vāmadeva, Vasuhoma, Kāmandaka ( Śāntiparva 123. 11 ) and a few others which are not found in the Kauṭiliya.

The Kauṭiliya knows the four Vedas, the charms and incantations of the Atharvan, the six aṅgas, includes under Itihāsa, Purāṇas, Dharmaśāstra and Arthaśāstra ; it knows the Sāṅkhya, Yoga and Lokāyata⁶⁷ schools of thought. It mentions Mauhūrtikas, Kārtāntikas ( astrologers ), Jupiter and Venuṣ It refers to dhātuśāstra ( Metallurgy ). Sanskrit was the official language and in the Śāsanādhikāra it mentions such guṇas of composition as mādhuryā, audārya, spāṣṭatva, which show the beginnings of the Alaṁkāra-śāstra. There is nothing to wonder at in thiṣ In the second century A. D. we have the inscription of Rudradāman, which enumerates the guṇas of Kāvyya. The Kauṭiliya does not mention edicts on stone or copper. It refers to Vaiśikakalājñāna ( II. 27. 28). The Kauṭiliya closely agrees with the Kāmasūtra in several respects, and the two works contain several identical passages ( such as the list of kings that fell victims to intrigues and about trivarga ). Keith argues from this that the Kauṭiliya and the Kāmasūtra are not separated by a long interval and that it is a late work. Dr. Jolly also is of the same opinion ( p. 24 Intro. to Arthaśāstra ). If the Kāmasūtra held up the Kauṭiliya as its model, then the two works would certainly look very much alike. There are points of difference between the two works, e. g. they differ in their attitude towards flesh-eating and the Kāmasūtra speaks of planetary influence and lagna, while the Kauṭilīya is silent on these points and only condemns in general terms the consulting of starṣ We must note here that Kauṭilīya (IX. 4. 26) speaks of consulting nakṣutras, which were known from the earliest Vedic period and some of which were looked upon as auspicious for sacrificial purposes even in the Śatapatha Brāh-maṇa (S. B. E. vol. 44, pp. 1–2 ) and the Śrauta and Gṛhya sūtraṣ The Kauṭilīya follows the Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa in the system of a yuga of five samvatsaras, in prescribing two intercalary months in a yuga and in saying that at the end of one ayana the variation between the length of the day or the night comes to six muhūrtas ( vide II. 20. 66 ). Keith argues that the ślokas in the Kauṭilīya are more classical than even those of the Rāmāyaṇa and that it contains correct Triṣṭubh stanzas which are wanting in the Bṛhaddevatā ( a work of the 4th century B. C. ). But this argument can produce no impression on those scholars who ascribe the Rāmāyaṇa to the 5th century B. C or earlier. Nor is the date of the Bṛhad-devatā beyond the pale of discussioṇ There is no consensus of opinion among scholars as to the exact time when classical ślokas and correct Triṣṭubhs first came into vogue. It is to be noted that the Kauṭilīya defines pada as varṇasaṁghāta and not as in Pāṇini ( sup-tinantam padam ).

Among the countries and peoples frequently mentioned by Kauṭilīya, several are interesting. He speaks of silks from the land of the Cinas¹⁹⁴ and blankets from Nepal. Keith says that the name Cina, being derived from the Thsin dynasty in China ( which began its rule in 247 B. C. ), would show that the Kauṭilīya could not have been composed about 300 B. C. No one however knows how the word Cina was derived and besides as Keith admits the passage may be an interpola-tioṇ

Many scholars have misunderstood the word ‘cina’ occurring in II. 11. 114 ‘tayā kauśeyam cinapaṭṭāśca cinabhū-mija vyākhyātāḥ. ‘Cina’ here does not mean what is modern China at all. The Sabhāparva ( Arjuna’s conquests ) chap. 26 ( verses 7–8 ) states that Arjuna invaded Prāgjyotiṣa ( i. e. Kāmarūpa ), the king of which was Bhagadatta, who was supported by Kirātas, cīnas and other soldiers from countries bordering on the sea ( sa kirātaiśca cīnaiśca vṛtaḥ Prāgjyotiṣodbhavat । anyaiśca bahubhir-yodhaiḥ sāgarānūpavāsibhiḥ ). That is, the Cīnas spoken of in this passage were in modern Assaṃ Besides, this one sentence in A. might have been interpolated in later timeṣ Moreover, kings are named after countries ( e. g. a king of Magadha is called Māgadha ), but a king hardly ever gives a name to the country he rules at least in historic timeṣ Besides, in Udyogaparva ( 86. 10 ) Dhṛtarāṣṭra is made to say that he would present to Kṛṣṇa deer skins from Cīna. That is, Cīna was a country abounding in deer skins also. Jacobi ( in I. A. Vol. 53 at p. 133 ) does not accept the theory that the name Cīna was derived from the name Thsin ( 247 B. C. ).

As regards the home of Kauṭilya or Cāṇakya there is some divergence of viewṣ Jolly ( in Intro. p. 43 ) remarks that ‘ the geographical horizon of the author on the whole points to a southern rather than to a northern home ’ and for supporting this opinion he relies only on two circumstances, viz. ( 1 ) the only known msṣ of the Arthaśāstra exist in the South and ( 2 ) in the discussion of trade routes ( VII. 12 ) the route to the South is declared to be preferable because the commodities of shells, diamonds, gems, pearls and gold are more abundant there.⁶⁸ Both these grounds are worthless for supporting Jolly’s conclusion about Kauṭilya’s home. Northwest and North India were harassed for many centuries before and after the Christian era by frequent invasions of Persians, Greeks, Śakas, Hūṇas and others ; therefore the copying of msṣ was neglecteḍ Msṣ of many works of authors from North India were found not in North India but only in South India. The Vākyapadīya has been quoted above (p. 76 ṇ 102 c. ) to show that the Mahābhāṣya was restored from msṣ that existed in the South. Vide above. The msṣ of the Kāvyālaṅkāra of Bhāmaha ( a Kashmirian ), were found in the south and were published first in the South. The 2nd ground is based on a misconceptioṇ Dakṣiṇāpatha ordinarily means ‘ the Southern countries ’ ( generally south of the Narmadā ). For example, that word occurs in the Nanaghat cave Inscrip- tion (about 200 B. C.) in A. S. W. I. Vol. V. p. 60, in the Mahābhasya of Patañjali ( Kielhorn's eḍ Vol. I. p. 73 ), where it is said that the word sarasī is used in Dakṣiṇāpatha for large lakeṣ The Inscription of Rudradāman (at Junagad ) speaks of Śātakarṇi as Lord of Dakṣiṇāpatha. Rhys Davids in ‘Buddhist India’ ( p. 22 ) states that the name occurs in one of the oldest Buddhist documents viz. Suttanipāta 976. The Matsyapurāṇa ( 15. 28 ) speaks of the river Narmadā as ‘Dakṣiṇāpathagāminī’. But in the above passage in the Kauṭilya the word Dakṣiṇāpatha is not used in the sense of a region, but probably in the sense of ‘trade route to the south’. Kauṭilya preferred Dakṣiṇāpatha, not because it was his home, but because it yielded valuable commodities and more taxes for the State treasury and because his main thesis was that in polity ‘artha’ (material good, wealth ) is the most impor- tant matter. It has already been stated above that he was from Gāndhāra ( as he mentions that country in the matter of the defamation of a country ). This is further corroborated by his statement about fermented liquors of various kinds in II. 25. In II. 25. 16 he names ‘medaka, prasannā, āsava, ariṣṭa, maireya and madhu’. Then he refers to their preparatioṇ The Madhu kind of wine is produced from the juice of grapes such as Kāpīśāyana and Hārahūraka. Pāṇini IV. 2. 99 derives ‘Kāpīśāyana from Kāpīśī which was an ancient city in the Kabul valley. Vide E. I. vol. 22 p. 11 for a Kharosṭhī inscri- ption on a Begram bas-relief where Sten Konow states that Kāpīśī is ancient Begram on the confluence of Ghorband and Panjshir riverṣ A. in II. 25. 22 says that the maireya wine is prepared from a decoction of the bark of meṣaśṛngī with the addition of jaggery having a mixture of long pepper and black pepper as mixed with triphalā (the three myrobalans).⁶⁹ This shows that maireya had many ingredientṣ Pāṇ. in VI. 2. 70 ‘aṅgāni maireye’ prescribes the accent when Maireya is compounded with its ingredients ( as in Madhumaireya ). Intoxicants from grape juice were made in many parts of India. Since Kauṭilya mentions only two places on the north-west of India, it is reasonable to infer that he came from those partṣ Jayaswal in JBORS, vol. II, pp. 79 ( note ) identifies Hārahūrakā with Arachosia ( for which see above p. 172 ). In ‘The geography of Kauṭilya’ by Harihar Trivedi in I. C. vol. I pp. 247–261 ) an attempt is made to identify the countries from which according to the A. ( II. 11 ) pearls and diamonds came, but most of it is conjectural and the names of countries and districts have changed during the last 2200 yearṣ Cunningham ( in ‘Ancient Geography of India’, eḍ of 1924 on p. 22 ) says that Pliny mentions the district of Kapisene, its ancient capital being Kapisa, which was destroyed by Cyrus and Ptolemy places the town of Kapisa amongst the Paropamisadie ‘north of Cabul’.

In Lama Taranath’s ‘History of Buddhism’ translated into German by A. Schiefner ( St. Petersburg, 1869 ) some reports about Cāṇakya are giveṇ Taranath was born in 1575 A. D. ( 1573 A. D. acc. to some ) and wrote his history in 1608. Portions of the German translation of his work appear in I. A. Vol. IV. pp. 101–104 and 361–66. He takes the work of Kṣemendrabhādrā ( a Pandit of Magadha ) as his basis and also relies on two other works viz. Buddhapurāṇa by Paṇḍita Indradatta of a Kṣatriya family, in which all events up to four Sena kings are recorded ( i. e. this work must have been later than 1200 A. D. at least ) and another ancient history by a brāhmaṇa Paṇḍita Bhaṭaghaṭī about the succession of teacherṣ It must be remembered that Taranath wrote 1900 years or at least 1300 years after the supposed dates of Cāṇakya. On p. 1010 n of H. of Dh. Vol. V it has been indicated how Taranath’s account about Śaṅkarācārya and Kumārila is of a confused character. In Chap. XVIII of Schiefner’s translation ( on p. 88 ) Cāṇakya is said to have been the minister of Bindusāra, son of Candragupta, who reigned for 35 yearṣ In I. A. IV on p. 362 ( from Taranath ) it is said that Aśoka was succeeded by his grandson Vigatāśoka, whose son Nanda ruled for 29 years and the latter’s son was Mahāpadma; that is, Mahāpadma is stated here to be the son of the great-grand- son of Aśoka. It would be noticed how this recital of Aśoka’s descendants is altogether confused and is worth little.

The Buddhist and Jain traditions associate Cāṇakya with Gāndhāra and from the Mudrārākṣasa also we learn ( as pointed out above ) that the army of Candragupta when he conquered Punjab and North-west India was made up of Yavanas and others guided by Cāṇakya. The Mahāvaṁsa ( V. 16–17 ) says that Candragupta was a Maurya and a Kṣatriya and that the Brāhmaṇa Cāṇakya, an irate person, killed the 9th Nanda and crowned Candragupta as king of the whole of Jambudvīpa ( i. e. India ). The commentary on that work called ‘ Vamsatthappakāsinī ( edited by Dr. Mala- sekhara Vol. I. pp. 180–81 ) states that Cāṇakya was the son of a Brāhmaṇa from Takṣaśilā, was māyāvin, had studied Nīti ( statecraft ). These two epithets probably have the Arthaśāstra in view. The fact that Kauṭilya states ( in A. II. 20. 37–38 ) that the difference between the longest and shortest day is 12 ghaṭikās clearly indicates that he was a resident of the extreme North-west of India. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V part I, p. 538 n 785,

On the question of the age and authenticity of the Kautiliya a vast literature has accumulated and it would not be possible to review the whole in a brief manner. It is not possible at present to state whether scholars will ever be unanimous on these two pointṣ

There are three principal groups of writers on the question of the age of the Kauṭilīya. First come those who hold that the Kauṭilīya is a genuine work of Cāṇakya or Kauṭilya, that minister of Candragupta Maurya. Candragupta was king between about 321 B. C. to 297 B. C. It has been stated above that Kauṭilya was associated with the earlier career of Candragupta. Therefore, the Arthaśāstra should be held to have been composed between 320 to 300 B. C. or thereabout. When a scholar says that A. belongs to the 4th century B. C. he does not mean that it is to be placed between 399 B. C. to 300 B. C. We shall have to assign the work to a short period in that century i. e. between about 320–300 B. C. or rather between 320–310 B. C. This date for the Arthaśāstra is accepted by Jacobi ( in I. A. Vol. 47 pp. 157–161, 187–195 and I. A. 53. pp. 128–136 and 141–144 ), by Dr. Shamasastri in his Prefaces to his editions of 1909 and 1919 and in S. K. Aiyangar Presentation Vol. (pp. 122–6), and by Fleet, Breloer, Meyer, Jayaswal, M. M. Ganapatisastri, Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar ( ABORI Vol. VII. pp. 65–84 ), N. N. Law, Sten Konow and several otherṣ The present author holds that this is the correct view and he will state a little later some of the com- pelling reasons for the same. The 2nd group of scholars assigns the Kauṭilīya to about 300 A. D. and the principal representatives of this group are Dr. Jolly (Intro. pp. 1-47 of the edition of A. ), Keith (in JRAS 1916 pp. 130-137 and B. C. Law Presentation Vol. I. pp. 477-495 ), Winternitz (Cal. Review, April–June, 1924, pp. 1-28 ). The main argu- ments of this group have been dealt with above and rejecteḍ No further reference need be made to their argumentṣ There is a third nondescript group of scholars who do not accept either 300 B. C. or 300 A. D. as the date of the Kauṭilīya, but put it at different dates between 300 B. C. and 300 A. D. Reference need be made only to a few of theṃ Dr. B. M. Barua in Bhāratakaumudī (in honour of Prof. R. K. Mookerji ) contributes an article called ‘the Arthaśāstra, blend of old and new’ pp. 85-119. His conclusion is that the extant Arthaśāstra is anterior to the Junagad Inscription of Rudra- dāman (150 A. D. ) and may be placed near the beginning of the Christian era. He himself points out (on pp. 102-104) how certain phrases are common to the Kauṭilīya and the Aśoka Inscriptionṣ He has already been criticized above about the two verses quoted in the king’s exhortation to his soldiers (pp. 177-8 above ). He unnecessarily parades certain facts e. g. on p. 101 he refers to thirty-four or more Tantrayuktis in Vāgbhaṭa, Caraka and Suśruta^* (all medical writers ). It is difficult to understand what conclusions one can draw from this taken with the fact of the Arthaśāstra containing 32 Tantrayuktiṣ It may easily be said by any scholar that the medical writers named by Dr. Barua borrowed from the Arthaśāstra, but that has hardly any bearing on the date of 300 B. C. An author may borrow passages or definitions from a work which was composed several hundred years before hiṃ Dr. Bose agrees that Suśruta is the borrower ( p. 439 ) but avers ( without assigning any reason ) that K. preceded him by only a few decadeṣ This is nothing but a mere guess or assertioṇ On Naipālakam ( in A. II. 11. 100 ) he observes that even in the digvijaya of Arjuna in the Sabhāparva ( Mahābhārata ) the name of Nepāla does not occur and therefore the Arthaśāstra is a late work ( pp. 114–115 ). Scholars should always be careful and cautious, parti- cularly in dealing with the Mahābhārata, because it is a vast work and because there are several recensions of it. But in this particular case, unfortunately for Dr. Barua, Nepāla is mentioned in the digvijaya of Karṇa in the Vanaparva ( chap. 254. 7 'sa Haimavatikān jitvā karam sarvān-adā- payat | Nepālaviṣaye ye ca rājānas-tān-avājayat ǁ ).

E. H. Johnston ( in J. R. A. S. for 1929 pp. 78–102, at p. 89 and JRAS 1939 at p. 225 ) says that the Artha- śāstra cannot be placed as late as 200 A. D. and that it is not likely to be earlier than the beginning of the Christian era. Similarly, Dr. Atindranath Bose in I. C. Vol. IV. ( for April 1938 p. 435 ) favours a post-Christian date for the Artha- śāstra. He is really guilty of making an absurd use of the argumentum ex silentio. In the ‘ Questions of Milinda ’ ( S. B. E. Vol. 36 on p. 147 ) there is a single sentence as follows ‘ And further there was Bhaddasala the soldier in the royal family of Nanda and he waged war against king Candragupta. That sentence is preceded by the cruelties practised at that time in the words ‘I have seen ten men expiating their crimes by being impaled alive and thirty, even forty, hundreds, thousands’. No Purāṇa or other ancient work speaks of Cāṇakya or Kauṭilya as a general; all that is claimed for him at the most is encouragement to others, and the use of unscrupulous means and stratagemṣ The sentence in the Milinda-praśna is not a history of a campaigṇ It is only a stray sentence in a dialogue between a king and a Buddhist teacher. But the writer in I. C. IV waxes eloquent by saying that had K. been the man behind Candragupta, the historians of Alexander who wrote not solely on Megasthenes’ record, but utilized plenty of material now lost to us like Justin, Curtius, Arrian, Strabo and Plutarch would not have dismissed him with silent indifference while naming Candra- gupta and Nanda. The war between Nanda and Candra- gupta was fought about 320 B. C. Megasthenes came to the court of Candragupta later than 305 B. C. and yet he men- tions no person of the Pāṭaliputra court or of the whole of India except Sandracottoṣ Some of the historians that Dr. Bose mentions ( in I. C. Vol. IV ) flourished about 100 A. D. ( i. e. four hundred years after the war between Nanda and Candragupta ). How could they, living thousands of miles away from Patna, name any person that flourished four hundred years before them, when Megasthenes, an ambassador at the Patna Court, mentioned no eminent Indian by name except Sandracottos ? He speaks of the Saṅgha of the Vṛṣṇis ( 1.6 ) and the Śreṇis ( corporations ) of Kṣatriyas in the countries of Kāmbhoja and Surāṣṭra that lived by vārtā ( agriculture and trade ) and by the profession of fighting and of the Licchcivika, Vṛjika, Mallaka, Madraka, Kurupaṁcālas that live on the title ‘rāja’ ( XI. 1 ). Some of these tribes such as the Licchavis, Vṛjis ( Vajjis in Pāli ) and Mallas are well-known from ancient Buddhist workṣ What is meant by ‘rājāśabdopajīvinah’ is not quite clear. It probably means that the organisation of the Licchavis and others was on democratic lines and that there was very keen competition for the honour of being elected the chief or president of those corporations, the latter being designated ‘rāja’.⁷⁴ The Nayacandrikā explains that they bear the proud designation of 'rāja' but are penniless ( and so can be easily employed in military service as mercena- ries ). We are told that the breed of horses from Kāmbhoja, Sindhu, Arāṭṭa and Vanāyu was the best and that Bāhlika, Pāpeya, Sauvīra and Taitāla breeds were of middle quality. The Kautiliya speaks of Mleccha tribes and tells us that among them one's own childern could be sold or pledged without incurring punishment ( III. 13 ).

There is hardly any distinctive reference to things Budd- hist except one passage ( III. 20 ) where a fine of one hundred ( paṇas ) is prescribed for him who invited to dinners in honour of gods or Manes a Buddhist ( Śākya ), an Ājīvaka, a śūdra ascetic.⁷⁵ This shows that the work was written at a time when Buddhism was yet not a wide-spread religion and had not secured an honourable place among the people. The Ājīvika was a well-known sect in ancient India, said to have been founded by Makkhali Gosāla. Aśoka donated caves to the Ājīvikas on Barabar hill ( vide Inscriptions of Aśoka eḍ by Hultzsch, 1925 p. 181 ) when he had been anointed twelve years as king and his grandson Daśaratha ( 215 B. C. ) donated to them caves at Nāgārjuni hill. The 7th pillar Edict of Aśoka refers to Brāhmaṇas, Ājīvikas and Nirgranthas ( E. I. Vol. 20, pp. 270–272 ). Rhys Davids in 'Buddhist India' ( eḍ of 1950 ) p. 87 holds that the Ājīvika order was older than the Buddhist. Makkhali Gosāla, the leader of the sect, was at first a disciple of Mahāvīra but later left hiṃ The Vāyupurāṇa ( 69. 281–289 ) paints a dark picture about the Ājīvas ( or-vikās ). Kauṭilya says that weights should be made of iron or of stones from Magadha and Mekala ( country near the sources of the Narmadā ).⁷⁶

The verse ( of A. I. 6. 12 ) saying that Jāmadagnya i. e. Paraśurāma, that had brought under control the senses by giving up the group of six enemies ( viz. kāma, lobha &c ) enjoyed the earth for a long time and so did Ambarīṣa, son of Nabhāga. On this Jacobi remarks ( I. A. vol. 53 at p. 144 ) that the Mahābhārata and the Bālakāṇḍa of the Rāmāyaṇa know nothing that Jāmadagnya ever was a king. The verse in question does not use any word for ‘king’. The intended meaning is not that Paraśurāma actually ruled over the earth for a long time as king. The Mahābhārata in several places states that Paraśurāma wrested the earth from the Kṣatriyas as many as 21 times, performed sacrifices and donated the earth to Kaśyapa and the priests ( vide Vanaparva, 117. 9–11) ‘triḥsaptakṛtvaḥ pṛthivīm kṛtvā niḥkṣatriyām prabhuh... | tato yajñena mahatā Jamadagnyah pratāpavān । tarpayāmāsa devendram-ṛtvigbhyaḥ pradadau mahim ।; vide also Ādi- parva 130. 61–62, Droṇaparva 70. 15–19, Śalyaparva 49. 7–10, where the donee is the sage Kaśyapa. The idea is that he gave up lobha ( greed ) which is the root of all sins ( lobhamūlāni pāpāni ) and, though the whole earth was his, he donated it to others several timeṣ For doing this he must have lived long. Ambarīṣa also is mentioned in the Āśvamedhikaparva ( chap. 31 ) as reciting gāthās ( 7–12 ) expressing the idea that Lobha was the greatest enemy. Ambarīṣa is mentioned as a great king in the Ṛgveda I. 100. 17. Paraśurāma is one of the seven or eight long-lived ( cirajīvin ) personageṣ Vide H. of Dh. Vol. II, p. 648 and Vol. V. p. 208n ).

Jolly ( Intro. pp. 34–35 ) refers to knowledge of alchemy and metallurgy exhibited by the Kauṭiliya, the political and economic institutions and social conditions described in A. and states that they are in a far more advanced stage than those recorded or alluded to by Megastheneṣ It has been shown above what worth is to be attached to the few frag- ments of Megastheneṣ The columns erected by Aśoka about twentytwo hundred years ago are witnesses of the great attainments of the Indians of those days in chemical processes, polish, metals and even in these days modern chemists have not been able to show how that polish was made. Dr. Stein in his work on ‘Kauṭilya and Megasthenes’ ( Wien, 1922 ) compares the information in the fragments of M. with that in the Kauṭiliya and on the slender basis of the fragments of Megasthenes ( whom Strabo called a liar ) arrives at the conclusion that the items of difference overweigh the coin- cidences both in number and importance. He also draws attention to the word ‘Suruṅgā’⁷⁷ mentioned several times in the A. and holds that it was probably derived from ‘syrinx’, a Greek word often occurring in the description of sieges in Polybius and Diodoruṣ Winternitz ( in I. H. Q. I pp. 429–432 ) agrees with Dr. Steiṇ

In the 19th century and the first quarter of 20th century Western scholars clung to the theory that science, philosophy and arts began in Greece and that other nations merely bor rowed them from the Greekṣ That bubble of Greek origi nality in many matters has been prickeḍ The Greeks them selves borrowed many things from Babylon and Egypt; vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. pp. 482, 522n, 549, 594, 700 for authoritieṣ Now Prof. Neugebauer ( JAOS. Vol. 61 pp. 213–215 ) avers that Babylonian methods of calculation together with Greek went to India. There is no doubt that there was cultural intercourse between Babylon and the Punjab as far back as the third millennium B. C. and the intercourse was by lanḍ Peacocks, rice and Indian sandalwood were known in Pale stone under their Tamil names in the Hebrew Chronicles of Genesis and Kingṣ Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. part I pp. 598–600 and notes 893–900 for further informatioṇ The Hittite and Mitanni records ( of about 1400 B. C. ) show that Vedic gods ( such as Indra, Varuṇa, Mitra and Nāsatyā ) were in their pantheon and Prof. A. H. Sayce ( in Pavry Commemoration Vol. pp. 399–402 ) draws attention to the fact that Hittite numerals are Sanskrit and holds that in the 15th century B. C. people that lived in Mesopotamia and Asia Minor spoke Sanskrit. Therefore, the word Suruṅga might have been taken from Mesopotamia ( or from Egypt ) long before the Greeks had anything to do with India. Unless one can prove that a word like Suruṅga is not found at any time in docu ments from Mesopotamia, Egypt or other very ancient coun tries, to assert that Suruṅga was borrowed from Greek Syrinx is merely to jump to a conclusion without any proper evidence on the mere ground of similarity of letters or soundṣ

The third question raised above ( p. 197 ) is whether the Arthaśāstra was originally entirely in prose or entirely in verse or in mixed prose and verse as at present. Most scholars have agreed that originally it was substantially the same as now ( i. e. largely in prose, with a verse or a few verses at the end of chapters ( and rarely in the midst of a chapter ). Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar ( in ABORI. Vol. VII, pp. 65–84 ), while placing the Kauṭilīya at 300 B. C., holds that the Kauṭilīya was originally in verse and was later turned into prose about the time of Dandin (on pp. 77-84). He refers to the words of Dandin (quoted above p. 165) 'iyam ... sankṣiptā' (which means 'this whole science of daṇḍanīti was abridged in six thousand ślokas '). He holds that that meaning of Śloka (unit of 32 syllables) is most moderṇ Here he is entirely wrong. Those words of Dandin are taken from the present text of the Kauțiliya itself (I. 1. 18) 'Sapañcāṣaḍadhyāyaśataṁ ṣaṭ-ślokasahasrāṇiti). Besides, a similar sense of śloka is found in the Kāmasūtra quoted below. Therefore, the word śloka meant also a unit of 32 syllables at least in the 3rd century A. D. He makes sweeping assertions for which he adduces very little evidence viz. 'No reasonable doubt is permissible that there was a time when the Arthaśāstra of K. was wholly composed in verses' and again 'all the writers prior to Dandin who quote from Arthaśāstra quote verses' and he cites a few verseṣ This statement is an argument in a circle as he presumes that the verses are quoted from the supposed Arthaśāstra in verse. Now the verse ('Saṁvatsarena patati' in A. IV. 7. 28) occurs in Manu XI. 180 (last pāda differing), Śānti 165. 37, Bauḍ Dh. S. (II. 1. 62, Mysore Govt. edition, 1907) and Vaṣ I. 22 (preceded by the words 'athāpyudāharanti) as shown above on p. 98. So in Vaṣ it is a quotation, but the question is from whoṃ Manu (in its original form) might have contained it and Bauḍ Dh. S. is an old Dharmasūtra. And therefore A. might have taken it from Bauḍ or from Śāntiparva or some earlier source. Similarly, the verse 'Pradīpaḥ sarva-' in Vātsyāyanabhāṣya might have been taken in the 4th century A. D. by that work from the present Arthaśāstra (that verse is A. I. 2. 12) at the end of the chapter. There were no printed books in ancient and medieval India. Verses can be easily remembered as compared to prose passageṣ Verses in the extant A. are few viz. only about 375 in the whole of it, while the prose passages occupy at least 250 printed pageṣ The verses 'Dharmaśāca' and 'tatra satye' (occurring in A. III. 1. 39-40) also occur in Nārada I. 10-11. Nārada might have taken them from the extant Arthaśāstra or from the original Manu-smṛti of which Nārada is said by tradition to be one versioṇ Nārada is not assigned to an earlier date than 300 A. D. But how does this go to establish that the whole of the vast Arthaśāstra was in verse? Similarly, the verse ‘Deśasya jātyaḥ⁷⁸ &c. (A. III. 7. 40) might have been there when the other part was in prose. A similar verse is cited as Kātyāyana's by the Vivādaratnākara. And that verse refers to Bhṛgu, the supposed author of the extant Manusmṛti. Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar's is merely a fantastic assertion without any solid evidence whatever. Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar is not able to state who could have transformed thousands of verses into prose while keeping a few hundred intact, exactly when and for what purpose. Why should one who undertook such a tremendous task have done it incognito?

Another scholar who holds the theory that the A. was originally all in verse is Dr. Pran Nath (in I. A. Vol. 60 pp. 109-112, 121-123 and 171-174). He cites only 28 passa-ges to show that they could have been originally in verse but were transformed; he cites only ten passages which become verses by the addition or removal of a word or two. The ordinary Anustubh metre is so simple that any prose passage can be easily turned into verse, since each pāda has eight syllables of which the majority (viz. five) may be either short or long. Dr. Pran Nath is singular in assigning A. D. 484–510 A. D. as the date of the A. when all others assign it to 300 B. C. to 300 A. D. only. He need not be taken seriously and may be left alone.

About the personal history of Kauṭilya or Cāṇakya we know very little. That he was an inhabitant of Gāndhāra has been pointed out above and if we trust the traditions on which the plot of the Mudrārākṣasa is based, it may be said that he lived a very simple life and had no personal ambitionṣ He was a man of extensive reading and had studied parti-cularly all the works composed before him on Arthaśāstra, as is expressly declared in the very first sentence. He had seen the ravages (both physical and mental) caused by foreign invasions of India and his great ambition seems to have been to see that the whole of what he calls Cakravartikṣetra should be under the strong but benevolent rule of a noble and capable king. And he composed his great work as he says (II. 10. 63) for the guidance of his favourite king ( and for all kings who wanted to be powerful ). He appears to have been a brāhmaṇa of the traditional type. In I. 3 he speaks of the four Vedas and also of Itihāsaveda, the six vedāngas, the four varṇas and āśramas, the peculiar dharmas of brāhmaṇas (study of Veda, performing sacrifices, making gifts, teaching Veda, officiating at sacrifices and receiving religious gifts ), of Kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras, of householders, brahmacārin, forest hermit and sannyāsin and he prescribes for all men common duties (in I. 3. 13) viz. ahiṁsā, truthfulness, purity, freedom from malice, compassion and forbearance ( sarveṣām-ahiṁsā, śaucam, anasūyānṛśaṁsyam, kṣamā ca ). Compare Manu X. 63 and Gaut. 8. 24. And he adds in I. 3. 14–17 ‘the perfor- mance of one’s special duties leads to heaven and to ever- lasting blisṣ⁷⁹ On transgressing ( dharma ) people (who do so ) would be destroyed on account of the confusion (about duties and castes ). Therefore, the king should not allow people to transgress their duties, since by enforcing adherence ( of people ) to their respective duties he, ( the king ) finds joy in this world as well as after death; and again (in I.4.16 ) he says ‘the people of the four varṇas and belonging to their respective āśramas ( the four stages of life ), when protected i. e. controlled by the king with the rod ( of punishment ) and devoted to their proper duties and occupations, keep to the paths proper for theṃ He believed in the four goals of human beings ( Puruṣārthas ) viz. dharma, artha, kāma and mokṣa; allows to the king the option ( in I. 7. 4 ) to devote himself to the first three equally ( which are tied to one another ( samam vā trivargam-anyonyānubaddham ). This is like Manu II. 224 ( trivarga iti tu sthitiḥ ). He was in favour of the privileged position of brāhmaṇas in certain respectṣ He prescribes ‘in all offences a brāhmaṇa was not to suffer bodily punishment’.⁸⁰ But on his forehead shall be made a branded mark excluding him from dealings with others; that in case of theft the mark was to be a dog, a headless trunk in case of violation of a guru's bed, mark of wineseller's flag in case of being guilty of drinking liquor. Such a man, after being branded, was to have his misdeed proclaimed, was to be exiled from the country or was to be settled in mineṣ It will be seen that in all these matters Kauṭilya treads the same path as the Dharmasūtras and smṛtis (like those of Manu and Yājñavalkya). Kauṭilya further provides ( I. 2. 2 and 10–12 ) that there are four Vidyās ( subjects of study ) for the king viz. Ānvīkṣikī ( ratiocination ), trayī ( the three vedas ), vārtā ( economics i. e. agriculture, rearing of cattle and trade ), Daṇḍanīti ( science of politics and government ) and that after upanayana the king should learn Trayī and Ānvīkṣikī from śiṣṭas ( learned people ), Vārtā from Adhyakṣas ( superintendents of various departments ), Daṇḍanīti from ( theore- tical ) teachers and from persons who have practical know- ledge. The meaning of Ānvīkṣikī ( which acc. to Kauṭilya I. 2. 10 includes Sāṅkhya, Yoga and Lokāyata ) has been discussed at great length in the H. of Dh. Vol. III pp. 46–54. Sāṅkhya is based completely on Tarka and does not even postulate God; and Yoga, while accepting the theories of Sāṅkhya, finds a place for Īśvara, but not as creator of the worlḍ Therefore Yoga also is to some extent Tarkavidyā. It should be noted that the meaning of the word Lokāyata changed from time to time ( as shown in H. of Dh. Vol. III, pp. 46–54 and in the notes thereon ). Literally, it means ' what is reached by ordinary people ' ( loka+āyata, long, extended ). Kṣīrasvāmī on Amarakośa states that Ānvīkṣikī is ‘ tarkavidyā. ’ The Ādiparva ( 70. 40 ) states that in Kanva's hermitage there were Lokāyatikas along with students of Veda, Vedangas and śāstraṣ⁸²

Similarly, in Śāntiparva ( chapter 218. 9 ) the Lokāyata- mata^† is said to have been expounded by Pañcaśikha, the first pupil of Āsuri, to king Janaka. The doctrines propounded are Sāṁkhya with a tinge of advaita Vedānta. Later on, the word came to mean a system in which the existence of the soul and of the other world was denieḍ Vide H. of D. Vol. II. pp. 358–359 and Vol. V. pp. 1205–6, and 1472 ṇ Kauṭilya it appears, regards Ānvīkṣikī as Tarkavidyā when he remarks ( I. 2. 11–12 ) ‘it ( ānvīkṣikī ) explains the relative strength of these three viz. Trayī, Vārtā and Daṇḍanīti, (thereby) confers benefits on the people by reasoning, keeps the intellect steady in adversity and prosperity and brings about proficiency in thought, word and actioṇ The Mitākṣarā on Yāj. I. 317 explains Ānvīkṣikī as ātınavidyā and quotes Manu VII. 43 ( which he appears to have read as ‘Ānvīkṣikīm cātmavid- bhyah, just as Medhātithi does ). Kauṭ. ( I. 2. 12 ) looks upon Ānvīkṣikī as the lamp of all Vidyās ( sciences ), as the means of ( determining ) all actions, the support of all dharmas ( i. e. duties ). He further provides that the three vidyās are based on ( the proper administration ) of Daṇḍa and that ( the administration of ) Daṇḍa when based on discipline brings Yogakṣema to living beingṣ Vide H. of Dh. vol. III. pp. 548–49 and vol. V, pp. 1385–86 for the meanings of Yogakṣema,

The 9th Adhikaraṇa deals with the activities of the king who wants to be a conqueror and in the very first sūtra the A. specifies the matters which he should ascertain viz. his own strength and that of the other king as regards the country ( place ), time, season for marching on invasion &c. and ( in IX. 1. 18 ) he specifies the ‘Cakravartikṣetra ( the region of the sovereign ruler ) viz. the region extending northwards between the Himālaya and the ocean and one thousand yojanas across ( deśaḥ pṛthivī | tasyām Himavat-samudrān- taram-udīcīnām yojanasahasra-parimāṇam tiryak cakra- vartikṣetram ). The word ‘Yojana.. parimāṇam’ is so placed that it may be construed either with the preceding ( length north-south ) or with tiryak ( crosswise, i. e. east to west ). Some msṣ read ‘atiryāk’. The ( east to west ) breadth of India varies greatly and therefore it is better to take ‘Yojanāo’ with the length. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. III pp. 66–67 about the meaning and derivation of Cakravartin, for names of Cakravartins in the Brāhmaṇa texts and Upa- nisads and for a passage from the Kāvyamimāṁsa for Cakra- vartikṣetra. The words of K. show that his ambition for his sovereign ruler was limited to the present India and did not embrace other lands such as Java to which Indian culture spread later. Cakra means wheel and is a symbol of power and dominioṇ The word occurs dozens of times in the Ṛgveda. Prayers are made to Indra for driving away the asuras with his cakra in Ṛg. I. 53, 9, II. 11, 20, VIII. 9, 6–9. Indra is said to have set in motion the wheel ( wheel-like orb ) of the Sun ( in Ṛg. IV. 17. 14 ). Vide ‘Dhammacakka-ppavattana-sutta ( in SBE. vol. XI. pp. 146– 153 ) for the essence of the teaching of Buddha. The Dipa- vaṁśa ( VI. 2 ) says about Piyadassana ( Aśoka ) that the wheel of his power rolled in the great kingdom of Jambu- dvīpa. Vide on Cakravartikṣetra Prof. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri in Rangaswami Aiyyangar Volume pp. 81–86 and Dr. D. C. Sircar in ‘Sarūpabhārati’ pp. 315–325 and for the ‘symbolism of wheel in Cakravarti conceptions’ Dr. Wije- sekara in Dr. Belvalkar Felicitation Vol. pp. 262–267 and a paper in J. O. R. ( Maḍ ) Vol. 27 pp. 85–90 by K. V. Soundar Rajaṇ From the wheel ( which rolls on ) the symbolism of the rule or dominion over people arose.²⁰⁴ The Amarakośa treats Cakravartin and Sārvabhauma as synonyms and defines samrāḍ as a ruler who performs the Rājasūya, who is supreme over a circle of States and who issues orders to kingṣ From Vedic times Samrāṭ and Sārva- bhauma have been knowṇ Vide H. of Dh. vol. III. pp. 63–70 for treatment.

The A. emphasizes ( in I. 6 ) the great importance of the control of his senses by the king, which is to be attained ( by the king ) by giving up lust, anger, greed, pride, haughtiness and foolish venturesomeness; and gives for each of the six failings two examples of ancient kings who perished by their being subject to one or other of these six; and then provides that the whole of this science ( of polity ) means ( is centred in ) control of the senseṣ⁸⁴ About the goals of human life, A. states ( in I. 7. 7 ) that Artha ( material well-being ) is alone supreme ( for the king ); for spiritual good and pleasures of senses depend upon material well-being.

Kauṭilya prescribes ( in I. 19. 9–24 ) an ideal daily time table for his king who must always be active ( since if the servants become so, I. 19. 1 and 5 ). The day is divided into eight parts and the night also into eight partṣ Supposing the day begins at 6 A. M. the work to be transacted in each of the eight parts of the day is as followṣ ( I ) 6. to 7. 30 A. M. he should listen to the measures taken for defence and income and expenditure; ( II ) 7. 30–9 A. M. he should look into the affairs of citizens and the country people; ( III ) 9–10. 30 A. M. he should take a bath and meals and engage in study; ( IV ) 10. 30 A. M.–to 12 noon he should receive gold ( i. e. revenue in coins ) and receive heads of departments; ( V ) 12 noon to 1. 30 P. M. he should consult the council of ministers by sending letters and should acquaint himself with secret information gathered by spies; ( VI ) 1. 30–3 P. M. he should engage himself at his pleasure in recreations or hold consultations; ( VII ) 4. 30–6 P. M. he should consider military plans with the commander-in-chief; and when the day ends he should engage in evening worship. The time- table for the night is as follows : ( I ) first 8th part of night ) 6 P. M.–7. 30 P. M. he should see secret agents; ( II ) 7. 30–9 P. M. he should take a bath, meals and engage in study; ( III ) 9 P. M.–10. 30 P. M. he should lie down amidst sounds of musical instruments, and ( IV-V ) 10. 30 P. M.-1. 30 P. M., he should sleep; ( VI ) 1. 30 A. M.-3 A. M. he should awaken to the sound of musical instruments, ponder over the rules of the science of politics and also over the work that has to be done by him; ( VII )-3. A. M.-4. 30 A. M.-he should be in consultation with councillors and send out secret agents; ( VIII )-4. 30 A. M.-6 A. M. he should receive blessings from priests, his teachers, purohita ( chaplain ) and see his physician, chief cook and astrologer and then after going round a cow with its calf and a bull he should repair to the assembly hall or he should divide the day and night into ( other or ( different ) parts in keeping with his strength and carry out his dutieṣ

It would be noticed how arduous is the work to be done by the ideal king and how his hours of rest and sleep are only four and a half from 9 P. M. to 1. 30 A. M. It may be noted that Manu VII. 216-225 and Yāj. I. 327-333 contain similar but briefer provisions about the daily time-table of the king.

In the same chapter ( I. 19. 33-35 ) the Kauṭilya engages in a fine metaphor, comparing the king's work of administra- tion with a sacrifice and states: “ Endeavour is the vow, and the fee is equal behaviour ( to all ), his coronation is the dīkṣā ( initiation rite of a Vedic yajña ).” He places a very high and noble ideal before kings in the words ‘ in the happiness of the subjects lies the happiness of the king, what is beneficial to the subjects is to his benefit; what is liked by ( or dear to ) the king is not ( really ) beneficial to him, but what is dear to the subjects is ( really ) to his benefit. Therefore, the king, being constantly active, should regulate or manage material well-being; activity ( endeavour is the root of material well- being, the opposite ( of activity ) is the root of calamitieṣ

The 6th Adhikaraṇa deals with the seven constituents of the Maṇḍala viz. the king, chief minister, the country, the fortified capital, treasury, the army, ally. In VI. 1. 3-6 Kauṭilya specifies numerous qualities that the king should possess, such as ( to mention only a few ) birth in a high family, being endowed with intelligence, bravery, non-enduring nature, quick despatch, clevernesṣ This chapter leads on to the 7th Adhikaraṇa on ‘ Ṣāḍguṇya ' i. e. the six aspects or measures of foreign policy ( viz. place, war &c ) and to the 8th . (on Vyasunas or calamities of the constituent elements). Kauțilya’s position was (VIII. 2, 1, Rājā rājyamiti prakṛtisankṣepah) that the king and the ruler’s kingdom is a summary (of the seven) elements i. e. they are the primary or foremost elements out of the seven (mentioned) above. If there be no ruler the country will at once be ruined, what is called Mātsyanyāya²⁰⁶ will reign supreme, there will be no security of life and property, the strong will devour the weak. Simi- larly, if there is no country there will be no king. The other elements are necessary but of secondary importance, e. g. a king may carry on administration for some time at least without a minister and may appoint a minister when he pleaseṣ Kauṭilya himself says ‘It is the king alone who appoints the class of servants such as the councillors, the purohita (chaplain) and others, directs the activities of superintendents of departments; when the king himself is endowed with excellence he makes the constituent elements (of the State) endowed with excellences required by each of them; what character he has, that character the constituents come to possess, since they are dependent on him as to endeavour and remissness; for the king is in the position of their head’.²⁰⁷ The words of K. (rājā rājyaṃ.....sańkṣepaḥ) may also be interpreted as stating that the king is the State, i. e. he is the most important of the seven elementṣ That would be a theoretical statement. He makes it clear (in VIII. 1. 13 ff) in what sense the king is supreme viz. that it is he who appoints the ministers and removes ministers, who arranges for the construction of forts, who levies taxes and who commands the army and decides upon friendship and war.

Though Kauṭilya was a brāhmaṇa of the orthodox type, he seems to have been a follower of Bṛhaspati, who according to the Mahābhārata (quoted above), held that there was a great difference between the code of conduct for ordinary people and that for the king. A strong ruler is absolutely necessary for the good administration of the country. Therefore, Kauṭilya sets out all kinds of sinister methods in Adhikaraṇa XIV for liquidating an enemy, such as intrigues, unscrupulous use of poison, desperadoes and prostitutes, magic and charmṣ His motto in this matter seems to have been that the end justifies the meanṣ This earned for him the hatred of scholars like Bāṇa; vide above p. 174. He wanted to be thorough in strengthening the hands of the king in governing the country. The Pañcatantra⁸⁷ says ‘the realm (or gist) of politics is threefold viz. thoroughness according to Viṣṇugupta, the securing of allies acc. to Bhārgava (Uśanas) and distrust acc. to Bṛhaspati.’ It should not be supposed that all the sinister methods were employed by him or any one else at all timeṣ As the Kāmasūtra says ‘because a śāstra contains certain matters, it is not seen that they are actually used in practice; the matters dealt with in śāstras are all-embracing, while actual use is limited in extent’.⁸⁸ As regards the adhikaraṇa called Aupaniṣadikam (secret practices, poisons and magic and spells) Kauṭilya provides certain limitationṣ He says ‘ for the purpose of safeguarding the institution of four varṇas, he (the king), should employ secret practices against the unrighteouṣ The group of poisons such as Kālakūṭa should be introduced into articles used by the enemy on his body through the instrumentality of approved men and women of mleccha communities disguised as humpbacks, dwarfs, kirātas, dumb or deaf persons, appearing trust-worthy as to country, dress, profession, speech and birth. It should not be supposed that Kauṭilya stands alone in recom- mending secret practices of poisonṣ The Vanaparva²¹⁰ refers to the employment of secret practices to the accompaniment of mantras and muttered words declared in the Atharvaveda.

Western scholars, whose ancestors only a few hundred years ago burnt at the stake thousands of people (even though holding the Bible as their sacred book and Christ as the Messiah ) who differed only on certain other dogmas, or whose highest dignitaries of the Christian Church started the institution of Inquisition and who persecuted the Jews²¹¹ for centuries, should think twice before running down in unmeasured language Kauțilya, who, two thousand years ago, recommended drastic remedies against enemies for the safety of the country ( and not for holding differing religious ideas )²¹². They should remember what barbarities were committed in the second world war in bombing populous cities at night and in the killing of hundreds of thousands of captives and others in gas chambers and otherwise.

Vol. III of H. of Dh. deals with theories about the origin of kingship and with the question whether and how far the king was elected ( pp. 28 ff ), the theory of social contract ( pp. 31–32 ), the divine right of kings ( pp. 35–37 ), primogeniture and exceptions to it ( pp. 41–44), necessity for the king to con- trol his senses and cases where kings met death because of fail- ing to curb his senses ( pp. 53–55), existence of oligarchies or republics in ancient India ( 87–92 ), question whether there were in monarchies popular assemblies of elected persons ( pp. 92–98 ), the checks and limitations on the monarch’s powers set out ( pp. 96–98 ). K. P. Jayaswal and others have made great efforts to show that the monarch in the Arthaśāstra was a constitutional king and not an absolute ruler. That ques- tion has been dealt with in H. of Dh. Vol. III (pp. 92–98). The present author does not agree with K. P. Jayaswal.

It is necessary to put together briefly some of the chief grounds on which the Arthaśāstra is assigned to about 300 B. C.

1. The unanimous tradition of numerous Sanskrit works and of Buddhist and Jain sources that Kauṭilya or Cāṇakya helped Candragupta and that he wrote a treatise on Arthaśāstra and the fact that no other Kauṭilya or Cāṇakya, author of a work on A. or as the minister of an ancient king, in the first centuries of the Christian era has been known so far.

2. Kauṭilya is not chary of naming individual writers, schools and ācāryās (in general). The last (ācāryāḥ) he mentions about 53 times and differs from them 50 timeṣ On VIII. 4 alone dealing with calamities due to conflagration, floods, diseases, famine and epidemics he mentions ācāryas twelve times and differs from them in all cases and on VII. 9 he differs from them seven timeṣ He mentions the following schoolṣ Āmbhiyāḥ (once on I. 17. 27), Auśanasāḥ (7 times in all on I. 2. 6, I. 15. 49, II. 7. 14, III. 6. 5, I. 1. 44, III. 17. 4, X. 6. 1), Pārāśarāḥ (I. 8. 7, I. 15–23, I. 17. 9, II. 7. 12, III. 1. 26, VIII. 3. 30), Bārhaspatyāḥ (I. 2. 4, I. 15. 48, II. 7. 13, III. 11. 46, III. 17. 13, X. 6. 2); Mānavāḥ (I. 2. 2, I. 15. 47, II. 7. 11, III. 11. 45, III. 17. 3). Instead of Pārāśarāḥ, Mysore eḍ of Shamasastri reads ‘Pārāśaraḥ’ in I. 8, I. 15. Kauṭilya mentions the views of the following individual writers; Kauṇapadanta (I. 8. 14, I. 17. 15, VIII. 3. 47); Piśuna (I. 8. 11, I. 15. 27, I. 17. 12, VIII. 1. 33, VIII. 3. 39), Bāhudantiputra (I. 8. 24); Bhāradvāja (I. 8. 1, I. 15. 14, I. 17. 6, V. 6. 24, VIII. 1. 6, VIII. 3. 8, XII. I. 2.); Vātavyādhi (I. 8. 6, I. 17. 18, VII. 1. 3, VIII. 1. 53, VIII. 3 55); Viśālākṣa (I. 8. 3, I. 15. 18, I. 17. 7, VIII. 1. 19, VIII. 3. 24, XII. 1. 5). Of these, three names viz. Piśuna, Vātavyādhi and Kauṇapadanta appear to be nicknameṣ It may be pointed out that in the Śakuntala the minister of Duṣyanta is said to have been Piśuna, which literally means ( wicked or backbiter, ‘Piśunau khalaśūcakau’ says Amara); some commentators say it is the name of Nārada. Kauṇapadanta is said to be a nickname of Bhīṣma by the Nayacandrikā and by Yogghama, Kuṇapa means a corpse and so Kauṇapadanta would mean 'one having teeth that emit a nasty smell like that of a dead body'. All these are mentioned in I. 8 and whenever all or some of them are mentioned, Bhāradvāja is mentioned first and the others also occur in the same order as in I. 8.

It would be noticed that none of the famous Dharmasūtra authors such as Gautama, Āpastamba, Hiraṇyakeśin, Baud- hāyana, Vasiṣṭha is mentioned by the Kauṭilīya even in the Dharmasthīya and Kaṇṭakaśodhana sections and many Adhikaraṇaṣ Therefore, it is probable that the Kauṭilīya is prior to them in point of time or may be contemporaneous with some of theṃ Most of the Dharmasūtra writers are generally held to have flourished some centuries before the Christian era. In V. 5. 10–11 certain ministers are named as having left the king’s service on seeing certain signs of his displeasure viz. Kātyāyana, Kaṇiṅka Bhāradvāja, Dirgha- Cārāyaṇa, Ghoṭamukha, Kiñjalka, Piśuna and Piśunaputra. Piśuna may be the same as the writer Piśuna mentioned above. Piśunaputra may be his soṇ Ghoṭakamukha is mentioned as an author in Kāmasūtra ( I. 1. 4 ). The others also might have been authors on Nītiśāstra. Kaṇiṅka Bhāradvāja may be the same as the Bhāradvāja mentioned above as a predecessor in the Arthaśāstra. Bhāradvāja is one of the expounders of Rājaśāstra mentioned in Śāntiparva 58. 3. Chap. 140 (71 verses ) of Śāntiparva is called Kaṇikopadeśa at the enḍ But in the verses at the start it is said to be a dialogue between Bhāradvāja and king Śatruñjaya of Sauvīra.

3. The Arthaśāstra was composed at a time when Budd- hism had not made much progress in India and was confined to monkṣ The only clear and definite reference to Buddhists is in III. 20. 16, where among other matters it is provided ‘for a Caṇḍāla touching an Ārya lady, for one feeding Śākya, Ājīvaka and others and Śūdra ascetics at rites in honour of Gods and Manes the fine shall be one hundred paṇaṣ The Buddha’s teaching spread only among monks and had not spread far and wide till Aśoka’s reigṇ It secured royal favour only under Aśoka during whose reign the third Buddhist Council was held about 247 B. C. The Dīpavaṁsa ( XX. 20 ff ) expressly states that the three pitakas and their com- mentaries were transmitted orally ( Mukhapāṭha ) and were reduced to writing in Ceylon in the reign of Vaṭṭagāmaṇi ( 29–17 B. C. ). Buddhism was a State religion under Kaṇiṣka and was in a flourishing condition in India from Kaniṣka's times up to the first half of the 7th century A. D. (as the Harṣacarita and Yuan Chwang's travels show). Hence if the Arthaśāstra was composed in the 3rd century A. D. as Jolly and some others say it could not have afforded to treat the Buddhists monks with scant respect as it actually doeṣ

4. The Arthaśāstra uses the word Rājā only (not Samrāt nor Sārvabhauma ) for the ruler just as Aśoka speaks about himself only as rājā in his edicts, though he appears to have ruled over the whole of India up to Mysore at least.

5. Some technical terms are common to A. and to Aśoka's edictṣ A few of these may be mentioned here. Yukta (an officer ) in A. II. 5. 16 ( Yuktopayuktātatpuruṣānām ), II. 8. 3, 23, II. 9. 33–34 and in Rock Edicts III and IV; Mahāmātra ( A. I. 12. 4, V. 1. 5 and 15 and in Rock Edicts VI and XII and in several other places ); Parisā ( pariṣad,council of mini- sters ) in R. E. IV ( parisāpi yutte ānapayissati ) and A. I. 15. 47–50 and 58; Puruṣāḥ ( subordinate officers under Yuktas and Upayuktas ) in A. II. 5. 16 and Pillar Edicts I, IV and VII; Pradeṣṭr (in A. IV. 1. 1, a Magistrate ) and Prādeśika (Rock Edict III, the exact connotation cannot be established). Some of these words occur in Pāṇini also e. g. Yukta occurs in Pāṇ. VI. 2. 66, Āyukta (in A. I. 15. 10 and 13, II. 6. 20 and Pāṇ. II. 3. 40 ); Ākarika (a miner, A. II. 12. 20 ) and Dauvār-ika (in A. I. 12. 6, V. 3. 5, V. 6. 5 meaning ‘head usher in a palace’) and Pāṇ IV. 4. 69 (tatra niyuktaḥ ); Pāṇini IV. 4. 70 shows that he was aware of many words ending in ‘agāra’ ( as in ‘agārāntāt-than’ ) such as Bhāṇḍāgārika. The word ‘Vyuṣṭa’ in A. II. 6. 12 and II. 7. 31–33 deserves to be con- sidered here. Pāṇini (V. 1. 97 ‘Vyuṣṭādibhyoṣṇ’) provides for the formation of words like ‘Vaiyuṣṭa’ (meaning ‘what is to be given or what is to be dōne at Vyuṣṭa’. The Vyuṣṭādigana has over a dozen wordṣ The exact meaning of Vyuṣṭa is not clear. But, occurring as it does in A. II. 6. 12 (rājāvarṣam, māsaḥ, pakṣaḥ, divasasca vyuṣṭam, iti kālaḥ, after the regnal year, month, fortnight and day ), Vyuṣṭa should mean time (ghaṭikā or muhūrta &c. ) after morning or sunrise. Vyuṣṭa is a past participle from the root ‘uṣ’ (1st conj. to heat ) with ‘vi’ and apparently means the same thing as vyus (which occurs five times in Rg. ) and ‘Vyuṣṭi’ which occurs over thirty times in the Ṛgveda (as Vyuṣṭau or Vyuṣṭiṣu ), often in connection with ‘Usas’ (as in Rg. II. 34. 12, III. 15. 2, IV. 1. 5, IV. 45. 2, X. 41. 1 &c.) and once ‘Vyus’ in connec- tion with both Usas and Sūrya (the Sun) in Rg. VII. 81. 2 (O Dawn, may we be endowed with food in the light of your- self and of the Sun). In the inscriptions of Aśoka at Brahma- giri, Rupnath, we see various forms like ‘vivutthena’, ‘Viyuttha, Vyutthena, and vyuthena’ and there is great divergence among scholars about the meaning.

##6. A. is some centuries earlier than the first place, on many points such as succession and inheri- tance, Yāj. is far in advance of A. One decisive circumstance is as followṣ Yāj. (I. 319–20) dealing with the regulations about royal grants of fields &c. provides that the grant should be inscribed on a piece of cloth (silken or other) or on a copper-plate. A. in II. 10 (śāsanādhikāra) provides how a śāsana is to be written, but says not a word about inscribing it on a piece of cloth or a copperplate. This clearly indicates that the Yāj. Smṛti was composed when the inscribing of royal grants or orders on copperplates had become common while K. shows no knowledge about this method and refers only to patraka (leaf) in II. 10. 58 and in II. 17. 9 directs the superintendent of Kupya (Forest produce) to collect leaves of Tali, Tāla and Bhūrja (Talitālabhūrjānam patram). The earliest record on a copperplate so far discovered in India is the Sohāgpur plate which records an order issued by the Mahāmātras of Śrāvastī and which is placed by competent scholars like Fleet between 300 B. C. to 180 B. C. (vide JRAS for 1907 pp. 509 and E. I. Vol. XXII p. 2 by K. P. Jayaswal). Another early copperplate is the Taxila copper plate inscription of Patika of the year 78 (vide C. I. I. vol. II p. 23).

For Kharosthi documents on silk of 1st century B. C. or A. D., vide J. G. J. R. I. Vol. X pp. 131–133 by Ratanchandra Agrawala.

##7. In dealing with the layout of the fortified capital (II. 4) the A. makes certain interesting remarkṣ In II. 4. 17–20 A. provides ‘The king should cause in the centre of the capital...the construction of enclosures for Aparājita,⁹² Apra- tihata, Jayanta and Vaijayanta, and temples of Śiva, Vaiśra- vana, Asvins, Śrī (the goddess of wealth) and Madirā (Durgā). He should also establish presiding deities of the dwelling places as enumerateḍ The city gates should be presided over by Brahmā, Indra, Yama and Senāpati (Skanda). Outside (the city) at the distance of 100 dhanus from the moat should be sanctuaries, holy places, groves and water dams and the deities of the quarters in the respective quarterṣ ...... The habitations for heretics, pāṣaṇḍas and cāṇḍālas should be on the outskirts of the cremation ground'. ‘Aparājita’ means ‘invincible’ and ‘apratihata’ (irresistible). But here these words stand for some god or deity. Jayanta is the son of Indra and Vaijayanta is Indra’s palace, acc. to Amarasimha. Jayanta and Vaijayanta may mean victoriouṣ But in this passage they mean some goḍ The Malayālam coṃ holds them respectively to be Durgā (probably it reads ‘Aparājitā’), Viṣṇu, Subrahmanya and Indra. ‘Yathoddeśam’ appears to mean ‘as enumerated in the works of Vāstupūjā (or Vāstu- śānti)’. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. II. pp. 833-35. The word pāṣaṇḍa⁹³ frequently occurs in A. and generally means heretic or heretical monk. For example, in I. 18. 9 A. provides that a prince under disfavour with the reigning king may secretly rob the corporation of heretics of their wealth In III. 16. 38-40 A. provides ‘in legal disputes the fines imposed may be paid off by heretical sādhus who possess no cash nor gold by doing penance with fasts and vows according to their own practices except in case of Pārusya (verbal and physical injuries ), theft, forcible seizure and adultery’.⁹⁴ Manu also (in I. 118 and IV. 30) employs the words Pāṣaṇḍa and Pāṣaṇḍin in the sense of heretical sect or monk. Ādiparva 140. 63, Vana- parva 188. 49, Anuśāsanaparva 23. 67 also employ the word in the same sense as in Manu. But Aśoka employs the word pāṣaṇḍa in the sense of a religious order or sect and not in a derogatory sense. In Rock edict XII he says ‘King Priyadarśin honours all pāṣaṇḍas ( pāsaṁḍāni ), all ascetics and householders with gifts and in various modes of honour’. In Rock Edict V. Aśoka says he appointed officers called Mahāmātras when he had been crowned king thirteen years and that those high officers were concerned with all pāṣaṇḍas ( all sects or denominations ) for the glorification of dhamma. This establishes that the word pāṣaṇḍa had been in use long before Aśoka’s time. In Kauṭilya’s day, in the Mahābhārata and in Manu the word had been used in a derogatory sense. Dr. B. M. Barua ( in ‘Inscriptions of Aśoka, Part II. p. 255 ) holds that ‘pāṣaṇḍa’ is a corruption of ‘pārṣada’. I am sorry that I cannot agree with hiṃ Pariṣad ( later parṣad also ) is a very ancient worḍ It occurs in the Ṛgveda ( III. 33. 7 ) in the literal sense ( viz. crowding or sitting round ). In the Bṛ. Up. VI. 2. 1 it occurs in the usual sense ( an assembly of learned men or of men ). Pāṇini provides that from ‘Pariṣad’ one gets the derivative ‘pāriṣadya’ ( IV. 4. 101 ) or ‘pāriṣada’ by Yogavibhāga. It is difficult to see how from pārṣada ( which simply means ‘member of a pariṣad’ ) we can get a heretical sect ( or even any sect or denomination ). The word Pārṣada is employed in the Nirukta ( I. 17 ) in the sense of ‘Prātiśākhyas’ ( padaprakṛtini sarvacaraṇānām pārṣadāni ).

The establishment of the temples of Śiva and Vaiśravaṇa ( i. e. Kubera ) was in vogue even in the times before the Vārtikas on Pāṇ. and the Mahābhāṣya and the Mahābhārata. While commenting on Pāṇ. VI. 3. 26 ( devatādvandve ca ) and the 2nd Vārtika thereon ( Brahma-prajāpatyādinām ca ), the examples given by the Mahābhāṣya are Brahmaprajāpati, Śivavaiśravaṇau, Skandaviśākhau. The worship of Vaiśravaṇa and Viśākha declined later oṇ Therefore, when the A. mentions them together it follows that its age may be at least that of the Vārtikakāra ( i. e. about 300 B. C. ). The Vanaparva ( 274. 15-17 ) states that Kubera is lord of wealth, immortal, a Lokapāla and a friend of Śiva and king of Yakṣaṣ

8. Another indication of the age of the A. is that in III. 14. 28-33 it provides for the distribution of the fees in Agni- stoma⁹⁵ and other solemn vedic sacrifices (kratu) for the priests, if any, falling ill at different stages of the Soma sacrifices and mentions the Bṛhaspatisava. When Buddhism was in the ascendant from the days of Aśoka and Kaniṣka till several centuries after the Christian era, such elaborate provisions about Vedic sacrifices like Agniṣṭoma and Bṛhaspatisava in a work on government and administration are not likely to have been set out. That leads to the inference that the work was composed before Buddhism came to be in the ascendant and when Vedic sacrifices were still very commoṇ Manu (in VIII. 206-207) provides in a general way how the fees are to be distributed among priests in a religious cere- mony when one of them has to stop from taking part in any religious rite and leaves it to the other priests what was to be given to the one that leaves in the middle of a religious rite, but does not mention any solemn Vedic sacrifice.

This passage is quoted from K. in the Vyavahāraśiromaṇi of Nārāyaṇa, who was a pupil of the famous Vijñāneśvara (published by T. R. Chintamani in Annals of Oriental Research, Madras, at p. 29) and in the Vyavahāranirṇaya of Varadarāja, pp. 284-5 (published by the Adyar Library).

IX. The provisions about almanacs in the Arthaśāstra II. 20 (on ‘Deśakalāmāna’) are of great importance on the question of its probable date. K. states that a Muhūrta⁹⁶ is equal to two nādikās, that day and night are each of 15 muhūrtas in the months of Caitra and Āśvayuja (i.e. Āśvina), that thereafter each of the two increases up to three more muhūrtas in six months and is reduced to the same extent⁹⁷ in the next six. At the close of the chapter A. states that at the end of two years and a half an intercalary month is requir- ed in grisma ( summer ) and another intercalary month on the expiry of five yearṣ The first statement that there is a difference of six muhūrtas between the longest and the shortest day i. e. the two are respectively of 36 and 24 ghaṭikās, is the same as that of the Vedānga Jyotiṣa. Western scholars place the Vedānga Jyotiṣa at about 400 B. C. The present author would like to place it some centuries earlier. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. part 1 p. 505 note 732. The statement that two intercalary months were allowed in five years was also the rule, according to the Mahābhārata ( Virāṭaparva 52. 3-4 ) and the Yajuṣa Vedāṅgajyotiṣa ( verse 35 ).

It is really not necessary to adduce further evidence for establishing the proposition that the Arthaśāstra follows the rules laid down by the Vedāṅga-Jyotiṣa about the almanac, that it does not rely on the rules laid down in the Siddhāntas about almanacs and that, therefore, it should be assigned to about 300 B. C. and not so late as 300 A. D. Some points may yet be stresseḍ

X. The Arthaśāstra does not thoroughly follow Pāṇini's terminology. For example, it defines pada as 'Varṇasaṅghāṭa'⁹⁸ (a group of letters), while Pāṇini defines it as ‘sup-tinatam padam’ (I. 4. 14) and further on A. follows the ‘Nirukta’ in the four classes of padas and the definition of nāmaṇ If it had been composed five or six centuries after Pāṇini (i. e. about the 1st or 3rd century A. D. as some scholars suppose) it would have most probably followed Pāṇini completely. Therefore, the Arthaśāstra must be held to have been composed at a time when Pāṇini’s work had not become universally accepted or relied upoṇ

XI. Many of the words used by the Arthaśāstra in the matter of Govt. and administration are in accord with Pāṇini. For example, the Arthaśāstra emphasises that the king is there for good government (vide p. 229 above for ‘prajāsukhe sukham rājñaḥ’). Pāṇini also provides that the word ‘rājanvān’ (VIII. 2. 14) is used when there is a good king and that otherwise the word is ‘rājavan’. Many words about officers found in A. are mentioned by Pāṇini either in sūtras or in the gaṇaṣ For example, A. has the longest adhikaraṇa called ‘adhyakṣapracāra’. Pāṇini (VI. 2. 69) provides ‘Vibhāṣādhyakṣe’. Kauṭilya mentions about twentyfive kinds of departments and their adhyakṣaṣ Pāṇini (III. 2. 21) provides for the word ‘lipikara’. A. employs the word ‘lipi’ in I. 5. 7, I. 12. 11. Pāṇini has two sūtras ‘tatra niyuktaḥ’ and ‘agārāntāt–than’ (IV. 4. 69–70), while A. employs such words as ‘Dauvārika’ and ‘Ākarika’ (II. 12. 20 ‘ākare niyuktaḥ’), ‘Koṣṭhāgārika’ (from Koṣṭhāgāra in A. II. 4; 8), Bhāṇḍagārika (from ‘bhāṇḍāgāra in A. II. 4. 10). From the word ‘atyaya’ (which is included in the Vinayādi–gaṇa by Pāṇini V. 4. 34) we get ‘ātyayika’ (which occurs in A. I. 15. 58, V. 5. 2) and also in Aśoka’s Rock Edict VI (ācayika) and there is Vināyādīkarikam (in A. I. 1. 1). The Vinayādigana has several words (from ‘samayācāra’ we get ‘sāmayācārika’ which occurs in A. V. 5 as the name of the chapter and Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 1. 1).

Two of the most difficult problems concerning the Arthaśāstra are its relation to Manusmṛti and to the Mahābhārata. As regards the Manusmṛti it would be shown below that some verses and half verses are identical in both A. and the Manusmṛti. The extant Manusmṛti refers by name to a few predecessors, such as Atri, Utathyatanaya (i. e. Gautama), Śaunaka and Bhṛgu (in Manu III. 16) and Vasiṣṭha (Manu VIII, 140) and states the views of Svāyam- M. D.—31 bhuvā Manu ( IX. 158 ) or simply of Manu ( as in VIII. 279 ). The A. mentions the views of ‘ Mānavāḥ ’ several times but those views do not all correspond to the statements in the Manusmṛti. In the Dharmasthīya section the A. often agrees with Manu and Yāj. but sometimes Yāj. does not agree with A. Compare Manu VIII. 279 with A. III. 19. 8, but Yāj. II. 215 differṣ In the present author's opinion Yāj. is much later than the A. and the extant Manusmṛti also is later than it, though, it is nearer in time to A. The extant Manusmṛti is a revised version of the original Manusmṛti made between 200 B. C. to 200 A. D.

Vaṣ 19. 17 cites a śloka ( ‘ na bhinna-kārṣāpaṇa &c ’ ) as a Māṇava śloka ( in the Upendravajrā metre ) not found in extant Manu. Verses are cited as Manu's by comparatively early writers like Viśvarūpa ( first half of 9th century A. D. ), but they are not found in the extant Manu e. g. the verse ‘ Dhanam yad-yāgāśilānām ’ cited by him on Yāj. III. 252 as Manu's is not so founḍ

As regards the Mahābhārata, the problem is far more difficult. As shown above the Śāntiparva ( in 58. 1-3 ) names certain expounders of rājaśāstra, almost all of whom are named by A. and criticizeḍ Another noteworthy fact is that the Mahābhārata in its several parvas mentions the views of Manu ( simply ) or of Svāyambhuva or Pracetasa dozens of times e. g. Svāyambhuva occurs iṇ

Ādi—73. 8-12 ( compare Manu III. 20-21, 23, 24-25 ); this last is same as Manu III. 25 ; Ādi 120. 36 ( on 12 kinds of sons ), Vanaparva ( 180. 34-35 ) same as Manu ( II. 29, 170, 172 ), Udyoga 37. 1., Śānti 21. 11-12 ; Anuśāsana 114. 12.

Pracetasa Manu—two verses from Rājadharmas in Śānti 57. 43-45, same two verses in Udyogaparva 33. 79-80, Anu- śāsana 46. 1-2 ( Manusmṛti III, 54 ).

Manu alone—in Ādiparva 41. 31, 74. 99, Śānti 56. 23-25 ( last two verses as occurring in Manu's dharmas, one ' adbh- yoginir ' occurs in Manusmṛti IX. 32 and in Udyoga 15. 34 ), Śānti 78.31 ( brahmalokajitaḥ svargyāṇ..tān—Manur—abravīt ), 112—17 and 121. 10–12, 152. 14, 265.5 (on ahiṁsā); Anuśāsana 44.18, 44.23, 47.35 ( śāstra of Manu ), 61. 34–35 ( Caturtham matam—asmākam Manoh Śrutvanuśāsanam ) ; compare Manu VIII. 18 for same view ) ; Anuśāsana 65. 3, 67. 19 ( Manu III. 5 first half same ), 68. 31, 115. 52–53; Vanaparva 32. 39 ( kartavyam eva karmeti Manor–eşa viniścayah ), 35. 21 ( Manu on Rājadharma ).

In the preceding reference is made only to passages of the Epic in which Manu is expressly nameḍ But there are hundreds of verses that are common to the Mahābhārata and the extant Manu-smṛti. Dr. Bühler in his Introduction to the translation of the Manusmṛti (S. B. E. Vol. 25) states that in three parvaus alone (Vana, Śānti and Anuśāsana) 260 verses are found in Manu also ( Intro. p. LXXXIII–XC ) and his conclusion was that the Mahābhārata influenced the final redaction of Manu.

The present Mahābhārata contains many matters that are very much like those in the Arthaśāstra. The eulogy of daṇḍa occurs in A. (I. 4. 8–16), in Śāntiparva ( chap. 15 and 121 ) and also in Manu VII, 17–31 and some of the verses in the latter two are almost the same. The word ‘labdha- prasamana ’ occurs in Śānti 45.10 and A. XIII. 5. In A. VI. 1.1 the elements of the State are said to be seven and the same is the idea in Śāntiparva 5 and Manu IX. 294. For the antiquity of the itihāsa and Purāṇa, vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. pp. 816 ff. In the Pāriplava that was listened to for a year in Aśvamedha, Itihāsa and Purāṇa were recited on the 8th and 9th days ( vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 866 ). Therefore, it follows that some legendary lore like that in the Mahābhārata existed in the Vedic age. It seems that Epic poems were probably the earliest of the three viz. the Mahābhārata, Dharm- śāstra and Arthaśāstra. But it should be noted that the extant Mahābhārata several times refers to Dharmaśāstras as in Vanaparva 207. 83, 293. 34, 313. 105, Śānti 167. 4, Anuśāsana 9. 6–7. These verses might be later additionṣ

We can see from Pāṇini that the epic and some of its principal characters and some episodes were known to him e.g. he knows Bhārata and Mahābhārata (VI. 2. 38 ), Yudhiṣṭhira (VIII. 3.95 ), Vasudeva and Arjuna ( IV. 3.98 ); ‘Vasudevaka’ would mean ‘Vasudevaḥ bhaktirasya’ and Patañjali expressly says that Vasudeva is the name of Bhagavat ( Vasudevakaḥ dasya pūrvānupātam vakṣyāmiti, athavā naiṣā kṣatriyākhyā, sañjñaisā tatrabhavataḥ ). The Āśvalāyanagṛhya ( on Tar- paṇa III. 4) mentions ‘Bhārata-Mahābhārata-dharmā- cāryāḥ’. The Mahābhāṣya ( on VIII. 1. 15 ) gives ‘dvau Yudhiṣṭhirārjunau' (and not 'dvandvam Yuḍ' as an example on Vārtika I (as they are not well-known as being extremely 'sahacarita' like Skanda and Viśākha, although they are brothers; vide Vārtika 7 'bhrātuśca jyāyasaḥ' on Pāṇ. II. 2. 34; 'Duryodhana' and 'Duḥśā sana' seem to be known at least to the Vārtikakāra (vide Mahābhāṣya on Vārtika on Pāṇ. III. 3. 130 ). The name Aśvatthāmau is derived in a Kārikā (sthāmno lugajināt tathā ) on Vārtika ( on IV. 3. 60 ). Vārtika 6 dealing with 'Ākhyānam' and Vārtika 15 on Pāṇ. III. 1. 26 refer to the story of Kamsavadha and Balibandha and the Mahābhāṣya on the last states that in dramas and pictures 'Kamsavadha ' and 'Balibandha ' are exhibited, although both these events occurred long ago ( katham vartamānakālatā Kamsam ghāt- yati Balim bandhayatiti cirahate Kamse cirabaddhe ca Balau )' and further some are shown in the dramatic or pictorial pre- sentations as devotees of Kamsa and some as Vāsudeva- bhakta. The Mahābhāṣya on Vārtika 2 on Pāṇ. III. 2. 111 quotes 'jaghāna Kamsam kila Vāsudevaḥ,' Kielhorn Vol. II. p. 119 ). The story of Kamsa's defeat and death before the Rājasūya of Yudhiṣṭhira is mentioned in Sabhāparva 14. 30–34 and in Udyogaparva 128. 38–40. It follows therefore, that the Mahābhārata along with at least some of its ākhyānas was well-known to Pāṇini and the Vārtikakāra. The Mahābhāṣya (Kielhorn, Vol. I. p. 426 on Pāṇ. II, 2. 24) quotes 'Śaṅkarṣaṇa-dvitīyasya balam Kṛṣṇasya vardhatām ' and 'prāsāde dhana--pati-rāma-keśavānām', thereby showing that Śaṅkarṣaṇa or Balarāma and Kṛṣṇa were brothers ( Kielhorn I. p. 436 on Pāṇ. II. 2. 34 ).

Pāṇini and the author of the Vārtikas flourished as shown above (pp. 75–79 ) respectively about 450–400 B. C. and 300–250 B. C. Therefore, the Mahābhārata and some legends must be held to have come in vogue not later than 450 B. C. The references in the Arthaśāstra ( noted below ) to the stories in the Mahābhārata need not lead to the A. being assigned to a date later than 300 B. C.

Janamejaya is said to have been guilty of brahmahatyā (killing of a brāhmaṇa ) unintentionally and he is said to have gone to sage Śannaka Indrota who instructed him as to the actions that would free him of the great sin (in Śāntiparva (Chap. 150–152 ). Aila, son of Ilā (who was both mother and father ), is Purūravas that ruled over thirteen dvipas (con- tinents) and yet deprived (through greed) brāhmaṇas of their jewels (valuables, ratnas) and was cursed by great sages and perished (Ādiparva 75. 18-22). That Yudhisthira and Nala engaged in gambling is mentioned by A. in VIII.3.43. The story of Nala (and Damayanti, his queen) is narrated at great length in the Vanaparva (chap. 53-79) and is one of the very popular and fascinating stories in the Mahābhārata. In the extant epic Puṣkara is said to have been the brother of Nala (Vanaparva 50. 4 ff) and won in the gambling bout, while A. states that it was Jayatsena that defeated Nala in gambling. Nala is stated in the epic to have been the son of Virasena and Nala's young son's name was Indrasena. It is therefore likely that A. is correct and the epic story was tempered with slightly later. In the extant Karṇaparva (91. 13) it is again affirmed that Nala was defeated in gambling by Puṣkara. Yudhisthira was defeated in gambling with Duryo-dhana and Śakuni (Sabhāparva, Chap. 58.77). In A. I. 8. several kings are mentioned as having perished through one of the six fatal vices (Kāma, Kopa &c.). Duryodhana perished⁹⁹ (A. I. 6. 8) through } ride by refusing to restore to the Pāṇḍa-vas even as little (of the kingdom) as would be pierced by the tip of a sharp needle (Udyogaparva). The story of Dambhodbhava mentioned in A. I. 6. 9 occurs in Udyogaparva (99. 5-41), he being humbled by the great sage Nara by dis-charging at him only reedṣ

The story of Arjuna also called Kārtavirya (or Sahasrāārjuna) king of the Hāihayas and ruler at Māhiṣmatī occurs several times in the Mahābhārata (viz, in Vanaparva 115. 9ff, Śānti 49.35ff, Anuśāsana 153. 3 ff. and Āśvamedhika Chap. 29) and Śāntiparva (46.53) states that Kārtavirya and his sons and descendants were killed by Paraśurāma because of his haughtiness towards Jamadagni (his father). In the Raghuvaṁśa (VI. 38-40) Kālidāsa gives a grand description of Kārtavirya's prowesṣ The story of Vātapi and Agastya (referred to in A. I. 6. 10 ) occurs in the Rāmāyaṇa and also in the Mahābhārata (Vanaparva 98–99). For Ambarīṣa vide above and Śāntiparva 29. In A. XIII. 3. 54–55 reference is made to a secret agent with a shaved head or with matted hair. and giving oneself out as a devotee of Saṅkarṣaṇa, overreaching robbers by administering a stupefying liquid and attacking theṃ Saṅkarṣaṇa or Balarāma (elder brother of Kṛṣṇa) is described in the Mahābhārata (Udyogaparva 157. 19–20) as ‘ Madaraktāntalocana ’ (whose eyes were red with intoxication ).

K. (in IV. 8. 12) states that Aṅimāṇḍavya declared himself to be a thief, though not a thief, through fear of the pain of torture. In the epic it is said that he remained silent when questioned (Ādiparva 107.9). He is also referred to in Ādi 63. 92–93 ( śūle protāḥ purāṇarṣiracoraś-caurasankayā ) and 108. 6–8.

From the above discussion about the references to the Mahābhārata and its stories and characters in Pāṇini, Patañjali and in Kauṭilya’s work it is clear that the A. knew not only the main story of the great epic and its chief characters but also.

As regards Purāṇas, the A. is very sparing about references to theṃ In V. 6.47 (which is a verse) there is reference to Itihāsa and Purāṇa. Other references to Purāṇas such as in I. 5. 14 (Purāṇa being included under Itihāsa ) and in III.7.29 ( about Paurāṇika Sūta and Māgadha) might be interpolationṣ The Upaniṣads speak of Itihāsapurāṇa as a compound or as separate words in Chāndogya Up. VII. 1. 2 and 4 and VII.7.1 and Bṛhadāraṇyaka II. 4. 10, IV. 1. 4, IV.5.11. Vide, for the history of Purāṇas from ancient times onwards, H. of Dh. Vol. V. pp. 816–825 and the four or five stages in the evolution of Purāṇas pp. 853–55 of the same Vol. Kauṭilya seems to have known the Purāṇaṣ He says ( III.7.29 ) that sūta and māgadha of the Purāṇas are quite different¹⁰⁰ from members of the mixed castes called sūta and māgadha and includes Purāṇa ( I. 5 ) among the subjects of royal study grouped under the head of itihāsa.

Kauṭilya exhibits a wonderful knowledge of herbs and drugs and Dr. Jolly thinks that his Materia Medica is more extensive than even Suśruta’ṣ But the dates of Caraka and Suśruta are far from being settled and no approximately certain conclusion can be drawn from the drugs mentioned in the Kauṭilya. Kauṭilya speaks of ‘rasada’ (one who administers mercurial poison ) and prescribes banishment for those who trade in or administer ‘rasa’ for money in order to do away with a person secretly ( IV. 4. 17–18 ). In II. 13 he speaks of gold that is ‘rasa-viddha’ ( amalgamated with mercury ) and in II. 12 of liquids containing gold ( rasāḥ kāñcanikāḥ ) and of Hinguluka. Dr. Jolly thinks that this knowledge of metallurgy and alchemy is of Graeco-Syriac origin and so the Kauṭilīya is a work of the third century A. D.

It is of great importance to note that Kauṭilya lays down ( II.4 ) that in the midst of the fort were to be constructed the temples of Śiva, Vaiśravaṇa, the Aśvins, Laksmī and Madirā ( Durgā ? ) and niches were to be set apart for Aparājita, Apratihata, Jayanta and Vaijayanta and that the tutelary deities of the gates were to be Brahmā, Indra, Yama and Senāpati ( i. e. Skanda ). We know from the Mahābhāṣya¹⁰¹ ( Kielhorn, Vol. II. p. 429 ) on Pāṇini ( V. 3. 99 ‘jīvikārthe capauye’ ) that the Mauryas set up images out of greed for money and that in its day images of Śiva, Skanda and Viśākha were worshippeḍ

The foregoing discussion clearly shows that the Kauṭilīya has certainly an ancient atmosphere about it, and that all that has so far been gathered from it agrees with its traditional date of 300 B. C. and no cogent arguments have been yet brought forward that would compel us to assign it a date later than the above by six centurieṣ

Two commentaries on the Kauṭilīya have been brought to light so far, one composed by Bhaṭṭasvāmin being called Pratipadapañcikā and the other the Nayacandrikā of Mādhava-yayvaṇ Both are fragmentṣ The first was published in the Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society ( 1925–1926, vol. XI and XII ) by Messrṣ K. P. Jayasval and A. Banerji-sastri. The coṃ is incomplete and begins with the 8th adhyāya of the 2nd adhikaraṇa and reaches up to the 36th adhyāya of the adhikaraṇa. The commentary on the whole work must have been very extensive, as the portion already printed on a part of the 2nd adhikaraṇa alone occupies 214 pageṣ This commentary quotes the explanations of previous commentators in the words ‘anye’, ‘apare’. It quotes several ślokas of Bṛhaspati on the blemishes of diamonds and on prakāśa-taskaraṣ The commentary Naya- candrikā contained in Dr. Jolly’s edition ( Lahore ) also is incomplete and begins with the 7th adhyāya of the 7th adhi- karaṇa and breaks off in the 4th adhyāya of 12th adhikaraṇa. It also refers to the views of its predecessors in the words ‘keciť’ &c. ( vide pp. 35, 61, 62, 104, 115, 131, 191 ). It discusses various readings ( pp. 136, 183, 188, 193 &c. ).

Dr. Shamasastri includes in his edition 571 sūtras attri- buted to Cāṇakya. Their relation to the Kauṭiliya is a subject which requires careful investigatioṇ In my own opinion they are later than the Kauṭilīya. It would be beyond the scope of this work to enter into detailṣ Vide Dr. Jacobi’s article in Indian Historical Quarterly, vol. III., pp. 669-676.

There are several nīti collections attributed to Cāṇakya and published several times in different parts of India. All of them are later than the Kauṭilīya and are compilations of maxims and fine sayingṣ One of them the Cāṇakya-rājanīti- śāstra ( published in Calcutta Oriental series, 1921, 2nd edi- tion ) contains 660 verses and was compiled under Bhojarāja. Several other compilations pass under the names Vṛddha- Cāṇakya, Laghu-Cāṇakya &c. All these are passed over here from considerations of space and utility.

Dr. Sternbach has devoted much labour and time to the several works published under the name of Cāṇakya. Those interested may read the following: J. A. O. S. Vol. 76. pp. 115–130 ( Cāṇakya’s aphorisms in the Hitopadeśa passa- ges ), J. A. O. S. Vol. 77 pp. 26–31, 107–115, 166–183 ), J. A. O. S. Vol. 79, pp. 233–254 ( Mānavadharmaśāstra verses in Cāṇakya’s compendia ), JAOS. Vol. 83, pp. 30–66 ( Mahā- bhārata verses in Cāṇakya’s compendia ), ABORI Vol. 37, pp. 58–110, ABORI Vol. 42, pp. 99–122 ( Tibetan Rājanīti- śāstra ), Vishveshvarananda Indological Journal I. pp. 66–77 ( verses from three anthologies examined ).

A few matters may be emphasized here that make the K. A. unique in some respectṣ

Even in the Vedic age there were high functionaries and officers of state and their names slightly differed in different Vedic workṣ Vide H. of Dh. Vol. III, pp. 111-112^* for the eleven ratnas or ratnins ( besides the king ) with reference to the Rājasūya. Later on these functionaries were called Tīrthas which are referred to in Sabhāparva V. 38, Ayodhyā-kāṇḍa ( 100. 36, Boṃ eḍ, 94. 30 (Cr. eḍ Baroda ), Śāntiparva 69. 52. The Arthaśāstra ( I. 12. 6 ) names these and in I. 12. 20 states that they are 18 in number. The Arthaśāstra not only names the 18 functionaries but also gives a very interest-ing classification of these along with their cash salaries per year ( in V. 3 ). Some of them may be set out here. Acc. to K. A. V. 30. 2 the sacrificial priest the preceptor ( ācārya ), minister ( mautrin ), the purohita ( chaplain ), the comman-der-in-chief, the Yuvarāja ( crown prince ), the king's mother and the crowned queen should receive 48000 ( panas ); the chief palace usher, the chief palace guard, the director of labourers, the administrator ( or collector ) of taxes and the Director of stores should receive 24 thousand; the princes, the mothers of princeṣ the Nāyaka ( commandant of the forces or police in the capital ), the judge ( in the capital ), the Director of factories, the council of ministers, the provincial officer and the officer in charge of the frontiers should receive 12000. It would be noticed that the Mantrin ( chief minister ), the Purohita, Senāpati and Yuvarāja are among the most important and most highly paid officials of the king. The Purohita was a very important and honoured person even in the Ṛgveda. Agni is called Purohita and ṛtvij in the very first verse of the Ṛgveda. The Aitareya-brāhmaṇa says that the Purohita is half the self of the Kṣatriya ( the King ) in 34. 8 ( ardhātmo ha vā eṣa kṣatriyasya yat purohitaḥ ) and ‘the gods do not partake of the food offered by a king who has no purohita; therefore a king about to offer a sacrifice should choose a brāhmaṇa as purohita’ ( Ait. Br. 40. 1 ). Acc. to Kauțilya the purohita performed both spiritual and secular. functions, since Artha¹⁰² X. 3. 32 provides that the king should make the mantrin and purohita to accompany him in battle and to encourage the soldiers by dwelling upon the excellence of the array ( vyūha ) of troops in battle ( and in X. 3. 44 ) the assistants of the purohita should speak ( to the soldiers ) about the acts of sorcery and black magic ( undertaken by them ). The Senāpati ( commander-in-chief ) held a purely secular office and in II. 3. 33-34 K. states his qualifications, duties and functions, and in X. 3. 45 provides that the Senā- pati should address the soldiers of the army after they are made well-disposed by the payment of money and the bestowal of honours and should offer to pay one hundred thousand paṇas to him who would kill the enemy king, 50 thousand for killing ( in battle ) the Senāpati or prince of the opposing army and lastly by offering double wages and gift of whatever a soldier may seize from the opposing army. It may be noted that K. provi les ( in V. 3. 28-29 ) that of those that die on duty the sons and wives shall receive food and wages and their minor children, oll men and sick persons should be shown favour ( should be helped ).

The king's prime duty was to offer security and protection to the subjectṣ Ap. Dh. S. ( II. 10. 26. 4-8 ) provides that the king should appoint for the protection of the subjects in villages and cities persons of the first three varṇas, pure as to money and truth-loving and the assistants ( puruṣas ) of those also should be possessed of the same virtues and that the king should arrange to guard a city against thieves for one yojana in all directions and a village for a krośa and they should reimburse what is stolen with- in those limits Kauṭilya makes an approach to the welfare state in IV. 3. 1-2, where he calls upon the king to protect the country from eight great calamities viz. fire, floods, disease (epidemic), famine, rats, wild elephants (and similar animals), serpents and evil spirits ( or demons ) and he provides remedies for these and adds that in all such cases the king should favour the afflicted ( people ) like a father ( sarvatra copa- hatān pitevānugṛhṇīyāt ). The Dharmasūtras and Smṛtis also mention certain persons as not liable to pay taxes e. g. a brāhmaṇa learned in the Veda, the women of all the four varṇas, boys that have not moustaches, even grown-up per- sons as long as they stay with their teachers for instruction, persons performing austerities for religious purposes, a śūdra washing the feet of persons of the other three varṇas i. e. ser- ving them, persons blind, deaf and dumb and diseased, ascetics who have no money because they are not allowed by śāstra to possess money. Vide also Vaṣ 19. 23-24, Manu VII. 123-34 and VIII. 394-95. The Dharmasūtras further say that it is the duty of the king to see that none in his realm perishes through hunger, disease, extreme heat or cold or of set purpose. Another striking matter is K’s references to confederacies of oligarchic or republican States ( in the 11th Adhikaraṇa about saṅghas, which covers less than three printed pages ). He states ( XI. 1. 1–3 ) ‘ securing an oligarchy on one’s side is better than securing an army or an ally; for saṅghas being well-knit become unassailable by enemieṣ Those ( saṅghas ) that are friendly should be won over by ( a policy of ) con- ciliation and gifts, while those that are hostile ( should be dealt with ) by ( sowing ) dissensions ( among them ) and by force. Then K. mentions two classes of oligarchies ( XI. i. 4–5 )¹⁰³ One class of Saṅghas existed in the countries of Kamboja and Surāṣṭra and there were corporations of Kṣatri- yas also; all these maintained themselves ordinarily by agri- culture, trade and the profession of arms, while there were other saṅghas viz. Licchavikas, Vṛjis, Mallakas, Madrakas, Kukuras, Kurus and Pañcālas, that maintained themselves on the title of rājan applied to them ( i. e. they were not cultivators of the soil and mere soldiers, but they were chiefs or nobles ). K. A. in VIII. 3. 62-64 ) remarks that of the vices of gambling and drinking, gambling is worse and that particularly, in the case of saṅgha and royal families, that the characteristics of a saṅgha viz. dissensions are caused by gambling that lead to destructions; hence gambling is the greatest among vices since it leads to weakness in governing.

It is noteworthy that in the passage quoted in the footnote about saṅghas ( oligarchies ), K. A. separately mentions the Licchavikas and Vṛjikas as saṅghas, while some modern writers such as Dr. U. N. Ghoshal ( p. 1 of his address in 1963 as President of the Asiatic Society of Bengal ) treat them as identical. Rhys Davids in ‘Buddhist India’ (pp.19-26) summarises the data about Indian Republics derived from Buddhist works and points out that the Vajjis (Vṛjikas of K. A.) had eight confederate clans of which the Licchavis and the Videhas were most important. The word ‘śreṇī’ ( found in K. A. ) is very ancient, occurring as it does frequently in the sense of ‘group, row, flock’ even in the Ṛgveda ( e. g. in I. 163. 10, III. 8. 9 ) and ‘gaṇa’ occurs dozens of times in the Ṛg. The word ‘saṅgha’ is mentioned frequently by Pāṇini ( in III. 3. 86 in the sense of ‘gaṇa’ ), V. 2. 52, V. 3. 114 ( referring to ‘Āyudhajīvi-saṅghas’ among Vāhikas ). In V. 3. 115-117 Pāṇini mentions several Āyudha-jivīsaṅghas such as Vārkeṇyaḥ or Vṛkāḥ, Pārāśavāḥ ( singular ) or Pārāśavaḥ ( plural ), Yaudheyāḥ ( or Yaudheyāḥ in V. 3. 117 ). In I. 6. 10 K. A. reports that the saṅgha of the Vṛṣṇis perished by their foolhardiness in trying to assail Dvaipāyana. The Mahābhārata does not mention the attack on Dvaipāyana. The Mahābhārata states that the Yādavas included Vṛṣṇis, Andhakas, Bhojas ( Mausala-parva I. 14 ) and also Kukuras ( Mausala 5. 2 ). Mausala ( chap. 3 ) shows that Yādavas fought among themselves and perisheḍ In Śānti 81. 25 Kṛṣṇa is said to be the chief ( President ) of the Saṅgha of Vṛṣṇis and in the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa is identified with Vāsudeva of the Vṛṣṇiṣ In Śānti 107 there is an interesting discussion as to the causes of the destruction of the Saṅghas and Gaṇaṣ It is quite possible that K. mentions Licchavikas and Vṛjikas separately on the analogy of the nyāyas called ‘go-balivarda’ or ‘brāhmaṇa-parivrājaka’ for which see H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1347. For the Licchavis of Vaiśālī, vide I. H. Q. XIX p. 98 and Jayaswal’s History p. 112. For the Mallas, vide ‘Buddhist India’ p. 26, D. R. Bhandarkar’s ‘Ancient India’ pp. 51, 79. Kukura is associated with Aparānta in the Nasik cave Inscription of Vasiṣṭhi putra Pulūmāvi and in the Junagad Inscription of Rudra dāman ( E. I. VIII pp. 44, 60 ). The Yaudheyas are said to have been routed by Rudradāman ( E. I. VIII. at p. 44 ). On Yaudheyas, vide Quarterly Journal of Mythic Society (Vol. Silver Jubilee No. pp. 114–116 ) and Dr. Altekar’s paper on ‘Yaudheyas’ in U. P. Historical Society’s Journal Vol. 16 pp. 52–57 and Pāṇini IV. 1. 178 ‘na prācya–Bhargādi yaudheyādibhyaḥ’. The Brhat-saṃhitā (IV. 25, XIV. 28, XVI. 21 ) refers to Yaudheyas and Arjunāyanaṣ Vide Karṇa parvan 5. 48 and Sabhā 52. 14–15 for Yaudheyaṣ Another distinctive feature of K’s work is the division of the administration into two branches, viz. the rural area ( janapada ) and the Durga ( capital or urban area ) each with distinct officers and dutieṣ The first was in charge of the Samāhartr and the Pradeṣṭr ( K. A. II. 6 and 35, IV. 1. 1) and the urban area ( Durga ) under the Nāgarika¹⁰⁴ ( city Superintendent ) as stated in K. A. II. 36. 1 ( samāhartrvan nāgariko nagaram cintayet ), the last having to look after the city ( or capital ). The c.ty or capital was divided into.four wards, each under an officer called Sthānika; an officer called Gopa was to look after ten families or twenty or forty families and was to find out the total number of persons, men and women ( described ) according to caste, gotra ( family name ) and occupation and also their income and expenditure. Numer ous details about regulations and fines to be imposed by the Nāgarika are provided, which are passed over here. As regards the rural area the Samāhartr was to form it into four divisions, ( place each division under an officer called sthānika and officers called gopas under the directions of sthānikas, were to look after groups of five or ten villages, prepare registers fixing the boundaries of villages, registers of the houses and fields that were to pay ( or were not to pay ) taxes, to record the number of persons belonging to the four varṇas, the number of persons that were farmers, cowherds, traders, labourers or slaves, the number of two-footed or four-footed animals and the extent of money or forced duties ( tolls &c. ) and fines to be levied, the number of males and females among the families, the number of children and old persons, their occupations, their ( peculiar ) customs ( caritra ) and their income and expenditure. It would be noticed how elaborate were the provisions prescribed by K. for the preparation of a complete census of the capital as well as of the rural area. *In the B. I. edition (1884) of the Kāmandakīya-nītisāra by Rajendralal Mitra with a coṃ compiled by three Pandits the word Kauṭalya is explained as follows: ‘Kuṭa’ means ‘ghaṭa’; ( with affix la ) ‘Kuṭala’ means one who stores only as much corn as fills a jar and Kauṭalya would mean a descendant of such a persoṇ²²⁶ The learned editor of the Arthaśāstra in the Trivandrum series, M. M. Ganapati Sastri accepts this ( Intro p. 4 ) and the only authority he cites for Kauṭalya as a gotra name is that of a very late lexicon called Nānārthārṇavasa- nīkṣepa of Keśavasvāmiṇ It is remarkable that the learned Mahamahopadhyaya prints the name of the work as Kauṭiliyam and in the opening verse of his commentary also keeps the word Kauṭilya and in the first sentence ( of the com ). also prints the author’s name as Kauṭilya, on p. 25 in the last verse he reads ‘Kauṭilyena kṛtam śāstram’, again on p. 27 he prints ‘caṭasra eva vidyā iti Kauṭilyah’, on p. 33 ‘neti Kauṭilyah’ and on p. 39 ‘Artha eva pradhāna iti Kauṭilyah’. It is difficult to believe that the great Mahama- hopadhyaya, who had till then edited 80 works and who had work in Tamil characters and one in Telugu and the author’s name as Kauṭilya by sheer carelessness ( anavadhāna, as he states in his Sanskrit Introduction ). If such an experienced and learned Pandit is careless and writes the word as Kauṭilya many times instead of Kautalya (which his three msṣ supported as he says) it is easy to believe that some later scribes purposely changed the word or carelessly wrote it as Kautalya. The form Kautalya makes its appearance in some works and inscriptions after the 11th or 12th century A. D. This was probably due to later writers’ unwillingness to hold that the great Cāṇakya who helped Candragupta to drive away the Greeks from India and wrote an excellent work on Politics should have borne such an opprobrious name as Kauṭilya. But the word Kautalya makes hardly any sense. Manu (IV. 7-8) recommends that Brāhmaṇas should not amass wealth, should not have more corn than what is contained in a granary of bricks or that they should be kumbhīdhānya or possess only as much grain as would suffice for three days ( for the family and servants) or only for one day. Yāj. ( I. 124 and 128 ) provides that a good brāhmaṇa should have only as much stock of grains as would suffice for one year ( for family &c ) and should not go in for a Soma sacrifice if he has less or should have as much grain as would be contained in a granary or contained in a Kumbhi or as would last for three days or one day. These ancient smṛtis (Manu IV 8, Yāj. I. 128) provide that the more penurious a brāhmaṇa is the more he becomes praiseworthy or should be more honoureḍ The commentators differ about the meaning of Kusūladhānya and Kumbhī-dhānya ( vide Kullūka on Manu IV. 7 ). Kumbhīdhānya means either one who has in store as much corn as would last for six months ( Medhātithi ) or as would last for six days ( Govindarāja ). But no one uses the word kuṭadhānyaḥ or ghaṭadhānyaḥ. Kumbhī is a technical word in Manu and Yāj. Therefore, to take kutūla as Kumbhīdhānya is not only far-fetched but unwarranteḍ Besides, the Purāṇas (e. g. Matsya and Vāyu), Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Mudrārākṣasa, and Bhavabhūti (who employs the words-‘ Kutila-naya-niśnātamanasām’) point to Kauṭilya as the name and no one has shown that Kautalya occurs in early inscriptions ( thongh Kauṭilya occurs as a gotra in early inscriptions from the 7th century A. D. ). Vide Daṇḍa- viveka of Vardhamāna pp. 134-135 for a discussion of the meaning of Kumbha ( it winds up by saying ‘ nānārtha eva Kumbhaśabdaḥ )'.

In the Śāntiparva ( 243. 2-3 ) it is stated that there are four ways of maintenance for a brāhmaṇa householder, viz. he may be Kusūladhānya or Kumbhadhānya or he may be a 'Āśvastana' i. e. storing only as much corn as would suffice for a day or he may follow the way of Kapota birds and that each one of these ways is superior to each preceding one. The Manusmṛti (IV. 7-8) mentions four ways of living for a brāhmaṇa viz. Kusūladhānya, Kumbhidhānya, Tryahaihika (one storing only as much corn as would suffice for three days for the family and servants) or he may be 'āśvastanika' (not storing even for the next day). The Manu-smṛti (in IV. 4-6) states that a brāhmaṇa householder may follow for his livelihood the method of ṛta (i. e. collecting with his fingers grains that have fallen down in a field or on a public way or collecting the fallen pods of grain) or the method amṛta (grain got without asking) or of mṛta (collecting alms by begging) or of pramṛta (method of agriculture) or by satyānṛta (i. e. trade); but a brāhmaṇa should not follow Śvāvṛtti (dog's way i. e. serving or labouring for another). Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 127 (where also the words Kusūladhānya and Kumbhidhānya are used) explains that "Kusūla means Koṣṭhaka and is a measure for corn equal to twenty droṇas and Kumbhi is half of that and quotes a half verse (Daśadroṇā smṛtā Kumbhi Kusūlo dvi-guṇastataḥ, ityabhiyuktopadeśāt). (In VIII. 3-20) Manu provides the punishment of vadha (either whipping, cutting of a limb or death) as the punishment for a thief who steals more corn than ten Kumbhiṣ Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 127 (Vol, I p. 104 of T. S. S.) explains that Kusūla is Koṣṭhaka and is a measure of corn equal to twenty droṇas and Kumbhi is half of that and quotes a verse (Daśa droṇāḥ smṛtā Kumbhī Kusūlo dviguṇastataḥ). Kṣīrasvāmin on Amarakoṣa mentions Kuḍava, Prastha, Āḍhaka, Droṇa and Khārī as measures, parimāṇas), quotes a verse, stating four Palas are equal to Kuḍava, four Kuḍavas are equal to prastha, four prasthas are equal to āḍhaka, eight āḍhakas are equal to droṇa and the quantities of these measures differ in different countries i. e. in some countries four āḍhakas are equal to droṇa and twenty droṇas make a Kumbha. The Mit. on Yāj. III. 265 quotes Manu VIII. 320 and remarks that Kumbha is equal to five thousand palaṣ A Kumbha or Kumbhī was a large measure in any case and not a mere jar, as M. M. Gaṇapatisastri says without any authority. Therefore, from kuṭa (a jar), one cannot jump to the conclusion that kuṭala would mean Kumbhidhānya or Kumbhadhānya.