Now, here another question arises: have we got any evidence to show in what form the works of these ancient authors of the Arthaśāstra wore composed? It is indeed a very interesting fact that Śānti-Parvan is not content with merely enumerating their names or specifying their works but actually quotes verses from the latter. Chapters 56-8 are very important in this respect. We have three verses cited not only from Manu but also from Uśanas (Bhārgava) and Bṛihaspati. These have all been culled in the Appendix. This gives rise to the inference that their works at any rate were in metrical form. And in regard to the work of Uśanas in particular, it is possible to say that it was in existence and in metrical form even as late as the time of the Śaṅkarārya, commentator of the Kāmandakīya Nītisāra, for we know he actually quotes one verse from it.12
The conclusion that the works on Arthaśāstra prior to Kauṭilya were in verse is forced upon us by a study of the latter’s work also. Before, however, this can be demonstrated, it is necessary to find out the exact nature of the form of composition which his work represents. This is described at the end of his book in the verse:
Dṛishṭvā vipratipattiṁ bahudhā Śāstreshu
bhāshyakārāṇām
svayam=eva Vishṇuguptaś=chakāra sūtraṁ
cha bhāshyaṁ cha.
TRANSLATION
“Having noticed discrepancy in many ways between the commentators on the Śāstras, Vishṇugupta himself has made the Sūtra and the commentary.”
Unfortunately, do far I know, the meaning of this verse has not been made clear by any scholar.13 What the verse, however, evidently means is that in Kauṭilya’s time a Sūtra was interpreted differently by different commentators and that in order that this mishap may not befall his work he composed not only the Sūtras but also the commentary setting forth his meaning of his Sūtras. Kauṭilya’s book; therefore, consists not only of Sūtra but also of Bhāshyat. It is a matter of regret, however, that in the edition published of his Arthaśāstra, the Sūtra has not been separated from the Bhāshya. I will explain myself more clearly. Take e.g. pp.27-8 which deal with the subject of Mantrādkikāra. Here as elsewhere the Sūtra and the Bhāshya have been hopelessly intermixed so that the ordinary reader does not know that part of what he reads is the Sūtra and part the Bhāshya. I will extricate the Sūtras of these pages to show that whatever remains is the Bhāshya. The Sūtras here are as follows:
(1)Guhyam=eko mantrayet=eti Bhāradvājaḥ
(2)N=aikasya mantra-siddhir=ast=īti Viśālākshaḥ
(3)Etan=mantra-jñānaṁ n=aitan=mantra-rakshaṇam= iti Pārāaśaraḥ
(4)N=eti Piśunaḥ
(5)N=eti Kauṭilyaḥ
(6)Mantribhis = tribhiś = chaturbhir=vāsaha mantrayeta and so on.
These are the Sūtras, and whatever is published in the book along with each Sūtras so as to form a paragraph is the Bhāshya. There is yet another element of this work which requires to be considered—I mean the verses which are as a rule given at the end of each chapter. Who can be the author of these verses? Were they all composed by Kauṭilya himself? Let us try to answer this question. There can be no doubt that some at least were composed by him. Certainly the first two of the verses occurring on p.17 of the published text must belong to him. The first gives the opinion of the previous Āchāryas that the king shall employ his ministers in offices corresponding to their ascertained purity. The second cites the view of Kauṭilya that the king shall in no wise test their purity on himself or his queen. The phrase here used is etat Kauṭilya-darśanam. This indicates that these two verses at any rate come from the pen of Kauṭilya. And we can suppose that there were perhaps some others which also were composed by him. It is not however possible to concede more and assert that he was the author of all the verses met with in his work. This is strongly negatived by the fact that on pp. 365-6 occur two stanzas14 with the prefatory remark: ap=īha ślokau bhavataḥ. This is an unmistakable indication that these verses at any rate were not of Kauṭilya, but were quoted by him from some work. Again, we have at least two instances of verses prefaced by one or more words in prose either of which is insufficient by itself but which together make the sense whole and complete. Thus on p.121 we have the following:
Surakāmedak-ārishta-madhu-phal-āmlāmla-
śīdhūnāṁ cha—
Ahnaś=cha vikrayaṁ vyājīṁ jñātvā
māna-ḥiraṇyayoḥ
tathā vaidharaṇaṁ kuryād=uchitaṁ
ch=ānuvartayet
Here the verse by itself does not bring out the full sense, which is possible only when it is interpreted in conjunction with the preceding prose line. Similar is the case on p. 29 where we have the following:
Kurvataś=cha—
N=āsya guhyaṁ pare vidyuś=chhidraṁ
vidyāt parasya cha
gūhet kūrma iv=āṅgāni yat syād=vivṛitam=ātmanaḥ
Here the verse is preceded by two words in prose which together make clear the sense of the author. Now this practice of combining a verse with a prose passage to express an idea is often met with in Sanskrit dramas where it is indispensable for dramatic effect, but is conspicuous by its absence in any work dealing with a Śāstra when the whole of it is a production of one author. In a work setting forth the subject of a Śāstra no dramatic effect is ever intended, and when therefore we meet with such a combination of prose and verse, the only reasonable conclusion is that the author is citing that verse from some other source and that in order to fully bring out its sense he has to preface it with a remark of his in prose. The two verses given above must, therefore, be supposed as not belonging to Kauṭilya but rather quoted by him from a previous work on Arthaśāstra. There is yet another line of argument which compels us to adopt the same conclusion. The second of the verses just quoted from Kauṭilya occurs also in the Śānti-Parvan. I am aware one is apt to suspect that the Śānti-Parvan is indebted to Kauṭilya for this verse. But this is not possible, because I have just shown that it cannot belong to Kauṭilya as it is preceded by a prose preface. But there other considerations also which leave no scepticism on this point. The verse in question, viz. that beginning with n=āsya guhyaṁ pare vidyuḥ occurs not only in the Śānti but also in the Ādi-Parvan. But here it is preceded by two verses which run thus:
Nityam=udyata-daṇḍaḥ syān=nityaṁ
vivrita-paurushaḥ
achchhidraś =chhidra-darśī syāt pareshāṁ
vivar-ānugaḥ
Nityam= udyata-daṇḍad=hi bhṛiśam=
udvijate janaḥ
tasmāt sarvāṇi kāryāṇi daṇḍen=aiva
vidhārayet
Now, all these three verses, it is worthy of note, occur in Chapter VII of the Manu-smṛiti. The question, therefore, arises: who borrowed from whom? Fortunately for us this question has been threshed out by no less an illustrious scholar than Prof. Bühler.15 The above are not the only verses that are common to the Mahābhārata and the Manu-smṛiti. There are many others which have been pointed out by him in the introduction to his translation of the Manu-smṛiti, and on a careful consideration of the question he has expressed the view that the editor of this metrical Smṛiti has not drawn upon the Mahābhārata or vice versa but that the authors of both works have utilised the materials that already existed. It is thus plain that the verse n=āsya guhyam pare vidyuḥ etc. was not composed by Kauṭilya but was utilised by “him from some work which was in existence long before he wrote or the Śānti-Parvan or the Manu-smṛiti was compiled.16
It will be perceived that all the verses except a few ones that occur in Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra have been quoted by him from previous authors. When we, therefore, find any verses cited with and in confirmation of the doctrines set forth by him of his predecessors, the natural conclusion is that the verses in question were quoted from the works of the latter. Such verses do we find e.g. on pages 13, 27 and 253 of the printed edition. This shows that the works of Bhāradvāja, Viśālāksha and Parāśara at
least were in metrical form. In the case of Bhāradvāja the matter has been placed beyond all doubt, because Kauṭilya actually cites part of a verse and ends the quotation with the remark iti Bhāradvājaḥ. I am, of course, referring here to Indrasya hi sa praṇamati yo balīyaso namati iti Bhāradvājaḥ on p. 380. This quotation, I need scarcely say, forms the second half of an Āryā verse, and is exceedingly interesting inasmuch as it shows that in the earlier works on Arthaśāstra, not only the Anushṭubh but also the Āryā metre was employed. We have already seen on the authority of the Mahābhārata that the works on polity attributed to Manu, Bṛihaspati and Uśanas were in verse, and we now see on the authority of Kauṭilya that the same was the case with the works of Bhāradvāja Viśālāksha and Parāśara.
Here the question may be asked: how is it possible to regard the works on Arthaśāstra anterior to Kauṭilya as being metrical in form when the work of the latter, as we have seen, belongs to the Sūtra class of composition? Does it not conflict with the established opinion of the Sanskritists that a Sūtra work is prior to a work in which the Anushṭubh metre is uniformly employed? I admit that this opinion is at present highly countenanced by scholars, but I dispute its correctness. It was Max Müller17 who first gave utterance to this view, which has now been followed rather slavishly by Sanskritists in spite of the strong protest raised against it by Goldstücker.18 The latter scholar clearly tells us that it is one thing to lay down a criterion by which a class of works such e.g. as the Sūtras might become recognisable, and it is another thing to make such a criterion a basis for computing periods of literature and that two classes of writings can flourish in one and the same period; and, as a matter of fact, he has clearly proved that the Anushṭubh or metrical form of composition was existing side by side with the Sūtra in that very period to which the latter style of literature has been assigned. Which class of composition began earlier—the Sūtra or the metrical—is a question which need not trouble us here. My contention is that from the 7th century B.C. onwards to the time of Kauṭilya both the forms of composition flourished side by side as has been well shown by Goldstücker, and there can, therefore, be nothing strange in the Arthaśāstra works of the pre-Kauṭilyan period being metrical in form although they pertain to the period to which the Sūtra class of literature is generally ascribed and although the work of Kauṭilya himself is example of this class.
Many of the chapters of the Śānti-Parvan narrate incidents in the form of dialogues which are designated purātana itihāsa. Most of the itihāsas relate to matters connected with Dharma Purāṇa and so forth. But at least two relate the Arthaśāstra. One of these is set forth Chapter 68, where we are introduced to discourse between Bṛihaspati and Vasumanas, king of Kosala. Vasumanas pays his homage to the great sage, and enquires about the governance of a kingdom, and Bṛihaspati replies by dwelling on the paramount necessity of having a king the head of the State. In the course of discourse Bṛihaspati likens a king to the gods Agni, Āditya, Mṛityu, Vaiśravaṇa and Yama and a verse is given, viz. Na hi jātv=avamantavyo manushya iti bhūmipaḥ|mahatī devatā hy—eshā nara-rūpeṇa tishṭhaṭi ||40|| which we find in Manu (VII, 8). Then in Chapter 140 of the same Parvan we are introduced to another dialogue, this time between the sage Bhāradvāja and Śatruñjaya, king of Sauvīra. King Śatruñjaya puts Bhāradvāja a question contained in the verse: Alabdhasya kathaṁ lipsā labdhaṁ kena vivardhate/vardhitaṁ pālyate kena pālitaṁ praṇayet katham ||5|| which forms the very essence of the Science of Polity according to Kauṭilya, as is clear from his words: (Daṇḍanītiḥ) alabdha-lābh-ārthā labdha-parirakshaṇī rakshita-vivardhaṇī vṛiddhasya tīrtheshu pratipādanī cha.19 Bhāradvāja’s reply commences with the two verses, one beginning with Nityam=uddyata-daṇḍaḥ syāt and the other with Nityam=uddyata-daṇḍasya followed soon by the third verse whose second half is gūhet kārma iv=āngāni etc., exactly the three verses quoted on pages 11-2 above as being common to the Ādi-Parvan and he Manu-smṛiti. From these data it is not unreasonable, I hope, to draw the following inferences: (1) Just as in the case of every Purāṇa we are informed of the occasion on which and the people to whom and the person by whom it was recited, it seems that at the outset of each Arthaśāstra were specified the occasion which led its exposition and the sage by whom and the person or persons for whose edification it was discoursed.20 This explains why Kauṭilya places Arthaśāstra, like Parāṇa and Dharmaśāstra, under Itihāsa.21 (2) It appears that the works named after Bṛihaspati and Bhāradvāja at any rate were not composed by them but rather embodied the doctrines expounded by then orally to certain kings and on certain occasions. (3) The verse 40, cited from Chapter 68 of the Śānti-Parvan, which we find is practically identical with Manu, VII.8, must, therefore, be supposed to have originally belonged to the work setting forth the system of Bṛihaspati. For the same reason Bhāradvāja must he supposed to be the author of the three verses quoted from Chapter 140 of the same Parvan and shown to be identical with Manu, VII. 102-3 and 10522.
When Kauṭilya wrote, the study of the Arthaśāstra was falling into desuetude. This, I think, is clear from one of the verses occurring at the end of his book, viz:
Yena śāstraṁ cha śastraṁ cha
Nanda-rāja-gatā cha bhūḥ
amarsheṇ=oddhṛitāny=āśu
tena śāstram=idaṁ kritam.
This verse is evidently crediting Kauṭilya with having rescued Śāstra, which can here mean Arthaśāstra only.23 It thus seems that the old works on the Arthaśāstra were being forgotten in his time. And to rescue this Science from oblivion Kauṭilya appears to have made a vigorous attempt at getting hold of the old works, most of which he did succeed in obtaining and which he brought into requisition in composing his treatise. And we know what a stupendous mass of literature it was. There were, to begin with, at least four schools connected with this Science. A School means a traditional handing down of a set of doctrines and presupposes a series of āchāryas or teachers, who from time to time carried on the work of exegetics and systematisation. Besides, we find that Kauṭilya mentions not only four Schools but also thirteen individual authors who were in no way connected with any School.24 Again, we have already seen that of the teachers of our Science referred to in the Śānti-Parvan all except one have been mentioned by Kauṭilya. This exception was Gauraśiras, whose work perhaps seems to have been lost in his time. It is quite possible that there may have been works of some more teachers which were similarly forgotten, especially as we have seen that in Kauṭilya’s time the Science of Polity was being well-nigh extinct. The latest of these works again must for the same reason be supposed to have been written at least three-quarters of a century anterior to his time. All things considered, it is impossible to bring down the beginning of Indian thought in the sphere of Arthaśāstra to any period later than 650 B.C. We have seen that Chapter 59 of the Śānti-Parvan attributes the origin of this Science to the god Brahmā and of the different treatises on it to the different gods and demi-gods. This means that in the 4th century B.C. Arthaśāstra was looked upon as having come from such a hoary antiquity that it was believed to have emanated from the divine, and not from the human, mind. This agrees with the fact that in Kauṭilya’s time Arthaśāstra was comprised in Itihāsa, which was then looked upon as a Veda and of the same dignity as the Atharva-Veda.25
Lectures on the Ancient History of India Page 8
