________________
210
D. D. KOSAMBI
brought under a single ruler ? The new lands did not compare in fertility to the alluvial plains of the U. P. and the Punjab ; and settling them would not only be difficult, but far less paying in proportion to the expenses of administration. The strong rule of one man, which had seemed so desirable with the ancient warring principalities and tribal areas of three centuries earlier would now be oppressive beyond measure to the merchant, who is treated as a super-criminal in the Arthaśāstra, with virtually no civil rights ; yet the merchant would naturally tend to gather in a progressively greater share of the currency.
The Arthaśāstra is remarkably deficient in one respect, namely detailed knowledge of ascetic sects—though spies are very frequently disguised as holy men, a custom observed down to the Gosains of the Peshwas. The solitary mention of Buddhists is in A 3.20 : Sākya, Ajivakas, and such other monks as recruit from the lowest castes may not be fed at a feast to the gods or the manes, on pain of a 100-paņa fine. The passage is taken by J. J. Meyer and others as a commentary on the Yājñavalkya smộti 2. 235-7, (sūdrapravrajitānām ca daive pitrye ca bhojakaḥ. . . śatadandabhāk) which gives no details of sects ; nevertheless, the smộti as we now have it is later than the Arthaśāstra, for the paņa there (1.365) is of copper, as against the silver paņa of Kautilya, which dates it to a much later period of debasement. Now the term sākya for Buddhists is early, for even the Harivaņģa qualifies it: śākya-buddhopajīvinaḥ. Ajivaka denotes a follower of Makkhali Gosāla, who resembled the Jains in their nakedness, and the Buddhists in many of their opinions, being hated by both; they were a firmly rooted Magadhan sect, though they too spread to the far south and survived very late.19 I suggest that this passage dates the Arthaśāstra (in essence) to the later years of Candragupta's reign. A pre-Mauryan date is highly unlikely, because of the reference to Saurāştra, debased coins, cults established for gathering money, etc. Asoka's conversion to Buddhism, respect for all sects, gift of three caves in the Barābar hills to the Ajivakas (followed by three more by Dasaratha in the Nāgārjuni hills) exclude the possibility of so late a date.20 In the Arthaśāstra the Jains are not mentioned
19 In this connection, see A.L. Basham's authoritative and comprehensive work : "History and doctrines of the Ajivikas", London (Luzac) 1951.
20 The Arthasāstra is supposed to be dated to the end of the 3rd century BC or later by its reference to Chinese silk : A 2.11, cinapatta, cinabhūmija. The name China extends to the whole country from the principality of Ts'in after the final victory of Ts'in over Chu and the coronation of Shih Huang Ti as first emperor about 223 BC. This argument, however, is completely irrelevant for cina in A 2.11 denotes the source from which India actually derived the silk at that time ; nothing is said about 'the whole of China'. Any modern history of China (cf. W. Eberhard A History of China, trans, E. W. Dickes, London 1950; chap. iii-v) will show the great importance of Ts'in from the 8th century onwards. Not only did it straddle the trade route to the west and India, but its rise to supreme power is due to its having ended feudalism before the rest of China, which in turn is duc precisely to the local development of a strong merchant class. A merchant became chief minister under the first emperor, scandalising the feudal nobility. For us, the point is proved by A 2.11 itself, where occurs the only other mention of China in the whole book : cinasi, a fur imported from Balkh ; this shows both the trade route and the paramount importance of Ts'in in trade.
