________________
160
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[JUNE, 1918
biassed partisan of his master. The second peculiarity of his work that deserves notice is that he presents only one small section of the Arthasastra (yat bimcit). He omits everything that is concerned with the actual reality of the life in the State, the State affairs proper, such as Administration, Control of Trade and Commerce, Administration of Justice, etc., in fact, those very things which impart to the Kauçiliya an incomparable value in our eyes; or at least he does not go beyond the most general maxims. Surely he was no statesman but a typical Pandit ; in fact, even his work is characterised by his commentator, p. 137, as mahâkávyasvarúpa, i.e. didactic poetry. The subjects which chiefly interest him are those that bear on abstract concepts, and may be discussed even by laymen with a vraisemblance of political discernment : such parts of the Sastra, for instance, ns have offered material to Bharavi in sarga 1 and 2 of the Kirátárjunîya, and Migha in the 2nd sarga of the Sisupâlavadha for their descriptions and for many ingenious bons mots. Such is not the case with a science that is handed down traditionally and studied in a school, but rather with a Sustra which the author knows principally from books and from which he concocts his own. In any case we cannot appeal to Kimandaki for establishing the actual existence of a school of the Kauțiliyas, which is, in fact, here the point at issue,
So far we have been treating of the school as an indefinite abstraction; it is absolutely necessary that we now come to the actual facts of the case and try to determine the importance of the school for the development of the Arthasastra. We find information regarding it [837] in what Kautilya says concerning the sources utilised by him. This question will now be subjected to a detailed examination.
As authorities are mentioned in the Kauțiliya the following: the acaryah 53 times, apare twice, eke twice, Minavah 5 times, Barhaspatyih 6, Ausa nasuh 6, Bharadwajah 7, Visoláksah 6. Par Asarah 4. Par marah once, Parâsarah once (for the latter two we ought perhaps to read Pârâšarâh), Pisunah 6, Kaunapadantah 4, Váta vyadhih 5, Bihudantîputrah 1, Ambhiyâh (perhaps a mistake for åcâryâh ?); besides these, six authors are mentioned once each, but probably not as authors of Arthasâstras, see above 1911, p. 959. Kautilya thus refers to his predecessors 114 times-all instances wher in either he differs from them, or they differ from one another-and then he expresses his own views with iti Kautilyah or ne'ti Kautilyah (altogether 72 times) ; only once, p. 17, we find in a verse etat Kaullyadarsanam.
This frequency of contradiction appears to me to disclose unmistakably an individual author with a pronounced critical tendency and is in entire harmony with the words of Kautilya quoted above, that he had reformed the Arthasastra without consideration in quite an independent manner (amarrena ud lhrtam asu). If the Kauçiliya had originated in his school a long time after Kautilya's death, and only reproduced those of his doctrines that in the meantime had attained general recognition, would people have taken the same interest in carefully nosing all those points in which the doctrines of Kautilya differed from those of his predecessors? And would they have called his opponents acarydh ; ought not the founder of the school to be the only acáryah for them?
Now it is highly remarkable that two rather large sections of the work, rp. 69-156 and pp. 197-253, contain no reference to divergent views. The former would have included the whole of the adhyaksapracâra (pp. 45-147), if antagonistic views had not been mentioned on pp. 63 and 68. At both these latter places the question is about the measure of punishment for losses which the responsible overseers are guilty of (p. 63), and also about how to trade their crimes, p. 68. Both these questious relate really to the Criminal Proce
• Road Yakşayari for bhak ayati of the printed odition,
