Indian Antiquary Vol 47

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 203

JULY, 1918]
ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE KAUTILIYA
187
ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE KAUTILIYA.
BY HERMANN JACOBI, OF BONN. (Translated from the German by V. S. SUKTHANKAR, PH.D.; Poona.)
(Continued from p. 161.) As is evident from this quotation, by acaryah Kautilya means his predecessors. And when he introduces a doctrine with the words iti dcdryâh, he must be referring to them all collectively or at any rate to the majority of them, except when he adds ity eke or ity apare, pp. 164, (185) 338. Only in one instance, p. 320, is the meaning of acaryaḥ to be restricted to the three oldest schools which will presently be mentioned; because, after quoting the opinion of these acáryáh, the author proceeds to enumerate the views of the rest of the authorities which differ from them.
The authorities that are actually mentioned by name are of two kinds: the schools aud the individual authors; the former indicated by the name in the plural, the latter in the singular. Four schools have been named: the M&navâh, Bårhaspatyaḥ, Aušanasaḥ and Pârâsarah. The first three are connected with each other, because four times (pp. 6, 29, 177, 192) they are quoted one after the other, and once only (p. 69) in connection with the Páraśarah. One may, therefore, conclude that those three were looked upon as the older and the more respected schools and the Partsarâh as a later one. To the same conclusion point the names as well; for, the former are derived from divine persons but the latter only from a Rşi. These six schools, however, were not exclusively schools of Arthasastra ; they dealt with the Dharmasastra at the same time. For, in the chapter of the Kauţiliya dealing with Administration of Justice (dharmasthiya ) the above-mentioned three schools have been quoted twice (pp. 177, 192), and the acaryah, apare, eke nine times. On the other hand, in many Dharmasastras as, for example, ( 889 ] Bodhayana, Gautama, Vasiştha, Visņu, Manu, etc., have the duties of the king been laid down. We thus perceive that both gubjects, Law and Politics, were intimately connected with each other and probably taught in one and the same school. Therefore a doubt may be entertained as to whether there were any schools exclusively for Arthasastra.
The remaining authorities, which are spoken of in the singular number, namely, Bharadvaja, Višálákkal, Pisunah, Kaunapadantah, Vậtavyâdhih, and Buhudantiputrah must refer to individual authors. For, if these persons had also been looked upon as founders of schools, then like iti Parasardh, also iti Bharadvajah ought to have been said ; but we invariably find only the singular iti Bharadvájah. This difference of nomenclature makes it clear that Kautilya distinguished between schools and individual authors.
A close examination of the passages in which the later authorities have been named reveals a remarkable fact, namely, that they invariably occur in the order given above with the Parâsaráh standing behind Visalak ah. On one occasion (pp. 13 f.) the whole series is enumerated; three times (pp. 32 f., 320-322, 325-328 ), the first six members; once (pp. 27 f.) only the first four; and once (p. 380 ) only the first two. In two passages (pp. 320 ff., 325 fi.) Kautilya refutes them one after the other in succession; in the remaining places the refutation of each author is attributed to the next following. The idea that the sequence is meant to be chronological, which lies near at hand, must be abandoned after a close scrutiny of the first-named places. On pp. 320 ff. is discussed the relative value of the seven prakytis : avamin, amatya, janapada, durga, ko a, danda and mitra. According to the acaryah, their importance diminishes in the order given above. On the