________________
JUNE, 1924)
HISTORICAL GLEANINGS FROM THE KAUTILIYA.
135
than Kautilya, still the sastra as such is certainly very much older than he. Mention has above been made of the development of the Kamasastra before Vâtsyâyana, and in the second note on p. 959 (p. 132, note, of this translation), reference has already been made to the point that CârAyaņa, the writer on Sadharanam Adhikaraṇam (Kamas. 1. 1, p. 6) i.e., the way in which a lover should conduct himself, and Ghotakamukha, the author of the Kanyaprayuktam (ibid.) i.e., the way in which one should have to wife a maiden, are probably identi. cal with the authors, Dirgha Carayana and Għotamukha, cited by Kautilya ; 18 accidental similarity of names is indeed improbable, since the same accident must be supposed to have happened in two cases. If therefore the existence of two parts or lectures of the Kamasa stra (Adhikaranas 1 and 3) is likely for the time of Kautilya, it is certain for the sixth lecture (the Vaisika )19, because on the occasion of treating of the instruction of the courtesans, Kautilya mentions (II. 27, p. 125) MEI foram pret fra at
** Ter u el That, however, the predecessors of Våtsyâyana wrote in Sanskrit cannot indeed remain a matter of doubt; otherwise Vâtsyâyang would certainly have preferred the claim of being the first to teach his science in Sanskrit.20 None would however assert that the Kamasastra was cultivated only within the limits of the priestly schools. This appears to me to be excluded in the case of the Dharmasastra too. That such a one (i.e., a Dharmasastra) existed at the time of Kautilya is certain, because he mentions it in a passage to be referred to once more. The contents of it, in so far as things spiritual did not belong to it, we come to know in details from the third Adhikarana of the Kautiliya, viz., the Dharmasthiya (pp. 147-200), which we (964) must regard as a piece of legislation for the kingdom of the Mauryas. Therein occurs the consideration of the most diverse facts of the practical life, the knowledge and understanding of which would be found least of all in the priestly schools. If, in spite of this, the Dharmaddstra was composed in Sanskrit—and of this there cannot be any doubt-then Sanskrit was no more an exclusively school dialect, but a literary language understood by all classes. Dharma, Artha and Kama, whose systematic treatment has been laid down in the Sanskrit works, referred to all men, and not to the learned only, much less to the priestly schools alone.
And more than this : Sanskrit was also the official language which the prince used in his letters and decrees. The proof of this statement is to be found in the Sasanddhi. kara, II. 28, pp. 70-75. This chapter treats of the letters and orders proceeding directly from the king, which his private secretary, the Lekhaka, has to prepare, i.e., to compose and copy fair, according to what the king may have said. A lekhaka should possess the qualifications of a king's minister amatyasampadopetah; what these consist in, is mentioned in I. 9, p. 15, para. 1." He should be, among other things, Kytafilpah and Cakxunman, i.e., he should know the arts and should possess Sastracaksumatta; in other words, he should thoroughly understand the Sastras. The knowledge of different local languages is not ordained, as would necessarily have been the case, bad diplomatic correspondence been carried on in Prakrit. Now, in a great political action of one king against his neighbours and rivals, there was involved the consideration, besides these, of the four princes (kingdoms) situated in front of him,
18 That is, in that part of V. 5, which treate of the marks of royal disfavour. That part is introduced with the words, bhayas ca vakayama), and could therefore be a completion, originating from Kautily himself of what his predecessors had taught.
19 According to Kamasutra, I. 1, p. 7, among the seven parts of the Kamasdaira, the Vaidika was the Arst to be ever independently treated, and that was done by Dattake.
20 Reference is made, in a different connection, to the difference between Sanskrit and Desabh Asa. vhere it is said of a någaraka (I. 4, p. 60):- Arya
ARI MUTI
uitsig ud i all 31 Compare, VI, 1, p. 255 f. (=257 f. of the 1919 edn.),
