________________
JULY, 1924 ]
HISTORICAL GLEANINGS FROM THE KAUTILIYA
143
solution in the following way The first of the lekhadoras is akánti, clumsiness of the dooument; it means having a black leaf (kála patrakam), and bad, uneven, and faded letters (acaru-virama-virdga'kraratvam). Therefore what is intended here is only letters or doouments which are written on leaves33 in ink; there is no mention either here or anywhere else in the Kautilya of inscriptions on stone or copper-plates. These appear to have been introduced or at least to have attained to common use, first under Aboka. The employment of the popular dialect on such documents, to be available to the commonalty, followed as a matter of course, and at least did not stand in conflict with ancient custom. It is possible to suppose that this use survived long, till the official language here also pervaded the King's privato soribes and suppressed the Prakrit.
In what precedes, many literary-historical questions have already been referred to; we shall now try to exhibit in a connected manner, what oan be gleaned from the Kautill ya, regarding the condition and extent of the Sanskrit Literature in the fourth century before Christ. The enumeration of what constitutes84 the trayt, i.e., the theology, proves that the Vodio literature had come to a close the four Vedas, and the six Vedangas. The Itihasaveda was regarded as the fifth Veda, as it is already so called in the Chandogya Up., VII. 1. 4; 2.1; 7.1: itihdsapurdnah pañcamo vedanam vedah (while in Bihadar. Up., II. 4. 10; IV. 1.2, 5.11, Itihdea and (960) Purana are sometimes mentioned as two words, and some times, as a compound). One cannot now unreservedly regard Itihasa and Itihasaveda as identical, as I had formerly done through inadvertence36, since what Kautilya understands by Itihasa, is mentioned by him in l. 5, p. 10 : puranam ilivyttam akhyayiko'daharanum dharmakatram arthasdstram ce'atihdeoh. The inclusion of the Arthasdstra, which does not belong to the Tray, but forms a vidya by itself, proves, that not all that is Itihasa, is also therefore Itihasaveda. We can have a clear idea of the Itihasaveda, it we bring before our mind the Mahabharata, since we find in it, the expressions vedah .... akhyanapan camah. III. 2247; V. 1661 ; and vedah .... Mahabharata pañcamah, I. 2418 ; XII. 13027; these expressions evidently stand on the same line as the expression itihdsapuranah pañcamo vedandm vedah of the Chand. Up. If we however regard, that all the constituent parts of the Itihasa, including the Dharma- and Artha-bastras are included in the Mahabharata, then we see no possibility of sharply differentiating the Itihasa and the Itihdsaveda. Itihasa seems to denote all that which rests on oral tradition, excepting the Revelation proper, and which is not the subject of logical demonstration. If such things bore a religious character, then they may be assigned to the Itihasaveda. Now, 88 regards the individual component parts of the Itihasa, the difference between purdņa and itiurta might have consisted in this, that the first was legendary, while the latter was more or less historical. A minister was to avail himself of these in bringing to the right path a
38 Patrakam, a leaf, represents the paper. In II, 17, p. 100, it is said : STOTWITTYT | Tall is Corypha umbraculifera, tala, according to PW.is Bora8g us flabelliformis ; however, Hoernle has pointed out in his article: "An epigraphical Note on Palm-leaf, Paper and Birch-bark," JASB., LXIX, pp. 93 ff., that the wine-palm Borassu8 1. has been introduced in India only late from Africa: a8 a matter of fact, no kind of palm is mentioned in the chaptor of the Kautillya treating of spirituous drinks (11. 25, p. 120.). Which kind of palm is to be understood by tdla, is uncertain, since we do not know any palm except those mentioned, whose leaves were used as paper. A Bhurjapatra naturally signifies the back of the birch, which even now is called bhari-patr. ____* सामगुर्वेदानवस्त्रयी । अथर्ववेदेतिहासवेतोच वेदाः। शिक्षा कल्पी व्याकरण मिहक्तंन्सविचितिज्योतिषAR I . 3, p. 7.
36 In the Sitzungeberichte der kön. Prus. Aka. der Wissenschaften, Phil. hist. Classe, 1911, p. 739.
