________________
THE LICCHAVIS
295 of Candragupta Maurya, when the first Council of the Jains was held at Pātaliputra.
In the Sūtrakytānga, one of the earliest works of the Jaina sacred literature, we meet with the name Lecchai, and the same form occurs in the Kalpasūtra attributed to Bhadrabāhu, who is considered to have been a contemporary of Candragupta (c. 321–297 B.C., according to Rapson, Ancient India, p. 182). The Jain commentators equate the Prākrit Lecchai with Sanskrit Lecchaki. In the form Lecchaki, however, the name never occurs in Sanskrit literature, in which the earliest mention of the tribe, so far as we have been able to ascertain, is in Kautilya's Arthaśāstra, where they are called Licchivis. Here we read that the corporations of Licchivi, Vrji, Malla, Madra, Kukura, Kuru, Pañcāla and others were 'rājaśabdopajīvinah', i.e. enjoyed the status of rājās or kings. We next find the Licchavis mentioned in the Mānava Dharmaśāstra (X, 22). Here there are some variæ lectiones; the anonymous Kashmirian comment on the text reads Lichavi which approximates very closely to the Buddhistic form. Medhātithi and Govindarāja, the two earliest commentators, read Licchivi, and this reading tallies exactly with the name as given by Kautilya; this form, therefore, represents the earliest spelling of the word in the Brahmanic Sanskrit literature. Kullūka Bhatta, the Bengali commentator, however, reads Nicchivi, and Rāghavānanda, another
1 M. Winternitz, Geschichte der Indischen Litteratur, II, p. 295.
2 Kalpasūtra, paragraph 128. Sirikalpasūtram, Bhavnagar edition, p. 192; see also Jaina Sūtras by H. Jacobi, S.B.E., Vol. XXII, p. 266, f.n. I; Vol. XIV, part II, p. 321, f.n. 3.
3 Jaina Sütras. Jacobi, S.B.E., Vol. XXII, part I, p. 266, f.n. 1.
4 See Kautilya's Arthaśāstra, translated by R. Shāma Shāstri, p. 455. The Sanskrit text has: "Licchivika-Vrjika-Mallaka-Madraka-Kukura-Kuru-Pañcālādayo rājaśabdo pajivinah.' The 'ka’ at the end of Licchivi, etc., is adjectival. It will be noted that Kautilya distinguishes the Licchivis from the Vrjis. Regarding this H. Panday (Notes on the Vajji country and the Mallas of Pāvā', J.B.O.R.S., Vol. VI, pt. II, June 1920, pp. 259 et seq.) says that it appears from the Pāli Suttas that the names Vajji and Licchavi are interchangeable to some extent. The accounts of Chinese pilgrims, however, point to a different conclusion. Fā-Hien calls the country of which Vaiśāli was the capital, 'the kingdom of Vaiśāli', and the people of the country, 'Licchavis'. He does not mention Vrji or Vajji. Hsuan Tsang describes Vaiśāli and Vrji as two distinct countries, and Watters is inclined to doubt the accuracy of his description of the Vrji country. Ray Chaudhuri reconciles the evidence of the Pāli literature with that of Kautilya and Hsüan Tsang, saying: 'Vajji was not only the name of the confederacy but also of one of the constituent clans. But the Vajjis like the Licchavis are sometimes associated with the city of Vesāli which was not only the capital of the Licchavi clan, but also the metropolis of the entire confederacy.'-(Political History of Ancient India, 4th Ed., p. 101.)
