.

                        p.77


           1.   SOME BUDDHIST REFERENCES (1)

1N the various discussions over the date of the  Kau.tiliiya
Artha`saastra no notice appears to have been taken so far of
the deductions that can be drawn from Buddhist sources. This
is all the more remarkable  in that the exact dating  of the
Chinese  translations  enables  us  to determine  the  lower
limits for the dates of a number of Buddhist  works, so that
we thus  have  fixed  points  from  which  to start.  Here I
propose  to  consider  the  relationship   in  date  of  the
Artha`saastra  to the works of A`svagho.sa, to AArya`suura's
Jaatakamaalaa and to the La^nkaavataarasuutra.
  As  for  the  first  of  these,  it  is  ususl   to  place
A`svagho.sa  early in the second century  A.D., a date which
cannot be far out and is certainly  not too early in view of
his  style  and  of  the  date  of  the fragments of the MS.
containing  the `Saariputraprakara.na?(2)Now,though he shows
nowhere any acquaintance  with the doctrines peculiar to the
Artha`saastra,  this   does   not  prove   without   further
examination that it was not already
--------------------------
  (1) The substance of this study was read as a paper before
the Seventeenth Congress of Orientalists at Oxford under the
title   "Some   Buddhist   writers   and   the   Kau.tiliiya
Artha`saastra." Of the  abbreviations   B.   stands   for
Buddhacarita, and  S.  for  Saundarananda.  In  qnoting  the
Artha`saastra, I give  the  sentence  numbers  of Jolly  and
Schmidt's edition as tho most convenient form of reference.
  (2) So long as it was held  that the work translated  from
the Chinese by E.  Huber under the title of Suutraala^mkaara
was  by  A`svagho.sa,  it  was  difficult   to  escape   the
conclusion   that  he  was  at  least  somewhat  later  than
Kani.ska.  Professor L.  de la Valleee Poussin seems to hold
that  the  evidence  of  the  Ms.   fragments  published  by
Professor   Luders   givng   the   name   of  the  book   as
Kalpanaama.n.ditikaa  and of the author as Kumaaralaata does
not dispose of the previous  view (Vij~naptimaatrataasiddhi.
La siddhi de Hiuan Tsang, Paris,  1928, pp.  223-4).  Enough,
however, is extant  of the Sanskrit  text  to show that  the
style is devoid of the characteristics  that distinguish all
A`svagho.sa's  writings, and the references  to Nanda's  not
having  obtained  arhatship  and to six abhij~naas  (whereas
A`svagho.sa  only knows  five, S., xvi, 1) cannnot  possibly
emanate from the author of the Saundarananda.

                        p.78

in existence  in his time  or even that, if in existence, it
had not been so long enough to become a standard  work.  For
arguments  ex silentio, particularly  in Indian matters, are
dangerous weapons on which to place reliance and at the best
do not afford conclusive proof.
  Every reader  of A`svagho.sa  must be struck by the number
of  his  references   to  the  theory  of  politics,  which,
especially in the Saundarananda, is his favourite source for
similes.  Twice, for instance (B., ii, and S., ii), he gives
us a detailed description  of the ideal king, which conforms
to the ideas  about  kingship  then current  in India except
among  exponents  of thc artha`saastra.(1) He presumes  such
acquaintance with the teachings of the schools thst he gives
a numerical riddle on them (B., ii, 41); some of the numbers
cannot be explained out of the Artha`saastra, but all fit in
fairly  well  with the teaching  of the Mahaabhaarata.(2) He
knows technical terms such as paar.s.nigraaha (S., xvii, 41)
and  maitra  (S., ii,  18, and  xvii, 56), the  latter  only
occurring  elsewhere  in the Kaamandakiiya  Niitisaara.  The
four  upaayas  to which, as in M Bh., xii, 2156, he  adds  a
fifth niyama  (S., xv, 6l), are familiar  to him.  He knows
how a king should proceed  who wishes  to conquer  the earth
(S., xvii, 10) and the progress  of the  saint  to arhatship
presents  itself to him as parallel  with the progress  of a
conquering kiny (S., xvii passim).
  His ideas  keep within  the limits  of the dharma`saastra,
particularly, as hinted  above, in the  form  expounded  for
popular consumption in thc Mahaabhaarata.  In this connexion
it may be noted thst he mentions two raaja`saastras  by name
(B., i, 41 (46)), those of U`sanas and B.rhaspati, which are
-------------------------------
  (1) I use  artha`saaslra  for the teaching  of the  school
generally and Artha`saastra  for Kau.tilya's work.
  (2) The one disciplined  is himself (xii, 2599), the seven
protected   the  seven  constituents   of  a  kingdom  (xii.
2659-60), the seven abandoned  the seven  vices of kings (v,
1061-2), the five observed  the five  measures  (xii, 2156),
the three obtained dharma, artha, and kaama (xii. 2150), the
three understood  sthaana, v.rddhi  and k.saya(xii, 2152 and
2665), tho two known are probably  the frequently  mentioned
pair, naya and apanaya or anaya, and the two abandoned kaama
and krodha (xii, 2721 and v, 1l60).

                        P.79

frequently  cited in the epic as the standard autorities but
he is so fond of quoting epic tags that we must not draw any
conclusions  from this as to the authorities  with which  he
was  acquainted.   Now  the  dividing   line   between   the
dharma`saastra  and the Artha`saastra  must be sought in the
conception of the ultimate purpose of kingship. According to
the  former  the  institution  of kingship  exists  for  the
maintenance  of order and the preservation  of the structure
of society.  The Artha`saastra  no doubt pays lip service to
this ideal but the essential doctrine underlying  the entire
work is that a king's  sole  preoccupation  is with  his own
self-aggrandizement  and  that in its pursuit  he should  be
restrained by no considerations  except those of enlightened
self-interest. The originality of the Artha`saastra lies, in
my view, not in the conception  of this principle, which was
probably  already  in the air, but in the  relentless  logic
with which all its implications are worked out.(l) The  word
vijigii.su used  as a substantive  looks  as if it had  been
coined  by the author  to denote  the king who acts  on this
principle;  it is thus used twice in what appear to be later
passages of the `Saantiparvan (M Bh.,  xii, 3944  and  3962)
(2) and  frequently  in classical  literature.  A`svagho.sa,
however, though  acquainted  with the idea that the conquest
of the earth is among  a king's  functions, does not use the
word  but  only  the  form  jigii.sat  (S.,  xvi,  85) as  a
participle and jigii.su (S., xvii, 56) as an adjective.  His
references  seem to suggest that in his day the idea had not
been  followed  out to its logical  conclusion.
  For, if the Artha`saastra had been a standard work then as
in later times, we should  have expected  not merely that he
would  be more  cautious  in dealing  with  the  subject  of
conquest  but that, when in the Buddhacarita  he has to deal
with the disadvantages  of kingship, he would  have stressed
the
----------------------------------
  (1) For further remarks on Kau.tilya's  point of view, see
p. 89 below.
  (2) Cf.  its  use  as an adjective  in M Bh., xii. 3567, a
passage  which explicitly  declares  that conquest  by means
of adharma is not permissible but is proper when effected by
means of dharma.

                        p.80

immorality  inherent  in it according  to the Artha`saastra.
After all he knew of an.rta  as applied  to affairs  of love
(B., iv, 67 ff.) and might  have  been expected  to know  of
an.rta  as applied  to politics.  But when  it comes  to the
point the worst he can find to say is, B., ix, 48 (a passsge
omitted   in  Cowell's   MSS.) , `samapradhaana.h   kva   ca
mok.sadharmo  da.n.dapradhaana.h  kva ca raajadharma.h.  The
reference   is  of  course  to  the  many  passages  in  the
dharma`saastras  eulogizing da.n.da as the supreme duty of a
king.  It is also worth  pointing  out here  that in dealing
with  the  various  philosophies  of  life  in B., ix, 55-64
(Cowell's 45-54)(1) no mention is made of the principles  of
the Artha`saastra;  the relevance  of the omission  will  be
apparent later on.
  Turning  now from ideas to language, I would  refer to the
notes in my edition  of the Saundarananda, where I quote the
Artha`saastra several times to explain words peculiar to the
two works.  The number of such cases is deserving of notice,
and their importance  can be best gauged by considering  the
two  most  significant  parallels  in  detail.  In  ii,  45,
`Suddhodana   is  described   as  a`sakya`sakyasaamanta,  an
expression  which  has been found puzzling  enough  to evoke
several proposals for emendation.  In the Artha`saastra (vi,
1, 3 and 8)  `sakyasaamanta  is used ss an attribute which a
king and country  should have and its meaning  is made clear
by the corresponding  aanatasaamanta  in the similar psssage
in Manu, vii, 69.(2) So far  as I know, the expression  only
appears  again once later, in the Kaamandakiiya  Niitisaara,
where the commentator  misunderstands  it.  It is clear that
A`svagho.sa  was  playing  on an expression  current  in the
politics of his time, though
------------------------------
  (1) Cowell's  MSS.  omitted  11 verses  in canto  ix after
verse 41, according to the old MS. in Nepal and the Tibetan
translation  but, as  one  of  these  verses  is clearly  an
interpolation,  to  obtain  thc  correct  numbering  of  the
subsequent  verses Cowell's  numbers should be increased  by
ten only.
  (2) Cf.    also   Jaatakamaalaa,   p.    67,   11.   23-4,
aanatasarvasaamantaa^m...p.rthiviirh.   In   S.,   ii,   45.
Professor  Thomas suggests  in a private  communicatian  the
reading  a`sakya.h `sakya¡C, which  is probably  the correct
reading  and  strengthens, if anything, the  parallel  drawn
above.

                        P.81

its use  need  not necessarily  have  been  confined  to the
school of Kau.tilya. The other word is raatrisattra (ii, 29)
for which I would compare  sattraajiivino  raatricaari.na.h,
of K.A.,xiv,1,4 and raatrisattraparaa.h,(1)ib.viii, 4, 61. I
can find no parallel to the word elsewhere.  This common use
of neologisms  which  failed  to  hold  their  place  in the
classical Ianguage suggests thst no great interval separates
the Artha`saastra from A`svagho.sa.
  The next author  on  my list is AArya`suura  whosc date is
probably the fourth century A.D.;  for a work attributed  to
him was translated into Chinese in A.D. 434.  In the absence
of  the  Sanskrit  original   this  proof  of  date  is  not
conclusive, as we cannot be certain that the work was really
by thc same  writer, but the probability  of its correctness
is  heightened   when   we  consider   the   style   of  the
Jaatakamaalaa.  For on the  one  hand  it shows  an intimate
acquaintance  with the works of  A`svagho.sa  such as is not
to be found in later Buddhist efforts in the kaavya style and
on the  other  its language  conforms  more  closely  to the
canons of classical  Sanskrit than does that of A`svagho.sa.
A  difference   of   two   centuries   is   not,  therefore,
unreasonable.
  Whereas, if A`svagho.sa   was    acquainted    with    the
Artha`saastra, he did not refer  to it even in places  where
it  would   have  strengthened   his  argument   to  do  so,
AArya`suura  deliberately  parades his knowledge of it.  Tho
first  of the four references  to political  science  in the
Jaataakamaalaa  which alone need consideration occurs in the
tale of Maitriibala, Jaataka no. viii, verse 14, where it is
said  in  praise   of  the  king,  dharmas   tasya  nayo  na
niitinik.rti.h, which Speyer  translated, "Righteousness  is
the  rule  of his political  actions, not political  wisdom,
that  base  science."  As  naya  is  used by    A`svagho.sa
(B., ii, 42 as corrected in JRAS., 1927, p. 216, and S., ii,
16) and AArya`suura (e.g. verse 2 of this Jaataka and xi, 3)
to indicate the policy a king ought to follow, possibly  the
contrast is between
--------------------------------------
  (1)Acoording  to T.  Ganapati  Sastri raatrisattracaraa.h.
which is perhaps preferable.
    JRAS. JANUARY 1929. 6

                        P.82

naya and niiti and the meaning then is, "The raajadharma, he
follows  is naya, not base niiti."
 The second passage occurs in the Vi`svantarajaataka,no. ix,
over the episode  of the gift of the elephant.  In verse  10
the prince is said to give the elephant out of attachment to
dharma  and  not  to  be  afraid  of  niitivyaliika,  though
acquainted     with     raaja`saastram      arthaanuv.rttyaa
gatadharmamaarga^m,"the raaja`saastra  in which  the path of
dharma   is  lost   through   following   artha."   (1)  The
significance  of the  passage, however, lies  ill the reason
for which the Brahmins were sent by their king to obtain the
elephant.   This  king  ruled   over  the  land  immediately
adjoining that of Vi`svantara's  father (bhuumyanantara) and
therefore according to the Artha`saastra was necessarily the
latter's foe, he wished to get hold of the elephant in order
to overreach Vi`svantara.  The verb used according to Kern's
edition (p. 53, 1. 3) is abhisa^mdhaatum, which is evidently
the same as the atisa^mdhaa  so beloved of Kau.tilya and the
trick recalls the practices recommended in the Artha`saastra
in a manner  that  can  hardly  be unintentional.  The  Pali
version  (No.  547) knows nothing  of this motive  or of the
reference   to   niiti,  though   in   the   Pali   versions
corresponding  to the two passages about to be discussed the
khattavijjaa, by which the doctrine of the exponents  of the
artha`saastra  is meant, is mentioned.  The addition of this
motif   is   therefore    clearly   due   to   AArya`suura's
invention.(2)
  It will  be more convenient  to refer  next  to the fourth
passage, which  occurs  in  the  Sutasomajaataka, no.  xxxi,
verses 52-5, where Saudaasa  charges Sutasoma with ignorance
of niiti and Sutasoma counters that it is precisely  because
of  his  knowledge  of  niiti  that  he declines  to act  in
accordance with its principles. The adjective jihma, applied
to it in verse 54,
---------------------------------
  (1) Speyer's, "though knowing that the science of politics
follows the path of Righteousness (dharma) only so far as it
may agree  with  material  interest  (artha)", does not seem
quite to hit off the sense.
  (2) R.  Fick, Festgabe Jacobi, pp. 145-159, holds that the
Pali  version  is later  than  the  Jaatakamaalaa;  but  the
evidence  seems  to  me insufficient  to justify  a definite
conclusion.

                        P.83

is    worth    noting    in   view    of   the    expression
niitikau.tilyaprasa^mga that occurs in the next passage. The
Pali  version  refers  to the khattadhamma  (glossed  as the
niitisattha) in the corresponding  passage and has in verses
426  and  427  almost  verbal  equivalents  of AArya`suura's
verses 52 and 54, but is so different  in essential  details
of the story that there can be no question  of imitation  by
either of the other but only of a common original.
  That these passages refer not merely to the artha`saastra
generally   but  to  the  Artha`saastra   of  Kau.tilya   in
particular is made clear by the third passage, which affords
a suggestive  parallel to A`svagho.sa's  description  in B.,
ix, 55-64, already mentioned of the philosophical systems of
his day. In the Mahaabodhijaataka, no. xxiii, the kings five
ministers  set out to him five different  theories  of life,
three of which are given in the corresponding passage of the
Buddhacarita, the svabhaavavaada  (verse  17) propounded  in
terms reminiscent  of A`svagho.sa, the ii`svaravaada  (verse
18)  and  the  doctrine  that  this  world  is  the  end  of
everything  and that therefore  happiness is the sole object
to be sought  in life (verse  19).  The other two, not being
mentioned in the Buddhacarita or in the list in S., xvi, 17,
may well relate to systems which had no recognized status in
A`svagho.sa's  day.  The first of these is the karmavaada, a
doctrine  that  every  action  is  determined  by a previous
action  to the entire exclusion  of free will.  The other is
described   in   the   following   terms:  -   Apara   ena^m
k.satravidyaaparid.r.s.te.su      niitikau.tilyaprasa^mge.su
nairgh.r.nyamaline.su  dharmavirodhi.sv api raajadharmo 'yam
iti samanu`sa`saasa

  21. Cbaayaadrume.sv iva nare.su k.rtaa`sraye.su
        taavat k.rtaj~nacaritai.h svaya`sa.h pariipset
      Naartho 'sti yaavad upabhoganayena te.saa^m
        k.rtye tu yaj~na iva te pa`savo niyojyaa.h

  The verse is difficult  to translate  neatly  and Speyer's
version requires modification  to bring out the exact sense,
which is


                        P.84

as follows: -  "Another  who held that in the practices  set
out in the science of the K.satriyas is to be found the rule
of conduct  (dharma) of a king, though they are contrary  to
righteousness  (dharma) as following  the  crooked  ways  of
political   wisdom   (niiti)  and   as   being   soiled   by
ruthlessness, instructed him thus: -

  21. 'Seeing  that  men  are  the vehicles  (aa`sraya) of a
king's actions, just as trees are the vehicles  of shade, he
should seek to acquire  a good repute for himself  by acting
as if with gratitude  towards  them, so long as there  is no
advantage  to be gained by the policy of making use of them,
but (i.e. when there is such an advantage to be gained) they
should be employed in his service in the way that cattle are
used in the sacrifice.' "(1)

  The  doctrine  thus  set  out  describes  so  exactly  the
principles  underlying  the  practices  recommended  in  the
Artha`saastra, at any rate as viewed by a hostile eye, as to
leave  no doubt that that work is referred  to here and that
we are to see in the expression niitikau.tilyaprasa^mge.su a
definite   reminder   of  the  author's   name;   the  word,
nairgh.r.nya, has  a significant  parallel, too, in Baa.na's
nirgh.r.na  in his description  of the Artha`saastra  in the
Kaadambarii.  The refutation of the minister's  views by the
Bodhisattva  further  on contains  another  clear reference:
Bhavaan  apy asmaan  kasmaad  iti vikutsyate  yadi  nyaayyam
artha`saastrad.r.s.ta^m  vidhi^m manyase, so that we can now
see  that  AArya`suura   identifies  the  Artha`saastra   of
Kau.tilya  with  the  k.satravidyaa,  the  khattadhamma   or
khattavijjaa of the
------------------------------
  (1) There  is  a double  meaning  in  k.rtaa`sraye.su  and
k.rtye.  Properly speaking men are k.rtaa`sraya  by having a
king as their refuge or support  and the use of aa`sraya  in
this connexion seems even to be extended in B., xiii, 71, to
the meaning  "leader".  Its opposite  use here  is meant  to
emphasize  the contrast  between the dharma`saastra  and the
artha`saastra. The correspondence of k.rtye and yaj~ne hints
that yajj~na is really nothing  more than k.rtyaa, " magic".
The late Professor Gawro^nski's  conjecture  of hi for tu in
the last paada spoils the point of the verse.

                        P.85

Pali Jaatakas.(1) Again  the arguments  used earlier  in the
tale by the five ministers  to inspire  in the king distrust
of the Bodhisattva  by the suggestion  that he is a spy sent
by an enemy king to effect  his ruin are evidently  a clever
skit on the uses to which the Artha`saastra recommends spies
should   be   put   and   recall   the   passage    in   the
Vi`svantarajaataka  already  discussed, while the opposition
of view is pointed by the final emphatic  exposition  of the
principles of the dharma`saastra.
 The corresponding  Pali version is Jaataka no.  528.  While
several  of the verses  show  similarities  of argument  and
occasionally  of  language  with  AArya`suura's,  the  minor
details differ so considerably that a direct connexion seems
improbable.   Their agreement, however, in a capital  point,
namely, in the philosophical  views  attributed  to the five
ministers, shows  that  they derive  from a common  original
whose purpose was to set out and refute these five heretical
views.  The  Pali  version  is evidently  the work  of a man
without  AArya`suura's   education  in  Hindu  lore  and  in
particular   its   reference   to  the   khattavijjaa,  viz.
maatapitaro  pi maaretvaa attano va attho kaametabbo, though
very close  to a phrase  of Baa.na's  in the passage  of the
Kaadambarii  already alluded to, does not necessarily  imply
any   direct   acquaintance   with   the   tenets   of   the
Artha`saastra.     Moreover, like the Pali Vessantarajaataka
in  the  episode  already   discussed,  it  has  nothing  to
correspond  to the suggestions  AArya`suura  puts  into  the
mouths of the five ministers for distrusting the Bodhisattva
but the latter's statement  in it of the K.satriyan  science
is worth notice (Fausboll, v, p. 240): -
  Yassa rukkhassa chaayaaya nisiideyya sayeyya vaa
  na tassa saakha^m bha~njeyya  mittaduubhii hi paapako
  Atha atthe samuppanne samuulam api abbahe
  attho me sambalenaa 'ti suhato vaanaro mayaa
------------------------------------
  (1) The exact meaning of k.satravidyaa in Chaandogya Up.,
vii. 1, 2, is uncertain; in Diigha Nikaaya, vol. i, p. 9, 1.
7, khattavijjaa  is classed among the occupations  a Brahmin
or `srama.na  cannot  properly  follow  but  this  does  not
necessarily   prove   that   the    reference   is   to  the
artha`saastra,  for any of the functions  of government  are
improper for those who lead a saintly life.


                        P.86

  Several  points  in these verses  recall the verse already
quoted from the Jaatakamaalaa, the comparison with the shade
of  a tree, the  parallelism  of idea  in  mittaduubhii  and
k.rtaj~nacaritai.h  and the injunction  to cut down the tree
if any use can be made of it as compared with the injunction
to use men like sacrificial victims when needed;  there must
have been something of the sort in the common original.  The
Pali version shows also that the common original  ended with
a statement  of  the  principles  of the  dharma`saastra.  A
definite conclusion  is hardly possible but I incline to the
view  that  the Pali writer  intended  by khattavijjaa, like
AArya`suura, to refer  to the  Artha`saastra  of Kau  tilya,
though probably  deriving  his knowledge  of it from popular
report  and  not  from  direct  study;  if  so, it is to  be
inferred   that  the  common  original  knew  it  too.   The
alternative  is that AArya`suura  turned a reference  to the
earlier artha`saastra into a reference to Kau.tilya's work.
  To sum up, it is quite certain  that AArya`suura  knew the
Artha`saastra  of  Kau.tilya  and  that  in his  day  it was
regarded as the standard  work on the artha`saastra  so that
the lower  limit for the date of its composition  can hardly
be later than A.D.  250.  The Pali versions  of the Sutasoma
and Mahaabodhi Jaatakas cannot be dated with any approach to
accuracy  except  within  very  wide  limits, but in view of
their style and of the five philosophical theories quoted in
the latter they cannot be much older than the Jaatakamaalaa.
But  if  the  common  originals  of the  Pali  versions  and
AArya`suura's tales meant by the reference to the K.satriyan
science the work of Kau.tilya,  the  lower   limit  for  the
latter  must  be  placed  a  good  deal, perhaps  a century,
earlier.
  This  conclusion  is consonant  with  the evidence  of the
La~nkaavataarasuutra.  The main body of that work dates from
not later than the fourth century A.D., as it was translated
into Chinese in A.D.  443.  Subsequently  an appendix of 884
`slokas  was  added, which  appears  in the  second  Chinese
translation of A.D. 513. This addition is put into the mouth

                        P.87

of a previous Buddha called Viraja Jina, who prophesies  the
coming of the Buddha of the `Saakya  race and various events
before  and after that.  (1) Verse  786 prophesies  that the
Gupta  kings  would  be succeeded  by Mlecchas, so that this
addition  must  date  from  the  last  quarter  of the fifth
century  when the Gupta  empire  had dissolved  beneath  the
attacks of the Huns. Later on the coming of future .r.sis is
announced in the following  order, in verse 813 paa.nini, in
verse   814  Kaatyaayana   the  composer   of  suutras   and
Yaj~navalkya,   in   verse   816   Vaalmiiki,   Masuraak.sa,
Kau.tilya, and  A`svalaayana, and finally  in verse  817 the
scion  of the `Saakyas.  Evidently, therefore, at the end of
the fifth century A.D.  Kau.tilya was placed on a level with
the ancient .r.sis in point of age and the work which earned
him this position must be at least several centuries earlier
than that date.
  Two points of interest  arise out of this passage.  In the
first  place, it contains  no hint of any connexion  between
Kau.tilya and the Maurya dynasty, though the latter is known
to the author  of the appendix, being mentioned  in the same
verse as the Guptas.  Secondly, Masuraak.sa is only known as
the  writer  to whom  is attributed  a collection  of gnomic
verses under the title of Niiti`saastra in volume Mdo 123 of
the Tibetan  Tanjur.  This translation  follows  immediately
after    a    slightly    longer    work    called    both
Caa.nakyaniiti`saastra  and Caa.nakyaraajaniiti`saastra  and
is of exactly the same nature as the various collections  of
gnomic  verse which pass under  the name of Caa.nakya.(2) It
shows no Buddhist influence and
--------------------------------
  (1) The   context   shows   that   this   is  the  correct
interpretation of verses 797-800, and that J.  W. Haucr (Das
La~nkaavataara-suutra u.  das Saa^mkhya, Stuttgart, 1927) is
in error  in taking  them to give the name and parentage  of
the author of the appendix.
  (2) Mr.  J.  van Manen  says of it in the Foreword  to the
second edition of the Caa.nakyaraajaniiti`saastram (Calcutta
Oriental Series, No. 2. 1926),   p.xiii, that it has certain
verses   which  are  contained   in  nearly   all  Caa.nakya
collections  and are nowhere else attributed  to another.  I
have made a cursory examination  of it in the British Museum
copy (fol.  194b-200a),  this volume  being  missing  in the
India  Office  set.   It  is  divided   into  seven  cantos,
containing  some  129 or 130  verses;  the exact  number  is
uncertain, as sometimes  five  or  six  lines  are  used  to
translate a single verse, and all the verses

                        P.88

must surely  have been well known  to Hindus  at the time it
was translated. Why then is the name Masuraak.sa  unknown to
Hindu tradition?(1) Further the use of the name Caa.nakya in
connexion  with the Artha`saastra  seems  to be a good  deal
later than the association  with it of the name Vi.s.nugupta
Kau.tilya and there are traces of a tradition that they were
different   persons.(2)   Accepting   the   tradition   that
Vi.s.nugupta  Kau.tilya  was the author of the Artha`saastra
and taking  the view that seems  to me unavoidable that he
was  a different  person  from  the minister  of Candragupta
Mauryn,  for  whose  name  and  story  legend  is  our  only
authority, are we to conclude  that the minister's  name was
Caa.nakya and that in that case Masuraak.sa was his personal
name or a nickname?
-----------------------------------------
must  be identified  to attain  certainty.  The first  verse
gives Masuraak.sa's's  name, and mentions  the artha`saastra
as  one  of  his  sources,  an  unusual   feature  in  these
collections.  The remaining ten verses in this canto contain
general  rules for the conduct  of life, of which I have not
identified  any.  In canto  ii verses  8-15  consist  of the
well-known  series beginning si^mhaad ekaa^m, describing the
twenty qualities of animals which should he imitated.  Canto
vii describes  in 19 verses the qualities  of a king and his
various servants; they seem superior in quality to the similar
verses   in    Haeberlin's   Caa.nakya`satam   and  in   the
above   mentioned,  the  Bhojaraaja,  recension,  while  the
V.rddhacaa.nakya (Bombay, 1852) has not the series at all. I
have identified  a third of the remainder, almost all in the
Bhojaraaja  recension, though  some occur  in the other  two
also.  A more prolonged  search would probably result in the
identification  of many of the rest.  The text of the verses
seems  generally  good;  very  few deal  with the faults  of
women, most treating of the behaviour  to be adopted towards
relations, friends, foes, evil men and servants. It seems to
have more unity than the Caa.nakya collections generally.
  (1) The only similar name I can find is Surak.sa, the name
of   Vyaasa   in  the   fourteenth   age   in  Vaayupuraa.na
(AAnandaa`srama S.S.), xxiii. 162.  The verse looks corrupt,
having  no less than three  conjunctions  where  only one is
required,  and  the  name   may  therefore   have   suffered
mutilation by the loss of a syllable.
  (2) Namely in Bha.t.totpala's references in his commentary
on the  B.rhajjaataka  (quoted  in the preface  to the first
edition  of Shamasastry's  translation), which suggest  that
according  to the authorities  he followed Vi.s.nugupta  and
Caa.nakya  were considered  two separate persons and that he
identified them in accordance with the traditions current in
his day. That he meant the two persons under discussion here
can hardly  be doubted;  for there surely  cannot be another
pair of the same names who had also been confused.


                        P.89

Or are Caa.nakya and Masuraak.sa  different  persons and, if
so, can we hold that Masuraak.sa  was the real author of the
verses passing  under his name? There certainly  seems to be
no reason  for fathering  any one else's  work  on so little
known an individual.
  However  that  may  be -  it does  not  much  concern  the
question  here under debate  -  I feel justified  in holding
that, taking the Jaatakamaalaa  and the La~nkaavataarasuutra
alone,  the  lower   limit   for  the  composition   of  the
Artha`saastra is certainly not later than about A.D. 250 and
is probably  a good deal  earlier, if the Pali  khattavijjaa
refers   to  Kau.tilya's   work   and  not  to  the  earlier
artha`saastra.  It also looks as if it cannot be far removed
in date from A`svagho.sa  and in particular  cannot  be much
earlier.  In fact it would agree with the evidence  here set
out if we took the beginning  of our era as the upper  limit
for its date, so long as it is borne in mind that this is an
estimate  based  on probability, not on rigid  proof.  These
limits   agree   with   the  fact   that,  leaving   out  of
considerstion  works which may know the Artha`saastra but do
not  treat  it  as a standard  work, no work  of Brahmanical
origin  which treats it as a recognized  authority, that is,
which is substantially later than it, can safely be dated as
early as A.D. 300.