Two Studies in the Arthasastra of Kautilya

·期刊原文
Two Studies in the Arthasastra of Kautilya

E.H.Johnston
The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
January 1929
pp.77-89

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

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, 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.