Skip to main content
×
Home

The Coinage System in the Arthaśāstra and Commentarial Strategies in the Cāṇakyaṭīkā by Bhikṣu Prabhamati: Issues on the Textual Authority of Manu's Code

  • ALESSANDRA PETROCCHI (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

The Cāṇakyaṭīkā by Bhikṣu Prabhamati is a Sanskrit commentary on the Arthaśāstra (1st– 3rd century ce), the most celebrated Sanskrit text on governance. The Cāṇakyaṭīkā has not yet been fully studied nor translated into English. This paper presents the first English translation and analysis of the passages in which Prabhamati comments upon the activities of the “superintendent of the mint” (lakṣaṇādhyakṣa) and of the “examiner of coins” (rūpadarśaka). His exposition on Arthaśāstra 2.12.24–25 provides an interesting example of what can be defined as a “textual variation”; by means of commentarial techniques and literary devices the author stretches the structure of the root-text. On the basis of a broad analysis, this research demonstrates that the commentator quotes a passage on the coinage system from an unnamed source which, I shall argue, is the authoritative treatise on law Mānava Dharmaśāstra (2nd – 3rd century ce). This represents further evidence of the relationship between the Arthaśāstra and Manu's code. Finally, I shall suggest Bhikṣu Prabhamati's date and place of origin.

Copyright
References
Hide All

1 All translations are my own unless otherwise stated. I would like to thank H. David, M. McClish, A. Passi, and V. Vergiani for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. I am also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers of the journal for their suggestions. Needless to say, I alone am responsible for any remaining errors.

2 See the English annotated translations of the Arthaśāstra by Kangle and Olivelle. Kangle R. P., The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra, part II: An English Translation with critical and explanatory notes (Bombay, 1963); Olivelle P., King, Governance and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra (Oxford, 2013).

3 Critical edition, English translation and study of the Mānava Dharmaśāstra in Olivelle P., Manu's Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Manava-Dharmaśātra (New York, 2005).

4 For a thorough study of the history of Dharmaśāstra see Kane P. V., History of Dharmaśāstra, 2nd edition (Poona, 1968–1977). The relationship between the Mānava Dharmaśāstra and the Arthaśāstra has been the object of important studies. Among the most recent are McClish M., ‘The Dependence of Manu's Seventh Chapter on Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra,’ Journal of the American Oriental Society 134, 2 (2014), pp. 241262 ; Olivelle P., ‘Manu and the Arthaśāstra: a study in śāstric intertextuality,’ Journal of Indian Philosophy 32, 2–3 (2004), pp. 281291 .

5 P. Olivelle, Manu's Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Manava-Dharmaśātra, p. 3.

6 Ibid., p.24; Sircar D. C., Studies in Indian coins ([1968] Reprinted New Delhi, 2008).

7 On the coinage system of the Nāradasmṛti see R.W. Larivriere, ‘Coins in the Nāradasmṛti's Chapter on Theft,’ Journal of the Numismatic Society of India XLIV (1982), pp.108–113.

8 See for instance, Kangle R. P., The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra, Part III: A Study (Bombay, 1965); Scharfe H., Investigations in Kauṭalya's Manual of Political Science (Wiesbaden, 1993); Trautmann T. R., Kauṭilya and the Arthaśāstra (Leiden, 1971). Kangle's is at present the authoritative edition of the Arthaśāstra. He published his critical edition based on all the manuscripts (six complete commentaries and one fragment) and evidence available at that time. He made use of six fragmentary commentaries. See Kangle R. P., The Kauṭilīya Arthaśastra, Part 1 (Bombay, 1960).

9 The theory of unitary authorship is supported, for instance, by translators and editors of the text such as Shamasastri and Kangle. See R. Shamasastri (translator), Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, with introductory notes by J. Fleet ([1923] Mysore, 1951); Kangle, The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra, Part II.

10 For a discussion of the traditional view as it pertains to date and author see Kangle, The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra, Part III, pp. 61–115. For a detailed treatment of the story concerning the legendary Kauṭilya see Trautmann, Kauṭilya and the Arthaśāstra.

11 Ibid .

12 Scharfe, Investigations in Kauṭalya's Manual of Political Science.

13 M. McClish, ‘Political Brahmanism and the State: A Compositional History of the Arthaśāstra,’ PhD dissertation, University of Texas, 2009. Available on line [pdf] at: www.lib.utexas.edu/etd/d/2009/mcclishm71359/mcclishm71359.pdf

14 Willis M. D., The archaeology of Hindu ritual: temples and the establishment of the god (Cambridge, 2009).

15 Bronkhorst J., Buddhism in the shadow of Brahmanism (Leiden, 2011).

16 Olivelle, King, Governance and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, p. 8.

17 Ibid ., p. 38.

18 McClish M. and Olivelle P., The Arthaśāstra: selections from the classic Indian work on statecraft (Indianapolis and Cambridge, 2012), p. xxxvi.

19 Gaṇapati Śāstrī, in 1924, was the first scholar to pay attention to this manuscript, but he passed away before starting to work on it. Harihara Sastri a few years later made the first critical edition (1953–1968) of the two commentaries.

20 Harihara Sastri's edition gives the name of the commentator as “Prabhamati”. In his introduction in the re-edition of the Cāṇakyaṭīkā by the form Prabhāmati is found twice. See A. Pohlus (ed.), Two commentaries on the Arthaśāstra: Jayamaṅgalā and Cāṇakyaṭīkāakyaṭīkā, critically re-edited from G. Harihara Sastri's Fascicle Editions (Halle, 2011), p. 101. The form Prabhāmati is found in Olivelle, Governance and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, pp. 10–11. I keep here the original spelling Prabhamati as found in Harihara Sastri's edition and introduction.

21 Kangle, The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra, Part III, p. 2.

22 See in Pohlus (ed.), Two commentaries on the Arthaśāstra: Jayamaṅgalā and Cāṇakyaṭīkā, p. 2, f4.

23 Ibid ., p. 56.

24 The Jayamaṅgalā on the first book of the Arthaśāstra, on the Nītisāra of Kāmandaka, on the Kāmasūtra of Vātsyāyana, on the Śaṅkhyākārikā, and on the Bhaṭṭikāvya. The Nītīsāra of Kāmandaka is an influential political treatise composed between the 500–700 ce. I agree with Harihara Sastri that its commentary, the Jayamaṅgalā ascribed to Śaṅkarācārya, was written by a Buddhist. Moreover, I noticed that the Jayamaṅgalā quotes authorities which are indeed part of Prabhamati's repertoire, but I have not found any significant element which makes it possible to ascribe the commentary on the Nītīsāra to Prabhamati.

25 See in Pohlus (ed.), Two commentaries on the Arthaśāstra: Jayamaṅgalā and Cāṇakyaṭīkāakyaṭīkā, p. 101.

26 Olivelle, King, Governance and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, p. 10.

27 Lubin T., ‘Review of Two commentaries on the Arthaśāstra: Jayamaṅgalā and Cāṇakyaṭīkā, critically re-edited from G. Harihara Sastri's Fascicle Editions, by Andrea Pohlus, (Halle, 2011),’ Indo-Iranian Journal 57 (2014), p. 189.

28 Olivelle, King, Governance and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, pp. 128–129.

29 The information partly given in the footnotes is more broadly analysed in the following sections. I use the following editorial conventions: bold font for the expressions of Arthaśāstra 2.12.24–25 glossed or referred to in Prabhamati's analysis and square brackets for words not given in the Sanskrit passages but necessarily added for the purpose of the translation. The question marks found in the Sanskrit text and in the translation reflect those found in the edition by Pohlus. They denote unreadable words or parts missing in the manuscript.

30 It should be prasiddhyāḥ instead of prasiddhayā.

31 I read ’traikakārṣikaḥ instead of ’traikārṣikaḥ. This is an example of what in linguistics is known as “haplography”. In ’traikārṣikaḥ, the scribe may have accidentally omitted to repeat the phoneme ka. Also, that the reading should be [atra] ekakārṣika is supported by the fact that in Sanskrit literature the copper coin paṇa is widely said to weigh one (eka) kārṣa.

32 A daṇḍa would fit well after rūpaṃ.

33 I am grateful to V. Vergiani for pointing out to me that the term gaja (“elephant”) may be a wrong transmission for gañja (“treasury, mine”).

34 Ṭaṅka and aṅkita are two technical terms relating to the minting of coins: the adjective aṅkita from the verbal root aṅk- “to mark” means “that which is marked” and I understand it to refer to coins marked by symbols, while the term ṭaṅka (lit. “sword, chisel”) denotes a specific tool such as a coin die used in the techniques for engraving coins and stamping designs and emblems into them.

35 This sentence clarifies that the coin (rūpam) is designated by the expression rūpyarūpam because silver (rūpyam) is its main material.

36 The term bīja (lit. “seed, primary element”) has an unusual connotation here. Kangle, following Shamasastry, takes it to mean “hardening alloy”. In his translation, Olivelle also gives this very reading.

37 In Sanskrit literature, the unit of weight māṣaka is found often abbreviated in māṣa. Its multiples and submultiples are explained in Arthaśāstra 2.19.1–8.

38 Cf. the construction of añjana in Prabhamati and in the root-text. See more in the next section.

39 The term varṇa is lit. “colour” but in this context it could be a technical term.

40 The term ājīva (lit. “livelihood, sustenance”) is very unusual and here seems to be used with an archaic connotation. Kangle claims that in this context one should understand ājīva as “the aid of an alloy” and Olivelle follows this reading. However, the present study shows that Prabhamati appears to give to the expression pādājīva a different meaning, which will be better explained in the following sections. I hence prefer to keep pādājīva untranslated, as in Prabhamati's passage its meaning remains clear.

41 The word āhata occupies an important place in numismatic terminology. In this regard, see Pathak (1982, 97–103).

42 This part of the manuscript is corrupt.

43 It is difficult to have a full picture of this part as the manuscript is corrupt.

44 The commentator supplies important information: the weight of the coin pādājīva tāmrarūpa and explains that in the ancient times this was called ṣoḍaśaparimāṇa, hence revealing that the name of the coin was connected to its weight.

45 The expression “because of its association with sixteen māṣas” refers to the weight of the coin, which is sixteen māṣas.

46 The coin kārṣāpaṇa and its submultiples are widely found in Sanskrit literature.

47 Twelve paṇas is a common fine in the Arthaśāstra. For instance, it is found in 2.14.11; 4.1.17, 26, 44, 46, and 60.

48 Karṣa is a weight measuring unit equal to sixteen māṣakas. I consider this to be a quotation from Mānava Dharmaśāstra 8.136. See more in the following sections.

49 The commentator seems to explain the reason why the author of the Arthaśāstra refers to the copper paṇa by the expression (pādājīvaṃ) tāmrarūpam or a “copper coin” instead of its full name which, according to Prabhamati, is kārṣāpaṇa/paṇa. He also says that that another expression commonly used is rūpyapaṇa, by which the silver (rūpya) paṇa is meant. The commentator means that these are more popular ways to refer to the coin kārṣāpaṇa, both of copper and silver, rather than its official name.

50 The term yogavibhāga is a technical term of the grammatical tradition. In Prabhamati's sentence, yogavibhāga or the “division of the [grammatical] construction” refers to a grammatical analysis formula by which an expression joined by the sandhi or in compound is divided and its grammatical cases can be in certain instances differently analysed. Here it refers to the expression tāmrarūpam.

51 In the Arthaśāstra, daṇḍa is a technical term for “fine”.

52 The manuscript is corrupt and it seems something is missing after catur vidham aṣṭavidham iti and before nayena.

53 This is another interesting point made by Prabhamati, who mentions gold coins where the Arthaśāstra does not. Scholars disagree on the presence of gold coins in the Arthaśāstra. See for instance, Kangle, The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra, Part III; Kosambi D.D., Indian Numismatics (New Delhi, 1981); Prasad P. C., Foreign Trade and Commerce in Ancient India (New Delhi, 1977); Ray S. C.Antiquity of gold coinage in India,’ Journal of the Numismatic Society of India, 30 (1968), pp. 110117 ; Sircar D. C., Early Indian numismatic and epigraphical studies (Calcutta, 1977); Olivelle, King, Governance and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, p. 27.

54 In sūtra 5.2.120 of his Aṣṭādhyāyī, Pāṇini uses the word rūpa for “coin” and the adjective āhata to mean “struck”.

55 In his translation of the Arthaśāstra, Shamasastri often renders lakṣaṇa as “coin”.

56 Gupta P. L., ‘Numismatic data in the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭalya,’ Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 22 (1960), p. 14. On the symbols and motifs of punch-marked coins see for instance, Srivastava P., Art-motifs on ancient Indian coins (New Delhi, 2004); Thakur U., ‘Mints and Minting in India,’ Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 23 (1961) pp. 175197 ; Verma T. P., ‘A study on manufacturing of coins in Ancient India as revealed from the Arthaśāstra’, Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 33 (1971), pp. 2536 ; Warden P.G., A classification of the symbols on the Indian silver punched-marked coins (Santa Monica, 1981). For detailed studies on punch marked coins see Agrawal B. and Rai S.. Indian punch-marked coins (Delhi, 1994); Gupta P. L. and Hardaker T. R., Indian silver punch marked coins: Magadha-Maurya Karshapana series (Revised edition, Mumbai, 2014); Rajgor D., Punch-marked coins of early historic India (California, 2001). On technical aspects related to Indian coinage, see Mukherjee B. N. and Lee P. K. D., Technology of Indian coinage (Calcutta, 1988). On punch-marked coins, see Kosambi, Indian Numismatics, 1981. Goyal and Scharfe say that during the first millennium ce royal emblems appeared on palace gates, flags, coins, copper plates grants or stone inscriptions. See Goyal S.R., The coinage of Ancient India (Jodhpur Kusumanjali Prakashan, 1995) and Scharfe H., The State in Indian tradition (Leiden, New York, 1989).

57 For investigations on ancient Indian coins, see Bopearachchi O. and Pieper W., Ancient Indian Coins (Turnhout, 1998); Sircar, Studies in Indian coins; Mondal S. N., Ancient Indian Coins: decoding of their Indus-Brahmi inscriptions with special emphasis on punch marked coins (Kolkata, 2013). Animal motifs on Indian coins of Ancient and Medieval period include the bull, peacock, fish, rhinoceros, and lion. The bull and elephant were particularly prominent, as these two animals dominated ancient Indian art. See more in Rath J., ‘The Animal Motifs on Indian Coins,’ Orissa Historical Research Journal, 47, 1 (2004), pp. 5765 .

58 Agrawala V. S., India as known to Pāṇini: a study of the cultural material in the Aṣṭādhyāyī (Lucknow, 1953), p. 272.

59 Desikachari T., South Indian coins (New Delhi, 1984).

60 D. C. Sircar, Indian epigraphy ([1965] Reprinted, New Delhi, 1996).

61 Kangle, The Kauṭilīya Arthaśastra, Part III, p. 77.

62 Sircar D. C., Studies in the political and administrative systems in Ancient and Medieval India ([1974] Reprinted, New Delhi, 1995), p. 88.

63 In Rājataraṅgiṇī 5.177.

64 Sircar, Studies in the political and administrative systems in Ancient and Medieval India, p. 89. Utpala wrote the commentary on Varāhamihira Bṛhajjātaka in 966 ce.

65 It refers to the paṇa of silver which, in Prabhamati's scheme, is the kośapraveśya-currency mentioned by the Arthaśāstra in 2.12.25. Sanskrit passage in Pohlus (ed.), Two commentaries on the Arthaśāstra: Jayamaṅgalā and Cāṇakyaṭīkāakyaṭīkā, p. 120.

66 In Arthaśāstra 2.29.9–11, one finds the verb aṅkayet and the noun aṅka meaning “he should mark” and “mark” respectively. The author refers to the mark, which may be either a number or a svastika or something similar, made on the animals by the superintendent of cattle in order to identify them.

67 See Mukherjee and Lee, Technology of Indian coinage, p. 66.

68 I would like to thank E. Raven for mentioning to me the difference between a punch and a die and how these different tools are related to the development of the Indian coinage system. A punch is a single-symbol mark on a coin characterising the earliest punch-marked coins. Numismatic studies show that the techniques of creating dies evolved rapidly and coins were increasingly struck with a die carrying multiple designs.

Engraving dies, punches, and chisels were basic tools for the production of ancient coins also in the Roman and Greek cultures.

69 Pathak V. S., ‘Āhata: a semantic study,’ Journal of the Numismatic Society of India 44 (1982), pp. 99.

70 Kangle translates as “a peak on top of a mountain with the sides chiseled off”, his rendering however does not seem to match the Sanskrit. See Kangle, The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra, part II, p. 69.

71 R. Shamasastry, Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, p. 86.

72 The Arthaśāstra contains a relatively high number of technical terms not found elsewhere in Sanskrit literature. Kangle provides a glossary of special terms and usages at the end of his second volume and Olivelle gives Sanskrit names of fauna and flora, weights and measures, and geographical names as an appendix to his translation.

73 Kangle, The Kauṭilīya Arthaśastra, Part II, p. 124.

74 Olivelle, King, Governance and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, p. 536.

75 This the reading given by Kangle, The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra, Part II, p. 124 and by Olivelle, King, Governance and Law in Ancient India, p. 128.

76 It is interesting to note that numismatists explain that certain punch-marked coins have multiple metals as alloys. See for instance, Bhardwaj H. C., Aspects of ancient Indian technology (Delhi, 1979), p.141. Biswas gives interesting details on techniques involving metals for artefacts and coins in ancient India, mentioning a variety of metal-alloy systems. Biswas A. K., Minerals and metals in Ancient India (New Delhi, 1996).

77 “Antimony” and “ointment” are both meanings of the term añjana.

78 It is not uncommon to find mixed alloys in punch-marked coins. See Gupta and Hardaker, Indian silver punch marked coins: Magadha-Maurya Karshapana series (2014). Bhardwaj refer to variations of multiple metals found in these kinds of coins. Bhardwaj, Aspects of ancient Indian technology, 1979.

79 See Olivelle, King, Governance and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, pp. 141, 174.

80 I have found neither in the primary nor in the secondary source a coin called ṣoḍaśaparimāṇa. It must denote the common appellation, the prevailing expression by which the coin was referred to.

81 The coin kārṣāpaṇa and its submultiples are widely found in Sanskrit literature. For instance, in the Mahāsupina Jātaka one finds mentioned aḍḍa (Sanskrit aṣṭa) and pāda, which in Arthaśāstra 2.12.24 occurs as the submultiples of the paṇa. According to Cunningham, the second half of the compound kārṣāpana is not paṇa, but āpaṇa (“custom, use”) meaning that the coins were pieces of one karṣa weight as established by use or custom. Interestingly, āpaṇa has also the meaning of “trade, commerce, market,” since it shares the same etymological root of the coin paṇa, from the verbal root paṇ- “to barter, bargain, purchase”. See A. Cunningham, Coins of Ancient India: from the earliest time down to the seventh century A.D ([1891] Reprinted, New Delhi, 2000), p. 20. In Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī, the appellation kārṣāpaṇa appears in 5.1.29, while paṇa in 5.1.34 and these denote exactly the same coin. The same usage is found in the Yājñavalkyasmṛti. According to Agrawala, in Pāṇini's time the kārṣāpaṇa-paṇa was a silver coin. V. S. Agrawala, India as known to Pāṇini: a study of the cultural material in the Aṣṭādhyāyī, pp. 263-273.

82 A kārṣa is equal to sixteen māṣas in weight.

83 Kullūka (thirteenth and fourteenth century ce), the commentator of the Mānava Dharmaśāstra, comments upon this verse with: kārṣikas tāmram ayaḥ kārṣāpaṇaḥ paṇa iti vijñeyaḥ or “this copper kārṣāpaṇa of a kārṣika should be known as paṇa”. A similar expression is found in the Yājñavalkyasmṛti 1.365, where paṇa is said to be a copper coin weighing a kārṣika: kārṣikas tāmrikaḥ paṇaḥ or “a copper paṇa is [in weight] a kārṣika”.

84 In this regard, see Trautmann's observation in Trautmann, Kauṭilya and the Arthaśāstra; a statistical investigation of the authorship and evolution of the text, p. 177. In the Mānava Dharmaśāstra, other coin denominations are mentioned as well in relation to the payment of fines.

85 In Pohlus (ed.), Two commentaries on the Arthaśāstra: Jayamaṅgalā and Cāṇakyaṭīkā, p. 78.

86 In his article on the wages mentioned in the Book 5 Chapter 3 of the Arthaśāstra, Harihara Sastri emphasises that scholars have different views. Although the text does not specify whether salaries were paid either in gold, silver, or in copper paṇas, he argues that salaries must have been paid in silver paṇas. He also claims that the Arthaśāstra probably used the short and simple form paṇa to denote the coin kārṣāpaṇa.

See G. Harihara Sastri, ‘Salaries and Allawances in the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilīya,’ Journal of Oriental Research Madras, XXVIII (1958–59), pp. 11–16.

87 Commenting on a vārttika to Pāṇini's sūtra 1.4.52, Patañjali also refers to an officer called rūpatarka whose duty was to scrutinise the kārṣāpaṇa coins (paśyati rūpatarkaḥ kārṣāpaṇaṃ).

88 Arthaśāstra 2.12.26 introduces the duty of the rūpadarśaka, who should institute “as well as a coinage fee of 8 percent, a surcharge of 5 percent, an inspection fee of one-eight percent, and a penalty of 25 paṇas for those who manufacture, buy, or inspect elsewhere”. Olivelle, King, Governance and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, p. 129.

89 Kangle, The Kauṭilīya Arthaśastra, Part III, p. 181. In 2.12.26, the Arthaśāstra says that twenty-five paṇas is the fine for those who manufacture, purchase, and sell in other places than the mint. In this regard, it is noteworthy that 2.15.15 tells us that the artisans must purchase scales and weights from the “superintendent of standardization” (the pautavādhyakṣa mentioned in 2.19), otherwise they must pay a fine of twelve paṇas. It appears that this figure was critical for the state to have an accurate mechanism for keeping track of its finances: the state cannot reliably account for its income and expenditure across the realm unless there are standards. Kauṭilya wants the state to issue weights and measures to merchants so that they use only official measures. This decreases cheating in the marketplace. In general, standardised weights would not only have helped accounting (and hence helped finances), it would also have both projected and protected the state's power.

90 I have found the term āvaraṇa to be related to coins neither in the Cāṇakyaṭīkā nor in the primary and secondary literature read for this paper. It may denote a local term and refer to something commonly known at the commentator's time.

91 See the expression [pañcāvarāṇi] svārthāni.

92 Verma, ‘A study on manufacturing of coins in Ancient India as revealed from the Arthaśāstra,’ p. 33.

93 McClish and Olivelle, The Arthaśāstra: selections from the classic Indian work on statecraft, p. xxxvii.

94 Olivelle, King, Governance and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, p. 39.

95 Lubin, ‘Review of Two commentaries on the Arthaśāstra: Jayamaṅgalā and Cāṇakyaṭīkā, critically re-edited from G. Harihara Sastri's Fascicle Editions, by Andrea Pohlus,’ p. 189.

96 See also in Yajñavalkyasmṛti 13.365: kārṣikas tāmrikaḥ paṇaḥ.

97 For instance, Freschi E., ‘The Reuse of Texts in Indian Philosophy: Introduction,’ Journal of Indian Philosophy 43, 2–3 (2105), pp. 85108 . See also, E. Freschi (ed.), Special Issue on the Reuse of Texts in Indian Philosophy, Journal of Indian Philosophy 43, 2–3, (2015), Part 1.

98 On the influence of the Mānava Dharmaśāstra on medieval authors, see Olivelle, ‘Manu and the Arthaśāstra: a study in śāstric intertextuality’, and Olivelle, Manu's Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Manava-Dharmaśātra, pp. 66–70. In his recent article, McClish has demonstrated a direct influence of the Arthaśāstra on some parts of the Mānava Dharmaśāstra, particularly on the seventh chapter.

McClish, ‘The Dependence of Manu's Seventh Chapter on Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra’.

99 Trautmann, Kauṭilya and the Arthaśāstra; a statistical investigation of the authorship and evolution of the text, p. 177.

100 Kangle, The Kauṭilīya Arthaśastra, part. III, p. 125.

See also, Breloer B., Kautiliya-Studien, 3 vols. (Bonn, Leipzig, 1927–1934). Cp is the abbreviation used by Kangle to denote the fragmentary commentary on the Arthaśāstra called Pratipadapañcikā, whose author is Bhaṭṭasvamin. Unfortunately, no published edition exists of this text. The two extant manuscripts are one from Tanjore in Grantha characters and the other from Malabar in Malayalam characters.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
  • ISSN: 1356-1863
  • EISSN: 1474-0591
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-the-royal-asiatic-society
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 22 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 113 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 9th May 2017 - 21st November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.