Studien zum Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra by Eva Ritschl; Maria SchetelichReview by: Ludwik SternbachJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 96, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1976), pp. 322-324Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/599858 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 11:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.118 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:54:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the American Oriental Society 96.2 (1976) Journal of the American Oriental Society 96.2 (1976)

(ABORI 48.115-158; Journal of the Greater Indian Society

18.1/2; pp. 58-67). In short, in this reviewer's view, SKP. is a great Tibetan

scholar and master in Sanskrit, but not of Tibetan, and particularly not of Sanskrit gnomic and didactic literature. His profound knowledge of these two classical languages should be used for retranslation of Tibetan niti-works into Sanskrit, for which scholars interested in the spread- ing of Indian thought into Tibet would be greatly indebted to him.

The book is quite well printed, on good paper, but the errors, particularly of quotations in languages other than English are appalling.3 The price of Rs. 25 for the 134 pages book is somewhat high.

LUDWIK STERNBACH COLLtGE DE FRANCE, PARIS

(ABORI 48.115-158; Journal of the Greater Indian Society

18.1/2; pp. 58-67). In short, in this reviewer's view, SKP. is a great Tibetan

scholar and master in Sanskrit, but not of Tibetan, and particularly not of Sanskrit gnomic and didactic literature. His profound knowledge of these two classical languages should be used for retranslation of Tibetan niti-works into Sanskrit, for which scholars interested in the spread- ing of Indian thought into Tibet would be greatly indebted to him.

The book is quite well printed, on good paper, but the errors, particularly of quotations in languages other than English are appalling.3 The price of Rs. 25 for the 134 pages book is somewhat high.

LUDWIK STERNBACH COLLtGE DE FRANCE, PARIS

Studien zum Kautiliya Arthasastra. By EVA RITSCHL und MARIA SCHETELICH. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients 9. Akademie der Wis- senschaften der DDR. Zentralinstitut fur alte Geschichte und Archaologie Pp. 392. Berlin: AKA- DEMIE VERLAG. 1973.

The work of the two authoresses is composed of two independent studies, mostly, but not exclusively, based on the Kautliya-arthasastra (KA.): one on the village- communities and the other on handicrafts and trade; it contains also three annexes on visti, castes, and slavery. The studies on village-communities and the annex on slavery were prepared by Dr. Maria Schetelich (M. S.); the study on handicraft and trade and the annex on visti by Dr. Eva Ritschl (E. R.); the annex on the question of castes by both authoresses together.

At the outset it ought to be stated that the studies were prepared very thoroughly, in a scholarly manner, with a very good knowledge of the subjects and that both authors should be wholeheartedly congratulated for their work.

The problem of the village-communities in ancient India is perhaps one of the most difficult questions of ancient Indian law. The litterature on the problem is enormous; it started well before the discovery cf the KA. (B. H. Baden-Powell, E. W. Hopkins, Sir H. S. Maine). This problem cannot be solved for India as a whole, as some European and Indian authors had tried. As in a

3 On p. 108: Wiener Ziets Chrift fier die kunede des Morgenlandes (for Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes), or on p. 129: Handishriften Blockdauche Landkarten (? ? ?), etc. It seems that on p. 119, footnote 72 SKP. meant Vallabhadeva.

Studien zum Kautiliya Arthasastra. By EVA RITSCHL und MARIA SCHETELICH. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients 9. Akademie der Wis- senschaften der DDR. Zentralinstitut fur alte Geschichte und Archaologie Pp. 392. Berlin: AKA- DEMIE VERLAG. 1973.

The work of the two authoresses is composed of two independent studies, mostly, but not exclusively, based on the Kautliya-arthasastra (KA.): one on the village- communities and the other on handicrafts and trade; it contains also three annexes on visti, castes, and slavery. The studies on village-communities and the annex on slavery were prepared by Dr. Maria Schetelich (M. S.); the study on handicraft and trade and the annex on visti by Dr. Eva Ritschl (E. R.); the annex on the question of castes by both authoresses together.

At the outset it ought to be stated that the studies were prepared very thoroughly, in a scholarly manner, with a very good knowledge of the subjects and that both authors should be wholeheartedly congratulated for their work.

The problem of the village-communities in ancient India is perhaps one of the most difficult questions of ancient Indian law. The litterature on the problem is enormous; it started well before the discovery cf the KA. (B. H. Baden-Powell, E. W. Hopkins, Sir H. S. Maine). This problem cannot be solved for India as a whole, as some European and Indian authors had tried. As in a

3 On p. 108: Wiener Ziets Chrift fier die kunede des Morgenlandes (for Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes), or on p. 129: Handishriften Blockdauche Landkarten (? ? ?), etc. It seems that on p. 119, footnote 72 SKP. meant Vallabhadeva.

flower-garden flowers do not bloom at the same time (primerose and chrysanthemums) and do not grow on the same piece of land (or lily of the valley and edelweiss at the same height), so also village-communities develop- ped differently almost in each period of time and different- ly in the East, in the West, in the North and in the South. Sometimes even the structure of village communities at the same period of time seem to be different from an- other situated very near to it and seem to develop dif- ferently. This seems to be caused by the fact that we still know very little about the land tenure system in various kingdoms and chiefdoms of classical India, about "conquered" land, about usages existing in kingdoms forming the "circles" of kings and in all these parts of India for which we do not have sufficient source material. Using the nomenclature of KA. what one king considered as a village-community another might have considered as "conquered land."

Many surprises, particularly as far as land tenure is concerned, may still lie in store for us and a uniform definition of village communities in ancient India seems to be impossible. In the opinion of this reviewer, village communities can only be described according to available sources one by one and no general conclusions can be reached on the basis of these sources for India as the whole, nor for the approximate time when these sources were composed.

M. S. seemed to have accepted the gradual change from the nomad system of life of the people of India to the sedentary system (which resulted in looking for land and finally in village-communities) when she stated (p. 24) that because of different geographical considerations the transition to the sedentary agricultural life started in Balu- chistan in the fourth millenium, in the Indus Valley in the third millenium, in the Deccan in the second milleni- um and in the South later. Though these dates are rath- er fluid and ill defined, we seem to have some more au- thorative information about village-communities in Ve- dic times which might have been usefully summarized.

Under the conditions spelt out above, we may assume that Indo-Aryans, as long as they were in migratory stage, did not look after any permanent possession of land, but, as soon as they set down and changed their habits and became cultivators, started to look for permanent land and build their village-communities.

And so, in Vedic times, land already played some role and could be probably divided into homestead land, arable land, and pasture land, though the source material on the subject is rather scarce and controversial.

According to Rgveda 7.54 and 55 prayers were offered to Vastospati for immunity, security and prosperity. Sarama's son (Indra) was called protector of the household (hound who barks at the thieves and robbers). In Rgveda

flower-garden flowers do not bloom at the same time (primerose and chrysanthemums) and do not grow on the same piece of land (or lily of the valley and edelweiss at the same height), so also village-communities develop- ped differently almost in each period of time and different- ly in the East, in the West, in the North and in the South. Sometimes even the structure of village communities at the same period of time seem to be different from an- other situated very near to it and seem to develop dif- ferently. This seems to be caused by the fact that we still know very little about the land tenure system in various kingdoms and chiefdoms of classical India, about "conquered" land, about usages existing in kingdoms forming the "circles" of kings and in all these parts of India for which we do not have sufficient source material. Using the nomenclature of KA. what one king considered as a village-community another might have considered as "conquered land."

Many surprises, particularly as far as land tenure is concerned, may still lie in store for us and a uniform definition of village communities in ancient India seems to be impossible. In the opinion of this reviewer, village communities can only be described according to available sources one by one and no general conclusions can be reached on the basis of these sources for India as the whole, nor for the approximate time when these sources were composed.

M. S. seemed to have accepted the gradual change from the nomad system of life of the people of India to the sedentary system (which resulted in looking for land and finally in village-communities) when she stated (p. 24) that because of different geographical considerations the transition to the sedentary agricultural life started in Balu- chistan in the fourth millenium, in the Indus Valley in the third millenium, in the Deccan in the second milleni- um and in the South later. Though these dates are rath- er fluid and ill defined, we seem to have some more au- thorative information about village-communities in Ve- dic times which might have been usefully summarized.

Under the conditions spelt out above, we may assume that Indo-Aryans, as long as they were in migratory stage, did not look after any permanent possession of land, but, as soon as they set down and changed their habits and became cultivators, started to look for permanent land and build their village-communities.

And so, in Vedic times, land already played some role and could be probably divided into homestead land, arable land, and pasture land, though the source material on the subject is rather scarce and controversial.

According to Rgveda 7.54 and 55 prayers were offered to Vastospati for immunity, security and prosperity. Sarama's son (Indra) was called protector of the household (hound who barks at the thieves and robbers). In Rgveda

322 322

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.118 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:54:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books

(10.34.10-11) an impoverished gambler took shelter in the house of another man; the sight of the prosperity of others and their fine dwelling houses tormented him. This seem to support the view that according to the

Rgveda houses could have been owned individually. In the Atharvaveda the same seem also to be the

case. So also in the Chandogya Upanisad (7.24.2). As far as arable land is concerned, we find in the

Rgveda (1.110.5) references to measurement of the fields with the rod by .Rbhus; to khilya which appear to have been strips of land between the cultivated plots probably used by the owners of the plots in common; as well as with epithets such as ksetra-pati, ksetra-sa, Urvara-

pati, Urvara-sa meaning owners or lords of fields (Rgve- da 4.38.1; 6.20.1; 2.21.1; 4.38.1). According to the

Apala story (Rgveda 8.91.5-6), who was the daughter of

Atri, Apala prayed to Indra for the fertility and increase of production in her father's cultivated field (urvara) and placed it on the same level with his hair as a personal possession. According to the Taittiriya-sarfhita (2.2.1) a man who had a dispute about land with a neighbour had to make offerings to Indra and Agni on eleven

potsherds. The quotations given above seem to show that in Vedic

times ownership of homestead land and of arable land

belonged to individual owners, but not all quotations were as clear as those quoted above, giving numerous

arguments for considering that in Vedic times as in the entire history of Indian civilisation until the Muslim

invasion, individual ownership of land was unknown and that only communal land-ownership with different degree of king's rights to land existed. To this category of authors belongs also M. S. (pp. 27-30).

In any case, in Vedic times, pasture land belonged probably to the village-community as a whole. No mention is made in the Vedas which might suggest that

pasture land was under private control. The herd of a

village was entrusted to a common herdsman (Rgveda 10.19.3-4) and that again suggests that it was enjoyed in common. Pasture lands probably encircled the vil-

lages; they were outside the villages. That pastures were

enjoyed in common was also clearly stated in classical Indian sources, in the dharmasastras and in the KA.

The Vedas contain generally little information on legal matters and though sruti was considered as the main source of dharma, it was a fiction, sometimes a very convenient form of fiction; this was also the case with

village-communities. No mention was made in the drutis whether various plots of land were held in perpe- tuity by the head of a family and his descendents, or whether there were periodic redistributions, and as to the conditions on which, if there were several sons, they could obtain the new allotments necessary to support

themselves and their families. But there can hardly have been difficulty in obtaining fresh land for it is clear that population was scanty and spread over wide areas and wealth doubtless considered, in the main, in cattle and-what is the most important of all-there was no decision which could be considered as being contra legem, against sruti.

If we accept that in the times of the Vedas the system of private ownership of land existed, as the case seems to

be, this system probably changed in the times of the

Brahma.nas. Already in the gatapatha-brahmana- period (17.3.3,12; 4.2.3, etc.) the king is named the "devourer of the people," in order to show the marked

development of the king's prerogative over the soil and the passage from private ownership to public ownership of the land. This historical passage of ownership of the land from private ownership to communal ownership might have been marked by an intermediate step, i.e., mixed ownership-private and communal-, but the source material is very scanty on this question and

certainly unsufficient to come to a documented conclu- sion of land in general and ownership of land, in particular. It would have been, however, more advantageous for the understanding of the complicated but well document- ed study of the Kautilyan system of village-communities, if the earlier village-communities, beginning from the Vedic times, would have been also included in M. S.'s work. That would have been useful as a background for her work. However, that is not a conditio sine qua non.

The author gave in the first chapter a survey of the traditional village communities divided into (a) building areas (subdivided into rights of the owners; rights of the village, authorities to the land, rights of the king; (b) forests and pastures; (c) water and irrigation works

(subdivided into irrigation works performed by the State and by individuals).

The second chapter is devoted to new villages (settle- ment of new villages) which is as well and with as many details described in KA.. The third chapter is devoted to king's land; here the situation radically changed from that which seemed to have prevailed in Vedic times: the land became the king's land (sita), which, as the author very rightly underlined, was only cultivated under the sita-overseers (p. 77). She sees in it the first indica- tion of the process of the disintegration of the village- community which could perhaps take place if the con- tinuation of the village-community system could be

proved in India, but in this reviewer's view, village com- munities developped independently in India in different localities and in different times and such a development can not be proved.

With the next, the fourth chapter, M. S. begins the

description of the social structure of the village-com-

323

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.118 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:54:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the American Oriental Society 96.2 (1976) Journal of the American Oriental Society 96.2 (1976)

munities. She deals there with the lesser entitled peasants (upavasas), farmers and labourers (karmakaras), the

herdsmen, artisans and merchants, the dependent people (dhitakas, atmadhatas, Otmavikrayins, udaradidsas, dhvar-

jahrtas) and those who live at the outskirts of the village (antavasayinah), as well as about the village authorities

(grimika, gramavrddha, etc.), so that in M. S.'s study we find an excellent picture not only of the institution of the village-community according to KA. but also of the

village community from the social point of view. M. S.'s annex III on slavery (pp. 225-321) is particular-

ly interesting for the terminology and should be read

together with chapter 1.7. The second study by E. R., on handicraft and trade,

is as interesting and as well and scholarly prepared, as the first one by M. S. Perhaps the subject is not as involv- ed and as difficult as the first one.

The author divided the subject into two parts-the handicraft and the trade.

In the first chapter, on handicraft, she gave first a short survey of the development of handicraft up to the times of the Mauryas (Indus Valley culture, Vedic times, times of the Dharmasutras), and then on handicrafts in the villages according to the KA.

In the second and third chapters we find the descrip- tion of state production, state monopolies, so charac- teristic for the Kautilyan state, and, in the fourth chapter, the non-monopolistic state. Production and, then, the

description of the private municipal handicraft. In the next part, devoted to trade, the author deals

with traders (vanijah, vaidehakas), the internal and external markets, the trade with king's wares, the state trade policy, trade as political weapon, relation of the

king to private traders under his protection, etc.. It is impossible to go into particulars of this excellent

study; not a single detail was left out. The study is very thorough, but perhaps some comparisons of the com- modities exported/imported with other sources at least in footnotes would have been useful. It is difficult in the case of trade, in particular, to limit the study to the KA.

only. That would, certainly, greatly expand the size of the study, since not only Sanskrit, but also, as far as

possible, contemporary Greek and Chinese sources should have been used for comparative purposes.

E. R.'s annex I is on visti (a compulsory work for the

state) according to the dharmacsstras and arthaSastras. The last annex on the question of castes was prepared

by E. R. and M. S. together. The volume contains a very rich bibliography on the

KA., but unfortunately does not contain a subject index

which is indispensable for such a kind of work. In general, the work is a most welcome addition to the

munities. She deals there with the lesser entitled peasants (upavasas), farmers and labourers (karmakaras), the

herdsmen, artisans and merchants, the dependent people (dhitakas, atmadhatas, Otmavikrayins, udaradidsas, dhvar-

jahrtas) and those who live at the outskirts of the village (antavasayinah), as well as about the village authorities

(grimika, gramavrddha, etc.), so that in M. S.'s study we find an excellent picture not only of the institution of the village-community according to KA. but also of the

village community from the social point of view. M. S.'s annex III on slavery (pp. 225-321) is particular-

ly interesting for the terminology and should be read

together with chapter 1.7. The second study by E. R., on handicraft and trade,

is as interesting and as well and scholarly prepared, as the first one by M. S. Perhaps the subject is not as involv- ed and as difficult as the first one.

The author divided the subject into two parts-the handicraft and the trade.

In the first chapter, on handicraft, she gave first a short survey of the development of handicraft up to the times of the Mauryas (Indus Valley culture, Vedic times, times of the Dharmasutras), and then on handicrafts in the villages according to the KA.

In the second and third chapters we find the descrip- tion of state production, state monopolies, so charac- teristic for the Kautilyan state, and, in the fourth chapter, the non-monopolistic state. Production and, then, the

description of the private municipal handicraft. In the next part, devoted to trade, the author deals

with traders (vanijah, vaidehakas), the internal and external markets, the trade with king's wares, the state trade policy, trade as political weapon, relation of the

king to private traders under his protection, etc.. It is impossible to go into particulars of this excellent

study; not a single detail was left out. The study is very thorough, but perhaps some comparisons of the com- modities exported/imported with other sources at least in footnotes would have been useful. It is difficult in the case of trade, in particular, to limit the study to the KA.

only. That would, certainly, greatly expand the size of the study, since not only Sanskrit, but also, as far as

possible, contemporary Greek and Chinese sources should have been used for comparative purposes.

E. R.'s annex I is on visti (a compulsory work for the

state) according to the dharmacsstras and arthaSastras. The last annex on the question of castes was prepared

by E. R. and M. S. together. The volume contains a very rich bibliography on the

KA., but unfortunately does not contain a subject index

which is indispensable for such a kind of work. In general, the work is a most welcome addition to the

growing literature on the KA. and both authoresses have done a very valuable and scholarly work.

LUDWIK STERNBACH COLLeGE DE FRANCE, PARIS

Un drame allegorique sanskrit, le Prabodhacandrodaya de Krsnamisra. Texte traduit et commente par ARMELLE PEDRAGLIO. Pp. 408. Publications de l'Institut de Civilisation Indienne. Serie in-80. Fascicule 36. Paris. 1974.

Prabodhacandrodaya of Krsnamisra. Sanskrit 'Text with

English Translation, a Critical Introduction and Index.

By SITA KRISHNA NAMBIAR. Pp. vi + 178. Delhi -Patna -Varanasi: IOTILAL BANARSIDASS. 1971. Rs. 20.00.

Since the last English translation of the Prabodha

(candrodaya) by J. Taylor in 1812 (reprinted in 1854 and in 1893) and of the French translation by G. Devbze in 1899, this famous allegorical drama remained untrans- lated in these two languages; even the German translation of J. G. Rhode of 1820 was based on J. Taylor's transla- tion of 1812 and the German Th. Goldstiicker's transla-

tion, or the B. Hirzel's translation, were of 1842 and 1846,

respectively. Also the Dutch von Limburg Brouwer's translation and the Russian Kovalevski's translation were prepared in 1869 and 1847, respectively. The translations mentioned above were the only existing translations in European languages; they were all from the nineteenth century and all now out of print for a

long time. Fortunately in the span of the last four years two good new translations into French and English ap- peared. They have one superiority over the previous translations: they contain on the even pages the Sanskrit text and on the odd pages the French or English transla-

tion, so that it is easy to follow the difficult Sanskrit text.

They also contain an introduction: the French translation a long one and a very elaborate one; the English transla- tion a short one. Here the similarities end and the dif- ferences begin.

The Prabodha. is a very important allegorical nataka-

advaitic; it was written in the latter half of the 11th

century for Gopala, probably minister or commander of

King Kirtivarman, a Candella king of Jejakabhukti of whom there is an inscription of A.D. 1098 mentioned in the prologue of Prabodha. as having defeated Karna of Cedi.1

1 Epigraphia Indica I. 217; III. 25; Indian Antiquary 37 (1908) 143, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1908) 1136-38.

growing literature on the KA. and both authoresses have done a very valuable and scholarly work.

LUDWIK STERNBACH COLLeGE DE FRANCE, PARIS

Un drame allegorique sanskrit, le Prabodhacandrodaya de Krsnamisra. Texte traduit et commente par ARMELLE PEDRAGLIO. Pp. 408. Publications de l'Institut de Civilisation Indienne. Serie in-80. Fascicule 36. Paris. 1974.

Prabodhacandrodaya of Krsnamisra. Sanskrit 'Text with

English Translation, a Critical Introduction and Index.

By SITA KRISHNA NAMBIAR. Pp. vi + 178. Delhi -Patna -Varanasi: IOTILAL BANARSIDASS. 1971. Rs. 20.00.

Since the last English translation of the Prabodha

(candrodaya) by J. Taylor in 1812 (reprinted in 1854 and in 1893) and of the French translation by G. Devbze in 1899, this famous allegorical drama remained untrans- lated in these two languages; even the German translation of J. G. Rhode of 1820 was based on J. Taylor's transla- tion of 1812 and the German Th. Goldstiicker's transla-

tion, or the B. Hirzel's translation, were of 1842 and 1846,

respectively. Also the Dutch von Limburg Brouwer's translation and the Russian Kovalevski's translation were prepared in 1869 and 1847, respectively. The translations mentioned above were the only existing translations in European languages; they were all from the nineteenth century and all now out of print for a

long time. Fortunately in the span of the last four years two good new translations into French and English ap- peared. They have one superiority over the previous translations: they contain on the even pages the Sanskrit text and on the odd pages the French or English transla-

tion, so that it is easy to follow the difficult Sanskrit text.

They also contain an introduction: the French translation a long one and a very elaborate one; the English transla- tion a short one. Here the similarities end and the dif- ferences begin.

The Prabodha. is a very important allegorical nataka-

advaitic; it was written in the latter half of the 11th

century for Gopala, probably minister or commander of

King Kirtivarman, a Candella king of Jejakabhukti of whom there is an inscription of A.D. 1098 mentioned in the prologue of Prabodha. as having defeated Karna of Cedi.1

1 Epigraphia Indica I. 217; III. 25; Indian Antiquary 37 (1908) 143, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1908) 1136-38.

324 324

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.118 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:54:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions