The story of a unique manuscript: the case of Arthaśāstra

Von Gleb Sharygin

The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra is an extraordinary text that has been a source of fascination for scholars, historians and political thinkers for over a century. Although it was written nearly two millennia ago, the Arthaśāstra contains valuable insights for the modern world, touching on everything from politics and economics to ethics and the public good. But what exactly is this text, and why does it continue to resonate with us today?

To begin with, it’s important to note that the Arthaśāstra is believed to be the world’s oldest comprehensive treatise on statecraft, predating Machiavelli’s The Prince by nearly 1,500 years. Until its rediscovery in the early 20th century, British rulers assumed that India had never developed its own discipline of statecraft and that its ancient governance practices had been mainly influenced by Hellenistic ones. The Arthaśāstra decisively refuted this view. Far from being a mere political manual, the Arthaśāstra covers the entire spectrum of governance, from economics and trade to law, diplomacy and military strategy.

What is the Arthaśāstra?

In essence, the Arthaśāstra is an ancient Indian manual on – to use modern terminology – statesmanship, political science, economic policy and military strategy. It is attributed to Kauṭilīya (also known as Cāṇakya), a brilliant strategist and advisor to Emperor Chandragupta Maurya, who founded the Maurya Empire in the 4th century BC. The title Arthaśāstra is a Sanskrit term in which artha means ‘prosperity’ or ‘material well-being’ and śāstra means ‘science’ or ‘treatise’. Together, the term can be understood as the ‘science of statecraft’ or the ‘science of prosperity’.

While the word artha is typically associated with wealth, it has multiple meanings in Sanskrit, expanding the scope of the text beyond economics. The Arthaśāstra is essentially a manual on how to govern – covering topics as diverse as law, trade, diplomacy, militarism and warfare. It deals with the duties of kings, ministers, with foreign relations and, remarkably, the importance of social welfare.

A comprehensive guide to governance

The main distinguishing feature of the Arthaśāstra lies in its comprehensive approach to governance. It deals with the structure of government, the selection of ministers and the ethics of leadership. It outlines how kings should behave, how laws should be enforced and how courts should function. On the economic side, the text discusses trade policy, the regulation of markets, and agricultural practices. It even deals with mining, forestry and animal husbandry. This makes it as much a treatise on resource management as it is on political philosophy. It also contains ideas on taxation, raising revenue and public spending which would be familiar to modern economists and politicians alike.

A surprising feature of the text is its emphasis on social welfare. In times of crisis – such as famine, epidemics or war – the text advises rulers to initiate public projects such as the construction of irrigation systems or the fortification of cities. It stresses the importance of tax exemptions for those affected by disasters, showing an early understanding of relief and humanitarian governance.

Arthaśāstra has deep roots in the cultural and philosophical traditions of ancient India. It incorporates elements of Hindu law, drawing in particular on texts such as the Manusmṛti. The Manusmṛti deals with governance, social order and the legal framework from a Brahminical religious perspective. On the contrary, the Arthaśāstra is notable for its pragmatic and sometimes unsentimental view of power and politics. While recognising rulers’ ethical and moral responsibilities, it does not shy away from discussing more ruthless tactics, including espionage, assassination and warfare – what some might call ‘realpolitik’.

A rediscovered masterpiece: the story of the Arthaśāstra manuscripts

For centuries, the Arthaśāstra was thought to be lost. It wasn’t until the early 20th century that the world again saw this ancient governance manual, thanks to a remarkable series of discoveries.

In 1905, a Tamil Brahmin from Tanjore donated a manuscript of the Arthaśāstra to the newly established Mysore Oriental Library. The manuscript, written on fragile palm leaves, was identified as the Arthaśāstra by Rudrapatna Shamasastry, FRAS (1868–1944), a Sanskrit scholar and librarian. Shamasastry transcribed the text on fresh palm leaves to ensure its preservation and published the first modern edition of the Arthaśāstra in 1909. In 1915 he published the first English translation of the work, unleashing a wave of scholarly interest.

However, one of the most interesting chapters of this story unfolded not in India but in Europe. In 1923-1924, German scholars Julius Jolly (1849-1932) and Richard Schmidt (1866-1939) published a new edition of the Arthaśāstra based on a unique manuscript held in the Bavarian State Library (BSB) in Munich. This manuscript, catalogued as Cod. sanscr. 335, is remarkable for its intriguing origins. It was copied in 1907 from an original palm leaf manuscript in Madras (now Chennai), South India. Unfortunately, in the same year a devastating fire destroyed the original document, leaving Cod. sanscr. 335 the only surviving copy of this version. This makes the Munich manuscript unique, preserving better readings of the Arthaśāstra that would otherwise have been lost to history.

It is worth noting that this manuscript is part of a pair: Cod.sanscr. 334, a related manuscript, was copied in 1906 from a palm leaf original in the Government Oriental Library, Mysore. Both manuscripts represent a South Indian recension of the Arthaśāstra, and together, they formed the basis of Jolly and Schmidt’s edition. Without Cod.sanscr. 335, or the ‘Munich Manuscript’, the crucial details of the South Indian textual tradition of the Arthaśāstra would have disappeared with the great fire in Madras.⁴

Subsequent manuscript discoveries have further enriched our knowledge of the text. In the 1950s, fragments of a north Indian version of the Arthaśāstra were discovered in a Devanāgarī manuscript in a Jain library in Patan, Gujarat. This led to a new edition published by Muni Jinvijayji (1888-1976) in 1959. In 1960, R. P. Kangle (1899-1989), an eminent Indian scholar, produced a critical edition of the Arthaśāstra using all available manuscripts. Kangle’s work remains the most respected edition to date.

The eminent scholar Patrick Olivelle summarises the situation with the independent, unique Arthaśāstra manuscripts as follows: “For the task of an editor engaged in lower criticism, however, we do not have much to go on: only two complete manuscripts, one partial, and a few commentaries that are many centuries removed from the original”.⁶ As noted above, one of these complete manuscripts is kept in Munich. This manuscript is also mentioned in the (very detailed) English Wikipedia article (which erroneously states that the manuscript is in Malayalam script, when in fact, it is in Devanāgarī): “In 1923-1924, Julius Jolly and Richard Schmidt published a new edition of the text based on a Malayalam script manuscript in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.”⁷

Both Cod.sanscr. 334 and Cod.sanscr. 335 have been digitised and are freely available to anyone interested via the BSB’s online repository.

The legacy of the Arthaśāstra

While the rediscovery of these manuscripts represented a breakthrough in our knowledge of the Arthaśāstra, the translation and interpretation of the text presented a unique set of challenges. Written in a terse, coded form of Sanskrit dating from the beginning of the first millennium CE, the work often defies straightforward interpretation. The linguistic and cultural gap between Sanskrit and modern languages such as English adds to the complexity. Patrick Olivelle, who published his comprehensive translation in 2013, called it “the most difficult translation project I have ever undertaken”. Despite more than a century of scholarship, parts of the Arthaśāstra remain obscure.

Nevertheless, in many ways, the Arthaśāstra is as relevant today as it was when it was first written. It reminds us that good governance requires a balance of pragmatism and ethics, and that the well-being of a society depends on wise leadership.

Conclusion

The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra is a fascinating and multifaceted text that continues to inspire readers and scholars. Its comprehensive approach to governance, rooted in pragmatism, offers a window into the complexity of ancient Indian political thinking. It is equally fascinating that a single manuscript had such a tremendous importance for the restoration, study and understanding of this unique text. Thanks to the Qalamos project, all the relevant data of the Arthaśāstra and many other unique and invaluable manuscripts have been made available to everyone worldwide.

Bibliography

Jina Vijaya, Muni (Muni Jinvijayji) (ed.) (1959): A Fragment of the Koutalya’s Arthaśāstra alias Rajāsiddānta With the Fragment of the Commentary named Nitinirṇīti of Ācārya Yogghama alias Mugdhavilāsa. Bombay: Bhāratīya Vidyā Bhavana.

Jolly, Julius and Schmidt, Richard (eds.) (1923): Arthaśāstra: A New Edition, 2 vols. Lahore: The Punjab Sanskrit Book Depot.

Kangle, R. P., (ed.) (1969): The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra, Part 1. 2nd ed. Bombay: University of Bombay.

Olivelle, Patrick (tr.) (2013): King, Governance, and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra. New York: Oxford University Press.

Shama Sastri (= Rudrapatna Shyamashastri) (ed.) (1909): The Arthaśástra of Kauṭilya. Mysore: Government Oriental Library.

Shama Sastri (= Rudrapatna Shyamashastri) (tr.) (1915): Kauṭilya’s Arthaśástra. Bangalore: Government Press.

1. Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Oriental_Research_Institute%2C_Mysore_03.jpg; last accessed 19.11.2024 [↩]
2. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rediscovered_circa_16th_century_Arthashastra_manuscript_in_Grantha_script_from_the_Oriental_Research_Institute_(ORI)_which_was_found_in_1905_05.jpg; last accessed 19.11.2024 [↩]
3. Sources: https://badw.de/fileadmin/members/J/1477/img1477.jpg; https://www.indologie.uni-halle.de/institutsgeschichte/richard_schmidt/; last accessed 19.11.2024 [↩]
4. However, R. P. Kangle argued that Cod.sanscr. 335 had been copied from a different manuscript. [↩]
5. Source: https://15minutehistory.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2018/10/olivelle-1.jpg; last accessed 19.11.2024 [↩]
6. Olivelle 2013: 25 [↩]
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthashastra# [↩]

---

---