An individual belonging to and writing within a tradition of expert knowledge (śāstra) is likely to compare and contrast his or her views to other exponents of that tradition. Modern scholars do this by means of bibliographical notes. Ancient Indian scholars resorted to several strategies, including citation of authoritative works, as well as presenting and combating opposing (pūrvapakṣa) views. Within the expert tradition of dharma, the earliest extant texts, the Dharmasūtras, frequently cite opinions of other experts with which the authors often disagree. This strategy is also evident in the Arthaśāstra (AŚ) and must have been a common practice among the early śāstric writers. The overlap between topics dealt with in the śāstric texts devoted to dharma and artha, especially with regard to the king and government, has been noted in previous scholarship. This paper, however, explores a different kind of śāstric intertextuality: an author's use of and dependence on a pre-existing textual tradition in the creation of a new text. The author of the Mānava Dharmaśāstra evidently used pre-existing sources in composing his treatise. Here I explore the connections between Manu and the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭalya.

Given the problems inherent in the dating of these two texts, it is not possible to assert with a high degree of confidence who is borrowing from whom. I do agree with Kangle, however, that it is most likely that at least sections of the Arthaśāstra are older than Manu and are the source for some of the passages and vocabulary I will discuss below.