low
state of public morality, and the formal works on politics which exist
certainly do not disclose anything better. With reference to the
criticisms which have been based on these facts, however, there are one
or two circumstances to be taken into account. In the first place,
although this is no excuse, it may be said to be an extenuation, that
the questionable proceedings referred to are all taken in furtherance of
what is, in itself, a very proper end. Chanakya's ambition is to make
his protege, Chandragupta firm upon his throne, and to bring back
Rakshasa to the service of the king who properly represented those old
masters of his to whom Rakshasa's loyalty still remained quite firm. If
the end could ever be regarded as justifying the means, it might be so
regarded in this case. And, secondly, it must not be forgotten, that the
games of diplomacy and politics have always been games of more or less
doubtful morality. When we hear of one great politician of modern days
declaring another to be a great statesman, because, as I believe he
expressed it, the latter lied so cleverly, we cannot say that the world
has risen to any very perceptibly higher moral plane in the times of
Metternich and Napoleon, than in those of Chanakya and Rakshasa. Nor are
suppressions of important passages in despatches for the purposes of
publication, or wars undertaken on unjustifiable and really selfish
pretexts, calculated to convince one, that even in Europe in the
nineteenth century, the transaction of political affairs has been purged
of the taint of immorality, however different, and I may even add,
comparatively innocent, may be the outward manifestations of that
taint."

VISAKHADATTA.

Visakhadatta or Visakhadeva is the author of Mudrarakshasa. We learn
from the Introduction to the drama that Visakhadatta was the son of
Prithu and grandson of Vatesvaradatta--a Samanta or subordinate chief
Professor Wilson was inclined to think that Maharaja Prithu might be the
Chouhan Prince Prithu Rai of Ajmir; but he himself pointed out that the
Chouhan Prince was never called Maharaja; and that the name Nateswara
Datta would present a serious difficulty in the way of identifying the
poet's father with the Chouhan Prince Prithu Rai of Ajmir. It will also
appear that the author of the drama lived in a century which is prior to
the age of Prithu Rai of Ajmir by centuries. He was in all probability a
native of Northern India. The grandson of a tr