uncertain) may at the king's pleasure interpret the dharma to him, but never a Shūdra. The kingdom where the monarch looks on while a Shūdra settles the law will sink like a cow in a morass" (viii, 20, 21).
It is here that we have great reason to doubt as to whether this rule was actually observed. The writers on nīti do not appear to be completely in sympathy with these ideas.
Shukra-nīti says: "If a king cannot decide, he should appoint a Brāhmana learned in Vedas, of good family, self-controlled, impartial, pleasing, firm, afraid of the next world, calm, and acting according to dharma. If a learned Brāhmana could not be obtained, then a Kshatriya should be appointed or a Vaishya who knows the dharma science, but the Shūdra should be avoided with care."
"A king should always appoint one born of the same varna as the king himself, for generally the people of the same varna have the necessary qualities" (iv, sec. 5, 12-15).
Thus we find that both dharma and nīti writers agree in recommending a Brāhmana. Our writer is silent regarding the eligibility of Kshatriya and Vaishya. The work on nīti makes a very strong remark in favor of a Kshatriya. It is not vehement in condemning eligibility of Shūdras for the office of judge. Evidently a Brähmana judge was preferred, but not greatly. Kshatriyas and Vaishyas also acted as judges. The strong language which our writer has used condemning the appointment of Shūdras suggests that he might personally have known of cases in which even Shūdras acted as judges.
Our writer advises that the assessors also should be Brāhmanas. Shukra-nīti indorses this opinion. It says:
