labor, he may cause to work for himself for one day in a month" (vii, 137-8).
The taxes are something which change very often, and it is vain to expect that all the kings would follow the rules given herein. In a case like this if we find a rule from ancient books repeated in new works on dharma, it becomes an evidence against its acceptability for fact. It shows that the writer, while laying down the rule, did not depend on the actual condition but on old books. Such a course was permissible to him, as he was laying down a rule on the question of how the taxes ought to have been. In the verses quoted above there are two points to be considered: (I) exemption of a Shrotriya from taxes and (2) that Shūdras, mechanics and artisans should be compelled to work for one day, in the place of taxes.
Both these statements are made by earlier writers like Gautama (x, II, 31), Vasishtha (xix, 23), and Apastamba (ii, 26, 10). And it is very likely that our writer derived his statements from some work on dharma, and as these writers were guided by the principle that the more ancient the rule the greater is the authority as regards propriety. But whether the kings held the same attitude toward such practical matters is much to be questioned. Of works on nīti, we have Shukra-nīti which discusses the subject of taxes (Book iv, sec. ii, 103-130). This work is silent on the question of exempting a Brāhmana and expresses the opinion that the king is entitled to two days' labor in a month from artisans and mechanics (121). This work differs from our text in some other places.
