Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:23:08.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Authenticity of the Kauṭilīya

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

A. Berriedale Keith
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Miscellaneous Communications
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , January 1916 , pp. 130 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1916

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 130 note 1 Über die Echtheit des Kauṭilīya, SKPAW. 1912, pp. 832–49.Google Scholar

page 131 note 1 Über das Kauṭilīyaśāstra, Breslau, 1908.Google Scholar

page 131 note 2 Über die Anfänge des indischen Dramas (München, 1914), p. 17.Google Scholar

page 131 note 3 In his edition, p. xii.

page 135 note 1 That śloka here is used of prose (as in the copyist's sense)—see Hertel, , Tantrākhyāyika, i, 18—is most improbable.Google Scholar

page 135 note 2 p. 840.

page 136 note 1 The MSS. agree in the use of i; see Hillebrandt, , p. 3.Google Scholar

page 136 note 2 SKPAW. 1911, p. 961.Google Scholar

page 136 note 3 Loc. cit. pp. 962, 963.

page 136 note 4 SKPAW. 1912, p. 841.Google Scholar

page 136 note 5 SKPAW. 1911, p. 971.Google Scholar

page 137 note 1 Hertel, , Tantrākhyāyika, i, 142–5Google Scholar: it may be noted that on p. 145 Hertel misunderstands the words tatra yad bhūyiṣṭhāḥ kāryasiddhikaraṁ vā brūyus tat kuryāt: this does not provide for the acceptance of a majority view of ministers in a difficult situation, but leaves the king to take a majority view or the best advice given. The omission of vā as in the Tantrākhyāyika is easy, but misses the point. This view he wrongly uses to support his rendering of prayogam upalabhya in the Arthaśāstra (p. 22, n. 4)Google Scholar, which no doubt refers to Cāṇakya's practical experience, as taken by Jacobi, , SKPAW. 1912, p. 846.Google Scholar

page 137 note 2 For arguments for a late date and fictitious authorship see Jolly, J., ZDMG. lxviii, 355–9.Google Scholar