2023-03-12 00:18:41 by Jayashree
This page does not need to be proofread.
  
  
  
  12
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
CĀŅAKYA-RĀJA-NĪTI
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
justification whatsoever for such an attribution. He
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
said: 1
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
that the
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
that the
   
  
  
  
'In the various collections, one, two, three, four, and even
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
five introductory verses are made to say that Cāṇakya is the real
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
author. The words used vary in almost every collection. We
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
find: Canakyena tu bhāṣitam, Caṇakyena svayam proktam, Canakyena
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
yathoditam, Canakyena prayujyate, clearly indicating
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
attribution is, in each case, due to the compilers of the samgrahas,
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
but not traditionally authentic. The Bombay Vṛddha Cāṇakya
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
has not even any mention of Caṇakya in its three introductory
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
ślokas, and the only occurrence of the name there is in the title
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
and the chapter colophons. Not only that, but in several collec-
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
tions these introductory ślokas are evidently tautological, and,
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
indeed, of the class which Weber in his collection characterizes as
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
a Schreiberstück, writer's learning. What to think, for instance, of
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
the introduction to the Calcutta Bodhi Cāṇakya, where we find in
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
four initial ślokas the repetition vakṣye, sampravakṣyāmi, pravakṣyāmi?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
It is difficult to admit that an original poet or author would repeat
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
himself in such a manner, but for a collator and syncretist the feat
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
would be quite possible. What is the greatest common factor in
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
all the introductory ślokas is not more than the ardha śloka: nānā-
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
śāstroddhṛtam vaksye rājanitisamuccayam, which is a statement which
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
tallies perfectly with the character of all these Nīti collections, and
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
is also quite compatible with the extraordinary variety of contents
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
of all of them. This half śloka is, indeed, found in some of the intro-
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
ductory ślokas as the first half and in others as the second, and it
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
seems that everything else to be found in the introductions is mere
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
embroidery, but cannot claim authenticity. That the compilers
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
of various collections take great liberty with their introductions
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
and concluding stanzas is clearly proven by the Gujerati and
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Marathi editions which begin with a specially composed śloka:
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
vṛddhacāṇakyagranthasya tīkām kurve subodhinīm sarvalokopa-
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
kārāya bhāṣayā māharāṣṭrayā and bhāṣayā gurjarāṣṭrayā.
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
¹ ibid., pp. xii-xiii.
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
CĀŅAKYA-RĀJA-NĪTI
justification whatsoever for such an attribution. He
said: 1
that the
that the
'In the various collections, one, two, three, four, and even
five introductory verses are made to say that Cāṇakya is the real
author. The words used vary in almost every collection. We
find: Canakyena tu bhāṣitam, Caṇakyena svayam proktam, Canakyena
yathoditam, Canakyena prayujyate, clearly indicating
attribution is, in each case, due to the compilers of the samgrahas,
but not traditionally authentic. The Bombay Vṛddha Cāṇakya
has not even any mention of Caṇakya in its three introductory
ślokas, and the only occurrence of the name there is in the title
and the chapter colophons. Not only that, but in several collec-
tions these introductory ślokas are evidently tautological, and,
indeed, of the class which Weber in his collection characterizes as
a Schreiberstück, writer's learning. What to think, for instance, of
the introduction to the Calcutta Bodhi Cāṇakya, where we find in
four initial ślokas the repetition vakṣye, sampravakṣyāmi, pravakṣyāmi?
It is difficult to admit that an original poet or author would repeat
himself in such a manner, but for a collator and syncretist the feat
would be quite possible. What is the greatest common factor in
all the introductory ślokas is not more than the ardha śloka: nānā-
śāstroddhṛtam vaksye rājanitisamuccayam, which is a statement which
tallies perfectly with the character of all these Nīti collections, and
is also quite compatible with the extraordinary variety of contents
of all of them. This half śloka is, indeed, found in some of the intro-
ductory ślokas as the first half and in others as the second, and it
seems that everything else to be found in the introductions is mere
embroidery, but cannot claim authenticity. That the compilers
of various collections take great liberty with their introductions
and concluding stanzas is clearly proven by the Gujerati and
Marathi editions which begin with a specially composed śloka:
vṛddhacāṇakyagranthasya tīkām kurve subodhinīm sarvalokopa-
kārāya bhāṣayā māharāṣṭrayā and bhāṣayā gurjarāṣṭrayā.
¹ ibid., pp. xii-xiii.