2023-03-01 14:23:22 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
INTRODUCTION
13:
So also Kalee Krishen, who introduces the concluding
śloka in his edition: yasya vijñānamātreṇa, etc. with the words "the
conclusion by the author". Author, here, can hardly mean
Cāṇakya, but only the compiler of the collection.'
(
It seems that a part of the conclusions reached by
J. van Manen, namely that the attribution of the name
of Cāṇakya to the various collections known to exist
under his name is not authentic, is, though certainly.
right, not very original. Yet, it is difficult to accept.
the view that the lack of unanimity' in the attribution.
of the authorship to Cāṇakya proves the non-authenti-.
city of these collections. Even less can one accept the
view that 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'. It was possible to divide all the texts known.
to exist under the name of Cāṇakya into six versions.¹.
Almost every version has different introductory stanzas.
which are often the characteristic feature of these
different versions. This is the explanation for the
differences occurring in the introductory stanzas and the
variety of phrases mentioned by J. van Manen (Cāṇak-
yena tu bhāṣitam, Canakyena svayam proktam, Canakyena
yathoditam, Caṇakyena prayujyate). It must also be noted
that the closing stanza in Kalee Krishen's edition.
is a closing stanza characteristic of a great number
¹ Akten des XXIV Internationlen Orientalisten Kongresses, München,
herausg. von Herbert Franke, Deutsche Morgenländische Gesell-
schaft, Wiesbaden, 1959, pp. 544-6. Cf. infra para 17.
13:
So also Kalee Krishen, who introduces the concluding
śloka in his edition: yasya vijñānamātreṇa, etc. with the words "the
conclusion by the author". Author, here, can hardly mean
Cāṇakya, but only the compiler of the collection.'
(
It seems that a part of the conclusions reached by
J. van Manen, namely that the attribution of the name
of Cāṇakya to the various collections known to exist
under his name is not authentic, is, though certainly.
right, not very original. Yet, it is difficult to accept.
the view that the lack of unanimity' in the attribution.
of the authorship to Cāṇakya proves the non-authenti-.
city of these collections. Even less can one accept the
view that 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'. It was possible to divide all the texts known.
to exist under the name of Cāṇakya into six versions.¹.
Almost every version has different introductory stanzas.
which are often the characteristic feature of these
different versions. This is the explanation for the
differences occurring in the introductory stanzas and the
variety of phrases mentioned by J. van Manen (Cāṇak-
yena tu bhāṣitam, Canakyena svayam proktam, Canakyena
yathoditam, Caṇakyena prayujyate). It must also be noted
that the closing stanza in Kalee Krishen's edition.
is a closing stanza characteristic of a great number
¹ Akten des XXIV Internationlen Orientalisten Kongresses, München,
herausg. von Herbert Franke, Deutsche Morgenländische Gesell-
schaft, Wiesbaden, 1959, pp. 544-6. Cf. infra para 17.