2023-02-21 16:54:51 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
2
descendants, and when they changed it they almost invariably
made it worse. I hope, therefore, that Indians of discriminating
taste will welcome this text as an even greater "Pañcatantra'
than the works which they already know and love under that or
similar names.
""
For a statement of the exact extent to which I think I have
succeeded in "excavating" the Pañcatantra, I must refer the
curious reader to my previous publication. Here I will only say
this I think I have proved that the text here offered contains
precisely all the stories of the original, in their original order, and
no others; and that the language in which they are told closely
approximates the language of the original throughout, and is in
large measure literally identical with it.
Like many other great works of ancient Indian literature, the
Pañcatantra is anonymous. I see no reason for supposing that
the author referred to himself as Vişnuśarman in the Kathā-
mukha; for aught I can see this name is presumably just as ficti-
tious as any of the other characters in the Pañcatantra. Ivon
if it were the author's real name, it would tell us little, for certainly
nothing else is known of such a personage. Some have tried to
identify him with "Viṣṇugupta" Canakya, reputed author
of the Arthasãāstra. This seems to me idle guess-work. The
Pañcatantra, to be sure, quotes from the Arthaśāstra; naturally,
since it professes to be not only a story-book but a work illustrative
of niti. But its general style is the very antithesis of the stiff,
crabbed style of the Arthaśāstra; it is hard to believe that the
same man could have written both. And there is really not a
scintilla of genuine evidence for such a theory. Except that the
descendants, and when they changed it they almost invariably
made it worse. I hope, therefore, that Indians of discriminating
taste will welcome this text as an even greater "Pañcatantra'
than the works which they already know and love under that or
similar names.
""
For a statement of the exact extent to which I think I have
succeeded in "excavating" the Pañcatantra, I must refer the
curious reader to my previous publication. Here I will only say
this I think I have proved that the text here offered contains
precisely all the stories of the original, in their original order, and
no others; and that the language in which they are told closely
approximates the language of the original throughout, and is in
large measure literally identical with it.
Like many other great works of ancient Indian literature, the
Pañcatantra is anonymous. I see no reason for supposing that
the author referred to himself as Vişnuśarman in the Kathā-
mukha; for aught I can see this name is presumably just as ficti-
tious as any of the other characters in the Pañcatantra. Ivon
if it were the author's real name, it would tell us little, for certainly
nothing else is known of such a personage. Some have tried to
identify him with "Viṣṇugupta" Canakya, reputed author
of the Arthasãāstra. This seems to me idle guess-work. The
Pañcatantra, to be sure, quotes from the Arthaśāstra; naturally,
since it professes to be not only a story-book but a work illustrative
of niti. But its general style is the very antithesis of the stiff,
crabbed style of the Arthaśāstra; it is hard to believe that the
same man could have written both. And there is really not a
scintilla of genuine evidence for such a theory. Except that the