DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.53502#0014
6 Kautilya Ariha^astra
and that Hillebrandt had succeeded in tracing these
and other quotations to the A., even before it had been
printed. It may be mentioned in this connection that
as early as 1880 A. Muller had published, from an ex-
cellent Ms. of an Arabic work composed about 900-
910 A. D., an Arabic text upon poisoning and its
symptoms, the original of which is stated to have been
written by SanSq the Indian i. e.} Canakya and must
have been nearly identical with the Atmaraksitakam
chapter (I. 21) of the A? It was Mr. Shamasastri,
however, who first gave to the world from a Tanjore
Grantha Ms. a careful edition to the whole A., which
was followed afterwards by an English translation, with
an introductory note by Dr. Fleet (1915), and by a
new and revised edition of the text (1919), including
the readings of two or three other copies of the text
given in footnotes and the-, text of the recently dis-
covered Canakya Sutras. In the prefaces, Sanskrit
and English, to these works, the important questions
concerning the date and origin of the A. have met
with a careful treatment at the hands of the learned
Editor. The present writer has also given much time
and thought to these difficult questions, but it is not
without diffidence that he is going to state his results
which differ considerably from those arrived at by Mr.
Shamasastri. And first as to.the references to the A.
in subsequent works.
The KSmandakiya NitisSra no doubt occupies the
first place among NitisSstras proper quoting from the
A. and thus proving the anteriority of its date to their
own. The Nitisara is characterised by Kamandaka
1 ZDMG. 68, 345.
and that Hillebrandt had succeeded in tracing these
and other quotations to the A., even before it had been
printed. It may be mentioned in this connection that
as early as 1880 A. Muller had published, from an ex-
cellent Ms. of an Arabic work composed about 900-
910 A. D., an Arabic text upon poisoning and its
symptoms, the original of which is stated to have been
written by SanSq the Indian i. e.} Canakya and must
have been nearly identical with the Atmaraksitakam
chapter (I. 21) of the A? It was Mr. Shamasastri,
however, who first gave to the world from a Tanjore
Grantha Ms. a careful edition to the whole A., which
was followed afterwards by an English translation, with
an introductory note by Dr. Fleet (1915), and by a
new and revised edition of the text (1919), including
the readings of two or three other copies of the text
given in footnotes and the-, text of the recently dis-
covered Canakya Sutras. In the prefaces, Sanskrit
and English, to these works, the important questions
concerning the date and origin of the A. have met
with a careful treatment at the hands of the learned
Editor. The present writer has also given much time
and thought to these difficult questions, but it is not
without diffidence that he is going to state his results
which differ considerably from those arrived at by Mr.
Shamasastri. And first as to.the references to the A.
in subsequent works.
The KSmandakiya NitisSra no doubt occupies the
first place among NitisSstras proper quoting from the
A. and thus proving the anteriority of its date to their
own. The Nitisara is characterised by Kamandaka
1 ZDMG. 68, 345.