________________
JULY, 1918]
MISCELLANEA
195
Arjunavarmadeva to the Amaruka, in which one believes to be in a position to distinguish between the words of the princely author and the learned disquisitions of his Pandits. But even this reservation does not vitiate the authenticity of the Kautiliya.
Lastly, one might hesitate to accept the fact that just the Kautiliya should survive as the only literary monument of those early times, 15 for which the "habent sua fata libelli" would offer no satisfactory explanation. I too do not look upon its preservation merely as a matter of an unexpected, lucky chance, but would emphasise that epoch-making works of master-minds, to which category the Kauțiliya undoubtedly belongs, have this advantage over other merely creditable productions that they do not get antiquated but, on the contrary, attain the dignity of a canon. Similarly out of a slightly older epoch has been preserved the Nirukta of Yâska, and from slightly more modern times the Mahâbhâsya of Patanjali. The high esteem in which these works are held protects them not merely from the tooth of time but also from the hand of the meddlesome interpolater. In the latter respect was the Kauțiliya further protected through the enumeration of the Prakaranas contained in it and the specification of its extent like similar data in the Kámasûtra also. We have, therefore, a certain guarantee for the fact that our text has not undergone any considerable addition; whether any curtailment has token place will be revealed by a critical study of the work.
The outcome of our investigation is, on the one hand, that the suspicion against the authenticity of the Kauţiliya is unfounded, and, on the other, that the unanimous Indian tradition according to which the Kauțiliya is the work of the famous minister of Candragupta, is most emphatically confirmed through a series of internal proofs, 16
MISCELLANEA. VÅTSYÁYANA AND KALIDASA.
and idea sooms to be a clear proof of Kalidasa's IN Act IV of the Sikuntala Kalidasa has got the
borrowing from Våtsyâyana. famous verso, Susrashasva gurdn, etc. Kasya pa
In the third foot of the verse from the Sakuntala in this verse advises Akuntals as to how she should
quoted above, according to some reading we get behave herself in her husband's house. The third bhagyeshu instead of bhogeshu, In the light of the foot of the verse bhayishfhan bhava dakshind
Kamasutra it would be now justifiable to alter parijane bhogeshu =anutsekini is rather interesting
thåg yeshu into bhogeshu once for all. as it clearly shows that Kalidasa was indebted to
Accepting Prof. Jacobi's theory that the third Våtsyâyana for the idea and language of this century A.D, should be fixed as the date of passage. A lady who is eka-chårini must possess
Vâtsyâyana, the same period should also be now eccording to Vatsyayana, among other qualities, put down as the lower limit of the date of bhog eshu anutsekah and parijane dakshayam (Kama
Kalidasa. sira, IV, 1, 39-40). This similarity of language
N. G. MAJUMDAR.
15 It may further be emphasised here that in the later classical period thare was no longer any certain tradition concerning the pre- and early classical writers and that therefore they could not be distin. guished in that period. Thus the lexicographers (Trika asosa, II 365 1., Abhidh anasint Imani, IIL 617 1.) identify the following writers with Kautilya : both the Vats yayan (Mallanaga and Pakila v Amin), Drámila and Angula. Is it porhaps due to this confounding of Vataykyans with Kautilya that the commentator to the Kåmandakiya, es remarked above p. 19), note 8, calls the author of the Kámasútra asmadguru ?
36 The above article of Prof. Hermann Jasobi ap 23a re 1 in th> Sitzu ujaberish's der kniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1912, No. XXXVIII.
