________________
246
NOTES
sānucara Cf I. 60, II 1, and p 33, 1. 10 above II. 1 above.
Page 89, 1. 1 tataharih
Cf
1 3 Verse 4 Maly avan heie deals with the four upayas or 'expedients' as known to the authors of works on Politics (a) sama or conciliation; (b) dāna or bribery, (c) bheda or sowing dissension, and (d) dunda or attack See Amara. II 8, 20; Abhi. 736, Yajña I 345, Manu, VII 108, 109, 200, Šukra. IV 1, 24-47 Some, however, enumerate seven, including the so-called three hsudi opāyas (a) māyā or deceit, (b) upeksā or neglect, and (c) indra-jāla or conjuring See Kām XVII. 3, Abhi 738 For the duty of a minister to decide on the expedient to be employed see Suka II 95.
1 8 dando 'pyabhyadhike, &c. The MS evidence favours the reading na dando 'py adhike, which is faulty, for if the advisability of a danda against a strong enemy is at all denied, there does not arise the question whether the 'danda' should be 'open' or 'secret'
1. 14 sandhau For alliance and its various kinds see Hitopadesa, chapter on Sandhi; Kam. IX.
Page 90, 1. 3. prāk-pratıpanna
Cf. V. 37 below
14. ghanisyate For the form see Bhatt. I 22, XVI. 9 and commentary thereon, and Anar. II 39
1. 5. anena ca, &c The meaning is quite clear If Rama is brought into conflict with Vali, as is the object of Malyavan, there is much to be thought out, viz. how the different kinsmen of Ravana and Vali would behave, how they can be rendered helpful to the scheme in hand, and so on Pick. 18 absolutely wrong in translating it as 'by this alliance much would be effected', because, for one thing, no alliance, is being discussed here.
1. 7. ato All the MSS read yato, which has no sense here. Evidently the reading is due to the influence of the Jaina MSS, which write 'ya' for 'a'. Cf the similar case of atah, p. 27, 1 6 above, and the note thereon
1.9 Verse 7 Enemies are of two kinds (1) the sahaja or natural, and (2) Artrima or those created by acts A natural enemy is one who is boin in the self-same dynasty with the king, and an enemy other than the natural falls under the second head See Kum VIII 56 Cf also Kam. X. 17 and p 178, 1 14 below. Thus here Rama is the krtrima and Vibhisana the sahaja enemy. Does the author here speak of only two classes and define the krtrima-satrutā of Rama by giving two instances of his hostility, or does he speak of three classes as VR takes it, viz (1) prākrta or enemies because of the opposite natures and duties (cf II 7, and IV 3a), (2) krtrima or enemies by having actually wronged each other, and (3) sahaja or enemies from among relations, as having a common claim to the inheritance?
The construction of the first two lines is vague The difficulty lies in the fact as to how Rama is a twofold' enemy. VR construes hṣatriyo ramah kster anantaryät prakrt-myatah satruḥ, satatam apakrd apakṛtyaś ca (krtrimah satruh), and thus brings out clearly the distinction between a prākrta and a krtrima enemy. But the fact that he has to supply the word krtrimah,
