History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s14.15.3

v1.c6.s14.15.3

But there is nothing specially to be wondered at in this. In order to avoid looking too egotistic, ancient authors generally put their own views in the third person as said by early writers like Medhātithi and Viśvarūpa.¹⁶³ It has to be admitted that the first person singular also is used by ancient writers, though rarely.¹⁶⁴ Jacobi (I. A. for 1918 p. 188) and Keith are both wrong in thinking that the view of Kauṭilya is criticized by Bhāradvāja in V. 6. Kauṭilya states his position first and then mentions the view of his predecessor.¹⁶⁵ Dr. Jolly (Intro. to Kauṭilīya p. 44) is wrong in his explanation of Apadeśa (in XV. 1.¹⁶⁶). That word is applied to passages which mean ‘this or that author says this or that’ and the Kauṭilīya cites from his own work a case of the statement of various views on a certain point. These words do not at all indicate that according to the Arthaśāstra Kauṭilya was a stranger. Keith thinks (J. R. A. S. 1916 p. 135) that as Kauṭilya is derived from Kuṭila, an author will not cite his own views under such an epithet. It is not unlikely that Cāṇakya acquired the epithet Kauṭilya on account of his methods in dealing with the Nandas and that as he did so from no purely selfish motives but for ridding the country of such tyrants as the Nandas are represented to have been, he might have come to relish the name given to him by the people.