Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t8: Keith, 1916

The Positive Background of Hindu Sociology c11.s1.t8

Language
English

Keith, 1916

c11.s1.t8.1

The Hillebrandt-Jacobi controversy was the subject of a paper by A. B. Keith entitled "The Authenticity of the Kauṭilīya" published in the *Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society* (London) for January 1916. Jacobi has not been able to prove his case, said Keith, who concluded as follows:—"It is, however, perfectly possible that the *Arthaśāstra* is an early work and that it may be assigned to the first century B.C. while its matter very probably is older by a good deal than that."

c11.s1.t8.2

An important point raised by Keith in this discussion bears on the relations between the *Arthaśāstra* and the *Kāmasūtra*. Keith referred to the agreements in form between these two works, as pointed out by Jacobi in his paper of 1911, and said, "It is very probable that the latter borrows from the former. But the similarity of the quotation of the same rare authorities Chārāyaṇa and Ghaṭa(ka)-mukha renders it very surprising that the authors should be separated by a period of six centuries as held by Jacobi who ascribes Vātsyāyana to the third century A.D."

c11.s1.t8.3

Jacobi's paper of 1911 pointed out the 300 *ślokas* that are to be found in the *Arthaśāstra*. Their metre is far more classical in type than that even of the *Rāmāyaṇa*. Some of the stanzas are *triṣṭubh* in regular metre. Keith argued therefore about the "comparatively recent date" of the *Arthaśāstra*. "No such verses," said he, "are to be found in a work of the fourth century B.C." of which we have a probable date, the *Brihaddevatā*."

c11.s1.t8.4

Altogether, Keith came considerably under the influence of Jolly's "arguments for a late date and fictitious authorship" as given in the *Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft*, Vol. LXVIII. By 1926-1928 his views were to undergo a radical transformation, as we shall see later.

Cites (4)