9058009466

REYIEWS 283

edilion of the Kaulitlya Arthaśastra (p.229).

Dr. Moghe holds with Dr. Kane that the Kautiliya Arthasśstra forms an integral part of Dharmaśastra (p.vii) possibly unaware of the fact that Kane*s vicw now stands rejected by R.C. Hazra. He is a very keen scholar of Dharmaśastra and PurvamImSmsa. He his rightly placed before himself as his ideał Dr. Kane “who was admired for his great achievement, has colossal industry and boundless patience, his critical scholarship and unfailing devotion to Sanskril learning.’’ While surveying and incidentally evaluating Kane’s contribution to Dharma&łslra Moghe frankly declares : “He has derived ample inspiration from the voluminous works of Dr. Kane for various research papcrs contributed by him and will conlinue to receive the same.** (p. 215)

Dr. Moghe *s industry and devotion to the subject of Dharmaśfistra and Purvamlmamsfi deserve to be commented. His critical approach to any problem of Dharmaś5stra or Arthaśastra of Kautilya is admirable. When criticising senior scholars he prefers to make veilcd digs at them (see pp. 37-38, p. 176, p. 228, p. 248, p. 250 and p. 257), without quite realising that their position cannot be as vulnerable.

It is indeed unfortunate that about every page of this book has bcen disfigured by errors in printing and utter disregard of diacrilical marks. The text in Devan5gari script too is badly prinlcd (see, for example pp. 57, 60, 63, 78, 79). Occasionally, we meet with sp cl ling mislakes and wrong use of articles. By way of examplc a lew of them may be pointed out here:

p. 1 - (Thcy remain) ‘contcndcd* for ‘contenled*.

p. 28 - ‘ as per example * for ⁴ as for example. *

p. 42 - ‘odiom* for ⁴odium*.

p. 112 - ‘He appears to have lead* for ⁴Ied (a long life.).*

p. 172. ‘(as slighlly earlier to) the another (commentator)* for ‘the other (commentator).*

p. 175 - ‘(to whom) the guest is near* for ‘dcar.’

p. 187 - ‘they do not havc the partience* for ‘paticnce to make.*

‘the (a)* for ‘thorough study....*

p. 224 - ‘the word .... is quite assential* for ‘essenlial.’ On the dust cover we read : ‘Prof. H.D. Valankar* for ‘Velankar. * On p. 39 we read: ⁴giving the glossary of the vocabulary of the words. * What the aulhor wants to say is not elear.

These things somewhat dctract from the real merit of the aulhor *s work.