________________
• DECEMBER, 1909.]
MISCELLANEA.
871
Dot : « small wooden instrument. Cl. Hind doi, Platts, p. 569. Mono: Leather Industry, p. 19.
Dokara : an alloy of gold containing a mdsha of silver and one of copper to one tola of gold; Dera Ismail Khân and Sialkot. Cf. dorasta. Mono : Gold and Silver Work, p. 4.
Dokart : an alloy of silver with zinc and copper ; Labore and Sialkoh. Mono: Gold and Silver Work, p. 5.
Doldra (P dolra): coarse stuff used as floor cloth. Mono : Cotton Manufactures, p. 7. Dolmiana ; & waist ornament; Jhang. Mono : Gold and Silver Work, p. 34. Dolra: a type of dari made of very coarse old cotton. Mono: Carpet-making, p. 2. Domrt: a synonym for tabág, a large dish. Mono: Pottery and Glass Industry, p. 9.
(To be continued.)
MISCELLANEA. THE EARLY HISTORY OF INDIA,
not involve any impertinent censure on M. Senart
or any disrespect to his profound learning. 2ND EDITION.
The other example of a 'hard judgement'cited
is my expression of opinion that Bana's simile A REPLY
describing Skandagupta's nose 'as being as
long as his sovereign's pedigree' may be conALTHOUGH, as a rule, an uuthor does well to
sidered the most grotesque simile in all literaabstain from replying to his critics, Dr. Sten
ture. I am not disposed to withdraw that Konow's review of my book (ante, pp. 178
opinion. The text goes on to say that another 80) deals with so many matters of fact, and with
passage of the same writer, although not in a large proportion of them so unsatisfactorily,
perfect good taste, unmistakeably bears the stamp that I think it better to break the rule and ask
of power.' space for & reply. I accept the reviewer's assurance that his remarks are offered in
The complaint is made that the treatment a perfectly friendly spirit,' but, nevertheless, some
of the different parts is very uneven.' Unof them are inapplicable and inaccurate.
fortunately, the materials are very uneven,' and
it is impossible to write history when the He quotes as an example of a 'burd judgement'
materials are lacking. Tastes differ, and some my remark that M. Benart's brilliant treatise
readers find tho full treatment of Alexander's on the Asoks Inscriptions is largely ob. campaign the only interesting part of the book. solete, and the reader of the review is left
I am accused of often making categorical under the impression that I treated an eminent
statements without quoting authorities or scholar with disrespect. What I actually said
weighing opposing arguments. This serious is : -'But since then (1886) several new in
charge is supported by references to my treatscriptions have been discovered, and perfect
ment of the question of Greek influence on reproductions of those known to M. Senart only
the drama, art, and architecture. As to the in extremely faulty copies have been prepared
drama, exact references are supplied, and both and published, with the result that M. Senart's
text and notes plainly state that the view of book, Les Inscriptions de Piyadasi, is uow largely
Weber and Windisch, to which I still adhere, is obsolete, notwithstanding its many high merits.'
opposed by 'most scholars,' as the note puts it, That statement of fact is perfectly accurate.
or 'acute and learned critics,' as the text has it. I have lately read again M. Senart's work, and
What more could be said ? If I had time to take there is no doubt that a great part of it has been
up the question good reasons for my belief could superseded by subsequent researches during
be adduced. twenty-two years. The publication of correct fac-similes has proved that the license of emenda- So, with reference to relief sculpture, the tion assumed by the learned author is not only reference possible is given in another pubWarranted by the facts, as Bühler pointed out lication of my own. I have much material on the long ago. But the admission of this truth does i subject colleated, but it is impossible to fill the
