No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
In a recent number of the Ep. Ind., vol. x, p. 106 ff., Mr. R. D. Banerji has edited twenty-one Brāhmī inscriptions of the “Scythian” period, of which nine had been already published by him, under the name of R. D. Bandhyopadhyaya, in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, N.S., vol. v, pp. 243 f., 271 ff. We certainly owe a great debt of gratitude to him for making these records accessible, although the way in which he has acquitted himself of his task cannot meet with unreserved praise. I do not undervalue the difficulties which beset these inscriptions. I know that it cannot be expected that the first reading and interpretation of an inscription of this class should be always final. But what may be reasonably expected, and what, I am sorry to say, is wanting in Mr. Banerji's paper, is that carefulness and accuracy that have hitherto been a characteristic feature of the publications in the Epigraphia Indica. It would be a tedious and wearisome business to correct almost line for line mistakes that might have been easily avoided with a little more attention. The following pages will show that this complaint is not unjustified.
page 153 note 1 B refers to my “List of Brāhmī Inscriptions” in Ep. Ind., vol. x, appendix, where the full bibliography is given.
page 165 note 1 Indrapâla apparently refers to the donor of the inscription of Saṁvat 50. The author has entirely forgotten that he has represented this man as a Jaina layman.
page 167 note 1 At first sight my assertion would seem to be in conflict with the fact that Führer's Report is dated July 16, 1892, whereas parts x and xii of Ep. Ind., vol. ii, containing Bühler's papers on the Sāññci and Mathurā inscriptions, were issued in August and December, 1892, respectively. But it must be borne in mind that Führer was assistant editor of the first two volumes of the Ep. Ind., and in this capacity knew Bühler's papers before they were published.
page 168 note 1 Mr. Banerji calls it a caturmukha image, referring to Bühler as his authority. Bühler, it is true, occasionally used this term (e.g. Ep. Ind., vol. i, p. 382, n. 51), but as far as I know it is not warranted by the inscriptions.
page 170 note 1 This passage shows that also in the inscription above paṇatidhariye is the epithet of Grahavilaye and not of śiśiniye Arhadāsiye. The real meaning of paṇatidharī has not yet been found.
page 170 note 2 N.W.P. and Oudh Provincial Museum Minutes, vol. v, p. 6, Appendix A. This book is not accessible to me.
page 171 note 1 The symbol for 2 is quite distinct.
page 173 note 1 Mr. Banerji thinks it possible that the two names Jinadāsi and Rudradevā have to be taken as one name, Jinadāsi-Rudradevā. He says: “The mother's name might have been prefixed to distinguish her from others bearing the name Rudradevā.” I am not aware that anything of this kind ever occurs in the inscriptions, and it is therefore hardly necessary to discuss this opinion.
page 176 note 1 According to the list printed at the end of the Annual Reports, a special Progress Report for the year 1890–1 does not exist. The list mentions only a Progress Report from October, 1889, till 30th June, 1891.
page 176 note 2 My remarks are based on two impressions.
page 177 note 1 In the notes I have not repeated those of Mr. Banerji's different readings which I have discussed above.