Review

Author(s): L. D. Barnett
Review by: L. D. Barnett
Source: Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, Vol. 3, No. 1
(1923), pp. 181-182
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the School of Oriental and African
Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/607183
Accessed: 23-04-2016 02:25 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

School of Oriental and African Studies, Cambridge University Press are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies,
University of London

This content downloaded from 202.3.77.252 on Sat, 23 Apr 2016 02:25:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

GYPSY LORE SOCIETY JOURNAL

181

split up into numerous divisions, speaking diverse dialects, and

yet retaining many characteristics which distinguish it from other
Indians. Who these people were, why they left their fellows, why they
were divided into further sections, at what time they became criminals

-all these things are, alas ! unknown. The author has not been able
to lift the veil, but he has at least opened the doors of the ante-room,

and he deserves our hearty gratitude.

T. GRAHAME BAILEY.

GYPSY LORE SOCIETY JOURNAL. Editor, E. O. WINSTEDT, 181 Iffley

Road, Oxford.
Two numbers of this Journal have appeared since the last Bulletin.

In both Dr. Sampson continues his Welsh Gipsy Tales. In the former
there is a good article by Bernard Gilliat Smith on the Gipsies of
Petrograd. In the latter there is a valuable article by Professor Woolner,
Professor of Sanskrit in the Oriental College, Lahore, on the linguistic
affinities of Romani. I earnestly echo his suggestion that Professor Jules

Bloch should take up the question and deal with it adequately, or,
I would add, why not Professor R. L. Turner ? I commend the idea
to these two scholars.

T. GRAHAME BAILEY.

1. STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS. By SUSHIL

KUMAR DE, M.A., D.Litt. Vol. i, pp. xx, 376, 8vo. London:
Calcutta printed, 1923.
The nucleus of these studies was the dissertation prepared by the
author for the degree of Doctor of Letters while a student at the
School of Oriental Studies, and it is therefore with especial pleasure
that we welcome in these columns the appearance, in an enlarged and
revised form, of the first half of it, which presents a full survey of
the chronology and sources of Sanskrit literature treating of the Art
of Poetry, and which is to be followed-shortly, we hope-by a second
and concluding volume, that will set forth the doctrines of the diverse

schools of the art in their historical development.

The work, thoroughly critical and scholarly in method, is based

upon deep and wide research, and when concluded will furnish a

historysome
of alamk.ra
complete
as the materials
permit. Hitherto,
though
individualasworks
and authors
have been critically
studied,
no attempt has been made to present a systematic survey of alamkdira

literature. Dr. De, with the enthusiasm of a young man and the

This content downloaded from 202.3.77.252 on Sat, 23 Apr 2016 02:25:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

182 REVIEWS OF BOOKS

ability of riper years, has greatly dared and notably succeeded. The
task has been a peculiarly difficult one, for not only is the literature
beset with scholastic subtleties, but also the relations between the

various works have to be determined by bringing into mutual connexion a vast number of passages in different books and tracing

innumerable quotations in diverse books. But Dr. De has

triumphantly surmounted all the obstacles in his path, and the only
criticism that can be raised against his work is that it contains a rather

large number of small misprints, as is inevitable in a book printed in

a country where authors have to perform the functions discharged

in Europe by press proof-readers.
The Ars Poetica of India arose in the schools of the grammarians
from the study of the grammatical forms in which metaphors were
expressed. This in course of time was enlarged by the logical theories

which were added to formal grammar and by reflexion upon the

Gradus ad Parnassum in current use; and thus arose independent
systems of doctrine, notably the alarmkra schools mainly represented
by Bharata and Bhamaha, the rfti teachings of Dandin and still more
of Vamana, and the theory of dhvani first expounded in the Karikas
forming the basis of Anandavardhana's Dhvanyaloka, from which
has issued an innumerable swarm of later theorists and their commentators. Dr. De has reserved for his second volume the detailed

exposition of this fecund intellectual evolution, and readers of the

present book will await this sequel with keen interest.
L. D. B.

2. LES TH1EORIES DIPLOMATIQUES DE L' INDE ANCIENNE ET

L'ARTHACASTRA. Par KLIDAS NiG, Docteur en Lettres. 8vo,

pp. 143, i, i, 1. Paris, 1923.
Diplomacy is defined in the Dictionary of the Academie Frangaise
as " science of the mutual relations of the respective interests of
States and sovereigns between one another ". Judged by this criterion,

the present work must be pronounced to be wrongly labelled. If the

title is to be understood in the natural sense, it means that Dr. Nag

intended to write about Indian theories of diplomacy with special

reference to those conveyed in the Kautiliya; but at the outset he
tells us that he means to trace the outlines of the political evolution
of India down to the approximate era of Kautilya, to examine the

latter's views, and to show the continuity of tradition in later

documents. This signifies that he has tried to write a survey of the

This content downloaded from 202.3.77.252 on Sat, 23 Apr 2016 02:25:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms