THE TEMPLE PRIMERB.—The Civilisation of India. By Romesh C. Dutt.
(J. M. Dent and Co. 1s. 6d. net.)—This is one of the "Temple Primers," and is in some respects worthy of belonging to what promises to be an excellent aeries. The author is well acquainted with the antiquities of India, and as long as he is writing about what we may call neutral subjects—the "Vedic Age," for instance, the "Epic Age," the "Age of Laws and Philosophy," and the succes- sive phases of religious thought which dominated India—he does well. Bat he ought to have been warned off the topic of British rule. This does not come, by right, within his range of subject, but he cannot keep himself off it, and the comparisons which he draws between the Governments of the past and that which he sees now in power are not favourable to the latter. Here is one that concerns finance. Akbar in 1580 :mew a land revenue of 77,332,311 rupees from a region from which the British revenue in 1895-96 is 124,997,780 rupees. "It will appear," be goes on, "from these figures that Akbar's land assessment was moderate compared with the assessment of the soil at the present time." Is Mr. Romesh C. Dutt serious P. Does he really think that about five millions in 1580 means less than about eight millions in 1895 ? If he does, he is very ignorant. In England the five millions of three hundred years ago would mean sixty millions now, at the very least. Aurally& in 162/ had an army of seven hundred thousand and a revenue of ninety million pounds. How does this compare with the British army of two hundred and fifteen thousand (European and native) and a revenue of, say, seventy million P—Another volume in the same series is The Greek Drama, by Lionel D. Barnett, M.A. This is a good piece of work, bringing together in a small compass an abundance of carefully selected information. Mr. Barnett is quits right in his plan of stating conclusions without' argument. The public for which these primers are intended require their mental food served up in this way, and as long as they are in such competent hands they will suffer no harm. We do not find ourselves always in agreement with Mr. Barnett. Euripides's misogyny was something more than a legend. If it was not a conviction, it was certainly an affectation, for it appears in his verse too frequently to be merely dramatic. Mr. Barnett notices, we see, the laxity of Euripides's metre. Will not some scholar see whether a scheme might not be made out of the numbers of tribrachs, anaplests, and dactyls to fix the chronology of the Euripidean plays ?
Previous page
