1907/01/01 by J. F. Fleet · 1 citation
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #Indian and Buddhist Studies #Chinese history and philosophy #Vietnamese History and Culture Studies #Interpretation (philosophy) #Gautama Buddha #Criticism #History #Literature #Wish #Philosophy #Classics #Art history #Art #Buddhism #Archaeology #Linguistics
paper · doi:10.1017/s0035869x00035541
openalex publication_date 1907/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30
I had not intended to write anything more about the inscription on the Piprahwa relic-vase, treated by me in this Journal, 1906. 149 ff., until I should have completed my examination of the tradition about the corporeal relics of Buddha, and should be able to offer a facsimile of the record. And it is only recently that the occasion has arisen for presenting sooner any further remarks, as the result of the criticism of my interpretation of the record advanced by M. Senart in the Journal Asiatique , 1906, 1. 132 ff., and by M. Barth in the Journal des Savants , 1906. 541 ff. That two such distinguished scholars should differ from me so radically, is an important matter. And I wish that I had seen M. Senart's remarks sooner; but, though issued early in the year, they did not become known to me until towards the end of September. M. Barth's paper, issued in October or November,— in which he has reviewed all the principal previous treatments of the record and suggestions made regarding it, and has endorsed M. Senart's conclusions except in the grammatical analysis of the compound sukitibhatinaṁ ,— reached me after the writing of this article, but in time for me to make a few additions to it.