Page:Modern review 1921 v29.pdf/255

 Sir Napier Shaw’s address to the same section of the same Association a year earlier as meant for all English (and foreign) universities! Is this an illustration of the method of investigating truth adopted by the new Calcutta school of research?

In my first paper I had presumed most diffidently to suggest to those responsible for the present condition of the Calcutta University—and others who might be tempted to imitate its methods,—in the words of the immortal exciseman nurtured beyond the Tweed,

But I now entirely agree with the implication contained in Mr. Mitra’s concluding assertion, namely, that the moral effect of Mr Micawber’s business methods and principles on the rising generations of Bengal and his real achievement in the field of promoting true knowledge can be appreciated only by Mrs Micawber— and men with a similar psychology.

P. S. I apologise to your readers for referring to a small personal matter, but it is necessary to correct Mr. Mitra, who has made a mistake, no doubt on account of my obscure position. I did not (as he says) win my P. R. Studentship by submitting a thesis on Aurangzib, but by passing a long and competitive examination held by Mr. Percival and another scholar. My book on India of Aurangzib: statistics, topography and roads, was written afterwards to continue the scholarship for five years. Mr. Mitra does me undeserved honour. I am not fit to be ranked with the band of reseaich P. R. S’s and Ph. D’s, of the new Calcutta school. My method of work is also different.

J N S