Manasara Series (I. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture; II. Indian Architecture according to Manasara-Shilpashastra; III. Manasara on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text; IV. Architecture of Manasara: Translation; V. Architecture of Manasara: Illustrations; VI. Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad; VII. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture) v7.c44.7

v7.c44.7

The present volume is a revised and enlarged edition of the writer's *Dictionary of Hindu Architecture* which was published in 1927, without any plates. Its change of title to *An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture* was originally suggested to the London University and missed by several learned scholars. A respected one¹ commented in his review of the *Dictionary* on this point very strongly: ‘The *Dictionary* is a book which is so well done that it appears to be no exaggeration to say that for many decades it cannot be improved upon unless, of course, the South reveals to us more hidden treasures. If there is anything to object to, it is the title of the book, which does less than justice to it. ‘‘Encyclopaedia’’ would be a fitter title. The term ‘‘Dictionary’’ is associated in our minds with word-meanings, while Dr. Acharya's work is very much more than ‘‘word-meaning.’’ Each term is followed by its meanings, mostly technical, an exhaustive account of the subject, and references to standard works of a wide range of literature. Thus, it will be seen, the work deserves a better title than ‘‘Dictionary.’’ In fact Dr. Acharya himself suggested to the London University the compiling of ‘‘An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture,’’ and it appears to have been a mere freak of fortune that when the University decided to entrust the learned Doctor with the work of compiling, they chose the term ‘‘Dictionary.’’ They appear to have been led to do this by the nature of the usual run of work done by modern scholars who in many cases have the unhappy knack of ‘‘shirking work’’; but in being led away by the prejudice, the University were unfair to their *alumnus*, who has, by this work, more than justified the title that he had himself suggested. . . . It is a matter of special gratification to us of the Allahabad University that we have at the head of our Sanskrit Department a scholar capable of doing work which, as a monument of industry and patience, compares favourably with the best of that class of scholarly work which has hitherto been regarded as *German*.’²