A History of Sanskrit Literature c24.s6.4

c24.s6.4

Jacobi's theory rests naturally on the validity of the assertion of Dio that the Indians had a translation of Homer, which is repeated by Aelian, who asserts the same of the Persian kings, and who may have used the same source as Dio, although it is possible that he merely copies the latter. The general view¹ that Dio's reference is really to the *Mahābhārata* as the Indian equivalent of Homer is possible, but there is no doubt that it is not proved. Jacobi strengthens his case by pointing out that from the later sculpture of India we should never be able to demonstrate Hellenistic influence, were it not for the Gandhāran art, which being permanent has survived to testify to the strength of Greek art, and it might be added that the proof of the influence of Greek painting has probably been lost through the disappearance of the frescoes which once existed in abundance in Gandhāra.² But, granting that the tale of Dio may have foundation, it must be admitted that it does not seem possible to accept as even probable the origin suggested for the Dohā; the dactylic form is easy to explain independently. It must, however, be said that the effort of Leumann³ to reconstruct an Indo-European metre with a quantitative basis, of which the Dohā would be a descendant, is clearly a mere *tour de force*, resting on utterly inconclusive evidence.