popular illustrations some of its main features”? We count among our contributors men like Rabindranath Tagore, Yone Noguchi, Sylvain Levi, Dr. Shama Shastri, Henry Beveridge, Sir George Grierson, Prof. Winternitz, Prof. Canney, Prof. Macdonell, Sir Henry Jackson Pope, Dr. Garner, Professor Solus, Professor Ward, Sir William Ridgeway, Dr. Craigie, Dr. Paranjpye, Sir Michael Sadler, Sir Visvesyara Iyer, Dr. Subramaniya Iyer, Sir Asutosh Mookerjee, Dr. Ganganath Jha, Sir Bipinkrishna Bose, Dr. Pillai, Sir Sivaswamy Iyer, Professor Willoughby. It is not for us to say whether their papers are of any academic value. As one of our contributors writes from England: “I know that excellent and helpful publication like the Calcutta Review does not generally prove profitable commercially.” But we have a staff of Honorary Editors and our contributors are not paid. We are, therefore, able to meet our expenses from the subscription and the advertisements we get. For obvious reasons, we are not prepared to give more detailed information about our finances to the public. The Calcutta Review is not a burden on the University and it does not add to its deficit. On the other hand, it has helped the University to reduce that deficit considerably by widely advertising the University publications.
None of its defenders has as yet claimed perfection for the University. But while its critics may make much of some isolated details it has to follow a consistent and comprehensive policy. For instance, when Professor Maulik was appointed, the Prabasi, the Bengalee counterpart of the Modern Review, maintained that the appointment ought to have gone to a Panjabi gentleman. But when the University employed a few Non-Bengali Indians on its teaching staff the same journal bewailed that the Bengalees were being deprived and defrauded of their legitimate rights in their own province. The Modern Review is never tired of proclaiming the inefficiency of our teachers but when the same teachers find more lucrative appointments elsewhere the Prabasi
