188G.] 
on the Coins of Kunanda. 
163 
sible to regard as a lotus, but wliicli may be intended for a cliowri or fly- 
wbisk, and in the presence beneath the animal’s belly of a small chaitya, 
made of three segments of circles. 
The three symbols which it is proposed to consider, are—1st : The 
animal forming the central figure on the obverse of these coins. 2nd, 
the symbol or emblem over the animal’s head; and 3rd, the'object 
or symbol on the reverse, standing to the left of the chaitya, numbered 
11 by Thomas, but the nature of which he professes his inability to 
explain. 
As regards the animal which writers have agreed to term a ‘ deer,’ 
the question which first arises is, whether the same animal is in every 
case intended, or if two animals have not been confounded under one 
designation ? The rude execution and style of many of these coins, 
particularly the upper ones, has, I think, contributed to a laxity of inter¬ 
pretation, resulting on a fundamental misconception of the animal which 
generally appears on the coins, as from the careful consideration of the 
four above-mentioned silver coins, it may be gravely doubted if a ‘ deer ’ 
is the animal intended to be represented on any of them ! In coarsely 
executed coins of small size, like these of Kunanda, no absolute 
decision can perhaps be arrived at on the evidence of a single specimen, 
but in coins of fairly good execution, as for example, specimen h, on 
which Mr. Thomas recognises (correctly in my opinion) the tail of 
the animal, as the tail of the Himalayan yak {Poejpliagus grunniens) 
something beyond mere assertion is called for, before we can admit the 
theory that the artist intended to represent a ‘ deer,’ with the tail super- 
added of an animal belonging to an entirely different section of rumi¬ 
nants. 
The well known canon of Horace should serve to warn us against 
adopting such a supposition, unless there is strong evidence to warrant 
our so doing. 
“ Pictoribus atque poetis 
Quidlibet audendi semper fuit sequa potestas. 
Scimus, et hanc veniam petimusque damusque vicissim : 
Sed non ut placidis coeant immitia, non ut 
Serpentes avibus geminentur, tigribus agni.” Ad Pisones. 
“ Poets and painters (sure you know the plea) 
Have always been allowed their fancy free.’ 
I own it; ’tis a fair excuse to plead ; 
By turns we claim it, and by turns concede ; 
But ’twill not screen the unnatural and absurd. 
Unions of lamb with tiger, snake with bird.” Coniiigton’s translation* 
