In modern times, the charge of mendacity has been repeated by Hardouin and Huet. There are, however, no more than two passages of the Journal which can be adduced to support this imputation. The first is that in which the excessive breadth of 200 stadia is given to the Indus, and the second that in which it is asserted that at Malana (situated in 25° 17´ of N. latitude) the shadows at noon were observed to fall southward, and this in the month of November. With regard to the first charge, it may be supposed that the breadth assigned to the Indus was probably that which it was observed to have when in a state of inundation, and with regard to the second, it may be met by the supposition, which is quite admissible, that Arrian may have misapprehended in some measure the import of the statement as made by Nearkhos. The passage will be afterwards examined,[24] but in the meantime we may say, with Vincent, that if the difficulty it presents admits of no satisfactory solution, the misstatement ought not, as standing alone, to be insisted upon to the invalidation of the whole work. But another charge besides that of mendacity has been preferred against the Journal. Dodwell has denied its authenticity. His attack is based on the following passage in Pliny (VI. 23):—Onesciriti et Nearchi navigatio nec nomina habet mansionum nec spatia. _The Journal of Onesicritus and Nearchus has neither the names of the anchorages nor the measure of the distances._ From this Dodwell argues that, as the account of the voyage in Arrian contains both the names and the distances, it could not have been a transcript of the Journal of Nearkhos, which according to Pliny gave neither names nor distances. Now, in the first place, it may well be asked, why the authority of Pliny, who is by no means always a careful writer, should be set so high as to override all other testimony, for instance, that of Arrian himself, who expressly states in the outset of his narrative that he intended to give the account of the voyage which had been written by Nearkhos. In the second place, the passage in question is probably corrupt, or if not, it is in direct conflict with the passage which immediately follows it, and contains Pliny’s own summary of the voyage in which little else is given than the names of the anchorages and the distances. Dodwell was aware of the inconsistency of the two passages, and endeavoured to explain it away. In this he entirely fails, and there can therefore be no reasonable doubt, that in Arrian’s work we have a record of the voyage as authentic as it is veracious. Of that record we proceed to give a brief abstract, adding a few particulars gathered from other sources.