202 ON THE HINDU 



monuments of primeval times, as imagined by the 

 Reviewer. The Reviewer again says : — 



" The mention of the era of Saca, in a work at- 

 " tributed to Para'sara, is only decisive against 

 " the passage ; for we are satisfied, no work of 

 *' great antiquity can exist in a country where the 

 " art of printing is unknown, free from interpola- 

 *' tion. The institutes of Timur are now acknow- 

 *^ ledged to be genuine, and written under the di- 

 *' rection of that conqueror, though they are found 

 " to contain an account of his owu death. Some 

 " copyist of the CYisi Parasara was acquainted witli 

 '* an useful formulae which he injudiciously inserted 

 " in what he considered its proper place: did our li- 

 " mits permit, we could distinctly prove, from con- 

 " siderations unconnected with astronomy, that the 

 *' high antiquity attributed to the Hindu records is 

 " founded on evidence of a n?it\xYe almost conclusive." 



It would appear then, if my pandit, or any other 

 Brahmen, should take it into his head to compose 

 a book, and father it on some ancient philosopher, 

 or Rh/ii, but, from ignorance or inadvertence, he 

 should introduce some modern expressions into it, 

 that, according to the notions of the Reviewer, the 

 Avords by which the forgery would be detected are 

 to be considered as interpolations only, and the rest 

 of the work genuine, though a downright imposi- 

 tion. It seems the Reviewer is not aware of the 

 difterence between the style of the ancients and that 

 of the moderns, by which we can in some measure 

 form an opinion whether a work is forged or not. 

 Neither does he seem to be aware that, if an ancient 

 work is interpolated by some modern copyist, se- 

 veral other copies ought to be found tree from the 

 interpolation. 



Para'sara is supposed to have lived near 3000 

 years ago, and from that time to the era of Saca 



