CONTAINING SANSCRIT INSCRIPTIONS. 45f 



record other events br circumstances, there is no rea- 

 son to suppose ; and this consideration is sufficient to 

 explain the comparative frequency of monuments 

 which recite royal grants. It was the interest, too, of 

 persons holding possession under such grants, to be 

 careful in the preservation of the evidence of their right. 

 But this circumstance, while it accounts for the greater 

 frequency of monuments of this description, suggests a 

 reason for particular caution inadmitting their genuine- 

 ness. Grants may have been forged in support of an 

 occupant's right, or of a claim;mt's pretensions. It 

 \vill be, therefore, proper to bring a considerable por- 

 tion of distrust and jealousy to the examination of any 

 inscription on stone or metal, alledged to be ancient, 

 and now possessed by persons Vv'ho have any claims or 

 pretensions under the grant which it contains. But no 

 such cause of jealousy exists, wh^re the monument in 

 question favours no one's pretensions, and especially 

 where it is accidentally discovered after being long bu- 

 ried. It is indeed possible, that such a monument, 

 though nov/ casually found, may have been originally a 

 forgery. But even where that may be suspected, the 

 ])istorical uses of a monument fabricated so much nearer 

 to the times to which it assumes to belong, will not be 

 entirely superseded. The necessity of rendering the 

 forged grant credible, would compel a fabricator, to 

 adhere to history and conform to established notions : 

 and the tradition, which prevailed in his time, and by 

 which he must be guided, would probably be so much 

 the nearer to the truth, as it was less remote from the 

 period which it concerned. 



In the present state of researches into LiJian antiqui- 

 ties, the caution here suggested appears to be that 

 which it is mo^t requisite to observe. When a greater 

 number of monuments shall have been examined and 



2 G 2 



