Vol. X, No. 2.J 



[N.S.] 



>f the Apostles. 73 



Though the title of the Sardhana translation gives 1873 

 as the year of printing, we find it stated at p. 266 [166J that 

 the printing was completed on Dec. 1, 1894. The explanation 

 sent me about this anomaly by Mr. S. W. Butler (Sept. 26, an. I 

 Oct. 19, 1910, Kothi Bhagwat Dayal, Sardhana) would reveal. 

 if correct, some primitive methods at the late Sardhana Press. 



The Urdu translation, he writes, was not made directly 

 from the Persian; it was a re-rendering of a former Urdu trans- 

 lation made itself in Delhi, which had rema ned in MS. The 

 preface, however, was not rendered into Urdu at the time of 

 the first translation, but was added to the newer one of 1894, 

 when the book was really printed. A man, who was present 

 at the printing of the book in 1894, told Mr. Butler that tin- 

 Father in charge of the Press in 1894, not wishing to have his 

 name put down on the title page, asked the printer to ascrib • 

 the printing of the book to Fr. Angelo, in whose time, es- 

 pecially in 1873, many religious books were printed at Sardhana. 

 " But you should not think that this Urdu translation was 

 madefrom the Italian, us the title says. 



The editor of the Urdu translation must have wrongly 

 understood the term Feringhi, used in the Persian text. He 



translated boldly by " Italian." He may have been misled 



5 5 



published before 1853, in 1872," and 1882,~was a translation 



from the Italian. 



The an °»ia,ly of the double date would be minimized if the 

 MS. of the Urdu translation printed in 1894 had been found 

 among Fr. Angelo 's papers, after his death. He had collected 

 largely the writings of the old Missionaries, and had not seen 

 them all through the press before he died. 



Mr - Butler's explanations about the double date 1873 and 

 1894 may be correct. No earlier edition of 1873 is known to 

 exist. I have my doubts, however, about the re-rendering of 

 <*n earlier Urdu translation. If the preface was wanting to the 

 nrst translation, how was it obtained for the second ? The 

 Urdu preface in the Sardhana edition agrees with the Persian 

 of the Serampur MS. Must we suppose that the Persian 

 original usad for the first Urdu translation passed into the 

 hands of the second translator about 1894 ! In that case, 

 where is this Persian original, or where is the original of the 

 first Urdu translation? At Sardhana ? At Delhi ? Mr. But- 

 ler vainly searched for them in both places. 



If there was a first translation made in Delhi, I fancy it 

 had the preface; and, if this translation was overhauled, this 

 may have been done under the instructions of Fr. Angelo, or 

 perhaps by Fr. William Keegan, who died at Delhi on May 1, 

 |885, after 28 years of missionary labaurs in the Agra Mission. 

 He left behind him a number of Urdu books in MS. Cf. Indo- 

 Europ. Corresv.. Calcutta. 1885. d. 434. 



