1885.] Kaviraj Shyamal Das— Ow the Prithirdj Easau. 137 



The difference in the times of low water between any two places on 

 the river is generally equivalent to half the difference of high water be- 

 tween the two places added to the difference of the said high water. 



For instance, the difference between the times of high water at Cal- 

 cutta and Mud Point is three hours ; and that between the time of low 

 water is about four and a half hours. 



3. On the Antiquity, Authenticity and Genuineness of Chand BarddVs 

 Epic, the " Prithirdj Basau^ — By Kaviraj Shyamal Das, M. R. 

 A. S., Poet Laureate and Member of the Royal Council, Meywar. 



(Abstract.) 

 The object of the author of this paper is to demonstrate that the 

 well-known epic of Chand Bardai, the Prithiraj Rasau is not genuine, 

 but was fabricated several centuries after by a bard of Rajpiitana. This 

 position he endeavours to establish by quotations from the poem itself, 

 showing that they abound with expressions commonly used in the dialect 

 of that province and not found in the Braj Bhasha or any other Eastern 

 dialect of India. The author then refers to several stone inscriptions 

 found in Meywar which all contribute to confirm the position taken up 

 by him. He concludes by stating that his object in writing the paper 

 is to caution the public against the belief that the poem was written by 

 Chand Bardai, or even by any author who was his contemporary. The 

 spuriousness of the Rasau, he adds, is confirmed by the fact that its 

 narrative and the names of persons mentioned and the dates given do 

 not agree with those in the Persian works of Prithiraj's time. 



At the conclusion of the paper, which will be published in full in 

 Journal, Part I., Dr. Hoernle remarked, that from the brief perusal which 

 he had been able to give to the Kaviraja's paper, it seemed to him that it 

 was likely to prove of considerable interest and importance. The question 

 of the genuineness and credibility of the epic of Chand was one which de- 

 served careful consideration. He did not feel sure regarding the cogency 

 of the author's argument from the Rajputani language of the Epic. There 

 was no good reason why the language of the real Chand should be 

 supposed to have been Braj Bhasha or any other Eastern dialect of 

 India. The argument from the disagreement of the dates given in the 

 epic from those given in Persian historical works was far more apposite. 

 The fact of the existence of this disagreement had been long since 

 pointed out ; though hitherto it had not been satisfactorily accounted 

 for. The peculiar point, requiring explanation, seemed to him to be 

 this, that the dates of the epic, while smaller by about 90 years than 

 those given elsewhere, were consistent with one another. The most 

 important of the Kaviraja's arguments, however, were undoubtedly 



