1870.] Rejoinder to Mr. Beames. 53 



must be an epithet, since the king's real name is given lower down as 

 Fadam-sen. To this I reply that Padam-sen is not the king, hut the 

 king's son, as is sufficiently indicated by the title ' Kunwar,' a title 

 which is never given to the head of a house, but always to one of its 

 subordinate members. 



2nd. — He says mahdbhuj (as it stands in his text) cannot mean, as 

 I should translate it, ' very exalted,' but must mean 'long-armed.' 

 To this I reply, 1st, that the Sanskrit for ' arm' is not Ihuj, as Mr. 

 Beames imagines, but bliuja ; and though a palatal at the end of a 

 word is liable to be changed into a guttural, a palatal in the middle of 

 a word and with a vowel following it is not so liable. 2nd. One of 

 the MSS. reads abhang : now this rhymes neither with durg nor drug, 

 and has all the appearance of being a gloss : it is a very good gloss on 

 mahdbhuj in my sense, but not at all so of mahdbhuj with the sense of 

 ' long-armed.' 3rd, Whether my text correctly represents the origi- 

 nal or not, it is certain that the copyist intended the words to convey 

 some meaning. Now bhuj, as a corruption of bhris' fits in equally well 

 with either reading ; with Mr. Beames's interpretation of the word, 

 my text would be absolutely untranslateable. 4th. Whether in 

 this particular case, blmj really represents bhris ' or not, it is certain 

 that by the recognized rules of Prakrit formation, it might represent 

 it. Even Mr. Beames will scarcely deny this, when he reflects that 

 buddha is the Hindi equivalent for the Sanscrit vriddha, and dis' is as 

 often as not represented by dig. If the above explanation be not 

 accepted, I fall back upon my old alternative and take bhug in the 

 sense of Ihugat ; forming it from bhu precisely in the same way that 

 hhag is formed from hha. Thus his charge of ' simple nonsense' re- 

 coils upon himself. 



2>rd. — He says sevahin must be a dative plural, and is exceedingly 

 amused at my regarding it as a verb. To this I reply, by merely 

 taking a copy of the Bauiayana and opening it at random. On the 

 very first page that presents itself, I find the following line — 

 W$\X W&iK M-zH iT^TfTTtt 3PCl^ 



And again a little lower down — 



^ W*T WF*H ^fa ^r£ W&Cl 3IT*T 



May I ask Mr. Beames if bhentahin, karahin, barahhahin are also 

 datives ? If so I should be glad to see his rendering of the lines quoted. 



