54 Rejoinder to Mr. Beames. [No. 1, 



There is of course a dative with a similar ending of very common 

 occurrence — thus on the very same page of the Kamayana f%sj ^r?rf% 

 Wqf : but if ' to servants' were the meaning intended, the word would 

 have to be not sevahin, but sevahhin from sevak, as seva means not 

 ' a servant,' but ' service.' Certainly my respect for Mr. Beames's 

 scholarship (in spite of his reference to Lassen) is not enhanced by 

 his remarks either here or on the word bais. I strongly advise him 

 to adhere to his resolution of not again attempting to answer my 

 criticisms. 



4iA.— He says with regard to the line in my MS. 



^CK €fa ^re ^ wr wre<T *k«t 5fT«?t 



" Your text as it stands is not intelligible, and I should like to 

 know by what process you get your English out of it," and proceeds 

 to be facetious about my expression ' shimmering like a fish in a 

 stream.' I reply that the text to my simple intelligence appears 

 tolerably clear. It admits of two constructions, but both yield pre- 

 cisely the same sense. If jhalch joti be taken as a compound adjective, 

 its most literal translation possible is ' shimmering like a fish ;' the 

 words ' in a stream' were added simply because, according to English 

 usage, it would not be considered complimentary to style a woman 

 ' like a fish.' If jliahh and joti be regarded as two distinct words, 

 jhakh must be taken with Mr, Icir and hans as forming the subject of 

 the verb chhdrat which will then govern joti, and mdnu will stand for 

 the imperative mlino ; whereas under the alternative construction, it 

 stands for the substantive man. 



These are the only four blots which Mr. Beames flatters himself he 

 has detected in my translation : it has not been very difficult to dispose 

 of them.** 



IV. — On reading Mr. Beames's text, I find that the verbal differ- 

 ences are more considerable than I had anticipated (the number I 

 imagine would be reduced, were the conjectural emendations expunged). 



* Referring again to Mr. Beames's onslaught, I find there is yet one more 

 point on which he attacks me. In line 4 of my text I translate prabal bhup by 

 ' puissant chiefs ;' upon which my critic writes, " The puissant chiefs of Mr. 

 Growse's translation are evidently a creation of his own brain, or of his Pandit's, 

 for I do not see how he gets it out of his own text even." It is difficult to 

 answer a remark of this kind : however much Mr. Beames may disparage his 

 own intelligence, I cannot believe him to be so utterly unversed in the 

 language, as to be ignorant of the meaning of two such ordinary words as prabal 

 and bhup. 



