1869.] Reply to Mr. Orowse. 173 



lias done no suchthing, but has translated his own text literally ; not 

 having had Mr. Growse's fancy text to confuse him, for which he is 

 thankful. The introduction of the words ' Siva's bow' was caused by 

 the simple fact that <■ pinakd! which is the name of that bow, occurs 

 in my true text, though not in Mr. Growse's jumble. 



9. " The text speaks of ten sons only, no daughters." The text 

 says ' das putr putri? If this does not mean 'ten sons and daughters,' 

 I wish to know what it does mean ? As to the suggestion that Padam 

 Sen was one of these ten sons, it is an unfounded assertion into which 

 Mr. G. has been betrayed by his faulty text. 



12. Ta ur putri pragat says my text. I translate word for word. 

 f From her breast a daughter sprung.' Mr. Growse says, " this is 

 awkward English and not required by the original." The preceding 

 line is ta ghari ndri sujdn, which again I have rendered literally, 

 * In his house was a wellborn dame.' 



14. Here again Mr. Growse is blundering over a bad text. The word 

 he reads sisu is really sasi the moon ; and the word be reads vais and 

 tell us is for avasthd, (though where he got this idea from is a puzzle), 

 is simply bhes, 'dress, appearance, guise' as I have given it ; ' samir' is 

 an error for ' samip ;' and Mr. Growse's text is quite wrong in the 

 fourth line, which he ignorantly (or rather his Pandit again) mixes up 

 with the third, for it wants at least a couple of feet to make it scan ! 



15, 16. 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 

 a, propos of your English, what do you mean by pearls, parrots and 

 swans shimmering like fish in a stream ? I see nothing about "shim- 

 mering" or ' streams' in your text. I am afraid your Pundit, in 

 whom you trusted, has deceived you ; or was it the intelligent bunnias 

 of that village on the frontier of your district, mentioned in your 

 former article ? 



22. My rendering cannot be correct since the Hindus reckon only 

 six sciences, says Mr. Growse. To this I reply, that Chand says 

 chaturdas ; and Mr. Growse is perhaps thinking of the six schools of 

 Vedic science, to the exclusion of the secular sciences. 



23, 24. These lines are remarkable, it appears, as the only two 

 which I have translated accurately ! I might have been spared this 

 sarcasm ; if Mr. Growse's object had been honest criticism, nothing 



