440 Proceedings of the Asiatic Society. [ No. 4, 
own. Had General Cunningham decyphered or commented upon the 
Wardak inscription, the Babu admitted he would have been bound to 
allude to him had he borrowed from such comment or decypherment, 
but he repudiated the necessity of quoting incorrect readings of single 
words given casually in miscellaneous letters, even if he had remember- 
ed them, (which in the present instance he did not) and that simply 
to show thet he had come to a different opinion. The identity of 
Huvishka with Hushka had been traced by perfectly independent 
research, and was quite different from that of Hoveshka with Oderke 
and Hushka, for it was one thing to say Huvishka was the same with 
Hushka and quite another to say Hoveshka was the same with Oderke. 
Where quotation was necessary no quotation was wanting. In the 
very paragraph in which the identity of Hushka and Huvishka was 
mentioned, the Babu had quoted from the General’s paper in the 
Numismatic Chronicle for the date of Hushka, and he thought that was 
all that he was called upon to do. The General in his letter in the 29th 
Vol. of the Journal, lays great stress on the identity of Heveshka with the 
Hiéerke or Oderke of the coins, but the Babu had nowhere named | 
Oéerke in his paper on the Wardak record, or attempted to trace his 
identity. Mr. Bayley, in his published note on that paper, alluded to 
the “probable” identity of Huvishka with Oderke but not of Hovesh- 
ka with Oderke, and therefore did not name the General. It is possi- 
ble that the identity supposed by the General might suggest the idea 
of the identity doubtingly pomted out by Mr. Bayley, but the Babu 
hoped that nobody would deny that those who were deeply engaged in 
the study of Bactrian numismatics, of the history of Kashmir, and of 
Northwest India generally during the supremacy of the Indo-Scythians, 
should more readily remember the well-known and well-established 
identity of Kanishka with Kanerke and Hushka with Oderke and be 
thereby led to the idea of Huvishka being the same with Eiushka, than 
remember an isolated passage in a short miscellaneous letter ; but even if 
the reverse of this position be insisted upon, it was not necessary, he 
contended, to pomt out the suggestive power of an idea which had been 
already published and become the property of the public for along time 
by guotations of authority and parade of foot-notes. The omission of 
quotations in such a case, would not in any way amount to neglect of 
the amenities of literature. The charge, however, was not of benefiting 
by working out in a differsmt direction the first idea of another, but 
