1863. ] Proceedings of the Asiatic Society. 441. 
of positive misappropriation of calling the discovery of another as one’s 
own, and as he had shewn that he had nowhere borrowed the General’s 
reading of Hoveshka, he held that the charge brought against him was 
utterly groundless. There was no doubt some similitude between 
Huwvishka and Hoveshka, and in attempts to read the same document 
by different individuals such similitude must always occur; but he 
urged that it would be unjust if he who read the document correctly 
should be deprived of credit because his predecessors had given an 
avowedly incorrect but somewhat similar reading of only one of its 
words. Should the General maintain so wrong a principle and say 
that the difference between Hoveshka and Huvishka was immaterial 
and the credit of reading the word should be his, it should be observed 
that the syllables which he read Hevesh had been before him read to 
be the same by Mr. Thomas, and the credit of first reading therefore 
must rest with the latter gentleman and not with him. He regretted 
auch, the Babu said, that he had to make these remarks, for he enter- 
tained the highest respect for the General as a distinguished and most 
successful antiquarian, who had done much to throw new light on the 
history of his native land ; but he was sorry he could not sit down quietly 
under the imputation of having misappropriated the discoveries of 
another. 
The President remarked that he was perhaps personally somewhat to 
blame in the matter, for as Babu Rajendra Lal had owned to obtaining 
from himself the reading of Huvishka and as the identification of. the 
king of the Wardak Inscription with the Huvishka cf the Muttra 
Inscription and the Hushka of the Raja Tarangini and the Oderke 
of the Indo-Scythian coin-series had been already published by Gen. 
Cunningham, he was bound to say that the source from which he had 
derived the reading of Huvishka was undoubtedly General Cunning- 
ham himself. The President’s tentative reading and transliteration 
had been, however, made merely for self-guidance, and the papers were 
made over without remark to Babu Rajendra Lal, as the President 
had no leisure to complete the enquiry. 
The Babu had therefore no notice of the real author of the dis- 
covery at the time he wrote his article in question, for which the over- 
sight of the President was chiefly to blame. 
But in truth the identification of the Hushka of the Raja Tarangini 
with the Oderke of the coms had been made so long since by General 
3) Ik 
