228' 



Pefiewa Inscription of Baja Bhoja. 



[No. 3, 



second Bhoja of Colonel Tod, with whom he may be taken to be 

 identical.'* Here then we have the Babu deliberately committing the 

 very error, which he has erroneously attributed to me. It is Eajendra 

 himself who has "hastily jumped to a conclusion regarding the 

 age of a dated inscription from the mere circumstance of the word 

 Bhoja occurring in it." 



Hitherto I have spoken only of Eajendra' s errors of commission, 

 of which I have to complain, as most of them affect myself personally. 

 I will conclude with noticing his errors of omission, which are equally 

 unfair towards me, and one of which has been the cause of error in 

 others. 



In his last article on the Bhojas (J. A. S. Bengal, 1863, p. 97) 

 after mentioning the names of Bhoja Eaja of Dhara, and the Bhoja 

 of the Eaja Tarangini, Eajendra says, " The second of these princes 

 I assume to have been identical with the sovereign named in an in- 

 scription on a Vaishnavite temple at Grwalior. He is described as a 

 lord paramount, who flourished in A. C. 876." In this paragraph 

 the Babu assumes the identity without making any reference to my 

 letter, published in this Journal for 1860, p. 395, in which this identi- 

 fication was first made known. 



A similar omission of my name occurs in the Babu's latest account 

 of the Eohtas inscription, of which a translation was published in 

 Vol. VIII. of this Journal, p. 695. In my letter, printed in this Jour- 

 nal for 1860, p. 395, I first pointed out that this inscription gave the 

 genealogy of the Tomara Eajas of Grwalior, and that the name of the 

 fourth prince, Dungara, had been misread as Hungara. In his Ves- 

 tiges of the kings of Grwalior, published only last year, the Babu 

 adopts this identification of the genealogy without acknowledgment 

 and adheres to the name of Hungara in the Eohtas inscription, with- 

 out mentioning my opinion that it is erroneous. 



The last instance of the Babu's omissions, which I shall [notice, is 

 a more serious one, namely his adoption of my reading and identifica- 

 tion of the Huvishka of the Wardak and Mathura inscriptions with 

 the Hushka of the Eaja Tarangini, without any mention of my 

 name (see his translation of the Wardak inscription in this Journal 

 for 1861, p. 339). My reading of the name of Huvishka in the 

 Wardak inscription, and my identification of this prince with the 

 Huvishka of the Mathura inscriptions, and also with the Hushka of 



