174 Reply to Mr. Growse. [No. 4, 



need have been said of these lines. My offence in the eyes of this 

 gentleman, who is a stranger to me and to most scholars in Europe, 

 consists in my having dared to meddle with Chand at all, seeing that 

 he had constituted himself interpreter in chief, and head referee on all 

 questions connected with this author. 



The rest of Mr. G-rowse's criticisms are founded on a text so widely 

 differing from mine, that I cannot even find which of my lines he 

 refers to. 



In conclusion, I can only say that I will take no further notice of 

 anything Mr. Growse may write. I cannot undertake to teach him 

 the rudiments of old Hindi in the Society's Journal, nor can I spare 

 the time to copy out for him my text. I am preparing an edition of 

 the complete text for the Society much of which is ready, and will 

 appear shortly. Mr. Growse will then know what is really in Chand 

 and what is not. Till then I should recommend him to hold his 

 peace, or at any rate not to accuse of want of scholarship, a man whom 

 he does not know, on the strength of a text which he has not seen. 

 And I would give him a further parting word of advice, namely, not 

 to rely on his Pandit too entirely, but to try and reason out for him- 

 self the true meaning of every word, and above all, not to listen too 

 credulously to village shopkeepers and grainseliers, however interest- 

 ing and intelligent they may be ! 



My text, as it stands in two complete MSS. 



**r^ famx ^frr ?w i 



«TT^ W^ 1 *^T *}"* n ^ II 



^w ^ 3R ^r ^f?r i 

 ^f^r f*fsu"*r to ^re 11 ^ n 



^ *fjT orferr ^rr«f fw*r i 



