1847.] 



Addendum. 



65 



occurs, as I have noted in its due place. We then have a new per- 

 sonage brought forward in Bhima-raya^ without our knowing who 

 or whence he was, or with whom he fought. But it is clear that it 

 18 this BJiima raya who went against Calinga, and other northern 

 countries ; while his career is described as one uniform course of 

 conquest ; without a particle of defeat, either by the general of 

 Somesvara, or any one else. Mr. Dowson seems to have been misled, 

 by an imperfect translation, by overlooking the chasm in the narra- 

 tive, and by not adverting to the introduction of another personage, in 

 the nominative case. So that Mr. Dowson's statement, in his abstract, 

 ^^Amra then marched into the Calingo. dcsain,'^ is wholly unjustifia- 

 ble; for it was — apparently at least — Bhima-raya that did so. And 

 the reversing the statement of the Manuscript, and writing defeat 

 for victory, merely because some* general of Somesvai'a I. humbled 

 some person, named Bliujanga^ does not look like fair historical in 

 ference. There \% 2, vinculum yet wanting, to connect both state- 

 ments. The evidence supplied by Mr. Elliot's most valuable paper 

 on the Chalukyas may remain perfectly true, and untouched : and 

 yet we may not be possessed of a knowledge of the exact point, 

 where it joints in with the Chola history. 



There seems to be, by far, too great a looseness of conclu- 

 sion in Mr. Dowson's statements. Sancara-deva is, without dif- 

 ficulty, identified with Sancaracharya, and several reigns, and 

 a few hundred years, passed over to effect the identification. 

 Virenji in the M. S. is without difficulty fixed near Vellore, 

 making a distance of 500 miles of no consequence, compared 

 with similarity in a name. Amarbhitjanga occurs in the Manu- 

 script, only as a conqueror ; therefore it is the Bhujanga humbled 

 by the Chaluhja general. I would not be thought intentionally to 

 bear hard on Mr. Dowson ; who, if I understand matters aright, has 

 made praiseworthy efforts to distinguish himself ; but I would wish 

 to enforce the need of a more careful induction, by the analytic process 

 in all. Splendid examples have not been wanting to mislead. Sir W. 

 Jones and his imitators, and even Professor Wilson, cannot be held 

 exempt from the charge of synthetic constructions, on very insuffi- 

 cient premises. I adhere to the remark long ago made by me ; 

 which is that we want as yet, a much wider basis of translations — ac- 

 curately, literally, faithfully, made. Till such a basis can be had, 



*■ Cotwparep. vol. 9, M. Journal Lit. and Science. 

 I 



