1837.] Historical Sketch of the Kingdom of Pandtja, 155 



section, gives the result of my attempt to act upon my first plan, which, 

 to my regret, I was compelled to lay aside, and with it my proposed 

 notice of Mr. Wheatley himself. Those who know the relationship in 

 which 1 am placed towards that late excellent man, will readily com- 

 prehend why I wished to pay him a public token of respect, as well as 

 understand my regret on finding that it could not be handsomely done. 

 Now it is evident that the translation, which I then supposed had not 

 passed out of his hands,* must have been copied out fair, and supplied 

 to Colonel Mackenzie, seeing that the translation by Mr. Wheatley is 

 enumerated by Professor Wilson as among his authorities. It follows 

 also that very probably this same translation was printed in the pages 

 of the Asiatic Journal, If such a supposition be true, it will also follow 

 that the alleged miraculous correspondence, could not be so perfectly 

 complete as is implied, nor could any co-incidence extend over the 

 second section, except as to the facts recorded, which, in both trans- 

 lations, would be the same. I am not therefore uncandid when 1 infer, 

 that the critic's comparison did not extend over the second section at 

 the utmost ,* and that he was not very particular in his inspection is 

 manifest from his singular caricature and omissions, as to the appendix 

 to the second volume, which he professes nevertheless to define ; as 

 well as from the circumstance of quoting a passage as if from the Tamil, 

 which in reality was a translation from Telugu. Indeed it may have 

 been an object with him to deny to me any thing beyond " a familiarity 

 with the Tamil language and, if so, to effect it he has taken a liberty 

 with the passage, in quoting it, utterly unpardonable. The translation 

 from the Telugu is (vol. 2 p. 205)—" In those days the Padshah (cus- 

 tomarily) sent to all countries, &c." The critic's professed quotation 

 says—" The Tamil author states that the Padshah (Mogul) in those 

 days was accustomed to send, &c." Begging his pardon, the Padshah 

 referred to was not the Mogul, and the words " the Tamil author" are 

 quite gratuitous, and unwarrantable. Had he looked at the top of 

 p. 190, he would have seen the translation expressly stated to be from 

 the Telugu language. Further, when a critic says> " one of the anec- 

 dotes, &c. may be worth citing," it would of course be supposed that what 

 follows in smaller type is a quotation : it is however no such thing. On 

 reading it over at the Literary Society's rooms the thought arose — " are 

 these my words "? — and comparison has proved them not to be so, but the 

 critic's own abstract of what I wrote, and in abstracting he has made me 

 amenable for language which I did not use, and which is anything 

 but a translation of the original authority. To expose such glaring 

 disingenuousness I should consider quite sufficient for the criticism. 

 I must, however, regret the critic's attempt to make it appear as if I 

 sought a comparison with Professor Wilson, who in " Sanscrit litera* 



* See Oriental Historical MSS. Vol, I, Freface xvii. 



