18G1.] Decipherment of an Inscription from Chedi. 335 
Now, does not Tchi-tchi-to, contain, almost from M. Julien’s own 
data, the elements, in combination, of Chedi, and of Chaidya ; deno- 
minating, respectively, a country and a people ? Tchi=che, cliai or di : 
and to— da, dliya, or dyd ; whence it is but just to infer, that it might 
have stood for dya also. Nothing is here asserted ; but, considering 
how often Hiouen-Thsang is detected in blundering, one can scarcely 
tax. with temerity the suggestion, that Chedi ; or Chaidya, is somehow 
meant by Tchi-tchi-to. 
Furthermore, since tchi=7ci, Tee, cha, che, chi, chi, ta, ta, ti, ti, ti, ti, 
tya, &c. &c. why may it not replace Id and lea as well P To is acknow- 
ledged to answer to ta and ta. From Tchi-tchi-to we may, therefore, 
without taking any very great license, extract both Kikata and 
Kichaka, real names of countries. 
M. Julien certainly merits well of the republic of letters for his 
translation of Hiouen-Thsang. And yet it is difficult to accept the 
award, that his method is one of “ mathematical certainty as it 
has been called in the Saturday Review, Yol. XI., p. 247. Grounds for 
dissent from this eulogy are even given to us by M. Julien himself, in 
his treatment of the word just discussed : and additional arguments 
to the same effect are not far to seek. 1 will adduce a few. 
The substitute offered for the word Tou-lo-ld-che, the name of a 
king of Maharashtra, is Purakes'a, followed by a mark of interroga- 
tion. Subsequently, in place of Purakes'a, the translator proposes 
Pulakes'a, with this note : “ Ce mot n’estpas explique. La transcrip- 
tion Poulakcfa s’appuie sur de bons exemples.” Still there is no pro- 
fessed certainty. We see, that, at first, the chances seemed to be in 
favour of r, as against l. And, after all, the final vowel is likely to be 
i, not a. Pulakes'a, as a name, is, indeed, possible. But Pulakes'i — 
nominative of Pulakes'in — is the appellation of a king actually men- 
tioned in inscriptions from Western India. Let it be granted, that 
llie-li-k' i-che is for Harikes'a. Still we lack full proof as to Pou-lo- 
Id-che : for, if clie—s'i, it may well stand for s'7 likewise ; and, moreover, 
the slight difference, to the ear, between a short vowel and a long may 
have been lost, in this instance, on a foreigner. Or, if we assume a 
mistake of ignorance of Sanskrit, or one of heedlessness, we are not 
without reason for it. Except for one or other of these suppositions, 
how are we to account for such an error as Bajavardhana for Rajyavar- 
dhana ? There is no way of escape here ; for the word — the name oi a 
2 v 2 
