99 
1891.] Karl Marx —Documents relating to the history of Ladakh. 
words and idiomatic expressions witli which we now are familiar were 
still undetermined;—that, thirdly, Sclilagintweit was not in a po¬ 
sition, by constant intercourse with natives of Ladakh, to test for 
himself the accuracy of the conclusions he arrived at;—that, fourthly, 
he, being at a distance, could not possibly have that knowledge of the 
country and people, which a sojourn in the country itself only confers ;— 
and, finally, that to him even no map of western Tibet, and of 
Ladakh probably none more full than Montgomerie’s route map of 1864, 
was available:—considering all these drawbacks, his translation, no 
doubt, was all that at that time could be accomplished. The amount of 
acumen and learning he expended upon it was so great, that the result 
certainly ought to have been of the first order. 
Still, in the light of the present day, and with materials at hand 
that, no doubt, would have excited Schlagintweit’s envy, it must be 
said that his translation can no longer be left unchallenged. Not only 
does he himself admit that there remain a considerable number of 
obscure passages, which he was unable to solve and which admit of a 
solution now;—but also, where he is confident to have divined the 
right meaning, his translation either remains so mysterious, as to 
be little more intelligible than the original Tibetan, or it is, from some 
misunderstanding or other, erroneous. Throughout the whole ‘ History 
of the Kings of Ladakh ’ there are, indeed, very few sentences, that at 
all give a correct idea of the meaning intended; most of it is either in 
part or totally wrong. I may say, that had his translation lent itself to 
being corrected and translated into English, I probably would have used 
it. But this was not the case. I had to discard it entirely and build 
entirely afresh on new ground. 
In proof of this assertion I probably again ought to discuss in full, 
where and in what respects my translation differs from his, and show 
cause why I consider mine an improvement upon his. This, however, 
could again only be done, if I had an unlimited space at my disposal. 
Hence, as to the ‘ where ’ and ‘ how ’ we differ, I must again refer any 
one interested to the pages of the two translations themselves. He 
will, probably, find it difficult to reconcile the two, and possibly not 
understand that the original text, after all, should be almost identical. 
And also, as to the ‘why’ and ‘wherefore,’ I find myself under a 
necessity to abstain from any discussion, because if once gone into, it 
would be necessary to rewrite almost the whole of his and my own trans¬ 
lation, and to analyze nearly every sentence. All I can do, therefore, 
is to submit my translation, without any special defence, to the judg¬ 
ment of Tibetan scholars and abide their verdict. I trust, however, 
that they will find it not so very difficult to discover, why I had definite¬ 
ly to set aside Schlagintweit’s translation and attempted a new one. 
