[No. 4, 
304 Vestiges of the Kings of Owalior. 
far the opinion there hazarded is based on facts, it is not for me now 
to enquire ; I am glad, however, to perceive that Dr. Bhau Dap of 
after the lapse of so many years. He is even condescending enough to say 
“ Consulting the Babu’s welfare I would, however, exhort him to the study of 
accuracy, and to an advised consideration in the choice of his premises.” As a 
general maxim it will, I hope, prove widely useful. I receive his advice with a 
deep sense of gratitude, and promise always to bear it in mind. To shew that 
I have already benefited by it, I must, even at the risk of being tedious, adduce 
my premises for the errors in his reading of the Iran inscriptions to which I 
take exception. Hr. Hall has attributed most of them to the printers (Ante 
XXX. p. 149), but it is difficult to conceive how those scape-goats are to be 
responsible for the word sansurata which Hr. H. altered into sansurabhu without 
any authority. Again he commented upon the word as “ a 
hoary solecism in Sanscrit books” and translated it, “ who was the counterpart 
of his sire.” Prinsep has “ father’s-talent-possessing,” and Goldstiicker explains 
the word Dictionary by “ born like or with similar qualities as 
^ • /V 
(another).” Next he translates into the unmeaning “ derived 
prosperity to his race,” when he should have followed Prinsep and given “for 
the prosperity of his race.” Regarding the elegant simile of a king electing his 
wife like a maiden her husband , the Doctor says, that as soon as he saw his 
paper in print, he amended it for his “ private eye.” Unfortunately, however, when 
some months after he prepared for the public eye his bulky errata it entirely escaped 
him, and as 1 happened not to have the faculty of ubiquitousness I could not benefit 
by the emendation. The dissyllable which Dr. Hall had overlooked in 
«T an ^ I pointed out in a note to my paper on Toramana, is not a word 
of any moment, and would have called for no animadversion in connexion with 
ancient inscriptions where the decypherer has in most cases to grope completely 
in the dark, but when a critic, professedly the most microscopically exact, 
comes forward with the avowed object of correcting the errors of 3uch a 
scholar as Prinsep, it is naturally expected that he should take some precaution 
to ensure accuracy, and not blunder even in those places where the unfortunate 
subject of his criticism happens to be correct. His dissertation on the uses 
of Sanskrita prefixes I shall notice on some future occasion. The subject is of 
importance and claims more consideration than cun be devoted to it in the space 
of a foot note. 
Since writing the above, I find the Doctor has once again come to the 
rescue of his sansurabhu. When he first suggested it as an improvement 
upon Prinsep’s sansurata he stated (Ante Yol. XXX. p. 16) “ standing 
BEFORE THE ORIGINALS, I COMPARED MY FACSIMILES LETTER BY LETTER 
WITH THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN LITHOGRAPHED ; AND EVEN THE SLIGHTEST 
DISSIMILARITY OF THE COPIES WAS PATIENTLY TESTED BY THE PERISHING 
ARCHITYPES.” In his first corrigenda, which he published some months after, 
he added, “ It ought to have been remarked that what I read as sansura - 
bhu is doubtful in its penultimate syllable and very doubtful in its final. If 
right render ‘in which is the good land of the gods.’” (Ante Yol. XXX. p. 150.) 
W1 len I expressed a doubt regarding its accuracy, the Doctor administered a 
severe rebuke to me for my presumption, stating “ It goes with the Baba for but 
little, I find, as contributing to induce credit in the trustworthiness of my version 
of the Eran inscriptions, that standing before the originals, I compared my 
facsimiles, letter by letter, with those that have been lithographed and even 
the slightest dissimilarity of the copies was patiently tested by the perishing 
arehitypes. The lithographed copies were those of Prinsep.” And yet at the 
same time he fell another step back and was quite undecided as to giving up his 
reading or abiding by it, for he said (Ante Yol. XXX. p. 387.) “ I have far 
FROM INTIMATED ANY CONFIDENCE IN THE CORRECTNESS OF MY READING; and 1 
