scholars of his day; but in the first place it is perfectly well known that European gentlemen of Mr. Clarke's rank do not servilely labour at translations themselves, the rough work always being done for them by natives; in the second place I am sure, arguing à priori from the above reason and á posteriori, from the false translation ascribed to him, that Mr. Clarke did not write that passage, while his eye rested on the original paper, and his hand traced the alleged rendering by him—it would be a libel on that gentleman to say so; though it is none to presume that, in the general way, he may have passed and authenticated the translation by his signature, without reference to critical niceties; in the third place, I pledge myself that the exact words of the original manuscript represented in Roman characters, are given above, and not all the learning, ingenuity, and talent, even of Mr. Clarke could render them fairly in any other way than I have done. For these three reasons, to adduce the mere authority of a "magnum el venerabils nomen," as set off against a false translation, or to confirm a conclusion based on an erroneous one, is in my view irrelevant to the question.
If, quitting this particular instance, there were any person's translations that I would admit, it would be those of Mr. Wheatley, whose office and profession was that of a translator, not solely de nomine but de fide: yet his principle of accommodating to the ideas of Europeans, and paraphrastic rendering, comports not with my principles of translation; nor with, abstractedly speaking, correct principles of translation: if so without knowing any thing of Mr. Clarke's labours, what opinion could I antecedently have formed of native translations for Col. Mackenzie, of a portion of which in the Professor's own words, "the value[1] is much diminished by the very imperfect manner in which they have been executed, the English being frequently as unintelligible as the original: with a very few exceptions, the translations are the work of natives alone."
I am bound to give the Professor considerable praise for the tact with which he handles an advantage given to him by a passing expression concerning the Supplementary Manuscript, which it is added, "we consider as trustworthy." But this expression is cut out from the context, as noticed before in a similar case, and so obtruded, by no means gives the sense of the entire connection in which that expression is found. It occurs, vol. 2 p. 75 while at p. 72, the particular discrepancy quoted by the Professor is discussed; the fictions (universal among Hindus) as to the long reign of Vicramaditya are also sifted, and reduced to something like order in various parts of the work: in p. 73 it is said "Vicramaditya ruled in reality about a hundred years," a large allowance by the
- ↑ Des; Cat: Intro: p. xxi.
