Note 59 — CHAPTER 1

These inscriptions, while they have given rise to ingenious interpretations, demonstrate the little value of mere translations, even when made by first-rate scholars, who possess no historical knowledge of the tribes to whom they refer. This inscription was first translated by Sir W. Jones in 1784 (Asiatic Researches, vol. i.). A fresh version (from a fresh transcript I believe) was made by Mr. Colebrooke in 1800 (Asiatic Researches, vol. vii.), but rather darkening than enlightening the subject, from attending to his pandit’s emendation, giving to the prince’s name and tribe a metaphorical interpretation. Nor was it till Wilford had published his hodge-podge Essay on Vikramaditya and Salivahana, that Mr. Colebrooke discovered his error, and amended it in a note to that volume; but even then, without rendering the inscription useful as a historical document. I call Wilford’s essay a hodge-podge advisedly. It is a paper of immense research; vast materials are brought to his task, but he had an hypothesis, and all was confounded to suit it. Chauhans, Solankis, Guhilots, all are amalgamated in his crucible. It was from the Sarangadhar Padhati, written by the bard of Hamira Chauhan, not king of Mewar (as Wilford has it), but of Ranthambhor, lineally descended from Visaladeva, and slain by Alau-d-din. Sarangadhar was also author of the Hamir Raesa, and the Hamir Kavya, bearing this prince’s name, the essence of both of which I translated with the aid of my Guru. [For these works see Grierson, Modern Literature of Hindustan, 6.] I was long bewildered in my admiration of Wilford’s researches; but experience inspired distrust, and I adopted the useful adage in all these matters, 'nil admirari.' [Cunningham, while admitting the wild speculations of Wilford, says that important facts and classical references are to be found in his Essays (ASR, i. Introd. xviii. note)note).]