The Author’s excursions into philology are the diversions of a clever man, not of a trained scholar, but interested in the subject as an amateur. In his time the new learning on oriental subjects had only recently begun to attract the attention of scholars, of which Sir W. Jones was the prophet. Tod was a diligent student of _The Asiatic Researches_, the publication of which began at Calcutta in 1788. While much material of value is to be found in these volumes, many papers of Captain Francis Wilford and others are full of rash speculations which have not survived later criticism. Tod is not to blame because he followed the guidance of scholars who contributed articles to the leading Indian review of his time; because he was ignorant of the laws of Grimm or Verner; because, like his contemporaries, he believed that the mythology of Egypt or Palestine influenced the beliefs of the Indian people. It was his fate that many of his guesses were quoted with approval by writers like T. Maurice in his _Indian Antiquities_, and by N. Pococke in his _India in Greece_. It is also well to remember that many of the derivations of the names of Indian deities, confidently proposed by Kuhn and Max Müller a few years ago, are no longer accepted. Tod, at any rate, published his views on Feudalism and Philology without any pretence of dogmatism. One special question deserves examination—the constant references to the cult of Bāl-Siva, a form of the Sun god. A learned Indian scholar, Pandit Gaurishankar Ojha, who is now engaged on an annotated edition of _The Annals_ in Hindi, states that no temple or image dedicated to this god is known in Rājputāna. It is, of course, not unlikely that Siva, as a deity of fertility, should be associated with Sun worship, but there is no evidence of the cult on which Tod lays special stress. It is almost useless to speculate on the source of his error. It may be based on a reference in the _Āin-i-Akbari_[i.23] to a certain Bālnāth, Jogi, who occupied a cell in a place in the Sindh Sāgar Duāb of the Panjāb. At the same time, like many of the writers of his day, he may have had the Semitic Baal in his mind. It was largely due to imperfect information received from his assistants that he shared with other writers of the time the confusion between Buddhism and Jainism, and supposed that the former religion was introduced into India from Central Asia. His elaborate attempt to extract history and a trustworthy scheme of chronology from the Purānas must be pronounced to be a failure. Recently a learned scholar, Mr. F. E. Pargiter, has shown how far an examination of these authorities can be conducted with any approach to probability.[i.24]