No unprejudiced person, therefore, who had the opportunity of weighing all the circumstances and the actual facts, will assuredly feel justified in pronouncing a condemnation, and in showing up Csoma as one who had wandered in search of fantastic ideas, and sacrificed the labours of a long life in vain. A few words will explain our meaning. In a book recently published [58] we find it stated that Professor Hunfalvy, a great authority on Finnish philology, had declared that “Körösi, during his stay in Calcutta, experienced the bitterest moments of his life, being conscious (?) that up to that time he had fruitlessly looked for the origin of the Hungarians.” Such disappointment we find nowhere alluded to by Csoma; he spoke nowhere of any bitter sorrow at the uselessness of his labours, yet such an opinion seems to have been shaped after his death. Another great authority, Arminius Vámbéry, in a letter to Mr. Ralston, draws the conclusion that “Körösi was a victim to ‘unripe’ philological speculation, because he was looking for a nation speaking the Magyar tongue, and suffered much disappointment at not finding the looked-for relatives.” Professor Vámbéry continues— “And this (viz., finding Magyar-speaking relatives) was impossible for Körösi to attain, because the Magyar tongue is a mixture of an Ugrian and Turko-tatar dialect. This knowledge, however,” says Vámbéry, “is the result of recent (principally his own) investigations, and poor Körösi could have had hardly any notion of it!” Such is the learned Professor’s judgment on Csoma in 1882. We may mention that the Ugric and the Turko-tatar theory was strongly advocated by Vámbéry in his last great philological work. Summing up the preceding remarks, it may be stated that— Firstly, we have already adduced proofs to show how scrupulously careful Csoma’s critical mind was not to run into philological or any other speculations. He guards himself very distinctly against such when he says, “I was much perplexed by Dr. Gerard’s letter to me. In my answer I would not enter into the wide field of speculation.” [59] Henry Torrens speaks of it, [60] and Dr. Malan is very positive on the subject [61] when he says, “Csoma did not scrutinise the intricacies of hypotheses; he had too much sense for that.” Secondly, no proof can be found anywhere among Csoma’s writings of his having searched after a people in Asia “speaking the Magyar tongue.” Such a theory may have been propounded by idle literary speculators or elated enthusiasts on his behalf, as was recently done in Count Béla Széchényi’s case, but a childlike chimera of the sort cannot be laid to his charge unless proof positive exists that he enunciated such an opinion and design, and persevered in it to the end.