188 BENGALI LITERATURE Chandicharan Munshi’s + Tofa Itihas and Rajib Lochan Mukhopadhyay’s Raja Arsna- Chandicharan Munshi, chandra Rayer Charitra, both pub- lished in the same year, exhibit however noticeable contrast cf style and language. Tota Itihis * is by far the better work Tota Itihas both in form and subject, although 1805 it is a mere translation from some Persian original and its language shows admixture of Persian. It consists of thirty-four “tales of a parrot,” as its name implies, and is said to have been translated from es a Persian original ‘ Tootanamah,” * Tts original, ere = Similar collections of tales there are » Called Chunder Churun Moonshee by Buchanan (op. cit. p. 229) which is evidently a mistake. ? There are copies of the first edition in the Library of the Board of Examiners and Presidency College Library. The title-page ৪৪5৪: তোতা! ইতিহাস | বাঙ্গাল! ভাষাতে । শ্রীচণ্ডীচরণ মুন্শীতে রচিত। শ্রীরামপুরে ছাপা হইল। ১৮০৫। Roebuck (op. cit. App. Il. p. 29) and Buchanan (op. cit. p. 228) also give this date of publication. The copy in the Sahitya Parisat Library (and also one in the British Museum Library), which seem to be reprints of 1825, bear a somewhat different title-page. 4) | তোতা ইতিহাস ।| বাঙ্গালা ভাষাতে || Ape pad মুন্সীতে রচিত।| লগ্ন রাজধানীতে চাপা হইল || ১৮২৫|। 109 101 01 (1৪ latter reprint is very neat. Misled probably by the date of this edition, Dinesh Chandra Sen (History, p. 890) puts the date apparently of the first edition at 1826, The copy of an edition in the British Museum Library bears 1806 as the date of publication (Blumhardt, Catalogue, p. 31). There is also mention of a 12mo Ed. printed in London 1811 in the Catalogue of the Library of East India College, and an S8vo. Ed. London 18!1 is entered in the Catalogue of the Library of the Hon. Rast India Company, p. 196. There isa curious diglot edition (Rnglish-Bengali) of this work in the Sahitya Parisat Library: the Bengali version appears on the right and English on the left side on the same page, The date cannot be ascertained for the title-page is lost; but judging from the typography, it seems to have been printed in London. ,
- Buchanan, op. cit, p. 228. Chandicharan is also said to have
