INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. SANSKRIT is the classical and learned language of the Hindús, in which all their literature is written, and which bears the same relation to their vernacular dialects that Greek and Latin bear to the spoken dialects of Europe. It is one of the family called by modern philologists Arian* or Indo-European; that is to say, it is derived, in common with the languages of Europe, from that primeval but extinct type, once spoken by a tribe in Central Asia, partly pastoral, partly agricultural, who afterwards separated into distinct nationalities, migrating first southwards into Aryávarta or Upper India-the vast territory between the Himálaya and Vindhya mountains-and then northwards and westwards into Europe. In all probability Sanskrit approaches more nearly to this primitive type than any of its sister-tongues; but, however this may be, comparative philology has proved beyond a doubt its community with Greek, Latin, Persian †, Gothic, Lithuanian, Slavonic, Keltic, and through some of these with Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and our own mother-tongue. 6 6.ƒ) The word Sanskrit ( sanskrita or samskrita, see 6. f) is made up of the preposition sam (= σvv, con), 'together,' and the passive participle kṛita (=factus), ' made,' an euphonic s being inserted (see 53. a. and 6. b. of the following Grammar). The compound means 'carefully constructed,' ' symmetrically formed' (confectus, constructus). In this sense it is opposed to Prákṛit ( * More properly written Aryan, from the Sanskrit árya, ‘noble,' 'honourable,' ' venerable,' the name assumed by the race who immigrated into Northern India, thence called Áryávarta, the abode of the Aryans.' † Especially old Persian. Zand (or Zend), which is closely connected with old Persian, might be added to the list, although the reality of this language as any thing more than the vehicle of the sacred writings called Zand-Avastá (affirmed by the Parsí priests of Persia and India to be the composition of their prophet Zoroaster) has been disputed. Comparative philologists also add Armenian. prákrita), common,'' natural,' the name given to the vulgar dialects which gradually arose out of it, and from which most of the languages now spoken in Upper India are more or less directly derived. It is probable that Sanskrit, although a real language-once the living tongue of the Aryan or dominant races, and still the learned language of India, preserved in all its purity through the medium of an immense literature was never spoken in its most perfect and systematized form by the mass of the people. For we may reasonably conjecture, that if the language of Addison differed from the vulgar and provincial English of his own day, and if the Latin of Cicero differed from the spoken dialect of the Roman plebeian, much more must the most polished and artificial of all languages have suffered corruption when it became the common speech of a vast community, whose separation from the educated classes was far more marked. To make this hypothesis clearer, it may be well to remind the reader, that, before the arrival of the Sanskrit-speaking immigrants, India was inhabited by a rude people, called ‘barbarians' or 'outcastes' (Mlećthas, Nishádas, Dasyus, &c.) by Sanskrit writers, but probably the descendants of various Scythian hordes who, at a remote period, entered India by way of Bilúćistán* and the Indus. The more powerful and civilised of these aboriginal tribes appear to have retired before the Aryans into Southern India, and there to have retained their independence, and with their independence the individuality and essential structure of their vernacular dialects. But in Upper India the case was different. There, as the Aryan race increased in numbers and importance, their full and powerful language forced itself on the aborigines. The weak and scanty dialect of the latter could no more withstand a conflict with the vigorous Sanskrit, than a puny dwarf the aggression of a giant. Hence the aboriginal tongue gradually wasted away, until its identity became merged in the language of the Aryans; leaving, however, a faint and skeletonlike impress of itself on the purer Sanskrit of the educated classes, and disintegrating it into Prákrit, to serve the purposes of ordinary speech †. * The Brahuí, a dialect of Bilúćistán, still preserves its Scythian character. †The cerebral letters in Sanskrit, and words containing cerebral letters, are probably the result of the contact of Sanskrit with the language of the Scythian Prákrit, then, was merely the natural process of change and corruption which the refined Sanskrit underwent in adapting itself to the exigencies of a spoken dialect*. It was, in fact, the provincial Sanskrit of the mass of the community; whilst Sanskrit, properly so called, became, as it is to this day, the language of the Bráhmans and the accomplishment of the learned †. This provincial Sanskrit assumed of course different modifications, according to the circumstances of the district in which the corruption took place; and the various modifications of Prákṛit are the intermediate links which connect Sanskrit with the dialects at present spoken by the natives of Hindústán. They have been analyzed and assorted by Vararući, the ancient grammarian, who was to Prákṛit what Pánini was to Sanskrit grammar. The most noticeable varieties were the Mágadhí, spoken in Magadha or Bihár; the Maháráshtrí, spoken in a district stretching from Central to Western India; and the Saurasení, spoken on the banks of the Jamná, in the neighbourhood of the ancient Mathurá ‡. These patois modifications of Sanskrit are employed as the language of the inferior characters in all the Hindú dramas which have come tribes and a non-Sanskrit, or, as it may be called, a Scythian element, may be traced with the greatest clearness in the modern dialects of Hindústán. In all of these dialects there is a substratum of words, foreign to Sanskrit, which can only be referred to the aboriginal stock. See the last note at the bottom of p. xxii. * It would be interesting to trace the gradual transition of Sanskrit into Prákṛit. In a book called the Lalita-vistara, the life and adventures of Buddha are narrated in pure Sanskrit. It is probably of no great antiquity, as the Buddhists themselves deny the existence of written authorities for 400 years after Buddha's death (about B. C. 543). But subjoined to the Sanskrit version are gáthás or songs, which repeat the story in a kind of mixed dialect, half Sanskrit, half Prákrit. They were probably rude ballads, which, though not written, were current among the people soon after Buddha's death. They contain Vedic as well as more modern formations, interspersed with Prákṛit corruptions (e. g. शृणुहि for शृणु, which is Vedic; and धरेन्ति for धारयन्ति, which is Prákrit), proving that the language was then in a transition state. The best proof of this is, that in the Hindú dramas all the higher characters speak Sanskrit, whilst the inferior speak various forms of Prákṛit. It is idle to suppose that Sanskrit would have been employed at all in dramatic composition, had it not been the spoken language of a section of the community. ↑ Arrian (ch. VIII) describes the Suraseni as inhabiting the city of Methoras. down to us, some of which date as far back as the 2d century B. C., and the first of them is identical with Páli, the sacred language of the Ceylon Buddhists*. Out of them arose Hindi (termed Hindústání or Urdú, when mixed with Persian and Arabic words), Maráthí, and Gujaráthí—the modern dialects spread widely over the country. To these may be added, Bengálí, the language of Bengal, which bears a closer resemblance to its parent, Sanskrit, than either of the three enumerated above; Uriya, the dialect of Orissa, in the province of Cuttack; Sindhi, that of Sindh; Panjábí, of the Panjáb; Kásmírian, of Káśmír;, and Nipálese, of Nipál †. The four languages of Southern India, viz. 1. Tamil ‡, 2. Telugu (the Andhra of Sanskrit writers) §, 3. Kanarese (also called Kannaḍi or Karṇáṭaka), and 4. Malayalam (Malabar) ||, although drawing largely from Sanskrit for their literature, their scientific terms, their religion, their laws, and their social institutions, are proved to be distinct in their structure, and are referred, as might have been expected from the previous account of the aborigines, to the Scythian, or, as it is sometimes termed, the Tatar or Turanian type ¶. * Páli, which is identical with the Mágadhí Prákṛit, is the language in which the sacred books of the Buddhists of Ceylon are written. Buddhist missionaries from Magadha carried their religion, and ultimately (after the decay of Buddhism in India) their language, into that island. Páli (meaning in Singhalese ‘ancient') is the name which the priests of Ceylon gave to the language of the old country, whence they received their religion. For an account of some of these dialects, see Prof. H. H. Wilson's very instructive Preface to his 'Glossary of Indian Terms.' Often incorrectly written Tamul, and by earlier Europeans erroneously termed Malabar. The cerebral 1 at the end has rather the sound of rl. § Sometimes called Gentoo by the Europeans of the last generation. A fifth language is enumerated, viz. Tulu or Tuluva, which holds a middle position between Kanarese and Malayalam, but more nearly resembles the former. It is spoken by only 150,000 people. Added to this, there are four rude and uncultivated dialects spoken in various parts of Southern India, viz. the Tuda, Kôta, Gônd, and Ku or Khond; all of which are affiliated with the Southern group. This is nevertheless consistent with the theory of a remote original affinity between these languages and Sanskrit and the other members of the Indo-European family. The various branches of the Scythian stock, which spread themselves in all directions westward, northward, and southward, must have radiated from a common centre with the Aryans, although the divergence of the latter took place at a much |