gigantic cyclopædia of Dr. Goldstücker, which, if ever completed, will most assuredly be universally accepted as the standard authority on all points of Sanskrit learning. In these three works, by three different authors, we find one uniform system of transliteration without a single point of difference, except as regards one solitary letter, viz. the palatal sibilant. This, Forbes, in accordance with modern pronunciation, represents by sh, while Benfey denotes it by g and Goldstücker by s'. It appears to me that since we have such authorities as these, our course is plain; for who is to establish rules of orthography, if lexicographers are not? I therefore think that the recent discussions on the subject by this Society are to be regretted,* since they had a tendency to re-open a question which had virtually been long settled, and, by ignoring an established fact, to throw a check in the way of educational progress.

That many and serious inconveniences result from the want of system that now prevails in India on this matter is undeniable, and a remedy is daily becoming more urgently required. For many registers of native names have now to be kept in Roman characters, and the whole object of alphabetical arrangement is frustrated so long as it remains uncertain whether amrit is to be looked for under letter a or letter u, and whether a person spells his name as Devi-dín or Dabi-deen. And this difficulty is one entirely of our own creation; for although in English, where the orthography of proper names is altogether arbitrary, it is quite possible for a highly educated man, in writing down a list of persons from dictation, to mis-spell every word, in a catalogue of Hindu names there is no such danger. Every personal appellation is also a literary term, with a definite meaning and invariable form; and therefore any one, having a very moderate acquaintance with Indian history and mythology, would be competent to write a long list of names with unerring precision; and there is no excuse for the carelessness which makes an array of the names and titles of native gentlemen in the Government Gazette look like a rollcall of South Sea savages. It will be found that almost all names resolve themselves into one of the following categories: 1st, and most common of all, the name of some popular hero or divinity standing

The object of the discussions here referred to, was to determine whether European technical terms should be translated or transliterated into the Indian vernaculars.-ED.

simply by itself, as Lakshman, Baladeva; 2nd, a similar name with the addition of some word denoting 'disciple' or 'by the favour of,' as Bhagawán-dás, Rám-saháy, Hanumán-Prasád, Gauri-datt; 3rd, some one of the thousand epithets appropriated to the leading characters of the Hindu Pantheon, as Niranjan, the unimpassioned; Chakrapani, the discus-holder; Bansi-dhar, the flute-player, i. e. Krishna; 4th, the name of some one of the appliances of ritual worship, as Tulsi, Sálagrám, Vibhúti; 5th, some word expressing beauty or other excellent quality, as Nawal, Sundar, Kirat; 6th, some heroic or honorific title as Randhír, "the staunch in fight," corresponding to the Homeric "meneptolemus;" Kharagjít, the conquering swordsman; Mahábali, the greatly valiant; Anúp, the incomparable; 7th, the name of some precious material, as Híra, a diamond; Moti, a pearl; Kánchan, gold; 8th and strangest of all, some affectionate diminutive, as Nek Rám, a little Rám; Chhote Lál, a little dear, Nanku, a darling. In the village patois, it is true, many of these names ordinarily appear in a very corrupt form, but even these corruptions are reducible to the following simple rule, viz. that the first syllable of the word only be retained unimpaired, and an open vowel substituted for the whole of the termination; thus Kalyán becomes Kalu, Bhagiratha, Bhagi, and Nayanasukh, Nainu. But these diminutives correspond simply to our English Bob, Dick and Tom, and have no right to be included in a formal catalogue of names. The enforcement of a correct system of transliteration would naturally be opposed by all who are too indolent to acquire a rational knowledge of the language, or who choose to diversify their style by the simple expedient of spelling the same word two or three different ways in one paragraph; but the present slovenly system, or want of system, is not only a practical inconvenience, but is also a disgrace to an educated government.

But, it may be urged, perfect precision is no doubt desirable in scientific treatises, but would be pedantic in ordinary writing. Now can any parallel be found to such a state of things as this argument supposes? Every language has recognized laws of spelling, which the uneducated classes in practice frequently transgress; but has any government on that account determined to class itself amongst the illiterate, and to relegate orthography to the professedly learned?

The Government of India stands alone in this extraordinary patronage of a barbarous nomenclature which excites the ridicule of every European scholar.

In one of the recent discussions on the subject, I remember that Dr. Lees gave a very good illustration of the results of this lax mode of spelling, quoting several Indian words from a 17th century traveller, which were so much disguised by their Roman garb, that identification was impossible. But by a curious perversion of logic, the speaker proceeded to argue the inexpediency of transliteration at all; whereas the illustration only showed the evil of not having a definite standard: for if each Indian letter had its acknowledged Roman equivalent, every word would be as intelligible in its Roman as in its Indian form. I would therefore suggest that the Asiatic Society should print in a tabular form the Roman, Nágari and Persian alphabets as arranged by the eminent lexicographers abovenamed and approved by Prof. Max Müller, the greatest of modern philologists; and that this table should be occasionally appended to the Nos. of the Society's Proceedings, and every writer expected to modify his phonetic vagaries accordingly. It certainly does not appear unreasonable to require that the contributors to a. scientific and literary journal should master the first rudiments of orthography, before they proceed to discuss abstruse questions of philosophy and literary history; and a writer who appears in print under the auspices of a learned Society should feel it as strange to put down chatta poker for chhatra pokhar as to spell " umbrella," umbreller. I think too that, if a more frequent reference to a Dictionary were rendered necessary, articles would not be forwarded for publication in such a very crude state as is now sometimes the case. Thus in the last No. of the Philological Journal, the same distinguished officer, who writes chatta poker and Machowa and Cuchowa for Matsya and Kachchhapa, begins his paper with a lengthy speculation about "a race called variously Serap, Serab, Serak, Sráwaka, who were probably the earliest Aryan colonists," and another race called Bhumij, without apparently any idea, at the time of writing, that Sráwaka is the ordinary Sanskrit name for a Jain or Buddhist, and that the literal meaning of Bhumij is the earth born, Autochthones, Aborigines. The identity of the Jain and

*This has already been done,-ED,

Sráwaka is in a confused manner indicated before the conclusion of the article, but without recognizing the fact that the name (literally a hearer") indicates a purely religious distinction, and that it does not imply a difference of race any more than the term "Roman Catholic" implies an Italian by descent.

66

I may here incidentally observe that in this district (Mainpuri) the Jains, who form a considerable item in the population, are known popularly only by the name of Sarángis, which also is clearly a corruption of the same word Sráwaka. Their habits and customs are of course the same as those described by Col. Dalton.

If my suggestion as above were adopted by the Society, the same principle would be consistently carried out in compiling the list of members with their places of residence, where we should no longer see Babu alternating with Baboo (the latter invariably suggesting the loss of a final n) and the first step might be taken towards the correction of our present barbarous local nomenclature. Our maps are no doubt admirable as results of engineering skill, but in a literary point of view, they are ridiculous,-a large proportion of local names, especially Hindi words, being utterly distorted from the original form. Thus for instance, I have never yet seen a map where the common village name Kushalpur was not spelt with an initial Persian kh, as if it were a derivative of khush; and yet it might be supposed that if any Hindi word were to be allowed to retain its identity, it would be the name of a district so famous in ancient legend as Kos’ala, which had Ayodhya for its capital, and gave a name to the mother of the national hero Ráma. Upon this point I cannot do better than quote the words of the late Prof. Wilson, who, describing Indian maps as miserably defective in their nomenclature, says, "None of our surveyors or geographers have been oriental scholars. It may be doubted if any of them have been conversant with the spoken language of the country. They have consequently put down names at random, according to their own inaccurate appreciation of sounds, carelessly, vulgarly and corruptly uttered; and their maps of India are crowded with appellations which bear no similitude either to past or present denominations. There is scarcely a name in our maps, that does not afford proof of extreme indifference to accuracy, and of an incorrectness in estimating sounds which is in some degree perhaps a national

defect." It may be necessary to take with some modification, at the present day, the above severe reflections on the ignorance of our surveying officers; but whatever their knowledge, it is evident that they have not had sufficient courage to deviate from the traditional groove of barbarism. To initiate a reform in this direction, is an undertaking well worthy the highest efforts of the Asiatic Society. But the whole question has been treated so often, that there is no occasion for further words; it only remains for some definite action to be taken.,

On the other hand, equal carelessness and neglect of philological principles are displayed in the ordinary modes of representing English words in Nagari characters: thus the names of the four months September, October, November, and December are frequently so spelt in Hindi translations, as quite to obscure the fact that they are identically the same as the vernacular Saptami, Ashtami, Navami, Dasami. It has also become a uniform practice to represent the English t on all occasions by the letter; thus ignoring the fact that in the English alphabet the one symbol does double duty, and our pronunciation of it varies, though perhaps unconsciously, in different words, accordingly as it has a murdhanya or simply dental power. For instance, the name Victoria is, so far as my experience goes, invariably written with the , though most incorrectly so; for both in meaning and derivation, it corresponds precisely to the common appellation Vijay, the j by an invariable rule becoming k before dental t; while with murdhanya t is an impossible compound, and a short vowel would have to be introduced between the two consonants, before they could be pronounced. Indeed Her Majesty may reasonably complain of the injurious treatment she receives here in India: for not only is her name misspelt, but her royal title also is most grossly misrepresented. The crafty Musalman, whoever he was, who first suggested the preposterous expression málíká mu’ázzam, must, when he found it adopted, have chuckled immensely over the indignity he was passing on the Queen of the unbelievers. Fortunately, the phrase is so thoroughly outlandish, that it practically conveys no meaning in this country; though any Arab chief who heard it would derive from it a strangely derogatory idea of the Empress of India. I remember reading an article, which appeared in England about a year ago, taking this phrase