that the origin of that identity of grammatical system in these two languages, which is even at this day so remarkable, must be referred to a still remoter period. As, therefore, it appears incontestable, from the whole structure of Sanscrit, that every term expressive of an idea relating to the peculiar institutions and religion of the Hindus must have formed a component part of this language when it received its present form, it necessarily follows that the Brahminical system must have been completed in every essential part at least 1100 or 1200 years B. C. * But in a late work on Hindu Astronomy is this singular assertion:-" It is by the investigation of truth, and the exposure of Brahminical impositions, which can only be done through the means of ASTRONOMY, that the labours of those who are laudably endeavouring to introduce true religion and morality among the Hindus can have their true and beneficial effect. So long as the impositions and falsehoods contained in the Hindu books, which the common people are made to believe are the productions of their ancient sages, are suffered to remain unexposed, little progress can be expected to be made." + As I am not acquainted with the science of * It will scarcely, I think, be denied that the name of the sacred books of their religion is a word that the Brahmans would never, on any account, have changed. But veda is derived from vedati, contracted vetti, he knows, one of the verbs most commonly used in Sanscrit, and from which several words are derived of equally frequent occurrence, as vidya, learning; vidivan, a learned man, &c. This verb, also, has been preserved in Greek, Latin, and Anglo-Saxon, as S. vidanti, G. eidovτal, L. vident, A. S. witon. + Bentley's Hindu Astronomy, p. 213. I cannot avoid quoting the following strange remarks of Mr. Bentley, for even more absurd ones have obtained credit in Europe: "In fact there is no imposition too gross or absurd that a Hindu will not employ to gain his ends, if he can effect it by that means. We see that by the means of this system of Brahma (invented in A. D. 538.), and of various passages like the above, inserted in the books with a view to support it, the real Hindu history and chronology have been completely destroyed; so that Yudhisht'hira, Parāsara, Garga, and others, who lived from about 540 to 575 B. C., were thrown back into antiquity about 2600 years more..... But to carry all this into effect, many things were necessary. In the first place, it was requisite that all their ancient books on astronomy, history, &c., that could in the smallest degree affect or contradict the new order of things, should be either destroyed, new modelled, or the obnoxious passages expunged; and, secondly, that others should be written or composed, having the appearance of antiquity, by being fathered on ancient writers, to support, as it were, by their evidence, the existence in ancient times, and through all ages, of the new system of years thus introduced..... This astronomy, I cannot form an opinion with respect to the correctness of the conclusions which Mr. Bentley has deduced from astronomical data; but Mr. Colebrooke has remarked: — " The truth is, that the observations of Hindu astronomers were ever extremely coarse and imperfect, and their practice very inferior to their theory of astronomy. An improved theory, or the hint of it, was borrowed from the West; but they did not learn to make correct observations. They were content in practice with a rude approximation...... We are not to try their rules by the test of their agreement with accurate observation at any assignable moment, and thence conclude that the rule and its correct application are contemporaneous. This has always been the point at issue between Mr. Bentley and me. He mentioned in his first essay, that the age of a Hindu astronomical treatise can be so determined with precision; I have always contended that their practical astronomy will account, not only for the books that now exist being either entirely modern, or else new modelled to correspond with the new order of things, but also for the paucity of ancient facts and observations that have reached our time." Hind. Ast., p. 106. et seq. The manner in which this destruction or remodelling of all the ancient books, and the composition of new ones, throughout the whole of India, were effected, is thus explained by Mr. Bentley, in p. 108. of the same work: "To some it would doubtless appear as a thing impossible, that a set of Brahmins in Ujein could impose such a system on the rest of India. Those, however, who are acquainted with the Brahminical character, know too well that every thing was in their power they were in possession of all the learning in the country, and their influence was so great, that even the princes of the country were obliged to bow submission to their will. Therefore, when they assembled together in convocation, to consult on the general interest of the whole body, whatever resolutions they came to on that head would be universally adopted by the brethren; and woe to the man that should dare oppose them, for their power and influence far exceeded those of the popes in Europe, so that wherever they sent their secret orders, they would be sure to be obeyed." But, with regard to such extravagant and groundless suppositions, it is sufficient to remark, on the authority of Mr. Colebrooke, that Mr. Bentley was unacquainted with Sanscrit, and, therefore, totally incapable of forming any opinion respecting the authenticity or spuriousness of works written in that language. The whole of his hypothesis, at the same time, rests entirely on an assumption which is directly opposed to fact: for the Brahmans in India have never met in general convocation, nor have they ever acted with one common consent; but, on the contrary, the Brahmans of its different provinces have always viewed each other with jealousy, and have never met together except at the courts of princes on some public occasion. It was, therefore, utterly impossible for the Brahmans of Ujein to have effected that revolution in Sanscrit literature which is so elaborately, but so groundlessly, described by Mr. Bentley. has been too loose and imperfect for the application of that test, except as an approximation. In one instance, by the rigorous use of his test, he would have had to pronounce that the work under examination is of an age yet to come (1454 years after A. D. 1799): see As. Res., vol. vi. p. 570. To avoid so monstrous an absurdity, he rejected this case, and deduced a mean from the other results, varying from 340 to 1105 years." * But, after this opinion of Mr. Colebrooke, who is so peculiarly qualified for determining any contested point in Sanscrit literature, it must be evident that conclusions founded on Hindu astronomy are not of sufficient certainty or authority to invalidate the incontrovertible testimony of language. The antiquity and originality, however, of Sanscrit might appear questionable, were this remark of Sir William Jones correct," The Sanscrit of the three first Védas (I need not here speak of the fourth), that of the Mánava Dherma Sástra, and that of the Puránas, differ from each other in pretty exact proportion to the Latin of Numa, from whose laws entire sentences are preserved, that of Appius, which we see in the fragment of the Twelve Tables, and that of Cicero, or of Lucretius, where he has not affected an obsolete style."+ This opinion is, in part, supported by Mr. Colebrooke, who has observed, “The ancient dialect in which the Védas are composed, and especially that of the three first, is extremely difficult and obscure: and, though curious, as the parent of a more polished and refined language (the classical Sanscrit), its difficulties must long continue to prevent such an examination of the whole Védas, as would be requisite for extracting all that is remarkable and important in those voluminous works.”‡ But, notwithstanding such high authority, I must still entertain doubts respecting the philological correctness of this opinion; for it appears to me that the difficulty and obscurity of the Vedas and Manawa Dharma Shastra proceed from the nature of the subject, and the style adopted in discussing it, and not from the employment of words which Asiatic Journal for March 1826, p. 365. have become obsolete in modern Sanscrit. The construction, also, and the grammatical rules observed differ perhaps considerably from those which have prevailed since the grammar of the language has been so sedulously cultivated. So far, therefore, Sanscrit may have been polished and refined; but, in words, it no doubt remains identically the same as when it was first introduced into India. Reasoning, indeed, merely a priori, it must seem altogether improbable that a distinct priesthood, whose lives were dedicated to learning and religion, would ever change the language in which their sacred books were written, and which was employed by their order alone. Unless, therefore, it can be proved that Sanscrit was at one time the vernacular tongue of India, no conceivable cause could be assigned for the ancient Sanscrit differing as widely from the modern, as the Latin of Numa from that of Cicero. But, were there the slightest grounds for this assumption, the supposed effects ought to be visible in modern Sanscrit, as in this case it could not possibly exhibit that perfect homogeneity of structure by which it is so peculiarly distinguished. The inspection of a page or two of Cicero will at once show that Latin has not the slightest pretension to originality; but in Sanscrit not an exotic term can be discovered. If, consequently, words have become obsolete, in what manner were new ones invented which accord so accurately with the original structure of the language? Is there, also, a single instance of any body of men discontinuing the words to which they had been accustomed from their infancy, in order to have the pleasure of inventing new ones? But, under this assumption, if the supposed alteration in Sanscrit was not occasioned by external influence, as its internal evidence most clearly proves it was not, these totally improbable circumstances must have actually taken place. It is further necessary to explain how 900 primitive Sanscrit words, still existing in it, could have passed into five distinct languages at least 900 years B. C. B. C. These and similar considerations will, perhaps, evince that there are no reasons whatever for supposing that Sanscrit has suffered any essential alteration since it was first introduced into India. 214 CHAP. XIII. CONCLUDING REMARKS. BUT, if the Sanscrit be as original a language as its internal structure incontrovertibly proves, and if it had received its present form before the time of Homer, as the Sanscrit words in his poems unquestionably attest, it must necessarily follow that it was not from Greek, Latin, Persian, German, and English that Sanscrit received the words belonging to these languages, but that these languages received them from the Sanscrit. Since, also, these words are so numerous, and expressive of such a variety of ideas, it must equally follow that a most intimate connection must have at some remote period existed between the ancestors of the Greeks, Romans, and Teutonic race, the Persians, and a people who spoke Sanscrit. It is to account for this remarkable circumstance that all hypotheses respecting the origin and affinity of languages hitherto proposed are totally insufficient; and, consequently, as the causes assigned are inadequate to produce the effects alleged, these hypotheses must now be considered to rest on no foundation whatever. Mr. Colebrooke, however, has observed that "Sanscrit is a most polished tongue, which was gradually refined, until it became fixed in the classic writings of many elegant poets, most of whom are supposed to have flourished in the century preceding the Christian æra. It is cultivated by learned Hindus throughout India, as the language of science and of literature, and as the repository of their law, civil and religious. It evidently draws its origin (and some steps of its progress may even now be traced) from a primeval tongue, which was gradually refined in various climates, and became Sanscrit in India, Pahlaví in Persia, and Greek on the shores of the Mediterranean."* But that this opinion is clearly erroneous is evident from there not being Asiatic Researches, vol. vii. p. 200. |