We have however before us what remains at this time of its interesting contents, and must hasten to make them known for the satisfaction of the antiquarian and the Sanscrit scholar. There are, as Lieut. BURT has fully described, three principal types of inscription, exclusive of the modern Persian sculpture.

The two first and most important I have carefully reduced from the facsimiles presented to the Asiatic Society, so as to suit the pages of the Journal. The third, No. 3 of Lieut. BURT, consists merely of detached names and dates in modern Nagari, Bhaka, Marhatta, &c., and though the longest, is the least interesting, and is not worth the trouble of transcribing. A few of the dates are enumerated in the foregoing account.

No. 2, as pointed out by Lieut. BURT, is identical in character with the Gya inscription decyphered by Dr. WILKINS. It was made over at the meeting of the Society to Captain TROYER, Secretary of the Sanscrit College, who has been fortunate enough, with the aid of MADHAVA RAY PANDIT, the librarian, to decypher many parts of it: and their examination has developed the names of several princes, and particularly of CHANDRAGUPTA, perhaps the one most earnestly desired by the Indian antiquarian, because of its connection with an epoch in the histories of the western world. Dr. WILKINS had imagined the Gya character to be as ancient as the Christian era, which will be confirmed, if the CHANDRAGUPTA spoken of be the same of whom ARRIAN speaks. Some doubt may again arise from the discovery of his name on a monument at Allahabad, with regard to the position of his capital, a point that has only lately been considered to be set at rest by the identification of Palibothra with Pataliputra or Patna. The name of SAMUDRAGUPTA as a fourth descendant of CHANDRAGUPTA is not found in the Hindu catalogues of the MAURYA dynasty, although there can be no doubt of the reading on the column. I have extracted the name and titles of CHANDRAgupta, and placed them in the plate under the alphabetical key, to shew that it has been faithfully rendered by the pandit.

One other Raja of the same name occurs among the Ajmeer or Rajputana princes in the seventh century, but here also the descendants are of different appellations. The only argument which occurs to me as favoring the latter date, is the great similarity between the Sanscrit character of the inscription and the Tibetan, (noticed also by Lieutenant BURT): the alphabet of which, according to Mr. CSOMA DE KOROS, was adopted from the Sanscrit in the seventh century. Many letters are indeed identical and of the same phonic value, as will be evident on comparing the following with the alphabet in plate VI :kh, 9, ch, ch'Еj, t, d, & n, ¿ p, ↳ ph, b, qv, z h, wy, ql, sh: also the whole of the vowel marks" i, u,` é, o: the sub

joined letters r and y; as, ≤ dra and y pya, and the vazur or subjoined w or v, as dv or do.

Other similarities might be pointed out, but these are the most striking the mode of expressing the long á also at that period, by a short dash at the top of the letter, may explain the omission of this character in the Tibetan alphabet. Captain TROYER notices the omission of many letters* (gh, jh, &c.,) which are equally wanting in the Tibetan alphabet. However, the identity here noticed does not necessarily detract from the antiquity of the inscription, or prevent its applying to the earlier CHADRAGUPTA; since the same character was probably in use for many centuries. When or where it gave place to the more modern Nagari would be a curious and interesting subject of investigation.

However ancient the inscription No. 2 may be, it is very certain that the character No. 1 boasts a still higher antiquity. This may I think be proved-first, by the position it occupies on the Allahabad column, as well as on that of Delhi, called Feroz's lath: in both it is the principal, and as it were the original inscription, the others being subsequently added, perhaps on some occasions of triumph or visit to the spot. Secondly, the simplicity of this character and the limited number of radicals, denote its priority to the more complicated and refined system afterwards adopted; while thirdly, the very great rarity of its occurrence on ancient monuments, and the perfect ignorance which prevails regarding its origin in the earliest Persian historians, who mention the lath of FEROZ SHAH, confirm its belonging to an epoch beyond the reach of native research. The only other inscriptions identical in character which have been met with in India, are I believe that of the lath of BHIM SEN in Sarunt, and that of the Khandgiri rocks in Orissa, of which a facsimile is given by Mr. STIRLING in the Researches, vol. xv. page 314. The Ellora and other cave inscriptions appear to be considerably modified from it, and in fact more to resemble No. 2 of the Allahabad column ; and the latter inscription has so many points of resemblance, that it may be fairly traced to a derivation from the former.

It is not yet ascertained, whether the language this character, No. 1, expresses is Sanscrit. The rare occurrence of double letters, the omission of the initial Sri; the want of any symbol with a subjoined y to correspond with, the inflexion of the possessive case which occurs so repeatedly, and is so distinct, in the Sanscrit text No. 2; are arguments against the supposition but the similarity of the character and of the vowel marks are as much in its favor.

:

* See page 118.

Has any copy of this inscription been published? Mr. STIRLING mentions it, but I do not find it in the Researches.

Mr. STIRLING has suggested as a remarkable circumstance that many letters of the No. 1 type resemble Greek characters, and he instances the "ou, sigma, lambda, chi, delta, epsilon, and a something closely resembling the figure of the digamma." This resemblance is, however, entirely accidental, and the genus of the alphabet can I think be satisfactorily shewn to have no connection whatever with the Greek. To enable us to determine this point, I have taken the trouble of analyzing carefully the whole of the inscription from Lieut. BURT's manuscript, classifying those forms which seemed to be derived from the same radix. Proceeding in this manner I soon perceived that each radical letter was subject to five principal inflections, the same in all, corresponding in their nature and application with the five vowel marks of the ancient Sanscrit No. 2. This circumstance alone would be sufficient to prove that the alphabet is of the Sanscrit family, whatever the language may be. In the accompanying plate (Pl. V.) I have arranged the letters and their inflections so as to exhibit every form which occurs on the column, placing numbers against each, expressive of the frequency of its occurrence. From a cursory inspection of this plate it will immediately be seen that the supposed sigma is but the first inflection of the 13th letter: the epsilon and digamma, are the same inflections of the 18th and 11th characters: while the ou and lambda (1 and 9) are themselves subject to all the inflections like the rest, and are consequently primitive or simple letters, of a system quite different from the Greek.

The number of alphabetical symbols is small, compared with those of modern systems founded on the Sanscrit of the thirty, several have not been found subject to inflection; these may be initial vowels. The circle, square, and triangle are of a smaller size in general than the rest, and may be affixes: but of this and of the powers of the letters, I cannot pretend to offer any conjectures at the present moment. Many of the literal forms undoubtedly bear a close resemblance to those of No. 2, and to those of the Mahabalipur alphabet, decyphered by Dr. BABINGTON; and one might almost be tempted to point out successively the s, d, dr, v, b, ch, j, g, t, l, from their analogy to the known letters in the foregoing scheme. It is better however to say nothing on this head, until we are prepared to apply the scheme to the unravelling of a portion of the legend. For this purpose, one word offers a very convenient test: it is the initial word of both parts of the Allahabad inscription (see pl. V.) ;—of all the four inscriptions on the Delhi column; and it also occurs a second time on the east side. I have inserted it at the foot of Plate VI. It will probably be found to be some term of invocation, though essentially different from the Sri of the Hindus.

As one mode of aiding the investigation of the powers of the unknown alphabet, supposing the language expressed to be Sanscrit, I had the letters in a page of the Bhatti Kávya classified and counted, to compare with the enumeration in Plate VI. They were as follows :

I also made the same classification of one page of the Feroz lath inscription, which I found to agree pretty well with the table prepared from that of Allahabad. There is one marked difference, which may be due perhaps to the copyist :-I allude to the separation of the words in the former, which does not appear to be the case in Lieut. BURT's transcript.

It would require an accurate acquaintance with many of the learned languages of the East, as well as perfect leisure and abstraction from other pursuits, to engage upon the recovery of this lost language; but when its simplicity of vocables is compared with the difficulties of the Persepolitan, or cuneiform character, lately decyphered by GROTEFEND and St. MARTIN, or the more abstruse hieroglyphics of Egypt attempted by YOUNG and CHAMPOLLION, it seems almost a stigma on the learned of our own country that this should have remained so long an enigma to scholars; and the object of the present notice is to invite fresh attention to the subject, lest the indefatigable students of Bonn or Berlin should run away with the honor of first making it known to the learned world.

III.-Remarks upon the second Inscription of the Allahabad Pillar. By Captain A. Troyer, A. D. C. Sec. Sanscrit College, &c.

[Read at the Meeting of the 20th March.]

An alphabet of the inscription No. 2, copied from the Allahabad pillar, compared with the Deva-nagari, was compiled by MADHAVA RAO, the head Librarian of the Sanscrit College. It will be seen from the annexed copy of it, (Plate VI.) that eight of the consonants, namely, (d'h,) and three of the

(g'h),

vowels

(j'h), π (n), ☎ (t'), ☎ (t’h), ☎ (d'),

(i, í, ú,) could not be found.