Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

between Bettiah and the River Gandak.

Inscription on the Mathiah Lath.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

R

YALLADECA8: 1 D'USCSITA (end of 10th line.east side. Delhi láth)

3

(the Delhi inscription has 11. lines more

[ocr errors]

in this place)

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

9

[ocr errors]

6f25

[ocr errors]

23克

5

24ź

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ՇՇ

222

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

ТУКТЫ МТУКТУ

עד

are missing in that version. The Letters between the lines accord with the Delhi text, and those enclosed in a dotted line

The figures denote the commencement of the lines in the original and the order of reading

ditto West side

agrees with Dethi inscription North side

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

character No. 1, and, moreover, a Déhgôp, or hemispherical Bauddha mausoleum and temple, in the same region.

The first of the Láths is the well known one near Bakra, in sight

[ocr errors]

of the high road to Hajipur, and this is surmounted by a lion. The second is at Radiah, near Arahráj-Maha Deva, district of Majhouah, and zemíndary of Bettiah, and it has no lion.

The th

[ocr errors]

third is the Mathiah one, between the town of Bettiah and the Gandac, eight or ten miles (perhaps more) west, and a little north, of Bettiah town. It has a lion, I find that my copy of the Mathiah inscription is on is gone home; you shall have a new one made, if you need it. And I have ordered drawings and inscriptions to be taken from the other two pillars.

I have likewise directed a drawing to he made of the Kesriah mound, which is undoubtedly a Bauddha Déhgôp or Chaitya, and such also is the Mánikayala tope. There are scores of them in this valley.

II.—Note on the Mathiah Láth Inscription. By JAS. PRINSEP, Sec. &c.

Since writing the above, Mr. HODGSON has favoured me with ́a native drawing of the column near Bettiah, which is engraved as figure 42 of Plate XXVII.; and a copy of the inscription it bears is given at Alength in Plate XXIX: The accuracy of the copy from the MS. has been verified by careful examination, but the native engraver, to save space, has unfortunately carried on the whole text continuously, so that mencement of each it does not shew the commencement of each line according to the original. This defect I have endeavoured to remedy by placing small figures to mark the beginning of the lines, as it was hardly worth while to re-engrave the whole plate.

3

[ocr errors]

The character of this inscription was at once of course recognized to be the same as that of the Allahabad column and FEROZ's Láth. The initial word of each paragraph was also soon perceived to agree with the specimen given at the foot of Plate V. of the present volume the identity continuing even further than the five letters there marked, and extending, in all the numerous cases where the form occurs, to the following fifteen letters

The trifling variations which may be perceived in one or two of the + readings of this sentence, which may be supposed to be some formula of invocation, are evidently attributable to errors of transcription.

Upon carefully comparing the Bettiah inscription with those of

Allahabad and Delhí, with a view to find any other words which might be common either to two or to all three of them, I was led to a most important discovery; namely, that all three inscriptions are identically the same. Thus, the whole of the Bettiah inscription is contained verbatim in that of FEROZ's Láth, published in four consecutive plates, in the seventh volume of the Asiatic Researches: and all that remains of the Allahabad inscription can with equal facility be traced in the same plates, with exception of the five short lines at the bottom, which appear to bear a local import. The last eleven lines of the east inscription of the obelisk of Delhi have indeed no counterpart in the other two; but this may be also owing to the destruction of the corresponding lines of these two texts, which happen to be, on them, the final and nethermost portion of the sculpture.

To enable the reader to judge of the agreement of the three inscriptions, I have added to Plate XXIX., since it has been engraved, marginal references, to point out the corresponding sheets of the Delhí inscription. I have also marked all the variations, omissions, and redundances that occurred on a careful comparison of the two texts, omitting only the mere errors of vowel marks, the correction of which would have confused the already painful closeness of the writing. Considering that the Bettiah inscription was taken down by a native artist, the errors of copying do not appear to be very numerous. There are more considerable discrepancies found on collating the Allahabad transcript of Lieut. BURT, with the original from Delhí, owing no doubt to its dilapidated condition. It is a fortunate circumstance that the Delhí sculpture remained in so perfect a state of preservation, when it was first discovered and examined by the English. It seems moreover to have been most carefully taken down by Captain HOARE.

On referring to my former note on the Allahabad column it will be remarked, that most of the anomalous letters, which I had thrown out of the classification of this alphabet in Plate V., are, on comparison with the other texts, now reduced into simple and known forms. A few other remarks that occurred on passing my eye carefully over the whole three inscriptions, may perhaps help in determining the value of some of the letters.

1. I asserted on that occasion that there appeared to be no compound letters :-several very palpable instances however occur in the Bettiah inscription, of double letters substituted for two single ones in the Delhí column. These are as follows:

In the fourth line of the Bettiah version is found to be substituted for DJ of the Delhí text. In the first line the same substitution

the eleventh line

is made, with the addition of one of the vowel marks, for 5. In occurs for in the thirteenth, 1 for 14: in the 28th, we find taking the place of : and the same contracted form occurs also in the Allahabad version (vide scheme of Alphabet, Plate V.) The commonest double letter however in both these two texts is, which corresponds with of the original or Delhí column.

Other contractions of less certainty may be remarked in the body of the inscriptions: for instance, ut for b+; of for HO; t for ++. It is probable also that and , are contractions of ▲▲ and Ɩ▲, though this is not borne out, like the others, by actual example of the separated letters.

2. From the frequent and almost exclusive occurrence of as the secondary consonant in the above enumeration of double letters, as well as from its resemblance in form to the corresponding letter of the Gya alphabet (No. 2, see Plate VI.), I think a strong probability is established that this letter is equivalent to y or of the Deva Nágarí alphabet.

The other subjoined letter has a great analogy to the Sanscrit . The letter, with which these two are most frequently united, may with equal probability, be set down as equivalent to the Deva Nágarís, Ħ ; whence the compounds may be pronounced to be and, the two perhaps of most common occurrence in the Sanscrit language.

3. The letters and are found to be frequently interchangeable in the inscriptions; corresponding in this respect to the and of the Nágarí alphabet, and strengthening the assumption just made. and are also very commonly confounded, and it is most probable that they are the same letter. The triangle (No. 28 of the alphabet in Plate V.) of the Delhí inscription, is invariably represented by the half-moon letter D (No. 13) in the Bettiah Láth, and therefore the former may be erased from the alphabet: the anomaly of the same character, shaped like the letter V, proves on comparison to be the same letter as the foregoing.

4. The letter Я (No. 14 of the alphabet) is very commonly omitted in the Láth of Bettiah, especially when it occurs before No. 24. This character also is subject to no vowel inflections; its variations of form though numerous prove to be merely accidental.

5. In the Delhí text as printed in the Asiatic Researches the words are separated from each other, according to the European fashion. This circumstance is of great consequence, (especially as it is not observable in the other two transcripts,) because it enables us to form

« PreviousContinue »