« PreviousContinue »
our pride, or increasing our prestige, but that a vast population may be conciliated, benefited, and elevated, and the regenerating influences of Christianity spread through the length and breadth of the land. How, then, have we executed our mission ? Much is now being done; but the results effected are mainly due to the growth of a more cordial feeling, and a better understanding between Christians, Hindūs, Buddhists, and Musalmāns. And these good results may be expected to increase if the true character of the three principal systems of religion opposed to Christianity, and now existing in India, British Burmah, and Ceylon, are fairly tested by an impartial examination of the written documents held sacred by each ; if the points of contact between Christianity, Brāhmanism, Buddhism, and Islām become better appreciated, and Christians while loyally devoting themselves, heart and soul, body and mind—to the extension of the one true faith, are led to search more candidly for the fragments of truth, lying buried under superstition and error.
Be it remembered, then, that Sanskrit literature,—bound up as it has ever been with all that is sacred in the religion and institutions of India, -is the source of all trustworthy knowledge of the Hindūs; and to this literature Englishmen must turn, if they wish to understand the character and mind of nearly two hundred millions (or about five-sixths) of India's population (see pp. xvi-xx of Introduction).
Some departments of Sanskrit literature have been fully described of late years by various competent and trustworthy scholars. Good translations, too, of isolated works, and excellent metrical versions of the more choice poems have from time to time been published in Europe, or are scattered about in Magazines, Reviews, and ephemeral publications. But there has never hitherto, so far as I know, existed any one work of moderate dimensions like the present-accessible to general readers--composed by any one Sanskřit scholar with the direct aim of giving Englishmen who are not necessarily Sanskritists, a continuous sketch of the chief departments of Sanskrit literature, Vedic and Post-vedic, with accompanying translations of select passages, to serve as examples for comparison with the literary productions of other countries'.
The plan pursued by me in my endeavour to execute a novel and difficult task in a manner likely to be useful to Oriental students, yet intelligible to general readers, and especially to those men of cultured minds who, not being Orientalists, are desirous of accurate information on subjects they can no longer ignore, will be sufficiently evident from a perusal of the lectures themselves, and their appended notes. To avoid misapprehension and exaggerated ideas of my scope and aim, as well as to understand the extent of my obligations to other scholars, let the reader turn to pp. 1-4 with notes, p. 15, note 2.
I will merely add to what is there stated, that as Vedic literature has been already so ably elucidated by numerous scholars in Europe, and by Professor W. D. Whitney and others in America, I have treated this part of the subject as briefly as possible. Moreover, my survey of so vast and intricate a field of inquiry as Indian philosophy, is necessarily a mere sketch. In common with other European scholars, I am greatly indebted to Dr. Fitz-Edward Hall for his contributions to this and other departments of Sanskrit literature, and especially for his translation of Nehemiah Nīlakantha’s ‘Rational Refutation of the Hindū Philosophical Systems.'
I should state that, although the present volume is intended to be complete in itself, I have been compelled to reserve some of the later portion of the literature for fuller treatment in a subsequent series of lectures.
1 Great praise is, however, due to Mrs. Manning's valuable compilation called . Ancient and Medieval India,' published by W. H. Allen and Co.
It is possible that some English readers may have given so little attention to Indian subjects, that further preliminary explanations may be needed by them before commencing the perusal of the following pages.
For their benefit I have written an Introduction, which I hope will clear the ground sufficiently for all.
Let me now discharge the grateful duty of tendering my respectful thanks to the Governments of India for the patronage and support they have again accorded to my labours. Let me also acknowledge the debt I owe to two eminent Sanskritists—Dr. John Muir of Edinburgh, and Professor E. B. Cowell of Cambridge—for their kindness in reading the proof-sheets of the present series of lectures. These scholars must not, however, be held responsible for any novel theories propounded by me. In
many cases I have modified my statements in accordance with their suggestions, yet in some instances, in order to preserve the individuality of my own researches, I have preferred to take an independent line of my own. Learned Orientalists in Europe and India who are able adequately to appreciate the difficulty of the task I have attempted will look on my errors with a lenient eye. As I shall welcome their criticisms with gratitude, so I shall also hope for their encouragement; for, often as I have advanced in my investigations, and have found an apparently interminable horizon opening out before me, I have felt like a foolhardy man seeking to cross an impassable ocean in a fragile coracle, and so have applied to myself the well-known words of the great Sanskṣit poet :
तितोर्पुर्दुस्तरं मोहादुडुपेनास्मि सागरम् ॥
Oxford, May 1875.
THE INDO-ROMANIC ALPHABET
EQUIVALENT SANSKŘIT LETTERS AND RULES FOR
A, a, for 87, pronounced as in rural; A, ā, for UT, 1, as in tar, father ; 1, i, for , f, as in fill; 1, i, for f, 1, as in police; U, u, for J, ., as in full; 0, ū, for H, as in rude; şi, și, for as in merrily; şi, rī, for i a, as in marine; E, e, for ?,
Ai, ai, for Ê, as in aisle ; 0, 0, for 7, t, as in go; Au, au, for 7, 1, as in Haus (German); n or m, for •, i.e. the Anusvāra, sounded like n in French mon, or like any nasal; ḥ, for :, i. e. the Visarga or a distinctly audible aspirate.
K, k, for a, pronounced as in kill, seek; Kh, kh, for , as in inkhorn ; G, g, for 7, as in gun, dog; Gh, gh, for y, as in loghut; N; n, for F, as in sing (sin).
Ć, c, for , as in dolée (in music),=English ch in church, lurch (luré); Ćh, éh, for , as in churchhill (ćurćkill); J, j, for 7, as in jet; Jh, jh, for 5, as in hedge-hog (hejhog); N, n, for 7, as in singe (sinj).
Ț, ļ, for ?, as in true (tru); Țh, th, for , as in anthill (anțhill); D, d, for 5, as in drum (drum); Ph, dh, for, as in redhaired (redhaired); Ņ, ņ, for U, as in none (run).
T, t, for 7, as in water (as pronounced in Ireland); Th, th, for ", as in nut-hook (but more dental); D, d, for ?, as in dice (more like th in this); Dh, dh, for y, as in adhere (more dental); N, n, for 7, as in not, in.
P, p, for ", as in put, sip; Ph, ph, for os, as in uphill; B, b, for , as in bear, rub; Bh, bh, for 4, as in abhor; M, m, for #, as in map, jam.
Y, y, for , as in yet; R, r, for T, as in red, year; L, 1, for , as in lie; V, v, for 7, as in die (but like w after consonants, as in twice).
S, ś, for 91, as in sure, session; Sh, sh, for , as in shun, hush; S, s, for 8, as in sir, hiss. H, h, for F, as in hit.
Fuller directions for pronunciation will be found in a 'Practical Grammar of the Sanskțit Language,' by Monier Williams, third edition, published by the Delegates of the Clarendon Press, Oxford, and sold by Macmillan & Co., and by W. H. Allen & Co., 13, Waterloo Place. Also in a Sanskrit-English Dictionary, published by the same.