Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

belong to two distinct species, both new, of the genus Arius. Mr. Layard further tells me, that the carrying of the ova in the mouth is not so novel a phenomenon as I supposed it to be, Dr. Gunther having described that peculiarity in the propagation of the Genus Arius, several years ago, from S. American species.

[ocr errors]

On the Origin of the Sinhalese language. Read before the Ceylon R. A. Society on the 31st October, 1863.-By JAMES ALWIS, Esq., M. R. A. S.

When twelve years ago I published the Sidatsangarà, and entered into an investigation of the question as to the orgin of the Sinhala language, I intimated my belief,* that it belonged to the Arian or Northern family, as contradistinguished from the Dravidian, or the Southern class of languages. My sentiments on many a collateral subject have since undergone change. I have discovered errors upon several points on which I then wrote. I find I have assumed facts which have no foundation. I have drawn inferences which are untenable. But the main question, the belief of which I then expressed, has only received confirmatory proof in the course of my later researches; and they enable me, moreover, with due deference, but great confidence to disprove the statement in Sir Emerson Tennent's History of Ceylon,—that 'the Sinhalese, as it is spoken at the present day, and still more strikingly as it exists as a written language in the literature of the Island, presents unequivocal proof of an affinity with the group of languages still in use in the Dakken;-Tamil, Telingu and Malayalim.'†

Sir Emerson Tennent was, probably, indebted for this information to Professor Lassen,‡ and he to Professor Rask of Copenhagenall of whom were not conversant with the Sinhalese.§

* See Introd. to the Sidatsangarà, p. xlvi. Sir Emerson Tennent's Ceylon, p. 328. See his S. Ind. Alterthumsk, p. 363.

§ Professor Bachtlingk, lays down as a philological axiom that "it is dangerous to write of languages of which we do not possess the most accurate knowledge."

When more than forty years ago Rask wrote, the greatest misapprehension prevailed amongst Europeans on all Oriental subjects. Eastern Languages were not extensively cultivated. A gloom enveloped the science of comparative philology. Inaccessible was the path to eastern history. Even the Sanskrit, the language in the highest state of cultivation now-a-days, was then but imperfectly known to the European world. Some considered it a derivative of the Zend, and others treated it as a creature of the Pâli. Little, if any thing, was definitely investigated of the latter. The relation which the Sanskrit bore to the Prakrit, was very imperfectly investigated; and was, at the time Wilson translated Vikrama and Urvasi, 'far from being understood'; and, when the labours of Lassen and Burnouf brought to light the Nepal books of Buddhism, even the names of their Pâli versions were unknown in Europe. The distinction between the Arian and the Dekkanese groups of languages was not well ascertained. The Tamil was supposed to have been an off-shoot of the Sanskrit. The Andhra merely existed as a book name. Between it and the Dravida no relationship was established; much less was the identity of Dravida and Damila recognized. The Sinhalese was not known in Europe. Nor was it cultivated by the English in Ceylon until after the annexation of the Kandian Kingdom (in 1815) to the possessions of the British Government. Even then little was ascertained of the Sinhala by a careful inter-comparison of south-Indian dialects ;-less was known of the various modifications which the former had undergone ;-and least of all regarding its history for upwards of two-thousand years. True it is indeed that Mr. Chater published a Sinhalese grammar in 1815; yet this led to no important results in point of philological researches. The language adopted in it was the bastard Sinhalese of the fourteenth Century. It was the language of the paraphrases -the Sanskrit, if I may so call it, Sinhalicised. When, therefore, Clough published his Dictionary fifteen years afterwards, he was led away with the belief

[ocr errors][merged small]

that the Sinhala was derived from the Sanskrit.' He moreover perceived not the identity of the Elu with Sinhala; nor could he distinguish the Páli forms in the ancient Sinhalese from the Sanskrit forms which predominated in our modern dialect. One would have supposed that the share he had had in the publication of the Bâlavatâra could not fail to enlighten him on the subject. But such, unfortunately, was not the case. He recognized 'the elements of two distinct dialec ts, in the national language of Ceylon. Ono he pronounced the Elu, and the other the Sinhala. The former he regarded as 'the remains of the language originally spoken, i. e. by the aboriginal inhabitants; and the latter, as the language introduced after the Vijayan conquest.*

The subsequent labours of the Rev. S. Lambrick (1834), as well as those of an anterior date (1821) of the Rev. John Callaway were of little avail. The Dictionary of the latter was intended for elementary schools. The Grammar of the former, by his adoption of the forms of language current amongst the vulgar, rendered but little assistance to the Philologer. His denial, moreover, of the existence of the passive voice, which he must have daily found in the Sinhalese Version of the Lord's prayer, only gave those who placed the Sinhalese in the South-Indian class an additional handle in support of their incorrect theory.

History, too, was then in its infancy. Upham's works published in 1833 tended rather to mislead than to direct the European mind. No effort was made to set Sinhalese history in its true light until Turnour entered the field of Oriental literature. The commencement of true historic knowledge may be regarded from the date (1837), when he published the Mahavansa, and exhibited the value of the Pâli, not only in regard to chronological and historical researches, but also in point of philological investigations. † * For explanation of the terms Elu and Sinhala sce Sidatsangarâ p. xxvii et seq.

The learned author of the Dravidian Comparative Grammar in fixing the date of Dravidian Civilization preparatory to an investigation into the origin of the Dravidian language, says: 'I am inclined to look to Ceylon for the best means of arriving at an approximate date.' p. 81.

U

Yet, it may be truly said that no one applied his energies to glean the information, which our historical works afforded to investigations connected with the language of the Sinhalese. Dr. Stevenson of Bombay has written several papers in the pages of the Bombay Asiatic Society's Journal; but they are by no means calculated to assist Philological investigations. Even the Rev. Spence Hardy, with a very intimate acquaintance with the Sinhalese, could not trace the origin of that language. Indeed in times later still (1853) when the Sidatsangarà appeared, I confess, I was not able, with all the assistance of European and Asiatic researches then at my command, definitely to state the origin of the Sinhalese.‡

It was upon the publication of that Sinhalese Grammar, however, that people, in later times, began to pay greater attention to a critical study of the Sinhala. Since then has appeared an invaluable auxiliary to the investigation in hand-"The comparative Grammar of the Dravidian language by the Revd. R. Caldwell (1856). Since then too has arisen a greater thirst for a knowledge of the archæology of Buddhism; and, what is inseparably connected with it, the Pâli language. These helps combined with the light which History has shed upon the subject, and the knowledge already possessed by them of the Sanskrit, have enabled the native pandits in our own island to investigate with success the origin of the Sinhala language: and those investigations establish, as I purpose to show in a paper which I shall hereafter present to this Society in continuation of these introductory remarks, a result, the very opposite of that which Sir Emerson Tennent states as being founded upon "unequivocal testimony," or which Prof: Spiegel considers, is supported by certissimis testimoniis.§

Professor Lassen in his Indische allisthumus kunde, a work designed to be a critical digest of all the researches of the last

* 'In many instances Dr. Stevenson's lexical analogies are illusory and disappear altogether on a little investigation.' Caldwell's D. G. p. 40.

† Ceylon A. S. Journal.

See Introduction. p. xxiv. § Kammavâchȧ Introd: p. vii.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »