1872.] Hoernle — On the term Gaurian. 177 



Maheshwari there, under the name of Chandi. From the first Goala family 

 which looked after this shrine, sixteen hundred families now exist in the vil- 

 lages adjacent to Barantpur. These Goalas are called Debahar, the exact mean- 

 ing of which is not known, but it is only a man of this class who can attend 

 to the duties of this shrine. This class of Goala did not exist till the stones 

 wei-e discovered, nor do they exist, as far as I know, in any other part of India. 

 I should here tell you that the goddess or figure of the woman is only half 

 visible, the natives being afraid to unearth it. To the south-west of the place 

 where the goddess stands, is an immensely deep perfectly round tank, from 

 which rumour says, all the water used for the shrine was taken. The whole 

 of the land round is high, but the natives decline to allow it to be dug. 



Inscription on a granite door-frame found in Barantpur, March, 1872. 



' The conquering Sarba Singha Deba, who is adorned with all good quali- 

 ties, the blessed of Maheshwari, the joy -bestowing moon of the lotus lineage 

 of Budhesa.' 



The followmg papers were read — 



1. On tlie term Gaurian as a name for tlie Sanslcritic Vernaculars of 



JS'ortJi India. — By A. F. E. Hoeknle, D. P/^., Professor of Sanscrit, 



Jaynarain College, Benares. 



At the June meeting of the Asiatic Society, exception was taken by 

 several members to the term Gaurian. It was not from any literary curio- 

 sity that I proposed that term, but from the feeling of a pressing practical 

 want. One who writes on subjects connected with the comparative philology 

 of the North Indian Sanskritic Vernaculars, and has to refer to them collec- 

 tively in a great variety of connections, ordinarily feels more than others 

 the want of a short specific and comprehensive term to distinguish them ; 

 a term as short as Sanskrit, which denotes one specific laDguage, or as Prakrit 

 which denotes one specified group of languages or dialects. 



Now the two terms, Sanskritic and Indo-Aryan, which have been re- 

 commended in the place of Gaurian, are altogether unsuited for this practical 

 purpose. If we speak of a rule of Prakrit grammar, every one knows 

 exactly what group of languages or dialects is referred to ; but if we should 

 speak of a rule of Sanskritic Grammar, who would have any idea of the 

 language referred to in the phrase ? It is hardly possible to conceive a more 

 general term than Sanskritic. It may denote any language which stands in 

 any sort of connection with Sanskrit ; any language, in fact, within the 

 whole range of the Indo-European family. It is plain that something 

 would have to be added to that term to make it at all intelligible. 

 But even the phrase " Sanskritic Languages of North India," would not be 



