1837.] on the Columns of Delhi, Allahabad, Betiah, fyc. 567 



king Devanampiya Piyadasi of Ceylon, about three hundred year3 

 before the Christian era. 



1 have there also explained the nature of the document, and have 

 now only to disclose its contents in detail, as far as my hasty scrutiny, 

 and my very imperfect acquaintance with the languages of ancient 

 India will permit. 



The difficulties with which 1 have had to contend are of a very 

 different nature from those presented by more modern inscriptions, 

 where the sense has to be extracted from a mass of hyperbolical 

 eulogy and extravagant exaggeration embodied still in very legible 

 and classical Sanskrit. Here the case is opposite : — the sentiments 

 and the phraseology are perfectly simple and straightforward^ — but 

 the orthography is sadly vitiated — and the language differs essentially 

 from every existing written idiom : it is as it were intermediate 

 between the Sanskrit and the Pali ; and a degree of license is therefore 

 requisite in selecting the Sanskrit equivalent of each word, upon which 

 to base the interpretation — a license dangerous in the use unless 

 restrained within wholesome rules ; for a skilful pandit will easily find 

 a word to answer any purpose if allowed to insert a letter or alter a 

 vowel ad libitum. There are some substitutions authorized by ana- 

 logy to the Pali which require no explanation — such as the preposi- 

 tion [) ( or pati for the Sanskrit srffT ; hate for u?r ; dhamma for "Q$ ; the 

 use of *] kh, and sometimes ^ chh, for ^ ksh, &c. ; while others again, 

 as [r I 3 A hidate for ^rf%orf%^T^", hridhi or hidayate ; +XXX kaydndni 

 for 3fWTWTf*T halydndni, &c. have for their adoption the only excuse, 

 that nothing better offers : but it is unnecessary to dwell upon these 

 peculiarities here, as attention has been directed to all that occur in, 

 the notes appended to the translation. 



On searching the society's portfolio I found the five original ma- 

 nuscript plates of Captain Hoare, whence the engravings published 

 in the Researches seem to have been copied. Their collation has been 

 of essential service in detecting a few errors of the vowel marks that 

 have crept into the engraving. I found also two much larger draw- 

 ings of the first and last inscription of the series, apparently of the 

 actual dimensions. — These I suppose to have been the originals pre- 

 sented to Sir William Jones by Colonel Polier, and therefore of 

 themselves venerable for their antiquity ! But they are by no means 

 so faithful as Captain Hoare's copy, and the inscription round the 

 column has the singular blunder of the two lowermost lines being 

 copied in an inverted order, that is, written from right to left in the 

 boustrophedon fashion. Nevertheless in one or two doubtful points they 

 4d 2 



