1870.] Proceedings of the Asiatic Society. 203 



One great mistake which vitiates the whole course of the Pandit's 

 arguments, is the assumption that the Calcutta vernacular of this 

 century is the purest form of Bengali, and every thing that differs 

 from it, is the result of corruption. Mr. B e a m e s makes a similar 

 mistake by instituting his comparison with the Bengali of today, 

 overlooking altogether that the separation between the Uriyas and 

 the Bengalis must have taken place many centuries ago, and that 

 to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the origin of the Uriya lan- 

 guage and its relation to Bengali, we should take up the two lan- 

 guages as they existed at the time of their separation and not as 

 they exist now. Any how, I must say that there is a great deal in 

 the Pandit's book which deserves careful examination, and it would 

 have been of some advantage had Mr. Beames' reply noticed them 

 in detail, instead of dismissing the whole work with a single disparag- 

 ing remark. It would require more time than I can command at 

 this meeting, to review the historical question as to the manner in 

 which Orissa was peopled by the Aryans, but I shall, with your per- 

 mission, Mr. Chairman, notice some of the salient points in the 

 philological portion of Mr. Beames' paper. 



The first argument of the Pandit is, that Uriya compositions read 

 so very like Bengali that, a few phonetic peculiarities excepted, 

 they may be mistaken for Bengali, and are easily understood by 

 the people of Bengal, ignorant of the Uriya language ; and such 

 being the case it must, he argues, follow that the two languages are 

 very intimately connected. To prove this, he has quoted passages 

 from some Uriya works and compared them with Bengali. Mr. 

 Beames accounts for their similitude by assuming that the bulk 

 of the vocables in them, must be the result of pedantry, which make 

 the Uriya and the Bengali both resort largely to Sanskrit words 

 and terms. He then goes somewhat out of his way to make out 

 that pedantry, " so objectionable and offensive to Englishmen," is 

 an " especial favourite of the Indian mind." Mr. Beames, however, 

 does not appear to be in a position to sit as an impartial judge in 

 the matter. To decide the question of excessive pedantry in any 

 particular set of books, the judge must be familiar with the litera- 

 • ture of the language, both modern and ancient in which it occurs, 

 otherwise what may appear pedantry to one, may be the peculiarity 



