41.92 Th. in afternoon. L. & L. R. & Th. to N-N. E. & L. R. to E. & S. E. 52.74 L. R. to N. N. E-N. E. & E. & S. E. in after even. [in after even. 48.38 Th. in afternoon. L. R. to N. by E. & L. & Th. to S. E. in after even. 32.91 Th. in afternoon. 40.50 Th. in afternoon, fore and after even; L. & L. R. & Th. to N. E. in af 50.23 67.97 August, 1863. GANGAROOWA NEAR KANDY, CEYLON. GENERAL REMARKS. Cloudy, but fine, fresh and dry. Mild to warm and damp, showery all day. Fine, dry and pleasant day. Cloudy, mild to warm, pleasant, light showers. Damp and showery till 3 P. M., then fine and pleasant. Damp and showery till 3 P. M., then fine and pleasant. Mild to warm and pleasant; cloudy, showers. Mild to warm and pleasant; cloudy, a little rain. Very damp; heavy rain in morn, showers after. Fine, clear morn and forenoon, cloudy, hot and sultry after. Fine, clear morn and forenoon, cloudy, hot and sultry after. [and pleasant. Cloudy, fresh morn, hot forenoon, a little rain in afternoon and then mild Rain at night and in even, cloudy, fine day. Fine fresh morn, hot noon & very sultry after heavy clouds & rain in even. Solar Halo on 1st, 12th, 22nd, Lunar Halo on 1st, 29th. JOURNAL OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETY. No. IV. 1864. On the application of the Characters of the Roman Alphabet to Oriental Languages.-By Capt. W. NASSAU LEES. I cannot call the paper I am about to read to you this Evening a "scientific paper," and perhaps I owe this meeting some apology for reading it within these walls: but the name of our illustrious founder is so often associated with the question which I have discussed, and the subject is so intimately connected with the labours of such distinguished members of our Society as James Prinsep, H H. Wilson, E. Thomas, E. C. Bayley, General Cunningham, Babu Rajendra Lall Mitra &c., that I have thought it would not prove wholly uninteresting to you. The substitution of the Roman for Oriental alphabets is a question that about some thirty years ago occupied the attention of educationists and others in India. It did not make much progress at first, nor find favour outside missionary circles; and for a long time the subject would seem to have slumbered. Within the past few years, however, it has occupied the attention of certain distinguished members of the German school of Orientalists; Sanskrit books have been printed in it; and Dr. Sprenger, an eminent Arabic scholar, well known in India, has written two able and interesting articles in the Augsburgh Gazette, which within the last few weeks have been republished in Calcutta, advocating the change, as one necessary to enable the languages of the East to become the vehicles of conveying western ideas to the people of this country. As long as the discus sion regarding the introduction of the Roman alphabet, into India, was confined to missionaries, it was not necessary for us to meddle with it; but when it is taken up by such high authorities, as those who are now interested in it-and has been removed, as it were, from the arena of controversy, considering the important bearing it has on the intellectual progress of an empire containing very many millions of souls, it is one that ought not to be treated lightly; but in a sober and philosophic spirit, such indeed as that adopted by my esteemed friend Dr. Sprenger, in his paper alluded to. In considering every question, however, in which a variety of interests are involved, or which is peculiarly liable to be acted upon by circumstances outside and foreign to the end ultimately to be arrived at, it ought to be a sine qua non, that prior to its discussion, that end should be so fixed and determined, that we shall know exactly what we desire to accomplish, and that during its discussion the arguments used shall tend solely to that finite point where proof of the proposition or theorem proposed for demonstration can be found. Now in the discussions on the subject of romanizing the Oriental alphabets carried on many years ago, the parties engaged in them had far too much of the character of partizans to arrive at any sound conclusion. Dr. Sprenger has fallen into error in supposing that Dr. Tytler, the two Prinseps, and Sir Charles Trevelyan, were in accord in these discussions. They were wholly opposed; but their opposition may be traced, I think in a great measure to partizanship. In those days there were two schools of educationists in India-the orientalists and the anglicists. The former, in these discussions, was represented by James and Thoby Prinsep and Dr. Tytler. The latter by Messrs. Macaulay and Trevelyan, Dr. Duff and other missionaries. The question they fought, though nominally the battle of the alphabets, was quite as much a battle of languages, and this question has perhaps also been too much mixed up with the real one by Dr. Sprenger. Missionaries again,—and I do not suppose they make any secret of it, advocate the adoption of the Roman alphabet, rather because they believe it will aid them in the work of conversion, than from a conviction of its greater suitableness for the purposes of writing oriental languages, and from that source, therefore, we can hardly look for wholly unbiassed conclusions. A third class would adopt the Roman in preference to the Oriental characters, because books printed in them could be sold cheaper, and to this school belong, I believe, all German orientalists who are in favour of the change, except perhaps Dr. Sprenger himself. The Germans, it is an admitted fact, are the best Oriental scholars in the world. Indeed, it is almost impossible to find a Sanscrit scholar now, who is not a German; and it is a grave disgrace to England and to India that such should be the case. They buy a very great number of Oriental books, and they would naturally like that the price of these books should suit their purses. I would not, however, be understood to allude to the learned Lepsius. His papers deal chiefly with unlettered languages. Nowhere would cheap books be of greater advantage than in India, but admitting the fact, we must admit also that that is not the whole, nor yet the main part of the question we have to decide. Every one will readily grant that it would be an immense convenience, and an immense advantage, to have a universal alphabet-if to the difficulty of learning a new language, we had not to add the difficulty of learning a new and perhaps complicated system of letters, bristling with hooks and points. In short, since the general introduction of steam navigation and rail-roads, &c., the idea of a universal alphabet seems quite natural. Nay, since almost all civilized nations, though thousands of miles apart, can now communicate with each other, by means of electricity, it seems strange that we should not ere this have had,-not a universal alphabet; but a universal language, so strange that were Julius Cæsar to rise from his ashes, and to ask why all the world were not speaking and writing Latin, we should be somewhat puzzled for a ready reply. In regard to language, the curse of Babel would be a convenient if not a sufficient answer; but in the matter of the alphabets we could not unfortunately excuse ourselves so easily. It will not be a waste of time then to inquire why such has not taken place; and first I will state that I propose to look at the question, not as a theological, a philosophical, or an educational question-nor a question of expediency, nor of policy, nor yet one of price; but one simply of sounds and symbols: and viewing it as such, it does not appear difficult to assign reasons why the Roman alphabet could not take the place of all the alphabets which are now used in India with advantage to the languages themselves or the people who read and write them. Dr. Sprenger, in his article, has given us illustrations from the |