of modern literature and speech-formation is already breaking, and our Indian "morning-star of song," Chand Bardai, is heard chanting the gestes of Prithiraj in a dialect which, though rude and half-formed, is still as purely analytical as the common familiar talk of the Indians of to-day. How are we to throw light on this long night of nine centuries, how fill up the details of the changes that occurred in these languages during the time when
Illachrymabiles
Urgentur, ignotæque longâ
Nocte, carent quia vate sacro?
We may get as near to the brink of this vast gap on either side as we can, but I very much doubt if the intervening space will ever be filled up; the materials seem lost for ever. Buddhism is our only chance, but if the Buddhistic literature which remains to be disinterred prove, as almost certainly it will, to be no more faithful a representative of current speech than those works which have already been made accessible to the public, there seems to be nothing more to hope for, and these nine centuries must remain for ever a sealed book.
In the absence therefore of strict historical data, we are driven to fall back upon the argument derived from analogy, and especially the analogy of the Romance languages. The accent affords one example of the method in which this analogy may be made useful. The Sanskrit accent is not in all cases known, but here again, arguing from the analogy of those words in which it is known, as well as from the great similarity of the Greek accent, which has fortunately been preserved, trustworthy results may be obtained. I now pass on to the mention of another point which it is necessary to bear in mind in taking a survey of the whole subject. A Desaja word may, like an early Tadbhava, be derived from a word which though not Sanskritic is yet Aryan, and such a word may not be found either in Sanskrit or in Prakrit. It would be then necessary
