Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Palaeography from about B.C. 350 to about A.D. 1300 c6: I. The Antiquity of Writing in India and the Origin of the Oldest Indian Alphabet

Indian Palaeography from about B.C. 350 to about A.D. 1300 c6

Language
English

Contents

I. The Antiquity of Writing in India and the Origin of the Oldest Indian Alphabet

§ 1. — The Indian tradition

c6.s1.1

¹ B.IS. III², 23—35; comp. Anecdota Oxon., Aryan Series, I, 3, 67; B.ESIP. 6; A. LUDWIG, Yavanānī, Sitz. Ber. Böhm. Ges. d. Wiss. 1893, IX., and the works quoted by Dr. BURNELL.

c6.s1.2

THE tradition of both the orthodox and the heterodox sects of India ascribes the invention of writing, or at least of the chief script, to the creator Brahmā, and thereby claims it as a national invention of the remotest antiquity. The former view is found in the Nārada-Smṛti,² a redaction of the Manusaṃhitā (mentioned by Bāṇa abont A. D. 620), and in Bṛhaspati's Vārttika on Manu,³ as well as in Hiuen Tsiang⁴ and in the Jaina Samavāyāṅga-Sūtra (traditional date about B. C. 300), the account of which latter work is repeated in the Paṇṇāvaṇā-Sūtra (traditional date B. C. 168).⁵ The story is also indicated in the representations of Brahmā at Bādāmi of about A. D. 580, where the deity holds in one of his hands a bundle of palm-leaves,⁶ for which in later representations an inscribed sheet of paper is substituted.⁷

c6.s1.3

² SBE. 23, 58 f.

c6.s1.4

³ SBE. 23, 304.

c6.s1.5

⁴ Siyuki 1, 77 (BEAL).

c6.s1.6

⁵ W.IS. 16, 280, 399.

c6.s1.7

⁶ IA. 6, 366, Pl.

c6.s1.8

⁷ MOOR, Hindu Pantheon, Pl. 3, 4; AR. 1, 243.

c6.s1.9

The story, according to which in particular the Indian script running from the left to the right is an invention of Brahmā (*Fan*), is told in full in the Chinese Buddhistic Fawanshulin.⁸ The two Jaina works mentioned above, and the Lalitavistara,⁹ indicate its existence by naming the most important script *bambhī* or *brāhmī*. These traditional statements make it advisable to adopt the designation *Brāhmī* for the characters in which the majority of the Aśoka edicts are written, and for their later developments.

c6.s1.10

⁸ BOR. 1, 59.

c6.s1.11

⁹ Sansk. text, 143 (Bibl. Ind.), and the Chinese translation of A. D. 308.

c6.s1.12

Berūnī¹⁰ mentions a slightly different story. He says that the Hindus once had forgotten the art of writing, and that through a divine inspiration it was rediscovered by Vyāsa, the son of Parāśara. Accordingly, the history of the Indian alphabets would begin with the Kaliyuga, in B. C. 3101.

c6.s1.13

¹⁰ India 1, 171 (SACH

c6.s1.14

While these myths tend to show that the Hindus had forgotten the origin of their alphabet in early times, — perhaps already about B. C. 300, but certainly before the beginning of our era, — there are some other portions of their traditions which possess a greater and a positive value. The two Jaina Sūtras referred to above, contain a list of 18 separate alphabets; and the Lalitavistara¹¹ enumerates 64 scripts which are said to have existed in the time of Buddha. Several among the names of the two lists agree, and there are in particular four which, as may have been already recognised, have a claim to be considered authentic and historical.

c6.s1.15

¹¹ loc. cit. ; a third list, with about 30 mostly very corrupt names, in the Mahāvastu 1, 135 (SENART).

c6.s1.16

Besides the *brāhmī* or *bambhī*, which is the parent of all the still existing alphabets of India, two more can be identified with known scripts. The *kharoṣṭhī* or *kharoṭṭhī* is, as the Fawan-shulin states,¹ the writing running from the right to the left, invented by one Kharoṣṭha, "Ass-lip,"² and is the same character which European scholars formerly used to call Bactrian, Indo-Bactrian, Bactro-Pali, Ariano-Pali, &c. The *drāviḍī* or *dāmilī* of the lists is very [2] probably the partly independent variety of the Brāhmī, which recently has become known through the relic vessels from the Stūpa of Bhaṭṭiprolu in the Kistna district.³ Besides, the name *puṣkarasārī* or *pukkharasāriyā* is certainly historical, as it is evidently connected with the *nomen gentile* *Puṣkarasādi* or *Pauṣkarasādi* (with the Northern Buddhists *Puṣkarasāri*) by which one or several ancient teachers of law and grammar are mentioned in Pāṇini's grammar, Āpastamba's Dharmasūtra, and other works. It appears not incredible that a member of the family of Puṣkarasad may have invented a new alphabet or modified an existing one. The list of the Jainas includes also the name *yavaṇāliyā* or *yavaṇāṇiyā*, which is identical with *yavanānī*, "the writing of the Yavanas or Greeks," of Pāṇini (traditional date about B. C. 350).⁴ An early acquaintance of the Hindus with the Greek alphabet may have been brought about by the expedition of Skylax to North-Western India in B. C. 509, or by the fact that Indian and Gandharan troops took part in Xerxes' war against Greece,⁵ and even by an ancient commercial intercourse. At all events, finds of Indian imitations of Attic drachmes with Greek inscriptions tend to prove the use of the Greek alphabet in North-Western India before the time of Alexander.⁶

c6.s1.17

¹ BOR. 1, 59.

c6.s1.18

² Comp. WZKM. 9, 63, and B.IS. III², 113 f.

c6.s1.19

³ EI. 2, 323 ff.

c6.s1.20

⁴ Mahābhāṣya 2, 220 (KIELHORN).

c6.s1.21

⁵ Herodotus, VII, 65, 66

c6.s1.22

⁶ B. V. HEAD, Cat. of Greek Coins: Attica, p. XXXI. f., pp. 25—27.

c6.s1.23

As some names of the Jaina list are thus shown to be ancient by the results of epigraphic researches and by Pāṇini, as well as by the agreement of the independent tradition of the Northern Buddhists, the list is not without historical value. And it may be considered at least highly probable that a fairly large number of alphabets was known or used in India about B. C. 300. The exact number, 18, which the Jainas mention, must however be taken merely as conventional, as it frequently occurs in traditional statements.

c6.s1.24

An extract from the lost Dṛṣṭivāda of the Jainas also gives some further account of the ancient Brāhmī.⁷ It states that this alphabet contained only 46 radical signs, instead of the usual number of 50 or 51. The letters intended are without a doubt : *A*, *Ā*, *I*, *Ī*, *U*, *Ū*, *E*, *AI*, *O*, *AU* (10), *Aṃ*, *Aḥ*; *ka*, *kha*, *ga*, *gha*, *ṅa*, *ca*, *cha*, *ja* (20), *jha*, *ña*, *ṭa*, *ṭha*, *ḍa*, *ḍha*, *ṇa*, *ta*, *tha*, *da* (30), *dha*, *na*, *pa*, *pha*, *ba*, *bha*, *ma*, *ya*, *ra*, *la* (40), *va*, *śa*, *ṣa*, *sa*, *ha*, *ḷa*; while the *mātṛkās* *Ṛ*, *Ṝ*, *Ḷ*, *Ḹ*, and the ligature *kṣa*, which in later times was often erroneously considered a *mātṛkā*, were excluded. The four liquid vowels are wanting also in the alphabet of the Lalitavistara,⁸ and in that of the modern elementary schools. In the latter the instruction is based on the so-called *Bārākhaḍī* (Skt. *dvādaśākṣarī*), a table of the combinations of the consonants with the twelve vowels mentioned above, *e. g.*, *ka*, *kā*, to *kaṃ*, *kaḥ*. The antiquity of the *Bārākhaḍī*, which from its Maṅgala *Om namaḥ siddham* is at present sometimes called *Siddhākṣarasamāmnāya* or *Siddhamātṛkā*, is attested by Hui-lin (A. D. 788—810),⁹ who mentions it as the first of the twelve *fan* or 'cycles' (evidently Hiuen Tsiang's twelve *chang*)¹⁰ with which the Hindu boys began their studies. Further evidence for the omission of the vowels *Ṛ*, *Ṝ*, *Ḷ*, *Ḹ* is furnished by Hiuen Tsiang's remark¹¹ that the Indian alphabet of his time contained 47 letters (the last one being probably the ligature *kṣa*), and by the fragments of the incomplete alphabet of Aśoka's stone-masons at Gayā,¹² which may be restored as follows: *A*, **A*, **I*, **Ī*, **U*, **Ū*, **E*, **AI*, **O*, **AU* (10), **Aṃ* or **Aḥ*, *ka*, **kha*, **ga*, **gha*, *ṅa*, **ca*, *cha*, **ja*, **jha* (20), **ña*, **ṭa*.

c6.s1.25

⁷ W.IS. 16, 281.

c6.s1.26

⁸ Sansk. text, Bibl. Ind. 145; LEFMANN. 127.

c6.s1.27

⁹ B.IS. III ², 30.

c6.s1.28

¹⁰ Siyuki 1, 78 (BEAL); ST. JULIEN, Mémoires des pèlerins Bouddhiques 1, 72, and note.

c6.s1.29

¹¹ Siyuki 1, 77.

c6.s1.30

¹² B.IS. III², 31.

c6.s1.31

All these various points tend to show that the popular Brāhmī contained, as the Jaina tradition asserts, since the third century B. C. only 46 letters, and that, as the occurrence of the vowels *AI*, *AU*, *Am*, *Aḥ* and the consonant *ṅa* proves, it was adapted to the wants of the Sanskrit language. But it is not [3] improbable that the Brahmans already then used particular signs for the liquid vowels in their works on grammar and phonetics. The method, however, according to which the actually known signs for these sounds have been formed, differs from that adopted for the other vowel-signs. The medial *ṛ*, *ṝ*, and *ḷ* were developed first, and the initials later; while in the case of *a*, *ā*, &c., the process was the contrary one (see below, § 4, and § 24, A, 6, 7). The Chinese have also preserved an Indian tradition asserting that *ṛ*, *ṝ*, and *ḷ* are later additions to the original alphabet.¹

c6.s1.32

¹ B.IS. III², 33.

§ 2. — Literary evidence for the use of writing

A. — Brahmanical literature

c6.s2.t1.1

² B.IS. III², 5 f.; M.M.HASL. 497 ff.; L.IA.², 1, 1008 ff.; B.ESIP. 1 ff.; WEBER, Ind. Streifen 3, 348 f.

c6.s2.t1.2

Among Vedic works, the Vāsiṣṭha Dharmasūtra, which according to Kumārila (about A. D. 750) originally belonged to a school of the Ṛgveda, and which is younger than the lost Mānava Dharmasūtra but older than the existing Manusaṃhitā,³ offers clear evidence for the widely spread use of writing during the "Vedic" period. Vasiṣṭha in XVI, 10, 14—15, mentions written documents as legal evidence, and the first of these sūtras is a quotation from an older work or from the traditional lore. Further, Pāṇini's grammar, which belongs to the Vedāṅgas, contains, besides the term *yavanānī* mentioned above, the compounds *lipikara* and *libikara*, "writer" (III, 2, 21), which sometimes have been rendered errroneously, against the authority of the Koṣas, by "maker of inscriptions."⁴ In addition to these few certain passages, the later Vedic works contain some technical terms, such as *akṣara*, *kāṇḍa*, *paṭala*, *grantha*, &c., which some scholars have quoted as evidence for writing. But others have explained them differently, and it is indeed not necessary to consider them as referring to written letters and MSS.⁵ Similarly, opinions are much divided with respect to the force of some other general arguments for the early use of written documents and MSS., drawn from the advanced state of Vedic civilisation, especially from the high development of trade and the complicated monetary transactions mentioned in Vedic works, from the use of prose in the Brāhmaṇas from the collection, the methodical arrangement, the numeration, and the analysis of the Vedic texts, and from the grammatical, phonetic, and lexicographic researches in the Vedāṅgas.⁶ Though some of these points, especially the first and the last, undeniably possess considerable weight, they have yet not gained general recognition, as will always happen if an *argumentum ex impossibili* is used, even if it should be supported by fuller special enquiries than Sanskrit scholars have hitherto devoted to these subjects.

c6.s2.t1.3

³ SBE. 14, XVII ff.

c6.s2.t1.4

⁴ M.M.ṚV.², 4, LXXII.

c6.s2.t1.5

⁵ M.M.HASL. 521 ff.; GOLDSTÜCKER, Mānava Kalpasūtra, Intr. 14 ff.; W.IS. 5, 16 ff.; M.M.ṚV.², 4, LXXII ff.

c6.s2.t1.6

⁶ WHITNEY, Or. and Ling. St. 82; J.AOS. 6, 563; BENFEY, ZDMG. 11, 347; BÖHTLINGK, Bull. Pet. Akad. 1859. 347: PISCHEL and GELDNER, Vedische Studien, 1, XXIII, XXVI; J. DAHLMANN, Das Mahābh. 185; against these views, M.M.ṚV.², 4, loc. cit.; Letter in Takakusu's transl. of Itsing, X ff.; W.IS. 5, loc. cit.

c6.s2.t1.7

While this kind of evidence will probably not be generally accepted very soon, it is to be hoped that the *argumentum ex silentio*, — the inference that a Vedic work which does not mention writing must have been composed when writing was unknown in India, — will be dropped. The *argumentum ex silentio* is certainly not conclusive, because the Hindus even at present, in spite of a long continued use of writing, esteem the written word less than the spoken one, because they base their whole literary and scientific intercourse on oral communications, and because, especially in scientific [4] works, writing and MSS. are mentioned very rarely. Though MSS., being *Sarasvatīmukha*, "the face of the goddess of speech," are held sacred and are worshipped, the Veda and the Sāstras exist, even for the modern Hindu, only in the mouth of the teacher, whose word has more weight than a written text, and they can only be learned properly from a teacher, not from MSS. Even in our days, the Hindus esteem only the *mukhasthā vidyā*, the learning which the Pandit has imprinted on his memory. Even in our days, learned discussions are carried on with reference to living speech, and even the modern poets do not wish to be read, but hope that their verses will become "ornaments for the throats of the learned" (*satāṃ kaṇṭhabhūṣaṇa*). As far as our observation reaches, this state of things has been always the same since the earliest times. Its ultimate cause probably is that the beginning of the Hindu Sāstras and poetry goes back to a time when writing was unknown, and that a system of oral teaching, already traceable in the Ṛgveda, was fully developed before the introduction of written characters. The reasons just stated do not permit us to expect many traces of the use of writing in the works of the schools of priests or Pandits, or to look in them for frequent references to letters and written documents. But, on the other hand, there is nothing to bar the conjecture, repeatedly put forward, that, even during the Vedic period, MSS. were used as auxiliaries both in oral instruction and on other occasions. And, as an argument in favour of this conjecture, it is now possible to adduce the indisputable fact that the Brāhmī alphabet has been formed by phonologists or by grammarians and for scientific use.¹

c6.s2.t1.8

¹ See below, page 17.

c6.s2.t1.9

But such Brahmanical works as the Epics, Purāṇas, Kāvyaṣ, dramas, &c., which describe actual life, or the metrical law-books which fully teach not only the sacred but also the civil and criminal law, as well as compositions such as the Nīti-, Nāṭya-, and Kāma-śāstras which exclusively refer to worldly matters, contain numerous references to writing and to written documents of various kinds, and likewise evidence for the occurrence of MSS. of literary works. Unfortunately, however, it is not possible to assert of any of the existing books of these classes, — excepting the two Epics, — that they are older than the period to which the oldest inscriptions belong. And even the evidence of the Epics may be impugned, since we cannot prove that every word of their texts goes back to a high antiquity. Professor JACOBI's examination of the several recensions of the Rāmāyaṇa has shown that the greater part of the verses, now read, did not belong to the original poem.² As far as is known at present, the MSS. of the Mahābhārata do not show equally great variations. But the existence of the majority of its chapters can be proved only for the eleventh century A. D.³ Though the testimony of the Epics can, therefore, only be used with due reserve, yet it is undeniable that their terms regarding writing and writers are archaic. Like the canonical works of the Southern Buddhists,⁴ they use the ancient expressions *likh*, *lekha*, *lekhaka*, and *lekhana*, not the probably foreign word *lipi*.

c6.s2.t1.10

² JACOBI, Das Rām. 3 ff.

c6.s2.t1.11

³ KIRSTE in B. IS. II, 27 ff.

c6.s2.t1.12

⁴ See below, under B.

c6.s2.t1.13

The most important passages of the Epics, concerning writing, have been collected in the St. Petersburg Dictionary under the words mentioned, and by J. DAHLMANN, Das Mahābhārata, 185 ff. Regarding the passages on writing in Manu, see the Index in Sacred Books of the East, Vol. XXV, under "Documents," and for the legal documents, described in the later Smṛtis, see Vol. II. of this Encyclopedia, Part 8, Recht und Sitte, § 35. An interesting collection of statements regarding MSS. in the Purāṇas is found in Hemādri's Dānakhaṇḍa, Adhy. 7, p. 544 ff. (Bibl. Ind.). The Kāmasūtra I, 3 (p. 33, Durgāprasād) enumerates *pustakavācana*, "the reading of MSS.," among the 64 kalās.

B. — Buddhistic literature

c6.s2.t2.1

⁵ B.IS. III.², 7-16; OLDENBERG, SBE. 13, XXXII ff.; D'ALWIS, Introd. to Kaccāyana's Gram. XXVI f., CXV f., 72-108; WEBER, Ind. Streifen 2, 337 ff.

c6.s2.t2.2

[5] More important than the testimony of the Brahmans is that of the Ceylonese Tripiṭaka, where numerous passages bear witness not only to an acquaintance with writing, but also to its extensive use at the time when the Buddhist canon was composed. *Lekhā*, "writing,"

c6.s2.t2.3

and *lekhaka*, "a writer," are mentioned in the Bhik[k]u-Pācittya 2, 2, and in the Bhikkhunī-Pācittiya 49, 2; and the former work praises writing as [a] branch of knowledge that is honoured in all countries. The Jātakas repeatedly speak of private¹ and official² letters. They also know of royal proclamations,³ of which Mahāvagga 1, 43 likewise mentions an instance; and they narrate that important family affairs or moral and political maxims were engraved on gold plates.⁴ Twice we hear of debtor's bonds (*iṇapaṇṇa*),⁵ and twice even of MSS. (*potthaka*).⁶ A game called *akkhārikā* is mentioned repeatedly in the Vinayapiṭaka and the Nikāyas;⁷ according to Buddhaghoṣa, its main feature was that letters were read in the sky. The Pārājika section of the Vinayapiṭaka (3, 4, 4) declares that Buddhist monks shall not "incise" (*chind*) the rules which show how men may gain heaven, or riches and fame in the next life, through particular modes of suicide. From this passage it follows (1) that the ascetics of pre-Buddhistic times used to give their lay-disciples rules, incised on bamboo or wooden tablets, concerning religious suicide, which the ancient Brahmans and the Jainas strongly recommended, and (2) that the knowledge of the alphabet was widely spread among the people.

c6.s2.t2.4

¹ B.IS. III², 7 f.

c6.s2.t2.5

² B.IS. III², 8 f., 120.

c6.s2.t2.6

³ B.IS. III², 10, 18.

c6.s2.t2.7

⁴ B.IS. III², 10 f.

c6.s2.t2.8

⁵ B.IS. III², 10, 120.

c6.s2.t2.9

⁶ B.IS. III², 120.

c6.s2.t2.10

⁷ B.IS. III², 16.

c6.s2.t2.11

Finally, Jātaka No. 125, and Mahāvagga 1, 49,⁸ bear witness to the existence of elementary schools, in which the method of teaching and the matter taught were about the same as in the indigenous schools of modern India. The Jātaka mentions the wooden writing-board (*phalaka*), known (as well as the *varṇaka* or wooden pen) also to the Lalitavistara⁹ and to Berūnī,¹⁰ and still used in Indian elementary schools. The passage of the Mahāvagga gives the curriculum of the schools, *lekhā*, *gaṇanā* and *rūpa*, which three subjects, according to the Hāthigumphā inscription of the year 165 of the Maurya era,¹¹ king Khāravela of Kaliṅga learnt in his childhood. *Lekhā*, of course, means "writing," and *gaṇanā*, "arithmetic," *i.e.*, addition, substraction and the multiplication-table formerly called *aṅka* and now *āṅk*, while *rūpa*, literally "forms," corresponds to applied arithmetic, the calculations with coins, of interest and wages, and to elementary mensuration. These three subjects are still "the three R's" taught in the indigenous schools called *gāṁṭī niśāl*, *pāṭhśālā*, *lekhaḍ* or *toll*.

c6.s2.t2.12

⁸ B.IS. III², 13 ff.

c6.s2.t2.13

⁹ Sansk. text, 143; comp. BOR. 1, 59.

c6.s2.t2.14

¹⁰ India 1, 182 (SACHAU).

c6.s2.t2.15

¹¹ Sixth Oriental Congress. 3, 2, 154.

c6.s2.t2.16

These very plain statements of the Ceylonese canon refer certainly to the actualities of the period between B. C. 500—400, possibly even of the sixth century.¹² Their antiquity is proved also by the fact that all the terms for writing, letters, writers, — *chindati*, *likhati*, *lekha*, *lekhaka*, *akkhara*, — as well as nearly all the writing materials, wood or bamboo, *paṇṇa* or leaves, and *suvaṇṇapaṭṭa* or gold plates, point to the oldest method of writing, the incision of the signs in hard materials. All traces of the use of ink are wanting, though the statements of Nearchos and Q. Curtius regarding the writing materials used at the time of Alexander's invasion (see below under C) make it very probable that ink was known in the fourth century B. C., and though an ink-inscription of the third or second century B. C. is found on the inner side of the lid of the relic vessel from Stūpa No. III. at Andher.¹³ Moreover, the Ceylonese books are not acquainted with the words *lipi*, *libi*, *dipi*, *dipati*, *dipapati*, *lipikara* and *libikara* for "writing," "to write," and "writer," of which the first six are found in the **[6]** Aśoka edicts and the last two, as stated above, in Pāṇini's grammar. *Dipi* and *lipi* are probably derived from the Old Persian *dipi*, which cannot have reached India before the conquest of the Pañjāb by Darius about B. C. 500, and which later became *lipi*.¹⁴

c6.s2.t2.17

¹² B.IS. III², 13 ff.; OLDENBERG, Vinayapiṭaka 1, XXXIV ff.; M. MÜLLER, SBE, 10, XXIX ff.

c6.s2.t2.18

¹³ CUNNINGHAM, Bhilsa Topes, p. 349, pl. 30, 6.

c6.s2.t2.19

¹⁴ B.IS. III, 21 f.: WESTERGAARD, Zwei Abhandl. 33

C. — Foreign Works

c6.s2.t3.1

To the last quarter of the fourth century B. C. refer the statement of Nearchos,¹ according to which the Hindus wrote letters on well beaten cotton cloth, and the note of Q. Curtius,² which mentions the tender inner bark of trees as serving the same purpose, and clearly points to the early utilisation of the well known birch bark. The fact that, according to these two writers, two different *indigenous* Indian materials were used in B. C. 327—325, shows that the art of writing was then generally known and was nothing new. To a slightly later time belongs the fragment No. 36 *a* of Megasthenes,³ which speaks of mile-stones indicating the distances and the halting places on the high roads. In another often discussed passage,⁴ Megasthenes says that the Indians decided judicial cases according to unwritten laws, and adds in explanation that they knew no γράμματα and settled everything ἀπὸ μνήμης. According to the now usual interpretation, this statement has been caused by a misunderstanding. Megasthenes took the term *smṛti*, used by his informants, in the sense of μνήμη, “memory,” while they meant it in the sense of “the sacred tradition concerning law,” or “the lawbooks,” which, according to Indian principles, can only be explained orally by one who knows the Dharma.

c6.s2.t3.2

¹ Strabo, XV, 717.

c6.s2.t3.3

² Hist. Alex. VIII, 9; comp. C. MÜLLER, Fragm. Hist. Graec. 2, 421.

c6.s2.t3.4

³ C. MÜLLER, op. cit. 430.

c6.s2.t3.5

⁴ Frag. 27; C. MÜLLER, op. cit. 421; SCHWANBECK, Megasthenes, p. 50, n. 48; M M HASL. 515; B.ESIP. 1; L.IA. II², 724; WEBER, Ind. Skizzen 131 f.

§ 3. — Paleographic evidence

c6.s3.1

⁵ B.IS. III², 35—53.

c6.s3.2

The results of a paleographic examination of the most ancient Indian inscriptions fully agree with the literary evidence, which bears witness to the widely spread use of writing during the fifth century B. C. and perhaps even during the sixth. The characters of the Aśoka edicts, which have to be considered first, prove very clearly that writing was no recent invention in the third century B. C. The alphabet of the edicts is not homogeneous. All the letters, with the exception of *U*, *jha*, *ña*, *na*, *ṭha*, *ṇa*, *tha* and *na*, have several often very dissimilar forms, which are partly local and partly cursive varieties. The number of the variants of one letter sometimes amounts to nine or ten. Thus plate II, 1, 2, cols. II—XII, shows for *A*, *Ā*, no less than ten forms, among which the eight most important ones may be placed here side by side: —

c6.s3.4

The first sign has hardly any resemblance to the last. But the sequence in the row shows their connection and their development. The first seven owe their existence to a predilection partly [7] for angles and partly for curves, — two mutually contradictory tendencies, which find their expression also in the forms of other letters of pl. II, such as *gha*, *ḍa*, *da*, *la*, &c. The signs Nos. 1, 2, 3 of the series given above, are due to the first tendency, and Nos. 6, 7 to the second. Nos. 4, 5 show the transition from the angle to the curve, and No. 8 is a cursive simplification of No. 6. These eight signs are not found in all the versions of the Aśoka edicts, but are divided locally as follows. The angular forms Nos. 1, 2, 3 appear only in the south, in Girnār, Siddāpura, Dhauli, and Jaugada, side by side with Nos. 4 to 7. And it must be noted that the latter are rare in Girnār and Siddāpura, but in the majority in Dhauli and Jaugada. In the versions discovered north of the Narmadā or the Vindhya, we find mostly only Nos. 4 to 7, but in Kālsī No. 8 also is common, and it occurs a few times in Rāmpūrva. Hence the angular forms of *A*, *Ā*, appear to be specially southern ones, and they are no doubt also the most ancient. The first inference is confirmed by a comparison of the most nearly allied inscriptions. The relic vessels from Kolhāpur⁶ and Bhaṭṭiprolu (pl. II, cols. XIII—XV), and the oldest Andhra inscription from the Nānāghāṭ (pl. II, cols. XXIII, XXIV) again show the angular *A*, *Ā*, either exclusively or together with the mixed forms Nos. 4, 5, while the numerous inscriptions found further north on the Stūpas of Sāñci and Bharahut, in Pabhosa and Mathurā (pl. II, cols. XVIII—XX) on the coins of Agathocles, and in the Nāgārjunī cave (pl. II, col. XVII), offer either pure curved letters or mixed ones. An exception in Mahābodhi-Gayā¹ is probably explained by the fact that pilgrims from the south incised records of their donations at the famous sanctuary. Similar differences between northern and southern forms may be observed in the case of *kha*, *ja*, *ma*, *ra* and *sa*,² and they are all the more important as the circumstances under which the Aśoka edicts were incised did not favour the free use of local forms.³ But the existence of local forms always points to a long continued use of the alphabet in which it is observable.

c6.s3.5

⁶ B.ASRWI. No. 10, 3.

c6.s3.6

¹ C.MG. pl. 10, 2.

c6.s3.7

² See below, § 16, C.

c6.s3.8

³ See below, § 16, B.

c6.s3.9

Equally important is the occurrence of apparently or really advanced and cursive types which for the greater part reappear or become constant in the later inscriptions. The subjoined table shows in line *A* the most important modern looking signs from the Aśoka edicts, and in line *B* the corresponding ones from later inscriptions.

c6.s3.11

Four among these signs, Nos. 2, 7, 10, 21, are, as will appear further on,⁴ really archaic, but the remainder are partly secondary, partly tertiary cursive forms. To the last-mentioned belong in particular Nos. 4, 8, 11, 15 and 19. **[8]** Among the letters from the later inscriptions in line *B*, Nos. 9, 11, 12 and 19 appear in the Nāgārjunī cave inscriptions of Aśoka's grandson Daśaratha; Nos. 2, 6—8, 10, 13—16 and 21 in Khāravela's Hāthigumphā inscription and in the oldest Andhra inscriptions, Nāsik No. 1 and Nānāghāt, as well as in the archaic Mathurā inscriptions, all of which documents belong to the period between about B. C. 170 and 150. Nos. 1, 3 and 22 are still later, and occur first in the inscriptions of the Kuṣaṇas from Mathurā and in the Andhra and Ābhīra inscriptions from Nāsik of the first and second centuries A. D. Occasionally the Aśoka edicts show also the short top-stroke, the so-called *Serif*, which is so characteristic for the later alphabets and causes numerous modifications.⁵ Very commonly, too, appear the upward strokes for medial *ā* and *e*, the cursive rounded *i* (in Girnār sometimes not distinguishable from *ā*), more rarely the later straight *o*-stroke, and once a looped *o*.⁶ Finally, the Anusvāra sometimes stands, as is generally the case in later times, above the letter after which it is pronounced.⁷

c6.s3.12

⁴ See below, § 4, A.

c6.s3.13

⁵ See below, § 16, C.

c6.s3.14

⁶ See below, § 16, C.

c6.s3.15

⁷ See below, § 16, D.

c6.s3.16

The existence of so many local varieties, and of so very numerous cursive forms, proves in any case that writing had had a long history in Aśoka's time, and that the alphabet was then in a state of transition. The use of the cursive forms together with archaic ones may possibly be explained by the assumption that several, partly more archaic and partly more advanced, alphabets were simultaneously used during the third century B. C., and that the writers, intending or ordered to use lapidary forms, through negligence mixed them with the more familiar cursive letters, as has also happened not rarely in later inscriptions. It is possible to adduce in favour of this view the above-mentioned tradition of the Dṛṣṭivāda, according to which a larger number of alphabets was in use about B. C. 300. The conjecture would become a certainty, if it could be shown that the word *seto*, "the white (elephant)," which has been added to Dhauli edict VI. in order to explain the sculpture above the middle column, was incised at the same time as the preceding edicts. The two characters of *seto* show the types of the Kuṣana and Gupta inscriptions.¹ Though it is difficult to understand that, in later times, anybody should have cared to add the explanation of the relief, keeping exactly the line of the edict, the possibility of the assumption that this was actually done, is not altogether excluded.

c6.s3.17

¹ B.ASRSI. 1, 115.

c6.s3.18

The Eraṇ coin with the legend running from the right to the left,² offers a contribution to the earlier history of the Brāhmī. It shows the ancient *sa* with the straight side-stroke, but the later *ma* with the semicircular top, and the *dha* turned to the left. The coin probably dates from the time when the Brāhmī was written both from the right to the left and from the left to the right. Even if one makes due allowance for the fact that coins often reproduce archaic forms long gone out of fashion, one can only agree with CUNNINGHAM (CAI. 101), who thinks that the coin is older than the Maurya period; and one must allot it, if not to B. C. 400, at least to the middle of the fourth century. The time when the Brāhmī was written βουστροφηδόν probably lies somewhat before the Maurya period, since the Aśoka edicts show only few traces of the writing from right to left, in the *O* of Jaugada and Dhauli and in the rare *dha* of Jangada and Delhi-Sivālik (plate II, 8, VI, and 26, V, VI).³ In connection with this coin it is also necessary to mention the Patnā seals (C.ASR. 15, pl. 3, 1, 2), which very likely are older than the time of the Mauryas. The first with the legend Nadaya (Naṇḍāya), "(the seal) of Nandā," shows a *da* open to the right, [9] and the second with the inscription *Agapalasa* (*Aṃgapālaśśa*) shows an *A* in its original position (pl. II, 1, I). More important results for the history of the Brāhmī may be obtained from the Drāviḍī of the relic caskets of Bhaṭṭiprolu,⁴ already referred to above. This alphabet contains, besides various characters agreeing with the southern variety of the Aśoka edicts, (1) three signs, *dh*, *d* and *bh*, in the position of the writing running from right to left; (2) three signs, *c*, *j* and *ṣ*, which are more archaic than those of the Aśoka edicts and of the Eraṇ coin; (3) two signs, *l* and *ḷ*, derived independently from the old Semitic originals; (4) one new sign, *gh*, derived from *g*, the *mātṛkā gha* of the Brāhmī being at the same time discarded. The reasons for the assertions under 2 and 3 will be adduced in the next paragraph. But if the assertions themselves are true, it certainly follows that, whatever the age of the inscriptions may be, the Drāviḍa alphabet separated from the main stock of the Brāhmī long before the Eraṇ coin was struck, at the latest in the fifth century B. C.

c6.s3.19

² C.CAI. pl. 11, 18, and plate II, col. I, of this work.

c6.s3.20

³ If according to C.CMI, 27, as Mr. A. V. SMITH points out to me, some coins of Mihirakula show inscriptions running from the right to the left, this peculiarity must be ascribed to Sassanian influence.

c6.s3.21

⁴ Plate II, cols. XIII—XV.

c6.s3.22

This estimate carries us back to the period for which the Ceylonese canon proves the general use of writing in India, without however giving the name of the current alphabet. It seems therefore natural to conjecture that the alphabet known to the earliest Buddhist authors was a form of the Brāhmī; and there are some further facts which favour this view. Firstly, recent discoveries have made it evident that the Brāhmī has been commonly used since the earliest times even in North-Western India, and that it was indeed the real national script of all Hindus.⁵ In the ruins of Taxila, the modern Shāh-Derī in the Pañjāb, coins have been found which are struck according to the old Indian standard, and some of which bear inscriptions in Kharoṣṭhī, while the majority show legends in the oldest type of the Brāhmī, sometimes together with transcripts in Kharosthī.¹ These coins are certainly not later than the third century B. C. Perhaps they even date, as CUNNINGHAM thinks, from a much earlier time about B. C. 400. Some of them have been struck by *nejamā* or guilds, those of the *Dojaka* or *Dujaka*, of the *Tālimata* and of the *Atakatakā* (?), and one with the inscription *Vatasvaka* probably was issued by a section of the tribe of the *Aśvakas* (*Assakenoi*), named after the *vaṭa*-tree, the Ficus religiosa. These finds decidedly establish the popular use of the Brāhmī in the Pañjāb, side by side with the Kharosthī, at least for the third century B. C. Mr. RAPSON'S discovery of Persian *sigloi* with letters in Kharosthī and in Brāhmī proves that both alphabets were used together *much earlier*.² For, in all probability these *sigloi* were current during the rule of the Akhaemenians over North-Western India, or before B. C. 331.

c6.s3.23

⁵ C.CAI. 38 f.

c6.s3.24

¹ C.CAI, pl. 2, 3.

c6.s3.25

² WZKM. 9, 65; B.IS. III², 113.

c6.s3.26

Secondly, DR. TAYLOR'S view regarding the origin of the Kharosthī has become more and more probable, and it must now be admitted that this alphabet was developed out of the later Aramaic characters after the conquest of the Pañjāb by Darius, which happened about B. C. 500.³ And it becomes more and more difficult to refuse credence to the conjecture of A. WEBER, E. THOMAS and A. CUNNINGHAM, according to which the principles ruling the already developed Brāhmī have been utilised in the formation of the Kharosthī.⁴ According to our present information, the Kharosthī is the only alphabet, besides the Brāhmī, to which the Buddhists possibly could refer. But as it was only a secondary script even in Gandhāra, and as it was developed only in the fifth century, the possibility suggested becomes improbable, and the Brāhmī alone has a claim to be considered as the alphabet known to the authors of the Ceylonese canon.

c6.s3.27

³ See below, § 8.

c6.s3.28

⁴ See below, § 9, B, 4.

§ 4. — The origin of the Brāhma alphabet

c6.s4.1

⁵ B.IS. III², 53—82.

c6.s4.2

[10] Among the numerous greatly differing proposals to explain the origin of the Brāhmī,⁶ there are five for which complete demonstrations have been attempted : — (1) A. CUNNINGHAM'S derivation from indigenous Indian hieroglyphics;⁷ (2) A. WEBER'S derivation from the most ancient Phoenician characters;⁸ (3) W. DEECKE'S derivation from the Assyrian cuneiform characters, through an ancient South-Semitic alphabet which is also the parent of the Sabaean or Himyaritic script;⁹ (4) I. TAYLOR'S derivation from a lost South-Arabian alphabet, the predecessor of the Sabaean;¹⁰ (5) J. HALÉVY'S derivation from a mixture of Aramaic, Kharosthī and Greek letters of the last quarter of the fourth century B. C.¹¹

c6.s4.3

⁶ R. N. Cust, Ling. and Or. Essays 2nd Ser., 27—52.

c6.s4.4

⁷ C.IA (CII. 1), 52 ff.

c6.s4.5

⁸ ZDMG. 10, 389 ff.; Ind. Skizzen 125 ff.

c6.s4.6

⁹ ZDMG. 31, 598 ff.

c6.s4.7

¹⁰ The Alphabet, 2, 314 ff.; restated with some modifications by F. MÜLLER, Mélanges Harlez 212 ff.

c6.s4.8

¹¹ JA. 1885, 268 ff.; Revue Sém. 1895, 223 ff.

c6.s4.9

CUNNINGHAM'S opinion, which was formerly shared by some eminent scholars, presupposes the use of Indian hieroglyphic pictures, of which hitherto no trace has been found. On the other hand, the legend of the Eran coin, which runs from the right to the left, and the letters seemingly turned round in the opposite direction which appear rarely in the Aśoka edicts and more frequently in the Bhattiprolu inscriptions, point to the correctness of the view taken as granted in all the other attempts at explanation, *viz.*, that Semitic signs are the prototypes of the Brāhma letters.

c6.s4.10

Among the remaining four proposals, J. HALÉVY'S *a priori* improbable theory may be at once eliminated, as it does not agree with the literary and paleographic evidence just discussed, which makes it more than probable that the Brāhmī was used several centuries before the beginning of the Maurya period, and had had a long history at the time to which the earliest Indian inscriptions belong. It is more difficult to make a choice between A. WEBER'S derivation from the oldest North-Semitic alphabet, and the view of W. DEECKE and I. TAYLOR, who derive the Brāhmī from an ancient South-Semitic script. Neither the one nor the other derivation can be declared to be *a priori* impossible; for, the results of modern researches make a high antiquity probable for also the Sabaean script, and point to the conclusion that this alphabet not only is older than the oldest Indian inscriptions, but that it existed at a period for which no evidence for the use of writing in India is available.¹ But according to these results, the question has to be put in a manner somewhat differing from that in which DEECKE and TAYLOR have put it. The point to be ascertained is no longer, whether the Brāhmī can be derived from an unknown predecessor of the Sabaean alphabet, but whether it can be derived directly from the actually known Sabaean characters.

c6.s4.11

¹ MORDTMANN and D. H. MÜLLER, *Sab. Denkmäler* (in DWA. Phil. Hist. Cl. 31), p. 108 f.

c6.s4.12

In all attempts at the derivation of alphabets, it is necessary to keep in mind three fundamental maxims, without which no satisfactory results can be obtained:—

c6.s4.13

(1) For the comparison of the characters to be derived, the oldest and fullest forms must be used, and the originals from which they are derived must belong to the types of one and the same period.

c6.s4.14

(2) The comparison may include only such irregular equations as can be supported by analogies from other cases where nations have borrowed foreign alphabets.

c6.s4.15

(3) [11] In cases where the derivatives show considerable differences from the supposed prototypes, it is necessary to show that there are fixed principles, according to which the changes have been made.

c6.s4.16

If one wishes to keep to these principles in deriving the Brāhmī from Semitic signs, neither the Sabaean alphabet, nor its perhaps a little more archaic variety, the Lihyanian or Thammudaean,² will serve the purpose, in spite of a general resemblance in the *ductus* and of a special resemblance in two or three letters. The derivations proposed by DEECKE and TAYLOR do not fulfil the absolutely necessary conditions, and it will probably not be possible to obtain satisfactory results, even if all the impossible equations are given up, and the oldest Indian signs in every case are chosen for comparison. It would be necessary to assume that several Sabaean letters, such as *Aleph*, *Gimel*, *Zain*, *Teth*, *Phe*, *Qoph*, *Resh*, which show strong modifications of the North-Semitic forms, had been again made similar to their prototypes on being converted by the Hindus into *A*, *ga*, *ja*, *tha*, *pa*, *kha* and *ra*. In other cases, it would be impossible to show any connection between the Sabaean and the Indian signs. These difficulties disappear with the direct derivation of the Brāhmī from the oldest North-Semitic alphabet, which shows the same type from Phoenicia to Mesopotamia. The few inadmissible equations which WEBER’s earlier attempt contains, may be easily removed with the help of recently discovered forms, and it is not difficult to recognise the principles, according to which the Semitic signs have been converted into Indian ones.

c6.s4.17

² D. H. MÜLLER, *Denkmäler aus Arabien* (DWA. Phil. Hist. Cl. 37), p. 15 ff.

c6.s4.18

An examination of the old Indian alphabet in plate II. reveals the following peculiarities:—

c6.s4.19

(1) The letters are set up as straight as possible, and, with occasional exceptions in the case of *ṭa*, *ṭha* and *ba*, they are made equal in height.

c6.s4.20

(2) The majority consist of vertical lines with appendages attached mostly at the foot, occasionally at the foot and at the top, or rarely in the middle; but there is no case in which an appendage has been added to the top alone.

c6.s4.21

(3) At the top of the letters appear mostly the ends of verticals, less frequently short horizontal strokes, still more rarely curves on the tops of angles opening downwards, and, quite exceptionally, in *ma* and in one form of *jha*, two lines rising upwards. In no case does the top show several angles, placed side by side, with a vertical or slanting line hanging down, or a triangle or a circle with a pendant-line.

c6.s4.22

The causes of these characteristics of the Brāhmī are a certain pedantic formalism, found also in other Indian creations, a desire to frame signs suited for the formation of regular lines, and an aversion to top-heavy characters. The last peculiarity is probably due in part to the circumstance that since early times the Indians made their letters hang down from an imaginary or really drawn upper line,¹ and in part to the introduction of the vowel-signs, most of which are attached horizontally to the tops of the consonants. Signs with the ends of verticals at the top were, of course, best suited for such a script. Owing to these inclinations and aversions of the Hindus, the heavy tops of many Semitic letters had to be got rid of, by turning the signs topsy-turvy or laying them on their sides, by opening the angles, and so forth. Finally, the change in the direction of the writing necessitated a further change, inasmuch as the signs had to be turned from the right to the left, as in Greek.

c6.s4.23

¹ ^1 Compare Berūnī's India, 1, 172 (SACHAU).

c6.s4.24

[12] The details of the derivation, for which, with the exception of the evidently identical Nos. 1, 3—7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19—22, only a greater or smaller degree of probability can be claimed, are shown in the subjoined comparative table, which has been drawn by Mr. S. PEPPER of Vienna. Cols. I, II, showing the oldest Phoenician characters and those from Mesa's stone, have been taken from PH. BERGER'S Histoire de l'Écriture dans l'Antiquité, pp. 185, 202. Col. III, comes from EUTING'S Tabula Scripturae Aramaicae of 1892. And cols. IV—VI, with the exception of the signs marked by asterisks as hypothetical, are taken from plate II. of this work. With respect to the single letters, I add the following explanatory remarks, brief abstracts of those in my Indian Studies, III^2, p. 58 ff.

A. — Borrowed signs

c6.s4.t1.1

No. 1, *A*, col. V, = *Aleph*, cols. I, II (WEBER doubtfully), [13] turned from right to left except on the Patnā seal (above, § 3, and pl. II, 1, I), with transposition of the vertical line to the end of the angle. — No. 2, *ba*, col. V, *a*, *b*, *c*, = *Beth*, cols. I, II (WEBER); the opening of the triangular top produced first a sign like that in col. IV, next the rhombus, col. V, *a*, and finally the square and the oblong, col. V, *b*, *c*. — No. 3, *ga*, col. V, = *Gimel*, cols. I, II. — No. 4, *dha*, col. V, *a*, *b*, = *Daleth*, cols. I, II (WEBER), set up straight with rounded back (compare the half-angular forms, pl. II, 26, IX, XIX, XXIII, and the triangular, pl. III, 24, VII—XIII), with or without the turn from right to left. — No. 5, *ha*, col. V, = *He* (WEBER doubtfully), the Siddāpura form, col. V, *a*, being probably derived from the *He* of col. III, *a* (Mina of Salmanassar, before B. C. 725), which was turned topsy-turvy and from right to left. The more similar *He* of the sixth century B. C. (col. III, *b*) cannot be the prototype, because it occurs in the period when the Brāhmī had been developed, and because then the Semitic *Aleph*, *Daleth*, *Cheth*, *Theth*, *Waw*, and *Qoph* had become cursive and had been changed so much that they could no longer have produced the Indian forms. — No. 6, *va*, col. V, *a*, *b*, = *Waw*, col. II (WEBER doubtfully), turned topsy-turvy and with the lower end shut. — No. 7, *ja*, col. V, = *Zain*, cols. I, II (WEBER); a displacement of the two bars produced the Drāviḍī letter, col. V, *a*; from this was derived, the letter being made with one stroke of the pen, the *ja* of the northern Brāhmī, col. V, *b*, with a loop, for which, owing to the use of ink, a dot was substituted in the *ja* of col. V, *c*. The usual Girnār form, col. V, *d*, was also derived from the Drāviḍa form, the letter being made with two strokes of the pen.

c6.s4.t1.2

No. 8, *gha*, col. V, *a*, *b*, = *Cheth*, cols. I, II (TAYLOR), the Semitic sign being laid on its side, col. IV (on account of its often sloping position), and the upper horizontal bar being changed into a vertical. — No. 9, *tha*, col. V, = *Theth*, col. I (WEBER), with the substitution of a dot for the cross in the centre, just as in the Assyrian letter, col. III. — No. 10, *ya*, col. V, = *Yod* (WEBER), the *Yod* of cols. I, II, being laid on its side, col. IV, the central stroke being lengthened, and the pendant on the right being turned upwards, hence first the *ya* of col. V, *a*, and later the cursive forms in col. V, *b*, *c*. — No. 11, *ka*, col. V, *a*, *b*, = *Kaph*, the upper side-bar of a form like that in col. II, having been converted into the top of the vertical, and the sign being then set up straight. — No. 12, *la*, col. V, = *Lamed*, cols. I, II (WEBER), preserved in its original position in the slightly differentiated *ḷ* of the Drāviḍī, col. VI (see below, B, 4, *c*), and in the Eraṇ form, col. IV, with the *Serif* on the top of the curve, turned from right to left in the usual form of the Aśoka edicts, col. V, *a*, and turned with a tail on the right, but without the *Serif*, in the Drāviḍī *l*, col. V, *b*. — No. 13, *ma*, col. V, = *Mem* (WEBER), derived from a form like that in col. II, with the change of the bent pendant into a loop, as in the hypothetical form in col. IV (analogous development in Euting, TSA. col. 58, *a*), and with superposition of the angle on the loop, col. V, *a* (analogous development in Euting, TSA. col. 59, *c*), whence the cursive form with semicircle at the top in col. V, *b*. — No. 14, *na*, col. V, = *Nun* (TAYLOR), the *Nun* in cols. I, II, being turned topsy-turvy as in col. IV, and the hook at the foot being converted into a straight stroke, for which development the *ña*, col. VI, *a*, formed out of the hypothetical sign by a regularisation of the hook and the addition of a differentiating bar at the top (see below B, 4, *d*), appears to be a witness.

c6.s4.t1.3

No. 15, *sa*, *ṣa*, cols. V, IV, = *Samekh* (WEBER doubtfully); a *Samekh* like that of col. I, *b*, being made cursive by the Hindus, as shown in col. IV, and turned topsy-turvy, [14] whereby the Drāviḍa *ṣ*, col. V, was obtained, which originally served both for *s* and *ṣ*. Later, this sign was divided into the signs for the etymologically connected *sa* and *ṣa*. By transferring the cross-bar to the outside of the curve, arose the *sa* of the southern Brāhmī in col. VI, *a*, and (turned round) that in col. VI, *b*, while the removal of the bar to the inside of the curve produced the *ṣa* of the same script, col. VI, *c*. The Drāviḍī adopted the new *sa* for its *s*, and retained the old sign for *ṣ*. The northern Brāhmī developed out of the southern *sa* that with the curve, col. VI, *d*, and out of this a new *ṣa*, col. VI, *e*. An immediate derivation of the Drāviḍa *ṣ* from the *Samekh* of the sixth century B. C. in col. III. is not possible, for the reasons stated under No. 5, and because the characteristic ancient cross-bar is wanting in it. — No. 16, *E*, col. V, = *Ain*, cols. I, II (Weber), the Indian sign being changed slightly or not at all in the ancient forms of Kālsī, col. IV. and col. V, *b*, as well as in that of Sāñci and Hāthigumphā, col. V, *a*, but later made triangular, col. V, *c*, *d*, *e*, in order to avoid a confusion with *tha* and *dha*. — No. 17, *pa*, col. V, = *Phe*, cols. I, II (Weber), turned topsy-turvy; in its original position in the Eraṇ form, col. IV; turned sideways in col. V.

c6.s4.t1.4

No. 18, *ca*, col. V, = *Tsade*, cols. I, II, turned topsy-turvy, the second hook on the right being bent at the same time towards the vertical as in the hypothetical form of col. IV, whence arose, with the turn sideways, the angular or round *ca* of the Brāhmī in col. V, *a*, *b*, and the tailed one of the Drāviḍī, col. V, *c*. — No. 19, *kha*, col. V, = *Qoph*, cols. I, II, turned topsy-turvy with the addition of a curve at the top, col. V, *a*, in order to distinguish the letter from *va*. Owing to the use of ink, the circle at the foot was converted into a dot, col. V, *b*. — No. 20, *ra*, col. V, = *Resh*, cols. I, II (Weber), the triangular head of the letter being opened and the vertical attached to the base of the former triangle, whence arose the forms in col. V, *a*, *b*, and later the ornamental ones, col. V, *c*, *d*, in which the angles were repeated. — No. 21, *śa*, col. V, = *Shin*, cols. I, II (Weber), the two angles, standing side by side, being placed the one inside the other, and the sign being then turned topsy-turvy, col. V, *a*, *b*, *c*. The more closely resembling Aramaic *Shin* of the sixth century B. C., col. III, cannot be the prototype of *śa*, for the same reasons as those stated above under No. 5, and is merely an analogous transformation, which the Aramaens, Phoenicians and Ethiopians have made independently at various periods. The older form with two angles has been preserved in the western sign for 100 = *śu* (see my Indian Studies, III², 71, 117). — No. 22, *ta*, col. V, = *Taw*, cols. I, II (Weber); from a form like that of Sinjirli, col. III, *b*, or the Assyrian of the time of Salmanassar, col. III, *a*, was derived the *ta* of col. V, *a*, *b*, and hence the regularised form of col. V, *c*.

B. — Derivative consonants and initial vowels

c6.s4.t2.1

The derivative signs, invented by the Hindus themselves, have been formed by means of the following contrivances:—

c6.s4.t2.2

(1) One of the elements of a phonetically cognate letter is transposed: (*a*) in *sa* and *sa*, where the cross-bar of the oldest sign has been displaced (see above, A, No. 15); (*b*) in *da*, which has been derived from *dha* (Weber) by dividing the vertical stroke, and by attaching the two pieces to the upper and lower ends of the curve, whence first the *da* of the Drāviḍī and of the Patnā seal, No. 4, col. VI, *a*, was derived, and, with the turn to the left, the ordinary form of the Brāhmī, No. 4, col. VI, *b*, and further the angular *da*, No. 4, col. VI, *f*.

c6.s4.t2.3

(2) A borrowed or derivative letter is mutilated in order to obtain one with a similar phonetic value: (*a*) from *da*, No. 4, col. VI, *a*, comes [15] by the removal of the lower end the half round *ḍa* of Kālsī and the later southern inscriptions, col. VI, *c*; similarly, from the angular *da*, col. VI, *g*, the ordinary angular *ḍa*, col. VI, *h*, of the Aśoka edicts (Weber); (*b*) from *tha*, No. 9, col. V, comes *ṭha*, col. VI, *a*, by the removal of the central dot; and from the latter again *ṭa*, col. VI, *b*, is derived by bisection, the round *ṭha* being considered as the product of an unaspirated letter and a curve of aspiration, which appears (see below, 5) in various other letters (Weber); (*c*) from the triangular *E*, No. 16, col. V, *c*, *d*, *e*, comes the *I* with three dots, col. VI, B, *a*, *b*, *c*, which just indicate the outlines of the older sign (Prinsep), the derivation being suggested by the fact that grammatically *e* is the guṇa-vowel of *i*, for which therefore a lighter form of *e* appeared suitable; (*d*) through a bisection of the lower portion of *va*, No. 6, col. V, *b*, and a straightening of the remaining pendant, is derived *U*, col. VI, *a* (see my Indian Studies, III², 74), the derivation being suggested by the fact that *u* commonly represents *va* in weak grammatical forms (*samprasāraṇa*); (*e*) if the later small circle (pl. IV, 38, VI) is the original form of the Anusvāra, No. 13, col. VI, *a*, *b*, and the dot a cursive substitute, the sign may be explained as a mutilated small *ma*, which has lost the angle at the top, and has been thus treated like the small vowelless consonants appearing in the inscriptions of the first centuries A. D. (see, *e. g.*, pl. III, 41, VIII); compare also the derivation of the Kharoṣṭhī Anusvāra from *ma* (see below, § 9, B, 4).

First 126 of 168 passages. Read on

Linked texts (33)