Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Palaeography c15.s4.1

Indian Palaeography c15.s4.1

Language
English

c15.s4.1

The palaeographical chart (Pl. XII) is prepared from the writing on (*a*) stone or rock (nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9), (*b*) the iron pillar (no. 3), (*c*) copper plates (nos. 4, 5, and 8), (*d*) palm-leaf (nos. 10 and 12), and (*e*) birch-bark (no. 11). The technique of writing on each was different. On stone and rock the letters were in the last stage engraved with the help of a chisel. The engraver probably incised the lines drawn beforehand by the scribe. The plates could not be prepared in this fashion because of the nature of the material. The engraving on the plates must have been executed by the metal worker. The same technique was probably employed in the case of the iron pillar. For palm-leaves and birch-bark a broad or edged pen was used by the scribe, who wrote in ink. Here the proper style of the writer is visible. The copper plates¹ are at best faithful engravings of the original letters, but the metal worker may have contributed his own element to the writing irrespective of the graving tool used by him. Similarly, the engraver on stone or rock may have missed the details natural to the pen style. Hence there are bound to be differences in the styles of writing dealt with in this section. But there is one common element in all these writings, the original copy of the scribe, which was the determining factor in giving particular shapes to the letters. The engraver or the metal worker would not create new forms of the letters, but would only distort the given forms to suit his graving tool. It is therefore hardly necessary to assume a 'hieratic' style for the inscriptions and a 'literary' one for the manuscripts, unless we have definite evidence for a particular set of inscriptions. The writers had a common style and in general they must have followed the practice of the day, except for their individual mannerisms. Therefore I do not accept the opinion of Bühler, given in his 'Remarks on the Horiuzi Palm-Leaf MS.'² and Hoernle in connexion with the Bower MS.,³ that 'the masons who incised the inscriptions, or the writers who wrote the originals from which the masons copied,