Indian Palaeography c8.23

c8.23

Extreme care in copying the original forms was dictated by another motive, which was already foreseen by Prinsep, the motive of dating the ancient record or the monument on which it occurs with the help of palaeography. This was particularly important for Indologists who, in the absence of other means for reconstructing the chronology of ancient India, discovered in palaeography a handy time-scale for that purpose. A change in the letter-forms was for them chiefly important as marking a difference in time. Hence they needed accurate copies of inscriptions belonging to rulers whose chronology was more or less ascertained by other synchronisms, and would then compare the style of writing of these inscriptions in order to date the records of less-known or unknown rulers. It was on this basis that the terminology of the period was evolved. Accordingly, we hear of the scripts of the Mauryas, the Kushāṇas, the Guptas, the Chālukyas, &c. Fleet found this system inaccurate, and he was the first person to propound geographical designations for the scripts. He wrote in his *Corpus of the Gupta Inscriptions* of the ‘Northern’ and ‘Southern’ characters—terms which have persisted till today—and along with Rudolf Hoernle divided the northern characters into ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ varieties. Their main purpose again was to define more accurately the terminology already accepted, so that the differing scripts known from the inscriptions of the same ruler might be better explained. This was a great step forward from the rudimentary conception held in the first stage, when scholars talked only of the different scripts as ends in themselves. Ojha in his work did not realize the significance of this new conception—as he himself writes: ‘The regional differences and time may also produce changes in the letter forms, and accordingly the scripts may be subdivided, but we do not consider this necessary.’¹ Hence in his book he talks only of the Brāhmī, the Gupta, the *kuṭila*, the Nāgarī, and other scripts. This conception still persists, and as late as 1951 Dr. T. Vimalananda, in his thesis (University of London), *Epigraphy and Palaeography of Ceylon down to 10th century A.D.*, talks of the ‘dead’ *Brāhmī lipi* as if it had no relation with the later scripts. Bühler ranked with Fleet and Hoernle, and in his work advanced a further stage in the interpretation of Indian palaeography. He accepted the evolutionary character of Indian scripts and further analysed their regional and chronological variations. But his main contribution lay in realizing the influence of the pen and the stylus, though unfortunately he could not work out in detail the way in which this technical difference resulted in the creation of new forms. He was, after all, a scholar of the nineteenth century, when little attention had been paid to the technological problems involved in writing. For scholars of that period the outward forms were ends in themselves, and their analysis and classification was the best that they could hope for. This was the reason why great stress was laid on the accurate copying of each and every letter occurring in different inscriptions. However, Bühler and Hoernle both realized the mistake of this method when applied to manuscripts, and they gave another time-scale for dating them.