________________
JUNE, 1892.)
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
175
misconceptions which it is my duty to prevent. Now that I have explained myself regarding the popular language, it remains to determine, so far as we can from the indications at our disposal, what was the linguistic situation from the point of view of this other most important factor, Vedic or Classical Sanskrit.
Palæographic facts here hold the first place. Some are common to both of Piyadasi's modes of writing, others are peculiar to only one or other of them.
The north-western alphabet possesses no special signs for marking the long vowels. It is quite true that many languages are content with a similar notation, but Sanskrit does not present itself to us under ordinary conditions. A language partly artificial and used only by the learned, leaping into existence, after a long preparation, ready made and almost immutable, it had a grammar before it was put into writing. Neither in its orthography, nor in its grammatical forms, does it shew any sensible trace of progressive development. It could only be put into writing, at the time when it did commence to be written, under the same conditions as those under which it has continued to be written. A language thus elaborated must have imposed beforehand the power of distinguishing long vowels on the alphabet, by means of which it was intended to record it. An alphabet, which was not capable of making this distinction, would certainly never have sufficed to record it.
I may also mention a peculiarity which is common to both methods of writing. I have just now drawn attention to the fact that neither of them represents the doubling of identical or homogeneous consonants. Now, from the time when Sanskțit first makes its appearance, it observes this duplication, wherever it should be etymologically expected. No one can imagine either the Vedic Sanskrit or Grammatical and Classical Saúskrit being written without obserying this practice. But, once established for the learned language, this duplication could not have failed to introduce itself into the popular orthography, as we shall see did actually occur in the case of the literary Prakrit. It will, therefore, be asked how the orthography of the dialects, which we are at present considering, did not, of its own motion, adopt so natnral a usage. For my part, I only see one satisfactory explanation, the persistent influence of the Semitic method or methods of writing upon which the alphabets of Piyadasi were founded. A long effort was necessary to overcome this influence, and the sequel will shew how the new practice is exactly one of the traits which characterised the constitution and expansion of the literary language.
The Indian alphabet, on the other hand, did possess special signs for the long vowels, but when it is considered that at Khálsi, and perhaps at Bairat and Rûpnáth, there are no signs for i and i long, and that in the other versions instances of inexactness in the notation of long vowels are continually met with, it will, I think, .be unhesitatingly concluded that, at the date of our inscriptions, a fixed, arrested form of language, liko Sanskrit, had not yet been established in general use, for it would not have failed to act as a regulator and model for the popular languages, or to introduce into their orthography the precision, the unity and the consistency in which they are so much wanting.
The Indian alphabet of Piyadasi has only one sign to represent ; whether it precedes or follows a consonanı. Would this have been possible it that alphabet were used to record Sanskřit? Now, it is actually in the period which immediately follows, that it develops new resources in this respect. From the time of the inscriptions of Managhat, we find the definite notation of r after another consonant well established, and, shortly afterwards the same sign transferred to the top of the consonant which it accompanied, served to express an antecedent r.
At Bharhat, as in later times at Nanachat and elsewhere, rafter a consonant is placed blow it, citizer in its zigzag form ($) as in ohraniti, or in the perpeudicular form, 44 iu o of brahma. (ct. Cunnilyham. Bharhut Stúpa, Inscrip. Nos. 76, 97, 89.)
