________________
FEBRUARY, 1892.)
DATE OF THE BOWER MANUSCRIPT.
37
There is only one instance of the modern cursive form; it occurs in the akshara yét of prayojayét in Plate III, npper page, in line 11. Here we have the transitional and the modern cursive forms side by side in one word, the former form being used in the akshara yo, the latter in the akshara yét. A similar instructive example of the use, side by side, of the old and the transitional forms, we have ibidem in prayjayét, in line 6, where the old form is seen in the akshara yét, while the transitional form occurs in the akshara yo.
of the old form there are the following instances. On Plate I, No I, we have it in chirnnayet 1. 10, and on Plate III, upper page, in upakalpayét 1. 2, *. yet I. 3, pray jayet 1. 6, léhayet 1. 8, pdyayet 1. 9. Note here again, that all these instances are with the vowel é. Of the old form with the vowel 8 there is no instance in the figured pages; but I have noticed a few cases in other parts of the manuscript. Of course, I exclude here, as being beside the precise point in question, all instances of the use of the old form in combination with any other vowel, only remarking, that it is used uniformly with all other vowels.
To sum up, the examination of the two specimen pages shows : ad Nos. 1 and 2, that the old form is used exclusively, except with the vowels é, ai, ô and au20; ad No. 3, that out of 23 instances, in which the letter y is combined with the vowels é or ai or , the cursive (transitional and modern) form is used in 17, while the old form is used in 6; that is, the former is used about three times as often as the latter ; ad No. 4, that ont of 17 instances of the use of the transitional and modern cursive forms, the former is used 16 times, while the latter occurs only once; i. e., that the transitional form is used alınost exclusively.
Now comparing the case of the Bower MS. with that of the Gupta inscriptions, the resnlt is this, that the two cases, while fully agreeing in the main points, differ only in one particular, namely, that the cursive (transitional or modern) form is used in the manuscript rather more frequently than the old form (viz., cursive: old = 3: 1), while in the inscriptions the old form is used rather more frequently than the cursive form (viz., cursive: old = 1 : 2). This, how ever, is nothing more than may be expected, if we consider that on the one side we have a case of ordinary manuscript writing, on the other one of documentary inscription, and remember thnt (as Professor Bühler says, in Epigraphia Indica, p. 68) "everywhere in India the epigraphic alphabets are in many details retrograde and lag behind the literary ones."
One thing, however, is clearly brought out by the evidence above set ont, that the writing of the Bower MS. must be placed within that period, which, as we have seen, is marked out by that evidence as the period of transition from the use of the old rigid form of ya to the use of the (still existing) cursive form; that is, for manuscript writing, within the period from about 350 to 500 A. D.
It is true that in the second, third and fourth portions of the Bower MS., the old form is used exclusively. There is no trace whatsoever of either the transitional or the modern cursivo forms. Judging by this circumstance only, we should have to place the MS. still earlier, somewhere before the fifth century A. D. But this would certainly seem to be wrong with regard to the second portion. For the fact, that this portion was written after the first, seems to be clearly proved by the circumstance that it commences on the reverse of a leaf, on the obverse of which we have the ending of the first portion. Properly considered, however, that circumstance only tends to confirm the conclusion that the main portion (A, B, E) of the Bower MS. was written during the transitional period. For it is only natural to suppose that during that period, some scribes had already more or less adopted the new fashion of cursive writing, while others, more conversative, adhered to the older fashion, On the whole, therefore, considering that the portions A and of the MS, appear to manifest a decided tendency to a free use of the transitional form, it will probably be safer to place the date of the main portion of the MS. nearer to the end than the beginning of the transition period, that
20 Of au there is no instance in the figured pages, but I hare met with a few in other pages of the manuscript.
