'/ 



[December, 1914. 



cases had become a dot or a small stroke owing to the igno- 

 rance of the scribe. In fact, he or they did not perceive that 

 unwittingly a slight modification was being made. Conse- 

 quently, Mr. Pargiter's conclusion that "the form of I then 

 in this grant is no indication that it is spurious " is erroneous. 

 If Mr. Pargiter wants to prove that the form of medial I in 

 North-Eastern epigraphs of the 6th century a.d. was almost 

 the same as that of the Eastern variety of the early Gupta 

 alphabet, he must base his conclusions on records other than 

 these four inscriptions, otherwise there will be a case of begins 

 the question. 



,. a Thoinitial 1, as I have already stated, presents a further 

 difference in form. On the first side, in line 9, it consists of two 

 dots, one above the other, and a straight vertical line to the 

 right Ihis is the form peculiar to the Eastern variety of the 

 early Gupta alphabet, and it is to be found only in the Allaha- 



fo. f npt,0n ° f Samud ragupta and Kahaum Inscription 

 of bkandagupta. When we compare the other form of the 

 initial I, which is to be found in the first letter of the word 

 [^hato in hne 14 on the second side, we find that it is really 

 the 6th century form. The word as it stands cannot be any- 

 thing but Icchato. Mr. Pargiter may take it to be anything 

 in order to render it. But here the form is that of 6th cen- 

 tury and of later inscriptions, consisting of two dots or circles 

 placed side by side above a short horizontal straight line. 

 Mr. Pargiter says: - There is nothing suspicious in this form, 

 because ,t is used in the same word in Grant A." As I have 

 said above, the evidence of the characters of any of these 

 plates cannot be taken to prove either the age or validity of any 



th* d/. r *P af "! ? r aS next tried t0 P rove th at the form of Ma in 



f Lti \ 8 - not abnormal, because the same form is to be 



ound in inscriptions Nos. 2 and 3 and so are not open to distrust. 



L^rini / T W6r that the evidence of the characters of all four 

 nnTnY/r 3 g qu f 8 tionable > the forms of characters in any 

 one of them cannot be cited to prove the regularity of those 



mnnLT J* 6 ™- His treat ^nt of the form of Ya is more 

 WrinK «?, e 8ayS that the form of Ya used in the 4th 

 former 1 T th V nstances here present three stages in its 



r^5*\V ^ . earlieSt ° f these the left Perpendicular 

 reaches the bottom horizontal stroke, as shown in the second 



this slfZ ( ?M' Vl - aya (line 4 ) and Yogaya (line 11); and 

 four 1 COnst ; fcu 1 te f, a connecting link with the second form 

 otthl i f f my aFt i Cle - His i^cnious treatment of the forms 

 that h J l, ^ T\ be exami ned in detail. I regret to find 

 ao tl F^ the f ° rCe ° f ^ a^nent. Sa, La and 



b^n found ^K m V T ety ° f the Gu P ta al P habet ' has never 



except in 1 f US6d aI ° ng with the bi P arti te form of Ya 

 except in these four inscriptions-a fact which alone would 



