94 A. F. R. Hoernle— On the date of the Bower Manuscript. [No. 2, 
the S'arada alphabet has not changed; it is quite possible to dis¬ 
tinguish the modern form of the S'arada from its more ancient form. 
But what is really important is this, that the S'arada alphabet, so 
far as we have any dated evidence, never possessed, at any period of its 
existence, the old (Gupta) form of the consonant YA. It always possessed 
exclusively the modern cursive form of that letter. I maintain, that 
there exists not a single dated MS. or inscription, written in any 
variety of the S'arada alphabet, which does not show the exclusive use 
of the cursive form. This being so, it follows that any conclusions, 
drawn from facts connected with the S'arada alphabet, have no applica¬ 
tion to a MS., which shows the almost exclusive use of the old (Gupta) 
form of ya, and which, therefore, is not written in the S'arada characters. 
Now, what conclusions can be drawn from the facts connected with the 
S'arada alphabet ? Its exclusive use of the cursive ya shows that its 
elaboration is to be dated on this side of 500 A. D. But as it has but 
little changed the shape of its letters since the date of its inception, it 
follows, that any undated MS. or inscription written in the S'arada al¬ 
phabet must be placed after 500 A. D., but may be placed almost at any 
time after that epoch. That is really all that can be intended by the 
principle that the S'arada characters are no guide as to age. More the 
principle will not bear, and it clearly is not applicable to a MS. which 
is not written in the S'arada characters, but in a form of alphabet more 
archaic and very possibly the parent of the S'arada. With the proviso, 
now explained, I fully agree with Professor Kielhorn’s remark, made 
with reference to a Chamba Grant (in the Indian Antiquary, vol. XVII, 
p. 7) that “ it would be impossible to determine the age, even approxi¬ 
mately, from its characters,” these characters being, as Professor Kiel- 
horn explains, the well-known S'arada. Judging from these characters, 
all that one could say would be that the grant may date from any time 
after 500 A. D., which, of course, would be a futile proposition. 
The main argument for the age of the Bower MS. is the preserva¬ 
tion in it of the old form of ya. No objection can be raised on the 
ground that the old form was preserved much longer in the South- 
Indian and the North-Eastern Indian (Nepalese) alphabets. As these 
alphabets differ from the North-Western Indian, which is used in our 
MS., any conclusions, drawn from the circumstances of those alpha¬ 
bets, have no applicability to our MS. It stands to reason that no 
scribe, used to his own North-Western Indian alphabet, would, in 
writing a MS., think of introducing the old form of a letter, which did 
not exist any more in his own alphabet, from another alphabet, un¬ 
familiar to him, in which it did still exist. 
