more on N āgarī
dominic.goodall at GMAIL.COM
Tue Jan 26 02:06:55 EST 2010
Ah yes, I forgot to include this information. The script of the early
manuscript is what some today now call "Early Nepalese 'Licchavi'
script". You can see an image of a couple of folios of a manuscript in
a similar script, dated to 810 AD, in volume 1 of the Skandapurāṇa,
just before the Prolegomena.
Volume I Adhyāyas 1–25
Critically Edited with Prolegomena and English Synopsis by
R. Adraensen, H.T. Bakker, H. Isaacson
Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1998.
On 23 Jan 2010, at 12:55, Dipak Bhattacharya wrote:
> Dear Dr. Goodall,
> The infoprmation on the Nerpalese manuscript is very interesting.
> Could you kindly inform about the script used in the manuscript
> Best wishes
> --- On Sat, 23/1/10, Dominic Goodall <dominic.goodall at GMAIL.COM>
> From: Dominic Goodall <dominic.goodall at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject: more on Nāgarī
> To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
> Date: Saturday, 23 January, 2010, 9:46 AM
> A note to add to the interesting exchanges about script-use and
> script names.
> There is a passage in the Śivadharmottara that appears to recommend
> the copying of Śaiva literature using Nandināgarī letters. This
> has hitherto been assumed (in an article by R.C. Hazra and, more
> recently, by Paolo Magnone) to be a reference to the South Indian
> script now known as Nandināgarī, which reached its developed form
> in the Vijayanagara period.
> nandināgarakair varṇair lekhayec chivapustakam|| 2.40||
> But a Nepalese palm-leaf manuscript transmitting the Śivadharmottara
> has come to light that appears to have been written at the end of
> the C8th or in the C9th. The passage in question is to be found in
> the bottom line of the bottom folio of exposure 40 of NGMPP A 12/3.
> (The 3rd pāda of the verse there reads nadīnāgarakair
> varṇṇair, but we may perhaps be justified in taking this to be a
> copying error.)
> Nandināgarī, therefore, is not just the name of a Southern script
> of the Vijayanagara period; it is attested much earlier as a label
> for a different style of lettering. Furthermore, I think that we
> can assume that the script in question was a Northern one from the
> way the lettering is described in the previous verse.
> caturasraiḥ samaśīrṣair nātisthūlair na vā kṛśaiḥ|
> sampūrṇāvayavaiḥ snigdhair nātivicchinnasaṃhataiḥ|| 2.39||
> Most of these qualifications could probably be interpreted to
> describe almost any sort of characters, but it seems to me that the
> instruction that they should be neither too thick nor too thin
> (nātisthūlair na vā kṛśaiḥ) narrows the range of
> possibilities. For this, it seems to me, is very unlikely to have
> been a formulation chosen if the author had been thinking of a
> scribal tradition in which letters are incised into palm-leaves,
> such as we find in the Southern, Dravidian-speaking areas and along
> much of the Eastern littoral.
> Dominic Goodall
> The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.
More information about the INDOLOGY