^{page 102 note 1} South Indian Palæography.

^{page 104 note 1} Anc. Sans. Lit. 510.

^{page 105 note 1} Anc. Sans. Lit. 524.

^{page 106 note 1} Mānava-kalpa-sūtra, , Pref. p. 17Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 2} South Indian Palæography, p. 6Google Scholar.

^{page 107 note 1} “Those who sell the Vedas, and even those that write them, those also who defile them, they shall go to hell.”—Anc. Sans. Lit. 502.

^{page 109 note 1} Anc. Sans. Lit. 515.

^{page 109 note 2} Dr. Burnell notices in these inscriptions some varieties in the forms of words, and also some irregularities, which he deems to be evidence that writing was a recent practice. It must be borne in mind that the language was then in a transition state, and that dialectical varieties were probably numerous. This would account for occasional diversities, and faults of orthography are surely no proofs of the new invention of writing.

^{page 110 note 1} Five of the Arian-Pāli letters have been found separately on sculptures at Bharhut, 120 miles south of Allahábád; but these are mere mason's marks, and Gen. Cunningham is no doubt right in taking them to be proofs that the masons came from the north-west.—Sthupa of Sharhut.

^{page 113 note 1} Note by Dr. B.:—“By F. Lenormant (Essai sur la propagation de l'alphabet Phénicien, vol. i. pt. 1, table 6). The author makes the ‘alphabet primitif du Yemen’ the source of both the Himyaritic and Māgadhi (!!) alphabets.” Dr. B. does not seem to place much faith on this work.

^{page 114 note 1} Cunningham, , Corpus Inscriptionum, p. 61Google Scholar.

^{page 115 note 1} J.R.A.S. Vol. V, p. 422.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 2} The Gupta Dynasty, p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 3} Dravidian Com. Gram, (first ed.), p. 83; South Indian Palæog. p. 47.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 1} I have seen it stated that in the opinion of natives of India the dental letters are the shibboleths of Englishmen, the cerebrals of Persians.

^{page 119 note 1} Dr. Burnell, remarking that the compound vy of the Asoka alphabet is written yv, considers this to be a remnant of the Semitic fashion, and an indication that the writing formerly ran the other way. But this is a mere fashion of writing which the form of the letter y rendered convenient. No ambiguity is possible, because yv is an impossible combination. He says further: “Again, the vowel e precedes the consonant, which in reading it must follow.” This is hardly a precise statement, for the vowel e is simply projected from the left side of the top of the consonant in the same manner as the vowel ā projects from the right side. But if there is any force in this criticism, what inference must be drawn about the modern Devanāgari and the Bengali, in which the short vowel i is written separately before its consonant?