97 
]900.] A, F. R. Hoernle — Epigraphical Note on Palm-leaf, etc. 
have had to be contented with but a short length. The only two 
manuscripts of this great width that I know are No. J87 in Professor 
Peterson’s Third Report for 1884—86 (p. 8), and No. 58 in his Fifth 
Report for 1892—95 (p. 98, also Table 111, No. 83), both of which are 
3 inches broad. The former of these is only 14| inches long. The 
latter (dated 1369 A.D.) is said to be 32 inches long, but I suspect 
that this is an error : its measures probably are 12 x 3 or 32 x 2.^ 
Corypha manuscripts of very great length, however, rarely possess an 
uniform width. Their leaves are cut from a whole half-segment; 
their maximum width is in the middle and it decreases towards both 
ends. A good example is No. 30 in Table I, some of the leaves of 
which slope from 2| to 1| inches. On the other hand, good examples 
of great length combined with practically uniform width are Nos. 34 
and 36 in Table I, the breadth of which Varies by no more than 
J inch or even less. Sometimes the half-segments of Corypha leaves 
were cut, across their breadth, into halves, and the strips for writing 
were cut from these halves. In this case, of course, the maximum 
width is at one end of the inscribed leaf, and gradually decreases 
to the other end. Examples of this kind are Nos. 2, 28, 32 in Table I, 
the leaves of which decrease from 2 to If, If to If and 2f to If 
inches respectively. 
I may add that there is a kind of Corypha palm, the Corypha elata, 
which grows, probably cultivated, in Bengal and Bihar. But its leaves 
are not suitable for the purpose of writing books, and have never been 
so used. Its complete natural segments are much too narrow ; they 
measure only about 1| inches, and allow only strips of f inch or less 
to be cut from them. 
Having premised this much, I may now proceed to state that I have 
examined the actual or facsimile leaf of 130 manuscripts. They are 
4 Another clear instance o£ an error is in the record of No. 86 (Fifth Eeport, 
p. 136). This MS., dated 1241 A.D., is said to he of palm-leaf and to measure 
16x4 inches. This width of 4 inches, for a palm-leaf MS., is an impossibility; it 
would indicate a natural segment of the width of at least 8 inches !! Prof. 
Bhandarkar, whom I consulted, writes to me : “ There nmst be some mistake about 
the breadth of the leaves of No. 86. I have seen the MSS. in the Deccan College 
and a good many at Patan, perhaps the same as those catalogued by Dr. Peterson, 
but I do not remember having seen any leaves of that breadth. Dr. Peterson’s cata- 
loguing work was done by clerks and agents, and it is not unlikely that it was not 
done with the scrupulous care of the scientific scholar.” The measures would suit 
a paper MS. ; and that possibly is the solution of the error. There is a similar error 
in Bendall’s Catalogue of the Cambridge MSS. Here Add. 1633 is described as a 
palm-leaf MS. of the extraordinary breadth of 5 inches. It is, however, a Paper 
MS., as I am informed by Professor Cowell, who, at my request, very kindly inspected 
the manuscript. 
