228 
R. Hoernle —Three further Collections of 
[No. 4, 
(2) Of the second set there is only one specimen. It is shown as 
No. 3 on Plate X. It is the merest fragment of a leaf, and it is impossible 
to say what its dimensions may have been. From the very large size 
of the letters, however, it may fairly be concluded that the leaves also 
were probably of considerable size. It will be noticed that on the 
margin, in the upper left-hand corner, there is the pagination number 
90. As it is usual to inscribe these numbers in the middle of the 
margin, it is at any rate probable that the width of the leaf was about 
11 inches, its existing portion being 5| inches wide. The material is 
paper of a texture and thickness similar to that of the preceding set. 
It is also inscribed on both sides, in characters of the same type as those of 
that set, but even larger and thicker than those. The language is 
Sanskrit, but it is impossible to determine the purport of the work from 
the little that has survived of the text. The work, however, must have 
been one of a large extent, seeing that the existing leaf was its ninetieth. 
(3) Of this set also there is only one specimen. It is No. 4 on 
Plate X. Both ends of the leaf are lost, thus rendering it impossible 
to determine its length. Its width is 3f inches. Its material is paper, 
of a texture and thickness similar to that of the two preceding sets. 
The characters of the writing on it are also of the same type, and it 
is inscribed on both sides. The language, however, is not Sanskrit, 
nor, to judge from the peculiar ligatures occurring in it (e.g., ysci on 
line 5), any Sanskritic language. I do not know what it is, nor, for that 
reason, what the purport of the writing may be. The occurrence, 
however, of the peculiar double dot, or double anusvara, may be noticed. 
This mark connects it with No. IX of the Weber MSS. 18 and with 
the Petroffski MS. published by Dr. von Oldenburg. 
(4) Of this set again there is only one specimen. It is No. 5 on 
Plate X. It is greatly mutilated, and its full size cannot be deter¬ 
mined. Its width seems to be complete, and would be 2J inches. Its 
material is paper of a whiter colour, and rather finer and softer texture 
than that of the preceding sets; it is also covered with some sorb of 
sizing. It is inscribed on both sides. The characters are essentially 
of the same type as the preceding ones, only smaller in size. The 
language seems to be some non-Sanskritic language. There is no 
instance of a double dot on the existing portion ; but it is too small to 
admit of any safe conclusions. 
(5 and 6) I may here add that there are two other fragmentary leaves 
among the Godfrey MSS., each being a single specimen of a separate 
work. They are in a too bad state of preservation, to admit of useful 
18 See Journal, ds. Soc. Beng., Yol. LXIT, Part I, pp. 8, 9, 34. 
