1897 .] 
Central Asian Manuscripts. 
239 
misunderstanding in the details of the account of the discovery. Mr. 
Macartney states that, together with the Bower MS., “ two other 
manuscripts ” were found which ultimately found their way into the 
hands of Mr. Weber and himself respectively. Now r the Weber MSS., 
as I have shown elsewhere, 27 by themselves consist of several, not less 
than nine, separate manuscripts; and Set I of the Macartney MSS., 
as I shall show presently, consists of two separate manuscripts. It 
cannot, therefore, be correct that “ two other manuscripts ” were 
found: what was probably found were two bundles of manuscripts. 
What, however, appears to me to be probably the truth of the matter, 
is that, in addition to the Bower MS., a large bundle of other manus¬ 
cripts was found. Of this bundle Dildar Khan obtained possession, 
and he divided it into two parts, one of which he gave to Munslii 
Ahmed Din, whence it passed to Mr. Weber, while the other was 
retained by himself and ultimately reached Mr. Macartney. This would 
seem to agree with the earlier, but sommvhat vague, information given 
to me by Mr. Shawe, and published by Sir A. Croft in his Presidential 
Address of 1894, where it runs as follows (p. 33) : 
“ I may add as the latest information that Dr. Hoernle has 
lately been informed by Mr. Shawe, a colleague of Mr. Weber, that it 
now appears that the [Weber] MSS., were not found in “ Kugiar,” 
as reported at Srst, but in Kuchar. They come, therefore, from 
the same locality as the Bower MS. Mr. Shawe also writes that 
he has ascertained that a packet of manuscripts similar to the 
Weber MSS., but larger in bulk, were in the hands of a Pathau 
who cannot now be traced, but who is said to have gone to Kabul. 
Dr. Hoernle suspects that he went in the other direction, to 
Kashgar, and that his manuscripts eventually got into the hands 
of the Russian Consul in Kashgar, and that they are identical 
with the Petersburg collection of manuscripts, on which Professor 
von Oldenburg is now engaged. What leads him to think so, 
is that the Petersburg collection appears to contain other portions 
of the same manuscripts of wdiich portions were found by him in 
the Weber MSS.” 
The Pathan, spoken of in the above quotation, would seem to be 
identical with the Afghan merchant Dildar Khan of Mr. Macartney s 
report. This “ Afghan merchant,” as Mr. Weber also calls him, 2S iu 
27 See Journal , As. Soc. Bengal, Yol. LXII, Part I, page 1 ff. I may here men¬ 
tion that, in the meantime, the Weber MSS. have passed into my own possession by 
purchase from Mr. Weber. 
23 See ibidem, p. 1. 
