Indian Antiquary Vol 42

SR No.: 032534
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 400
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 16 MB

Page 369

CHAPTER II]
taken from a too old tree, or from an unsuitable part of the tree, the surface layers are apt to flake off, when the bark becomes thoroughly dry. In that condition, a leaf is unsuitable for writing. This may be illustrated by the blank reverse of the fourth folio in Part IV (Plate XLI), which distinctly shows the surface in process of exfoliation; and it was, no doubt, for that reason that the scribe abstained from writing on it. For the same reason, apparently, the obverse of the fourth folio of Part V (Plate XLVI) was left blank,48 On the other hand, occasionally exfoliation took place after the leaf had been inscribed. Thus on the left of the reverse side of the thirty-third folio (Plate XXXIV) of Part II, about one-fourth of the surface layer has flaked off, carrying with it a large portion of the text; and the same injury has befallen a smaller portion of the reverse of the twenty-ninth folio (Plate XXXI). On the obverse side of the sixth folio of Part V we have another example of the same phenomenon; and in the case of folio 1 of Part VII (Plate LIII) the whole of the inscribed top layer of the obverse side has flaked off. In the third place, much of the bark, used in the larger portion, is full of faults in its texture. It appears to have been taken from an unsuitable part of the tree, producing a rough and knotty surface, unserviceable for writing. This may be seen by reference, eg., to the reverses of the first folio of Part II (Plate VI) and the second folio of Part IV (Plate XXXIX), about one-half of which has been left blank. It is also illustrated by the fact that sometimes when the scribe attempted to write across a fault, his letters would form only very badly, as, eg., in Part I, folio 569 (Plate V), where the syllable lá (of êlà) is almost illegible; or they would not form at all, and the writer was obliged to abandon a half finished letter, and trace it anew on the other side of the fault, thus leaving a more or less extended gap in his line. Thus in Part I, folio 3a7 (Plate III) we have vimi[ia]iro, folio 366, ji[va]vitukamah, folio 562 (Plate V), vya[va]vâyâchcha, where the abandoned half-finished letters are indicated by being placed within brackets (Journal, As. Soc. Beng., 1891, Vol. LX, Part I, p. 137). Other examples are in Part II, fols, 7, 8, 22, 27, 29, etc. (Plates XII, XIII, XXIV, XXIX, XXXI), in Part III, folio 3 (Plate XXXVI), and in Part V, folios 2 and 6 (Plate XLIV and XLVIII), which show large uninscribed places. None of these defects is seen in the bark of Part VI, which is of the proper texture, and, has been properly prepared.
BOWER MANUSCRIPT.
xix
The fact of the larger portion of the Bower Manuscript being written on birch-bark of such an inferior quality, of course, suggests the enquiry as to what may have been the cause of it. So much seems obvious that, as Kashmir and Udyâna are the lands of the birch aud birch-bark, the scribes (on their number, see Chapter III) of the larger portion of the Bower Manuscript would not have had recourse to an inferior quality of bark, if at the time of writing it, they had not been, for some reason, in a position which made it impracticable for them to procure a supply of good bark. The most obvious explanation that suggests itself, of course, is that when they wrote their manuscript, they were already settled in Kuchar, where fresh birch-bark prepared for writing was not readily procurable, for which reason they were reduced to the necessity of using up what inferior portion remained to
The blankness is not due to the spots: that need not have interfered, as may be seen from the obvers of folio 2 of Part III (Plate XXXVI). The leaves and plates of Part V are wrongly placed; for Leaf 6, Plate XLVIII "read" Leaf 1, Plate XLIII", and shift the others accordingly.
The number 33 which is seen on the peeled off surface on Plate XXXIV is not original: it was inscribed by myself for guidance.