TV3V7f A/ ^Afi 18 im - JScholarship - Johns Hopkins University

Introduction. Xix
this symbol has been employed, however, only when the three
manuscripts agree in the variant for which the quotation is
made, but differ in some minor particular. We have ,not
allowed this to interfere with the report of the variants of D
that are, or may be, due to contamination. In cases of rare
proper names and obscure passages we have aimed at absolute
completeness. Occasionally we have used M to designate the
consensus of the manuscripts. This is chiefly confined to
passages in which for metrical reasons or because of the
division of the sentences we thought best to change the traditional
samdhi.
The foregoing statements are, however, to be modified
in respect to the following orthographical peculiarities.
The method of designating post-consonantal diphthongs,
described by Knauer, Das Manava-grhya-sutra, p. XXIX,
is consistently employed in UT, and most probably in the
manuscript from which Both was copied. When carefully
written the diphthongal stroke can be distinguished from a of
the preceding syllable both by its connection with the following
consonant, and by its being a shorter stroke. The system
however lends itself most readily to a variety of corruptions.
In addition to the possibility just mentioned, the scribe is apt
simply to omit the stroke, especially after a mark of punctuation;
i and ai are also liable to confusion, and when the
later system is being introduced, the writing of the diphthongs
in both ways is a further source of confusion. A number of
mistakes due to such causes are common to all manuscripts
and hence must go back to the archetype. According to Knauer
this method of writing occurs frequently in manuscripts of the
fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries; and on this basis we may
conclude that M belongs either to the beginning of the fifteenth
or the end of the fourteenth century. Of independant mistakes
of this character but few occur in X; a slightly greater number
are found in T, still more in B, while in C it is questionable
whether we should not admit a sporadic use of this system ot
writing. For BC these variants are not systematically reported.
b*