2023-02-16 14:47:18 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
38
INTRODUCTION
G5= DC R 4783c. Collated against the printed TiB text by Dr. T. R.
Cintamani of the Madras University Department of Oriental Studies.
It will be seen that the grouping by script is only a matter of
convenience, without much inner significance. In fact, the Grantha group has
strong affinities with the next:
M: The Malayalam Group.
This consists of five palm-leaf Malayalam MSS, of which M1 was copied
on my special collation sheets at Trivandrum, the rest being collated there
against the copy. These fall into at least two sub-groups, though on occasion
they all differ in readings. The first contains Mi-3: M₁- 2010, M2- 2011
both of the Palace Library; M3=2087 of the University Library, Trivandrum.
Of these, the third is corrupt but gives N readings oftener than the rest
of M. This subgroup agrees often with G₁.
Version M+. 5. M₁=6122 of the University Library and Ms=2008
of the Palace collection. This minor version is supported by Mysore 582, a
Grantha palm-leaf codex that is comparatively modern in appearance, and has
been emended throughout by some ardent Vaiṣṇava who systematically
changes every mention of Siva to Visņu or the equivalent, particularly
in the Vairagya.
The M group again shows occasional agreement with N against
the other peninsular types, as in the Mahabharata; naturally, special
importance has been attached to such a concordance wherever it occurs.
Citation of ślokas in any MS of type YT G M is generally by paddhati
and number. Thus, N III-7 means (if no extra slokas have preceded ) no. 27
of niti; similarly for the vairagya. For Ś the numberings are by twenties,
whence $ III-7 would mean no. 47.
In general, it must be understood that a collated" MS is one from
which readings have been fully reported in the critical apparatus of the
first two groups. However, even from MSS "not collated", there appear
extra stanzas in groug III, though not all the variants could be recorded in
such cases, simply because such MSS were either too corrupt or came
to hand only after a good part of the text had been printed off. The loss of
information from such unrecorded variants is negligible, while the possible
revisions that might have to be made in my grouping are considered in
a later section of this preface.
INTRODUCTION
G5= DC R 4783c. Collated against the printed TiB text by Dr. T. R.
Cintamani of the Madras University Department of Oriental Studies.
It will be seen that the grouping by script is only a matter of
convenience, without much inner significance. In fact, the Grantha group has
strong affinities with the next:
M: The Malayalam Group.
This consists of five palm-leaf Malayalam MSS, of which M1 was copied
on my special collation sheets at Trivandrum, the rest being collated there
against the copy. These fall into at least two sub-groups, though on occasion
they all differ in readings. The first contains Mi-3: M₁- 2010, M2- 2011
both of the Palace Library; M3=2087 of the University Library, Trivandrum.
Of these, the third is corrupt but gives N readings oftener than the rest
of M. This subgroup agrees often with G₁.
Version M+. 5. M₁=6122 of the University Library and Ms=2008
of the Palace collection. This minor version is supported by Mysore 582, a
Grantha palm-leaf codex that is comparatively modern in appearance, and has
been emended throughout by some ardent Vaiṣṇava who systematically
changes every mention of Siva to Visņu or the equivalent, particularly
in the Vairagya.
The M group again shows occasional agreement with N against
the other peninsular types, as in the Mahabharata; naturally, special
importance has been attached to such a concordance wherever it occurs.
Citation of ślokas in any MS of type YT G M is generally by paddhati
and number. Thus, N III-7 means (if no extra slokas have preceded ) no. 27
of niti; similarly for the vairagya. For Ś the numberings are by twenties,
whence $ III-7 would mean no. 47.
In general, it must be understood that a collated" MS is one from
which readings have been fully reported in the critical apparatus of the
first two groups. However, even from MSS "not collated", there appear
extra stanzas in groug III, though not all the variants could be recorded in
such cases, simply because such MSS were either too corrupt or came
to hand only after a good part of the text had been printed off. The loss of
information from such unrecorded variants is negligible, while the possible
revisions that might have to be made in my grouping are considered in
a later section of this preface.