INTRODUCTION r xxi Ms. C, which has the distinction of having been prepared by a scholarly prince Rama (Varman), again, presents a generally reliable text, in spite of there being a few exclusive variants, errors, omissions of the haplographical and unindicated types, and repetitions. But from the careful manner in which the manuscript has been written, these defects have, mostly, to be traced to the original from which it has been copied. It might be noted that C shares several peculiarities in readings with A and B. Ms. D, a fine specimen of a manuscript, which also belonged to the royal family of Edappalli, contains a fairly accurate text. A long omission occurs in the beginning and several minor ones towards the middle, all being scrupulously indicated by blank spaces. Exclusive errors, haplographical omissions and unindicated omissions are few, but not absent. The ms. contains also a number of unique variant readings, minor additions, transpositions, elaborations and, what is more important, supply of the omissions in A-B-C, some of which it shares with E. Ms. E, found in a codex of astronomical works, preserves a generally correct text akin to that in D, but also often differing therefrom. It exhibits a large number of peculiarities of its own, including unique variants, blanks, haplographical omissions, unindicated omissions, errors and transpositions. Notwithstanding these limitations, the manuscript is, on the whole, reliable. Other differences in E include unique additions, supply of omissions in other mss., and a large number of minor elaborations to expressions in A-B-C, some of which are common to D and E. 3. Mutual relationship of the Manuscripts The individual traits, including exclusive variant readings, haplographical omissions, transpositions, gaps and errors, which characterise each of the manuscripts described above indicate the impossibility of any one of them having been directly copied from any other, thus ruling out any immediate relationship and establishing their independent nature. However, some of the manuscripts bear certain common features which would enable their being classified into WCSOS. Version I. The three manuscripts A, B and C exhibit some telling similarities. Apart from certain special readings and common omissions, these three manuscripts preserve identical errors and 1, Vide p. 62, note 4 ; 70.2 ; 73.10 ; 85.12; 101.1 ; 119.12,
