________________
40
The two other possibilities can be excluded:
Third South-Indian
Vulgata
Jaina
because the Third South-Indian recension has innovations of its own against retentions in the Jaina-recension together with the Vulgata (see under a. below); and
Jaina
Third South-Indian
Vulgata
because the Jaina-recension has innovations of its own against retentions in the Vulgata (see under b. below).
The two branches, represented by the Third South-Indian recension, on the one hand, and by the Jaina-recension and the Vulgata, on the other, ultimately go back to one single MS, the archetype X. Its existence is proved by certain errors common to the MSS of the Third South-Indian recension, on the one hand, and MS Bh of the Jaina-recension, on the other (see under c. below). The MS of the archetype was written in a North-Indian script, most likely a kind of Jaina Nagarī, as appears from the 'error', found in all available MSS, annāvarāha for āṇāvarāna in 488." The supposed corruption of an- into ann- points to a source in Jaina Nāgart, in which the Aksaras concerned are hardly distinguishable. Furthermore, the MSS of the Third South-Indian recension, which go back more or less directly to the MS of the archetype, have certain orthographical peculiarities which positively point to a source written in Jaina Nāgart (see under d. below). Admittedly, this source is probably