________________
68
sion (see under a. below) and in the second place from a comparison of the respective texts. It appears, among other things, that T has 101 Gāthās exclusively in common with the Third South-Indian recension (see under b. below). T agrees with the Third South Indian recension in that it, too, has certain forms which point to an original written in Jaina Nägart (see under c. below).
T has a relatively large number of readings exclusively in common with S (see under d. below). Besides, it has a few readings in common with the Vulgata and with some individual Vulgata MSS (see under e. below). In this connection it should be noted that T also shares a number of readings with the Vulgata together with S (see under f. below). Finally, I shares a number of readings with R; and with R together with the Vulgata MSS and S (see under g. below). That T was influenced by these respective traditions and not the other way around would appear from the absence in either S, the Vulgata or R of any of those readings typical of T and the Third South-Indian recension. In this connection it may be noted that during my visits of manuscipts libraries in India I did not come across any North-Indian Devanāgart MS of the Telinga-recension or, for that matter, of the Third SouthIndian and Second Telinga-recensions, while in Trivandrum I was shown a South-Indian MS of the Vulgata with Gangādhara's commentary. This evidence should, however, not be stretched so far as to mean that there never were MSS of the South-Indian recensions in North-India. Furthermore, the manuscripts libraries contain only the top of the iceberg of the available MSS in India.
Above (4.3) it has already been shown that Tp of the Third SouthIndian recension was influenced by T.
T has many of the retentions of the Third South-Indian recension against innovations found in the Jaina-recension and the Vulgata, enumerated in 4.1. Besides, it has many readings otherwise exclusively found in the Third South-Indian recension. E.g.