________________
should belong to 23 (Ed. 25).
In 4.2 I have shown that the Jaina-recension and the Vulgata go back to one source. Each is characterized by changes of its own in the order of the Gathās. Below I will consider two instances where the flow of the text was thus interrupted.
In Bh the nickname Pavana, 'Wind', is found with 521 (Ed. 498). This name more likely belongs to 450 (Ed. 497), i.e. the Gathā which precedes in the Vulgata, than to 520 (Ed. 627), the Gathā which precedes in the Jaina-recension. It looks as though the names found in Bh were borrowed from a Vulgata MS. It is also possible to maintain that when the order of the archetype, which is preserved in the Vulgata here (see Appendix III, 454, 337 and 412), came to be changed in the Jaina-recension, the name which originally belonged to the preceding Gathā was taken along with the following Gathā to the new position in the text. This latter explanation does, however, not hold in the case of Sthirasaha, 'Strong branch', found in Bh with 99 (Ed. 168). This name should belong to 367 (Ed. 167), the Gathā which precedes in the Vulgata, rather than to 98 (Ed. 96). From Appendix III (117) it appears that in this case it is the Vulgata in which the original order is disturbed, while it is preserved in the Jaina-recension. It follows that the names of the authors found in Bh were indeed borrowed from a MS of the Vulgata. 24
This also means that there is no evidence for the presence of the names in any stage of the transmission of the text prior to that of the Vulgata. This latter conclusion should, however, be treated with caution. In this connection it is to be noted that the names were, or were considered as, part of the commentary. Thus, in P they are available only as far as PTtāmbara's commentary is; in v and y, which contain only the text, they are completely absent despite their final Gathā which specifically says that the Gāthās are accompanied by the names of their authors (see Ed., Gātha 709). Furthermore, they were not considered an essential part of the text, as appears from the fact that in K they are given only for the first few Gathās. Therefore the absence of the names in the Third South-Indian recension, on the one hand, and in the Jainarecension, on the other, cannot be taken as absolute proof that they were absent in the archetype as well.
If despite these uncertainties the names were indeed added to the
