________________
of self-serving eclecticism. The same comment can be
extended to Bronkhorst's discussion. 14. Mirashi (1955:xl) follows a reading "varti-tri
kalingaikao not found in Mānavalli's edition (1887), which Mirashi apparently used. As note 15 establishes, there is some trace of this reading in the generally inferior manuscript E7 and its transcript E14 but there is no clear support for it in any of the available manuscripts. Even in E7, the presence of ka is due to the copyist's inability to decide whether his exemplar reads talti or ka. It would appear that Mirashi read the name Tri-kalinga in his source through an oversight caused by the memory of that name, which occurs in other histori
cal records handled by him. 15. Following the designations given in Rau 1971, the devia
tions noticed in manuscripts from the sīkā text accepted here can be specified as follows:
(a) trikūțekadeśa° E1, trikūțaideśao E25, trikūtaiddeśao E5, trikātadeśao E7, triküte desa° E14..
(b)' Ovarttinetilimgai E8, varttinotilimgaika° E1, 'vartinolimgaika° E3, E9, E9a, E22, "varttinolimgaikao with no changed to ti in the margin E10, ovartitakalimgaika° E7, E14, 'varttitaligauka° E5, 'vartiti limgaika° E20, 'varttine (or te] ligaika° E23, varttitelimgaika° E4, E21, E25, ovavartitilimgaika° E6.
The difference of one t between varti and vartti is of no consequence, as anyone conversant with common features of Sanskrit orthography knows.
The generally reliable manuscripts of the sīkā are E4, E6, E11, E13, E15, E16, E21, E24, and E25, as my
32
