पृष्ठम्:आर्यभटीयम्.djvu/23

INTRODUCTION xxiii two sub-versions, represented, respectively, by D and E, have branched off from version II at a lower stage in the descent of the manuscripts. 4. Stemma Codicum An interesting point worth mentioning here is that despite the numerous differences that are found in the manuscripts, they all preserve a few common haplographical and other omissions (e.g., see 25.6, 51.11), errors (39. 4, 138. मूलम् 3), corruptions (96.9, 126.3, 180.1) and confusions (153.4). All these manuscripts have, therefore, to be traced back to a common original which had been defective, at least, at these places. This defective archetype has, obviously, to be different, and, considerably, removed from the author's autograph. Giving due consideration to the individual traits and common characteristics of the manuscripts described above, their descent can be represented by the following genealogical table : O (Author's original) k (Defective archetype) Χ (Sources of the versions I and II) X7 (Sources of our mss.) X C E (The present mss.) 2. EDITORIAL PRINCIPLES The generally accepted principles of textual criticism have been sought to be applied carefully in preparing the present critical edition of the Aryabhatiya and its commentary. While all the manuscripts used are complete and present a more or less reliable text, their individual merits and division into versions and sub-versions have been given due consideration in the reconstruction of the critical text. The broad principles followed in the editorial work might be indicated here. 1. It has already been noted that Version II is a slightly inflated form of Version I. The latter, comprising of mss. A, B and C, has therefore, been taken to represent the basic text. There, too, after a careful examination of their accuracy, the three manuscripts of this version have been arranged in the descending order of their