पृष्ठम्:बृहद्देवता.djvu/८

xii] RELATIONSHIP OF THE MSS. [Introduction mainly relied in constituting his text. It is to be noted that A² has some affinities with b, one of the MSS. of the B group. Another MS. (m¹), which was procured by Max Müller from Bhâu Dāji in 1861, also belongs to A in that part of the text which is common to both recensions; here its readings nearly always agree with the subdivision A¹. This MS. occupies a very peculiar position, for it also contains all the additional matter of the longer recension represented by the B group. The fact that when the same line occurs in different forms in the two recensions, both forms are often (e. g. v. 13; vi. 15) found in this MS., shows that it had a composite origin: it must have copied from a MS. of the A group, while the passages there wanting were added from a MS. of the B group. een I may here observe that the MSS. of the A group (including m¹) are much more correct than those of the B group. B, comprising seven or (if m¹ be included) eight MSS., contains four subdivisions :- 1. b. The Chambers codex of the Berlin Library, which, though very incorrect, is occasionally the only MS. which has preserved the true reading. 2. f. The FitzEdward Hall MS. in the Bodleian Library, which though also very incorrect, is of importance in constituting that part of the text which is peculiar to the B recension. Closely connected with this MS. are three others, viz. one in the Cambridge University Library (c), Kuhn's (k), and Rajendralala's No. 2 (r² = kha). - 3. r5 and r7, two of Mitra's MSS. (=na and pustakuntaram). They occupy together a somewhat independent position in the B group, as on the one hand they have a few additional ślokas not occurring in the remaining MSS., and on the other they alone sometimes preserve the correct reading. 4. m¹. This is the Max Müller MS. which belongs in part to both recensions. It is much more correct than any of the regular B MSS.; its readings diverge considerably from theirs and are often better. It has proved of great value to me; for without its aid I should have been unable to emend satisfactorily some of the corrupt passages in the longer recension (e. g. iii. 95-97; vii. 128, 129). Six of these MSS. have a more or less independent value, viz. h, r¹, m², b, f, r5, as each of them, in several cases, is the only one which fur- nishes the correct reading. It is evident that Mitra places the whole passage ii. 69-127 (pp. 53-56) in parentheses, because it is wanting in r' r* (see his foot- note, p. 53), while the fragments contained in i. 28-134 (p. 56) are doubtless derived from the latter MSS.