INTRODUCTION 53 of the text, we find, in the language of one and the same text, an admixture of old and developed features. And with regard to some features like the ya-śruti and the cerebralization of an initial n or a medial nn, different, practices prevailed since the 'Prakrit stage' $3. These factors in short are responsible for the great diver- gence and inconsistency of spelling in the Apabhramśa MSS. It raises knotty problems for the editor of Apabhramśa texts. His difficulties are multiplied by the fact that the manuscript material at his disposal is as a rule meagre and of a considerably late date. Under these circumstances, in some cases the original spelling can be determined with the help of metre (if such help is forthcoming) and by a consideration of the prevalent orthographic tendencies of particular MSS. (the value whereof will depend upon the age and tradition of the MSS.). But with all this help, he cannot succeed in determining the original spelling with precision. At the best he can hope to point out probabilities consequent upon a critical exa- mination of the orthographic data before him. With these general remarks, we take up for consideration the chief orthographic peculiaries of the three Mss. utilized for con- stituting the text of the Paümacariu. 4. Confusion between the following characters is usual in Apa. Mss:Tand, Tande; Flands; anda; SandT; 3,57 and 28:7, Fands S. has a strong tendency to consider the Danda marking the end of a Pāda as a part of the final syllable and hence words in this posi- tion which end in -a in other Mss. are found in S. ending in a Casually writing for is another tendency of S. Writing sin- gle consonants for the conjuncts ज्य, त्त, पण, हा क्ख or vice versa, writing 3 for 3 metathesis, repetition of a word or longer portion of the text, omission of a portion of text (haplographic or otherwise), tagging the -u of the Nom. sing. to a prior member of a compound, omission of Anusvāra are the results of scribal careless- ness. On the other hand confusing medial and य, उ and व, 5 and has a phonetic basis and rare omission of the -u of the Nom. sing., substitution of -hu, hi and-hã in P., S. for the Gen. Loc. endings -ho, him and hum are the traits that reveal the modern. izing influence. The oft-recurring spellings 2016 and fapter are explicable under the influence of Sanskrit. Apart from these stray features there are some more preva- lent and significant tendencies of Ap. orthography: 1. Shorte c) in open syllables. $5. Short e is evidenced in the following forms and vocables: 1. I. sing. of masc.; 'neut. A stems in -er, eņa. 2. I.L. plur. masc. neut. A stems in -elim. 3. L. sing. in short e. 4. I. sing. of fem. A, I and U stems in -ae, -ie, ue. 5. All G. sings. of all I, Ŭ stems and of fem. A. stems, and L. sing. of fem. A, I and U stems in -ihe, -uhe, ahe. 6. V. sing. of fem. A stems in short -. 7. The pronominal forms amhe, tumhe, te, ehu, c, ce, ke, je. 8. Imper 2. sing. in short e. 9. Abs. in evi 10. Indeclinables je, jje, jema, tema, ema, kema, jettahe etc., an- nettahe. None of our three Mss. has either e alone or only i in- stead in these forms consistently throughout. They occur in all the Mss. now with e, now with i. But in all the Mss. the spelling or
