________________
XV11
3
THREE RECENSIONS FOR A PORTION OF THE MAHĀVĪRA-CARITA
When I undertook my research-work on the Drama, two Recensions were known, viz. the one printed in his edition of the play by Ratnam Aiyer with Virarāghava's commentary, and the second given by him (as Śrībhavabhūtz-kave-pranīta-mahāvīracaritasya sarvatah pracalutah pathah) in the Appendix and without any commentary All the other known editions, namely those of Trithen, Borooah, Sridhara, Jivānanda and Täränātha agreed in accepting this sarvatah pracalitah păthah (universally admitted text') as the authentic text of Bhavabhūti, and said not a word about the Second Recension of the play These two Recensions agree in having the same text for the portion of the Drama from Act I to V 46, after which they have nothing in common, excepting that both consist of seven Acts An examination of the collated MSS, however, disclosed a third Recension, which was distinguished by reading a different text only from V. 46 to the end of Act V. For Acts VI and VII it agreed with the universally admitted text' of the drama. The whole case will be made clear by the following table
Acts I to v 46
Act 7 46 to the close of Act V
Acts TI and VII
L 13. do
Ro
All manuscripts Recension A of the MSS E,
have the same W, Sc, I2, Md, Alw, I, and text, the divergences being Recension B of the MSS. K nothing more and B than differ- Recension of the MS Mi ences of reading
Recension A of the
MSS E, W, Sc, 19 Both Md, Alw, Il, and
** Recensions Во Recension B of the
B of the identical MSS K and B Recension C of the
MS Mr
As is clear from the MSS evidence, Bhavabhūti's original work must have come to a sudden close with V 46 Some time later on he revised this portion and brought the Act to a close. The question now arises, which of the three Recensions for the portion from Act V 46 to the end of Act V represents the authentic text? I am of opinion that Recension A does this My conclusion is based on the following arguments.
1. The oldest known MS I, which is dated samvat 1665 (=1609 A.D), runs without a break beyond V 46 and does not mention that the portion of the Act after V 46 is from the pen of a different author. Neither do the other MSS belonging to Recension A come to a sudden stop in the middle of the Act. On the other hand, the MSS of the other two Recensions attribute the part preceding V 46 and that following V. 46 to the end of Act V in clear words to different authors, thus K adds after
