Book Title: Mahavira Charitam
Author(s): Todarmal Pandit
Publisher: University of Panjab Lahore

View full book text
Previous | Next

Page 20
________________ 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

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 ... 407