________________
V 46 etāvad bhavabhūteh I agre kavi-nāyaka-vināyakabhattarr apūre, and Mr ascribes V 46 to the end of Act V to a poet Subrahmanya by name.
2. The commentary to Dasarūpa II 50 and the commentary to Sährtya-darpana 416 quote a verse as from the Mahāvīra-carita (their words are 'vīracarite') which occurs as V. 48 in Recension A. Moreover, the-commentary to Sarasvati-kanthābharana V 172, quotes another verse which appears as V. 51 in this very recension. Evidently the authors of these old works on Alankāra considered the text of Recension A as the genuine text of Bhavabhūtı.
3 Recension A contains a couple of passages which are repeated in the other dramas of the author 2
4 Recension B runs to an unusual length and covers 73 veises
Another question that remains to be decided is whether Acts VI and VII are the genuine composition of Bhavabhūtı I am well-nigh convinced that they are spurious in accordance with the following considerations
1. Repetitions of verses and portions of verses, as also of prose passages occurring in the first five Acts of the Mahāvīra-carita are very frequent in the Mālatī-madhava and the Uttara-rāma-carita, so much so that there is no sungle Act among the first five from which passages have not been iepeated in the other two plays Passages with parallel ideas are still more frequent But with regard to Acts VI and VII the case is quite different There are only two phrases of two words each in the Mv, Act VI, which recur in Māl., kalakılā-kolāhala, Mv, p 173, 1 9 in Mäl V 11, and cakramakrama, Mv, p 173, 1 9-10 in Māl V 14. Act VII lacks even that number These very slight repetitions of phrases can be easily accounted for Acts VI and VII of Mv were probably composed by some unknown author, after Bhavabhūtı had written his second drama, Mālatī-madhava, and borrowed from the latter.
2. From all the first five Acts passages have either been quoted or referred to in the Alankāra literature, but not even a single reference to or quotation from Acts VI and VII is to be met with
3 In Mv V 38–9 it is Rāma who casts aside the mountain-like heap of bones of the demon Dundubhi, but VII. 16 attributes the same act to Laksmana. Surely Bhavabhūti, had he been the author of the latter passage as well, could not have been guilty of this self-contradiction, especially when the two passages are not very far removed from each other
4. The evidence of the Prakrit passages points to the same conclusion. Thus, for example, the treatment of the particles ca and eva 18 very suggestive. In the first five Acts the MSS. nearly always agree in reading
1 Vide Colophon at the end of the MS
· Vide Illustı atı ve Notes,
b 2
