Nirgrantha-3

Author(s): M A Dhaky, Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre

Page 67

THE TEXT OF THE MAHAVIRACARITA OF BHAVABHŪTI
Vijay Pandya
The manuscripts of the Mahāvīracarita (MVC) do not present the text in a uniform manner; hence there is a difference of opinion regarding the extent and authenticity of the text.
The first scholar to pay attention to this problem was Hertel who held the last two acts, namely VI & VII of the MVC, as spurious'. Next to Hertel, Todarmall was advantageously placed for examining the problem in depth since he had collated 18 manuscripts to edit the text of the MVC. The critical edition indeed is a lasting monument to his scholarship and critical acumen. All manuscripts collated by Todarmall, all printed editions (of Trithen, Borooah Shridhar, Jivanand, Taranath, Jyotishi and Laxmanasuri) and some manuscripts procured by De uniformly agree up to the act V-46. Thereafter there is a wide divergence and, according to Todarmall, three different recensions emerge from them.
1. Eight northern MSS. from the act V 46 to the end of the play present recension A which is the Vulgate Text of Hertel. Ratnam Aiyar calls this as the Sarvataḥ pracalitaḥ pathah, which he tags as an appendix to his edition of the MVC.
2. Todarmall's MS. MR. as well as the printed edition of Ratnam Aiyar gives different text subsequent to V 46 up to the end of the play. This is recension C and this much portion has been attributed to some Subrahmanya as stated in the MS. MR. at the end Asmin nätake väliprakarane "dauratmyadaribhiḥ" iti slokaparyantena granthasandarbheṇa Bhavabhūtinā tribhāgaparimitā kathā viracitā, tataḥ "avasyaṁ ca sreyasvina maya bhavitavyam" iti väliväkyädärabhya bharatavakyaparyantena granthasandarbhena Subrahmanyakavina kṛtsnopi kaṭhāseṣaḥ püritaḥ.
3. The MSS. K and B give a different text from the act V 46 to the end of the Act V. This is recension B. The acts VI and VII of these MSS. agree with the recension A. MS. K. reads etavad Bhavabhuteḥ, agre kavinayaka-Vinayaka bhaṭṭairapuri. Todarmall, after having examined the MSS., came to the conclusion that Bhavabhuti wrote the MVC up to the end of the act V and did not complete the drama. He held the last VI and VII acts not authentic2.
De, going further (or backward ?) than Todarmall, considers the genuine text of the MVC extending up to V 46 only. He offers an ingenious interpretation of the word agre in recension B as indicating not only the completion of act V, but the subsequent VI and VII acts as well3. According to De, recension A is from V 46 to the end of the act, and borrows the VI and VII acts from recension B. It is highly probable, according to De, that originally there existed a longer text of Vinayaka in Recension B but, subsequently a shorter anonymous text came into existence, receiving the