Text of Mahavircarita of Bhavbhuti

Author(s): Vijay Pandya
Publisher: Z_Nirgrantha_1_022701.pdf and Nirgrantha_2_022702.pdf and Nirgrantha_3_022703.pdf

Page 1

THE TEXT OF THE MAHĀVĪRACARITA OF BHAVABHŪTI
Vijay Pandya
The manuscripts of the Mahavīracarita (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 Sarvatah
pracalitah pāthah, 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 națake vāliprakarane daurātmyadaribhih" iti ślokaparyantena granthasandarbhena Bhavabhūtinā tribhāgaparimitā kathā viracitā, tatah "avasyam ca sreyasvină mayā bhavitavyam" iti vālivākyādārabhya bharatavákyaparyantena
granthasandarbhena Subrahmanyakavinā krtsnopi kathāśesah 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 etāvad Bhavabhūteh. agre kavinayaka-Vinayaka bhattairapuri. Todarmall, after having examined the MSS., came to the conclusion that Bhavabhūti 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 authentic 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 well!. 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 Vināyaka in Recension B but, subsequently a shorter anonymous text came into existence, receiving the