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 3

50
Vijay Pandya
Nirgrantha
3. The use of Prākrra forms in the VI and VI acts varies from that of the first five
acts. 4. There is a metrical irregularity in the word vidrāvita in VI 27 d, the like of which
is not committed in the previous act. 5. Rhetorical works do not cite a single passage from the VI and VII acts. 6. No repetition of any phrases from the last two acts has been found in the other
two plays of Bhavabhūti excepting the two non-descript phrases, namely kilakilakolähala and cakramakrama.
Let us examine the arguments : 1. Todarmall's hypothesis of abandoning the play before completing it is quite
interesting but given to much fancying. First of all, it is difficult to understand why, Bhavabhūti got his incomplete MS. circulated among the literary circles of the day. This is rather a modern practice in vogue among the literary circles. Second, what judgement can one form of an incomplete work and what can an author be expected to benefit from such practice. Moreover, the prologue indicates that the play was presented on the occasion of a festival'. So, the presentation presupposes the complete drama. Of course, we do not get a hint or a detail as to how a play was actually written. But it can be surmised that at first the main play was got completed and afterwards a prologue suggesting the import of the work was added, predictably sometime before its staging. The word in the prologue hata-pāpmane suggests the slaying of the demon Rāvana which has been the subject of VI and VII acts. If we assume that, in the chronological order the MVC is the first, only then we can explain the author's indignation and lashing out at his contemporary's apathy in the Malatīmadhava(MM). If the completed drama MVC was presented, then the only criticism would be forth coming and then the only Bhavabhūti's cry for a kindred soul in the MM would appear to be consistent in view of the contemporary apathy with reference to the complete
MVC. 2. This is further corroborated by two MSS. C. R. Deodhar has noted a remark
samāptamidam natakam Mahāvīracaritam nāma Rajasekharadagdhasesam, in the colophons of the MS. No. 4434 from the Saraswati Mahal Library, Tanjore, Catalogue Vol. VIII. Again, the same remark, now more explicit in the colophon of the MS. No. 4435 from the same collection, thus runs : Iti srivasyavācā Bhavabhūtimahakavinā viracaritam nāma natakametāvadevasmindese drsyate sesam
Rājasekharena dagdhamiti prasiddhiḥ. Apart from lending any credence to this statement in its entirety, the remarks unwittingly, but unmistakably, point out to the fact that Bhavabhūti himself had written the entire play but, in course of time, some portion of it came to be lost either due to natural or by human agency.