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 4

Vol. III, 1997-2002
The Text of....
51
3. It is also significant that all the southern MSS. present the text of the MVG in
diversified forms. C. R. Deodhar offers a plausible explanation for this phenomenon : "The fact that the Southern MSS. preserve the text only up to V. 46 while the Northern MSS. give the text to the end of act Vil clearly supports the widely accepted tradition that the poet must have migrated from his native Vidarbha to the North before he had completed his MVC." So, the unfinished work
which he completed in the North, gained currency in the South. 4. According to Todarmall, the oldest MS. Il continues beyond V 46 without any
break and does not make any reference that the portion beyond V 46 up to the close of the act V is from a different author. Hence the authentic text extends up to the end of the Vth act. Now, the other MSS. in the Northern group also continue without any break beyond V 46 up to the end of the play. Out of these MSS., the MS. 12, though dated A. D. 1801; "Copied from originals belonging to the 17th century" 10 seems to be equally old. This MS. also does not break in the middle nor does it make any mention of an author different from Bhavabhūti and continues up to the end of the play. So, this MS. is entitled to some weightage in respect of the authenticity of the text. Uninterrupted continuity beyond V 46 is the
characteristic of all the manuscripts in the Northern group. 5. Much stress need not be lent to the argument of contradiction by Todarmall.
Lakşmana is depicted to be casting aside the heap of bones of the demon Dundubhi in one MS. E of Todarmall. One more MS. No. 471 of the B.O. R.I. also, similarly attributes the act to Laksmana. Bhavabhūti, then must not be held guilty on this count and deprived of the authorship of the last two acts of MVC as the tradition of the MSS, is not unanimous. As Deodhar points out, Murări closely
following Bhavabhūti, also attributes this act to Laksmana", 6. The difference in the use of Präkrta forms is also an argument not having "much
probative value."12 Deodhar has very cogently refuted this argument on the following grounds: (i) The Prākṣtas are generally neglected in the MSS. (ii) The use of forms depends upon the age and provenance of the MSS. (iii) The variance noticed by Todarmall in the employment of the Prākṣita forms
is in fact not to be met with uniformly. (iv) The same peculiarities in the VI and the Vil acts, persist in the MM and URC
also. So, this cannot be made the ground to dispossess Bhavabhūti of his
authorship of the last acts of the MVC. 7. Similarly, the metrical irregularity noticed by Todarmall is too minor to lead to
any definite conclusion. 8. Also, nothing much can be made of the absence of references to VI and VII acts
of the MVC in the rhetorical works.