Text Of Mahavircarita Of Bhavbhuti

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text concerning the textual issues of Bhavabhuti's Mahāviracarita (MVC):

The article, "The Text of the Mahāviracarita of Bhavabhuti" by Vijay Pandya, delves into the complex and debated authenticity of the Mahāviracarita (MVC), a play attributed to the renowned Sanskrit poet Bhavabhuti. The central issue revolves around the discrepancy in manuscripts and printed editions, particularly concerning the extent of Bhavabhuti's authorship.

Key Issues and Scholarly Debates:

• Disagreement on the Play's Extent: The primary point of contention is whether Bhavabhuti authored the entire play, or if parts of it, especially the later acts (VI and VII), are interpolations by other poets.
• Hertel's Claim: George Hertel was one of the first scholars to suggest that Acts VI and VII were spurious.
• Todarmall's Critical Edition: Todarmall's extensive collation of 18 manuscripts and his critical edition of the MVC are highlighted as a significant scholarly contribution. His work revealed a divergence in the manuscripts after Act V, Verse 46, leading to the identification of three distinct recensions:
  • Recension A (Vulgate Text): Represents eight northern manuscripts, commonly found, and often considered the standard version. This recension includes Acts VI and VII.
  • Recension C: Found in Todarmall's own manuscript (MR) and Ratnam Aiyar's printed edition. This recension attributes the portion from Act V, Verse 46 onwards to a poet named Subrahmanya.
  • Recension B: Found in manuscripts K and B. This recension presents a different text for the latter part of Act V, and its Acts VI and VII align with Recension A. Manuscript K explicitly states that the work up to a certain point is by Bhavabhuti, and the rest by Vinayaka.
• Todarmall's Conclusion: Based on his manuscript analysis, Todarmall concluded that Bhavabhuti likely wrote up to the end of Act V but did not complete the drama. He deemed Acts VI and VII inauthentic.
• De's Further Analysis: De extended this skepticism, suggesting that the genuine text might only extend to Act V, Verse 46. He proposed an interpretation where Recension A borrows Acts VI and VII from Recension B, and that originally a longer text by Vinayaka existed in Recension B, which was later superseded by a shorter, anonymous text.
• C. R. Deodhar's Counterarguments: Deodhar critically examined De's thesis, raising several points against the attribution of Acts VI and VII to poets other than Bhavabhuti:
  • Stylistic Differences: Deodhar argues that some verses in Recension B are "uncouth and obscure," metrically defective, and show grammatical errors, suggesting a different author.
  • Characterization of Vali: The portrayal of Vali in Acts VI and VII is significantly softened compared to earlier acts, implying a different author.
  • Discrepancies: The mention of "Tāla" trees in Act VII, absent in Act V, is cited as another discrepancy.
  • Weak Argument: Deodhar dismisses the argument about repeated phrases ("kilakilakolāhala" and "kapicakramakrama") as weak, noting that Bhavabhuti himself tends to repeat phrases.
• Arguments for Bhavabhuti's Authorship of Acts VI & VII: The article then presents arguments supporting the authenticity of the later acts:
  • Traditional View: Some traditions and quotations in rhetorical works support the genuineness of the portion beyond V 46.
  • Repetition of Passages: Repetitions of passages from the contested portion are found in Bhavabhuti's other plays.
  • Oldest Manuscript (I-1): The oldest known manuscript (1609 AD) continues beyond V 46 without any break or attribution to another author.
  • Northern Manuscripts: Northern manuscripts generally continue the play uninterruptedly to the end, lending weight to the authenticity of the latter acts.
  • Contradiction Argument Weakness: The contradiction regarding the casting aside of Dundubhi's bones (Rama vs. Lakshmana) is not a definitive proof against Bhavabhuti, as manuscript tradition is not unanimous on this, and Murari, a follower of Bhavabhuti, also attributes the act to Lakshmana.
  • Prakrita Forms: Differences in Prakrita forms are not conclusive, as manuscript variations, age, and provenance influence their usage, and similar peculiarities are found in Bhavabhuti's other works.
  • Metrical Irregularity: Minor metrical irregularities are not sufficient grounds to deny authorship.
  • Absence in Rhetorical Works: The absence of citations from Acts VI and VII in rhetorical works is not conclusive.
  • Phrase Repetition: While some argue against phrase repetition, the author suggests that Bhavabhuti does repeat phrases from these acts in his other plays, as evidenced by Harshe's work.

Stylistic Analysis as Evidence:

The article places significant emphasis on stylistic analysis to support Bhavabhuti's authorship of the later acts.

• Author's Urge for Recognition: The concluding lines of Act VII express Bhavabhuti's yearning for recognition, mirroring the sentiments in his other plays, suggesting a consistent authorial voice.
• Linguistic Elasticity and Repetition: Specific instances of linguistic flexibility and repetition of phrases across the acts (e.g., the "grāvāṇaḥ plavante" saying) point to a single author.
• Personification of Non-Sentient Objects: Bhavabhuti's characteristic personification of inanimate objects (like cities in Act VII, similar to rivers in URC) is observed in the contested acts.
• Peculiar Word Usage: The article meticulously details the recurrent use of specific words and phrases by Bhavabhuti, such as "durmanāyate," "pramodāmahe," and "kimapi," in both the earlier and later acts, arguing that such consistent and nuanced usage is indicative of the same author. Examples include the usage of "kulatanu" and "kulapratisthātantu."
• Influence of Kalidasa: The influence of Kalidasa on Bhavabhuti is evident in Acts VI and VII, particularly in the description of the "Puspaka" aerial car, which is seen as an emulation of Kalidasa's Raghuvamsa. Bhavabhuti's attempt to subtly compete with Kalidasa, especially in scientific descriptions (like Sita's observation of stars), further supports his consistent presence.

Conclusion:

Vijay Pandya argues that the stylistic similarities, recurrent linguistic patterns, and the author's characteristic tendencies strongly indicate that Bhavabhuti is indeed the author of Acts VI and VII of the Mahāviracarita. He concludes that these later acts are as authentic as the first five, and the attribution of authorship is often made on insufficient grounds. The scholarly debate, while complex, is ultimately tilted in favor of Bhavabhuti's complete authorship based on deeper textual and stylistic analysis.