महावीरचरितम् (महाकवि भवभूति - वीररस-प्रधान रामकथा नाटक सम्पूर्ण ७ अङ्क सटीक)

contemporary of Kālidāsa, or else he may (so far as this evidence goes) be later than Kālidāsa by any amount of time. To try to determine the interval between them as small or great by differences of style small or great is a futile task such as has often been tried, and in vain. 8. Bhavabhūti probably later than Bāṇa, about A.D. 610.—The emperor Harsha of Kanauj reigned from 606 to 648, and the illustrious Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang has made for us many interesting records of that memorable reign. Bāṇa was Harsha's court-poet, and wrote a 'History of Harsha' or Harsha-charita to glorify his imperial patron. The date of the book may be set at A.D. 610. In the introduction Bāṇa mentions Bhāsa and Kālidāsa and other famous poets, but not Bhavabhūti. The argumentum ex silentio is indeed a dangerous one. In this same introduction Bāṇa omits all 'mention of Vālmīki, although Bāṇa certainly knew about the Rāmāyaṇa and its author (cp. Kādambarī, ed. Peterson, pp. 51, 91, &c.). Nevertheless, if Bhavabhūti preceded Bāṇa or was contem- poraneous with him, it is very unlikely that Bāṇa, as an eminent man of letters, should not have known Bhavabhūti, an eminent man of letters. True, Bāṇa and Bhavabhūti did not belong to the same court, and in old times news did not travel fast; or it may be that Bhavabhūti did not attain eminence until after the Harsha-charita was finished. But otherwise it is hard to see why Bāṇa—when mentioning the dramatists Bhāsa and Kālidāsa—did not mention the dramatist Bhavabhūti also, except on the assumption that Bhavabhūti was somewhat later than Bāṇa. 9. Identity of Bhavabhūti with 'a pupil of Kumārila' (say 700–750) unproved.—There is a manuscript of the Mālatī-Mādhava, in appearance about 400 years old, which in the colophons to acts iii and vi assigns the play to 'a pupil of Kumārila', but elsewhere assigns it to Bhavabhūti. According to this evidence,¹ Bhavabhūti was a pupil of the great Mīmāṁsā teacher, Kumārila, of about A.D. 700. Unfortunately, the colophon to act vi complicates the matter by giving the name of that pupil as Umvekāchārya. It follows either 1. that this was an alias of Bhavabhūti, or else 2. that the Mālatī-Mādhava is a composite work, and that, while the other eight acts are by Bhavabhūti, acts iii and vi are by Umvekāchārya, perhaps a substitution (like that of Subrahmaṇya in the Mahāvīra-charita ²) of his own version of these two acts in place of Bhavabhūti's original version which this 'pupil of Kumārila' did not like. Obviously we are giving undue weight to the testimony of a single

---

Footnotes:

¹ First brought out by Mr. Lele, p. 84 of his book cited above at p. xxxvi; further discussed by Mr. S. P. Pandit, introd. to Gaüḍavaho, pp. ccv ff. See also preface to Dr. Bhandarkar's M. M, 2nd ed., p. viii. ² See Nirṇaya Sāgara ed. of the play, p. 213 n. f [H.O.S. 21]