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]