246 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. |N.S., XIV, 1918] 
y a. a 
Hinaaitaataa: | 82) @RataaRfeaaar Tq 
wialgiuiaefasnita | afe gan wa aqienateatte-(atte- | 
alfz inthe Pandit)-gaafqcaa alsaraiet vata Hagia: | Sa 
EN 
wage aa (SHA in the Pandit) “ aeratty aren Fagufemta 
a aaagysataas set oatwal Tag efeTaMAATS 
afa aaviafiran: @2” <fa | 
(aayelfaat Benares Litho. ed. of 1945 Vikrama, p. 84a of 
Chap. II; also in the Pandit, vol. V, p. 576.) ' : 
So according to the great Vedantic scholar, Bhavabhuti 
even before he was a poet was regarded as an @T#— 
nised authority in one of the systems of philosophy presumably 
the Mimansa. But the commentator IPRGSET Goes further :— 
~ “SS : 
a alaaary aaife amarante sat artrantafeta arte 
afeuifa: meafe areata aenfeitat | waytat: 
* = 
ati —Tata UMAwia aeuat daaata vat Aafetal 
(Vide waagerfeat comm. as in Benares ed.) Here in clear unequi- 
vocal words we have the striking statement that Bhavabhuti is 
identical with Umveka—a fact substantially corroborating the 
unique colophon of the MS. referred to abov 
= 
es 
e. 
116, Anandasram 
unless verified by stronger evidence. Umveka is known to have 
een one of the authorities on the Mimansa@ and is ecreditec 
sophical works are no longer extant, except in rare quotata 
like the one from the Chitsukhi. All the same, it is a notablt 
thing that one of our greatest dramatists happens to be ® 
philosopher as well. 
EN PI PR FA Np Re 
