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

Introduction [xliv
1200 stanzas, he was moved to abandon the subject proper by reason
of some great disaster or humiliation¹ that befell his patron—presumably
the humiliation experienced at the hands of Lalitāditya. If this is as
certain as it is plausible, the composition of the Gaüḍavaho would be not
very far from A.D. 736.
13. Bhavabhūti probably a little earlier than Vākpatirāja.—We are
now in a position to consider the bearing of Vākpatirāja’s date upon the
date of Bhavabhūti. For the chronological relation of these two men we
have two important texts. The first is in Kalhaṇa’s Chronicle, iv. 144, and
reads as follows :
kaviVākpatirāja-śrīBhavabhūty-ādi-sevitaḥ
jito yayau Yaśovarmā tadguṇastutivanditām.
‘Yaśovarman, on whom attended the poet Vākpatirāja, the illustrious
Bhavabhūti, and other [poets], became by his defeat [at the hands of
Lalitāditya] a panegyrist of his [Lalitāditya’s] virtues.’ There is not the
smallest reason to doubt that this Vākpatirāja is the same as the author of
the Gaüḍavaho; and the complete reversal of fortune which explains so
well the author’s leaving the main part of his poem unwritten, is here most
clearly set forth. And it would seem extremely improbable that, when
speaking of ‘illustrious Bhavabhūti’, Kalhaṇa had any other poet in mind
than the great dramatist who now engages our attention. In short, it is
a safe inference that both Bhavabhūti and Vākpatirāja,—the latter officially,
the former we know not how,—were connected with the court of
Yaśovarman.
As making against the inference that Bhavabhūti was connected with
the court of Yaśovarman we must in fairness mention two facts : 1. from
none of Bhavabhūti’s extant works do we get the impression that he was
at any time basking in royal favour; and 2. still less do we find any
direct statement that he was ever in attendance upon Yaśovarman. But
these facts are not perhaps of much consequence. In spite of his silence,
Bhavabhūti may have received occasional gifts from that king.
Secondly, as making against the assumption that ‘the illustrious Bhava-
bhūti’ mentioned by Kalhaṇa is the same as our Bhavabhūti, we must
mention the circumstance that, in the dvandva compound contained in the
stanza above cited, Kalhaṇa places ‘śrī-Bhavabhūti’ after ‘Vākpatirāja’,
whereas, if Kalhaṇa knew that the dramatist Bhavabhūti was older than
Vākpatirāja (see below) and if he was scrupulous as to a point of grammar
like this, he should have placed ‘śrī-Bhavabhūti’ before ‘Vākpatirāja’,
since vārtika 3 to Pāṇini ii. 2. 34 requires that what is prior in order
¹ Cp. Mr. S. P. Pandit, l. c., pp. lxxii, lxxiii.