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

xlv] Bhavabhūti, his Life, and his Date

of time or nature should come earlier in a dvandva compound. This
objection can be met by supposing that ‘Vākpatirāja’, the first member
of the compound, was in Kalhaṇa’s view the more important one, abhyarhita
(vār. 4 to Pāṇ. ii. 2. 34), the one more intimately connected with the court
of Yaśovarman, and so he could be placed before ‘śrī-Bhavabhūti’.
As a matter of fact, however, we should not attempt to make much out
of a subtle point of grammar like the present. Compounds which seem to
violate one rule are often justifiable by another. Thus the compound
grahītṛi-grahaṇa-grāhyeshu (Yoga-sūtra, i. 41) may seem to go against
Pāṇini ii. 2. 34, but it would be perfectly correct if the author of the
Yoga-sūtra considered grahītṛi, the percipient, as more important than
grāhya, the object perceived. Or it may be that the Sūtrakara is here
following a traditional order of words, as he certainly is in the compound
śraddhā-vīrya-smṛiti-samādhi-prajñā¹ in i. 20. I do not think, therefore,
that Professor Jacobi (JAOS., December, 1910, pp. 26–7) has succeeded in
establishing, on the strength of two ‘incorrect’ dvandva compounds, the
existence of a Yoga-Patañjali as distinct from Vyākaraṇa-Patañjali, seeing
that the latter himself does not quarrel with Kātyāyana’s ‘incorrect’
dvandva compounds in vār. 1 to ii. 2. 35, vār. 1 to ii. 2. 36, vār. 6 to
ii. 1. 51, &c. But this is by the way.
The second relevant text is a passage of eight stanzas (797–804) found
in the Gaüḍavaho itself. In it Vākpatirāja is speaking about himself, and
the gist of it is as follows: Vākpatirāja was a favourite friend of Yaśovarman
and bore the title of Head-poet or Kavirāja [797]. Although not naturally
gifted as a poet, he yet came to honour through [the teaching (?) or the
favour (?) of] Kamalāyudha [798]. And in his enormous (viyaḍa) narrative-
structures even now there flash excellences, like drops of the nectar of
poetry from the ocean of Bhavabhūti [literal version of 799]. And his
delight is in the works of Bhāsa, Jvalanamitra, Kālidāsa, Subandhu, &c.
[800]. He is versed in logic, &c. &c. [801–804].
Taking the passage as a whole, and especially the mention of the great
dramatists Bhāsa and Kālidāsa, there is no good reason for doubt as to
who is meant by ‘Bhavabhūti’. It must be the dramatist Bhavabhūti.
Next, it is clear that in stanza 799 Vākpatirāja is modestly acknowledging
an indebtedness to the influence of Bhavabhūti. Was that influence exerted
personally, that is, was Vākpatirāja a pupil of Bhavabhūti? or was it
exerted through Bhavabhūti’s writings which Vākpatirāja read and studied?
Apart from the phrase ‘even now’, the general wording of the stanza
seems to favour the latter view. The phrase ‘even now’ does not decide

---

¹ Compare also the compounds in Yoga-sūtra, i. 6; ii. 3, 15, 18, 29, 30, 32; iii. 53; iv. 1.