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.