v
are inclined to believe, this Vamana is probably to be identified with the Vamana who is mentioned as one of the ministers of Jayapida (779-813 A.D.).[१] Thus Vamana lived in the latter half of the eighth century. By-the-bye it may be remarked that as Vamana quotes Bhavabhuti who flourished under the Patronage of Yashovarman, King of Kanauj, known to have been defeated, about the year 740 A.D.[२], by Muktapida Lalitaditya of Kashmir, it follows that this Vamana must have lived later than the first half of the eighth century and cannot be identified with Vamana, the author of the Kashikavritti which cannot have been written later than 650 A.D. [३] Now Vamana not only quotes from Venisamhara but even defends his grammatical deviation 'वेत्स्यति' in 'पतितं वेत्स्यास क्षितौ' P.44. as already referred to in a foot-note, thus evincing the same respect for him as for Bhavabhuti and other writers who were old enough to be regarded as classical. Our author, therefore, cannot belong to any period later than the first quarter of the eighth century and probably belongs to the end of the seventh century. He may, perhaps, be a contemporary of Bhavabhuti but probably his senior.
In the Dasharupaka of Dhananjaya who flourished under the poet-king, Munja, of Dhara (972-95 A.D.)[४], and who, therefore, must have written his work in the last quarter of the tenth century, the Venisamhara is so continually laid under, contribution for illustration that it is possible to study, in that work, the complete development of our play, as also, I think of the Ratnavali, through every stage. In Mammata's Kavyaprakasha there are numerous quotations from Venisamhara (in the seventh Ullasa alone there are no fewer than eleven stanzas quoted--Vide. D.T., Chandorkar's edition); and Mammata's date is given as about 1100 AD.[५]
It may be pointed out with propriety here that, besides the works on poetics, there are other works of no mean anti-
