पृष्ठम्:व्यक्तिविवेकः (राजानकरुय्यककृतव्याख्यासहितः).pdf/२०

६

(11) Bhattanavakal Hridayadarpana, Com- mentary on the Natyasastra (1) (12) Abhinavagupta- padacharya Lochana Of these we shall consider the last three, as they are the latest in point of time. We know that Anandavardhana lived in the latter half of the ninth century, at the time ot Avantivarman (855-884 A D), Bhatta- Nayaka waas a con- temporary of Sankara-Varman (834--902 AD), and Abhinavaguptapadacharya or Lochanakara, flournshed about 993-1015 A D (See Duff's “ Chronology of India" p 102) Thus we may safely conclude that Mahima-Bhatta cannot be earlier than 1000 AD __Again, the Vyaktiviveka, in its turn, has been quoted or criticized by later authors, among whom the following are the earliest - (1) Mammata (see Kavyaprakasa, Chapter V, pp. 304-7 Bombay) (2) Buyyaka (see Alankarasar vasva, Bombay ed , pp 12-13) (3) Hemachandra (see Kavyanusasana, ni) Of these, Ruyyaka, we know, was the teacher of Mankha (as contemporary of Jayasimha. 112-1150 A. D), and was the author of Alankarasarvasva, and a commentary on Mammata's Kavyaprakasa called काव्यप्रकाशसङ्केत. (See Subha- shitavali, Peterson's Introduction, p_106) Whereas Hema- chandra (the author of Kavyanusasana and other well-known works) was a contemporary of Kumarapala, and Hourished between 1088 and 1172 A D He quotes profusely from Mammata's Kavyaprakasa. Thus we see that both Buyyaka and Hemachandra are later than Mammata. Mahimabhatta's age, therefore, hinges on that of Mammata, as being the earliest of the authors that quote from or criticize the Vyak- tiviveka. ___Let us now consider the various theories regarding the date of Mammata,-