पृष्ठम्:व्यक्तिविवेकः (राजानकरुय्यककृतव्याख्यासहितः).pdf/२१

Canuaweihy in InHOTwitten image amarehndhy ramnatantricines (1) Dr. Peterson, in his introduction to the Subhash1- tavalh, maintains (p 85)that Mammata cannot be placed later than 1294 A D (the date of the commentary Jayanti on the Kavyaprakasa) (2) Miss Duff, in her “Chronology of India" (p. 189), refers to a commentaly on the Kavyapi akasa by Narahari (son of Mallinatha), born 1242 A. D (3) Professor Macdonell (History of Sanskirt Literature, p. 434) holds that Mamimata lved about 1100 A D. (4) Bhimasena-Dikshita in his commentary (Sudhasa- gara) on the Kavyaprakasa, following the tradition, states that Mammata and his brothers, Kayyata (author of the Bhashya- pradipa) and Uvvataa (the commentator on the Vajasaneyl- Samhita), were contemporaneous with King Bhola (996- 1051A D). (5) Bhatta-Vamanacharya, in his learned introduction to the Kavyaprakasa, holds (p 3) that Bhimasena's statement Is not reliable, inasmuch as Mammatta refers to Bhoja in has Kavyaprakasa (Canto X)- " भोजनृपतेस्तत्त्यागलीलायितम्' -and must therfore have been later than Bhoja , and his young brother, Urvata, could not at all have been a contemporary of Bhoja. He therefore disbeheves Bhimasena's theory,and does not consider Uvvata as the brother of Mammata (the author of the Kavyaprakasa) He ascribes Mammata to the end of the eleventh century, placing him between Bhojaraja (996- 1051) and Manikya-chandra, the commentator on the Kavya- prakasa (1160 A. D.). ___It will be seen from the foregoing that the date of Mammata is yet a matter of uncertainty, and the question deserves a detailed discussion here. ____ The arguments of Bhatta-Vamanacharya are too weak and untenable. He presumes that Mammata should be later than Bhoja (because of the reference to him in the Kavyaprakasa), and bases his arguments on that presump- hon. But this reference only goes to prove that Mammata