cannot be earlier than Bhoja, and I am of opinion that he must have been a contemporary of Bhoja, inasmuch as it would be more natural to interpret the passage “भोजनृपतेस्तत्याग लीलायतम्” as referring to the munificence of a ruling king under whose patronage the author and his brothers flourished.
On this suppositon there would be nothing inconsistent
in the tradition that Kayyata and Uvvata were the younger brothers of Mammata, and that all the three brothers were contemporaries of Bhoja In fact, Uvvata himself has, in his commentary on the VajaSaneyi-Samarta, clearly stated that he wrote the work while Bhoja was reigning (भोजे राज्य प्रशा- सति). In the face of such an explicit admisson on the part of Uvvata, It is haid to disbelieve the tradition about the brothers and assign them to different periods Following Bhimasena, therefore, I would place Mammata in the first half of the eleventh century
Coming back to Mahima-Bhatta, we thus see that he must
be placed between Abhinava-guptapada and Mammata No doubt the date I would assign to him makes him contem- poraneous almost with the former, the passage in the Vyakti- viveka where Abhinavaguptapada is criticized supports rne, as the wording there suggests that Mahima-Bhatta is referring to a living rhetorician of a rival school of thought (केचिद्विद्वन्मानिनः यदाहुः तान्तिमूलम् ). For these reasons I am Induced to arrange the periods of the literary activity of these rhetoricians thus -
(1) Abhinavagupta-the last decade of the tenth cen- tury.
(2) Mahima-Bhattar-early part of the eleventh cen-
tury.
(3) Mammata-middle of the eleventh century.
Further, if we accept these dates as accurate, we shall
be allowing the necessary interval for the several commen- taries on the Kavyaprakasa which sprang up in the twelfth century A. D , such as Ruyyaka's (1129-1150) and Manikya- chandra's (about 1160 A. D.)
