306. BHĀNUDATTA 307

BHĀNUDATTA 307

but no ms. of it is yet found) and that a ms. of ममारदीपिका not being available as yet, it cannot be said with certainty that it is भानव's work. He further establishes that भानदर was a Maithila and argues that as the शार्भ्रधरपद्धति (which was compo- sed about 1363 A. D.) does not mention any verse of aasu, the latter must be held to be later than that work. The argument from silence is never a satisfactory one. We must have positive evidence about maa and about the ancestors of भानुकर. As भानुदस mentions the सरस्वतीकएठाभरण, the काव्यप्रकाश and the गीतगोविन्द, he is certainly not earlier than about 1250 A. D. In Stein's Cat. of Jammu mss. the date of a commentary on the रसमन्जरी called विकास (or विलास) by गोपाल, son of नृसिंह, was given as 1484. Stein committed two mistakes; the date was really 1494 and he took it as referring to the tiaq era, but the mention of Angiras as the name of the year establishes that it was a śaka year (vide Prof. S. R. Bhandarkar's Report for 1904-6 p. 36 and Prof. Gode in Annals of B. O. R. I. vol. 16 pp. 145-147). Thus the ms. is dated in 1572 A. D. The रत्नापय (p. 280) quotes the view of रसमन्जरी as follows: 'नायकयो- र्निमिच्तो विप्रयोग: प्रणयमानापरपर्यायो विरह्विप्रलम्भ इत्यर्थ:। रसमजर्या परस्परमाश्चोल्लङनं प्रखयमान इति. It is not necessary to take this as a quotation. It is quite possible that this is a summary of the views of the रसमब्जरी which on pp. 42-44 (of the Benares S. Series, 1904) contains similar views. Therefore 3 flou- rished after 1250 and before 1500 A. D. In 1923 I had put forward the conjecture that भानुदस was the son of गणेशवर, who wasthe uncle of चएडेश्वर and minister of a king of Mithila. If we look to the pedigree of भानुदर given above from the कुमारभारगवीय and compare it with that of गेश्वर given in my H. of Dh. vol. I. p. 371 note 889, it would appear that this con- jecture cannot be supported. In Mitra's Notices vol. IX. No. 3115 (pp. 194-5) the commentary परिमल on रसमब्जरी by शोष- चिन्तामणि, son of नृसिह, is described and at the end of the colo- phon occurs the date aiaq 1609 (i. e. 1552-3 A. D.). There is nothing to show that this is the date of the composition of the commentary. It may be the date of the copying of the com. In Dr. Bhandarkar's Report on mss. for 1883-84 (pp. 365-66) the colophon is somewhat different and the date is altogether absent. Dr. Har Dutta Sharma has changed his