76. BHAȚȚIKĀVYA 73

BHAȚȚIKĀVYA 73

the 12th illustrates the figure भाविक (which is said to be प्रबन्धविषय by भामह III.53 and दएडी II. 364) in 87 verses and the 13th elucidates IHTHH in 50 verses (where the same verse may be regarded as composed in Sanskrit as well as in Prakrit). On account of these four sargas Bhatti deserves at least a passing notice in the History of Alankāra Literature. It will be seen from the comparative table in section 13 below that Bhatti illustrates almost the same figures as are defined by भामह and दएडी. He treats the alankāras generally in the order in which arHg defines the figures, though in a few cases he deviates from भामह. For example, भामह defines रूपक first (II. 21) and then दीपक (II. 25) and आक्षेप before अर्थान्तरन्यास; while भदि illustrates दीपकand अर्थान्तरन्यास before रूपकand आक्षेप respectively; भामह defines तुल्ययोगिता (III.27) immediately after विरोध, (III.25)while भटि illustrates तुल्ययोगिताafter उपमारूपक and before विरोध भट्टि does not illustrate अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, which is defined by भामह; while भदि illustrates the figures हेतु and वार्ता to which भामह denies the status of alankaras. The mss. of भदि mention X.74 as an example of the figure निपुरा which is found in neither भामह nor Dandin. भदि does not illustrate लेश and सूच्षम which are said to be excellent ornaments of speech by Dandin (along with हेतु), while भामह denies to all three the position of alanka- ras (II. 86). भदि devotes about 20 verscs to the illustration of यमक and herein is similar to the treatment of यमक in the नाट्यशास्त्र and काव्यादर्श, while भामह is very brief on this point. From this it is clear that Bhatti does not follow either Bhamaha or Dandin, but bases his examples on some other work or works that were prior to both of them. It may be stated here that af (in 10th f ) does not expressly name any figure of speech. It is the mss. that mention the several figures over the verses and the commentators differ among themselves as to the figures of speech in several verses. K. P. Trivedi in his Introduction to भट्टिकाव्य mentions thirteen commentaries on it. जयमङ्गला quotes the defini- tions of भामह (II and III) thirty-three times, quotes one verse of भामह (II. 27) on भट्टि (X. 23.), another verse of भामह (II. 87) on भटटि (X.46) and appears to refer to the काव्यादर्श II. 275 once about ऊजस्वि on X.49 (the verse प्रचपलमगुरु &c.). मल्लिनाथ who flou- rished in the 15th century and who often relies on such late works as the प्रतापरुद्रीय differs about 20 times at least from the जयमझला and sometimes very harshly criticizes the latter. For example, on भहि X.25 (गरुडानिलतिग्मरश्मयः पततां यदपि संमता जवे । अचिरेय कुनार्थमागतं