79. 76 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

76 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

महाकार्ताकृतिक-महासामन्त (J.R.A.S.1895 p.379). Vide H. of Dh. vol. III. pp. 996, 995, 995, 1000 respectively for explanations of these high offices. A grant of द्रोससिंह, successor of धरसेन I and elder bro- ther of ध्रुवसेन I, is dated in गुप्तसंवत् 183 (i.e. 502 A.D.). So धरसेन I must have come to the throne some years before that date. RAT II had a long reign from about 569 A.D. to 599 A.D.The latest grant of धरसेन IV. is of संवत् of 332 of the Valabhi era (i.e. 651 A.D.). So if Bhatti flourished during the reign of धरसेन I he must be placed not later than 500 A.D .; if under धरसेन II he cannot be assigned to a date later than 600 A. D. and even if it be held that he flouri- shed under RaaIV his literary career cannot be placed later than 650 A. D. But considering the fact that धरसेन IV claims to be an emperor it appears unlikely that Bhatti refers to him merely as narendra. Therefore, the probabilities strongly favour the idea that Bhatti lived under धरसेन II (i.e. between 570-600 A.D.) or under Dharasena III who succeeded Kharagraha I, who came after Dharasena II. Therefore it is very likely that Bhatti flourished between 590 and 650. Several persons named Bhatti appear in the Valabhi plates either as donees or as दिविरपति (chief of scribes) or राजस्थानीय. Vide I. A. vol. VI.p. 12 for grant of ध्रुवसेन alias बालादित्य for दिविरपतिवत्सभट्टि, J.R.A.S. for 1895 p. 379 (dated 217 वलभीसंवत् i.e. 536 A.D.) of ध्रवसेन I for दूतक-राजस्था- नीयभदि, I.A. 15p.335 (grant of धरसेन IV) for दिविरपति-वत्रभट्टिपुत्र-दिविर- पति-स्कन्दभट्ट; E.I.vol.I.pp.89-92 forभट्टिभट (as donee). But there are no means beyond bare conjecture to identify any of these with the author of the भटटिकाव्य. Prof. Keith favoured the view that Bhatti probably flourished under घरसेन I (vide J. R. A.S. 1909 p. 435 n.). The distance between the नाट्यशाwhich defines only four figures of speech and wzf who illustrates about 38 must be far greater than between Bhatti on the one hand and arHg and «fue on the other, who define a similar number of figures and are more systematic and scientific. It is not quite iogical and appro- priate to say that waf might not have illustrated all figures that he knew just as he does not illustrate all the rules of Panini but only a few. But the analogy is fallacious. There are thousands of Panini's sutras, while the well-recognized figures of speech up to the 8th century werc not more than forty or so. One circumstance not noticed so far by anyone of the scholars that have written about Bhatti may be mentioned here. One of the introductory verses of the काशिका commentary