81. 78 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

78 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS

that भट्टि flourished under धरसेन I or even earlier. Prof. A. B. Keith (J. R. A. S. 1909 p. 435) calls this identification a 'most unfortunate suggestion'- and Mr. Majumdar (J. R. A. S. 1909 p. 759) replies that it is not so. Both Prof. Keith and Mr. Majumdar agree that Bhatti flourished before Bhāravi and Dandin and that the Bhattikavya is not the work of adfef author of the arayatq. I myself think that it is far-fetched to hold on the mere ground of similarity of verses that the acwaf of the Mandasor inscription and the author of भट्टिकाव्य are identical. There are numerous cammentaries on the भटटिकाव्य out of which जयमझला is published by the Nirn. Press and that of मल्लिनाथ was edited by Mr. K. P. Trivedi in the Bombay S. Series. 8. The काव्यालड्र of भामह. Out of deference to the opi- nions of a majority of scholars I dealt with Bhamaha's work before that of Dandin in the last edition. The same feature is preserved in this edition also. But it should by no means be supposed that I agree with the view of many scholars about the priority of Bhamaha to Dandin. I still hold that this view of the majority is wrong. The reasons will appear in the sequel. Several scholars deal with the above question in a super- ficial manner and, I regret to say, are carried away by their enthusiasm and lack of balanced judgment. For example, Nobel in 'Foundations of Indian Poetry' (p. 16n.) had the hardihood to say that the theory of Dandin's priority to Bhamaha assumed by Prof. K. B. Pathak and others needs no further refutation and went so far as to say that Bhamaha was prior even to कालि दास (pp. 14-15). Similar remarks would have to be made against certain conclusions in the introduction to the edition of Ht's ERT written by Mr. Batuknath (in samvat 1985) and in his Sarasvati Bhavan studies, vol. VII. pp. 1-70 (1929). The last two works may be read with advantage for a historical resume of all the controversies that raged round Bhamaha till 1920. Though Mr. Sarma in his Introduction (p. 37) pays me a handsome compliment by saying 'Mr. Kane, after stating and examining all such views with admirable impartiality, has come to the conclusion' etc. But, I regret to say that I cannot return the same compliment. I am sorry to find that he does not go deeply into the several questions raised, that he makes the un-