186 Dr. Mitra— Note on a Manuscript of the Bhatti Kdvya. [Aug. 



but in bis notices of the Praiidha-manoramd, (p. 162 b), of the Subodhd, 

 (p. 175 a), of the Amara-Jcosha, (p. 182 b), and of the Sarasvati-Jcanthd- 

 bharana, he cites Bhatti. In the last named work both Bhatti and Bhartrihari 

 have been separately cited. Dr. Bhau Daji observes that Bhatti "is 

 popularly believed to have been a son of Bhartrihari," (Journal, Bombay 

 B. R. A. S., J. 1862, p. 219). Bohlen, reciting a tradition which says 

 " Vikrama in fact got possession of the kingdom and took to himself Bhatti 

 as prime minister," remarks, " in this again they seem to have gone wrong, 

 confounding both persons and times. For there exists a grammatical poem 

 called Bhatti Kavya, describing at the same time the exploits of Rama, 

 which has been attributed to a certain grammarian belonging to a later 

 age called Bhartrihari, and from the name of this poem, I think, Bhatti 

 seems to have been considered as the brother of this our Bhartrihari." 

 (Preface to his edition of the S'atakas of Bhartrihari, p. 6). In a note 

 in the Indian Antiquary (I, p. 319) Pandit S'eshagiri Sastri gives a story 

 (noticed also by Bohlen) which says that " a Brahman, named Ohandra- 

 gupta, had four wives, one of the Brahman caste, another of the Kshatriya, 

 the third of the Vaisya, the fourth of the S'lidra caste. They were called 

 Brahmani, Bhanumati, Bhagyavati and Sindhumati. Each of the four 

 bore him a son. Vararuchi was born of the first wife, Vikramarka of the 

 second, Bhatti of the third, and Bhartrihari of the fourth. Vikramarka 

 became king, while Bhatti served him in the capacity of Prime-minister." 



A critical survey of these several diverse opinions shows that the 

 balance of evidence rests with those who take Bhatti to be distinct from 

 Bhartrihari. The three oldest scholiasts take Bhatti to be the name of 

 the author of the Bhatti-kavya, so does the MS. under notice, which is 

 478 years old. The old authors cited by Aufrecht all cite Bhatti and 

 one of them Bhojadeva, author of the Sarasvati-kanthabharana, who 

 lived over a thousand years ago, quotes from the works of both 

 Bhatti and Bhartrihari, showing clearly that in his time they were two 

 distinct persons and not one with two names. It would not be critical 

 to set aside their opinion on the authority of the three later Bengali 

 scholiasts, none of whom lived at an earlier date than 250 years from this 

 time. Colebrooke avowedly followed these later scholiasts, and does not 

 seem to have made any careful enquiry on the subject. Professor Au- 

 frecht's quotations should have created in him a doubt on the subject ; 

 but they did not. On the same page ( 175) he has given the two names 

 without a remark. Bhau Daji, Bohlen and S'eshagiri Sastri recognise 

 Bhatti to be distinct from Bhatrihari. The traditions quoted by them 

 are at best of little worth, but they are, as far as they go, opposed to the 

 latest scholiasts. 



Nor is it difficult to make out how the confusion has arisen. Bhatta 



