Now, it is curious that in the Málavikágnimitra we find a female Buddhist ascetic held in great honour, who speaks Sanskrit, and not Prákrit (the ordinary dialect of women in the Indian plays, even of queens), is apparently acqnainted with the theory and practice of medicine, and is
usually addressed as "learned" or "reverend."
It is indeed an objection to the historical truth of the play that Pushpamitra was according to Buddhist accounts a zealous persecntor of Buddhists. But it does not follow that his son Agnimitra was hostile to the Buddhists; indeed, he may have quarrelled with his father upon this very ground: (see the expression vigataroshachetasá p. 107, line 11, of the Bombay edition,[1]) besides, it is not necessary to our position to suppose that the author possessed accurate information with respect to the history of the kings of the Çunga dynasty, which flourished so long before the date assigned by modern scholars to the great Kálidása.
Çiva is invoked in the Málavikágnimitra, though we have no trace of the bloody worship of his consort Kálí, of which we read in the works of Bhavabhúti, and which is generally believed to be of comparatively modern origin. As for the diction of our play, it is free from the long and involved compounds and "dark conceits" which puzzle the student of Bhavabhūti̇'s works, and is throughout fresher and more natural than the style of that poet.
Those who are not convinced by the arguments of
- ↑ This is a conjecture of my own. Shankar Pandit supposes he may have been angry because his son was sent to guard the horse.
