objections, which rest solely upon internal evidence,[1] have been fully refuted by Weber, whose arguments are reproduced in Shankar Pandit's edition, and fortified with some additional proofs. So far from the internal evidence being against the traditional belief that the play is the work of the great Kálidása, a great many coincidences of style and thought between this and the other works attributed to him are pointed out by the above-mentioned scholars. Indeed, Wilson in his account of the play supplies us with some arguments in favour of its antiquity, though he finally decides against it. I confess it seems to me difficult to understand how a critic who places Bhavabhúti in the eighth century, can have assigned so late a date to the Málavikágnimitra. With reference to Bhavabhúti, Wilson observes[2] :"The date thus given to the compositions of Bhavabhúti is quite in accordance with their internal evidence. The manners are purely Hindoo, without any foreign admixture. The appearance of women of rank in public, and their exemption from any personal restraint in their own habitations, are very incompatible with the presence of Mahometan rulers. The licensed existence of Bauddha ascetics, their access to the great, and their employment as teachers of science, are other peculiarities characteristic of an early date, which the worship of Çiva in his terrific forms, and the prevalence of the practices of the Yoga, are indications of a similar tendency."
