The chief grounds on which Professor Wilson bases his doubt about the legitimacy of the Mâlavikâgnimitra as a production of the great Kâlidâsa, are: 1st, that-- "There is neither the same melody in the verse nor fancy in the thoughts ;” 2nd, that –- "The manners described appear to be those of a degenerate state of Hindu society." Now, as to the first ground, it is not clear what is meant by ‘‘the same melody in the verse." Is it intended to be understood that the metrical portion of the drama is rough or loose? The poetry, indeed, of the Malavikagnimitra is as smooth and flowing as that of the Śâkuntala and the Vikramorvas'î. It is as little laboured and artificial as that of those two dramas. It requires as little labour to understand the one as the other. The verse in the Mâalavikâgnimitra is as regular and model-like as that in the two sister dramas of the poet. How, therefore the latter can be said to be more melodious than the former cannot, perhaps, be very easily understood. The metres too, are nearly the same in all the three dramas; so that if they are melodious in the Śâkuntala and the Vikramorvaśî, they are not less so in the Mâlavikâgnimitra.
But there is not the "same fancy in the thoughts" in the Mâlavikâgnimitra as in the two other dramas. This is, indeed, an objection that carries, undoubtedly, considerable weight with it. It is, doubtless, true that the play in question is not so rich in its poetry as the two other ones, and that the fights of fancy do not soar equally high in our play. Professor Weber would account for this difference by the fact that whereas the
