troduces to us the drama. The assistant (पारिपार्श्विकः) of the manager, is surprised to hear his master propose that Mâlavikâgnimitra,a drama composed by Kâlidâsa, should be acted, and asks him why a drama of a living poet should be acted, at the neglect of those of the famous Bhâsa and Saumilla. If when the Mâlavikâgnimitra was composed and acted, the author had been known as a dramatist of note,and if the Śâkuntala, and the Vikramor. vaśi had been written and published, and acquainted the public with their author, the prologue would, in all likelihood, have been differently worded. For that prologue does not seem to introduce to the public the particular drama to which it is attached, but rather the author who wrote it.
We then come to the second objection of Professor Wilson:"The manners described appear to be those of a degenerate state of Hindu society." This is a reproach , which, I am humbly of opinion, is little deserved by the Mâlavikâgnimitra in particular. If the manners described in that play are indicative of a degenerate state of Hindu society, those portrayed in the two other plays are likewise open to the same censure. Whose manners are they that are degenerate in the play ? Agnimitra differs little from Dushyanta or Purûravas in the purity or otherwise of his principles. Marrying more wives than one is a privilege of a Hindu, and whether we observe the present practice or read of ancient traditions, the privilege is especially allowed to Princes. Dushyanta has already a harem of ladies, and yet he
