Such a supposition would only be possible if the author of the Mâlavikâgnimitra had made it his object to represent by means of that play how Buddhism, that was dead in his time, had once been revered in the courts of princes. But such is not, as any one may perceive the burden of the play; nor is it at all likely that Agnimitra might be chosen as an exemplary champion of Buddhism, even if the poet had intended to sing the former greatness of that religion, since the Śungas, to which dynasty Agnimitra belonged, are represented to have been far from favourable to the followers of Buddha. The probability, therefore, is that the play was written, not at a time when Buddhism was despised, and had already been driven out of India, but when it was still regarded with favour, and was looked up to with reverence; and this must refer us to a time several centuries prior to the tenth or eleventh century after Christ.
In conclusion, I must confess I do not see the slightest ground for the supposition that the Mâlavikâgnimitra belongs to a different Kâlidâsa from the author of the "Lost Ring" or the "Heavenly Nymph,” a supposition accidentally entertained by Professor Wilson, and unfortunately strengthened subsequently by the very incorrect state in which the public has had to read the play in Dr. Iullberg's edition. If by the present edition any success is achieved in the eyes of the cultivators of Sanskrit literature in restoring the play to its original purity, and in enabling thereby the reader to judge whether it does or does not belong to the great
