. . . • 78
v . •
prmces?Sh4* thus supplying a peculiarly good picture of the
^sbcitl conditions of'the-.times. The play describes the loves of
, fCing Jigmimitra and, of Malavika, an attendant of the queen,
who'jealously k|@p,s;her out of the king's sight on account of
net beauty. ^The various endeavours of the king to see and
Vconverse v$ith Maiayika give rise to numerous little intrigues.
Jn the course of/tfiese Agnimitra nowhere appears as a despot
but acts vritfi '"mucrr.delicate consideration for the feelings of his:
spouse. It finally turns out that Malavika is by birth a
princess, who had only come to be an attendant at the king's
court through having fallen into the hands of robbers.
There being now no objection to her union with the King,,
all ends happily."
Prof, Wilson however disputes the authorship of the identical Kalidasa, for " there is neither the same melody In the verse or fancy in the thoughts and the manners described are those of a degenerate state of Hindu Society.n
He was the first the question to authenticity of the drama and the controversy began with him* Not a single tradition Is traceable declaring the Malavikagnimitra a literary forgery* Nor does the authority of anthologists or rhetoricians a standing ground. Wheu scholars speak of grace and they are equally abstract. The music of the terse la this* drama is not in any way less natural than that of the Sakuftt&ta -or the Vikramorvasi Nor does our drama show any complicity or dissimilar Jty in metric versification. If theti *the fcncy in-the thoughts * it absent in the Malavlkagwmitra* it is half atoittei is tiw Bui this 10 itteif catuot bt' ooudusive etidttte* to wmntnt a dasisten. Th^t this work might ham beai a ttftittak attempt of Kalida$tf$ is nbt Improbable,