85
whole passages, the delight in long compounds — such as characterise even Bhavabhuti's' plays.
These arguments, if bodily accepted, would unsettle all recognised chronology. For the present, though there is weight and sense in the reasoning, it would make worse confusion in our dates. India's chronology must of course be re-written to make a correspondence with its own traditional accounts.
Whatever may be the theories as to the authorship of these gems of exquisite poetry, their merit can never be underrated. Unfortunately Prof. Wilson did not wait to recognise the true Harsha referred to by these dramas and assigned them to the I2th century A. D. The mischief ceases not there, but inferences are drawn from this wrong datum. Writings of later centuries are taken to be strained and unnatural expressions. u Besides the want of passion and the substitution of intrigue," he says "it will be evident that there is in the Ratnavali no poetic spirit, no gleam of inspiration, scarce even enough to suggest a conceit in the ideas. The only poetry of the play in fact is mechanical." Any sincere scholar of Indian dramatic-literature would easily see how the truth is exaccly the opposite extreme. If any drama is noted for music or simplicity, it is the Ratnavali. Chastity of diction, melody of verse, richness of similitudes, tenderness of feeling and dignity of characterisation'—these are stamped in this dramatic triad and this is a sufficient test to refute the professor's criticism.
Bhavabhuti is regarded a classic in the Sanskrit drama. His parents were Nilakanta and Jatukarni. He was a native of Padmapurain the country of the Vidarbhas, the modern Berars.ays ;