190 M. Nyayaratna — On the Authorship of the MrichchhaJcatikd. [Aua. 



It is difficult to say which of these two interpretations is the correct 

 one. But it is manifest from this that the passage does not place any 

 insuperable difficulty in the way of our accepting the traditional belief 

 that Sudraka was the author of the play. It may be remarked by the 

 way that the assertion that it is a very common practice to name 

 works after the names of the royal patrons of their authors is too vague 

 and general to be of use in settling a debatable question ; as a matter of 

 fact the practice is not so common as is assumed. Except in the instance 

 of S'nharsha who was the royal patron of Bhdvaka, and had the works 

 of the latter named after himself, there is no other case on record in the 

 annals of Sanskrit literature ; and even the case of S'nharsha himself is 

 now admitted to be a doubtful one. Under the circumstances I hold 

 it reprehensible to raise a doubt where satisfactory explanations are 

 accessible. To accept a conclusion founded upon such a doubt is to 

 open a wide door for the falsification of history. 



The chief argument of Dr. R. Pischel may be summarised thus : — 

 Dandin is the reputed author of three famous works ; of these Kdvyd- 

 darsa and Dasakumdra are two. As to the third there is difference of 

 opinion. Dandin in his Kdvyddarsa twice quotes a verse f%*T?ffa ?uft- 

 S!PTf«r &c, which is found in the Mrichchhakatikd. Now, it is generally 

 supposed that Dandin never quotes verses from other writers ; and all the 

 verses given in the Kdvyddarsa are of his own composing. It is, therefore, 

 highly probable that the Mrichchhakatikd, from which he has quoted 

 a verse, is a work of his own, the missing third. The force of this 

 argument depends entirely on the premiss that Dandin never quotes 

 his examples from others. I do not think it necessary for me on the 

 present occasion to examine all the verses he has given in his work 

 by way of examples. I may note, however, that Professor Wilson in the 

 preface to his edition of Dasakumdra Charita writes. — " It (Kavyddars' a) 

 is not of great extent ; but the rules are illustrated by examples taken, 

 it is affirmed, from different authors." And Professor Wilson is quite 

 right, for the following four verses from the Mdhabhdrata, Sdkuntala 

 Sisupdlbadha and Kddamvari cannot otherwise be accounted for. The 

 second part of the second example is borrowed verbatim. 



*?TfRW I 



