Turning then to internal evidence, we may observe in the outset that the prospects of success here are more hopeful than in any other means that may be used as an argument for showing that the Mâlavikâgnimitra belongs to the author of the other two great plays. The internal evidence goes so far to prove the great Kâlidâsa's authorship of the play, that even if we had not the profession of the poet himself in the prologue, we should never hesitate,after a careful perusal and comparison of the three plays,to pronounce that the Mâlavikâagnimitra comes from the same hands as the Śâkuntala and the Vikramorvaśî.
Every great writer,whether of prose or poetry, has always a settled style of composition. This is especially the case with those poets and authors who take delight in an easy and natural expression of their thoughts and never surrender their good sense and fondness for perspicuity to a labored and obscure style of writing. Whatever is natural and ordinary will be frequently repeated in the writings of one and the same author. And,accordingly, there are so many analogies,or, I had almost say,identities of expression,everywhere to be met with in the diction and ideas of the three dramas of Śâkuntala, Vikramorvaśî and Mâlavikâgnimitra, that it is impossible to explain them on any other ground than that of the identity of their author.The simple occurrence of the same expressions and phrases in different works does not, it is true, necessarily show that the works come from one and the same author,but it is the repetition of those analogous expressions,phrases and ideas
