But, supposing Bhâsa to be the correct reading, and not.Bhâsaka, we gain nothing, as all that we know of Bhâsa is that he was a dramatist, and fourished before Rajaśekhara, as shown by the passage from the Harshacharita. Of Saumillawe know absolutely nothing at present, nor of Kaviputra, if that be one of the predecessors named in our prologue. It is just possible that future researches into the history
of Bhâsa or Saumilla,or Kaviputra, none of whose works are known to exist, may throw some light on the earliest limit of age that we must assign to Kâlidâsa.
'The character of "Parivrâjikâ” in the play appears to me of some importance in examining Professor Wilson's statement that the Mâlavikâgnimitra belongs to the tenth or eleventh, or even a later, century. As Professor Wilson says, “ a Parivrâjikâ denotes an ascetic female of the Bauddha faith,” and though, according to him, “ there is nothing in the piece to assign the character to any particular sect,” it does most likely belong to the Bauddha religion. A female ascetic, properly so called, is nowhere met with in the Brahmanical Writings. A widow, who, not burning herself on the funeral pile of her dead husband, survives him, and leads a life of austerities, is, no doubt, a kind of Sannyasinî, ’ or Parivrâjikâ; but such a widow is neither called by the latter name, nor enjoined to assume the garments of the ascetic; nor is the widow Sannyâsa' ever praised as a “ path fit for the virtuous ” (सज्जनस्य पन्थां : page 108, 1, 10); but, on the contrary, that honour
