is given to the widow who burns herself with the
corpse of her husband, and the widow Sannyâsa' is
enjoined only as an alternative when the woman, under
peculiar circumstances, is prevented from sacrificing
herself to the flames. Nor are such garments as the
Parivrâjikâ of the play assumed enjoined by the Hindu
Śâstra to be worn by widows. When to this we add
that the Parivrâjikâ, as the word signifies, is a wandering or itinerant mendicant, while the Hindu widow
in general is never a wandering medicant, it is perfectly clear that Kaus'ikî does not profess the Brahmanical her, wherever we meet with a Parivrâjikâ-
it is a Buddhistic female mendicant belonging to
one or other of the sects of that religion. And when we
bear in mind that though there may have been female
itinerant mendicants belonging to any other sect, they
are nowhere stated to have been reverentially treated
in the courts of kings, it is highly probable, nay,
almost certain, that Kaus'ikì was a Buddhistic mendicant. And when the religion of Buddha had already
been banished from India by the end of the eighth
century, it is not very natural to suppose that an author
who wrote, according to Professor Wilson, in the tenth
or eleventh century, when the professors of the Brahmanical faith looked down upon the few lingerers, if
these were left behind in any considerable number, from
amongst their once powerful rivals, may have introduced
a character in his drama professing the despised religion,
and may have, moreover, made the whole court of a
powerful prince pay her a most reverential homage.
पृष्ठम्:मालविकाग्निमित्रम्.djvu/४३
पुटमेतत् सुपुष्टितम्
xxxvi
MALAVIKAGNIMITRA.