________________
PREFACE.
Play.
*Regarding the date of the piece our information is almost
equally scanty and equally unsatisfactory. Date of the Weber is of opinion that the Msicchakațika
cannot have been written before the second Century after Christ. Because it makes use of the word
Nânaka (Act. I. 23), a term borrowed from Weber.
the coins of Kânerki, a king who reigned about 40 A. D. therefore, he holds, its age must be subsequent to the era of this monarch.
But the view seems to be incorrect. There is no reason to suppose that the goddess Nania (conjecturally identified with Nânaka) did not similarly occur on more ancient coins : Nâņakas may have been current in India before Kânerki though the Nânakas of this king may be the first known to us.* In the Introduction to the translation of the Mricchakatika
Wilson remarks that this drama is a compoWilson,
sition of respectable antiquity. To me it appears that most of his arguments adduced in support of this view are defective. First; he says, that as the chief figures of the Puranas are not alluded to while citations from the Râmâyaṇa and the Mahâbhârata are copious, the Mricchakatika was written prior to the construction of the Purâņas or at least before the stories they contain had acquired popular currency.
In refutation of this remark I may add that this is not a verified fact: the slaying of S'umbhat and Nis'umbha by Durgâ, forming the theme of the Markandeya Purâța, is alluded to in the piece itself. So is the destruction of Daksha's sacrifice by Siva, depicted especially in the Şivapurâna and the killing of Krauñch by Kârtikeya.I
* See Max. Muller, Ancient Sanskrit Literature p: 332. * See 6th Act Verse 27. I X. Act. Verse 45.
