very unique work in Sanskrit
literature. Its plot is not a pure invention, but on the other hand, it
is not derived from the usual storehouse of legends on which Sanskrit
authors have generally drawn for their materials. It has no female among
its prominent _dramatis personae_, and the business of the play,
accordingly, is diplomacy and politics, to the entire exclusion of love.
There is, in truth, but one female character, with one little child,
introduced into the play, and these are Chandanadasa's wife and son, who
come in at the beginning of the last act. But even their appearance
introduces no passages suggestive of tenderness or the purely domestic
virtues, but only of sacrifice--a stern sense of duty.

In the minor characters we see the principle of faithfulness to one's
lord, adhered to through good report and evil report. In the more
prominent ones, the same principle still prevails, and the course of
conduct to which it leads is certainly quite Machiavellian. And all this
is brought out in a plot put together with singular skill.

In the seventh act we have a remarkable stanza, in which the conduct of
Chandanadasa, in sacrificing his life for his friend Rakshasa, is stated
to have transcended the nobility even of the Buddhas. It seems that
this allusion to Buddhism belongs to a period long prior to the decay
and ultimate disappearance of Buddhism from India. In the time of
Hionen-Tsang--_i.e._ between 629-645 A.D.--it was, however, still far
from being decayed, though it appears to have fallen very far below the
point at which it stood in Fa-Hian's time, to have been equal in power
with Brahminism only where it was supported by powerful kings, and to
have been generally accepted as the prevailing religion of the country
only in Kashmir and the Upper Punjab, in Magadha and in Guzerat. In this
condition of things, it was still quite possible, that one not himself a
Buddhist--and Visakhadatta plainly was not one--should refer to Buddhism
in the complimentary terms we find in the passage under discussion.

The late Mr. Justice Telang observes:--"The policy of Chanakya is not
remarkable for high morality. From the most ordinary deception and
personation, up to forgery and murder, every device is resorted to that
could be of service in the achievement of the end which Chanakya had
determined for himself. There is no lack of highly objectionable and
immoral proceedings. It must be admitted that this indicates a very