From the Coincidence Test it becomes clear that the Cârudatta is the original play, while the Mrcchakatika is the adaptation, as Sukthankar (1922:74) already concluded. As we saw, the re-writer added more complicated yati-bridging compounds and two four-times-EP stanzas in the second part. Similar structures are lacking in the first part. Since the fourfold EP stanzas occur from Kâlidâsa onwards (for instances see Chapter 4), I conclude that the re-writer is later than the legendary Bhâsa. However, this re-writer imitated the original archaic style very well, regarding the similar percentages of both halves. Since the Cârudatta verses cannot be omitted without serious damage to the unity of style, it is most likely that the original Cârudatta was complete, and has been supplemented in both halves with relatively few positive stanzas (39 %). If this is true, the adapter must have lived in Harsha's or Bhavabhûti's time, that is, in the 7th or 8th century.
As to the shlokas, a much higher number of shlokas is seen in the Mrcchakatika than in the Cârudatta. Furthermore, the double ma-vipulâ in the first half is an interpolation in my opinion. As I have argued in chapter 5, the Cârudatta, originally consisting of more acts than four, and probably the Padmaprabhrtaka as well, were written by Shûdraka. In a later time many stanzas, mainly shlokas, were added, as this metre is very suitable to lengthen a narrative. Especially acts 8 to 10, the last three acts, are unexpected long, in comparison with all former acts. Perhaps only on that occasion the title Mrcchakatika was given. The plot of the new play is not necessarily the same as that of the original Cârudatta. The Cârudatta as we have it is original but incomplete, and the Mrcchakatika is an elaboration, not by Shûdraka. The re-writer clearly admired the legendary king from the past, as is apparent from the beginning of the play.