Pollock's (1977) assumption that every author has a characteristic percentage of coincidence between the metrical unit and the syntactical unit, and furthermore, that there appears to be a tendency to lower percentages in the later centuries is confirmed in the present study. In addition, I found that authors tend to apply a specific pattern of types of coincidence and non-coincidence.
Analysing the Trivandrum plays according to their coincidence percentage and pattern, I found that the differences between the thirteen plays are too large for one single author. Consequently, the Trivandrum group appears not to constitute a single group at all (chi-square = 25.611; df = 12, P = 0.025). Four groups can be established, which are as follows (in a chronological order),
As we saw, three plays remain in an uncertain position, namely the Pancarâtra (pattern compatible to the first group, percentage between the first and the second group, although this percentage is not homogeneous throughout the first group), the Dûtavâkya and the Bâlacarita (both percentage according to the third group, but their rather similar patterns are very marked with a special prevalence for two forms only, which are the same for both plays).
As to the reference authors Kâlidâsa, Harsha, and Bhavabhûti, they display regular coincidence patterns and percentages, except for Bhavabhûti, who appears not to have written the second part of the Mahâvîracarita at all, regarding both percentage and pattern. The fourth author, Nârâyana, apparently has adopted a classical style, as there is no significant difference between his Venîsamhâra and Kâlidâsa's Shakuntalâ (chi-square = 5.6 10-4; df=1, P=0.01). As I argued in Chapter 4, this was to be expected, as this is the only disturbing author in Pollock's chronological range (1977:220-230). From his range, excluding Bhâsa for obvious reasons, it appears that only one out of fifteen authors displays a too high percentage with regard to the expected percentage for his century. Therefore, Bhatta Nârâyana does not contradict the validity of the test. There is only a chance of three in a milliard that our thirteen plays would display a percentage unfit for their century. The Southern author Shaktibhadra, finally, fits very well into the range of the Northern authors. Therefore, there appears no difference between Southern and Northern authors, at least in this respect.
The data from the reference authors yield a chronological coincidence range , which is corroborated by Pollock's range (1977:229-230), and with the help of which it is possible to establish the external chronology for the Trivandrum group.
As we saw, the first group - Cârudatta, Svapnavâsavadatta, and Pratijnâ - originates from the first two centuries A.D., the second group - Pratimâ, and Avimâraka - , from the fourth or fifth century A.D., the third group - Ûrubhanga, Abhisheka, Dûtaghatotkaca, and Karnabhâra - from the fifth or sixth century A.D. The fourth "group'' finally - Madhyama - falls outside the scheme with its 100 % coincidence. Although it has the most archaic percentage, it must be the most recent play for two reasons. First, such a high percentage does not even occur in the oldest known Sanskrit works, the Buddhist Lalitavistara and those of Ashvaghosha (see Pollock 1977:229), and is therefore open to suspicion. Second, its pattern is extremely marked, with only one type of coincidence, whereas the older as well as the more modern plays all have at least two or three types. Taking these observations together, I conclude that the author of the Madhyama lived a long time after the classic period, and was not able to bring much variation into his text. As Shaktibhadra still displays the expected percentage and pattern, the tenth century, or even later, might therefore be a reasonable guess.
The same in fact does apply to the Dûtavâkya and the Bâlacarita, which, too, are not easy to classify. According to their percentages they might very well belong to the classical centuries, but as their patterns are more marked than those of the other plays, except for the even more extremely marked Madhyama, it is far more probable that these two plays belong to a later century, albeit it not as late as the Madhyama. As they cannot be too far removed from the classical times, the 7th or 8th century may be a reasonable guess.
The figures for the Cârudatta indicate that this play must be the earlier play, whereas the Mrcchakatika is an elaboration of this play, or of a common ancestor, by a later, presumably 7th or 8th century writer, who attributed his version to king Shûdraka of the past. The later acts of the Cârudatta may have disappeared. Thus, the figures of the Mrcchakatika are built up of two different figures, one originating from the archaic pattern of the original portion, and one originating from the more modern pattern of the elaboration. The total figure for Shûdraka then results in an intermediate position between the first and the eight century.