________________
AUGUST 2, 1872.]
WEBER ON THE RAMAYANA.
245
certain, that it was composed at a time in which Buddhism was flourishing in full vigour, and Râma-worship or Kộishņa-worship had not yet come into existence.- I have not been able to find any similar reference to the Râmâyana in the dramas of Kálid â sa ;* but allusions to it occur in his Meghacúta (vv. 1. 99) and in the Raghuvans'a, in which latter work direct reference is made to the Trâchetasopajnam Râ mây a ņam', and even to Val- miki (XV. 63, 64). Unfortunately, however, we are met here also by the difficulty that arises partly from the uncertainty that still exists regarding the date we should assign to Kalidasa (third or sixth century of our era: see my Abh. über Krishna's Geburtsfest, p. 319; 2. D. M. G. XXII. 726ff.), partly with reference to the Raghuvans'a, about which there exists at least some amount of doubt whether we are right in ascribing it to the author of the dramas and of the Meghadůta. We have to mention besides, in this place, still another work which undeniably assumes, as its very groundwork, the existence of a Ramayana, and which at least in recent times (see Höfer, z. für die W. der Spr., II, 500ff., Verz. der Berl. S. H., p. 156, 369) has been ascribed to Kalidå sa, namely the Setubandha; for the more recent editors and scholiasts have endorsed the statement that Kalidasa composed this work by the command of king Vikramaditya for a king Pravarasena, that it had been begun by
* In the Vikramorvas't, the subject of which is also the carrying off of a beautiful woman by a demon, there would have been an excellent opportunity, especially in Act IV (see LIV. 5, 13: LV.1) for alluding to the rape of Sita. The words Tosamke via antarûle chittha, sakuntala XXIX. 22, ed. Böhtlingk (XLII. 13 ed. Premachandra), refer also indeed to the Saga which is found in the Ramayana, I. 60, 31 (Schleg.1) ; but the reference is not necessarily just to this version of it in the Ramayana.
+ Compare also Z. D. M. G. XXII. 710; Ind. Streifen, I. 312; II. 373. According to the notices in the Paudit, No. X, p. 141, the work has twenty-six Sargas in the Dharinayaraniva si-Kalidasavana'ya, not merely nineteen. Is this local difference to be regarded as due to influences that at least date far back, and as favouring the idea that the work should be ascribed to Kalidasa, who lived at the court of the Dhara-king, Bhoja ? It is greatly to be d-sired that Shankar Pandit, whose edition of the Raghurans'a (Bombay, 1869, Cantos I-VI; containing, besides the text and Mallinâtha's Commentary, 54 pages of notes and 8 pages of various readings taken from MSS. and from the Commentaries of Vallabha and Dinakara) we have to welcome as the fir-t really critical work of this kind for which we are indebted to a native of the country, --would furnish us with some further and fuller information regarding this point.
Abhinavaraja rabdhâ or abhinavarângârabdhi. Bhojadeva iti kecbit, says the scholiast.
At least it is stated there that by means of the setu, the fame of Pravarasena bad extended to the further shore of the sea." And as the words :-" or who would not be charmed with the admirable...language of Kalidasa," do not immediately follow, but are separated by a verse, from
the latter himself, and that the ambiguous words 'ahiņavarââraddha .. metti vva .. ņivvodhunt hoi dukkaram kavvakaha' in v. 9 of the introduction refer to this beginning of the work by the "new king," Pravarasena. In accordance with this latter statement, Baņa (in all probabi. lity at the beginning of the seventh century), in the opening of the Harshacharita, ascribes the composition of the setu to Pravarasena: | see (Hall, Vasaradattá, p. 13, 14, 54, and my Ind. Streifen, I. 357.) There is a strong temptation to identify this royal author with the renowned Kashmir king, Pravarasena II, who appears in the Raja-Tarangini, IlI. 109, 123, 293 ff. as a contemporary of two Ujjayini kings, Harsha surnamed Vikramaditya and Prata pasila surnamed Siladitya, and as successor of the poet Mâtrigupta, whom Harsha placed on the throne in Kashmir. And according to this supposition, if this king really reigned, as Lassen (Ind. Alt. II. [402] 770, 910 ff., xxiv) holds, from 241-266 of our era, the composition of the Setubhanda would in fact date as far back as the third century! Since, however, Bhâu Daji has directed attention, in the Journ. Bombay Branch R. A. S. VII. 208 ff. (1861 Jan.) 223 ff., VIII. 248-51 (1864 Aug., published in 1868), to the relations that probably existed between Pravarasena and Hiwen Thsang, and especially to the contemporaneousness of Harshavardhana, Silâlitya, and Hiwen Thsang," it certainly seems more reasonable to the foregoing, they cannot be understood as containing the ground-work of Pravarasena's fame.
Mâtrigupta reigned only tive years (Raja-Tiranging III. 268), during which Bhartrimentha (placed by Rajas'ekhara between Valmiki and Bhavabhūti ; see Autrecht, Catalogus, 1.10a) composed the Hayagrfrabadha, and presented it to the king (ib. 261-268). He abdicated the throne on hearing of the death of his patron, Harsha, retired to Vitrinasi, and in consistency with the gentleness of his disposition (sec il. 259-260), became a Budhist ascetic (krita kitality samgrahah. yatih, ib. 332 ; see Lassen, Inil. lit. II. 907-909. Nothing is known regarding Matrigupta's pctical works (Bhâu Daji's identiticatiou of him with Kalidasa does not rest on any reasonable foundation) ; on tlie other hand, the scholiasts occasionally quote passages from a rhetorical work in s'lokas bearing his name.
# When Bhau Daji, in the same cray, connects the Setbrendhu with the building of a brillge of bonts which Pravarasena, according to the Mija Tarrangint, III. 856 (Lassen, II. 915), threw across the Vitasta, and accordingly asserts (p. 228) "that the construction of this very bridge is the subject of the Seta Kuya," he falls into serious error. Thnt circumstance, however, whether the poem is to be attributed to the king himself (as Bana has it) or to Kalidasa (as the tradition goes; see also Bhâu Dali's reference l. c. to Ramas'rama's commentary on the Viana (darpans of Sundara), might well have furnished an opportunity for celebrating by song the corresponding bridge-building by Rama, especially as the Rajataraugini expressly mentions (111. 358) that the king h ad direct relations with Ceylon. From inscriptions, unfortunately undnted, which have been found in Seoni
