________________
( 116
)
15 and 17 both refer to Kalidasa. He is obviously adduced in the latter of the two verses for the first time. This being so, I think it is impossible, with our present light, to say what amount of truth there is in the legend which makes Pravarasena the patron and not the author of the Setu-bandha. In that detail the legend is not, in itself, indeed inconsistent with Båna's reference to the book, as it is quite possible that here, as in his allusion to the Vasabadattâ, our author, unfortunately for os, did not think it necessary to mention a name, as that of the author of the book, which in his day seemed as if it would never die. But when the legend goes on to ascribe the poem to Kalidasa, it is in direct conflict, as it appears to me, with Båna's statement, and cannot therefore be accepted. Pravarasena, moreover, is in no way the subject of the Setu-bandba: so that he must be mentioned here either as the author of the poem, or as the patron of the poet. When we look at the context, and remember that Båna's theme is the triumph of good poets, we can hardly, I think, resist the conclusion that it is the author's fame, and not that of any patron, which this famous bridge carried over sea.
It does not, of course, follow that the Pravarasena who wrote the Setu-bandha is not the king of Kashmir* with whom, in his presumed character of patron of the work, and friend of Kalidasa, he has been identified by Bhâo Dâji and Max Müller. The commentator on the Setu-bandha was a king: and there is no reason why the Setu-bandha should not have been written by a king. But if I am right in regarding with suspicion the legend referred to above, it will be seen that the motive, as well as some of the arguments for the identification in question, must be held to have lost much of their force.
I will only add that Sankara evidently knows nothing of the tradi. tion which assigns the Setu-bandha to Kalidasa. His note is :प्रवरसेनः कश्चित्कविःप्रवे प्लते रसो येषां ते प्रवरसाः वानराः तेषामिनः स्वामी प्रवरा च सेना यस्य स सुग्रीवश्च कुमुदवत् कैरववत् यद्वा कुः भूमिः तस्या मुद्धहर्षः तयेति कुमुदेन वानरसेनापतिना च सेतुः प्राकृतकाव्यपंथः सेतुश्च.
and not Nisargastravamsasya as the Calcutta Ed. has. But the vê here does not connect this verse with the verse immediately preceding (the Bhasa verse), and still less of course with the verse preceding that, which we are now considering. It resumes the whole argument, as to the fame of the true poet of which Kalidasa's glory is one of the last examples cited.
"How Pravarasena distinguished himself we are no longer informed. Among the various kings so called were two of Kashmir, the former of whom was grandfather of the second. The latter, according to Kalbana, dethroned, and afterwards rebabilitated Pratâpasila or Siladitya, son of Vikramaditya. Raja. tarangni, chap. 3, él. 332 and 333, p. 33 of the Calcutta edition. But the time and country of this Siladitya are still to be determined. If his paternity is rightly stated by Kalbana he was not of Gujerat. That he ruled over MAlava is very much more likely."-Hall, Introduction to Vasavadatta, p. 14.
