362. 364 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POITICS

364 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POITICS

thr rasas are said to be only suggested (and not expressed). Conversely, even if an author expressly said that there was aaRt or aou rasa in a particular piece, still there would be no aesthetic enjoyment of that rasa in case the appropriate ele- ments were wanting. Rasa is out of the ordinary, can be understood only by waays and the only proof of its existence is the चर्वंणा or भास्वाद which a सहृदय has. For a detailed des- cription of the rasa theory in all its parts, vide नाव्यशास्त्र (VI and VII chap.), दशरूप (4th prakasa), साहित्यदपण (III) and Rasatarangini. The eight rasas are शृद्गार, हास्य, करुण, रौद्र, वीर, भयानक, बीमत्स, and भद्भुत (vide नाय्य. VI. 15, pp. 268-269, G.O.S. ed. and K. M. ed. VI. 16). Some added a ninth rasa (RTIFT). We may apply the theory of rasa to the ādikāvya viz. Rāmāyaņa. It is narrated in the Bālakānda that the sage Valmīki saw a hunter killing one out of a pair of amorous kraunca birds. The parting of the loving pair by violent means, the fall and death of the female bird are the vibhāvas of karuna-rasa and the lamentation and piercing cry of anguish uttered by the surviving male partner are the anubhāvas of karuna; these powerfully moved the dormant mood of sympathy and pathos in Valmiki's heart, for a moment it beat in unison with the sorrow of the bird (तन्मयीभाव) and there was an overflow of that powerful feeling in the form of the measured verse 'मा निषाद प्रतिष्ठा त्वमगमः शाश्वतीः समाः'. It should not be thought that the sage was plunged into grief («1a) in the popular sense. The word शोक in रघुवंश XIV. 70 and ध्व0 quoted above (on p. 332 n. 2) is used in the dramatic sense (viz. as the स्थायिभाव)1. The sage was not occupied with his own

1. The words of the ध्व० 'काव्यस्य स एवार्थः सारभूतः संनिहितसह- चरीविरहकातरक्रौन्चाक्रन्दजनितशोक एव क्लोकतया परिणतः' (p.32) and of the लोचन क्रौश्चदन्द्ववियोगेन सहचरीहननोव्भूतेन साहचर्यध्वंसनेनोत्थित: (p. 317) create a serious difficulty. All editions of the ₹IHITU make the hunter kill the male bird and it is the female that laments. The sa. and arar had, it is clear, a reading before them which made the female die by the arrow. Not only so, the काव्यमी. of राजशेखर (p. 7) reads 'निषादनिहतसहचरीकं क्रौन्वयुवानं करुणक्रेक्कारया गिरा क्रन्दन्तमुद्दीद्त्य' &c. and supports the above interpretation of the sTo given by me. The late M. M. Prof. Kuppuswami in his उपलोचन on कौमुदी explains 'निहतः सहचरीविरहकातरः क्रौन्चः' &c. But