363. THE RASA SCHOOL 365

THE RASA SCHOOL 365

sorrow felt for the poor bird, but with the whole objective episode that stirred his heart and that led to the outburst (viz. मा निषाद प्र०). The situation as idealized by the sage's vision due to his sensitive nature and imagination gave rise to the poetic outburst, when the poet is completely full of the trans- cendental (alaukika) mental experience of an emotional idealized situation, then poetry gushes out from him, as the Locana p.32 puts it (यावत्पूर्णों न चैतेन तावन्नैववमिति). Not every reader of a poem can appreciate or experience the emotional appeal of that poem. The reader also must possess sufficient mental equipment and visualize in his own mind the situation as expresse d by the poet. This is what is meant by Tota quoted from the Locana at p.220 above (नायकस्य कवेः श्रोतुः समानोनुभवस्ततः). The poet cannot communicate to every reader the emotional situation depicted in the poem. He can only awaken in the this is not satisfactory. The word in ध्वo is संनिहित and not निहत; besides the लोचन has 'सहचरोहनन'. Supposing that निहत is the correct reading, we expect सहचरीविरहकातरनिहतक्रौन्च, as he must have been araT before he was shot when the male gave out a cry in the pangs of death. Why should the aa male be ०विरहकातर after being निहृत ? Further, the verse is indi- cative of Rama's life. When सीता was carried away by रावय, she was as if dead to him and it is ₹TH that laments (as भवभूति Says अपि ग्रावा रोदिति about राम's condition). So क्रौन्वीइनन corresponds with सीतापहरय and क्रौचाक्रन्द with Rama's lamenta- tions. And the काव्यमी. is quite clear. Recently Prof. G.H.Bhatt (in J.O.I., Baroda, vol. IX part 2 pp. 148-151) contributes a paper on this episode and prefers to read निहतसह चरीविरहकातर- क्रौञ्चाक्रन्दजनित: in सव and explains the composition in a peculiar way viz. निहतश्च सहचरीविरहकातरश्च निहृत ...... कातरः स चासी क्रौन्चश्च क्रौष्च्या: भक्रन्दश्च & c. This is a strange way of dissolving the compound. This interpretation gives a topsyturvy order. The क्रौन्च must have been first कातर and then killed and so we expect सहचरीविरहकातरनिहत & c. Prof. Bhatt connects the भाक्रन्द with the सहचरी. The straightforward and usual construction would be to connect भाक्रन्द with क्रौञ्च that immediatly precedes. The reference he makes to preceding verses does not impress me. When once the theory wasespoused that it was the male that was killed, then suitable verses could have been easily interpolated.