History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.73

c6.73

this is not satisfactory. The word in ध्व० is संनिहित and not निहत; besides the लोचन has ‘सहचरीहनन’. Supposing that निहत is the correct reading, we expect सहचरीविरहकातरनिहतक्रौञ्च, as he must have been कातर before he was shot when the male gave out a cry in the pangs of death. Why should the क्रौञ्च male be विरहकातर after being निहत ? Further, the verse is indicative of Rāma's life. When सीता was carried away by रावण, she was as if dead to him and it is राम that laments (as भवभूति says अपि ग्रावा रोदिति about राम's condition). So क्रौञ्चहनन corresponds with सीतापहरण and क्रौञ्चाक्रन्द with Rāma's lamentations. 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 निहतसहचरीविरहकातरक्रौञ्चाक्रन्दजनित: in ध्व० and explains the composition in a peculiar way viz. निहतश्च सहचरीविरहकातरश्च निहत..... कातर: स चासौ क्रौञ्चश्च क्रौञ्च्या: आक्रन्दश्च & c. This is a strange way of dissolving the compound. This interpretation gives a topsyturvy order. The क्रौञ्च must have been first कातर and then killed and so we expect सहचरीविरहकातरनिहत & c. Prof. Bhatt connects the आक्रन्द with the सहचरी. The straightforward and usual construction would be to connect आक्रन्द with क्रौञ्च that immediatly precedes. The reference he makes to preceding verses does not impress me. When once the theory was espoused that it was the male that was killed, then suitable verses could have been easily interpolated.