हंससंदेशः /52
This page has not been fully proofread.
50
the irregularities, employed by Venkatanatha in about half
a dozen places in the Hamsasandesa. Great poets have
always taken such liberties with the language-liberties
most of which the existing rules of grammar cannot
countenance with anything like fervour. And all such
usages have gained, in spite of the grammarian, a force,
and have become current in the language, recognized as
the usages of great poets (:). The great Panini
himself is reported to have taken such a liberty in a few
places of a kavya attributed to him. And Kalidasa
himself has some usages to his credit. In his Magha-
sandesa he has used in one place देवपूर्व गिरिं ते (1-42) on
the lines of a similar use in the Raghuvamsa gİLİ
यमाख्यया. In the latter the usage is justifiable, because it
refers to a name and not an object denoted by the words.
But in the Meghasandesa it is the object : and not
the name that is spoken of. Even Mallinatha is
obliged to admit that the usage cannot be maintained.
Therefore there is nothing repugnant when we collect in
one place such peculiar usages of Venkatanatha. Only
they are a little more numerous than Kalidasa's. Learned
commentators like the late Parakalaswami of Mysore have
amply justified one and all of these usages.
We shall
enumerate here the few instances of the grammatical
peculiarities and liberties in the Hamsasandesa.
(a) तीर्थे पुंसां शमितकलुषे (1-30),
Here at refers to
and not to the whole compound
as एकदेशान्वयः
. शमित कलुषे The defect here is known
Another such use is in I-39.
the irregularities, employed by Venkatanatha in about half
a dozen places in the Hamsasandesa. Great poets have
always taken such liberties with the language-liberties
most of which the existing rules of grammar cannot
countenance with anything like fervour. And all such
usages have gained, in spite of the grammarian, a force,
and have become current in the language, recognized as
the usages of great poets (:). The great Panini
himself is reported to have taken such a liberty in a few
places of a kavya attributed to him. And Kalidasa
himself has some usages to his credit. In his Magha-
sandesa he has used in one place देवपूर्व गिरिं ते (1-42) on
the lines of a similar use in the Raghuvamsa gİLİ
यमाख्यया. In the latter the usage is justifiable, because it
refers to a name and not an object denoted by the words.
But in the Meghasandesa it is the object : and not
the name that is spoken of. Even Mallinatha is
obliged to admit that the usage cannot be maintained.
Therefore there is nothing repugnant when we collect in
one place such peculiar usages of Venkatanatha. Only
they are a little more numerous than Kalidasa's. Learned
commentators like the late Parakalaswami of Mysore have
amply justified one and all of these usages.
We shall
enumerate here the few instances of the grammatical
peculiarities and liberties in the Hamsasandesa.
(a) तीर्थे पुंसां शमितकलुषे (1-30),
Here at refers to
and not to the whole compound
as एकदेशान्वयः
. शमित कलुषे The defect here is known
Another such use is in I-39.