काव्यमीमांसा (महाकवि राजशेखर - कवि-रहस्य एवं देश-विभाग सटीक)

144 EXPLANATORY NOTES
l. 5. भृगुसूनोः = of Śukra. Bhṛgu is the son of Brahman and
Śukra is Bhṛgu's son. This shows the source Vāyupurāṇa
from which the author conceived the idea underlying the story of
Sārasvateya. The Vāyupurāṇa and the Harṣacarita mention that
Bhṛgu's grandson Dadhīci obtained a son Sārasvateya through his
wife Sarasvatī. Sec. Vāyu. 65, 88-91. and Harṣacarita. I.
l. 7. अनुप्रेक्षितः = blessed by Sarasvatī.
l. 8. निषादनिहतसहचरीकं क्रौञ्चयुवानम्। Here Rājaśekhara states that
the female Krauñca was hit by the Niṣāda and the male
Krauñca was lamenting in the presence of Vālmīki. But this
statement goes against the description of the event recorded in the
Rāmāyaṇa.
Cf. तस्याभ्याशे तु मिथुनं चरन्तमपगायिनम् ।
ददर्श भगवांस्तत्र क्रौञ्चयोश्चारुनिःस्वनम् ॥
तस्मात्तु मिथुनादेकं पुमांसं पापनिश्चयः ।
जघान वैरनिलयो निषादस्तस्य पश्यतः ॥
तं शोणितपरीतांगं वेपमानं महीतले ।
भार्या तु निहतं दृष्ट्वा रुराव करुणां गिरम् ॥
Rāmāyaṇa 1. 2. 9-11.
There is a similar statement made by Ānandavardhana in his
Dhvanyāloka (p. 27) as under : संनिहि(ह)तसहचरीविरहकातरक्रौञ्चाक्रन्दजनितः शोक
एव श्लोकतया परिणतः । which also seems to go against the Rāmāyaṇa of
Vālmīki. Probably this passage of Ānandavardhana may be at the
back of Rājaśekhara's statement because the word संनिहित or संनिहत
construed with the word सहचरी gives a different meaning as
stated by him in the passage निषादनिहतसहचरीकम् । But
Abhinavagupta subsequently in his Locanā got over the dis-
crepancy by mending the passage of the Dhvanyāloka in the
following manner : संनिहतसहचरीविरहकातरक्रौञ्चेन आक्रन्देन च जनितः शोकः ।
In this emendation, the word संनिहत is construed not with
सहचरी but with क्रौञ्च who represents the विभाव, whereas the आक्रन्द of
the female क्रौञ्च is अनुभाव for the शोक of Vālmīki. Cf. Locanā :
संनिहतसहचरीति विभाव उक्तः । आक्रन्दितशब्देनानुभावः । (p. 28. l. 8.)
*[ l. 10. मानिषाद etc. Cf. ध्वन्यालोक 1-5. et. seq. ]