This page does not need to be proofread.

<page>
<p lang="sa">
17
 
</p>
<p lang="sa">
splendour, their wealth and their pleasure, come first

and the holy places next. There can be no comparison

between the two authors in this respect, each has gone

just the way that his nature led him.
 
</p>
<p lang="sa">
b In the second part, both the poets describe the

city of destination, Alaka and Lanka. While Alaka's
&apos;s
description is very vivid, Lanka seems to be no-

where among the stanzas allotted for that purpose. It

has been argued by some critics that Venkatanatha

should not have described Lanka more fully, as Rama

knew nothing of it except by hearsay. Yet, when one

studies Valmiki, and finds that Rama has taken the

greatest interest in learning the details about Lanka, and

that Hanuman has been most lucid in his reply one

cannot but feel that the poem might have been better

written in this respect.
 
</p>
<p lang="sa">
For the description of Sita, Venkatanatha has been

indebted to Valmiki for his masterly similes and epithets.

e.g., स्वगणेन मृर्गी हीनां श्वगणाभिवृतामिव प्रभां नक्षत्रराजस्य कालमेधैरिवा-

वृतां, आशां प्रतिहतामिव, संस्कारेण यथाहीनां वाचमर्थान्तरं गतां, नील-

केशी, सुमध्यां, भीरुं भुजगेन्द्रवधूमिव, कनकवर्णाङ्गी, हिमहतनलिनीव नष्ट-

शोभा, पद्मिनीमित्र विश्वस्तां, नैषा पश्यति राक्षस्यो नेमान् पुष्पफलद्रुमान् ।

एकस्थहृदया नूनं राममेवानुपश्यति. Yet Venkatanatha has supple

mented these in his own masterly way, and stanzas 11,

12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22 are examples of the finest efforts of

the author. In this respect he may be said to rise supe-

rior to his model, for Kalidasa's efforts are restricted to
&apos;s efforts are restricted to
descriptions of physical beauty deteriorating by sorrow
 
</p>
<p lang="sa">
HAMSA B
 
</p>
</page>