(2) unending avenues of prose, enlivened by a superior kind of punning wit or sh fan be surpassed. But tested both by the sample and bulk, Kalidas as a poet certainly stands superior to all other Sanskrit poets. He can successfully pry into the inner secrets of human nature. His acquaintance with the world and especially his perception of the really sublime and the beautiful are unique. On one point, perhaps, I may have to differ from the author Mr. Padhye probably thinks that Kalidas' descriptions of nature were in every case based upon direct and first hand observation of the aspects of nature described by bim. May I hazard the opinion, however, that in some cases the description, though it sounds beautiful, appears to be more subjective than objective ? It appears to be in some cases based on time-honoured poetic conventions, or if I may so put it, on the consecrated formulae of hereditary proverbial admiration of nature. I am even inclined to agree with those who think that the Ritusambar may not really be the work of Kalidas. In opinion Ritusambar gives a poor description of both winter and autumn. His own description of spring in Kumarsambhvam is much better than the one given Ritusamhar. As for autumn, poet Bharavi, in the fourth canto of Kiratarjuniya, gives a far better description of that season, based, as I fancy, upon greater personal observation than shown by the Ritusambar. The description of the rainy season in Mrichbakatik is, I think, more poetic than that in Ritusambar. The style and diction of Ritusamhar, though graceful, is distinctly infeiror to that: in Meghduta and Raghuvansha. In describing nature in this poem, Kalidas gives me the appearance of one who looks at outdoor scenes from only one point of view, and that too from a cosy.
