like). The composition of the world in its varied dimensions of space, time, etc. is thus exposed in the simple philosophy. The humble mind of Kavimani has reached at its keenest point while writing this poem. The common man with his common emotions so much celebrated in the popular poetry of the day, had given place to the introspective thinker whose idioms was highly intellectualized and sometimes marked by metaphors as violently wrenched out of nature as were those of Donne and Cowley in the seventeenth century". What Rusk said of Emerson applies also to the Kavimoni to the extent of the introspective thinker duly prompting: and not actually replacing, the common man. But in Kavimoni the treatment is entirely different. There is no highly intellectualized idiom or metaphor violently wrenched from Nature. It is all a very smooth common man’s process in Kavimoni; Of course, at least in “Fable”, Emerson too has not gone to that height indicated by Rusk. Emerson’s Nature 1836 was little read though t contained compact and fundamental statement of his whole transcendental position. In the nature of 1844, a prose poem, there are passages of exceptional liveliness, and suggestive in imany ways of the Nature of 1836. Kavimoni might have read both the versions and attained the peak of transcendental enjoyment in the first and found a happy union of his with Emerson’s poetic frame in the second. Though “uc&outh -o coof good” is an adaptation of Emerson’s Fable the transcendental spark in Kavimoni glows here and there throughout his poems as e. idenced at least by two examples treated earlier in this paper. From Blake, Emerson often quoted “The Tiger’ with approval, but probably did not care to wrestle with the mystical books. Such is the case with Kavimoni who also adapted the Tiger and a number of other symbols like the sick rose, and the sunflower. Of the modern poets Emerson ranked wordsworth as the best since Milton, and knew most of the prelude by heart. Here is the 386
