Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c79.109

v2.c79.109

⁶⁰ The *utprekṣā* and *ākṣepa* as poetic figures are expressly mentioned by Subandhu, ed. Śrīraṅgam p. 146; while *upamā* and *dīpaka* are recognised by Bāṇabhaṭṭa (introd. to *Kādambarī*). Both Subandhu and Bāṇa speak of composition enlivened by *śleṣa*; but it is not perfectly clear whether they mean by it a *prabandha-guṇa* (as in Bharata) or the specific poetic figure of that name. Bhāmaha not only speaks of *śleṣa* but mentions three kinds or cases of its occurrence. Subandhu’s boast of having used double entente (as his commentators interpret it) in every word of his composition is not an idle one; and from his use of it, one can indeed incline to the view that Subandhu’s *śleṣa* is no other than our modern poetic figure of the same name, especially as Bharata’s definition of *śleṣa* as a *guṇa* is hardly applicable to Subandhu’s case.