Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c80.85

v2.c80.85

But the different theorists are not agreed in their exposition of the exact nature and scope of individual poetic figures. This difference is partly due to the inevitable change of view-points consequent upon the progress of the study itself and gradual growth of ideas, and partly to the favourite refining process which loved to indulge itself in niceties of distinction. The development of the conceptions of the different poetic figures in the writers of different schools affords an interesting field of study in itself, and cannot be comprehended in our limited scope³⁷ ; but one or two instances will make the process clear. The figure *ākṣepa*, which (generally speaking) consists of an apparent denial of something which is intended to be said for the purpose of conveying a special meaning, is variously analysed by different writers. Vāmana defines it as the repudiation of the standard of comparison, *upamānākṣepaś cākṣepaḥ* (iv. 3. 27). One interpretation of this, as given in Vāmana's own *vṛtti*, is *upamānasyākṣepaḥ pratiṣedha upamānākṣepaḥ, tulya-kāryārthasya nairarthakya-vivakṣāyām* ; that is to say, the standard of comparison is rejected for the purpose of indicating that it is useless in the presence of the object described.