A History of Sanskrit Literature c25.s2.23

c25.s2.23

The actual list of figures¹ is a curious mixture including much that we should not reckon figures of a distinct kind, as well as figures more naturally so styled. We have in his order the simile in thirty-two varieties, the metaphor, the Dīpaka, Āvṛtti, repetition in the sense of the use, e. g., of four different verbs with one meaning as a quasi contrast to the Dīpaka, Ākṣepa, Arthāntaranyāsa, Vyatireka, Vibhāvanā, Samāsokti, hyperbole, poetic fancy, and then three figures rejected by Bhāmaha, Hetu, Sūkṣma, and Leça. These express cause, convey a meaning by adroit hint or gesture, or conceal something which has almost come to light; but Daṇḍin gives us an alternative view of Leça, a rebuke or eulogy. Then come order; Preyas, the expression of pleasure; Rasavat, the expression of one or other of the sentiments; Ūrjasvin, that of vigour; Paryāyokta, the expression indirectly of something which cannot openly be avowed; Samāhita, mentioning some fact which has come to afford aid to one’s end; Udātta, description of something noble or elevated; Apahnuti, seeming denial to affirm more strongly; Çleṣa, double meaning; Viçeṣokti, description of a special distinction; Tulyayogitā, putting like things together; Virodha, seeming incongruity; Aprastutastotra, indirect praise; Vyājastuti, praise concealed as censure; Nidarçana, reference to a like result; Sahokti, mention of two things as happening together; Parivṛtti, exchange of objects; Āçis, benediction; Saṁkīrṇa, mixing of figures; and Bhāvika. The latter is a quality applicable to the whole of a composition and expresses the purpose and mind of the poet; it reveals itself in the making of all the different elements of the plot aid one another to their end, the avoidance of needless qualifications, the description of things in their place, and the exposition of even a difficult matter by due regard to orderly exposition. This quality, we can see, would, if Daṇḍin had had any idea of order, have been conjoined with Svabhāvokti; we may compare Aristotle’s¹ ἐνέργεια. It is important to note that Daṇḍin expressly mentions the view of some authors which made a hyperbole implicit in every figure whatever, and he himself lays it down that in every form of Vakrokti the use of the Çleṣa enhances the beauty, thus according approval to the practice of Subandhu and Bāṇa and of himself in his less immoderate action in the *Daçakumāracarita*.