A History of Sanskrit Literature c25.s4.35

c25.s4.35

On the classification of figures of speech no serious thought appears to have been expended. Mammaṭa, whose actual treatment of individual figures dominates Ruyyaka, gives no guidance, while Ruyyaka ⁵ offers a division of figures of sense based on the principles of comparison (*aupamya*), incongruity (*virodha*), linked succession (*çṛṅkhalā*), logical reasoning (*nyāya*), sentence economy (*vākyanyāya*), popular maxims (*lokanyāya*), apprehension of a secret sense (*gūḍhārthapratīti*), and combination of figures (*saṁsṛṣṭi* or *saṁkara*). Nothing substantial is added to this in the later texts by Vidyādhara and Viçvanātha. It is not worth while investigating the precise meaning attached to this division, especially as some of the figures included in these divisions, such as Yathāsaṁkhya in which, for instance, epithets are asserted in the same order as the subjects are set out, are denied any true quality of charm by Jayaratha and Jagannātha. The division even in Ruyyaka is not logical, manifesting a characteristic defect of Sanskrit investigation, and in a number of cases the justification for the existence of distinct figures is quite wanting. The validity in other cases of the distinctions does exist, and the real criticism is that it is hardly worth while inventing special terms for the variant forms. Thus the idea that the face of the beloved is like the moon can be utilized to illustrate a long series of figures, based on similarity. ‘Thy face is like the moon’ is simile, Upamā; ‘The moon is like thy face’ is the converse, Pratīpa; but in ‘Thy face shineth ever, the moon by night alone’ we have contrast, Vyatireka. ‘The moon doth reign in heaven, thy face on earth’ illustrates typical comparison, Prativastūpamā, while ‘In the heaven the moon, on earth thy face,’ is an instance of exemplification, Dṛṣṭānta; illustration, Nidarçanā, is seen in ‘Thy face doth bear the beauty of the moon,’ and indirect eulogy, Aprastutapraçaṅsā, in ‘The moon doth pale before thy face.’ Or the simile may be repeated, Upameyopamā, ‘The moon is like thy face, thy face is like the moon,’ or we have remembrance, Smaraṇa, ‘The sight of the moon doth bring thy face before me.’ Or we have metaphor, Rūpaka, in ‘Thy moon-face,’ which develops into commutation, Pariṇāma, in ‘By thy moon-face, the heat of passion doth wane.’ In ‘Is this thy face or the moon?’ we have doubt, Saṁdeha; in ‘The Cakora, thinking it to be the moon, flieth toward thy face’ confusion, Bhrāntimat; while different representations, Ullekha, may be seen in ‘This the moon, this the lotus; so the Cakora and the bee fly to thy face.’ Or we may have negation, Apahnuti, ‘This is the moon, not thy face,’ or self-comparison, Ananvaya, ‘Thy face is like thy face alone,’ with which may be compared the famous verse of the *Rāmāyaṇa*¹ cited above. Or we may have lively fancy, Utprekṣā, as in ‘This is indeed the moon,’ or hyperbole, Atiçayokti, in ‘This is a second moon.’ Or we may have equal pairing, Tulyayogitā, ‘The moon and the lotus are vanquished by thy face,’ or illumination, Dīpaka, as in ‘Thy face and the moon rejoice in the night.’² Or, to conclude, we have the typical comparison, Prativastūpamā, in another form illustrated by a beautiful verse from the *Çakuntalā*, as a welcome change from these aridities: