2023-03-29 18:10:08 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
132
GLOSSARY
differs from rūpaka in that, instead of the subject and object of
comparison being identified with one another, a property character-
istic of the object is said of the subject in the most general sense (as
predicate, or verb, or even as an independent noun phrase introduced
by "as though"). This case is more devious and more universal,
though both rūpaka and utprekşă do involve the metaphorical
(literally 'carrying over') transfer of something onto something else.
It might be said that utprekşã was a rūpaka with suppression of the
object. The standard technique, both in English and in Sanskrit,
of utprekşā is simply a noun, representing the subject of comparison,
followed by a verb or predicate which literally must be understood
with the objects of comparison, as: "And one blue parasol cries all
the way to school" (Thomas Hood). A parasol can't cry, but a
parasol with rain dripping off may be likened to a little girl's face,
which can. A rūpaka represents a total identification of two things;
an utprekṣā is only a partial coalescence through the transfer of a
characteristic property or function. Other figures are of course very
closely related to utprekṣā; perhaps the most significant is samāsökti,
where the subject of comparison is entirely implicit in an expression
which in fact represents the object of comparison: "A bird in the hand
is worth two in the bush", refers to the advisability of choosing
a present advantage (whatever it may be) rather than a future
and more attractive advantage. Utprekṣā does not subsume com-
pletely the subject of comparison in this way: it remains explicit,
usually as the subject of the sentence. Mixing these closely related
figures in any protracted discourse is, of course, quite common,
especially in the case of utprekṣā and rūpaka (sometimes enumerated
as a separate figure, or utprekşâvayava). Virginia Woolf is partic-
ularly rich in such complicated metaphors, as: "Suddenly, as if
the movement of his hand had released it, the load of her cumulated
impressions [rupaka] of him tilted up, and down poured in a ponder-
ous avalanche all she felt about him [utprekṣā]." Notice how easily
the one figure can be transformed into the other: "Suddenly, as if
the movement of his hand had released their load, her cumulated
impressions of him tilted up [utprekṣā] and down poured the ponder-
ous avalanche of all she felt about him [rūpaka]."
It is curious that the figure utpreksā, which in importance is
perhaps second only to upamā and rūpaka, and which is recorded by
all the writers from Bhāmaha onwards, should never have been
made the subject of an elaborate subdivision or classification so
GLOSSARY
differs from rūpaka in that, instead of the subject and object of
comparison being identified with one another, a property character-
istic of the object is said of the subject in the most general sense (as
predicate, or verb, or even as an independent noun phrase introduced
by "as though"). This case is more devious and more universal,
though both rūpaka and utprekşă do involve the metaphorical
(literally 'carrying over') transfer of something onto something else.
It might be said that utprekşã was a rūpaka with suppression of the
object. The standard technique, both in English and in Sanskrit,
of utprekşā is simply a noun, representing the subject of comparison,
followed by a verb or predicate which literally must be understood
with the objects of comparison, as: "And one blue parasol cries all
the way to school" (Thomas Hood). A parasol can't cry, but a
parasol with rain dripping off may be likened to a little girl's face,
which can. A rūpaka represents a total identification of two things;
an utprekṣā is only a partial coalescence through the transfer of a
characteristic property or function. Other figures are of course very
closely related to utprekṣā; perhaps the most significant is samāsökti,
where the subject of comparison is entirely implicit in an expression
which in fact represents the object of comparison: "A bird in the hand
is worth two in the bush", refers to the advisability of choosing
a present advantage (whatever it may be) rather than a future
and more attractive advantage. Utprekṣā does not subsume com-
pletely the subject of comparison in this way: it remains explicit,
usually as the subject of the sentence. Mixing these closely related
figures in any protracted discourse is, of course, quite common,
especially in the case of utprekṣā and rūpaka (sometimes enumerated
as a separate figure, or utprekşâvayava). Virginia Woolf is partic-
ularly rich in such complicated metaphors, as: "Suddenly, as if
the movement of his hand had released it, the load of her cumulated
impressions [rupaka] of him tilted up, and down poured in a ponder-
ous avalanche all she felt about him [utprekṣā]." Notice how easily
the one figure can be transformed into the other: "Suddenly, as if
the movement of his hand had released their load, her cumulated
impressions of him tilted up [utprekṣā] and down poured the ponder-
ous avalanche of all she felt about him [rūpaka]."
It is curious that the figure utpreksā, which in importance is
perhaps second only to upamā and rūpaka, and which is recorded by
all the writers from Bhāmaha onwards, should never have been
made the subject of an elaborate subdivision or classification so