2023-03-29 18:10:09 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
135
found in both (though in fact it is limited to the object). So with the
utprekşā founded on a standard simile (see above), but in this case,
instead of a simple object, there are two terms, related conventionally
or accidentally, one of which serves as the technical object of
comparison to the subject (as the flag), the other of which, though
not sharing any similarity with the subject, gives the rationale for
the figurative usage or transfer (as the sun). The figurative or
metaphorical ascription is meaningless when the subject is related
to either object in isolation: the dawn may behave like the flag only
of the sun, the Baronet may wear the garland only of Bully Bottom;
yet in both cases the metaphor is understood as a relation between
the dawn and the sun, between the Baronet and Bottom. The form
which this utprekşā embodies seems to be that of paramparita rūpaka
(see utprekṣā II).
GLOSSARY
Rudrata, having accounted for certain non-standard similes as
foundations for the figure utpreksā, discusses the figure again in
terms of the thing said to have the property ascribed (the subject);
specifically, in terms of the relation of that subject (or upameya) to
that ascribed property. Now, again the point of departure is the
standard simile, and here the subject of comparison, as we said,
may plausibly be thought of as having the property, in the most real
and literal sense. The transfer is justified in terms of a real similarity.
Rudrata's type four illustrates this.
utprekṣā V): (1) a metaphorical ascription of a property or mode of
behavior justified by an inherently plausible similarity between the
explicit object and the implicit subject. (2) R 9.11 (12). (3) ghanasa-
mayasaliladhaute nabhasi šaraccandrikā visarpanti । atisāndratayêha
nṛṇām gātrāṇy anulimpativêyam (Rudrata; while the moonlight can-
not "anoint" anything, the utprekṣā and its implied simile are
plausible because of the almost substantial quality of the tropical
moonbeams, which do something very near to "flowing" over the
body: "In a sky cleansed by the streaming rain of the monsoon
clouds, the autumn moon wanders and, almost like an unguent,
anoints the limbs of men"). (4) "The very touch of that canvas was
enough to make my hand sing. I felt the colour flowing on to it as
sweet as cream" (Joyce Cary; as in the Sanskrit, we have the "flow-
ing" of color, but the simile is spelled out by adding "cream" as
the object of comparison). (5) The point is not that the usage is
not figurative, but that the figuration is plausible in terms of an
inherent pattern of behavior present in both the object and implied
found in both (though in fact it is limited to the object). So with the
utprekşā founded on a standard simile (see above), but in this case,
instead of a simple object, there are two terms, related conventionally
or accidentally, one of which serves as the technical object of
comparison to the subject (as the flag), the other of which, though
not sharing any similarity with the subject, gives the rationale for
the figurative usage or transfer (as the sun). The figurative or
metaphorical ascription is meaningless when the subject is related
to either object in isolation: the dawn may behave like the flag only
of the sun, the Baronet may wear the garland only of Bully Bottom;
yet in both cases the metaphor is understood as a relation between
the dawn and the sun, between the Baronet and Bottom. The form
which this utprekşā embodies seems to be that of paramparita rūpaka
(see utprekṣā II).
GLOSSARY
Rudrata, having accounted for certain non-standard similes as
foundations for the figure utpreksā, discusses the figure again in
terms of the thing said to have the property ascribed (the subject);
specifically, in terms of the relation of that subject (or upameya) to
that ascribed property. Now, again the point of departure is the
standard simile, and here the subject of comparison, as we said,
may plausibly be thought of as having the property, in the most real
and literal sense. The transfer is justified in terms of a real similarity.
Rudrata's type four illustrates this.
utprekṣā V): (1) a metaphorical ascription of a property or mode of
behavior justified by an inherently plausible similarity between the
explicit object and the implicit subject. (2) R 9.11 (12). (3) ghanasa-
mayasaliladhaute nabhasi šaraccandrikā visarpanti । atisāndratayêha
nṛṇām gātrāṇy anulimpativêyam (Rudrata; while the moonlight can-
not "anoint" anything, the utprekṣā and its implied simile are
plausible because of the almost substantial quality of the tropical
moonbeams, which do something very near to "flowing" over the
body: "In a sky cleansed by the streaming rain of the monsoon
clouds, the autumn moon wanders and, almost like an unguent,
anoints the limbs of men"). (4) "The very touch of that canvas was
enough to make my hand sing. I felt the colour flowing on to it as
sweet as cream" (Joyce Cary; as in the Sanskrit, we have the "flow-
ing" of color, but the simile is spelled out by adding "cream" as
the object of comparison). (5) The point is not that the usage is
not figurative, but that the figuration is plausible in terms of an
inherent pattern of behavior present in both the object and implied