2023-03-29 18:10:11 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
141
definitions of certain cases are vicious or too restricted (cf. śleşa).
The two systematic writers, Dandin and Rudrata, as well as the
compiler Mammața, consider simile the characteristic figure and
offer elaborate classifications of it. Upamã was recognized as a
category of interpretation as far back as Yaska's Nirukta, and it
figures in the Nighanțu (3.13), but the term signifies generally
metaphorical usage and comprehends what are later considered.
separate figures (rūpaka, samāsókti).
The broader question of the poetic scope and nature of simile
would of course be the most interesting to raise at this juncture.
The limitations put upon this work forbid it. A sketch, however,
may be in order, insofar as the later alamkāra tradition itself develops
along lines which bring into prominence just that discussion. In the
dhvani theory and in the work on vakrôkti, the notion is propounded
that poetry necessarily involves non-literalness: the poetic passage
must refer to a greater range of ideas and things than its immediate
words literally convey. In this same context, the importance of
simile is probably also to be located. The simile is just such a broad-
ening of the expression: a second thing, by nature irrelevant, is
brought into the context, whereby the first, the relevant, or subject
term is illuminated in a peculiarly characteristic way. The simplest
from of non-literalness is just this doubling of the subject. Of
course, the non-literal is not at all the irrelevant; the ultimate aim
of all poetic diction is coherence, unity, and accuracy and is no
wise different from science in this respect. But the skill of the poet
lies in his ability to create that coherence out of words and phrases
that are constantly fleeing into the shady mists of connotation,
constantly avoiding their original meaning and scope. Likewise,
the poet who proclaims that his love is like a rose says something far
more accurate about that young lady as she is than he could hope to
express in terms of her eyes, hair, or physical shape. He does this
via an irrelevant discursus which takes us for a moment to the field
of botany and associated connotations. This irrelevance is, of
course, irrelevant only in the realm of the literal and scientific and
constitutes the point of departure for those describing the poetic
function of comparison. The ultimate relevance of such oblique
reference is at the heart of the poetic problem. By singling out a
thing which is so obviously different-a rose or the moon-the
poet, by a type of Platonic definition, and by placing it against his
subject, immediately cancels out in the reader's mind the entire
GLOSSARY
definitions of certain cases are vicious or too restricted (cf. śleşa).
The two systematic writers, Dandin and Rudrata, as well as the
compiler Mammața, consider simile the characteristic figure and
offer elaborate classifications of it. Upamã was recognized as a
category of interpretation as far back as Yaska's Nirukta, and it
figures in the Nighanțu (3.13), but the term signifies generally
metaphorical usage and comprehends what are later considered.
separate figures (rūpaka, samāsókti).
The broader question of the poetic scope and nature of simile
would of course be the most interesting to raise at this juncture.
The limitations put upon this work forbid it. A sketch, however,
may be in order, insofar as the later alamkāra tradition itself develops
along lines which bring into prominence just that discussion. In the
dhvani theory and in the work on vakrôkti, the notion is propounded
that poetry necessarily involves non-literalness: the poetic passage
must refer to a greater range of ideas and things than its immediate
words literally convey. In this same context, the importance of
simile is probably also to be located. The simile is just such a broad-
ening of the expression: a second thing, by nature irrelevant, is
brought into the context, whereby the first, the relevant, or subject
term is illuminated in a peculiarly characteristic way. The simplest
from of non-literalness is just this doubling of the subject. Of
course, the non-literal is not at all the irrelevant; the ultimate aim
of all poetic diction is coherence, unity, and accuracy and is no
wise different from science in this respect. But the skill of the poet
lies in his ability to create that coherence out of words and phrases
that are constantly fleeing into the shady mists of connotation,
constantly avoiding their original meaning and scope. Likewise,
the poet who proclaims that his love is like a rose says something far
more accurate about that young lady as she is than he could hope to
express in terms of her eyes, hair, or physical shape. He does this
via an irrelevant discursus which takes us for a moment to the field
of botany and associated connotations. This irrelevance is, of
course, irrelevant only in the realm of the literal and scientific and
constitutes the point of departure for those describing the poetic
function of comparison. The ultimate relevance of such oblique
reference is at the heart of the poetic problem. By singling out a
thing which is so obviously different-a rose or the moon-the
poet, by a type of Platonic definition, and by placing it against his
subject, immediately cancels out in the reader's mind the entire
GLOSSARY