2023-03-29 18:10:12 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
142
GLOSSARY
range of literally irrelevant and incomparable aspects and connota-
tions of each term so juxtaposed taken separately, and presents only
those two things as manifesting some common aspect, the tertium,
which by the force of this being abstracted and displayed alone, as
it were, redounds to the descriptive credit of the original subject.
Simile accomplishes this feat of intellective specification by the use
of particles such as "like" (iva).
The simile is limited in its expressive power only by the ability
of the mind to comprehend the two things as common; the appro-
priateness of the simile is primarily a question of the comparing
object being precisely proportioned to the subject in just that aspect
which is contextually relevant, although in rare cases the object
itself may have to be considered.
All Indian writers agree on analyzing the simile into the four com-
ponent aspects we have introduced: (a) the upameya, or 'thing to be
compared': the subject of comparison, through which the simile is
related to the literal or outward sequence of ideas which constitute
the framework of the poem (compare this literal and grammatical
freedom of the subject in upamã with its necessary subordination in
rupaka); (b) the upamana, or 'agent of comparison': the object
introduced to concentrate attention on the essentials of aspect or
behavior; (c) the sādhāraṇadharma, 'shared property*: the quality
so singled out; and (d) the dyotaka, or 'clarifying' element: the
comparative adverb "like" (iva), or a similar indicator. This termin-
ology goes back at least to Pāṇini, who uses it in describing certain
compounds which express comparisons (3.1.10, 3.4.45, 2.1.55-56,
etc.). The same concepts are also used to describe those figures which
depend upon a basic simile but do not express an explicit comparison,
such as rūpaka, utprekṣā, vyatireka, etc. In this work, the words
"subject" and "object" are used in the senses given above unless
otherwise specified, and some care must be taken not to confuse
this usage with the more common philosophical or grammatical
subjects or objects.
All comparisons necessarily involve an element of non-identity,
but of course the terms of some comparisons are far more "realistic"
(sc. similar) than others, as: "Featured like him, like him with friends
possessed" (Shakespeare). Vāmana alone of our authors seems to
have perceived this problem and allows a simile called tattvakhyāna,
or 'literal', where the end is not praise or blame, but merely precision.
Simile here seems to leave the strictly poetic realm, in the sense
GLOSSARY
range of literally irrelevant and incomparable aspects and connota-
tions of each term so juxtaposed taken separately, and presents only
those two things as manifesting some common aspect, the tertium,
which by the force of this being abstracted and displayed alone, as
it were, redounds to the descriptive credit of the original subject.
Simile accomplishes this feat of intellective specification by the use
of particles such as "like" (iva).
The simile is limited in its expressive power only by the ability
of the mind to comprehend the two things as common; the appro-
priateness of the simile is primarily a question of the comparing
object being precisely proportioned to the subject in just that aspect
which is contextually relevant, although in rare cases the object
itself may have to be considered.
All Indian writers agree on analyzing the simile into the four com-
ponent aspects we have introduced: (a) the upameya, or 'thing to be
compared': the subject of comparison, through which the simile is
related to the literal or outward sequence of ideas which constitute
the framework of the poem (compare this literal and grammatical
freedom of the subject in upamã with its necessary subordination in
rupaka); (b) the upamana, or 'agent of comparison': the object
introduced to concentrate attention on the essentials of aspect or
behavior; (c) the sādhāraṇadharma, 'shared property*: the quality
so singled out; and (d) the dyotaka, or 'clarifying' element: the
comparative adverb "like" (iva), or a similar indicator. This termin-
ology goes back at least to Pāṇini, who uses it in describing certain
compounds which express comparisons (3.1.10, 3.4.45, 2.1.55-56,
etc.). The same concepts are also used to describe those figures which
depend upon a basic simile but do not express an explicit comparison,
such as rūpaka, utprekṣā, vyatireka, etc. In this work, the words
"subject" and "object" are used in the senses given above unless
otherwise specified, and some care must be taken not to confuse
this usage with the more common philosophical or grammatical
subjects or objects.
All comparisons necessarily involve an element of non-identity,
but of course the terms of some comparisons are far more "realistic"
(sc. similar) than others, as: "Featured like him, like him with friends
possessed" (Shakespeare). Vāmana alone of our authors seems to
have perceived this problem and allows a simile called tattvakhyāna,
or 'literal', where the end is not praise or blame, but merely precision.
Simile here seems to leave the strictly poetic realm, in the sense