2023-03-29 18:10:13 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
145
adverb "like" in this connection, but Bhāmaha allows two others
beside yathêvaśabda upamā, namely samāsa, where the simile is
expressed by a compound word instead of the adverb (moon-faced),
and vati, ('possessing the suffix -vat'), where the upamāna is also
in bound form-bound not by the upameya, but rather by an ad-
verbial suffix having the same meaning as iva (moon-like face).
It is in this context that the argument as to the relative antiquity of
Bhamaha and Daṇḍin finds its moment. The two authors appear
to be engaged in mutual refutation. Bhāmaha not only rejects a
sequence of similes in exactly the order in which Dandin gives them
(nindāprasamsâcikhyāsā), mentioning äcikhyāsā, which term is
peculiar to Dandin, but in reply, Dandin appears to belittle the
classification by grammatical type in his rather offhand enumeration
of approximately fifty words and conventions for expressing simile
(2.57-65). Elsewhere, Dandin objects to figures which are peculiar
to Bhāmaha (upamārūpaka, utprekṣâvayava, ananvaya, sasamdeha) in
2.358-59. Much controversy has been occasioned by this chronology,
and we make these comments only insofar as the problem may com-
pliment that of the sequence of analytical models proposed for simile.
Dandin accepts Bharata's point of view entirely, but advances the
classification to an undreamed of degree of subtlety. His treatment
of upamā is probably unequaled in the history of alamkāraśāstra
for its length, perspecuity, and philosophical interest. The thirty-
four types illustrate a variety of intuitional situations which the
upamā may facilitate. From the old varieties of 'praise' and 'blame',
we progress to judiciousness' (ācikhyāsā), 'confusion' (moha),
'amazement' (adbhuta), 'flattery' (cațu). All of these are specific
ways of representing (or misrepresenting) the basic similitude, the
singled-out property.
GLOSSARY
An important distinction introduced by Dandin and accepted by
later authors is that between simile of quality and simile of mode of
action. The former is regarded as the typical comparison, and is
that which has been described above; in the latter, the notion of
common property is broadened to include modes of action; in
effect, adjectival similes are replaced by verbal similes (he is as swift
as a horse; he runs like a horse). Because the subject and object are
related now through a verb, the latter type of simile is called
vākyârtha, or 'referring to the entire phrase' (of noun and verb).
The simple simile, or simile of property, does not involve the verb.
Vāmana also mentions this distinction.
adverb "like" in this connection, but Bhāmaha allows two others
beside yathêvaśabda upamā, namely samāsa, where the simile is
expressed by a compound word instead of the adverb (moon-faced),
and vati, ('possessing the suffix -vat'), where the upamāna is also
in bound form-bound not by the upameya, but rather by an ad-
verbial suffix having the same meaning as iva (moon-like face).
It is in this context that the argument as to the relative antiquity of
Bhamaha and Daṇḍin finds its moment. The two authors appear
to be engaged in mutual refutation. Bhāmaha not only rejects a
sequence of similes in exactly the order in which Dandin gives them
(nindāprasamsâcikhyāsā), mentioning äcikhyāsā, which term is
peculiar to Dandin, but in reply, Dandin appears to belittle the
classification by grammatical type in his rather offhand enumeration
of approximately fifty words and conventions for expressing simile
(2.57-65). Elsewhere, Dandin objects to figures which are peculiar
to Bhāmaha (upamārūpaka, utprekṣâvayava, ananvaya, sasamdeha) in
2.358-59. Much controversy has been occasioned by this chronology,
and we make these comments only insofar as the problem may com-
pliment that of the sequence of analytical models proposed for simile.
Dandin accepts Bharata's point of view entirely, but advances the
classification to an undreamed of degree of subtlety. His treatment
of upamā is probably unequaled in the history of alamkāraśāstra
for its length, perspecuity, and philosophical interest. The thirty-
four types illustrate a variety of intuitional situations which the
upamā may facilitate. From the old varieties of 'praise' and 'blame',
we progress to judiciousness' (ācikhyāsā), 'confusion' (moha),
'amazement' (adbhuta), 'flattery' (cațu). All of these are specific
ways of representing (or misrepresenting) the basic similitude, the
singled-out property.
GLOSSARY
An important distinction introduced by Dandin and accepted by
later authors is that between simile of quality and simile of mode of
action. The former is regarded as the typical comparison, and is
that which has been described above; in the latter, the notion of
common property is broadened to include modes of action; in
effect, adjectival similes are replaced by verbal similes (he is as swift
as a horse; he runs like a horse). Because the subject and object are
related now through a verb, the latter type of simile is called
vākyârtha, or 'referring to the entire phrase' (of noun and verb).
The simple simile, or simile of property, does not involve the verb.
Vāmana also mentions this distinction.