2023-03-29 18:09:32 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
21
But the misapplication of the idea, poetically speaking, is only half
the figure; the form itself, logical or grammatical in origin, provides the
principle of definition, and it is of course on this differentiable aspect of
figuration that the treatises concentrate. Yet the manner in which they
are composed plays down the underlying logical or grammatical frame-
work, and gives some plausibility to the view that the figures are mere
collections or ornaments empirically discovered. The view is evidently
related to that which asserts the irrelevancy of the figures to poetics
generally.
Among the early writers, only Rudrata attempts to categorize the
figures according to their principles of definition; his treatment, though
ingenious, is broad and mentions only four groupings for some sixty
figures. Not until the close of the early figurative period, in the works of
certain of the encyclopedists, is there any really serious attempt to make
the outward presentation of the figures conform to their inner logic.
Ruyyaka must be mentioned as the writer who has gone farthest in this
direction. Much of our argument is based on his system.33 But the out-
ward arrangement of the figures, though it may technically be that of a
list, cannot hide the intentional structure which underlies the definition of
each figure and, in fact, relates each figure to others in terms of significant
variations, implying, if not stating, a universe of figures, a system (at
least) of definition.
THE PROBLEM
The subsequent history of alamkāra in India is emphatically not a
question of groping after aesthetic universals, but of what requirements
this implicit system of definition imposes upon the universe of poetic
discourse: What relations of subordination and superordination are to
be accepted; how one figure can participate in the idea of another (as
ślesa in simile); what constitutes a variety of another figure and hence can
be dropped or subordinated; whether, in fact, the form of the figure mani-
fests any inherent adaptability to misapplication (vakrokti); what further
suggestion is based on the misapplication (dhvani); whether, indeed, the
*Manifesting an insight to me mysterious, Keith concludes: "The division [of
figures] even in Ruyyaka is not logical" (Keith, SL, p. 399). The Alamkārasarvasva
of Ruyyaka has been translated into German by Jacobi (Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, LXII, pp. 289-336, 411-458, 597-628) and provided
with illuminating notes. Jacobi's longer article, somewhat misleadingly entitled
"Ueber Begriff und Wesen der poetischen Figuren in der Indischen Poetik" (= Kgl.
Ges. d. Wiss. Göttingen, Nachrichten. Phil-Hist. Klasse, 1908), is primarily an exposition
of Ruyyaka's syncretistic views. It is nevertheless one of the rare serious examinations
of the alamkārika position as a poetic. The respect which Jacobi pays to Ruyyaka
ought to be generalized to the entire school.
But the misapplication of the idea, poetically speaking, is only half
the figure; the form itself, logical or grammatical in origin, provides the
principle of definition, and it is of course on this differentiable aspect of
figuration that the treatises concentrate. Yet the manner in which they
are composed plays down the underlying logical or grammatical frame-
work, and gives some plausibility to the view that the figures are mere
collections or ornaments empirically discovered. The view is evidently
related to that which asserts the irrelevancy of the figures to poetics
generally.
Among the early writers, only Rudrata attempts to categorize the
figures according to their principles of definition; his treatment, though
ingenious, is broad and mentions only four groupings for some sixty
figures. Not until the close of the early figurative period, in the works of
certain of the encyclopedists, is there any really serious attempt to make
the outward presentation of the figures conform to their inner logic.
Ruyyaka must be mentioned as the writer who has gone farthest in this
direction. Much of our argument is based on his system.33 But the out-
ward arrangement of the figures, though it may technically be that of a
list, cannot hide the intentional structure which underlies the definition of
each figure and, in fact, relates each figure to others in terms of significant
variations, implying, if not stating, a universe of figures, a system (at
least) of definition.
THE PROBLEM
The subsequent history of alamkāra in India is emphatically not a
question of groping after aesthetic universals, but of what requirements
this implicit system of definition imposes upon the universe of poetic
discourse: What relations of subordination and superordination are to
be accepted; how one figure can participate in the idea of another (as
ślesa in simile); what constitutes a variety of another figure and hence can
be dropped or subordinated; whether, in fact, the form of the figure mani-
fests any inherent adaptability to misapplication (vakrokti); what further
suggestion is based on the misapplication (dhvani); whether, indeed, the
*Manifesting an insight to me mysterious, Keith concludes: "The division [of
figures] even in Ruyyaka is not logical" (Keith, SL, p. 399). The Alamkārasarvasva
of Ruyyaka has been translated into German by Jacobi (Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, LXII, pp. 289-336, 411-458, 597-628) and provided
with illuminating notes. Jacobi's longer article, somewhat misleadingly entitled
"Ueber Begriff und Wesen der poetischen Figuren in der Indischen Poetik" (= Kgl.
Ges. d. Wiss. Göttingen, Nachrichten. Phil-Hist. Klasse, 1908), is primarily an exposition
of Ruyyaka's syncretistic views. It is nevertheless one of the rare serious examinations
of the alamkārika position as a poetic. The respect which Jacobi pays to Ruyyaka
ought to be generalized to the entire school.