2023-03-29 18:10:45 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
240
GLOSSARY
principle, a simile or comparison. While in upamā the two terms
(subject and object of comparison, or upameya and upamāna) are
literally compared, usually through the use of a comparative particle
such as "like" or "as", in rūpaka that comparison is expressed as
an identification of the two. No longer is her face "like" the moon,
it is the moon. We use the word identification in the root sense:
the "making identical" of what is different. By virtue of this identi-
fication, the behavior and properties of the moon (or object) are
ipso facto transferred to the face (or subject), and propositions which
are literally true of the moon are now understood as applying, in
the poet's intention, to the face exclusively (the moon is brilliant;
her face-moon is brilliant). Of course, this transfer of property
constitutes the aim of the poet who uses rūpaka, as well as allied
figures, such as utprekṣā; but the manner and the technique of the
transfer (metaphor) differ for each of the figures. This formal differ-
ence constitutes the distinctive, or essential feature of each figure
and naturally preoccupies the writers on the subject.
By "identification" is meant the specific characterization of one
thing (the subject of comparison) as another (the object). Both
terms must be mentioned specifically (thus distinguishing rūpaka
from samăsôkti), and the relation between them must be immediate
and substantial rather than through an aspect or a property, as in
utprekşā or upamā. The proper grammatical form through which
this substantial identification is expressed is ideally the compound
noun, with the object of comparison following (as, face-moon; see
samastarūpaka). Since the object alone is grammatically free, the
syntax of the sentence relates to it exclusively; from this total
subordination-morphological as well as syntactic of the subject
(face-), the suggestion of identification or fusion derives. It is not
the compounding of the terms which defines the rūpaka, but rather
specifically the subordination of the subject to the morphologically
free object. This is shown most directly by the interpretation of
inverse compounds (where the object is grammatically subordinated
to the subject, as moon-face) as upamās (similes) showing ellipsis
of the common property (tertium). (Cf. R 8.21 ff. For exceptions,
see samasta rūpaka.) Two other varieties of grammatical subordina-
tion must be allowed as rūpakas, since they accomplish the same
expressive end: simple predication and the use of a subjective genetive.
Both Dandin and Rudrața define an uncompounded (asamastaru-
paka) metaphor where the object is simply predicated of the subject
GLOSSARY
principle, a simile or comparison. While in upamā the two terms
(subject and object of comparison, or upameya and upamāna) are
literally compared, usually through the use of a comparative particle
such as "like" or "as", in rūpaka that comparison is expressed as
an identification of the two. No longer is her face "like" the moon,
it is the moon. We use the word identification in the root sense:
the "making identical" of what is different. By virtue of this identi-
fication, the behavior and properties of the moon (or object) are
ipso facto transferred to the face (or subject), and propositions which
are literally true of the moon are now understood as applying, in
the poet's intention, to the face exclusively (the moon is brilliant;
her face-moon is brilliant). Of course, this transfer of property
constitutes the aim of the poet who uses rūpaka, as well as allied
figures, such as utprekṣā; but the manner and the technique of the
transfer (metaphor) differ for each of the figures. This formal differ-
ence constitutes the distinctive, or essential feature of each figure
and naturally preoccupies the writers on the subject.
By "identification" is meant the specific characterization of one
thing (the subject of comparison) as another (the object). Both
terms must be mentioned specifically (thus distinguishing rūpaka
from samăsôkti), and the relation between them must be immediate
and substantial rather than through an aspect or a property, as in
utprekşā or upamā. The proper grammatical form through which
this substantial identification is expressed is ideally the compound
noun, with the object of comparison following (as, face-moon; see
samastarūpaka). Since the object alone is grammatically free, the
syntax of the sentence relates to it exclusively; from this total
subordination-morphological as well as syntactic of the subject
(face-), the suggestion of identification or fusion derives. It is not
the compounding of the terms which defines the rūpaka, but rather
specifically the subordination of the subject to the morphologically
free object. This is shown most directly by the interpretation of
inverse compounds (where the object is grammatically subordinated
to the subject, as moon-face) as upamās (similes) showing ellipsis
of the common property (tertium). (Cf. R 8.21 ff. For exceptions,
see samasta rūpaka.) Two other varieties of grammatical subordina-
tion must be allowed as rūpakas, since they accomplish the same
expressive end: simple predication and the use of a subjective genetive.
Both Dandin and Rudrața define an uncompounded (asamastaru-
paka) metaphor where the object is simply predicated of the subject