2023-03-29 18:10:48 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
GLOSSARY
247
lies the metaphorical identification of the subject and object is made
explicit for each of the terms. (2) D 2.88 (89). (3) ayam ālohitacchāyo
madena mukhacandramaḥ । sannaddhôdayaragasya candrasya prati-
garjati(Dandin:"The moon of her face, slightly flushed from drink, dis-
putes with the moon, ruddy above the eastern hills"). (4) "She was
a limpet, with the sensitive side of her stuck to a rock, for ever dead
to the rush of fresh and beautiful things" (Virginia Woolf). (5) Cf.
vyatireka rūpaka. The difference between simile and metaphor is
here exemplified. Both repose upon a similitude (shared property or
aspect), but metaphor adds a second dimension by proposing an
identification of the two similar things. Simile is thus in principle a
realistic figure, while metaphor is necessarily figurative. But as the
various subclassifications of simile show, the similitude may be
exaggerated beyond any probability (cf. cafu, tattvâkhyāna); it is,
however, that element of exaggeration which defines the figure as
simile: in metaphor, no exaggeration is possible because the two
things have become one. As far as the common property is concerned,
there is no distinction between the figures. That is why, throughout
this work, figures whose specificity relates to the common property
may be exemplified by metaphors, even where the original calls for a
simile, and vice versa. This was generally recognized by the Indian
authors themselves, who usually classify simile in reference to the
elements of similitude (among which is the common property), while
metaphor is classified almost exclusively in reference to the com-
plexity of the identification involved.
ubhaya, 'both': (1) a complex rūpaka in which the subsidiary metaphors
repose upon the inherent properties of one, and the accidental
properties of the other of the two terms in the principal metaphor.
(2) R 8.42 (45). (3) alikulakuntalabhārāḥ sarasijavadanāś ca cakra-
vākakucāḥ । rājanti hamsavasanāḥ samprati vāṇīvilāsinyaḥ (Rudraţa;
the bees, lotuses, etc. are accidental concomitants of the tank; the
tresses, faces, etc. are inherent properties of the girls: "The forest
maidens-the river Vāņi-are lovely with their lotus-faces and chign-
ons of bees, their breasts of nightingales and clothes of swans").
(4) "A steamer, probably bound for Cardiff, now crosses the horizon,
while near at hand one bell of a foxglove swings to and fro with a
bumble-bee for a clapper" (Virginia Woolf; the bumblebee is ac-
cidentally related to the foxglove; the clapper is inherent in the bell).
(5) This figure is a type of savayava rüpaka, contrasted with sahaja
and āhārya. For the meaning of "inherence", see āhārya (5).
247
lies the metaphorical identification of the subject and object is made
explicit for each of the terms. (2) D 2.88 (89). (3) ayam ālohitacchāyo
madena mukhacandramaḥ । sannaddhôdayaragasya candrasya prati-
garjati(Dandin:"The moon of her face, slightly flushed from drink, dis-
putes with the moon, ruddy above the eastern hills"). (4) "She was
a limpet, with the sensitive side of her stuck to a rock, for ever dead
to the rush of fresh and beautiful things" (Virginia Woolf). (5) Cf.
vyatireka rūpaka. The difference between simile and metaphor is
here exemplified. Both repose upon a similitude (shared property or
aspect), but metaphor adds a second dimension by proposing an
identification of the two similar things. Simile is thus in principle a
realistic figure, while metaphor is necessarily figurative. But as the
various subclassifications of simile show, the similitude may be
exaggerated beyond any probability (cf. cafu, tattvâkhyāna); it is,
however, that element of exaggeration which defines the figure as
simile: in metaphor, no exaggeration is possible because the two
things have become one. As far as the common property is concerned,
there is no distinction between the figures. That is why, throughout
this work, figures whose specificity relates to the common property
may be exemplified by metaphors, even where the original calls for a
simile, and vice versa. This was generally recognized by the Indian
authors themselves, who usually classify simile in reference to the
elements of similitude (among which is the common property), while
metaphor is classified almost exclusively in reference to the com-
plexity of the identification involved.
ubhaya, 'both': (1) a complex rūpaka in which the subsidiary metaphors
repose upon the inherent properties of one, and the accidental
properties of the other of the two terms in the principal metaphor.
(2) R 8.42 (45). (3) alikulakuntalabhārāḥ sarasijavadanāś ca cakra-
vākakucāḥ । rājanti hamsavasanāḥ samprati vāṇīvilāsinyaḥ (Rudraţa;
the bees, lotuses, etc. are accidental concomitants of the tank; the
tresses, faces, etc. are inherent properties of the girls: "The forest
maidens-the river Vāņi-are lovely with their lotus-faces and chign-
ons of bees, their breasts of nightingales and clothes of swans").
(4) "A steamer, probably bound for Cardiff, now crosses the horizon,
while near at hand one bell of a foxglove swings to and fro with a
bumble-bee for a clapper" (Virginia Woolf; the bumblebee is ac-
cidentally related to the foxglove; the clapper is inherent in the bell).
(5) This figure is a type of savayava rüpaka, contrasted with sahaja
and āhārya. For the meaning of "inherence", see āhārya (5).