2023-03-29 18:11:01 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
GLOSSARY
289
"women's breasts"; "May he alone conquer you who is unaffected
by soldiers and the breasts of lovely women, brilliant with their
spotless drawn scimitars [the nipples of whose spotless circles gleam
when revealed], whose chests are girded [whose chests are full
blown lively [heaving], scarred [wounded], striking fear into the
hearts of their enemies [producing agitation in the hearts of their
rivals], rough [firm], arrogant [swollen], stolid [heavy], and whose
faces are dark with rage [whose tips are dark]"). (4) "Beneath in the
Dust, the mouldy old Crust / Of Moll Batchelor lately was shoven,
/ Who was skill'd in the Arts of Pyes, Custards and Tarts, / And
every Device of the Oven. / When she'd liv'd long enough, she made
her last Puff, / A Puff by her Husband much prais'd; / And here she
doth lie, and makes a Dirt Pye, / In hopes that her Crust may be
rais'd" (Anon.; the puns here relate the kitchen and the tomb).
(5) The confusion of terms is here significant and oddly appropriate
to the concept involved; the first two writers to define pun, Bhamaha
and Dandin, prefer the term ślișța, perhaps to distinguish double-
entendre from the well-known guna (stylistic quality) "śleșa" (usually
defined as the appropriateness of word and sense) which dates at
least from the Nāṭyaśāstra. The two terms thus contrasted are only
grammatically different, the former being a past participle, 'con-
joined', and the latter a derived noun, 'conjunction'. The first
writer to confuse the issue was Vamana, who uses "ślesa" only.
Udbhata follows Bhamaha's lead, but does not treat the gunas in the
part of his work we have. The Agni Purāṇa describes the guna
"śleşa", but ignores the alamkara. Rudrața does not consider the
gunas, but calls the alamkāra "śleşa". Mammața, to complete the
confusion, refutes the guņa "śleșa" (he accepts only three guṇas),
but follows Rudrața in describing śleșa alamkāra. On the level of
the idea, we fare little better. It is obvious that all the writers are
talking about the same thing, but their definitions, though having
some elements in common, vary widely. Ślesa is subdivided in
extremely different ways. Its relation to the other figures is only
partially described.
Ślesa is the associating figure par excellence: it is found in conjunc-
tion with a long list of other figures, notably upamā, rūpaka, arthân-
taranyāsa, vyatireka, vakrôkti, ākṣepa, dīpaka, sahôkti, hetu, etc.
With these figures, the śleşa occupies the subordinate place and serves
as the means whereby the idea of the figure is expressed. For ex-
ample, in upamāśleşa the pun replaces the common property as that
289
"women's breasts"; "May he alone conquer you who is unaffected
by soldiers and the breasts of lovely women, brilliant with their
spotless drawn scimitars [the nipples of whose spotless circles gleam
when revealed], whose chests are girded [whose chests are full
blown lively [heaving], scarred [wounded], striking fear into the
hearts of their enemies [producing agitation in the hearts of their
rivals], rough [firm], arrogant [swollen], stolid [heavy], and whose
faces are dark with rage [whose tips are dark]"). (4) "Beneath in the
Dust, the mouldy old Crust / Of Moll Batchelor lately was shoven,
/ Who was skill'd in the Arts of Pyes, Custards and Tarts, / And
every Device of the Oven. / When she'd liv'd long enough, she made
her last Puff, / A Puff by her Husband much prais'd; / And here she
doth lie, and makes a Dirt Pye, / In hopes that her Crust may be
rais'd" (Anon.; the puns here relate the kitchen and the tomb).
(5) The confusion of terms is here significant and oddly appropriate
to the concept involved; the first two writers to define pun, Bhamaha
and Dandin, prefer the term ślișța, perhaps to distinguish double-
entendre from the well-known guna (stylistic quality) "śleșa" (usually
defined as the appropriateness of word and sense) which dates at
least from the Nāṭyaśāstra. The two terms thus contrasted are only
grammatically different, the former being a past participle, 'con-
joined', and the latter a derived noun, 'conjunction'. The first
writer to confuse the issue was Vamana, who uses "ślesa" only.
Udbhata follows Bhamaha's lead, but does not treat the gunas in the
part of his work we have. The Agni Purāṇa describes the guna
"śleşa", but ignores the alamkara. Rudrața does not consider the
gunas, but calls the alamkāra "śleşa". Mammața, to complete the
confusion, refutes the guņa "śleșa" (he accepts only three guṇas),
but follows Rudrața in describing śleșa alamkāra. On the level of
the idea, we fare little better. It is obvious that all the writers are
talking about the same thing, but their definitions, though having
some elements in common, vary widely. Ślesa is subdivided in
extremely different ways. Its relation to the other figures is only
partially described.
Ślesa is the associating figure par excellence: it is found in conjunc-
tion with a long list of other figures, notably upamā, rūpaka, arthân-
taranyāsa, vyatireka, vakrôkti, ākṣepa, dīpaka, sahôkti, hetu, etc.
With these figures, the śleşa occupies the subordinate place and serves
as the means whereby the idea of the figure is expressed. For ex-
ample, in upamāśleşa the pun replaces the common property as that