2023-03-29 18:09:37 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
38
of a property, namely that of consequence. Unlike similitude, the rela-
tion is not reciprocal. When that cause-effect relationship is conceived
in an appropriately distorted way, it is considered a variety of atiśayokti
'hyperbole'. The most obvious example is obtained simply by inverting
cause and effect (purva);"2 another type expresses a result (effect) without
its proper cause (vibhāvanā); still another, the properly functioning cause
without its usual result (vyāghata). The varieties are relatively obvious
(as well as limited) when the proper genera are understood. The logical
framework underlying this family of figures is evident.
INTRODUCTION
(iii) Pun: śleşa
Rudrata believed that simile and hyperbole are the two basic criteria
of figuration, but by themselves they establish only two of the four
possible categories of poetic usage; the remaining two are established by
permutation.³³ Simile and hyperbole are not always separable; in certain
figures, notably pun and its varieties, they are present in intimate union.84
Likewise, admitting the possibility that neither simile nor hyperbole
nor pun are present, we obtain a fourth, somewhat ill-defined group of
figures which Rudraţa calls vastava "natural'.85
86
Rudrata's notion of pun (śleșa), then, is that figure which is essentially
hyperbolic and comparative. It might be argued that pun is not an
arthālamkāra at all, insofar as it rests upon a chance identity or similarity
in the phonemic shape of two different morphemic sequences. Rudraţa
and the other writers, of course, discuss pun under this aspect (chap. 4),
wherein the "charm" is never very far from verbal tour de force, and
analogous to conundrums, etc. Certainly puns, like "the ranch named
Focus: where the sons raise meat" imply little or no comparison, strictly
speaking, for the only property held in common by the 'sun' and the 'son'
is the identical pronunciation of their respective morphemes. Such
similarity does of course have to be recognized as a common property,
*
Examples of all these varieties will be found in the Glossary.
3 Compare the four existential categories of the Sämkhya, defined by permutation
of the two terms "producer' (prakrti) and 'produced' (vikṛti). Samkhyakārikā, 3.
4Ślesa, as the figure double-entendre, means 'coalescence' (of the two meanings).
Not to be confused, nevertheless, with the guna "śleșa" (above, p. 32, note). Rudrata,
Kävyālamkāra, chap. 10.
58
Kävyālamkāra, chap. 7.
In an unpublished paper, "How Does Pun Differ From Simile" (delivered to the
AOS, 1962), I have attempted to justify this thoroughly poetic specialization of the
lowly play on words. It is too obviously a play on words to suggest a parallel between
Rudrata's 'sleșa' and the fourth Nyāya pramāṇa: śabda?
of a property, namely that of consequence. Unlike similitude, the rela-
tion is not reciprocal. When that cause-effect relationship is conceived
in an appropriately distorted way, it is considered a variety of atiśayokti
'hyperbole'. The most obvious example is obtained simply by inverting
cause and effect (purva);"2 another type expresses a result (effect) without
its proper cause (vibhāvanā); still another, the properly functioning cause
without its usual result (vyāghata). The varieties are relatively obvious
(as well as limited) when the proper genera are understood. The logical
framework underlying this family of figures is evident.
INTRODUCTION
(iii) Pun: śleşa
Rudrata believed that simile and hyperbole are the two basic criteria
of figuration, but by themselves they establish only two of the four
possible categories of poetic usage; the remaining two are established by
permutation.³³ Simile and hyperbole are not always separable; in certain
figures, notably pun and its varieties, they are present in intimate union.84
Likewise, admitting the possibility that neither simile nor hyperbole
nor pun are present, we obtain a fourth, somewhat ill-defined group of
figures which Rudraţa calls vastava "natural'.85
86
Rudrata's notion of pun (śleșa), then, is that figure which is essentially
hyperbolic and comparative. It might be argued that pun is not an
arthālamkāra at all, insofar as it rests upon a chance identity or similarity
in the phonemic shape of two different morphemic sequences. Rudraţa
and the other writers, of course, discuss pun under this aspect (chap. 4),
wherein the "charm" is never very far from verbal tour de force, and
analogous to conundrums, etc. Certainly puns, like "the ranch named
Focus: where the sons raise meat" imply little or no comparison, strictly
speaking, for the only property held in common by the 'sun' and the 'son'
is the identical pronunciation of their respective morphemes. Such
similarity does of course have to be recognized as a common property,
*
Examples of all these varieties will be found in the Glossary.
3 Compare the four existential categories of the Sämkhya, defined by permutation
of the two terms "producer' (prakrti) and 'produced' (vikṛti). Samkhyakārikā, 3.
4Ślesa, as the figure double-entendre, means 'coalescence' (of the two meanings).
Not to be confused, nevertheless, with the guna "śleșa" (above, p. 32, note). Rudrata,
Kävyālamkāra, chap. 10.
58
Kävyālamkāra, chap. 7.
In an unpublished paper, "How Does Pun Differ From Simile" (delivered to the
AOS, 1962), I have attempted to justify this thoroughly poetic specialization of the
lowly play on words. It is too obviously a play on words to suggest a parallel between
Rudrata's 'sleșa' and the fourth Nyāya pramāṇa: śabda?