2023-03-29 18:09:43 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
THE SYSTEM OF FIGURES
53
not defined by him, and presumably to be supplied in addition to those
defined (2.96; 168; 309; 347). The last three of these references seem
clearly directed to the problem of samsrsti figures appearing as sub-
varieties of other figures, several of which have nevertheless been men-
tioned in the main body of the treatise, as e.g., śleşa upamā. This also
is a problem that does not touch the structure of figuration itself, but
rather involves its concrete application in cases where several figures
co-occur. Yet it is also true that Dandin is the writer who elaborates
sub-classifications to their greatest extent. Often, as in upamā, his criteria
for sub-classifications are not formal, but contextual (nindopamā,
cațūpamā, etc.); aware of this, Daṇḍin may indeed be unwilling to over-
extend himself in subtleties. Still, even on this level, the problem is
really one of context and exemplification. Daṇḍin's lead in trying to
involve contextual definitions as subvarieties was not followed by his
successors, who stayed, by and large, within the limits of pure formalism.
If this is all Dandin meant by cautioning (2.1) against "complete"
inventories of figuration, then his warning was indeed heeded, and our
defense of him corresponds to the reading of Dandin by the tradition
itself.
The following attempt to sketch a classification of the figures should not
be taken as final. It is based on an enumeration of figures judged different
by the tradition, up to and including Mammața (but excluding Bhoja and
the Agnipurāṇa) 135 A few notes will be appended on the post-dhvani
figures, but they will not be dealt with in detail. Although the alamkāras
imply a system of classification, that system is capable of several represent-
ations, for it is essentially multivalent. A factor selected as basic by one
writer, may, to another writer, appear as secondary. Indeed the figures
are defined principally in terms of such emphases, and one is always free
to "distort" a figure.
136
The primary characteristic of the figurative universe is not its fixity,¹
but its selectivity. The figures realize the potentialities implicit in the
norms of grammar and logic in no set or predetermined archetectonic
(unlike the theorems of Euclid). We have grouped the figures primarily
on the basis of ease of definition. Categories considered as genera in
a large number of cases are taken as basic, especially when these genera
appear to remove the subjacent figures from immediate cross-relevance
(vyatireka bears a much more distinctive relationship to rūpaka, let us
16 That is, we make no effort to encompass the Agnipurana's figures in this sketch
of a system; they will be included in the Glossary.
Contra De, "fixed rhetorical categories", SPSA, p. 32.
53
not defined by him, and presumably to be supplied in addition to those
defined (2.96; 168; 309; 347). The last three of these references seem
clearly directed to the problem of samsrsti figures appearing as sub-
varieties of other figures, several of which have nevertheless been men-
tioned in the main body of the treatise, as e.g., śleşa upamā. This also
is a problem that does not touch the structure of figuration itself, but
rather involves its concrete application in cases where several figures
co-occur. Yet it is also true that Dandin is the writer who elaborates
sub-classifications to their greatest extent. Often, as in upamā, his criteria
for sub-classifications are not formal, but contextual (nindopamā,
cațūpamā, etc.); aware of this, Daṇḍin may indeed be unwilling to over-
extend himself in subtleties. Still, even on this level, the problem is
really one of context and exemplification. Daṇḍin's lead in trying to
involve contextual definitions as subvarieties was not followed by his
successors, who stayed, by and large, within the limits of pure formalism.
If this is all Dandin meant by cautioning (2.1) against "complete"
inventories of figuration, then his warning was indeed heeded, and our
defense of him corresponds to the reading of Dandin by the tradition
itself.
The following attempt to sketch a classification of the figures should not
be taken as final. It is based on an enumeration of figures judged different
by the tradition, up to and including Mammața (but excluding Bhoja and
the Agnipurāṇa) 135 A few notes will be appended on the post-dhvani
figures, but they will not be dealt with in detail. Although the alamkāras
imply a system of classification, that system is capable of several represent-
ations, for it is essentially multivalent. A factor selected as basic by one
writer, may, to another writer, appear as secondary. Indeed the figures
are defined principally in terms of such emphases, and one is always free
to "distort" a figure.
136
The primary characteristic of the figurative universe is not its fixity,¹
but its selectivity. The figures realize the potentialities implicit in the
norms of grammar and logic in no set or predetermined archetectonic
(unlike the theorems of Euclid). We have grouped the figures primarily
on the basis of ease of definition. Categories considered as genera in
a large number of cases are taken as basic, especially when these genera
appear to remove the subjacent figures from immediate cross-relevance
(vyatireka bears a much more distinctive relationship to rūpaka, let us
16 That is, we make no effort to encompass the Agnipurana's figures in this sketch
of a system; they will be included in the Glossary.
Contra De, "fixed rhetorical categories", SPSA, p. 32.