2023-03-29 18:09:46 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
65
form where none existed. A number of reasons can be advanced for this
surprising onesidedness. (1) The absence of an Indian "rhetoric", and its
attendant notion that somehow the outward arrangement of the assertion
is different from, or more influential than, the ideal arrangement deriving
from the subject itself (the figures arthālamkāra in general). (2) Convic-
tion (persuasion) as an intellectual function was never separated from
understanding. (3) The kinds of figures which best exemplify the first
type of verbal figure mentioned above depend on fixed word order,
notably lacking in Sanskrit, which therefore does not provide a basis of
expectation upon which to rearrange the sentence for effect. (4) Persuasion
is a natural and not exceptional accompaniment of delectation, and both
functions can be realized by formalizing language, either ab ovo, as in
the second type of śabdālamkāra, or ideally, through the assertive func-
tions of the arthālamkāra. (5) Finally, the general bias of the Indian
poetic is against identifying or comparing word-function and sense-
function, as would be done if a sense or a purpose were to be derived from
a peculiar arrangement of words. We have already referred to this
basically divergent attitude in distinguishing the Greek sense of metaphor
from the Indian. Here, figures based on words, that is "grammar"
narrowly defined, are describable in terms of form alone, and although
it is assumed that they produce distinctive impressions when heard, no
meaning, à la program music, is ever assigned them."
152
In the area of sabdālamkāra, particularly, that subtle appreciation of
detail is manifested which is both the Marengo and the Waterloo of
the Indian mind. The Indian "enumeration" seems always to have been
guided by the idea that if a subject is well enough known in its specifics,
its form and structure will be self evident. The monuments of this ap-
proach are the grammar of Pāṇini and related "grammatical" disquisi-
tions in other disciplines, including that of our immediate preoccupation,
figures of speech. We distinguish the several levels on which language
functions as indicator and means of expression, and find figures exhaus-
tively defined for each.
THE SYSTEM OF FIGURES
(A) Phonemic repetitions
alliteration
anuprāsa
(Dandin defines a type of alliteration based not on the phoneme, but on
*** The closest approach to such teleological argumentation would be the attempt of
the dhvani school to subordinate the occurrence of certain figures and gunas to the
needs of the primordinate rasa. Cf. Dhvanyaloka 3.10ff.
form where none existed. A number of reasons can be advanced for this
surprising onesidedness. (1) The absence of an Indian "rhetoric", and its
attendant notion that somehow the outward arrangement of the assertion
is different from, or more influential than, the ideal arrangement deriving
from the subject itself (the figures arthālamkāra in general). (2) Convic-
tion (persuasion) as an intellectual function was never separated from
understanding. (3) The kinds of figures which best exemplify the first
type of verbal figure mentioned above depend on fixed word order,
notably lacking in Sanskrit, which therefore does not provide a basis of
expectation upon which to rearrange the sentence for effect. (4) Persuasion
is a natural and not exceptional accompaniment of delectation, and both
functions can be realized by formalizing language, either ab ovo, as in
the second type of śabdālamkāra, or ideally, through the assertive func-
tions of the arthālamkāra. (5) Finally, the general bias of the Indian
poetic is against identifying or comparing word-function and sense-
function, as would be done if a sense or a purpose were to be derived from
a peculiar arrangement of words. We have already referred to this
basically divergent attitude in distinguishing the Greek sense of metaphor
from the Indian. Here, figures based on words, that is "grammar"
narrowly defined, are describable in terms of form alone, and although
it is assumed that they produce distinctive impressions when heard, no
meaning, à la program music, is ever assigned them."
152
In the area of sabdālamkāra, particularly, that subtle appreciation of
detail is manifested which is both the Marengo and the Waterloo of
the Indian mind. The Indian "enumeration" seems always to have been
guided by the idea that if a subject is well enough known in its specifics,
its form and structure will be self evident. The monuments of this ap-
proach are the grammar of Pāṇini and related "grammatical" disquisi-
tions in other disciplines, including that of our immediate preoccupation,
figures of speech. We distinguish the several levels on which language
functions as indicator and means of expression, and find figures exhaus-
tively defined for each.
THE SYSTEM OF FIGURES
(A) Phonemic repetitions
alliteration
anuprāsa
(Dandin defines a type of alliteration based not on the phoneme, but on
*** The closest approach to such teleological argumentation would be the attempt of
the dhvani school to subordinate the occurrence of certain figures and gunas to the
needs of the primordinate rasa. Cf. Dhvanyaloka 3.10ff.