2023-03-30 14:03:30 by ramamurthys
This page has been fully proofread once and needs a second look.
There is a difference of opinion among the rhetoricians about
the matter whether one significant epithet is enough to bring out
the desired meaning or a number of epithets are necessary.
Mammaṭa and Ruyyaka say that a single epithet may not produce the
desired result, and therefore, there should be a few such phrases
involving a paradigmatic relation between the literal element and
the figurative expression. Therefore, all the epithets should be liter-
ally very significant to the context.Jagannātha does not accept the
opinion of Mammaṭa that only one significant adjective is not capa-
ble of bringing the desired prominence in the statement.
Vidyādhara and Appayya have mentioned another such figure
called Parikarānkura where some nominal word (viśeṣya) is signifi-
cant. But the adjective word (ie viśeṣaṇa) of Parikara may be taken as
significant for both.
Therefore, Parikarānkura is not different from Parikara in any
way.
eg 1. sarvāśuci-nidhānasya kṛtaghrasya vināśinaḥ.
śarīrakasyāpi kṛte mūḍhāḥ pāpāni kurvate.
सर्वाशुचि-निधानस्य कृतघ्रस्य विनाशिनः ।
शरीरकस्यापि कृते मूढाः पापानि कुर्वते ॥
Only the fools commit sins for the sake of this mortal frame--
The store of all impurities, ungrateful and perishable by name.
2. aṃgarāja, senāpate, droṇopahāsin karṇa, rakṣainaṃ bhīmād
duḥśāsanam.
अंगराज, सेनापते, द्रोणोपहासिन् कर्ण, रक्षैनं भीमाद् दुःशासनम् ।
O king of anga, O commander-in-chief, O you that made
Drona an object of ridicule, save this Duḥśāsana from Bhima.
In the first example, three epithets have been used to signify
the impurities of the physiological existence of ours for which we
often sacrifice a good many virtues in our life.
In the second example, Karṇa, one of the reputed heroes of
the Mahābhārata war, has been addressed by his opponent hero
Bhima, to save Duḥśāsana, the opponent king and the principal
the matter whether one significant epithet is enough to bring out
the desired meaning or a number of epithets are necessary.
Mammaṭa and Ruyyaka say that a single epithet may not produce the
desired result, and therefore, there should be a few such phrases
involving a paradigmatic relation between the literal element and
the figurative expression. Therefore, all the epithets should be liter-
ally very significant to the context.Jagannātha does not accept the
opinion of Mammaṭa that only one significant adjective is not capa-
ble of bringing the desired prominence in the statement.
Vidyādhara and Appayya have mentioned another such figure
called Parikarānkura where some nominal word (viśeṣya) is signifi-
cant. But the adjective word (ie viśeṣaṇa) of Parikara may be taken as
significant for both.
Therefore, Parikarānkura is not different from Parikara in any
way.
eg 1. sarvāśuci-nidhānasya kṛtaghrasya vināśinaḥ.
śarīrakasyāpi kṛte mūḍhāḥ pāpāni kurvate.
सर्वाशुचि-निधानस्य कृतघ्रस्य विनाशिनः ।
शरीरकस्यापि कृते मूढाः पापानि कुर्वते ॥
The store of all impurities, ungrateful and perishable by name.
2. aṃgarāja, senāpate, droṇopahāsin karṇa, rakṣainaṃ bhīmād
duḥśāsanam.
अंगराज, सेनापते, द्रोणोपहासिन् कर्ण, रक्षैनं भीमाद् दुःशासनम् ।
Drona an object of ridicule, save this Duḥśāsana from Bhima.
In the first example, three epithets have been used to signify
the impurities of the physiological existence of ours for which we
often sacrifice a good many virtues in our life.
In the second example, Karṇa, one of the reputed heroes of
the Mahābhārata war, has been addressed by his opponent hero
Bhima, to save Duḥśāsana, the opponent king and the principal