2023-03-03 05:40:02 by ramamurthys
This page has been fully proofread once and needs a second look.
tadguṇa, atadguṇa, vyājokti, vakrokti, svabhāvokti,
bhāvika and udātta).
In this connection we may refer to the similar type of classifica-
tion of the figures of speech in English language :
1. figures based on similarity (simile, metaphor, allegory
etc),
2. figures based on association (metonymy, synecdoche
etc),
3. figures based on difference (antithesis, climax etc),
4. figures based on imagination (personification, hyper-
bole, apostrophe etc),
5. figures based on indirectness (irony, periphrasis etc),
6. figures based on sound (alliteration, assonance etc),
7. figures based on construction (interrogation, exclama-
tion etc).
Number of alaṃkāras : We have already discussed that two fun-
damental divisions of alaṃkāras have been accepted in principle by
Sanskrit rhetoricians. Along with these some other classes of
alaṃkāras (relating to both sound and sense) have also been recog-
nised by some of them. But as to the question of number of figures
there is wide difference of opinion among the scholars. In the his-
tory of Sanskrit literary criticism, we find that different theories on
the critique of literature have been established and such theories
have critically analysed the fundamental qualities of artistic creativ-
ity which go to make the language of poetry an agreeable combina-
tion of word and meaning. Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra is the first extant
work on Sanskrit dramaturgy and some of the topics here are
related to both drama in particular and literature in general.
Bharata gives a list of four alaṃkāras (upamā, rūpaka, dīpaka and
yamaka). But with the passage of time the number has increased
very rapidly through the discovery of new figures. Numerous hand-
books and<error>encyclopediaes</error><fix>encyclopedias</fix>encyclopedias were prepared throughout one and half
millenium years (ie 6th-18th centuries AD).
As the theory and practice of rhetoric developed gradually crit-
bhāvika and udātta).
In this connection we may refer to the similar type of classifica-
tion of the figures of speech in English language :
1. figures based on similarity (simile, metaphor, allegory
etc),
2. figures based on association (metonymy, synecdoche
etc),
3. figures based on difference (antithesis, climax etc),
4. figures based on imagination (personification, hyper-
bole, apostrophe etc),
5. figures based on indirectness (irony, periphrasis etc),
6. figures based on sound (alliteration, assonance etc),
7. figures based on construction (interrogation, exclama-
tion etc).
Number of alaṃkāras : We have already discussed that two fun-
damental divisions of alaṃkāras have been accepted in principle by
Sanskrit rhetoricians. Along with these some other classes of
alaṃkāras (relating to both sound and sense) have also been recog-
nised by some of them. But as to the question of number of figures
there is wide difference of opinion among the scholars. In the his-
tory of Sanskrit literary criticism, we find that different theories on
the critique of literature have been established and such theories
have critically analysed the fundamental qualities of artistic creativ-
ity which go to make the language of poetry an agreeable combina-
tion of word and meaning. Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra is the first extant
work on Sanskrit dramaturgy and some of the topics here are
related to both drama in particular and literature in general.
Bharata gives a list of four alaṃkāras (upamā, rūpaka, dīpaka and
yamaka). But with the passage of time the number has increased
very rapidly through the discovery of new figures. Numerous hand-
books and
millenium years (ie 6th-18th centuries AD).
As the theory and practice of rhetoric developed gradually crit-