2023-02-15 09:58:53 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
xviii
A Handbook of Classical Sanskrit Rhetoric
artha alamkāras: 62 (primary figures), 187 (with principal vari-
eties), 34969 (with main divisions), 568700847 (with subdivisions).
According to the old school-
(i) pariņāma is included in rūpaka, tulyayogitā in dīpaka, dṛṣṭāna
in prativastupamā, kavyalinga in hetu, kāraṇamāla, ekavali and malā-
dipaka in śṛmkhalā.
(ii) The following figures may be rejected since they are actu-
ally different varieties of some standard figures
citra, prahelikā, gūḍha, sükṣma, lesa, āśis, svabhāvokti,
yathāsamkhya, vakrokti, vyājokti, bhāva, pihita, mata, upanyāsa,
avasara, ahetu, gati, jāti, rīti, vṛtti, chāyā, mātrā, ukti, yukti, bhaniti,
gumphanā, sayyā, paṭhiti, vākovākya, adhyeya, śravya, preksha, abhineya,
pratyakṣa, sambhava, vitarka, bheda, bhāva, upamāna, āgama, abhāva,
sāmya, samadhi, samāsokti, aprastuta-prasamsă, paryāya, atadguṇa,
bhāṣā-sama, niscaya, anukula, prastutāmkura, parikarāṇkura, vyāja-
nindā, asambhava, viksvara, sambhāvanā, avajñā, unmilita, anuguna,
ratnāvalī, gūḍhokti, vivṛtokti, yukti, lokokti, chekokti, atyukti, nirukti,
pratiședha, vidhi, pratyakṣa, anumāna, upamāna, sabda, aitihya, arthā-
patti, anupalabdhi, sambhava and ulläsa.
In this connection it would not be irrelevant to throw some
light on the over-estimation of the number of figures in English lit-
erature as remarked by a modern critic :
Sister Miriam Joseph, in her book 'Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of
Language', reclassified the more than 200 figures distinguished by the
Tudor rhetoricians according to the four categories: grammar, logos,
pathos and ethos. By classifying the figures in this way, she was able to
demonstrate, quite convincingly, that the three 'schools' of rhetoric during
the Renaissance (the Ramists, the traditionalists, and the figurists) saw the
figures as being intimately connected with the topics of invention. ...In their
passion for anatomizing and categorizing knowledge, the humanists of the
Renaissance delighted in classifying and sub-classifying the figures. ...The
most widely used classical handbook in the Renaissance schools, 'Rhetorica
ad Herennium', required the students to learn only 65 figures.
Susenbrotus, in his popular 'Epitome troporum ac schematum' (1540), dis-
tinguished 132 figures. But Henry Peacham, in his 1577 edition of 'The
Garden of Eloquence', pushed the number up to 184.
Digitized by Google
Original from
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
A Handbook of Classical Sanskrit Rhetoric
artha alamkāras: 62 (primary figures), 187 (with principal vari-
eties), 34969 (with main divisions), 568700847 (with subdivisions).
According to the old school-
(i) pariņāma is included in rūpaka, tulyayogitā in dīpaka, dṛṣṭāna
in prativastupamā, kavyalinga in hetu, kāraṇamāla, ekavali and malā-
dipaka in śṛmkhalā.
(ii) The following figures may be rejected since they are actu-
ally different varieties of some standard figures
citra, prahelikā, gūḍha, sükṣma, lesa, āśis, svabhāvokti,
yathāsamkhya, vakrokti, vyājokti, bhāva, pihita, mata, upanyāsa,
avasara, ahetu, gati, jāti, rīti, vṛtti, chāyā, mātrā, ukti, yukti, bhaniti,
gumphanā, sayyā, paṭhiti, vākovākya, adhyeya, śravya, preksha, abhineya,
pratyakṣa, sambhava, vitarka, bheda, bhāva, upamāna, āgama, abhāva,
sāmya, samadhi, samāsokti, aprastuta-prasamsă, paryāya, atadguṇa,
bhāṣā-sama, niscaya, anukula, prastutāmkura, parikarāṇkura, vyāja-
nindā, asambhava, viksvara, sambhāvanā, avajñā, unmilita, anuguna,
ratnāvalī, gūḍhokti, vivṛtokti, yukti, lokokti, chekokti, atyukti, nirukti,
pratiședha, vidhi, pratyakṣa, anumāna, upamāna, sabda, aitihya, arthā-
patti, anupalabdhi, sambhava and ulläsa.
In this connection it would not be irrelevant to throw some
light on the over-estimation of the number of figures in English lit-
erature as remarked by a modern critic :
Sister Miriam Joseph, in her book 'Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of
Language', reclassified the more than 200 figures distinguished by the
Tudor rhetoricians according to the four categories: grammar, logos,
pathos and ethos. By classifying the figures in this way, she was able to
demonstrate, quite convincingly, that the three 'schools' of rhetoric during
the Renaissance (the Ramists, the traditionalists, and the figurists) saw the
figures as being intimately connected with the topics of invention. ...In their
passion for anatomizing and categorizing knowledge, the humanists of the
Renaissance delighted in classifying and sub-classifying the figures. ...The
most widely used classical handbook in the Renaissance schools, 'Rhetorica
ad Herennium', required the students to learn only 65 figures.
Susenbrotus, in his popular 'Epitome troporum ac schematum' (1540), dis-
tinguished 132 figures. But Henry Peacham, in his 1577 edition of 'The
Garden of Eloquence', pushed the number up to 184.
Digitized by Google
Original from
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN