काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

354 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA स्वाधीनपतिका कान्तं भजमाना यथां लोकोत्तरचमत्कारभूः तथा जयश्रीस्त्वदासेवनेनेत्यादिना प्रतीयमानेन विना यद्यपि नोक्तेर्वैचित्र्यम् । वैचित्र्यं चालंकारः । तथापि न ध्वनिगुणी- भूतव्यङ्ग्यव्यवहारः । न खलु व्यङ्ग्यसंस्पर्शपरामर्शादत्र चारुताप्रतीतिः । अपि तु वाच्य वैचित्र्यप्रतिभासादेव ॥ रसा- the second half it is implied only indirectly, by the same affix in ‘ratnavat’, which is equivalent to ‘ratnena tulyam’, so that the affix ‘vati’ in this case can only signify similarity of action; and through this is implied the similitude between the entities acting.] [An objection is raised—“ Fanciful Poetry has been defined in Ch. I as that which, “ endowed with Excellences and Figures of Speech, is devoid of suggestion;” and Figurative Poetry is Fanciful Poetry ; so that in poetry where there is a Figure of Speech, there should be no suggestion at all ; as a matter of fact, however, such is not found to be the case ; for instance.] Even in the first example cited, until we recognise the suggested meaning, that ‘ the constant attendance of Victory upon the King ’ is as supremely charming as the attachment of the wife to the devoted husband ’;—there is no fancy, in the verse ;, and a Figure of Speech is nothing more than a ‘ fancy ’ [so that every one of these examples should be regarded as instances, not of ‘ Fanciful Poetry, but of either Sugges- tive Poetry or Poetry of Subordinate Suggestion].’ The answer to this is that, though this is so, yet the examples are regarded as either ‘ Suggestive Poetry ’ or ‘ Poetry of Subordinate Suggestion ’, because in these cases the recognition of elegance follows, not from the perception of the tinge of Suggestion that may be present,, but purely from the perception of the fanciful character of the expressed meaning itself.