Imatges de pÓgina


On Rhetoric. 64. When a resemblance is instituted between things, it is called Comparison. Of the comparates, the object from whence the comparison is drawn, is known by the term GEB; and the object (in hand) to which a similitude is exhibited is called conf-e. g.

oza 3'95 62 otocosi costwo focs Budha's eyes are like the blue Lotus; and his face is like the


Where, as in the above example, a similitude is instituted between two objects, the comparison is named ĉoloseComparison of objects.

The following, which is an illustration of sensible by imaginary objects, is called 2 03. f


cap. 5. Now, it will be perceived that the Grammariao merely treats, in this Chapter, of that which is contrary to the received and established usage of the Singhalese language. Hence the necessity for a term less general than “ Purity” in order to convey the meaning of 89:5@; which we have therefore translated Propriely.

* It is not a little remarkable, that many a capon of the Singhalese Rhetorician is nearly the

same in English. As

means, therefore, whereby we may be enabled the better to illustrate the test, which is too often expressed in a style far from being diffuse, and therefore obscure. to a beginner; we shall cite such passages from Dr. Whately's excellent work on Rhetoric, as. in our opinion, ale parallel to the passages in the textComparison (says he) is one powerful means of exciting, or heightening any emotion : viz. presenting a parallel belween the case in hand, and some other that is calculated to call forth such emotion :” Whalely, par: II. chap. 2, 4.

+ Thus in Ahate'y. par. Ill. chap. 2. $ 3.—“Of metaphors, those generally conduce most to the energy or vivacity of style we are speaking of, which illustrate an intellectual by a sensible object : *** Thus we speak of unbridled rage, 'deep-routed prejudice. ' &c. &c. But the highest degree of energy (and to which Aristotle chiefly restricts the term) is produced by such metaphors as attribute life and action to thiogs inanimate; and that, even when by this means the last-mentioned rule is violated, i. e. when sensible objects are illustrated by intellectual."

[ocr errors]

ඉඳු සැපිරි වැටු මහමෙරකලාවද ගුම්වත:

සුගතිඳු බඳ එබඳුවීIf the Mahamara, which is surrounded by rainbows, were to

move in the world, Budha's body would resemble it.* If, in a comparison, the words and their significations be respectively suitable to the object to which the similitude applies, and by which it is illustrated, and the whole sentence conveys a concurrent signification; the comparison is called ගලෙසුවම්:

80 96003 Cassed @consen:

ceoescoça sodoucn@tc to 833'|| Although seated in a watery and muddy locality-difficult to

be approached; the Lotuses, composed of stem, fibre,
petals, sheath, and an increasing red colour, were defeated
by her feet.
සුවටකමිනුල ඟි අඹරතරැදි කොකුම් වන්:

Dougo'quéwongad E8500 Orosessisted
That which appeases thy enemy in winter, is not a female's

bosom, but the sun, which is greatly round, and of a kokum (saffron) colour, and which rises by degrees, and rests

in the vacuum. Or thus: That which appeases thy enemy in winter, is not

the sun but a female's bosom, which is greatly round, and of a kokum colour, and which rises by degrees, and rests on cloth.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


* It is said that rays having all the colours of the rainbow proceeded from Budha.

+ This may perhaps be explained by wbat is familiar to the English Rhetorician,—"explaining the metaphor by a statement of the comparison.” In the first example, Lotuses is a metaphorical term; and it is explained by referring at the same time to the slem, (leg); the thread (sinews); the petals (fingers); the sheath (skin); and red-colour (a delightful hue)-qualities which resemble the component parts of the “ feet.” In the second example, the metaphor is such, and conveyed too in such language, that we at once perceive the likeness; and can apply the “ statement of the comparison”

When the object whence a comparison is sought to be instituted, is expressed in terms indicating some of its defects, in order thereby to elevate the object to which the same is compared, the comparison is called “ECES-e. g.

Ow:8 6 23a, 8 Eel@eg unod:

Boro CS S00,What comparison in the world will prore suitable to thee,

when the moon is waning, the sun cruel, and the ocean fluctuating? If an existing or inherent quality is represented as nonexisting, or a non-existing quality is represented as existing, so as to convey some significant meaning—[the language is a species of comparison] called 58¢Irony; e. g.

DES37.8. 2013., 0500099 nozco Bol: Even though the ear is a non-existing member: we (yet) know that he is a churl by (his) conduct.

@o292003030.usae il concessę8: O powerful person! thou art fearless: horo then dost thou

impart fear to others? I


either to the sun or the bosom. We have given both the readings which the words admit of.

* Aristotle says. tiiat merophors may be emplored either “to elevate or degrade the subject according to the desire of th:e author; being drawn from similar or corresı onding ohjects of a higher or lower character. " Toe rule in the text is sligb:ly different from the above; for it has reference to a double elevation of the subject, by a comparison drawn from a similar object of a higher character, and at the same time by a reference to some degradi'g quality in t! at object-a quality non-esisting in tbe subject. Thus, in the above example, the ocean' is compared to a person. The former of itself bears a high character; but by a reference to its inherent defect- fluctuation,' the writer cries' what comparison in the world will prove suitable to thee. when the ocean i:sell is Auctuating (which thou art not !)'

+ This passage would be iess obscure to the European. if the sentence sere rendered thus : Ak bough he has not ear; yet by his conduct do we know that he will not give.'

Fear is an inherent emotion of the human mind; get the speaker bas declared the party whom he addressed, " tearies, with a view to iocrease the force of the compliment.


When at the conclusion of a dialogue, there is some significant meaning conveyed [which the words themselves do not impart], the language is called ewe-e. g. ස ද ව සිදු වේ ය න ඛ ග ය න ම ස

SCOO06099¢éle side 6

හා రు
අර හු කි ග හ ර ල බහුරි රා

පd වි ව ම න ග ද ස ය ද ප නි ර ජ දි ය ඉ සු The above, when rendered into prose, is read as follows:AgastiyaDescę. Fair one of a forest river ! Ricer-39693.502. Say (or speak on) Koombe Yönee. Why hast thou uttered the name

of the enemy? River-orneowoss. And wherefore hast thou named the

enemy thyself? AgastiyaROLE 63601952095 Bandabuone. But river

Velley! thou art white: horo hast thou became partially red? River-100 codza3 5567@. Haring imbibed the blood of the

inhabitants of Keyrelle. Agastiya-066 eccess Oneceri 82 8?.

Yes. King Pathiraje waged a war in that direction.. 65. When an estimable subject is treated of in disparaging terms, Rhetoricians have designated such composition onęoned-e. g. 7

• This, it will be perceived, is Dearly identical with Pronpopria, or Personification of the Western nations. We say “ nearly; " because, although this like their Prosopopæia, is a metapl or which attributes life and uction to inanimate objects, yet it never occurs except in a dialogue; which dialogue conclules by illustratirg the reality by an imaginary circumstaoce or incident. Thus, in the above esanple, the writer wishes to convey that king Pathiraja uas victorious in a war which he had waged in the vicinity of the Velliganga ; since with the enemy's (Keyrelle's) blo d the river became ". “ partially red.” This dialogue is given as being conducted between Agas. liya, “regent of the star ('anopus " (otherwise (alled koomba; a jar or put), and the river in Ceylon called re igana-characters which in Oriental mythology are inimical to each other. see another example of this in the Introduction.

+ It is stated hy Aristotle, that "the person whom we wou'd bold up to admiration should always be adraniageous y compared, if

e. g

ගනුතන තාපකතරන් මතයදසසිලියස නි:

පරපුරරද තදුරෙන් එබවිනීහඟිමහබං || O powerful man! thou tookest in thy hand the Rhodia-slave

of a black flowing sword; and in consequence, do I think,

thine enemies have left thee far. If an idea, different from that conceived in the mind, be manifested by the words, the language is called 08.9ed.Metaphor,

ම ග ප ම න හි ව වි ස මල් යා
හි ලි ත දා ලි වි එ ස ලි මිලි යා
ග බ - මි වී මි ලි ත වූ වි ලිපිලි යා

වලින්හල : බලි බිලි සා A travelling parrot, who seeing the large flowers, was glad

and delighted therewith, having perched upon the cotton tree, thinking 'let me extract honey,' thrust his beak into a ripe-pod-( and lo!) the cotton that up-rose by means of the bruise exhibited a melancholy appearance.

possible, with those that are already illustrious. but if not, at least with some person whom he excels : to excel being in itself, a ground of admiration,” The converse of this is put by the canon laid down in the text. For in the example belore us instead of speaking of the person addressed in reference to some illustrious object, a degrading one, (a Rhodia") is mentioned.

* This is a sort of allegorica: me aphor.

+ The object of the above is to shew that the bruised cotton presented the appearance of dowers, and that of the following, to convey that " the women"

were so handsome that even the very bees mistook their faces for Lotuses.

ම ල්

ę ප ට බි

• ද ය

ත් 6 පර ඹ හල කව් එ ක වන්හට ප ත් The bres who pursued the breeze, impregnated with the sweets of the Lotus, entered the house through the windows opened by town-women faint wuh dissipation.–Kaviasakara.

6 0

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinua »