________________
28
Hemchandracharya's Literary Accomplishment
lived 60-70 years after Ruyyak who lived in the year 1100 A.D., reduced the number of figures of speech from seventy five to twenty nine.
Hemchandracharya does not lay great stress on the classification of figures of speech but attempts to explain the subject as briefly as possible. He himself says, "112 da far संक्षेपविस्तारविवक्षया नबीनबी भवन्ति, तत्त्कर्तृ कारचोच्यन्ते ।।"
If we glance at Hemchandracharya's presantation of figures of speach, he first presents simile which is the seed of numerous figures of speech. It has seven varieties. Then he presents Utpreksha which is not so pervasive as Upama (Simile) but is born in the would of poets. Then he present the figure of speech called metaphor (Rupak) which has greater intensity of experience than simile. He examplains its examples its kinds such as rupak or one subject and rupak of several subject and then rejects the concept of unomitable parts and of combining both parts. He forgets to give a place to such figures of speech as Prativastupama and Drastant figures of speech. He eltogether forgets Mummet's padarthaga Nirdarshan. He has created a great confusion by giving it a place as a veriety of the figure of speech called exaggeration while describing the figure of
Hemchandracharya's Literary Accomplishment 29 speech Deepati he accepts Tulyayagita, Anyoanaya and Maladeepak. But he rejects Karanadeepak. Hemchandracharya's definition of Paryayokti is very cumbersome and vague, Rasagangadhar gives a very brief presentation of the figures of speech Exaggeration and assimilated a number of figures of speech in it. In 'Vivek he gaves reasons for this. But we cannot accept all this. Not entering into a detailed classification of the figure of speech, Akshep, he gives only a simple definition of it. He gives an independent place to the figure of speech Solanki and thus reverls his vision of beauty.
In 'Vivek he gives a nice and sensible discussion of relation pun (shles) with Samasokti, the figure of speech favourite with poets since ancident times. Then Hemchandracharya does not give 48 or 40 kinds of the figure of speech called vyatirek as do Vishvanath and Mammat respectively, Such a detailed classification being not in keeping with his aim, he gives only eight kinds and it is proper. The presentation of the figure of speech Arthantaranyas reveals his originality and propriety. Though the definition of the beautiful figure of speach called Sasandesh is not beautiful as that given by JAgannath, the author of Rasgangadhar but it does have simplicity and novelty. Then he includes the figure of speech Vyajokti in the figure of speech
