काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

CHAPTER IX 341
हेतुर्विरोधः । न ह्यत्रार्थद्वयप्रतिपादकः शब्दश्लेषः द्विती-
यार्थस्य प्रतिभातमात्रस्य प्ररोहाभावात् । न च विरोधाभास
इव विरोधः श्लेषाभासः श्लेषः । तदेवमादिषु वाक्येषु श्लेषप्रति-
भोत्पत्तिहेतुरलंकारान्तरमेव । तथा च
सद्वंशमुक्तामणिः ॥३८०॥
नाल्पः कविरिव स्वल्पश्लोको देव महान् भवान् ॥३८१॥
अनुरागवती संध्या दिवसस्तत्पुरःसरः ।
अहो दैवगतिश्चित्रा तथापि न समागमः ॥३८२॥
This, however, is not right ; as here also the case is
just the reverse : it is the Contradiction that serves to
indicate the ‘semblance of Pun’. And the reason for
this lies in the fact that there is in reality no such verbal
Pun as has a clear double meaning (which is the necessary
element in all Puns), for the second meaning (‘beautiful
without drops’) is merely hinted at and is not sufficiently
complete or explicit (the epithet ‘beautiful without drops’
not being expressive enough to have any force). Nor is
the mere Semblance of Pun a Figure of speech, in the same
manner as the Semblance of Contradiction (Apparent Con-
tradiction) is.
All this leads to the conclusion that in cases like those
cited, it is the other figures of speech that are predominant
and serve to indicate the mere semblance of Pun. For
instance, in the following four passages—
(a) ‘Sadvaṁśamuktāmaṇiḥ’—‘The pearl-gem in the
noble family [‘growing a nice bamboo’],—(b) ‘Nālpaḥ
kaviriva svalpashloko deva mahān bhavān,’—‘O king, you
are great, and are not of little fame, like an inferior poet,
whose poems are insignificant ;’—
(c) ‘Anurāgavatī sandhyā divasastatpurassaraḥ
aho daivagatishchitrā tathāpi na samāgamaḥ ;’—