उत्प्रेक्षा — The figure of fancy: one thing is imagined as being another, and the imagining is marked as an imagining rather than asserted — by इव, by नूनम्, or by a word like मन्ये. Both marks are here.
Mallinātha names it and then defends the naming, which he rarely bothers to do. His reason is that the flow, joined to a cloud that is black past all measure, is *fancied* as a pearl-string on the earth's throat — अत्यन्तनीलमेघसङ्गतस्य प्रवाहस्य भूकण्ठमुक्तागुणत्वेनोत्प्रेक्षणात् — and that इव is what conveys the fancy. Then he names the commentator who got it wrong. The Niruktakāra held the rule तत्र तत्रोपमा यत्र इवशब्दस्य दर्शनम्, 'wherever the word इव is seen, there is simile', and so read this stanza as a simile too. Mallinātha's verdict is one word: बभ्राम, he blundered. The disagreement is worth having, because it is about method rather than about this verse — whether a figure is identified by the word that marks it or by what the sentence is doing.
uncheckedMallinātha, Sañjīvinī, naming the figure and disputing the Niruktakāra“atrātyantanīlameghasaṅgatasya pravāhasya bhūkaṇṭhamuktāguṇatvenotprekṣaṇādutprekṣaivey[a]mitīvaśabdena vyajyate || niruktakārastu “tatra tatropamā yatra ivaśabdasya darśanam” itīvaśabdadarśanādatrāpyupamaiveti babhrāma”