"I have coveted," says Paul to the elders of Ephesus, "no man's silver, or gold, or apparel; yea, ye yourselves know that these hands have ministered to my necessities, and to them that were with me3." Had he said, my hands," the sentence would have lost nothing either in meaning or in perspicuity, but very much in vivacity. The difference to hearers is obvious, as the former expression must have been accompanied with the emphatic action of holding up his hands to their view. readers it is equally real, who in such a case instantaneously enter into the sentiments of hearers. In like manner, the English words yon and yonder are more emphatical, because more demonstrative than the pronoun that, and the adverb there. The two last do not necessarily imply that the object is in sight, which is implied in the two first. Accordingly, in these words of Milton,

To

The expression is more vivid than if it had been, "that celestial sign. "Sit ye here," saith our Lord, "whilst I go and pray yonder 5." The adverb there would not have been near so expressive. Though we cannot say properly that pronouns or adverbs, either of place or of time, are susceptible of genera and species, yet we can say (which amounts to the same as to the effect) that some are more and some less limited in signification.

To the above remarks and examples on the subject of specialty, I shall only add, that in composition, particularly of the descriptive kind, it invariably succeeds best for brightening the image, to advance from general expressions to more special, and thence again to more particular. This, in the language of philosophy, is descending. We descend to particulars; but in the language of oratory it is ascending. A very beautiful climax will sometimes be constituted in this manner, the reverse will often have all the effect of an anti-climax. For an example of this order in description, take the following pasşage from the Song of Solomon: "My beloved spake and said to me, Arise, my love, my fair, and come away; for lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone, the flowers appear on the earth, the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land; the fig-tree putteth forth her green figs, and the vines, with the tender grape, per

4 Paradise Lost.

5 Matt. xxvi. 36.

3 Acts xx. 33, 34. Le Clerc thus renders the original into French, " Asseyez-vous ici, pendant que je m'en irai prier là." At the same time sensible how weakly the meaning is expressed by the adverb là, he subjoins in a note, " Dans un lieu qu'il leur montrait du doigt." The English version needs no such supplement.

fume the air. Arise, my love, my fair, and come away?." The poet here, with admirable address, begins with mere negatives, observing the absence of every evil which might discourage his bride from hearkening to his importunate request: then he proceeds by a fine gradation to paint the most inviting circumstances that could serve to ensure the compliance of the fair. The first expression is the most general; "The winter is past. The next is more special, pointing to one considerable and very disagreeable attendant upon winter, the rain: "the rain is over and gone." Thence he advanceth to the positive indications of the spring, as appearing in the effects produced upon the plants which clothe the fields, and on the

winged inhabitants of the grove. "The flowers appear on the earth, and the time of the singing of birds is come." But as though this were still too general, from mentioning birds and plants, he proceeds to specify the turtle, perhaps considered as the emblem of love and constancy; the fig-tree and the vine, as the earnest of friendship and festive joy, selecting that particular with regard to each, which most strongly marks the presence of the all-reviving spring. "The voice of the turtle is heard in our land, the fig-tree putteth forth her green figs, and the vines with the tender grape perfume the air." The passage is not more remarkable for the liveliness, than for the elegance of the picture it exhibits. The examples are all taken from whatever can contribute to regale the senses and awaken love. Yet reverse the order, and the beauty is almost totally effaced.

So much for that quality in proper terms which confers vivacity on the expression.

I

SECTION II.-Rhetorical Tropes.

PART I.-Preliminary Observations concerning Tropes.

come now to inquire how far the judicious use of tropes is also conducive to the same end. It hath been common with rhetoricians to rank under the article of diction, not only all the tropes, but even the greater part of the figures of eloquence, which they have uniformly considered as qualities or ornaments merely of elocution, and therefore as what ought to be explained among the properties of style. It is however certain, that some of them have a closer connexion with the thought than with the expression, and by consequence fall not so naturally to be considered here. Thus all the kinds of comparison, as they imply a likeness in the things, and not in

7 Chap. ii. 10, 11, 12, 13.

the symbols, belong properly to the thought. Nay, some comparisons, as was remarked above, are not merely illustrations of a particular sentiment, but are also arguments from analogy in support of it. And if thus comparison holds more directly of thought than of language, the same may doubtless be said of all those other figures which I have already observed are but different modes of exhibiting a comparison.

It must be owned, however, that metaphor, though no other in effect than comparison in epitome, hath at least as intimate a connexion with the style as with the sentiment, and may therefore be considered under either head. That we may perceive the reason of this peculiarity, let it be observed, that there is a particular boldness in metaphor, which is not to be found in the same degree in any of the figures of rhetoric. Without any thing like an explicit comparison, and commonly without any warning or apology, the name of one thing is obtruded upon us, for the name of another quite different, though resembling in some quality. The consequence of this is, that as there is always in this trope an apparent at least, if it cannot be called a real impropriety, and some degree of obscurity, a new metaphor is rarely to be risked. And as to ordinary metaphors, or those which have already received the public sanction, and which are commonly very numerous in every tongue, the metaphorical meaning comes to be as really ascertained by custom in the particular language as the original, or what is called the literal meaning of the word. And in this respect metaphors stand on the same foot of general use with proper terms.

What hath been now observed concerning metaphor may with very little variation be affirmed of these three other tropes, synecdoche, metonymy, and antonomasia. These are near akin to the former, as they also imply the substitution of one word for another, when the things signified are related. The only difference among them is, that they respect different relations. In metaphor the sole relation is resemblance; in synecdoche, it is that which subsisteth between the species and the genus, between the part and the whole, and between the matter and the thing made from it; in metonymy, which is the most various of the tropes, the relation is nevertheless always reducible to one or other of these three, causes, effects, or adjuncts; in antonomasia, it is nearly that of the individual to the species, or conversely. There is one trope, irony, in which the relation is contrariety. But of this I shall have occasion to speak when I come to consider that quality of style which hath been named animation.

On a little attention it will be found to be a plain conse

Book i. Chap. vii. Sect. 2, on engaging attention.

quence of what hath been observed above, that though any simile, allegory, or prosopopeia is capable of being translated (and that even without losing any of its energy) from one tongue into another, a metaphor, a synecdoche, or a metonymy (for this holds more rarely of antonomasia), which is both significant and perspicuous in an original performance, is frequently incapable of being rendered otherwise than by a proper word. The corresponding metaphor, synecdoche, or metonymy, in another language will often be justly chargeable with obscurity and impropriety, perhaps even with absurdity. In support of this remark let it be observed, that the noun sail in our tongue is frequently used, and by the same trope the noun puppis in Latin, to denote a ship. Let these synecdoches of a part for the whole, which are so very similar, be translated and transposed, and you will immediately perceive, that a man could not be said to speak Latin, who in that language should call a ship velum; nor would you think that he spoke better English, who, in our language, should call it a poop 9. These tropes therefore are of a mixed nature. At the same time that they bear a reference to the primitive signification, they derive from their customary application to the figurative sense, that is, in other words, from the use of the language, somewhat of the nature of proper terms.

In further confirmation of this truth it may be remarked, that of two words even in the same language, which are synonymous, or nearly so, one will be used figuratively to denote an object which it would be unsufferable to employ the other to denote, though naturally as fit for suggesting it. It hath been said, that" an excellent vein of satire runs through the whole of Gulliver's travels:" substitute here artery in the room of vein, and you will render the sentence absolutely ridiculous. The two words beast and brute are often metaphorically applied to human creatures, but not in the same signification. The former denotes either a blockhead or a voluptuary of the grossest kind; the latter, one in the highest degree unmannerly and ferocious. Accordingly we speak of beastly ignorance; we say, "gluttony is a beastly vice;" but we should say, "his behaviour to those unhappy people was quite brutal." The word brutish, however, though derived

This doctrine might be illustrated by innumerable examples, if it were necessary. For an instance take that expression of Cicero (Pro Ligario), “Cujus latus ille mucro petebat?" Here we have a synecdoche in the word mucro, and a metaphor in the word petebat, neither of which can be suitably rendered into English. "Whose side did that point seek?" is a literal version, but quite intolerable. "Whom did you mean to assail with that sword?" Here the sense is exhibited, but as neither trope is rendered, much of the energy is lost. In like manner in the phrase, "Vario Marte pugnatum est," " They fought with various success;" there is a metonymy in the word Marte, which no translator into any modern language, who hath common sense, would attempt to transplant into his version. See Traité des Tropes, par M. du Marsais, Art. vii. 4.

from the same root, is employed like beastly, to denote stupid or ignorant. Thus to say of any man," he acted brutishly,' and to say "he acted brutally," are two very different things. The first implies, he acted stupidly; the second, he acted cruelly and rudely. If we recur to the nature of the things themselves, it will be impossible to assign a satisfactory reason for these differences of application. The usage of the language is therefore the only reason.

It is very remarkable that the usages in different languages are in this respect not only different, but even sometimes contrary; insomuch that the same trope will suggest opposite ideas in different tongues. No sort of metonymy is commoner amongst every people than that by which some parts of the body have been substituted to denote certain powers or affections of the mind, with which they are supposed to be connected. But as the opinions of one nation differ on this article from those of another, the figurative sense in one tongue will by no means direct us to the figurative sense in another. The same may be said of different ages. A commentator on Persius has this curious remark, "Naturalists affirm, that men laugh with the spleen, rage with the gall, love with the liver, understand with the heart, and boast with the lungs9." A modern may say with Sganarelle in the comedy, "It was so formerly, but we have changed all that." For so unlike are our notions, that the spleen is accounted the seat of melancholy and ill-humour. The word is accordingly often used to denote that temper; so that with us a splenetic man, and a laughing merry fellow, form two characters that are perfect contrasts to each other. The heart we consider as the seat, not of the understanding, but of the affections and of courage. Formerly indeed we seem to have regarded the liver as the seat of courage; hence the term milk-livered for cowardly."

One plain consequence of the doctrine on this head which I have been endeavouring to elucidate, is, that in every nation where from time to time there is an increase of knowledge and an improvement in the arts, or where there often appear new

86

9 Cornutus on these words of the first satire, Sum petulanti splene cachinno.— Physici dicunt homines splene ridere, felle irasci, jecore amare, corde sapere, et pulmone jactari." In the ancient piece called the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, supposed to be the work of a Christian of the first century, we find these words in the testament of Nephtali, for illustrating that God made all things good, adapting each to its proper use, Καρδίαν εις φρονησιν, ήπαρ προς θυμον, χολην προς πικβιαν, εις γέλωτα σπληνα, νεφρούς εις πανουργίαν Grab. Spicil. Patrum, 1 Sec. t. i. ed. P. 212.

2,

"Cela était autrefois ainsi; mais nous avons changé tout cela." Le Malade malgré lui. MOLIERE.

From these things we may observe, by the way, how unsafe it is in translating, especially from an ancient language into a modern, to reckon that because the proper sense in two words of the different languages corresponds, the metaphorical sense of the same words will correspond also. In this last respect the words, as we have seen, may nevertheless be very different in signification, or even opposite. I