the brevity itself imparts to it additional strength, and being contracted within a narrower space, it has a more energetic and pointed effect.

Examples sufficient to evince the truth of these remarks will occur hereafter in the passages which will be quoted in illustration of other parts of our subject; and, in all bability, on a future occasion the nature of my undertaking will require a more ample discussion of this subject.*

See Lect. 19.

pro

LECTURE V.

OF THE FIGURATIVE STYLE, AND ITS DIVISIONS.

2. The Figurative Style; to be treated rather according to the genius of the Hebrew poetry than according to the forms and arrangements of Rhetoricians-The_definition and constituent parts of the Figurative Style, METAPHOR, ALLEGORY, COMPARISON, PERSONIFICATION-The reason of this mode of treating the subject: difficulties in reading the Hebrew poetry which result from the Figurative Style; how to be avoided. 1. Of the METAPHOR, including a general disquisition concerning poetic imagery; the nature of which is explained; and four principal sources pointed out,-Nature, Common life, Religion, History.

IN my last Lecture I offered it as my opinion, that the Hebrew word expressive of the poetic style had not one simple and distinct meaning, but might commodiously enough be supposed to admit of three constituent parts or divisions in other words, that it might imply the sententious, the figurative, and the sublime. On the sententious style, its nature, origin, and effect in the Hebrew poetry, I offered such brief remarks as occurred to me at the time: and now that I am about to treat of the figurative style, I observe before me an infinity of matter and an ample field; in which, lest we should too freely expatiate, or irregularly wander, the scope and order of our journey, the outlets of the road, the circuitous paths, and the most direct avenues, are in the first place to be carefully investigated. In order to the full comprehension also of those matters which will be treated of in this part, for they are in some degree remote from common use, it may not be improper previously to explain as clearly as possible, and therefore with some degree of copiousness, my immediate design; on what principles, in what order and method, and to what end, I mean to treat of the figures which are chiefly employed in the Hebrew poetry.

The word Mashal, in its most common acceptation, denotes resemblance, and is therefore directly expressive of the

figurative style, as far as the nature of figures consists in the substitution of words, or rather of ideas, for those which they resemble; which is the case even with most of the figures that have been remarked by the rhetoricians. This definition, therefore, of the figurative style, drawn both from the writings of the Hebrews and the sense of the word itself, I mean to follow in explaining the nature of their poetry; and this I do the more willingly, because it will enable me to confine our investigation within narrower limits. I shall also venture to omit the almost innumerable forms of the Greek rhetoricians, who possessed the faculty of inventing names in the highest perfection; I shall neglect even their primary distinction between tropes and figures, and their subdivisions of the figures themselves, denominating some Figures of expression, and some Figures of sentiment. In disregarding these distinctions, I might in my own justification allege the authority of C. Artorius Proculus, who gave the name of figure to a trope, as Quintilian informs us; and, indeed, the example of Quintilian himself.† I omit them, however, upon a different ground, for I do not pretend to say that in their proper place they are destitute either of reality or use; but our present concern is not to explain the sentiments of the Greek, but of the Hebrew writers. By figurative language I would be understood to mean, that in which one or more images or words are substituted in the room of others, or even introduced by way of illustration upon the principle of resemblance. That resemblance, if it be only intimated, and confined to a few words, is called a Metaphor; if the figure be continued, it is called an Allegory; if it be directly expressed by comparing the ideas together, and by the insertion of any words expressive of likeness, it is called Simile or Comparison.‡

This distinction is very judiciously laid aside, since each of these words is but a partial mode of expressing the same thing. A trope signifies no more than the turning a word from its appropriate meaning; and a figure, an appearance incidentally assumed, without the least implication of its being borrowed.-S. H.

+ See Quint. lib. ix. 1.

Comparison appears to be the first and most natural of all rhetorical figures. When at a loss to explain our meaning, we naturally apply to the associating principle to furnish an illustration: and this seems almost an involuntary act of the mind. A metaphor is a comparison, without the words indicating resemblance. When a savage experienced a sensation, for which he had as yet no name, he applied that of the idea which most resembled it, in order to explain himself. Thus the words expressing the faculties of the mind

On the same principle of resemblance the Prosopopoia, or Personification, is also founded, when a character and person is assigned even to things inanimate or fictitious, (which is a bolder species of metaphor), or when a probable but fictitious speech is attributed to a real personage.

I mean, therefore, to treat of these figures in the order just now proposed; not as supposing them the only figures made use of by the Hebrew poets, but, in the first place,

*

are taken from sensible images, as fancy from phantasma; idea in the original language means an image or picture; and a way has always been used to express the mode of attaining our end or desire.

There is, however, another reason for the use of metaphorical language: when the mind is agitated, the associations are more strongly felt, and the connected ideas will more readily present themselves than at another time. On this account, a man in a passion will frequently reject the words which simply express his thoughts, and, for the sake of giving them more force, will make use of images stronger, more lively, and more congenial to the tone of his mind.

The principal advantage which the metaphor possesses over the simile or comparison, seems to consist in the former transporting the mind and carrying it nearer to the reality than the latter; as when we say, "Achilles rushed like a lion," we have only the idea of a man going on furiously to battle; but when we say, instead of Achilles, "The lion rushed on," the idea is more animated. There is also more of brevity in a style that abounds in metaphors, than in a style which consists more of comparisons; and therefore it proves a better vehicle for the sublime.

The rule which good writers seem to have adopted respecting the use of similes or metaphors is this. Where the resemblance is very strong and obvious, it may be expressed by a simple metaphor, and it will in general be expressed more forcibly; but where the resemblance is not so obvious, it requires to be more expanded, and then a comparison or simile will neither appear formal nor pompous.

There is another observation concerning the use of these figures, which is more common, though I do not think the reason of it is generally understood. Comparisons are unnatural in extremes of passion, though metaphors are not. The truth is, the mind when strongly agitated readily catches at slight associations, and metaphors therefore are instantaneously formed; but it is impossible that the mind should dwell upon them with the formality and exactness of a person making a comparison.-T.

*To the figures specified by our author, rhetoricians have added innumerable others of less importance. The principal of these, and the most connected with poetry, are metonymy, periphrasis, apostrophe, and hyperbole.

In order to explain the nature and origin of these and the other tropes or figures, I must remind the reader that the associating principle is the true source of all figurative language. I must also remind him, that all ideas are associated or introduced into the mind by one of these three relations-contiguity in time and place, cause and effect, or resemblance. On the latter of these relations depend comparisons, metaphors, allegories, &c.; and on the other relations depend the metonymy, the periphrasis, the prosopopaia, and probably the apostrophe.

The word Metonymy evidently means a change of name, an adoption of some other mark to signify an idea, than that which was originally assigned it. This

because they chiefly come within the definition of the parabolic style; because, too, they most frequently occur in the sacred poetry, and constitute some of its greatest beauties; insomuch that their true force and energy is in no other compositions so apparent. I must add, that it will not be sufficient to illustrate them barely by producing a few examples, as if matters uncommon and abstruse were the object of our inquiry, and not such as spontaneously occur on almost every occasion: It will be necessary to proceed still further, if possible; it will be necessary to inquire whether there was any mode of using them peculiar to the Hebrews; the particular and interior elegancies of them are to be investigated and to this object of our pursuit we shall not, I figure, therefore, is most frequently derived from the relation of cause and effect, and sometimes from that of contiguity: thus we substitute the cause for the effect, when we say "We have read Pope," for "the works of Pope;" and the effect for the cause, when we say "The day arose," for "the sun arose." For further illustration I refer to Dr Priestley's Institutes of Oratory and Criticism, p. 238. The Periphrasis is little else than a species of Metonymy, as "the lover of Daphne," for Apollo. For the connexion between the Metonymy and the Prosopopœia, see a note on the 13th Lecture. The Apostrophe is a more animated Prosopopœia, when the thing personified is spoken to in the second person, or a distant person or thing is addressed as present. A most beautiful and pathetic instance is that of Eve, Paradise Lost, B. ii. v. 269. The Hyperbole is nothing more than an excess of figurative language, the effect of passion. All the passions are inclined to magnify the objects. Injuries seem greater than they really are to those who have received them; and dangers, to those who are in fear. The lover naturally makes a divinity of his mistress: valour and contempt are equally inclined to degrade and diminish. This figure, therefore, in particular, requires passion to give it force or propriety; and if this be not the case, it renders a style very bombastic and frigid. Lucan is too fond of this figure. See the first six lines of Rowe's Lucan, where" The Sun

66 sicken'd to behold Emathia's plain,

And would have sought the backward East again."

And in B. vi. v. 329.

"The missive arms fix'd all around he wears,

And even his safety in his wounds he bears, spears."}

a

Nothing, indeed, can be more bombastic than the whole description of this warrior's death. The poet calls upon the Pompeians to lay siege to him as they would to a town; to bring battering engines, flames, racks, &c. to subdue him. He is first compared to an elephant, and again to a hunted boar; at length

when none were left him to repel, Fainting for want of foes the victor fell."

Some of the extravagance of the above may, however, be the fault of the translator, but how far I could not determine, as I have not the original by me; nor is it of any consequence to the English reader.-T.