« 前へ次へ »
The subjects are indeed, dependent upon the caprice of a yrant, and he has absolute power over their lives, property, and political interest; but this internal slavery does not exclude them from being considered independent as a nation, and from taking a part, as such, in the disputes of other governments, provided that their own master is not also subject to some foreign power. A subject province becomes independent, when, finding itself strong enough for its purpose, it throws off the yoke of the ruling power, and declares itself free; and it is recognized as such by other nations, if it succeeds in establishing its claim, either by arms, or the consent of the government to which it was subject.
A man is said to be independent in his character, when he does not permit the opinion of the world to influence his actions. He is independent in his opinions, when he maintains them in spite of ridicule, or the ideas of the rest of the community. If he conducts himself according to these opinions, carries into action his ideas of right and wrong, though they be contrary to what every one else thinks, be is independent in character. A man may he so subservient to another, that he will disguise his own opinions, and uphold those of the other. For some benefit conferred, or from the expectation of some advantage, he will stoop to flatter the notions of his patron, pretend to guide all his actions according to those ideas, and even regulate his conduct by rules which he knows to be wrong; and merely for the sake of being permitted to expect a slight favor. Such a man has no claim to independence of character or opinions.
When a person does not rely on the profits of his business for subsistence, but has laid up or received as an inheritance a sum of money, the income of which is sufficient for his maintenance, he is considered independent in his circumstances.
Independence is, in most cases, an excellent quality and state; but when a man's independence of character leads him to abuse, and refuse to conform to, the customs of his country, because
perceives in em something absurd, it makes hine appear ridiculous.
Analogy, as defined by Johnson, is a resemblance between two things with regard to some circumstances or effects.
Webster defines it thus: An agreement or likeness between things in some circumstances or effects, when the things are otherwise entirely different. Thus, learning is said to enlighten the mind, that is, it is to the mind what light is to the eye, enabling it to discover what was hidden before.
Example. Youth and morning resemble each other in many particu. lars. Youth is the first part of life. Morning is the first part of the day. Youth is the time when preparation is to be made for the business of life. In the morning, arrangements are made for the employment of the day. In youth, our spirits are light, no cares perplex, no troubles annoy us. In the morning the prospect is fair, no clouds arise, no tempest threatens, no commotion among the elements impends. In youth we form plans which the later periods of life cannot execute; and the morning, likewise, is often productive of promises which neither noon nor evening can perform.
From this example it will be seen that subjects which in reality have in themselves no actual resemblance, may be so contrasted as to present an appearance of resemblance in their effects. Many of the beauties of poetry arise from the poet's observing these similitudes, and expressing them in appropriate language. Thus darkness and adversity, comfort and light, life and the ocean, evening and old age, misfortune and A storm, a clergyman and a shepherd, smiles and sunshine, tears and rain, a guilty conscience and a defenceless body, are gubjects which in themselves have no actual similitude; yet, when contrasted with their effects, points of resemblance will
* When the thing to which the analogy is supposed happens to be mentioned, analogy has after it the prepositions to or with: when both the thinge are mentioned after analogy, the preposition between is used. — Tohnson.
be readily, seen, which show an obvious analogy. Thus, also, in the following extract the poet in addressing the sun shows an analogy between the evaporation of water, and the flight of a bird.
“ Thou lookest on the waters, and they glow
And take them wings and mount aloft in air," &c. The skilful allusion to such analogies constitutes the highest art of the poet, as it forms also the most pleasing beauty of poetry. Indeed, without such allusions, poetry loses all of its charnts, and verse degenerates into mere sing-song.'
It will be a useful exercise for the student to prepare lista of subjects between which an analogy may be traced.
A Figure, in the science of language, is a departure from the common forms of words, from the established rules of syntax, or from the use of words according to their literal signification.
A departure from the common form of words is called a figure of etymology, or an etymological figure. [See Elision, &c.]
A departure from the established rules of syntax is called a syntactical figure. [See Enallage, Hyperbaton, Pleonasm, &c.]
A departure from the use of words in their literal signification is called a figure of rhetoric, or a rhetorical figure. [See Trope, Metaphor.]
Figurative language properly includes all of these different kinds of figures; but the term is sometimes restricted to rhetorical figures.
* Holmes's “ Rhetoric" enumerates a list of two hundred and fifty figures connected with the subjects of Logic, Rhetoric, and Grammar. The work is remarkable for its quaintness, and possesses some merit as a vocabulary. His cautions with regard to the use of figures are so characteristic, that they may afford some amusement, if not edification to the student. The follow ing is his language with regard to Tropes and Figures: “The faults of Tropes are nine:
“Of tropes perplext, harsh, frequent, swoll'n, fetched far,
Many words that are used in common discuse have two significations or rather significations of two different kinds ; namely, a literal and a figurative signification.
A word is said to be used literally or to have its literal signification when it is used in a manner, which is authorized by the general consent of those who speak and write with correctness the language in which it is found.
A word is used figuratively, when though it retains its usual signification it is applied in a manner different from its common application, Thus when we speak of the head of an animal, we use the word head in its literal signification as implying that part of the body which contains the eyes, nose, mouth, ears, &c. Bạt when we speak of the head of a class, or of a division of an army, or any thing without life, we recall to mind the analogy or resemblance between two objects, separately considering the highest or most prominent part of each, and apply the name of that part in the one, to the similar part in the other. In this manner the word is turned from its literal meaning to a figurative signification, and this turning of the word receives the rhetorical name of a trope; a deriva tion from a Greek word, which signifies a turning. So also,“ The dawn," properly means the earliest part of the morning, or of the day; and “twi light” expresses the close or latter part of day. But, by a rhetorical figure, these words are used to express the earliest and latest parts of other subjects. Thus,“ the dawn of bliss," expresses the commencement of happiness or bliss; and, the twilight of our woes,” is used to signify the close or termination of sorrow. “ The morning of our joy," implies the earliest period of our enjoyment. “The eve of his departure," implies :ne latest point of time, previous to his departure.
The use of figures, or of figurative language, is, –
There is another class of figures styled metaphors, which sc nearly resemble tropes, that the difference cannot always be easily described.
The literal meaning of the word metaphor is a transferring from one sabject to another. As used in rhetoric, it implies a transferring of the
"And the faults of figures are six:
“ Rhetoric made Easy, by John Holmes. London, 1755.” * The student who would see a beautiful illustration of this subject, is referred to Newinan's Rhetoric, chap. 3d
application of a word, in its literal meaning, from one object, or class of objects, to another, founded upon some similarity, analogy, or resem. blance.*
A metaphor is a simile or comparison expressed in ono word. Thus: The soldiers were lions in the combat: The soldiers fought like lions. [See Comparison.]
A trope is the mere change, or turning, of a word from its original sig. nification. Hence, if the word be changed, the figure is destroyed. Thus, when we say, The clouds foretell rain, we have a trope in the word foreteii. If the sentence be read, The clouds foreshow rain, the figure disappears.
The following examples will clearly illustrate the difference between plain and figurative language:
Figurative. She had been the pupil of the village pastor, the favorite lamb of his little flock.
Plain. She had been the pupil of the village clergyman, the favorite child of his small congregation.
Figurative. Man! thou pendulum between a smile and tear.
Plain. Man! thou who art always placed between happiness and misery, but never wholly enjoying the one, nor totally afflicted with the other.
Figurative. He found the tide of wealth flowing merely in the channels of traffic; he has diverted from it invigorating rills to refresh the garden of literature.
Plain. He saw that men of wealth were employing their riches only in the business of commerce. He set the example of appropriating a portion of wealth to the increase and dir. .fusion of knowledge.
Figurative. A stone, perhaps, may tell some wanderer where we lie, when we came here, and when we went away; but even that will soon refuse to bear us record : Time's effacing fingers will be busy on its surface, and at length wear it smooth.
Plain. A stone, perhaps, may be erected over our graves, with an inscription bearing the date of our birth, and the day
* “Metaphore is an alteration of a worde, from the proper and naturall meaning to that which is not proper, and yet agreeth thereunto by some likenesse that appeareth to be into it.”- Wilson — The Arte of Rhetorique