ページの画像
PDF
ePub

nament. It is thus that cloaths were first atfumed to defend us against the cold, but came afterwards to be worn for diftinction and decoration.

It must be obferved, there is a force in the united words, new and familiar. What is new, but not familiar, is often unintelligible; what is familiar, but not new, is no better than common-place. It is in the union of the two, that the obfcure and the vulgar are happily removed; and it is in this union, that we view the character of a jat Metaphor.

But after we have fo praifed the Meta phor, it is fit at length we thould explain what it is; and this we fhall attempt, as well by a defcription, as by examples.

"A Metaphor is the transferring of a "word from its ufual meaning to an analogous meaning, and then the employ"ing it agreeably to fuch transfer." For example, the ufual meaning of evening is the conclufion of the day. But age too is a conclufion; the conclufion of human life. Now there being an analogy in all conclufons, we arrange in order the two we have alledged, and fay, that, as evening is to the day, fo is age to human life. Hence, by an cafy permutation, (which furnishes at once two metaphors) we fay alternately, that evening is the age of the day; and that age is the evening of life.

There are other metaphors equally pleafing, but which we only mention, as tair analogy cannot be mistaken. It is taus that old men have been called ftubble; and the stage, or theatre, the mirror

of human life.

In language of this fort there is a double fatistaction: it is ftrikingly clear; and yet railed, though clear, above the low and valgar idio.n. It is a praife too of fuch metaphors, to be quickly comprehended. The imilitude and the thing illuftrated are commonly dispatched in a fingle word, and comprehended by an immediate and infantanecus intuition.

for then the diction would be turgid and bombaft. Such was the language of that poet who, defcribing the footman's flambeaux at the end of an opera, fung or faid, Now blaz'd a thoufand flaming funs, and bade Grim night retire -----

Nor ought a metaphor to be far-fetched, for then it becomes an enigma. It was thus a gentleman once puzzled his country friend, in telling him, by way of compliment, that he was become a perfect centaur. His honeft friend knew nothing of centaurs, but being fond of riding, was hardly ever off his horfe.

Another extreme remains, the reverse of the too fublime, and that is, the transferring from fubjects too contemptible. Such was the cafe of that poet quoted by Horace, who to defcribe winter, wrote

Jupiter hybernas canâ nive confpuit Alpes.

(Hor L. II. Sat. 5.) O'er the cold Aips Jove fpits his hoary inow. Nor was that modern poet more for tunate, whom Dryden quotes, and who, trying his genius upon the fame fubject, fuppofed winter

To periwig with fnow the ballpate woods.

With the fame clafs of wits we may arrange that pleafant fellow, who, fpeaking of an old lady whom he had affronted, gave us in one thort fentence no less than three choice metaphors. I perceive (faid he) her back is up;-I must curry favour -or the fat will be in the fire.

Nor can we omit that the fame word, when transferred to the fame fubjećts, produces metaphors very diferent, as to propriety or impropriety.

It is with propriety that we transfer the words to embrace, from human beings to things purely ideal. The metaphor appears juft, when we fay, to embrace a propofition; to embrace an offer; to embrace an opportunity. Its application perhaps was not quite fo elegant, when the old fteward wrote to his lord, upon the subject of his farm, that, "if he met any oxen, he would not fail to embrace them."

Thas a perfon of wit, being dangerously i'l was told by his friends, two more phy-" fcians were called in. So many! fays he -do they fire then in platoons ?

Harris.

198. What Metaphors the best. Thefe inftances may affift us to difcover what metaphors may be called the best.

They ought not, in an elegant and polite fle (the ftyle of which we are fpeaking; to be derived from meanings too fublime)

If then we are to avoid the turgid, the enigmatic, and the bafe or ridiculous, no other metaphors are left, but iuch as may be defcribed by negatives; fuch as are neither turgid, nor enigmatic, nor bafe and ridiculous.

Such is the character of many metaphors already alledged; among others that of Shakespeare's, where tiles are trantferred to ipeedy and determined conduct. 114

Nor

Nor does his Wolfey with lefs propriety "fure, it would kindle a flame, that would moralize upon his fall, in the following "obfcure the luftre." &c. &c. Harri beautiful metaphor, taken from vegetable

nature :

This is the state of man; to-day he puts forth
The tender leaves of hope; to-morrow blossoms,
And bears his blufhing honours thick upon him;
The third day comes a froft, a killing frost,
And-nips his root-

In fuch metaphors (befides their intrinfic elegance) we may fay the reader is flattered; I mean flattered by being left to discover fomething for himself.

There is one obfervation, which will at the fame time fhew both the extent of this figure, and how natural it is to all men.

There are metaphors fo obvious, and of courfe fo naturalized, that, ceafing to be metaphors, they become (as it were) the proper words. It is after this manner we fay, a fharp fellow; a great orator; the foot of a mountain; the eye of a needle; the bed of a river; to ruminate, to ponder, to edify, &c. &c.

Thefe we by no means reject, and yet the metaphors we require we wish to be fomething more, that is, to be formed under the refpectable conditions here eitablifhed.

We obferve too, that a fingular ufe may be made of metaphors either to exalt or to depreciate, according to the fources from which we derive them. In ancient ftory, Oreftes was by fome called the murtherer of his mother, by others, the avenger of his father. The reasons will appear, by referring to the tact. The poet Simonides was offered money to celebrate certain mules, that had won a ce. The fam being piti ful, he faid, with difdain, he should not write upon d.mi-affes-A more competent fum was offered, he then began,

Hail! D.ughts of the generous horse, That skin, like wind, along the course. There are times, when, in order to exalt, we may call beggars, petitioners; and pick-pockets, collectors: other times, when, in order, to depreciate, we may call petitioners, beggars; and collectors, pickpocket. But enough of this.

We fay no more of metaphors, but that it is a general caution with regard to every fpecies, not to mix them, and that more particularly, if taken from fubjects which

are contrary.

Such was the cafe of that orator, who oice afferted in his oration, that "If cold "water were thrown upon a certain mea

$ 199. On Enigmas and Puns. A word remains upon Enigmas and Puns. It fhall indeed be thort, because, though they resemble the metaphor, it is as bras and copper refemble gold.

chiefly confined to found. A pun feldom regards meaning, being

Horace gives a fad example of this fpcrious wit, where (as Dryden humoroufiy exhort the patriot Brutus to kill Mr. King, tranflates it) he makes Perfius the buffoon that is, Rupilius Rex, because Brutus, when he flew Caefar, had been accustomed to king-killing:

Hunc Regem occide; operum hoc mihi creie tuorum e.3. Horat. Sat. Lib. 1. VII.

We have a worfe attempt in Homer, where Ulyffes makes Polypheme belie his name was orTIE, and where the dal Cyclops, after he had loft his eye, upon bing aked by his brethren, who had de im fo much mischief, replies it was done by OYTIE, that is, by nobody.

Enigmas are of a more complicated nature, being involved either in pun, or metaphor, or fometimes in both:

̓Ανδρόιδον αυς χαλκὸν ἐπ ̓ ἀνέχε κολλήσαντα.
I faw a man, who, unprovok'd with ire,
Struck brafs upon another's back by fire.

the operation of cupping, performed in This enigma is ingenious, and mes ancient days by a machine of brass.

In fuch fancies, contrary to the princi ples of good metaphor and good writing. a perplexity is caufed, not by accident bat by defign, and the pleafure lies in the be ing able to refolve it.

$200. Rules defended.

[ocr errors]

Having mentioned Rules, and indeed this whole theory having been little more than rules developed, we cannot but re mark upon a common opinion, which feem. to have arilen either from prejudice miake.

"Do not rules," fay they, "cramp genius? Do they not abridge it of cor"tain privilegs?"

'Tis antwered, If the obeying of miss were to induce a tyranny like this; to de fend them would be abiurd, and again the liberty of genius. But the truth is, rules, fuppofing them good, like god government, take away no privileges

They do no more, than fave genius from error, by thewing it, that a right to err is no privilege at all.

that Shakespeare ftudied rules, or was ever verfed in critical fyllems?

Rules did not exist.

Ibid.

"Tis furely no privilege to violate in § 203. There never was a time when grammar the rules of fyntax; in poetry, thofe of metre; in mufic, thofe of harmony; in logic, thofe of fyllogifm; in painting, thofe of perfpective; in dramatic poetry, those of probable imitation.

Harris.

§201. The flattering Doctrine that Genius

will juffice, fallacicus.

It must be confeffed, 'tis a flattering doctrine, to tell a young beginner, that he has nothing more to do than to truft his own genius, and to contemn all rules, as the tyranny of pedants. The painful toils of accuracy by this expedient are eluded, for geniuses, like Milton's Harps, (Par. Loft, Book III. v. 365, 366.) are fuppofed to be ever tuned.

But the misfortune is, that genius is fomething rare; nor can he who poficiles it, even then, by neglecting rules, produce what is accurate. Thofe, on the contrary, who, though they want genius, think rules worthy their attention, if they cannot become good authors, may fill make tolerable critics; may be able to fhew the difference between the creeping and the fimple; the pert and the pleafing; the turgid and the fublime; in fhort, to fharpen, like the whetstone, that genius in others, which nature in her frugality has not given to themselves. Ibid.

202. No Genius ever acted without Rules.

Indeed I have never known, during a life of many years, and fome fmall attention paid to letters, and literary men, that genius in any art had been ever crampt by rules. On the contrary, I have feen great geniuses, miferably err by tranfgreffing them, and, like vigorous travellers, who lofe their way, only wander the wider on account of their own ftrength.

And yet 'tis fomewhat fingular in literary compofitions, and perhaps more fo in poetry than elsewhere, that many things have been done in the belt and pureft tafte, long before rules were established and systematized in form. This we are certain was true with refpect to Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, and other Grecks. In modern times it appears as true of our admired Shakespeare; for who can believe

A fpecious objection then occurs. "If "thefe great writers were fo excellent "before rules were eftablished, or at leaft "were known to them, what had they to "direct their genius, when rules (to them "at least) did not exift?"

To this question 'tis hoped the answer will not be deemed too hardy, fhould we affert, that there never was a time when rules did not exift; that they always made a part of that immutable truth, the natural object of every penetrating genius; and that if, at that early Greek period, fyftems of rules were not established, those great and fublime authors were a rule to themfelves. They may be faid indeed to have excelled, not by art, but by nature; yet by a nature which gave birth to the perfection of art.

The cafe is nearly the fame with refpe&t to our Shakespeare. There is hardly any thing we applaud, among his innumerable beauties, which will not be found ftrictly conformable to the rules of found and ancient criticism.

That this is true with respect to his characters and his fentiment, is evident hence, that in explaining thefe rules, we have fo often recurred to him for illuftrations.

Befides quotations already alledged, we fubjoin the following as to character.

When Falstaff and his fuit are fo ignominiously routed, and the fcuffle is by Falstaff fo humorously exaggerated; what can be more natural than fuch a narrative to fuch a character, diftinguished for his humour, and withal for his want of veracity and courage?

The fagacity of common poets might not perhaps have fuggefted fo good a narrative, but it certainly would have fuggefted fomething of the kind, and 'tis in this we view the eflence of dramatic character, which is, when we conjecture what any one will do or fay, from what he has done or faid already.

If we pass from characters (that is to fay manners) to fentiment, we have already given inftances, and yet we shall still give another.

When Rofincrofle and Guildernstern wait upon Ilamlet, he offers them a recorder or

[blocks in formation]

This I call an elegant fample of fentiment, taken under its comprehenfive fenfe. But we ftop not here-We confider it as a complete inftance of Socratic reafoning, though 'tis probable the author knew nothing how Socrates ufed to argue.

To explain-Xenophon makes Socrates realon as follows with an ambitious youth, by name Euthydemus.

'Tis frange (fays he) that thofe who defire to play upon the harp, or upon "the flute, or to ride the managed horfe, "fhould not think themfelves worth notice, without having practifed under the best "mafters-while there are thofe who af"pire to the governing of a ftate, and can think themfelves completely qualified, "though it be without preparation or labour." Xenoph. Mem. IV. c. 2. f. 6.

[ocr errors]

Ariftotle's Illuftration is fimilar, in his reafoning again men chofen by lot for magiftrates. ""Tis (fays he) as if wreftleis were to be appointed by lot, and not thofe that are able to wreftle; or, as if from among failors we were to chufe a pilot by lot, and that the man fo elected was to navigate, and not the man who knew the bufinefs." Rhetor. L. II. c. 20. p. 94. Edit. Sylb.

Nothing can be more ingenious than this mode of reafoning. The premises, are obvious and undeniable; the conclufion cogent and yet unexpected. It is a fpecies of that argumentation, called in dialectic Exaywy, or induction.

Ariftotle in his Rhetoric (as above quoted) calls fuch reafonings rà Zangarixà, the Socratics; in the beginning of his Poetics, he calls them the Exgatinol Móyo, the Socratic difcourfes; and Horace, in his Art of Poetry, calls them the SocraHarris.

ticæ chartæ.

[blocks in formation]

We venture to add, returning to rules, that if there be any things in Shakespeare objectionable (and who is hardy enough to deny it?) the very objections, as well a the beauties, are to be tried by the fame rules; as the fame plummet alike fhews both what is out of the perpendicular, and in it; the fame rules alike prove both what is crooked and what is ftraight.

We cannot admit that geniuses, though prior to fyftems, were prior alfo to rules, becaufe rules from the beginning exited in their own minds, and were a part of that immutable truth, which is eternal and every where. Ariftotle, we know, did not form Homer, Sophocles, and Euripi des; 'twas Homer, Sophocles, and Euripides, that formed Ariftotle.

And this furely fhould teach us to pay attention to rules, in as much as they and genius are fo reciprocally connected, that 'tis genius which difcovers rules; and then rules which govern genius.

'Tis by this amicable concurrence, and by this alone, that every work of art juftly merits admiration, and is rendered as highly perfect as, by human power, it can be made.

Ibid.

$ 205. We ought not to be content with knowing what we like, but ubat is really worth liking.

'Tis not however improbable, that fome intrepid fpirit may demand again, What avail thefe fubtleties?-Without fo much trouble, I can be full enough pleafed-l know what I like.-We anfwer, And fo does the carrion-crow, that feeds upon a carcafe. The difficulty lies not in knowing what we like, but in knowing how to like, and what is worth liking. Till thele ends are obtained, we may admire Durfey before Milton; a fmoking boor of Hemfkirk, before an apoftle of Raphael.

Now as to the knowing how to like, and then what is worth liking; the first of thefe, being the object of critical difquifition, has been attempted to be fhewn through the courfe of thefe inquiries.

As to the fecond, what is worth our lik ing, this is best known by studying the beft authors, beginning from the Greeks; then pafing to the Latins; nor on any account excluding thofe who have excelled among the moderns.

And here, if, while we purfue fome 30thor of high rank, we perceive we don't inftantly relifh him, let us not be difheartened-let us even feign a relifh, till we

find

m

find a relish come. A morfel perhaps pleafes us-let us cherish it-Another morfel trikes us-let us cherish this alfo. -Let us thus proceed, and fteadily peifevere, till we find we can relifh, not morfels, but wholes; and feel, that what began in fiction terminates in reality. The im being in this manner removed, we fall difcover beauties which we never imagined; and contemn for puerilities, What we once foolishly admired.

One thing however in this procefs is indifpenfably required: we are on no account to expect that fine things fhould defcend to us; our tafte, if poffible, must be made to afcend to them.

This is the labour, this the work; there pleafure in the fuccefs, and praife even in the attempt.

This fpeculation applies not to literature only: it applies to music, to painting, and, as they are all congenial, to all the liberal arts. We fhould in each of them endeayour to inveftigate what is beft, and there (if i may fo exprefs myself) fix our abode.

By only fecking and perufig what is truly excellent, and by contemplating always this and this alone, the mind infenfity becomes accustomed to it, and finds that in this alone it can acquiefce with content. It happens indeed here, as in a fubject far more important, I mean in a noral and a virtuous conduct: if we chufe the best life, ufe will make it pleafant.

Harris.

§ 206. Character of the ENGLISH, the ORIENTAL, the LATIN, and the GREEK Languages.

We Britons in our time have been remarkable borrowers, as our multiform language may fufficiently fhew. Our terms i polite literature prove, that this came from Greece; our terms in mufic and painting, that thefe came from Italy; our Farafes in cookery and war, that we learnt thefe from the French; and our phrafes in navigation, that we were taught by the Flemings and Low Dutch. These many and very different fources of our language may be the caufe why it is fo deficient in regularity and analogy. Yet we have this advantage to compenfate the defect, that What we want in elegance, we gain in copioufnefs, in which lait refpect few languages will be found fuperior to our own.

Let us pafs from ourfelves to the naticas of the Eaft. The Eastern world, from the earliest days, has been at all

times the feat of enormous monarchy: on its natives fair liberty never thed its genial influence. If at any time civil dif cords arofe among them, (and arife there did innumerable) the contest was never about the form of their government (for this was an object of which the combatants had no conception;) it was all from the poor motive of, who fhould be their master; whether a Cyrus or an Artaxerxes, a Mahomet or a Mustapha.

Such was their condition; and what was the confequence?-Their ideas became confonant to their fervile ftate, and their words became confonant to their fervile ideas. The great diftinction for ever in their fight, was that of tyrant and flave; the most unnatural one conceivable, and the most fufceptible of pomp and empty exaggeration. Hence they talked of kings as gods; and of themfelves as the meancit and moft abject reptiles. Nothing was either great or little in moderation, but every fentiment was heightened by incredible hyperbole. Thus, though they fometimes afcended into the great and magnificent +, they as frequently degenerated into the turid and bombat. The Greeks toc of Afia became infected by their neighbours, who were often, at times, not only their neighbours, but their matters; and hence that luxuriance of the Afiatic flyle, un. known to the chafte cloquence and purity of Athens. But of the Greeks we forbear to speak now, as we fhall speak of them more fully, when we have firft confidered the nature or genius of the Romans.

And what fort of people may we pro-. nounce the Romans?-A nation engaged in wars and commotions, fome foreign, fome domellic, which for feven hundred years wholly engroffed their thoughts. Hence therefore their language became, like their ideas, copious in all terms expreffive of things political, and well adapted to the purpofes both of history and popular eloquence.--But what was their philofophy?-As a nation it was none, if we may credit their ableft writers. And hence

For the Barbarians, by being more flavish in their manners than the Greeks, and thofe of Afia than thofe of Europe, fubmit to defpotic government without murmuring or difcontent, Arift. Polit. III. 4.

The trueft fublime of the Eaft may be found in the fcriptures, of which perhaps the principal treated; the creation of the universe, the difpencaule is the intrinfic greatnets of the fubject there fations of divine Providence, &c.

the

« 前へ次へ »