never be used in the same sentence.

This error, an

excess of the last-mentioned fault, is one of the grossest abuses of the figure. If it be wrong to use incompatible terms in a single figure, it is much more so to mix metaphors together. For example:

66

Though, in their corrupt notions of divine worship, they are apt to multiply their gods, yet their earthly devotion is seldom paid to above one idol at a time, whose oar they pull with less murmuring and more skill than when they share the lading, or even hold the helm."

Here the metaphor is ridiculously inconsistent. The demagogue is first an idol, and then a boat-two totally distinct ideas. There is no natural connection whatever between worshipping and rowing; and "to pull the oar of an idol" is a palpable absurdity.

"I bridle in my struggling Muse with pain
That longs to launch into a bolder strain."

Dr. Johnson, in his "Life of Addison," criticising these lines, says: "To bridle a goddess is no very delicate idea. But why must she be bridled?—because she longs to launch an act which was never hindered by a bridle; and whither would she launch? - into a nobler strain. In the first line she is a horse; in the second, a boat; and the care of the poet is to keep his horse or his boat from singing."

"Women were formed to temper mankind, not to set an edge upon their minds, and blow up in them those passions which are apt to rise of their own accord."

There is no analogy between 'setting an edge' and 'blowing up.'

Even when kept distinct from each other, it is not advisable to use different metaphors in the same period. The sudden change of scene distracts the attention, and the several images conveys but a faint impression to the mind.

6. A sentence should never have metaphorical and proper expressions so mixed up together, that one part of it be taken literally and the other figuratively.

“When thus, as I may say, before the use of the loadstone or knowledge of the compass, I was sailing in a vast ocean, without other help than the pole-star of the ancients, and the rules of the French stage among moderns."

The fault here lies in the figurative use of the word 'pole-star,' joined to the literal meaning of the 'rules of the French stage.'

ON FIGURES CONNECTED WITH THE METAPHOR.

The peculiar boldness of the figure metaphor makes it at least as intimately connected with the style, as with the thoughts of a writer. For as it is not an explicit comparison, and the name of one thing is put forward for the name of another, quite different though resembling it in some quality, there is, consequently, an apparent or real impropriety, and some degree of obscurity, in the use of this figure. The same remark applies to certain tropes closely connected with the metaphor, viz., synecdoché, metonymy, antonomasia, and irony. These all imply the substitution of one thing for another, but in different relations.

In synecdoché, the relation is between a part and the whole, or between the material and the thing

made; as when we say, He earns his bread (a part of his food); The canvas glows; The marble speaks (the material for the thing made).

In metonymy, the relation is between cause and effect (or vice versa); the container for the thing contained, or the sign for the thing signified; as, Gray hairs should be respected (effect for cause); I am reading Macaulay (cause for effect); The country was distracted (for inhabitants); He assumed the crown (sign of power, for power).

Antonomasia is where the individual is put for the species; as, Every man is not a Solomon (for the species wise); Do you take me for a Crœsus? (rich).

In irony, the relation between the thing said and the thing meant is contrariety; as when we speak of the 'sweet disposition' of one who is notoriously illtempered, or of 'beautiful weather' when it is raining in torrents. This figure is most frequently used in satire.

It should be observed that of two synonymous words, one may be often figuratively used in a case where it would be wholly unwarrantable to employ the other. Take the two words 'vein' and 'artery.' Now, we may say, metaphorically, a vein of satire,' but we could not say 'an artery of satire.' Again, 'high' and 'tall' are synonymous; but though we may speak of 'high aspirations,' we could not here substitute 'tall' for high.'

In all languages we meet with words which have lost their original concrete meaning, and are now used only in a secondary sense. Such are, in English, the words 'asperse,' 'obviate,' ' eradicate' &c.

We may

neither obviate' a friend, nor asperse' him with mud,

nor 'eradicate' one of the plants in his garden. This language, though intelligible to a linguist, would be condemned by every man of common sense as pedantic and affected. Such words, in whatever view they may be held by the etymologist, cannot now be considered as metaphorical. They produce nothing of the effect of the metaphor; but simply suggest to the reader's mind, without the intervention of any image, the ideas which the writer intends to convey.

The figures synecdoché, metonymy, and antonomasia, may, in various instances, very materially contribute to vivacity of style :

:

1st. Where a species is represented by an individual; as, "It is not every poet that can expect to find a Mecanas." Here, by antonomasia, a proper name is made to represent the whole class patron. In the same way, Judas is sometimes used for a traitor, Homer for a poet, &c.

By one form of the synecdoché, the species is put for the genus; as when an assassin is called a cutthroat; a fiction, a lie; a thief, a cut-purse, &c.

Another is where a verb is formed from a proper name, to express some act for which the person who held that name was notorious. Thus, Hamlet says he had seen some actors "out-herod Herod." On a similar principle was formed the verb 'to burke,’ derived from a notorious murderer of that name. The verb 'to macadamize,' from McAdam, a celebrated road-maker, belongs to the same class. This figure, however, belongs rather to the burlesque, and is scarcely admissible in writings of a more serious

cast.

2nd. Where the writer wishes to draw attention to some particular part of the subject which is most interesting. This is similar to the last-explained case, where an individual stood for a species, and a species for a genus. Here, a part represents the whole; the abstract suggests the concrete; the passion, its object; the instrument, its agent, &c. For example, when it is said, "All hands were called to the pumps," or "This manufacturer employs more than one hundred hands," &c., the part is used for the whole, as this particular part (the hand) is required in such cases. By a similar figure, we commonly say, "A fleet of twenty sail;" "So many head of cattle," &c.

In a similar way, the abstract may represent the concrete, or vice versa. We speak of an assemblage of "youth and beauty," meaning young and beautiful persons; "Miss Prim," for one of precise manners; "Master Impudence," &c. "Two heads are better than one." "No tongue, all eyes!"

So, again, the passion is put for the object. A mother will call her child her "love;" a tyrannical ruler is called the "terror" of his subjects; joy, hope, detestation, &c., are frequently used in the same way.

Lastly, by a similar process, the instrument is frequently put for the agent. A skilful literary man is called a good pen; so many hundred horse (for horsemen); a thousand lances (for soldiers).

A particular liveliness of expression is produced, when, in using figurative language, abstract ideas are represented by objects of sense. The imagination is more strongly affected by outward things than by abstractions. If, then, the writer be treating of