The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Preface
• Key to Abbreviations and References
• Introduction
• 1.: The Manuscript
• 2.: The Lectures
• 3.: Considerations Concerning the First Formation of Languages
• 4.: Rhetoric and Literary Criticism
• 5.: System and Aesthetics
• Bibliographical Note
• Lectures On Rhetoric and Belles Lettres: Lecture 2D.
• Lecture 3D.: Of the Origin and Progress of Language 1
• Lecture 4tha
• Lecture 5. A
• Lecture 6.THA: Of What Is Called the Tropes and Figures of Speech. B
• Lecture. 7. A
• Lecture. 8. A
• Lecture. 9tha
• Lecture. 10tha
• Lecture. 11 a
• Lecture. 12.THA: Of Composition
• Lecture. 13 a
• | Lecture. 14 a
• Lecture 15tha
• Lecture. 16th. a
• Lecture XVII. A
• Lecture Xviii a
• Lecture. Xixth. a
• Lecture. XX.THA
• Lecture Xxist. a
• Lecture Xxiida
• Lecture Xxiiida
• Lecture Xxivtha
• Lecture XXV. A
• Lecture Xxvitha
• Lecture Xxvii a
• Lecture Xxviiitha
• Lecture Xxix a
• Lecture. Xxx a
• Considerations Concerning the First Formation of Languages,&c. &c.1
• Appendix 1 (see P. 32) the Bee, Or Literary Weekly Intelligencer, For Wednesday, May 11, 1791.
• Appendix 2 Table of Corresponding Passages

Lecture 6.^tha

Mr. Smith.

Monday Nov.^r 29 1762

Of what is called the tropes and figures of speech. ^b

These are what are generally conceived to give the chief beauty and elegance to language; whatever is sublime and out of the common way is called a figure of speech.

After language had made some progress it was naturall to imagine that men would form some rules according to which they should regulate their language. These rules are what we call Grammar. The Greeks and Romans accordingly have done so, but as their languages were | v.54 very complex in their form, particularly in their conjugations and declensions, it was not easy to accommodate these rules to all possible cases. Neither were they made in the best manner they might have been. They were only accommodated to the most plain and vulgar expressions. But when they came to find that many expressions could not be reduced to these rules, they were not candid enough to confess the grossness of their error and allow that these were exceptions to the generall they had laid down but stuck close to their old scheme. That they might do this with the greater appearance | v.55 of justice, they gave this sort of expressions the name of tropes or figures of speech. Thus Imperative and Interrogative expressions, which plainly contradict the generall rule That in every sentence there must be a nominative, a verb, ^c and an accusative, and in a certain order, were not consider’d as exceptions but as figures of speech; and accordingly we find that amongs<t> the first of the figuræ sententiarum of Quinctilian 1 and Cicero. They had only accomodated their rules to the narrative stile and whatever varied from this was considered as a figure of speech. In these as we mentiond they | v.56 tell us all the beauties of language, all that is noble, grand and sublime, all that is passionate, tender and moving is to be found. But the case is far otherwise. ^d When the sentiment of the speaker is expressed in a neat, clear, plain and clever manner, and the passion or affection he is poss<ess>ed of and intends, by sympathy, to communicate to his hearer, is plainly and clevery hit off, then and then only the expression has all the force and beauty that language ^e can give it. It matters not the least whether the figures of speech are introduced or not. {When your Language expresses perspicuously ^f and neatly your meaning and what you would express, together with the Sentiment or affection this matter inspires you with, and when this Sentiment is nobler or more beautifull than such as are commonly met with, then your Language has all the Beauty it can have, and the figures of speech contribute or can contribute towards it only so far as they happen to be the just and naturall forms of Expressing that Sentiment.} ^g They neither add to nor take from the beauty of the expression. When they are more proper than the | v.57 common forms of speaking then they are to be used but not otherwise. They have no intrinsick worth ^h of their own. That which they are often supposed to have is entirely derived from the expression they are placed in.—When a man says to another, Go Blow the fire, there is no one that will affirm there is any beauty or elegance in this expression; Yet it is as much ⁱ a figure of speech and as far from the common or grammaticall form as when Dido says I peti Italiam ventis,2 which very one allows to be a neat and strong expression. But the beauty of it flows from the [the] sentiment and the method of expressing it being suitable to the passion, and not from the figure in which delivered.

The Grammarians however finding that | v.58 the best authors frequently deviated from their generall rules and introduced those figures of speech as they called them; and finding also that they were most frequently met with in the most striking and beautifull passages, wisely concluded that these figures gave the passage ^j all its beauty; not considering that this beauty flowed from the sentiment and the elegance of the expression, and that the use <of> figures was only a secondary mean sometimes proper to accomplish this end, to wit, when they more fittly expressed the sense of the author than the common stile. This being often the case in strong and striking passages, was the reason of these being so found in them and this mistake of grammarians in founding the | v.59 beauty of a passage in the figures found in it. — — — —

’Tis however from the consideration of these figures, ^k and the divisions and subdivisions of them, that so many systems of retorick both ^l ancient and modern have been formed. They are generally a very silly set of Books and not at all instructive; However as it would be reckoned strange in a system of Rhetorick intirely to pass by these figures that have so much exercised the wits of men, we shall offer a few observations on them though not on the same plan as the ordinary writers proceed on.

Whenever then an expression is used in a different way from the common it must proceed either from the words of the expression or from the manner they are used in. | 60 {The first forms what the antients called Tropes, when a word τρεπεται ^m turned from its original signification. The 2^d produces what is more properly called figures of speech.

ⁿ Hudibras says justly 3

• for all the Rhetoricians Rules
• are but the naming of his tools.

It is impossible to assign the distinct limits of the antient figures: thus—when the shreek of the fallen angells is said to have torn hells concave 4 this figure might be asserted with equall reason to be a Hyperbole, a Metonyme or Metaphor.}

| v.60 Again, if it proceeds from any thing in the words, it must be either from the words being new and not in common use or being used in a sense different from the common one. No one will venter to form words altogether new and not related to those already in use. Such could never be understood, being mere creatures of his own brain. They must either be formed from words in common use or be old ones brought again into use or be borrowed from some other language. The language we are most <used> ^o to borrow from is the Latin, as we think that as all in the character of gentlemen commonly understand this language, our words will be easily understood. ^p Words of this sort are commonly | 61 reckond to add to the dignity of the writing, as they shew the learning of the author; and besides what is foreign has some priviledges always attending it. But as we shewed before, these foreign intruders should never be re<c>eived but when they are necessary to answer some purpose which the natives cannot supply. That they are many ways prejudiciall to the language has been already shewn and need not again be insisted on.

Old words are often introduced into grave and solemn narrations or descriptions, sometimes because they answer the purpose better, as Mr. Pope says the Din of Battle, 5 instead of the Noise of Battle; and sometimes merely because we are apt to think every thing that is ancient is venerable whether it be | 62 so or not. Our forefathers we allwise think were a much soberer and grave solemn sort of people than we are and by analogy every <thing> that relates to them conveys to us the idea of gravity and Solemnity. Spenser has studied this thro all his works; he is much more obsolete than any of his contemporary writers, than Shakespear or Sydney.

Compound words are thought by some to give a great majesty to a language as well as the others; but we see they are generally used rather by the middling than the upper class of authors. Lucretius, Catullus and Tibullus have many of this sort which we will never meet with in Virgill or Horace. {I have seen a greek ode by the fellow of a Colledge on Ad: Vernon 6 more abounding in such Compounds than either Eschylus or Homer.} ^q Milton has but very few; Thompson again never thinks he has expressed himself well but when he has put two or three. | 63 ^r There does not seem to be any great merit in barely tacking two or three words together, unless it be that they are more concise, as tha<t> Violet–enammelled Vale of Milton 7 is shorter than the Valley enammeled with violets. ^s But no one surely would admire Colley Cibbers Uncomattible, or the Seceders, 8 Pull–off–the–crown–of–Christheresy. ^t

When the alteration of the word is in its signification, it must either be in giving it one to which it has some resemblance or analogy, or when it gets one to which it has no resemblance but is someway connected. Thus when we say, the slings and arrows of adverse Fortune.9 There is some connection betwixt the crosses of bad fortune and the slings | 64 and arrows of an enemy. {Rhetorical and Gramaticall paronomasia} But when we say that one drinks off a Bowl ^u for the liquor that is in it there is here no sort of resemblance betwixt the Glass and the liquor, but a close connection. The first of these is what the Rhetoricians call a metaphor or translatio^v and the latter is what they call a metonymie. Of each of these there are severall distinctions which we shall pass over as of little consequence. {and when we use these words it shall be in the sense abovementiond.}

In every metaphor it is evident there must be an allusion betwixt one object and an other. Now as our objects are of two classes, intellectuall and corporeal, the one of which we perceive by our mind only and the other by our bodily senses; it follows that metaphors may be | 65 of four different kinds. 1^st when the Idea we borrow’d is taken from one corporeal object and applyed to another intellectuall ^w object; or 2^dly from one intellectuall object to an other corporeal ^x ; or 3^d betwixt two corporeal, or 4^th betwixt two intellectual objects. When we say the bloom of youth, this is a meta<phor> of the 3^dy kind. When we say one covets applause, this is a<n> instance of the 4^thz sort of metaphor. The lust of Fame is an instance of the 1^st kind, betwixt a corporeal <and> an intelle<c>tual object. {The lust of fame is a transposition of a word from denoting a Corporeal Passion to another Mentall equally gross and indelicate.} ^a And when we say in the script<ure> language, The fields rejoiced and were glad, The floods clapt their hands for joy, 10 [an] are an example of the 2^d kind. ^b

Now it is evident that none of these metaphors can [can] have any beauty unless it be so adapted that it gives the due strength of expression to the object to be described and at the same | 66 time does this in a more striking and interesting manner. When this is not the case they must either carry us to bombast on the one hand or into burlesque on the other. When Lee makes his Alexander say, ‘clear room there for a whirlwind or I blow you up like dust’; 11 {Avaunt and give a Whirlwind room or I will blow you up like dust,} ^c the objects compared are noways adequate, the Strength of A Whirlwind is a much more terrible object than the fury of even an Alexander tho perhaps as dangerous to some individualls. Homer has some metaphors which border near on the burlesque as when he says, Diomed resembled an Ass 12 driven by Boys ^d . Thomson seems to be very faulty in this respect {of Expressing ever too much and more than he felt}; his description of the horse will shew this very well [shew this]. | v.66 {Compare Thompsons horse with Virgills from which it was translated} 13 Virgill again is always just and exact in his metaphors. Mil<t>on too keeps them always within just bounds. When he compares the grating of hell gates to the thunder 14 the metaphor is just, but if he had ^e compared the noise of the gates of a city to thunder the metaphor would not have been so just, and still <less> if to the door of a private house, tho perhaps the noise might have been as great as in the former case. Homer is not always so exact in this point; his comparison of Ajax to a gad–fly that continually pesterd the Milk woman ^f is hard on the borders of Burlesque; 15 as also that other where he compares Diomedes to an <ass> whom the boys are driving | v.67 before them, but ever and anon he plucks up some thistle as he passes.

What has been sa[a]id of the justness or propriety of metaphors is equally applicable to other figures, as Metonymies, Similes, and Allegories, Hyperbolls. Metaphors are nearly allied to Metonymies as we observed before. Allegories are also closely connected with them, insomuch that metaphors are called contracted allegory and an allegory is named by some a diffused Metaphor: had Spencer been to use ^g that comparison of Shakespears before mentioned, of the arrows of an enemy to the uneasiness of bad fortune, he would have described fortune in a certain garb, throwing her darts arround her and | v.68 would ^h those that were under her power.

One thing farther we may observe is that two Methaphors ⁱ should never be run and mixed together as in that case they can never be both just. Shakespear is often guilty of this fault, as in the line immediately following that before cited, where he goes on, or bravely arm ourselves and stem a sea of troubles. Here there is a plain absurdity as there is no meaning in ones putting on armour ^j to stem the seas. {Shakespears sea of troubles has been converted in a late Edition into a Siedge, 16 but the former reading is so like Shakespears manner that I dare to say he wrote it so.} ^k Thomson has severall slips of this sort tho much fewer than Shakespear. There <are> I believe 3 or four in the 4 first lines of his Seasons. In the 1^st line Spring 17 is addressed as some genial quality in the air, but in the next it is turned into a person and | 69 bade descend, to the sound of musick, which I believe is very hard to be understood, as well the next, Veild in a shower of dropping roses. What ^l sort of a veil a shower of roses would make, or connection such a shower has with the Spring, I can not tell. These lines which I believe few ^m understand are generally admired and I believe because few take the pains to consider the authors reall meaning or the significance of the severall expressions, but are astonished at these pompous sounding expressions.

The hyperboll is the coldest of all the figures and indeed has no beauty of itself. When it appears to have any it is owing to some other figure with which it is con| 70joined. To say that a man was a ⁿ mile high would not be admired as a lofty expression; but when Virgil compares the two Heros Turnus and Æneas coming to battle, to two huge mountains, 18 the grandeur of the two objects is suitable to each other and the hyperboll appears on the same grounds as we determind when a metaphor appears so.

• {Quantus Athos aut quantus Eryx aut ipse coruscis
• cum tonat 19 Ilicibus quantus gaudetque nivali
• vertice assurgens Pater appeninus in auras} ^o

When he compares the ships before the battle of Actium 20 to the Cyclades loosened from their foundations and floating on the sea, the grandeur of the idea of Islands loosend and floating on the sea makes the hyper<boll> appear just and agreable. But if he had said the ships were half a mile broad, the beauty would be entirely lost tho the hyperboll would be not so great and the fact | 71 asserted nearer the truth.

Besides these many other species of these figures are mentioned, as the paranomasia, when we dont name but describe a person, as the Jewish lawgiver for Moses, the ^p when we call an Orator a cicero, a brave warrior an Alexander, etc. When we speak improperly as when we say a brass inkglass, a silver box, etc. these are all made figures of speech, and in generall when we speak in a manner different from the common they call it a fig<ure>. But these we shall pass over and proceed to the 2^d class of figures. ^q

[a]MS 5th, replacing 3d

[b]The origin of this name is deleted

[c]numbers written above change the original order a verb a nominative

[1 ]Quintilian, IX.i.17.

[d]The beauty deleted

[e]and words deleted

[f]MS perscipuously

[g]Hand B

[h]the common form of speaking they are to be used but not otherwise, they have no intrinsick worth written at top of 57, and deleted

[i]from deleted

[2 ]Aeneid, iv.381: ‘I, sequere Italiam ventis, pete regna per undas’; the rhetorical device called permissio. See Quintilian, IX.ii.49.

[j]replaces sentiment

[k]however deleted

[l]last three words replace of

[m]for deleted

[n]the remainder of this passage in Hand B

[3 ]Butler, Hudibras, I.i.89–90;

• For all a Rhetoricians Rules
• Teach nothing but name his Tools.

These lines, among the most often quoted in the poem, Butler himself echoed in ‘A Mathematician’ in his Characters (1759; ed. C. W. Daves, 119).

[4 ]Paradise Lost, i.542. Milton wrote ‘shout’, not ‘shreek’.

[o]conjectural; ? apt

[p]They common deleted

[5 ]The Dunciad (1743), iii.269: ‘Dire is the conflict, dismal is the din’.

[6 ]Admiral Edward Vernon took the defenceless Porto Bello in November 1739 while Smith was still a student at Glasgow; but the phrase suggests his Oxford days as Snell Exhibitioner at Balliol, 1740–46. Shenstone (The School–Mistress, 1742) praises ‘Vernon’s patriot soul’, example of ‘valour’s generous heat’.

[q]this sentence, in Hand B, should perhaps follow class of authors

[r]But deleted

[7 ]Comus, 232: ‘the violet–embroidered vale’.

[s]MS reads valley for last two words

[8 ]Colley Cibber’s The Lady’s Last Stake, or The Wife’s Resentment (1707), I.i: Lord Wronglove speaks of ‘pleasures which were a little more comeatable’. Tom Brown had used the word in a dialogue in 1687.

The Seceders were the members of the Secession Church which under Ebenezer Erskine in 1733 broke away from the Church of Scotland in protest against its relation with the state, as the established church. The phrase reported in two forms recalls the banners of an earlier movement rebelling against the usurpation by the secular power of the regality of Christ, ‘the crown rights of the Redeemer’: the Scottish Covenanters between 1660 and 1690. It is left doubtful above whether the ‘heresy’ is the secession or the usurpation.

[t]Hand B inserts on opposite page off Christs head crown plucking Heresy

[9 ]Hamlet, III.i.58; read ‘outrageous fortune’.

[u]o deleted

[v]MS transtatio

[w]replaces corporeall

[x]replaces intellectual (interlined then deleted)

[y]MS hesitates between 3dand 4th; 3dseems the second thought

[z]changed from 3d

[a]Hand B

[10 ]A conflated adaptation of 1 Chronicles, xvi.32, and Psalm xcviii.8.

[b]sentence squeezed into blank space left before next paragraph

[11 ]Nathaniel Lee’s The Rival Queens, or The Death of Alexander the Great (1677), III.i.45–7: Roxana says:

• Away, be gone, and give a whirlwind room,
• Or I will blow you up like dust; avaunt:
• Madness but meanly represents my toyl.

At V.i.349 the dying Alexander says: ‘like a Tempest thus I pour upon him’.

[c]Hand B

[12 ]Iliad, xi.558: Ajax compared to an ass in a cornfield beaten by boys.

[d]last seven words inserted by Hand B into blank left; so the next two interpolations

[13 ]Seasons, Spring 808–20; adapted from Georgics, iii. 250–4. Thomson’s whole passage 789–830 is from Georgics, iii. 212–54.

[14 ]Paradise Lost, ii. 880–2.

[e]said deleted

[f]last three words inserted by Hand B in blank left

[15 ]JML thought Odyssey, xxii.300 ff. the closest approximation to this confused allusion: the panic–stricken suitors compared to cows pestered by a gadfly in spring—the Milk woman is a Freudian slip. Diomedes is again substituted for Ajax; note 12 above.

[g]replaces describe

[h]? wound intended

[i]replaces hyperbolls

[j]last three words replace arming himself

[16 ]Hamlet, III.i.59–60: ‘Or to take arms against a sea of troubles/And by opposing end them’ ‘Siedge’: Pope’s emendation (1725).

[k]Hand B on v.69

[17 ]Spring, 1–4:

• Come, gentle Spring, ethercal mildness, come;
• And from the bosom of yon dropping cloud,
• While music wakes around, veil’d in a shower
• Of shadowing roses, on our plains descend.

[l]a shor deleted

[m]MS reads view

[n]MS as, s deleted

[18 ]Aeneid, xii.701–3.

[19 ]For ‘tonat’ read ‘fremit’. Line 703 reads ‘vertice se attollens pater Appenninus ad auras’.

[o]Hand B

[20 ]The Battle of Actium passage (‘pelago credas innare revulsas / Cycladas . . .’) is Aeneid, viii. 692, and was imitated in the history of Cassius Dio, xxxiii.8.

[p]blank of six letters in MS

[q]a blank page (72) follows