FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.*

"IN criticism," says the author of this curious book on a subject which he tells us is not affected by the lapse of time,. "in criticism, to whatever it may be addressed, let errors be pointed out, by all moans; not to indicate them might be lenient,. but would certainly be deceitful." We approve of this sentiment, and thank Mr. Grindon for the pregnant word with which it ends. But when he goes on to say that a critic is unfit for his task "until he has fairly estimated the difficulties which the producer,. whether author or artist, had to contend with, and considered whether, in face of these difficulties, he himself could have done any better, or as well," we cannot agree with him. How can we guess, for instance, what difficulties prevented Mr. Grindon from acquiring Greek and Latin sufficient for his task P His other assumption, too, requires no answer. He might as well say that rowing-men, cricketers, and chess-players are barred • Figurative Language: its Origin and Constitution, By Leo H. Glendon. London; James Speirs. 1879,

from criticising boats, bats, and chess Men, unless capable them- selves of fabricating as good or better articles. Nor are we quite prepared to admit that a critic, when "pointing out what he says are flaws and errors, is bound also, for his own credit, to state what would have been right and proper." It is no part of a critic's duty to correct the press for a careless writer. Mr. Grindon has given us a meagre list of errata, five in all, and one of these, at least, is wrongly corrected. We would engage for a wager to increase this list tenfold. Here, we can,

of course, only give a few specimens, such as 6'6vc, for d'oug (p. 103) ; poivatom for thovaliov (p. 117) ; Laloge for Lalagen (p. 260), (and fancy the carelessness which could pass Duke

ridentem Lalage amabo) ; and candere for candor° (p. 273). The last erratum is overshadowed by the blunder which imme- diately precedes it. " Sublime,'" says Mr. Grindon, means that which is remote from, or above,' the Maus, or mud, with especial reference to its tenacious and clogging properties, the steer being changed into sub, for euphony." Now, we cannot comply with Mr. Grindon's request, as above quoted, for the simple reason that we are ignorant of the true derivation of sublimis. But the change of super into sub for euphony is "just a swatch of Hornbook's ways,"—just one of those touches, in fact, which stamp the writer at once as no philologist. Here is another :—" The Greek and Latin words for a wood' or 'forest,' liAn and silva, rest, there can be little doubt, as regards their ultimate root, upon the same old onomatopmia, each signifying, literally, the place of howling.'

Woods and forests in ancient times abounded with howling creatures, just as they do at the present day, in countries where civilisation has not extinguished them. The Greek Um, appears in Latin as silva through the retention, in the latter word, of the digamma, and by the exchange of the aspirate for an We may remark, in passing, that this is by no means the only passage in which Mr. Grindon shows, to say the least, very slender acquaintance with the true relation in which Latin

stands to Greek. But as regards this passage itself, it is 'enough to say that tam, or, as it ought to be written, eilua, is an older form than VT?) ; and that Mr. Grindon's attempt to connect u/ulare with either word is perhaps, so far as howling creatures are concerned, almost as " howling " a blunder as it would be to say that " forest " is so called because these animals repair to it for rest. If the words in question are to be referred to an onomatopoetic, or as Mr. Grindon absurdly spells it,

" onomatopcetie," root at all, a proposition which we neither affirm nor deny, that root was applied, we fancy, to the noise or sough made by the wood itself, rather than to the dissonant cries of its denizens. Again, Mr Grindon sayS :—

"Can it be mere coincidence that in Greek, and in Latin, the word for `to gather up' is leg() How beautifully this latter word is used by Ovid,—' &lope legit. flores,'—' Often she gathers flowers,' i.e., in the way that a child collects its primroses or cowslips, accumulating till the hands overflow with the lovely spoil. From 'logo' comes elect,' election," elector.' That which is chosen, selected,' and brought together, is said to be 'collected.' A company of picked or assembled students is said to be a 'college. A résumé of our thoughts, a going-over and bringing thorn to a focus, is 'recollection.' These latter words come proximately from colligo,' which, through the French cuoillir,' gives the verb to cull.' That which is suited for culling or choosing is eligible.' It is that winch we like,' i.e., pick out in preference, and *which is spoken of as likely,' as in a likely boy.' The picked-out is called the eclectic.' " When we read such unscholarly patch-work as this, we feel inclined to borrow Mr. Grindon's quotation from Shakespeare, and growl out something about "clothing naked villany in old, .odd ends."

With respect to another Class of errors, we will try to gratify the author's desire for correction, as well as reproof. We can

only do so very succinctly, and we might have taken the ." lenient" and. " deceitful " course altogether, had Mr. Grind= omitted his preface. But it is a critic's duty " debellare superbos," and greater " superbia " or " bumptiousness " we have rarely met with than in the following sentences :—" [This

book] being written, not for the vulgar and superficial, but for the well-taught and the aspiring, I have not hesitated either to print the Greek words required for illustration in their proper

classical character. To those who are unacquainted with the Greek letters, I have simply to recommend the learning,—a matter of a few hours only." Now, it is needless to remark that .a student, however "well-taught and aspiring," who had. so mastered the Greek alphabet, would no more be able to read Greek than he would be able to road French after learning the French alphabet. But let this pass. What we have now to notice is the sort of help that Mr. Grindon's trunslations would prove to

his well-taught and aspiring reader. We append our own translation (where possible) :—" ,Aidc iTexstero povx4," "the will of God decreed it," for "the will of Zeus was being fulfilled ;" 4vigal1,601i1407007111 "it is that my whole beingstands still within me," for "the heart (or spirit) in my bosom is astonied ;" " (Non," "has produced," for and "will produce ;" " Toiolm," "parent stem," for "stump."

It would be tedious to quote more of these "skews," but we may add that Mr. Grindon is not more fortunate with his Latin than with his Greek translations, though we see that we have omitted the freest and worst of the latter, a version, to wit, of some lines from some one whom he is pleased to call" Dionysius Iambus." And here, we must urge Mr. Grindon, in his next edition—and for a reason which we shall give directly, we think that his book, with all its faults, will roach another edition, if not more—to be sure and give us chapter and verse for his quotations. We have been particularly puzzled by his statement that " Tacitus, in a singularly fine manner says induere diem, tu put on a day,'—that is, take patiently whatever events it may produce." But enough, and more than enough, of these minutice.

We have reversed. the order which Mr. Grin don lays down for a critic's proceeding. We have noticed his shortcomings first; it is time to speak of his merit!. His book, we think, is not unlikely to become popular, for the reason which Southey as- signed as the cause of the popularity of Hervey's Meditations. It is written in the worst, or something like the worst, possi- ble style. It is also written in the best, or something like the best, possible spirit. A line of religious optimism runs through it from the first page to the last, and reli- gious optimism is, perhaps, after all, the most sensible, as well as the most comfortable way of looking at the chances and changes of this mortal life. "Le d6sespoir est la plus grand° de nos erreurs," and if Mr. Grindon expresses this optimism in a style which we may think too "gushing," this certainly, of itself, is not likely to diminish the number of his readers. Moreover, although no philologist, and always perhaps a little too imaginative, Mr. Grindon is a very original man. He is certainly more at home in dealing with the language of flowers than with flowery (or figurative) language. But even the present work, which, from our point of view, we must pronounce a failure, is liberally sprinkled with suggestive thoughts, which furnish food for fancy or matter for dis- cussion. Before ending this notice, we quote one or two, merely remarking that " Correspondences" is the name which Mr. Grindon gives to the private key with which he picks, so to speak, the lock of the universe :—" To those," he says, "who, with God's help, try to resist tempta- tion, it is promised. that they shall take up serpents,' i.e., without hurt. Such power would be a very useless gift to the people of England, if the words mean literally and actually what they appear to moan. For in England there are no zoological lions—[here we see the cloven foot again, for by his jest it is clear that Mr. Grindon thinks that man is not an animal pt) ETvar TOP divApwrop]—except in well-barred cages ; and so few adders, that not one person in a million is in danger of being bitten. Compare Luke x., 19,—' I give you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions.' By the light of correspondence, all these quite empty and altogether super- fluous statements—superfluous as regards countries where the creatures do not exist—translate into inestimable promises, addressed personally to every man in the world, and. showing once more how munificent is the God who gave them." This bold attempt at exegesis, and the paucity of adders in England, are new to us, but they evidently, as we said., offer food for fancy, &c. Mr. Grindon's next statement starts another doubt, which ought to have been solved-,and doubtless it has been, but we do not know where—long ago. "The absolute contrary," he says, "of the serpent is the eagle. Hence in all ages the

enmity of these two, absolutely irreconcilable, has been a favourite subject with the poets and illustrators." We are afraid that we can offer no defence for the poets. Homer set the ball rolling, and 2Eschylus, Horace, Virgil, and. Shelley—to name no Others—have followed suit. But we more than doubt whether any eagle Would. attack

a serpent sufficiently large to make a fight of it. Shelley's famous description in The Revolt of Islam, is a masterpiece of imaginative writing, rendered all the more lifelike by the evident eagerness of the poet to play the part of a judicious bottle-holder to the ophidian. But it is quite as imaginary, we believe, as

Landseer's picture of "Swans attacked by Eagles." The serpent is certainly, and proverbially, in one sense, the absolute con- trary of the eagle,•—videlicet, in the way by which he gains the top of a pyramid. But here, again, we are on the edge of figurative language, so hoping that we have given Mr. Grindon something to think about of more interest than verbal criticism, and "words, words, words," we here bid him heartily farewell.