2.5 An underlying theory of art: imitation
2.2.6 Evaluation
Although the Aristotle metaphor concept is rather simplistic in comparison with modem theories of metaphor, his theory forms the basis of the history of the development of theories of the phenomenon. Ortony (1984a:2) states that "Any serious study of metaphor is almost obliged to start with the works of Aristotle. " Viewed as a stylistic linguistic figure, a mere ornament to normal language, it was a first effort to define and analyse an important language phenomenon for the invention and utilising of metaphor in rhetoric, logic, and poetry arenas. His view eventually accumulated to what we generally call the comparison, similarity, and substitution theories of metaphor. Although these theories cannot be viewed as the ideal for defining and identifying metaphor, it was a basic and indispensable step in the history of research, which dominated the scene for almost 2000 years.
Many students in metaphor followed his theory and principles of (1) resemblance, analogy, similarity; (2) transference, substitution; (3) deviation in use of word and meaning; and (4) emotive and visualising aspects. Although many modern scholars tend to discard the Aristotelian theory, these principles remain the starting-points of many approaches to metaphor in the history of the development as well as in current investigations of the phenomenon (Dagut 1976:22 and Gumpel 1984:239ft). Searle
(1984:99) classifies the 20th century substitution theory of Paul Henle (1965)1 as a close resemblance to the traditional Aristotelian theory. Riccoeur (1994:23) admits that Aristotle was correct in saying "the greatest thing by far is to be master of metaphor. It is the one thing that cannot be learnt from others; and it is also a sign of genius, since a good metaphor implies an intuitive perception of the similarity in dissimilars", and "to be at inventing metaphors was to have an eye for resemblances." (1976:51). Riccoeur (1994:4,5) also emphatically states that the theory of metaphor as transposition of a name is actually not wrong, because it helps with the identification of metaphor in a statement by focusing on the deviant word. He demonstrates in two studies that a linguistics that does not distinguish between semantics of the word and the semantics of the sentence or unilaterally concentrates on one aspect such as the word-metaphor, cannot give an adequate account of the phenomenon? In his review of the modem Conceptual theory of metaphor of Lakoff and Turner (1989), Jackendorff (1991 :326) suggests that the addition of the identifying aspect of literal incongruity or deviance in a metaphorical expression, should be added to their theory, proposed in 'More than a cool reason'.
Modem Bible translators, for instance John Beekman and John Callow,3 are advocating the substitution or comparison theory, based on Aristotelian principles, as a solution to translate metaphor from one culture to another. Majola, who favours the application of the interaction theory for the translation of metaphors, seeks refuge in this theory as a solution to translate metaphor from one culture to another "when dealing with more crucial metaphors. "
The importance of Aristotle's pioneering work cannot be ignored and perhaps modem scholars tend to minimise his contribution and over simplify his approach. As in many studies and developments in history, one theory leads to another, or inspires a new insight or idea. Aristotle must at least be credited with laying the foundation for the study in theory of metaphor, which led to further extensions and triggered new insights and approaches to metaphor. Riccoeur (1994:9ff) gives us a more appreciative account of Aristotle's contribution in the history of the development of metaphor. He summarises this
1See Haverkamp 1983:80-105 for Henle's version; and Riccoeur 1994: 188-191 for his comments.
2See Riccoeur 1994, studies 4 and 5, pl0lff and p134ff.
JDiscussed by Majola 1993:347.
history of development as starting with the Aristotelian focus on a word as a unit of reference, which eventually led to the focus on a metaphoricalsentence, which progressed to the emphasis on metaphorical discourse (P3). In the interpretation of metaphor, the focus on the word is still indispensable.
Furthermore, it also remains a debatable question whether modern theories could be fully applied to literary works of artists dating from the times when followers of the Aristotle viewpoint were in fact educated in these principles. Obviously, they deliberately would have applied 'fancy',1decorative, and emotive metaphors in their works congruent to the contemporary theory of their time. So, current students of metaphor in ancient and even modern literature will have to be alert to the possible use of a 'fancy' metaphor, a mere comparison with an emotive or didactic intention by an author. Although modern theories maintain that metaphor is a natural phenomenon, inherent to our conceptual and language abilities, artists trained in specific rhetoric principles of metaphor, would have at least applied the phenomenon in line with the current functional purposes prescribed for their times. Even in the process of their invention of metaphors, the principle of similarity, resemblance, and analogy will play a decisive role, but as a mere technical device or 'game of words', seeing that they had no insight in the thought processes involved.
It also remains an open question whether prophets of the aT were trained in or were maintainers of any theory of metaphor at all. Their main concern was to proclaim the Word of God in the language of their day i.e. in well-known everyday terminology, expressions, analogies, and images. Therefore, in the process of speaking about and on behalf of God naturally they would have used the principle of association, similarity, resemblance, which in itself is also a natural aspect of the human learning and thought processes. The same argument may apply regarding the motives for the utilisation of metaphor in their messages. Surely, they would have applied the best metaphors, images, and associations available in their culture to convince or shock their audiences. Or can modern conceptual theories account for this phenomenon in the Bible opposed to the emphasis on the functional usage of metaphor? However, the metaphorical style and
IColeridge's tenn. See Hawkes 1972:47.
functions of metaphor usage as well as the interpretation, also form part of the scope of this study and will be tested in the metaphorical language usage in the book of Jeremiah.
However, it remains a fact that the traditional rhetoric theory was based on the false viewpoint of assuming that metaphor represents the addition of a figurative word usage to normal objective language, not conveying any autonomous meaning and that it could be replaced by a literal word. Max Black (1984:22) correctly comments that this approach invites the question:
"If
the metaphor producer didn't mean what he said, why didn't he say something else? ", resulting in a situation where "we are headed for the blind alley taken by those innumerable followers of Aristotle who have supposed metaphors to be replaceable by literal translations. "Modern theories maintain that not only our language, but in fact our thought processes through which metaphors are produced, are indeed metaphorical and therefore "the essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of a thing in terms of another" (Lakoff and Johnson 1980:5). Mac Cormac (1985:5) explains the underlying viewpoint of his cognitive Interaction theory as follows: "The production ofmetaphors is not just a linguistic phenomenon on the surface of language; it arises from a deeper cognitive process that creatively envisages new possibilities for meanings." These insights only started to develop in studies on metaphor during the 19th century and eventually found their proper place in theories developed during the 20th century.
Examples of the latter include, the Interaction Theory,l and the Conceptual Theory,2 which will be discussed under2.6 and2.7below.
2.3 FURTHER DEVELOPMENT: After Aristotle to the Renaissance 2.3.1 After Aristotle to the Middle Ages
Scholars, who have studied the historical literary material from the period after Aristotle to the Middle Ages, state that the concept metaphor had hardly undergone any meaningful
IRichards in 1936; Black in 1955; and others.
2Lakoff, Johnson, Turner and othersin 1980 and further.
renewal during this period. Further development during this period merely entailed the continuation of the Aristotelian ideas.1
2.3.1.1 One of many tropes
In fact, metaphor was now filed into a complex tropological system of ten tropes and approximately sixty-four categories of figurative language, and was therefore actually reduced in status. Hawkes (1972: 14) gives more details of the tropological system: "It lists 45 Figures ofDiction, including 10 Tropes, of which metaphor is one, and 19 Figures of Thought, of which Simile is one." Mooij (1976:7n) mentions the ten tropes, namely:
allegory, accentuation, euphemism, hyperbole, irony, litotes (diminutives), metaphor, metonymy, personification, and synecdoche. The ultimate function of metaphor however remained as being 'the supreme ornament of style' and in nature a 'trope of transference' (Hawkes 1972:13-14).
2.3.1.2 Image
During the Middle Ages the study of metaphor was neglected and mainly entrusted to the grammarians. Stutterheim (1941: 116) reckons that this might be the period of transition in the meaning of the concept of metaphor to 'exemplum, parable' and where the terms 'image,' 'firbiliden,' and 'beeld' came into play
2.3.1.3 Deeper meaning
Christian circles of the Middle Ages emphasised the functional nature of metaphor.
According to their view, the world consists of metaphors written by God through which he wants to communicate with human beings if only they can interpret these correctly. The meanings of these metaphors, however, are much more loaded with meaning than what we actually deduce from the physical words. Especially Dante2provides a new scheme for the
I See Stutterheim 1941 :88ff; McCall 1969:24-53; and Hawkes 1972: 11ff who indicates this in the writings
2 of~icero,Horatius, Longinus, Quintalianus and the anonymous writings Rhetorica ad Herennium (86BC).
In hiS famed letter to Can Grande della Scala. See Hawkes 1972: 17ff , also for more details about the Christian viewpoint of metaphor during the Middle Ages.
proper interpretation of metaphor, namely: firstly 'the literal meaning,' but then follows the higher meaning levels i.e. allegorical (symbolic meanings), anagogical (spiritual meanings) and tropological (personal or moral) meanings (Hawkes 1972:17). Apparently, the main task of the poet was to discover God's meaning through His metaphors, and definitely not a case of the poet's own efforts trying to express himself or decorate his work with metaphors.