The poet ought by all means, in this place, to have contented himself with saying that they wandered three days in darkness. To say that they wandered three funs in black darkness, hath too much the air of a contradiction, though, in many other fituations, the term funs might have a happy effect when put for days.

Periphrases and epithets, as they serve to denominate and characterize objects, come under this general rule, that nothing ought to be put for, or enter into the name of any object, or be used to distinguish it, that hath no relation to those properties of it which we have principally in view. The reason is, that, by this means, a writer would lead his reader from his own views and purpose. Thus it is improper to add the epithet mortal to man, unless man be confidered in the paffage in which it is introduced with regard to his mortality, and that idea would give ftrength to the fentiment. In every epithet a regard ought to be had to the general defign or purport of the paffage in which it is introduced. For example, when Neptune is spoken of as a perfon, no attribute ought to be afcribed to him which agrees to nothing but the fea; as in the following paffage of Pope's Odyffee:

Hear me, oh Neptune, thou whofe arms are hurl'd

From shore to shore, and gird the folid world.

ODYSSEE, B. IX. v. 617.

In like manner, in prayer, we ought not to invoke the Divine Being by the mention of any attribute, as almighty, infinitely wife, and gracious, promifcuously; but chuse those which there

is the greatest propriety in our having a view to, in the fubfequent petition.

There is almoft a tautology in epithets when they convey no idea that is not expreffed, or implied, in fome other words in the fentence. This is certainly faulty, as in the following line:

And impious fons their mangled fathers wound.

In the following, and perhaps in the preceding, there is an impropriety with refpect to the order of time, which is apparent upon a little attention to them:

Submerfas obrue puppes.

ÆNEID I. 73.

And mighty ruins fall.

ILIAD V. 411.

LECTURE

LECTURE XXVIII.

Of the HYPERBOLE, and BOMBAST.

WHEN

HEN any thing that is afferted in a discourse exceeds the truth, an hyperbole is faid to be used. In fact, in every fpecies of metonymy (and the fame may be faid of all the other figures) there is a departure from literal truth; but, as was explained in the cafe of Irony, it is in such a manner as that nobody can be imposed upon, or misled by it, and it is attended with advantages to the sense, which could not have been had by a rigorous adherence to truth.

The reason why the hyperbole is, in appearance, a greater violation of truth than most other figures, is only this, that in the hyperbole the untruth lies in the affirmation itself, whereas in most other figures it is concealed in an epithet, which however (were the sentence refolved into its conftituent parts) would also be a direct untruth in the affirmation.

The advantage of ufing an hyperpole, is, that the idea of one object may be heightened and improved by ideas transferred from other objects, and affociated with it. Thus when the Divine Being says to Abraham, "I will make thy feed as the dust of "the earth; fo that if a man could number the duft of the earth, "then shall thy feed alfo be numbered," Gen. xiii. 16; the

idea of a number almoft infinite is transferred from the duft of the earth to the children, or defcendants, of Abraham; and by this means we are enabled to conceive a greater idea of them than we could have done by the help of any plain and literal expreffion.

This manner of expreffion, though not strictly agreeable to truth, is extremely natural when the imagination is raised, and a perfon is labouring for an expreffion adequate to his ideas. In fuch a fituation of mind, as no expreffions literally true fufficiently answer his purpose, a writer is obliged to have recourse to objects which can fupply him with fuch as will do it, The expreffions to which these views give rife, are, however, fo circumftanced, that we instantly enter, as it were, into the mind of the writer, we feel the difficulty he was under, and fee the reason why he made choice of fuch hyperbolical language; and as we are led into no mistake by fuch terms, they are, in fact, to us who entér into his fituation and feelings, more true and juft expreffions of those feelings than any plainer terms could have been.

Befides, if we confider that, by reafon of the narrownefs of our faculties, terms expreffing the greatest magnitudes and numbers, yea terms denoting infinities themselves, raife only indetérminate and finite ideas in our minds, we may easily conceive that the ftate of mind produced by an attempt to realize hyperbolical expreffions, may not be more than barely adequate to the ideas intended to be conveyed. Let us, for example, endeavour to form an idea of a number equal to that of the duft of the earth: the conception may not, in fact, reach to a juft idea of the vast numbers of the pofterity of Abraham. So that hyperboles, thus. properly circumftanced, may, by the appearance of falfehood, lead the mind nearer to the truth than any expreffions more literally true. In this case it seems to be very evident, that if the Divine

Being had only said that the feed of Abraham fhould be exceedingly numerous, or had even affigned the precife number of them, the idea excited in the mind of Abraham, by fuch an expreffion, would not have been fo near the truth, as that which is produced by the attempt to conceive a number equal to that of the dust of the earth.

It may perhaps, therefore, be no great paradox, if it be laid down as a maxim, that hyperboles are then only proper where they ferve to lead our conceptions nearer to the truth than any other forms of expreffion; and that they must be condemned, as ftrained and unnatural, when the idea they excite in our minds really exceeds the idea that ought to be excited by the object described by them. The following account of the valour of Henry the Fifth, in Shakespeare, is certainly extravagantly hyperbolical:

England ne'er had a king until his time:

Virtue he had deferving to command:

His brandish'd fword did blind men with its beams:

His arms fpread wider than a dragon's wings:
His sparkling eyes, replete with aweful fire,
More dazzled and drove back his enemies
Than mid-day fun fierce bent against their faces.
What should I fay, his deeds exceed all speech;
He never lifted up his hand but conquer'd.

First Part of HENRY VI. A&t I. Scene 1.

In many cases the generality of readers may be apt to think an hyperbole overcharged, for want of entering into an author's fentiments and views of things. A perfon, for inftance, who