HEBREW LIFE AND CUSTOM
may be found to proceed from a careful study of the
metaphors which are commonly used.
Hebraic diction is essentially a metaphorical diction.
Even in words which we translate by abstract terms a
careful examination of the original roots will frequently
show that in these words we have metaphors not as yet
completely crystallized into abstracts. Even the word
commonly rendered ‘ glory for example, has not entirely
lost its earlier meaning of that which is valuable, which in
turn—perhaps in consequence of the weighing of uncoined
gold and silver—is associated with the idea of heaviness.
It is surprising, in view of the abundant use of meta-
phors in Hebraic speech, that in times past, even among
the most learned exponents of the Hebrew Scriptures,
very little attention has been paid to this leading charac-
teristic of Hebraic metaphor and to its strongly marked
difference from, for example, English figures of speech.
Yet it should surely be evident even to the casual reader
that whereas among ourselves consistency is insisted upon,
and mixed metaphors greeted with ridicule, a Hebrew
could combine in one sentence two or more figures of
speech which to our English minds are totally irreconcil-
able. This peculiarity is due to the fact that in the
Hebrew mind the idea conveyed by each metaphor was
immediately separated from the particular figure of speech
which illustrated that idea. Disregard of this character-
istic of Hebrew diction has had most deplorable conse-
quences. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the
serious differences of belief and outlook among religious
people at the present day are in most cases due to a Iiteral-
izing and a consequent misunderstanding of Hebraic figures
of speech, which in their original connexion were under-
stood by those to whom they were addressed as not intended
to be taken au pied de la lettre.
But though it would be easy to devote a whole lecture—
indeed a course of lectures—to the subject of Hebraic
metaphor, considerations of time forbid reference to more
HEBREW METAPHOR 3
than one of its special characteristics. In particular, atten-
tion is almost invariably directed towards the effect of what
is used as an illustration rather than to its progress or to
its external characteristics—with the result that a Hebrew
may illustrate the idea of something which he has in mind
by anything of which the effect is similar ; though in its
external characteristics that which is used as an illustration
may appear to be quite dissimilar to that which it is intended
to illustrate.
Metaphors must, of course, be taken from what is fami-
liar; and though a metaphor may become crystallized
into a proverbial expression, and its use may continue after
the passing away of that which suggested it, it must always
be possible to infer from it the state of things which origi-
nally caused it to be used as an illustration of an idea.
Thus, if in such an august audience as the present it is
not out of place to use a very homely illustration, the
common maxim that it is unwise to t buy a pig in a poke ’
may be accepted as evidence that at one time, before the
activities of the R.S.P.C.A., pigs were frequently carried
to market in sa∣cks. If such a deduction is once accepted as
reasonable, it will be evident that in the use of meta-
phor we have a store of evidence bearing on life and
custom, and that this is particularly true in connexion with
Hebrew metaphor.
A caution is here necessary. Inasmuch as a considerable
portion of the ancient Hebrew literature which has come
down to us is in poetry, it is essential that some of the com-
mon characteristics of this poetry should be clearly under-
stood. Every one is aware that the most prominent feature
of Hebrew poetry is parallelism, a statement in one clause
being followed by a parallel clause containing a similar
idea. It may, however, be overlooked that there are various
kinds of parallelism, one of which in connexion with our
present subject must be clearly understood. This is what is
known as ‘ divided parallelism ’ in which the ideas expressed
in the two parallel clauses must not be taken separately