The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology - Saint Mary ...

say: All flesh is grass-like; Napoleon is fox-like. The critic fatally wounds
his own theory, when, not at all to the point for the purpose he has in view,
he says: "The mere juxtaposition of the subject and predicate, without the
intervening copula (the 'is'), is common in most languages, particularly
Hebrew, and more especially in metaphorical language;" that is, the word
in which the metaphor lies, according to the critic's theory, is not only not
necessary, but the very fact that language is metaphorical leads to its
omission. The stress of the metaphor is so violent upon the "is," as to
squeeze it utterly out of the sentence.
2. Of the nature of metaphor as affecting the force of “is.”
1. Of the views of the critic in regard to metaphor, as involved in the
copula, with which the possibility of his interpretation of "is" stands or
falls, it is enough to say that they are arrayed against the universal
judgment of rational men; that they do defiance alike to the statements of
the most learned and of the most popular works. He says that in such a
sentence as this: "Napoleon is a fox," Napoleon is literal; which is very
true; and so also, he says, is fox. The one would, consequently, mean the
man of that name, and the other would mean, literally, the animal of that
name. Hence Napoleon is like "an animal of the genus Vulpis, with a
straight tail, yellowish or straw-colored hair, and erect ears, burrowing in
the earth, remarkable for his cunning and his fondness for lambs, geese,
hens, and other small animals." 400
2. How will our critic resolve this sentence: "Napoleon is Emperor of
France, and a great fox?" If "is" be literal and "fox" be literal, then he
actually is a literal fox; if "is" means is like, then Napoleon is like the
Emperor of France. If, moreover, when we say Napoleon is a fox, the word
fox means the literal animal, what is meant by it when some one adds: That
fox will be caught yet? Is it the literal animal of the genus Vulpis, with the
straight tail and the fondness for geese, which is then meant? and yet
cannot a child see that the word fox is used in the second case as it was in
the first?
3. The critic himself, when he comes to explain the phrase,
400 Webster.