FALLACIES OF GE.VERAHZATIOIV. 495 



of these as follows. " Ut, iiKjuit, in fidibus plurimis, si nulla oaruni ita 

 contenta nmneris sit, ut concentum servare possit, omnes ueque incon- 

 tentie sint ; sic peccata, quia discrepant, a^quc discrepant : })aria sunt 

 i2:itur." To which Cicero himself aptly answers, " aatpic contintrit om- 

 nibus fidibus, ut incontentue sint ; illu(l non continuo, ut a!quc incon- 

 t^nt;e." The Stoic resumes : " Ut cnim, inquit, p;iibernator teque 

 peccat, si palearum navcm evertit, et si auri ; item terpie peccat qui 

 parentem, et qui servum, injuria verberat ;" assuming, that because 

 the magnitude of the interest at stake makes no difference in the mere 

 defect of skill, it can make none in the moral defect : a false analogy. 

 Again, " Q,uis ignorat, si plures ex alto emergere velint, propius fore eos 

 quidem ad lespirandum, qui ad summam jam aquam a]ipr<ipinquant, 

 sed nihilo magis respirare posse, quam eos, qui sunt in profundo ? 

 Nihil ergo adjuvat proccdere, et progredi in virtute, (juomiims miserri- 

 mus sit, antequam ad cam peiA^cnerit, quoniam in acjua nihil adjuvat : 

 et quoniam catuli, qui jam despecturi sunt, ca;ci a^que, et ii qui modo 

 nati ; Platonem quoque necesse est, quoniam nondum videbat sapien- 

 tiara, aeque caecum animo, ac Phalarim fuisse." Cicero, in his own 

 person, combats these false analogies by other analogies tending to 

 an opposite conclusion. " Ista similia non sunt, Cato : . . . . Ilia sunt 

 similia ; hebes acies est cuipiam oculorum : corpore alius langucscit : 

 hi curatione adhibita levautur in dies : alter valet plus quotidie : alter 

 videt. Hi similes sunt omnibus, qui virtuti student ; levautur vitiis, 

 levantur eiToribus." 



§ 7. In these and all other arguments drawn from remote analogies, 

 and from metaphors, Avhicli are cases of analogy, it is apparent (espe- 

 cially when we consider the extreme facility of raising up contrary anal- 

 ogies and conflicting metaphors), that so f;vr from the metaphor or 

 analogy proving anything, the applicability of the metaphor is the very 

 thing to be made out. It has to be shown that in the two cases asserted 

 to be analogous, the same law is really operating ; that between the 

 known resemblance and the inferred one there is some connexion by 

 means of causation. Cicero and Cato might have bandied oj)posite 

 analogies forever: it rested with each of them to prove by just induc- 

 tion, or at least to render probable, that the case resembled the one set 

 of analogous cases and not the other, in the circumstances upon which 

 the disputed question really hinged. Metaphors, for the most part, 

 therefore, assume the proposition which they are brought to prove : 

 their use is, to aid the apprehension of it; to make clearly and vividly 

 comprehended what it is that the person who employs the meta])hor is 

 proposing to make out; and sometimes also, by what media he proposes 

 to do so. For an apt metaphor, though it cannot prove, often suggests 

 the proof. 



For instance, when Mr. Carlyle, rebuking the Byronic vein, says 

 that " strength does not manifest itself in spa.sms, but in stout bearing 

 of burdens ;" the metaphor proves nothing, it is no argument, only an 

 allusion to an argument; in no other way however could so much of 

 argument be so completely suggested in .so few words. In fact, this 

 admirable expre.ssion suggests a whole train of reasoning, which it 

 would take many sentences to write out at length. As thus : Motions 

 which are violent but brief, which lead to no end, and are not under 

 the control of the will, are, in the physical body, more ijicident to a 



