The art of rhetorick concisely and compleatly handled exemplified out of holy writ, and with a compendious and perspicuous comment, fitted to the capacities of such as have had a smatch of learning, or are otherwise ingenious. By J.B. master of the free-school of Kinfare in Staffordshire.

To the Reader.

THe sacred Scripture (howbeit alto∣gether eschewing,* 1.1 and utterly con∣demning the impertinent use of fro∣thie criticismes, yet) in beautifull varietie, majesticall style, and gracefull order, in∣finitely and incomparably transcends the most pi∣thie and pleasing strains of humane Eloquence. From this authoritie therefore I have made the art of Rhetorick exemplary; whereunto for the satisfying of the reader, I have premised these se∣verall instructions, partly as apologies to the skilfull, for those additions, contractions, altera∣tions herein made; partly as directions to the studious.

First,* 1.2 I say not (according to the received de∣finition) that Rhetorick is the art of pleading well, howbeit I was about to define it the art of Oratory, which is equivalent with the former: but I consider, that to an Oratour (besides Rhe∣torick) Logick and Grammar essentially be∣long. For together with the cooking, that is, the dressing and serving up of an oration, wherein Rhetorick consisteth, an Oratour must have mat∣ter and method from Logick; puritie of constru∣ction, and words accustomed from Grammar; or

he cannot be perfect. Indeed it is very rare to finde a man skilfull in Rhetorick, who is not so in Logick and Grammar; yet I have read some sermon-books stuft with Tropes and Figures, which doubtlesse with a good deliverie would please, yet were very barren of solid matter. Now because these arts commonly met in a professed Oratour, those that formerly wrote Rhetoricks,* 1.3 put in the Topicks of Logick and Figures of Grammar, as essentiall parts of Rhetorick. There∣fore must the learner, in any pleasing passages of words, diligently consider to which of these seve∣rall arts every vertue in them is to be ascribed. For whose help herein, if this work take, I will annex in future editions an Appendix of all grammaticall figures.

Again, I say not, the parts of Rhetorick are Elocution and Pronunciation; for both these are but utterance, and neither implie the gesture: as for that their common acceptation is equivalent with the terms I give, this were tolerable in case of necessity, not where more significant may be had.

Secondly, I presume, I need not excuse giving of English names, having put the known names in the Margent, and used them in my Comment: as for changing those names, good reason. For Tropes and Figures were distinguished by names that had no difference,* 1.4 as Metonymia and Me∣taphora

are both Translation, which is a name generall enough for all the Tropes: neither can I think it but preposterous, to speak of affections of Tropes before the Tropes themselves; which per∣haps they did, that the examples wherein affe∣ctions were, might be more fully apprehended, though I suppose so much at once would rather puzzle the learner.

Thirdly, I thought it strange, that Rhetorici∣ans should be fain to define Metonymia and Syn∣echdoche, as Plato did a man,* 1.5 by couching the particulars: nor yet do••h their definition of a Me∣tonymie directly teach Elliptick Substitution, nor of the other comprehend the putting of one kinde for an other; yet indeed I found it very dif∣ficult to distinguish them. The truth is, that these two are but one Trope; and but for avoiding cen∣sure of singularitie, I would have made them one, as I have annexed them in regard of their affinitie.

Fourthly, whereas I have made Metonymie twofold, Perfect and Elliptick, I say boldly, that nothing in all Rhetorick doth more puzzle scho∣lars, then not being made acquainted with this difference of Metonymicall examples, how that in some, a borrowed word supplying the place of a proper, we do no more but change again, that is, cast away the borrowed word and assume the pro∣per, and they are resolved: But now again some

examples will not suffer a change of the tropicall word for another, but must be resolved by an ad∣dition of some word, containing the Cause, Ef∣fect, Subject, or Adjunct in a generall term. In∣stance in this speech, That rock was CHRIST: They say truely, In the word CHRIST is a Metonymie of the Subject for the Adjunct. Well, then say I, Resolve this Trope, put out the word CHRIST, and render the Adjunct, for which it is put, That rock was—what? If they say, CHRIST is put for the signe, then I should say, That rock was the signe. But this resolution you see is defective: therefore I must lay both together, the generall term SIGNE and CHRIST, and say thus, That rock was the signe of Christ. Now in this example, The Pope spurns Emperours KINGDOMES off their heads, I need not fetch in the generall term to resolve it by spurns the SIGNE of their KINGDOMES, &c. but change for the adjunct it self, which is ready and compleat, Spurns Emperours CROVVNS off their heads.

Fifthly, I averre that I have truely referred Pronominations to Metaphors, for they all carry the force of comparison. Instance, I call an Arch-traitour, a IUDAS: Now say Rhetori∣cians, This is by a Synechdoche: for here is Iudas, a particular word, put for the generall, TRAI∣TOUR.

How unlawfull this predication is, and how insufficient the resolution, any scholar will discern; For Iudas by a Synechdoche cannot sig∣nifie an Arch-traitour, but simply a Traitour. Now make it a Metaphor, and I have the full meaning. But I will give a more usefull answer: I say therefore, that if this be a Synechdoche, we need no Metaphor; for I can, by as fair a sem∣blance as this, reduce every Metaphor to a Syn∣echdoche or Metonymie. Instance, Luk. 23. 43. To day shalt thou be with me in PARADISE Shall I say this is a Synechdoche,* 1.6 one place of fe∣licitie being put for another? Yet why may not I as well as Butler, call this speech, They BUILD an horse, a Synechdoche? One kinde of structure (saith he) is put for another. Again, Psal. 34.1. The young LIONS lack. Shall I say, LIONS for FIERCE and GREEDY men, is a Metonymie? For Lion is the subject, and fierce∣nesse and rapine the qualities of a Lion. Y••t why not as well as Keckerman calls this speech,* 1.7 Every day is an HOLY-DAY to the idle man, a Metonymie? Because HOLY-DAY is put, sayes he, for a time of leisure and sport, which are appurtenances to an holy-day. Now undoubtedly all these are Metaphors, though Butlers 〈…〉〈…〉catachresticall. But it would save much 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and prevent a deal of errour, no more but to ob∣serve when the words bear the force of compa∣rison;

for all such are Metaphors.* 1.8 Rhetorician•• have been deceived by a relation Metaphoricall in stead of reall. For instance, They PRICK UP THEIR EARES: Let us BREAK THEIR BONDS ASUNDER. In these examples, would Rhetoricians say, are Metonymies of the Ad∣junct. For, PRICKING UP THE EARES is a signe of HEARKENING; BONDS, an Ad∣junct to AUTHORITIE: But say I, Pricking up the eares, is a signe of hearkening in beasts. So God hath no CORDS, but comparatively; there∣fore these are Metaphors.

Sixthly, I say also, that those examples which I have referred to an Ironie in the latter end of the chapter, are truely referred. And either an I∣ronie must be made so large (as it well may) to comprehend them, or we must invent another Trope. Synechdoches they cannot be (though some make them so) for they have no relation.

Seventhly, I averre also, that Hyperbole and Tapinosis are as flatly different as the names I give them, although the * 1.9 Neotericks make them one. But saith Keckerman, Some Rhetori∣cians call Tapinosis Hyperbole in defect, but it is better to distinguish them. What? when I call a MEER FOOL a SHALLOW FEL∣LOVV; a VVICKEDNES, an ERROUR; when I say that is WARM, that shrewdly BURNS, &c. do I hyperbolize? do I over∣reach,

and speak beyond my compasse? Moreover, they were too short in not observing that these Affections were often found without being in other Tropes: and so where they found speeches that were meerly hyperbolicall or tapinosicall, they would referre them to some Trope, though without reason. For this speech, I made my bed to SVVIMME, Dietericus takes for a Me∣taphor: but I pray you where is the comparison? For put case his bed were born up with waters, it were a plain speech; which being impossible, what is it else, but a notable Hyperbole?

Eighthly, I dare professe, that whatsoever Rhetoricall excellencie is or can be in words, is comprised in the Tropes and Figures which I have set down. I have deliberatively read the most eloquent books, besides divers Rhetoricks; yet all the commendablenesse of words I could pick out, would not yeeld a new Figure.* 1.10 How all their examples come within compasse of my Fi∣gures, will easily appeare. But some examples I have, which they never paralel'd, and some things their Rhetoricks touch not. It had been easie to have made my book confused and intri∣cate with prolixitie, to have shewed much rea∣ding and little wit, and needlesly to have weari∣ed and perplext my reader. If it be objected, that specially in those figures of Repetition, Variation, Allusion, there are various examples, which

might have had severall names: I answer, if eve∣ry phrase, whereunto I could have given a proper term to expresse the form thereof, should have been a Figure,* 1.11 I should have runne in infinitum. And doubtlesse the copious varietie of words (especially in the Greek tongue) hath begotten that difference among authours that sought to open the arts, which being read by the unskilfull, they took them for so many severall Figures, as they found names, and the species of them for di∣stinct Figures: the confusednesse whereof was by the diligence of the studious amended by degrees.

And why should not we contract and refine late writers, as they did the former? I have given ge∣nerall terms whereto all kinde of pleasing speech may be reduced, so that I know no reader, where∣soever he meets with whole heaps of Figures to∣gether, shall finde any thing but the spice or composition of what I have mentioned.

Ninthly, whereas Rhetoricians give divers rules about delivery, for the turning of the eye, carriage of the hand, setting of the countenance, framing of the voice, &c. I dare say, they are needlesse, insufficient, absurd: for this varies ac∣cording to a multitude of circumstances, person, subject, place; and these particulars are also vari∣ous. Onely I have mentioned the Emphasis; and truely, if mine observation fail me not, look what facultie a man hath in giving a gracefull Em∣phasis,

in like degree he hath the gift of the whole delivery.

Lastly, I expose my Treatise to the view and censure of the learned, as I have been bold in some things to censure other mens. Whoso will, may examine the matter; and whoso can, may undertake the patronage: although I have imputed faultinesse to theirs, I do not war∣rant there can be none in mine own. I have spa∣red to mention the worst I found, and think it might be judged pride and envy in me to reckon up the contradictions, curiosities, coincidencies, impertinencies, which are among them. I arro∣gate nothing to my self in detecting or amending them. I hold it a duty of this age and nation,* 1.12 to leave arts more refined to posteritie, having so abundant helps. For what I have altered, I think I could pick my apologie out of severall authours, whom I found to be hammering upon those very matters, though (not finding a way out) they were fain to come again into the com∣mon rode. Indeed I had, besides the advice of my learned friends, the joynt assistance of my brother; and that candle, which we have lighted, we set up to others. Sure I am (Reader) that this facil art hath been found by good wits so imperfectly discovered, that some things were very intricate, some things very frivolous. How difficultly and defectively young scholars have apprehended the

notions of this art, all schools have complain•••••• That from the ignorance of Rhetorick (besides many other inconveniences) grosse misco••stru∣ctions of Scripture have sprung, experience, ••••∣stifies. I was opposed with that place in Dani••l,* 1.13 Break off thy sinnes by righteousnesse, and thine INIQUITIES by shewing m••r∣cy unto the poore. I answered, that in th•• word INIQUITIES was a Synechdoche•• the generall word Iniquitie being put for Oppres∣sion, one kinde of iniquitie, whereby I clear•••• the place from seeming to confirm the Popish do∣ctrine of making satisfaction for our sinnes by our works, for which purpose that place was alledged•• and shewed, that it did import no more then th••t speech of Isaiah, Cease to do evil, learn to do well. I will not multiplie examples. Reader, thi•• Tract having been proved and approved, as a sufficient mean to instruct any indifferent wit, that will bestow pains in serious meditation and conference with a scholar in the knowledge of the art, I am bold to commend to thy use, if tho•• shalt need it; and commit unto thy love, if tho•• shalt esteem it. Farewell. If thou sayest I ha••e made my gates too big, know I did it that my book might have the better passage. But now I shut them up, resting thine in the hope and en∣deavour of better services,

IOHN BARTON.

Notes

• * 1.1

  1. Tim. 6.4. and 2. Tim 2. 14.
• * 1.2

  Rhetorica est ars orationis confirmandae, & habendae, &c. Keck. Rhet.

  Aristot. Cice∣ro, & alii•• quin∣que partes Rhetor. consti∣tuerunt;In∣ventionem, Dispositio∣nem, Memori∣am, & Pro∣nunciationem•• sed malé. Di••∣tericus Rhet. Grammatica purè, Rheto∣rica ornarè, Logica cum ratione, &c. Molina〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.3

  Common places to help inven∣tion.

  Qui figuras grammaticas Rhetoricâ tra∣dunt, distincta ••rtium prae∣cepta confun∣dunt. Dict.
• * 1.4

  Metaphora & Tropus idem sunt apud Aristot.
• * 1.5

  Homo est ani∣mal bipes abs∣que pennis, la∣tis unguibus. Substitution is a proper name unto them both; neither can any name be given to Substitution, which will not as well serve for Compreh••nsi∣on.
• * 1.6

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 saith 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Luk. 16. 24. 〈…〉〈…〉 ve••e∣••••••ti do•••••••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 lib. 1. cap. ••. I thi••k 〈…〉〈…〉 it is a 〈…〉〈…〉 they build 〈…〉〈…〉 o•• wood.
• * 1.7

  K••ck. Rhe•••• pag. 153.
• * 1.8

  All Relation in Substitutions and Comprehen∣sions, which is not true and re∣all, turns to Me∣taphors. Exam∣ples are, Hosea 7.9. Rom. 12. 20. Psal. 41. 3. 1. Cor. 14. 11. Gal. 4.19. Which some would thus re∣••olve, Gray hairs, for sor∣row•• sorrow for misery, a meta∣lepticall Meto∣nymie of the Ef∣••ect; Barbarian, for any stranger Synech. of the kinde; Heap coals of fire•• for ••vercome him; Make his bed, for give him ease, Tra∣vail in childe, for long after, Metonymies of the Cause. Un∣lesse the Exam∣ple be Metale∣pti••all, and the Lu••er Trope a Metaphor, as thus, Ye are Gods circum∣cision, which word is a Meto∣nymie put for CIR••UMCI∣SED, which is a Metaphor.

  But the learner will finde thi•• intricate, before ••e hath compa∣red it with the Tract.
• * 1.9

  M••dern or late Writers. Nonnulli Rhetores, &c. Keck. lib. 2. pag. 17••.
• * 1.10

  As Geminati∣on and Redu∣plication &c. come into Repe∣tition: so Con∣cession,•• Per∣mission, &c. fall into Insinu∣ation, and so of others.
• * 1.11

  Quintilian makes 13 Tropes which Isi∣dore reckons in his Gram∣mar, pag. 847. ••ot in his Rhe∣torick, wherein ••e blames the Ancients for prolixitie, ut e∣am lectori ad∣mirari in promptu sit, comprehende∣re imp••ssibi∣le. Isid. 858. cap. 2. de ••he••.
• * 1.12

  As Mr. Harris taught in that eloquent sermon of H••zek••••••s recovery.
• * 1.13

  Dan. 4. 27.