Analogical predication is of two kinds: a term or concept may be affirmed of a variety of subjects either by analogy _of attribution_ or by analogy _of proportion_. We may, for instance, speak not only of a man as “healthy,” but also of his food, his countenance, his occupation, his companionship, etc., as “healthy”. Now health is found really only in the man, but it is _attributed_ to the other things owing to some extrinsic but real connexion which they have with his health, whether as cause, or effect, or indication, of the latter. This is analogy of attribution; the subject of which the predicate is properly and primarily affirmed being known as the primary analogue or _analogum princeps_, those to which it is transferred being called the _analogata_. It underlies the figures of speech known as metynomy and synechdoche. Now on account of the various relations that exist between the different modes of being, relations of cause and effect, whole and part, means and end, ground and consequence, etc.—relations which constitute the _orders_ of existing and possible things, the _physical_ and the _metaphysical_ orders—being is of course predicated of its modes by _analogy of attribution_; and in such predication infinite being is the primary analogue for finite beings, and the substance-mode of being for all accident-modes of being. Inasmuch, however, as being is not merely attributed to these modes extrinsically, but belongs to all of them intrinsically, it is also predicated of them by _analogy of proportion_. This latter sort of analogy is based on similarity of relations. For example, the act of understanding bears a relation to the mind similar to that which the act of seeing bears to the eye, and hence we say of the mind that it “sees” things when it understands them. Or, again, we speak of a verdant valley in the sunshine as “smiling,” because its appearance bears a relation to the valley similar to that which a smile bears to the human countenance. Or again, we speak of the parched earth as “thirsting” for the rains, or of the devout soul as “thirsting” for God, because these relations are recognized as similar to that of a thirsty person towards the drink for which he thirsts. In all such cases the analogical concept implies not indeed the same attribute (differently realized) in all the analogues (as in univocal predication) but rather a similarity in the relation or proportion in which each analogue embodies or realizes some attribute or attributes peculiar to itself. Seeing is to the eye as understanding is to the mind; smiling is to the countenance as the pleasing appearance of its natural features is to the valley. Rain is to the parched earth, and God is to the devout soul, as drink is to the thirsty person. It will be noted that in all such cases the analogical concept is affirmed primarily and properly of some one thing (the _analogum princeps_), and of the other only secondarily, and relatively to the former.