The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 2 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
(_a_) In range and variety of form it is impossible to exhaust the
resources of metaphor; its definition, however, is simple. It is a
wholly abbreviated comparison, in which we find, as a fact, image and
significance are not as yet set in opposition to one another, but only
the image is introduced by it; at the same time, however, the meaning
which is thus attached to the image is not its real meaning; this is as
it were effaced, and by virtue of the content in which it is set we are
enabled to recognize the significance which is really intended in the
image itself, albeit that meaning is not expressly asserted.
For the reason, however, that the meaning that is thus rendered
intelligible under the image only comes to light by virtue of the
context, the significance which is expressed in metaphor cannot claim
the importance of an independent artistic presentation; their mode of
appearance is purely incidental, so that metaphors, in a still more
emphatic degree, can only be employed as the external embellishment of
an essentially independent work of art.
(_β_) The metaphor is mainly used in the expressions of speech, which
we may usefully consider in this relation under the following aspects.
(_αα_) In the first place every language includes within its own
compass a host of metaphors. They arise from the fact that a word,
which in the first instance merely designates something entirely
sensuous, is carried over into a spiritual sphere. "_Grasp"_,
"_comprehend"_[92], and generally a number of words connected with
the processes of thought, have in regard to their original meaning a
content that is wholly sensuous, which is consequently abandoned and
exchanged for the meaning applicable to mind; the first meaning is
sensuous, the second spiritual.
(_ββ_) By degrees, however, the metaphorical aspect disappears in the
general use of such a word, which as the current coin of language is
converted from an expression which is not strictly accurate to one that
is so, the effect of this process being that image and import, owing
to the habitual frequency with which the latter is only conceived in
the former, cease to differ from one another, and the image merely
immediately presents the abstract significance itself instead of a
concrete mode of vision[93].