its pertinence to literature, the more so since in that
field nature reveals the greatest delicacy and cannot long endure what
is lofty and excited. Yet on the other hand, whatever creeps close to
earth and never lifts its head is, if it be prolonged, wearisome. To
stand, to rest, to rise up, to be thrown down, this is what every
reader or listener desires, and from this derives the driving
necessity for variety, for the mingling of the majestic and slight,
excited and calm, high and low. But it may seem that this
consideration has little pertinence to the epigram, which is brief and
so in less need of variety. However, I need not apologize for
introducing these more general considerations since others of more
immediate pertinence to the course of our discussion are derived from
them, and particularly the question of the discriminate use of
metaphors, which are of considerable effect in adorning or vitiating
poetry.

For if we consider attentively why men are pleased with metaphors we
will find no other reason than that already stated: the weakness of
nature which is wearied by the inflexibility of truth and plain
statement and must be refreshed by an admixture of metaphors which
depart somewhat from the truth. This gives the clue to the proper and
legitimate use of metaphors; they are to be employed specifically, as
musicians employ discordant sounds, to relieve the distaste of perfect
harmony. But how frequently and at what point they should be
introduced is a matter of considerable caution and skill. One warning
will suffice for the present: that metaphors, hyperboles, and whatever
varies from the plain and natural way of saying something should not
be sought for their own sakes but as a kind of relief for nauseated
nature. They are to be accepted on grounds of necessity, and
consequently a good deal of moderation must be observed in their use.
Thus Quintilian rightly says, "A sparing and opportune use of these
figures gives lustre to speech; frequent use obscures and fills with
disgust."[6] You will discover this fault often in many epigrams,
especially in those of contemporary writers as I shall show by several
examples later on. However, lest this doctrine should issue in too
strict an austerity of diction, it should be noted that only those
expressions are to be taken as metaphors that are remote from ordinary
usage and offer the mind a double idea. Hence if a metaphor is so
commonplace that it no longer has a