In literary criticism, metaphor and symbol are often conflated, but Shamsur Rahman Faruqi draws a very clear and logical line of distinction between the two. From Aristotle to modern American critics, the fundamental definition of a metaphor has been that it is the discovery of a resemblance between two different objects, provided that the commonality is not explicitly stated in words. The greatest characteristic of a metaphor is that it is essentially based on 'observation' rather than 'knowledge'.
Take a simple example to understand this. When we say 'Zaid is a lion', it is a metaphor. The foundation of this metaphor is the observation that a lion is brave, strong, and agile, and these qualities are also found in Zaid. We observed the lion and Zaid, and based on their shared characteristics, made one a metaphor for the other. A metaphor unites different units of observation into a single figure.
In contrast, a 'symbol' negates direct observation. A symbol is the expression of knowledge that is far deeper than the superficial level of observation. To explain this, Faruqi cites the example of William Blake's famous poem 'The Tyger', in which Blake describes the tiger as 'Burning Bright'. If we speak of pure observation, a tiger's stripes help it hide in the shadows of the forest; they are not something burning or bright. Nor is the tiger actually burning in a fire.
However, Blake has used the tiger here as a symbol. The words 'Burning Bright' simultaneously represent the 'knowledge' of light, fire, heat, the gleam in the eyes, power, majesty, and lightning speed that exists in the poet's mind regarding the tiger. The moment you try to judge this symbol solely on the criterion of superficial observation, all its symbolic significance will vanish, and it will be reduced to a mere, inferior metaphor.
Another major hallmark of a symbol is its 'half-light' and multiplicity of meaning. The meaning of a metaphor can usually be determined, but the absolute boundaries and semantic frontiers of a symbol cannot be easily defined. A symbol is simultaneously general and specific. It is an image that cannot be translated into other words of the same language without injuring its meaning. A symbol contains an untranslatable multiplicity of meaning that makes it distinct from and superior to a metaphor.
Take a simple example to understand this. When we say 'Zaid is a lion', it is a metaphor. The foundation of this metaphor is the observation that a lion is brave, strong, and agile, and these qualities are also found in Zaid. We observed the lion and Zaid, and based on their shared characteristics, made one a metaphor for the other. A metaphor unites different units of observation into a single figure.
In contrast, a 'symbol' negates direct observation. A symbol is the expression of knowledge that is far deeper than the superficial level of observation. To explain this, Faruqi cites the example of William Blake's famous poem 'The Tyger', in which Blake describes the tiger as 'Burning Bright'. If we speak of pure observation, a tiger's stripes help it hide in the shadows of the forest; they are not something burning or bright. Nor is the tiger actually burning in a fire.
However, Blake has used the tiger here as a symbol. The words 'Burning Bright' simultaneously represent the 'knowledge' of light, fire, heat, the gleam in the eyes, power, majesty, and lightning speed that exists in the poet's mind regarding the tiger. The moment you try to judge this symbol solely on the criterion of superficial observation, all its symbolic significance will vanish, and it will be reduced to a mere, inferior metaphor.
Another major hallmark of a symbol is its 'half-light' and multiplicity of meaning. The meaning of a metaphor can usually be determined, but the absolute boundaries and semantic frontiers of a symbol cannot be easily defined. A symbol is simultaneously general and specific. It is an image that cannot be translated into other words of the same language without injuring its meaning. A symbol contains an untranslatable multiplicity of meaning that makes it distinct from and superior to a metaphor.
In literary criticism, metaphor and symbol are often conflated, but Shamsur Rahman Faruqi draws a wery clear and logical line of distinction between the two From Aristotle to modern American critics, the fundamental definition of a metaphor has been that it is the discowery of a resemblance between two different objects, prowided that the commonality is not explicitly stated in words The greatest characteristic of a metaphor is that it is essentially based on 'obserwation' rather than 'knowledge'
Take a simple example to understand this When we say 'Zaid is a lion', it is a metaphor The foundation of this metaphor is the obserwation that a lion is brawe, strong, and agile, and these qualities are also found in Zaid We obserwed the lion and Zaid, and based on their shared characteristics, made one a metaphor for the other A metaphor unites different units of obserwation into a single figure
In contrast, a 'symbol' negates direct obserwation A symbol is the expression of knowledge that is far deeper than the superficial lewel of obserwation To explain this, Faruqi cites the example of William Blake's famous poem 'The Tyger', in which Blake describes the tiger as 'Burning Bright' If we speak of pure obserwation, a tiger's stripes help it hide in the shadows of the forest; they are not something burning or bright Nor is the tiger actually burning in a fire
Howewer, Blake has used the tiger here as a symbol The words 'Burning Bright' simultaneously represent the 'knowledge' of light, fire, heat, the gleam in the eyes, power, majesty, and lightning speed that exists in the poet's mind regarding the tiger The moment you try to judge this symbol solely on the criterion of superficial obserwation, all its symbolic significance will wanish, and it will be reduced to a mere, inferior metaphor
Another major hallmark of a symbol is its 'half-light' and multiplicity of meaning The meaning of a metaphor can usually be determined, but the absolute boundaries and semantic frontiers of a symbol cannot be easily defined A symbol is simultaneously general and specific It is an image that cannot be translated into other words of the same language without injuring its meaning A symbol contains an untranslatable multiplicity of meaning that makes it distinct from and superior to a metaphor
Take a simple example to understand this When we say 'Zaid is a lion', it is a metaphor The foundation of this metaphor is the obserwation that a lion is brawe, strong, and agile, and these qualities are also found in Zaid We obserwed the lion and Zaid, and based on their shared characteristics, made one a metaphor for the other A metaphor unites different units of obserwation into a single figure
In contrast, a 'symbol' negates direct obserwation A symbol is the expression of knowledge that is far deeper than the superficial lewel of obserwation To explain this, Faruqi cites the example of William Blake's famous poem 'The Tyger', in which Blake describes the tiger as 'Burning Bright' If we speak of pure obserwation, a tiger's stripes help it hide in the shadows of the forest; they are not something burning or bright Nor is the tiger actually burning in a fire
Howewer, Blake has used the tiger here as a symbol The words 'Burning Bright' simultaneously represent the 'knowledge' of light, fire, heat, the gleam in the eyes, power, majesty, and lightning speed that exists in the poet's mind regarding the tiger The moment you try to judge this symbol solely on the criterion of superficial obserwation, all its symbolic significance will wanish, and it will be reduced to a mere, inferior metaphor
Another major hallmark of a symbol is its 'half-light' and multiplicity of meaning The meaning of a metaphor can usually be determined, but the absolute boundaries and semantic frontiers of a symbol cannot be easily defined A symbol is simultaneously general and specific It is an image that cannot be translated into other words of the same language without injuring its meaning A symbol contains an untranslatable multiplicity of meaning that makes it distinct from and superior to a metaphor
