Epithets shouldn’t be transferred

Ratna Raman

ANTHROPOMORPHIC pattern making (imbuing of human value to non-living objects/ abstractions) is a function of the human mind that is recorded by language. The use of ‘personification’ and ‘transferred epithets’, popular in Greek, Latin and English literary traditions is anthropomorphic as these figures of speech humanise non-human objects and abstractions. Points of similarity and difference exist between both these two figures of speech.

The transferred epithet involves a  complete transfer of the adjective  from the human subject to a non- human object. Called ‘hypallage’ (Greek, Latin), the transferred epithet  indicates an abnormal or unexpected exchange  in the location of the adjective, unlike ‘personification’ that seeks to humanise and connect.

 Each time an adjective qualifies an inanimate noun, instead of a person,  the transferred epithet comes into place. Transferred epithets, exist in close proximity with personification, in both oral and poetic traditions. Take for instance, “The Daffodils”, a poem by William Wordsworth, who lived in the picturesque lake district of England, went for long treks and celebrated the beauty of the natural world around him. “The Daffodils”, long part of school curriculum, is a perennial favourite when it comes to examination questions pertaining to  figures of speech such as personification and transferred epithet. The daffodils provide visual pleasure because of their bright yellow colour and   grow in thousands ‘beside the lake and beneath the trees’ and their ‘fluttering and dancing in the wind’ personifies them. When the poet describes them as ‘jocund company’, the transferred epithet makes an appearance. In regular speech, family or friends can be described as jocund company, allowing ‘jocund’ to function merely as an adjective qualifying people. Wordsworth inhabited a rather desolate section of the first world, opposed railroad expansion   and drew cheer from abundant daffodils, thereby dispensing with the need for fellow humans altogether.

Take the expression “giddy heights”. Heights by themselves can never be giddy. They merely refer to the elevation of buildings or mountains. However, a person suffering from vertigo  is subject to giddiness or dizziness. ‘Giddy heights’ records the subtle shift of  emotion from a person to an elevation. The ‘giddy heights of fame’ or fortune is a metaphorical expression, indicating the short-lived quality of both wealth and fame and its impact on humans. Here the quality of instability/imbalance/intoxication visible in persons  achieving  great fame or wealth  shifts   to the location, which is made to take on all the blame.

Transferred epithets are invariably part of everyday usage and the following catalogue of paired words provides a working demonstration of the shift made by the adjective to an inanimate noun. Whether it is a golden handshake; difficult exam; unsuccessful attempt; cruel joke; happy hours; boring movie; dull lecture; unhappy marriage; terrible day; fatal voyage; uncomfortable journey or hard times, in each of these very human situations, the adjective has firmly detached itself from the human to the non-human.

The transferred epithet aids in processes of delinking/disassociation/ abdication of individual responsibility. The phrase ‘Acche din aaney walay hain’ presents itself for analysis, in this context. The sentence is in future tense, indicating the impending arrival of good days. ‘Acche’ is the transferred epithet (adjective) here, since days tend to be uniform. A positive future depends entirely on the past and present actions of our statesmen and administrators. All good epithets need to be delinked from inanimate nouns and transferred back to humans.