Annotatio I §.IV: Synecdoche Grammar vs Rhetoric; Mansfeld’s Calvinian vs Lutheran metonymy
On synecdoche, Selneccer, Luther, and countless others distinguish Grammatical from Rhetorical synecdoche — a distinction that offends proper grammar for anyone not still new to the subject.
Call it Grammatical or not: synecdoche remains a trope, like metonymy, metaphor, or irony.
Mansfeld grants metonymy in both halves of the Institution, yet under a rather ridiculous split between Calvinian sign/thing-signified metonymy and Lutheran effect-for-cause / container-for-content metonymy.
Latin
Ex posterioribus, quà Synechdochen, praeter Selneccerum ipsumque Lutherum, innumeri alii, cum distinctione tamen inter Synechdochen Grammaticam & Rhetoricam, cujus Distinctionis applicatione ad praesentem materiam, quantum in Grammaticam peccetur, vel illi norunt, qui nondum aere lavantur. Nam ubi quaeso traditur in Grammaticis Synecdoche, pro quali contendunt Theologi hi? Quanquam Synecdoche, sive Grammatica dicatur, sive alio veniat nomine, tropus tamen ac figura remanet, juxta ac metonymia, metaphora aut ironia: Id quod docet tropi natura, nominis dissimulatione haud tollenda nec mutanda, cùm ipsa re obtinetur. Quà Metonymiam autem, Mansrafius in Erotematibus ad articulos quatuor Visitatorios, non minus in propositione definitiva partis prioris Sacrae Coenae, quàm posterioris ista: Hoc poculum, est N. T. in sanguine meo, metonymiam largiturus, sed sub distinctione satis ridicula inter Metonymiam Calvinianam de signo & signato, & Metonymiam Lutheranam, quâ uti effectus pro causa ponitur, in hac propositione: Poculum est Testamentum in sanguine meo, i. e. sanguis in poculo est illud quo sancitum est N. T., id est promissio remissionis peccatorum; ita Continens pro contento in hac: Hic panis est Corpus meum.