2.83. May be. But he should then disguise his motive, in order that he may effect his purpose. But what will it profit us (and by us I mean the declaimers) to have realised this motive, unless we declare it as well? Well, then, if the case were being actually pleaded in the courts, should we have disclosed this secret motive in such a way? Again, if this is not the real motive, the condemned man may have other reasons for opposing his son; he may think that the law should be carried out or be unwilling to accept such a kindness from the hands of his accuser, or (and this is the line on which I personally should insist) he may intend to persist in declaring his innocence even under torture.
2.83. credibile est, hoc eum velle.; dissimulet ergo, ut efficiat. nobis (declamatoribus dico) quid proderit hoc intellexisse, nisi dixerimus?, si vere ageretur, similiter consilium illud latens prodidissemus?? si neque utique verum est, et habere alias hic damnatus contradicendi causas potest, vel quod legem conservandam putet, vel quod nolit accusatori debere beneficium, vel (quod ego maxime sequerer) ut innocentem se esse in tormentis pertendat?
2.84. Consequently the usual excuse advanced by such declaimers to the effect that the inventor of the theme meant the defence to proceed on these lines, will not always serve their purpose. It is possible that this was not the inventor's wish. However, let us assume that it was. Are we then to speak like fools merely because he thought like a fool? Personally I hold that, even in actual cases, we should often disregard the wishes of the litigant.
2.84. ne illud quidem semper succurret sic dicentibus, hoc voluit, qui controversiam finxit. enim noluit; sed esto, voluerit: continuone, si ille stulte cogitavit, nobis quoque stulte dicendum est? ego in causis agendis frequenter non puto intuendum, quid litigator velit.
2.85. Further, in such cases speakers fall into the frequent error of assuming that certain persons say one thing and mean another: this is more especially the case where it is assumed that a man asks permission to die. Take, for example, the following controversial theme. “A man who had shown himself a heroic soldier in the past, on the occasion of a subsequent war demanded exemption from service in accordance with the law, on the ground that he was fifty years of age, but exemption being refused owing to the opposition of his son, he deserted on being compelled to go into the fight. The son, who had borne himself like a hero in the same battle, asks for his father's pardon as a reward. The father opposes his choice.” “Yes,” they say, “that is due not to his desire to die, but to bring odium on his son.” For my part, I laugh at the fears which they manifest on his behalf, as though they were in peril of death themselves, and at the way in which they allow their terror to influence their line of pleading; for they forget how many precedents there are for suicide and how many reasons there may be why a hero turned deserter should wish for death.
2.85. et ille in hoc genere frequens error, ut putent aliud quosdam dicere aliud velle, praecipue cum in themate est aliquem, ut sibi mori liceat, postulare, ut in illa controversia, aliquando fortiter fecerat et alio bello petierat, ut militia vacaret ex lege quod quinquagenarius esset, adversante filio ire in aciem coactus deseruit., qui fortiter eodem proelio fecerat, incolumitatem eius optat; contra dicit pater. enim, inquiunt, mori vult, sed invidiam filio facere. rideo, quod illi sic timent tanquam ipsi morituri et in consilium suos metus ferunt, obliti tot exemplorum circa voluntariam mortem, causarum quoque, quas habet factus ex viro forti desertor. de una controversia loqui supervacuum est.
2.87. But it would be waste of time to expatiate on one controversial theme. I would lay it down as a general rule that an orator should never put forward a plea that is tantamount to collusion, and I cannot imagine a lawsuit arising in which both parties have the same design, nor conceive that any man who wishes to live could be such a fool as to put forward an absurd plea for death, when he might refrain from pleading for it at all. I do not, however, deny that there are controversial themes of this kind where figures may legitimately be employed, as, for example, the following: “A man was accused of unnatural murder on the ground that he had killed his brother, and it seemed probable that he would be condemned.
2.87. in universum neque oratoris puto esse unquam praevaricari, neque litem intelligo, in qua pars utraque idem velit, neque tam stultum quemquam, qui, si vivere vult, mortem potius male petat quam omnino non petat.
2.88. His father gave evidence in his defence, stating that the murder had been committed on his orders. The son was acquitted, but disinherited by the father.” For in this case he does not pardon his son entirely, but cannot openly withdraw the evidence that he gave in the first trial, and while he does not inflict any worse penalty than disinheritance, he does not shrink from that. Further, the employment of the figure tells more heavily against the father than is fair and less against the son.
2.88. tamen nego esse controversias huiusmodi figuratas, ut est illa, parricidii, quod fratrem occidisset, damnatum iri videbatur; pater pro testimonio dixit cum se iubente fecisse; absolutum abdicat. neque in totum filio parcit nec, quod priore iudicio adfirmavit, mutare palam potest et, ut non durat ultra poenam abdicationis, ita abdicat tamen; et alioqui figura in patrem plus facit, quam licet, in filium minus.
2.89. But, while no one ever speaks against the view which he wishes to prevail, he may wish something of greater importance than what he actually says. Thus the disinherited son who asks his father to take back another son whom he had exposed, and who had been brought up by himself, on payment for his maintenance, while he may prefer that he himself should be reinstated, may all the same be perfectly sincere in his demand on behalf of his brother. Again, a kind of tacit hint may be employed, which, while demanding the utmost rigour of the law from the judges, suggests a loophole for clemency, not openly, for that would imply a pledge on our part, but by giving a plausible suspicion of our meaning.
2.89. autem nemo contra id, quod vult, dicit, ita potest melius aliquid velle quam dicit, quo modo ille abdicatus, qui a patre, ut filium expositum et ab eo educatum solutis alimentis recipiat, postulat, revocari fortasse mavult, non tamen quod petit non vult.
2.90. This device is employed in a number of controversial themes, among them the following. “A ravisher, unless within thirty days he secure pardon both from his own father and the father of the ravished girl, shall be put to death. A man who has succeeded in securing pardon from the father of the girl, but not from his own, accuses the latter of madness.”
2.90. latens et illa significatio qua, cum ius asperius petitur a iudice fit tamen spes aliqua clementiae, non palam, ne paciscamur, sed per quandam credibilem suspicionem, ut in multis controversiis, sed in hac quoque:, nisi intra tricesimum diem et raptae patrem et suum exoraverit, pereat; qui exorato raptae patre suum non exorat, agit cum eo dementia.
2.91. Here if the father pledges himself to pardon him, the dispute falls to the ground. If, on the other hand, he holds out no hope of pardon, though he will not necessarily be regarded as mad, he will certainly give the impression of cruelty and will prejudice the judge against him. Latro therefore showed admirable skill when he made the son say, “You will kill me then?” and the father reply, “Yes, if I can.” The elder Gallio treats the theme with greater tenderness, as was natural to a man of his disposition. He makes the father say, “Be firm, my heart, be firm. Yesterday you were made of sterner stuff.”
2.91. si promittat hic pater, lis tollitur; si nullam spem faciat, ut non demens, crudelis certe videatur et a se iudicem avertat. igitur optime, ergo? — potero. et pro suo ingenio pater Gallio,, anime, dura; here fortior fuisti.
2.92. Akin to this are those figures of which the Greeks are so fond, by means of which they give gentle expression to unpleasing facts. Themistocles, for example, is believed to have urged the Athenians to commit their city to the protection of heaven, because to urge them to abandon it would have been too brutal an expression. Again the statesman who advised that certain golden images of Victory should be melted down as a contribution to the war funds, modified his words by saying that they should make a proper use of their victories. But all such devices which consist in saying one thing, while intending something else to be understood, have a strong resemblance to allegory.
2.92. sunt his celebrata apud Graecos schemata, per quae res asperas mollius significant. Themistocles suasisse existimatur Atheniensibus, ut urbem apud deos deponerent, quia durum erat dicere, ut relinquerent., qui Victorias aureas in usum belli conflari volebat, ita declinavit, victoriis utendum esse. autem allegoriae simile est aliud dicere aliud intelligi velle.
2.93. It has also been asked how figures may best be met. Some hold that they should always be exposed by the antagonist, just as hidden ulcers are laid open by the surgeon. It is true that this is often the right course, being the only means of refuting the charges which have been brought against us, and this is more especially the case when the question turns on the very point at which the figures are directed. But when the figures are merely employed as vehicles of abuse, it will sometimes even be wisest to show that we have a clear conscience by ignoring them.
2.93. etiam est, quomodo responderi contra figuras oporteret. quidam semper ex diverso aperiendas putaverunt, sicut latentia vitia rescinduntur. sane frequentissime faciendum est; aliter enim dilui obiecta non possunt, utique cum quaestio in eo consistit, quod figurae petunt. cum maledicta sunt tantum, et non intelligere interim bonae conscientiae est.
2.94. Nay, even if too many figures have been used to permit us to take such a course, we may ask our opponents, if they have any confidence in the righteousness of their cause, to give frank and open expression to the charges which they have attempted to suggest by indirect hints, or at any rate to refrain from asking the judges not merely to understand, but even to believe things which they themselves are afraid to state in so many words.
2.94. etiam si fuerint crebriores figurae quam ut dissimulari possint, postulandum est, ut nescio quid illud, quod adversarii obliquis sententiis significare voluerint, si fiducia sit, obiiciant palam, aut certe non exigant ut, quod ipsi non audent dicere, id iudices non modo intelligant, sed etiam credant.
2.95. It may even at times be found useful to pretend to misunderstand them; for which we may compare the well known story of the man who, when his opponent cried, “Swear by the ashes of your father,” replied that he was ready to do so, whereupon the judge accepted the proposal, much to the indignation of the advocate, who protested that this would make the use of figures absolutely impossible; we may therefore lay it down as a general rule that such figures should only be used with the utmost caution.
2.95. aliquando etiam dissimulatio est, ut in eo (nota enim fabula est), qui, cum esset contra eum dictum, per paris tui cineres, paratum se esse respondit, et iudex condicione usus est, clamante multum advocato schemata de rerum natura tolli, ut protinus etiam praeceptum sit, eiusmodi figuris utendum temere non esse.
2.96. There remains the third class of figure designed merely to enhance the elegance of our style, for which reason Cicero expresses the opinion that such figures are independent of the subject in dispute. As an illustration I may quote the figure which he uses in his speech against Clodius: “By these means he, being familiar with all our holy rites, thought that he might easily succeed in appeasing the gods.”
2.96. est genus, in quo sola melius dicendi petitur occasio; ideoque id Cicero non putat esse positum in contentione. est illud, quo idem utitur in Clodium: iste, qui omnia sacrificia nosset, facile ab se deos placari posse arbitrabatur.
2.97. Irony also is frequently employed in this connexion. But by far the most artistic device is to indicate one thing by allusion to another; take the case where a rival candidate speaks against an ex-tyrant who had abdicated on condition of his receiving an amnesty: “I am not permitted to speak against you. Do you speak against me, as you may. But a little while ago I wished to kill you.”
2.97. quoque in hoc genere materiae frequentissima est. eruditissimum longe, si per aliam rem alia indicetur, ut adversus tyrannum, qui sub pacto abolitionis dominationem deposuerat, agit competitor, in te dicere non licet, tu in me die et potes; nuper te volui occidere.
2.98. Another common device is to introduce an oath, like the speaker who, in defending a disinherited man, cried, “So may I die leaving a son to be my heir.” But this is not a figure which is much to be recommended, for as a rule the introduction of an oath, unless it is absolutely necessary, is scarcely becoming to a self-respecting man. Seneca made a neat comment to this effect when he said that oaths were for the witness and not for the advocate. Again, the advocate who drags in an oath merely for the sake of some trivial rhetorical effect, does not deserve much credit, unless he can do this with the masterly effect achieved by Demosthenes, which I mentioned above.
2.98. illud est nec magnopere captandum, quod petitur a iureiurando, ut pro exheredato, ita mihi contingat herede, filio mori. et in totum iurare, nisi ubi necesse est, gravi viro parum convenit, et est a Seneca dictum eleganter, non patronorum hoc esse, sed testium. meretur fidem qui sententiolae gratia iurat, nisi si potest tam bene quam Demosthenes, ut supra dixi.
2.99. But by far the most trivial form of figure is that which turns on a single word, although we find such a figure directed against Clodia by Cicero: “Especially when everybody thought her the friend of all men rather than the enemy of any.”
2.99. autem longe genus ex verbo, etiamsi est apud Ciceronem in Clodiam, quam omnes amicam omnium potius quam cuiusquam inimicam putaverunt.
2.100. I note that comparison is also regarded as a figure, although at times it is a form of proof, and at others the whole case may turn upon it, while its form may be illustrated by the following passage from the pro Murena: “You pass wakeful nights that you may be able to reply to your clients; he that he and his army may arrive betimes at their destination. You are roused by cockcrow, he by the bugle's reveille,” and so on.
2.100. equidem video figuram quoque esse, cum sit interim probationis, interim etiam causae genus, et sit talis eius forma, qualis est pro Murena, tu de nocte, ut tuis consultoribus respondeas, ille, ut eo, quo contendit, mature cum exercitu perveniat; te gallorum illum buccinarum cantus exsuscitat et cetera.
2.101. I am not sure, however, whether it is so much a figure of thought as of speech. For the only difference lies in the fact that universals are not contrasted with universals, but particulars with particulars. Celsus, however, and that careful writer Visellius regard it as a figure of thought, while Rutilius Lupus regards it as belonging to both, and calls it antithesis.
2.101. an orationis potius quam sententiae sit. enim solum mutatur, quod non universa universis, sed singula singulis opponuntur. Celsus tamen et non negligens auctor Visellius in hac eam parte posuerunt, Rutilius quidem Lupus in utroque genere, idque ἀντίθετον vocat.
2.102. To the figures placed by Cicero among the ornaments of thought Rutilius (following the views of Gorgias, a contemporary, whose four books he transferred to his own work, and who is not to be confused with Georgias of Leontini) and Celsus (who follows Rutilius) would add a number of others, such as:
2.102. illa vero, quae Cicero inter lumina posuit sententiarum, multa alia et idem Rutilius Gorgian secutus, non illum Leontinum, sed alium sui temporis, cuius quattuor libros in unum suum transtulit, et Celsus, videlicet Rutilio accedens, posuerunt schemata:
2.103. concentration, which the Greek calls διαλλαγή a term employed when a number of different arguments are used to establish one point: consequence, which Gorgias calls ἐπακολούθησις and which I have already discussed under the head of argument: inference, which Gorgias terms συλλογισμός threats, that is, κατάπληξις exhortation, or παραινετικόν But all of these are perfectly straightforward methods of speaking, unless combined with some one of the figures which I have discussed above.
2.103. consummationem, quam Graecus διαλλαγήν vocat, cum plura argumenta ad unum effectum deducuntur; consequens, ille ἐπακολούθησιν, de quo nos in argumentis diximus; collectionem, qui apud illum est συλλογισμός minas, id est κατάπληξιν exhortationem, συλλογισμός Quorum nihil non rectum est, nisi cum aliquam ex iis, de quibus locuti sumus, figuram accipit.
2.104. Besides these, Celsus considers the following to be figures: exclusion, asseveration, refusal, excitement of the judge, the use of proverbs, the employment of quotations from poetry, jests, invidious remarks or invocation to intensify a charge (which is identical with δείνωσις ) flattery, pardon, disdain, admonition, apology, entreaty and rebuke.
2.104. haec Celsus excludere, asseverare, detrectare, excitare iudicem, proverbiis uti, et versibus et ioco et invidia et invocatione intendere crimen (quod est δείνωσις ), adulari, ignoscere, fastidire, admonere, satisfacere, precari, corripere, figuras putat.
2.105. He even includes partition, proposition, division and affinity between two separate things, by which latter he means that two things apparently different signify the same: for example, not only the man who murders another by administering a deadly draught is to be regarded as a poisoner, but also the man who deprives another of his wits by giving him some drug, a point which depends on definition.
2.105. quoque et propositionem et divisionem et rerum duarum cognationem, quod est, ut idem valeant quae videntur esse diversa, ut non is demum sit veneficus, qui vitam abstulit data potione, sed etiam qui mentem; quod est in parte finitionis.
2.106. To these Rutilius or Gorgias add ἀναγκαῖον that is, the representation of the necessity of a thing, ἀνάμνησις or reminding, ἀνθυποφορά that is, replying to anticipated objections, ἀντίῤῥησις or refutation, παραύξησις or amplification, προέκθεσις which means pointing out what ought to have been done, and then what actually has been done, ἐναντιότης, or arguments from opposites (whence we get enthymemes styled κατ᾽ ἐναντίωσιν ), and even μετάληψις, which Hermagoras considers a basis. Visellius, although he makes the number of figures but small, includes among them the enthymeme, which he calls commentum, and the epicheireme, which he calls ratio. This view is also partially accepted by Celsus, who is in doubt whether consequence is not to be identified with the epicheireme.
2.106. Rutilius sive Gorgias, ἀναγκαῖον, ἀνάμνησιν, ἀνθυποφορὰν, ἀνθυποφοράν, παραύξησιν, προέκθεσιν, quod est dicere quid fieri oportuerit, deinde quid factum sit; ἐναντιότητα unde sint enthymemata κατ᾽ ἐναντίωσιν, μετάληψιν etiam, quo statu Hermagoras utitur. Visellius, quanquam paucissimas faciat figuras, ἐνθύμημα tamen, quod commentum vocat, et, rationem appellans, ἐπιχείρημα inter eas habet. quidem recipit quodammodo et Celsus; nam consequens an epichirema sit dubitat. Visellius adiicit et sententiam.
2.107. Visellius also adds general reflexions to the list. I find others who would add to these διασκευή or enhancement, ἀπαγόρευσις or prohibition, and παραδιήγησις or incidental narrative. But though these are not figures, there may be others which have slipped my notice, or are yet to be invented: still, they will be of the same nature as those of which I have spoken above.
2.107. , qui aggregent his διασκευάς, ἀπαγορεύσις, παραδιηγήσεις. ut haec non sunt schemata, sic alia vel sint forsitan ac nos fugerint vel etiam nova fieri adhuc possint, eiusdem tamen naturae cuius sunt ea de quibus dictum est.
3.1. III. Figures of speech have always been liable to change and are continually in process of change in accordance with the variations of usage. Consequently when we compare the language of our ancestors with our own, we find that practically everything we say nowadays is figurative. For example, we say invidere hac re for to “grudge a thing,” instead of hanc rem, which was the idiom of all the ancients, more especially Cicero, and incumbere illi (to lean upon him) for incumbere in ilium, plenum vino (full of wine) for plenum vini, and huic adulari (to flatter him) for hunc adulari. I might quote a thousand other examples, and only wish I could say that the changes were not often changes for the worse.
3.1. vero figurae et mutatae sunt semper et, utcunque valuit consuetudo, mutantur., si antiquum sermonem nostro comparemus, paene iam quidquid loquimur figura est, ut hac re invidere, non ut veteres et Cicero praecipue, hanc rem, et incumbere illi, non in illum, et plenum vino non vini, et huic non hunc adulari iam dicitur et mille alia; utinamque non peiora vincant.
3.2. But to proceed, figures of speech fall into two main classes. One is defined as the form of language, while the other is mainly to be sought in the arrangement of words. Both are equally applicable in oratory, but we may style the former rather more grammatical and the latter more rhetorical. The former originates from the same sources as errors of language. For every figure of this kind would be an error, if it were accidental and not deliberate.
3.2. schemata λέξεως duorum sunt generum: alterum loquendi rationem vocant, alterum maxime collocatione exquisitum est. tametsi utrumque convenit orationi, tamen possis illud grammaticum hoc rhetoricum magis dicere. fit iisdem generibus quibus vitia. enim orationis schema vitium, si non peteretur, sed accideret.
3.3. But as a rule such figures are defended by authority, age and usage, and not infrequently by some reason as well. Consequently, although they involve a divergence from direct and simple language, they are to be regarded as excellences, provided always that they have some praiseworthy precedent to follow. They have one special merit, that they relieve the tedium of everyday stereotyped speech and save us from commonplace language.
3.3. auctoritate, vetustate, consuetudine plerumque defenditur, saepe etiam ratione quadam., cum sit a simplici rectoque loquendi genere deflexa, virtus est, si habet probabile aliquid, quod sequatur. tamen in re maxime utilis, ut cotidiani ac semper eodem modo formati sermonis fastidium levet et nos a vulgari dicendi genere defendat.
3.4. If a speaker use them sparingly and only as occasion demands, they will serve as a seasoning to his style and increase its attractions. If, on the other hand, he strains after them overmuch, he will lose that very charm of variety which they confer. Some figures, however, are so generally accepted that they have almost ceased to be regarded as figures: consequently however frequently they may be used, they will make less impression on the ear, just because it has become habituated to them.
3.4. quis parce et, cum res poscet, utetur; velut asperso quodam condimento iucundior erit; at qui nimium adfectaverit, ipsam illam gratiam varietatis amittet. sunt quaedam figurae ita receptae, ut paene iam hoc ipsum nomen effugerint; quae etiamsi fuerint crebriores, consuetas aures minus ferient.
3.5. For abnormal figures lying outside the range of common speech, while they are for that very reason more striking, and stimulate the ear by their novelty, prove cloying if used too lavishly, and make it quite clear that they did not present themselves naturally to the speaker, but were hunted out by him, dragged from obscure corners and artificially piled together. Figures, then, may be found in connexion with the gender of nouns; for we find oculis capti talpale (blind moles) and timidi damae (timid deer) in Virgil; but there is good reason for this, since in these cases both sexes are covered by a word of one gender, and there is no doubt that there are male moles and deer as well as female.
3.5. secretae et extra vulgarem usum positae ideoque magis notabiles, ut novitate aurem excitant, ita copia satiant, et se non obvias fuisse dicenti sed conquisitas et ex omnibus latebris extractas congestasque declarant.
3.6. Figures may also affect verbs: for example, we find such phrases as fabricatus est glatdium or inimicum poenitus es. This is the less surprising, since the nature of verbs is such that we often express the active by the passive form, as in the case of arbitror (think) and suspicor (suspect), and the passive by the active, as in the case of vapulo (am beaten). Consequently the interchange of the two forms is of common occurrence, and in many cases either form can be used: for example, we may say luxuriatur or luxuriat (luxuriate), fluctuatur or fluctuat (fluctuate), adsentior or adsentio (agree). Figures also occur in connexion with number, as when the plural follows the singular, as in the phrase gladio pugnacissima gens Romani (the Romans are a nation that fight fiercely with the sword); for gens is a singular noun indicating multitude.
3.6. ergo et circa genus figurae in nominibus; nam et oculis capti talpae et timidi dammae dicuntur a Vergilio; sed subest ratio, quia sexus uterque altero significatur, tamque mares esse talpas dammasque quam feminas certum est; et in verbis, ut fabricatus est gladium et inimicum poenitus es. mirum minus est, quia in natura verborum est et quae facimus patiendi modo saepe dicere, ut arbitror, suspicor, et contra faciendi quae patimur, ut vapulo; ideoque frequens permutatio est et pleraque utroque modo efferuntur: luxuriatur, luxuriat; fluctuatur, fluctuat; adsentior, adsentio.
3.8. Or the singular may follow the plural, as in the following instance,qui non risere parentesnec deus hunc mensa dea nec dignata cubili est,where “he whom no goddess deems,” etc., is included among “those who have never smiled,” etc.
3.8. figura et in numero, vel cum singulari pluralis subiungitur, pugnacissima gens Romani ( gens enim ex multis), vel ex diverso,non risere parentes,nec deus hunc mensa dea nec dignata cubili est;Ex illis enim, qui non risere, hic quem non dignata.
3.9. In a satire again we read,nostrum istud vivere triste aspxei,where the infinitive is used as a noun: for the poet by nostrum vivere means nostram vitam. We also at times use the verb for the participle, as in the phrase,magnum dat ferre talentum,where ferre is used for ferendum, or the participle may be used for the verb, as in the phrase volo datum (I wish to give).
3.9. * satura estnostrum istud vivere triste,cum infinito verbo sit usus pro appellatione; nostram enim vitam vult intelligi. et verbo pro participio,dat ferre talentum,tanquam ferendum, et participio pro verbo, datum.
3.10. At times, again, there may be some doubt as to the precise error which a figure resembles. Take, for example, the phrasevirtus est vitium fugere,where the writer has either changed the parts of speech (making his phrase a variant for virtus est fuga vitiorum ), or the cases (in which case it will be a variant for virtutis est vitium fugere); but whichever be the case, the figure is far more vigorous than either. At times figures are joined, as in Sthenelus sciens pugnae, which is substituted for Sthenelus scilus pugnandi. Tenses too are interchangeable.
3.10. etiam dubitari potest, cui vitio simile sit schema: ut in hocest vitium fugere:aut enim partes orationis mutat ex illo est fuga vitiorum, aut casus ex illo est vilium fugere; multo tamen hoc utroque excitatius. interim schemata: Sthenelus sciens pugnae; est enim scitus Sthenelus pugnandi.
3.11. For example, Timarchides negat esse ei periculum a seuri the present negat is substituted for the past. Or one mood may be used for another, as in the phrase, hoc Ithacus velit. In fact, to cut a long matter short, there is a figure corresponding to every form of solecism.
3.11. et tempora: Timarchides negat esse ei periculum a securi, (praesens enim pro praeterito positum est) et status:Ithacus velit;et, ne morer, per omnia genera per quae fit soloecismus.
3.12. There is also a figure styled ἑτεροίωσις (i.e. alteration of the normal idiom), which bears a strong resemblance to ἐξαλλαγή. For example, we find in Sallust phrases such as neque ea res failsum me habuit and duci probare. Such figures as a rule aim not merely at novelty, but at conciseness as well. Hence we get further developments, such as non paeniturum for “not intending to repent,” and visuros for “sent to see,” both found in the same author.
3.12. quoque est, quam ἑτεροίωσιν vocant, cui non dissimilis ἐξαλλαγή dicitur, ut apud Sallustium ea res falsum me habuit et probare. quibus fere praeter novitatem brevitas etiam peti solet. eo usque processum est, ut non paeniturum pro non acturo paenitentiam et visuros ad videndum missos idem auctor dixerit.
3.13. These may have been figures when Sallust made them; but it is a question whether they can now be so considered, since they have met with such general acceptance. For we are in the habit of accepting common parlance as sufficient authority where current phrases are concerned: for example, rebus agentibus in the sense of while this was going on, which Pollio rebukes Labienus for using, has become an accredited idiom, as has contumeliam fecit, which, as is well known, is stigmatised by Cicero: for in his day they said ad fici contumelia.
3.13. ille quidem fecerit schemata, an idem vocari possint, videndum, quia recepta sint. receptis etiam vulgo auctore contenti sumus: ut nunc evaluit rebus agentibus, quod Pollio in Labieno damnat, et contumeliam fecit, quod a Cicerone reprehendi notum est; ad fici enim contumelia dicebant.
3.14. Figures may also be commended by their antiquity, for which Virgil had such a special passion. Compare hisvel cum se pavidum contra mea iurgia iactatorprogeniem sed enim Troiano a sanguine duciaudierat.Numerous instances of the same kind might be cited from the old tragic and comic poets.
3.14. commendatio vetustatis, cuius amator unice Vergilius fuit:cum se pavidum contra mea iurgia iactat.—sed enim Troiano a sanguine duci.Quorum similia apud veteres tragicos comicosque sunt plurima.
3.15. One word of this type has remained in common use, namely enimvero. I might further quote from the same authornam quis te iuvenum confidentissime,words which form the beginning of a speech: ortam magis illa tremens et tristibus etffra flammis,quam magis effuso crudescunt sanguine pugnae.The more the strife with bloodshed rages wild,The more it quivers and with baleful fireGlows fiercer.There the sentence inverts the natural order which may be illustrated by quam magis aerumna urgent, tam magis ad malefaciendumn viget.
3.15. et in consuetudine remansit enimvero. amplius apud eundem:quis te iuuenum confidentissime,quo sermonis initium fit.magis illa tremens et tristibus effera flammis,magis effuso crudescunt sanguine pugnae.Quod est versum ex illo: magis aerumna urget, tam magis ad malefaciendum viget.
3.16. Old writers are full of such usages. At the beginning of the Eunuchus of Terence we have quid igitur faciam, while another comic poet says ain tandem leno? Catullus in his Epithalamium writes:dum innupta manet, dum cara suis est,where the first dum means while, and the second means so long.
3.16. talibus antiqui sunt; initio Eunuchi Terentius igitur faciam? inquit.: ain tandem leno? Catullus in Epithalamio,innupta manet, dum cara suis est,cum prius dum significet quoad, sequens usque eo.
3.17. Sallust, on the other hand, borrows a number of idioms from the Greek, such as vulgus amat fieri: the same is true of Horace, who strongly approves of the practice. Compare hisnec ciceris net longae invidit avenae.Virgil does the same in phrases such asTyrrhenum navigat aequoror saucius pectus ( “wounded at heart” ), an idiom which has now become familiar in the public gazette.
3.17. Graeco vero translata vel Sallustii plurima, quale est, amat fieri, vel Horatii, nam id maxime probat, ciceris, nec longae invidit avenae, vel Vergilii,Tyrrhenum navigat aequor.sed iam vulgatum actis quoque, pectus.
3.18. Under the same class of figure falls that of addition, which, although the words added may be strictly superfluous, may still be far from inelegant. Take, for example,nam neque Parnasi vobis iuga, nam neque Pindi,where the second nam might be omitted. And we find in Horace,Fabriciumcque,hunc et intonsis Curium capillis.Similarly, words are omitted, a device which may be either a blemish or a figure, according to the context. The following is an example:accede ad ignen, iam calesces plus satis;for the full phrase would be plus quam satis. There is, however, another form of omission which requires treatment at greater length.
3.18. eadem parte figurarum priore dicto et adiectio est, quae videri potest supervacua, sed non sine gratia est:neque Parnasi vobis iuga, nam neque Pindi;potest enim deesse alterum nam. apud Horatium illud,,et intonsis Curium capillis.sed detractiones, quae in complexu sermonis aut vitium habent aut figuram;ad ignem, iam calesces plus satis.enim quam satis est.
3.19. We frequently use the comparative for the positive, as, for example, when a man speaks of himself as being infirmior (rather indisposed). Sometimes we join two comparatives, as in the following passage: si te, Catilina, comprehend, si interfici iussero, credo erit verendum mihi, ne non potius hoc ones boni serius a me qam quisquam crudelius factum esse dicat.
3.19. de altera [quae] detractione pluribus dicendum est. vulgo et comparativis pro absolutis, ut cum se quis infirmiorem esse dicet; duo inter se comparativa committimus: te, Catilina, comprehendi, si interfici iussero, credo, erit verendum mihi, ne non potius hoc omnes boni serius a me quam quisquam crudelius factum esse dicat.
3.20. There are also figures like the following, which, though far from being solecisms, alter the number and are also usually included among tropes. We may speak of a single thing in the plural, as in the following instance:But we have travelled o'er a boundless space;Or we may speak of the plural in the singular, as in the following case:Like the fierce Roman in his country's arms.
3.20. et illa non similia soloecismo quidem, sed tamen numerum mutantia, quae et tropis adsignari solent, ut de uno pluraliter dicamus:nos immensum spatiis confecimus aequor;et de pluribus singulariter,secus ac patriis acer Romanus in armis.Specie diversa sed genere eadem et haec sunt, tibi ad solem vergant vineta cadentem.—mihi tum molles sub divo carpere somnos,dorso nemoris libeat iacuisse per herbas,non enim nescio cui alii prius nec postea sibi uni, sed omnibus praecipit.
3.21. There are others which belong to a diflfrent species, but the same genus, such asNor let thy vineyards slope toward the west,orIn that hourBe it not mine beneath the open skyTo court soft sleep nor on the forest ridgeAmid the grass to lie.For in the first of these passages he is not advising some other person, nor exhorting himself in the second, his advice in both passages being meant for all. Sometimes, again, we speak of ourselves as though we were referring to others, as in phrases like, “Servius asserts, Tullius denies it.” At other times we speak in the first person instead of in another, or substitute one person for another. Both devices are employed together in the pro Caecina, where Cicero, addressing Piso, the counsel for the prosecution, says, “You asserted that you reinstated me: I deny that you did so in accordance with the praetor's edict.” The actual truth is that it was Aebutius who asserted that he had reinstated the defendant, and Caecina who denied that he had been restored in accordance with the praetor's edict. We may note also a further figure of speech in the contracted dixti, which has dropped one of its syllables.
3.21. de nobis loquimur tanquam de aliis: Seruius, negat Tullius. nostra persona utimur pro aliena, et alios pro aliis fingimus. rei exemplum pro Caecina. Pisonem, adversae partis advocatum, adloquens Cicero dicit, te dixti; nego me ex edicto praetoris restitutum esse; verum enim est illud; restituisse se Aebutius dixit, Caecina nego me ex edicto praetoris restitutum esse; et ipsum dixti, excussa syllaba, figura in verbo.
3.23. The following also may be regarded as belonging to the same genus. The first is called interpositio or interclusio by us, and parenthesis or paremptosis by the Greeks, and consists in the interruption of the continuous flow of our language by the insertion of some remark. The following is an example: ego cum te (mecum enim saepissime loquilur ) patriae reddidissem.
3.23. quoque ex eodem genere possunt videri: unum quod interpositionem vel interclusionem dicimus, Graeci παρένθεσιν, παρέμπτωσιν vocant, dum continuationi sermonis medius aliqui sensus intervenit: cum te ( mecum enim saepissime loquitur ) patriae reddidissem; cui adiiciunt hyperbaton, quod inter tropos esse noluerunt;
3.24. To this they add hyperbaton, which they refuse to include among tropes. A second figure of this kind is one closely resembling the figure of thought known as apostrophe, but differing in this respect, that it changes the form of the language and not the sense. The following will illustrate my meaning:The Decii too,The Marii and Camilli, names of might,The Scipios, stubborn warriors, aye, and thee,Great Caesar.
3.24. alterum, quod est ei figurae sententiarum, quae ἀποστροφή dicitur, simile, sed non sensum mutat, verum formam eloquendi:Decios, Marios magnosque Camillos,Scipiadas duros bello et te, maxime Caesar.
3.25. There is a still more striking example in the passage describing the death of Polydorus:All faith he brake and Polydorus slewSeizing his gold by force. Curst greed of gold,To what wilt thou not drive the hearts of men?'Those terminologists who delight in subtle distinctions call the last figure μετάβασις (transition), and hold that it may be employed in yet another way, as in Dido'sWhat do I say? Where am I?
3.25. acutius adhuc in Polydoro,omne abrumpit, Polydorum obtruncat et auropotitur. non mortalia pectora cogissacra fames?hoc, qui tam parva momenta nominibus discreverunt, μετάβασιν vocant, quam et aliter fieri putant:loquor? aut ubi sum?
3.26. Virgil has combined apostrollphe and parenthesis in the well-known passage:Next Mettus the swift cars asunder tore,(Better, false Alban, hadst thou kept thy troth!)And Tullus dragged the traitors' mangled limbs...These figures and the like, which consist in change, addition, omission, and the order of words, serve to attract the attention of the audience and do not allow it to flag, rousing it from time to time by some specially striking figure, while they derive something of their charm from their very resemblance to blemishes, just as a trace of bitterness in food will sometimes tickle the palate.
3.26. autem παρένθεσιν et ἀποστροφήν Vergilius illo loco,procul inde citae Mettum in diversa quadrigae, (at tu dictis Albane maneres!)viri mendacis viscera Tullus.Haec schemata aut his similia, quae erunt per mutationem, adiectionem, detractionem, ordinem, et convertunt in se auditorem nec languere patiuntur subinde aliqua notabili figura excitatum, et habent quandam ex illa vitii similitudine gratiam, ut in cibis interim acor ipse iucundus est.
3.27. But this result will only be obtained if figures are not excessive in number nor all of the same type or combined or closely packed, since economy in their use, no less than variety, will prevent the hearer being surfeited.
3.27. continget, si neque supra modum multae fuerint nec eiusdem generis aut iunctae aut frequentes, quia satietatem ut varietas earum, ita raritas effugit.
3.28. There is a more striking class of figure, which does not merely depend on the form of the language for its effect, but lends both charm and force to the thought as well. The first figure of this class which calls for notice is that which is produced by addition. Of this there are various kinds. Words, for instance, may be doubled with a view to amplification, as in “I have slain, I have slain, not Spurius Maelius” (where the first I have slain states what has been done, while the second emphasises it), or to excite pity, as inAh! Corydon, Corydon.
3.28. est acrius genus, quod non tantum in ratione positum est loquendi, sed ipsis sensibus cum gratiam tum etiam vires accommodat. E quibus primum sit, quod fit adiectione. sunt genera; nam et verba geminantur, vel amplificandi gratia, ut, occidi, non Sp. Maelium; alterum est enim quod indicat, alterum quod adfirmat; vel miserandi, utA Corydon, Corydon.
3.29. The same figure may also sometimes be employed ironically, with a view to disparagement. Similar to such doubling of words is repetition following a parenthesis, but the effect is stronger. “I have seen the property alas! (for though all my tears are shed, my grief still clings to me deep-rooted in my heart), the property, I say, of Gnaeus Pompeius put up for sale by the cruel voice of the public crier.” “You still live, and live not to abate your audacity, but to increase it.”
3.29. eadem figura nonnunquam per ironiam ad elevandum convertitur. geminationis post aliquam interiectionem repetitio est, sed paulo etiam vehementior:, miserum me! ( consumptis enim lacrimis tamen infixus haeret animo dolor ) bona, inquam, Cn. Pompeii acerbissimae voci subiecta praeconis. — et vivis non ad deponendam, sed ad confirmandam audaciam.
3.30. Again, a number of clauses may begin with the same word for the sake of force and emphasis. “Were you unmoved by the guard set each night upon the Palatine, unmoved by the patrolling of the city, unmoved by the terror of the people, unmoved by the unanimity of all good citizens, unmoved by the choice of so strongly fortified a spot for the assembly of the senate, unmoved by the looks and faces of those here present to-day?” Or they may end with the same words. “Who demanded them? Appius. Who produced them? Appius.”
3.30. ab iisdem verbis plura acriter et instanter incipiunt: te nocturnum praesidium Palatii, nihil urbis vigiliae, nihil timor populi, nihil consensus bonorum omnium, nihil hic munitissimus habendi senatus locus, nihil horum ora uultusque mouerunt? et in iisdem desinunt: eos postulavit? Appius. Quis produxit? Appius.
3.31. This last instance, however, comes under the head of another figure as well, where both opening and concluding words are identical, since the sentences open with “who” and end with “Appius.” Here is another example. “Who are they who have so often broken treaties? The Carthaginians. Who are they who have waged war with such atrocious cruelty? The Carthaginians. Who are they who have laid Italy waste? The Carthaginians. Who are they who pray for pardon? The Carthaginians.”
3.31. hoc exemplum ad aliud quoque schema pertinet, cuius et initia inter se et fines iidem sunt, quis et quis, Appius et Appius. est: sunt, qui foedera saepe ruperunt? Carthaginienses. qui sunt, qui crudelissime bellum gesserunt? Carthaginienses. qui sunt, qui Italiam deformarunt? Carthaginienses. qui sunt, qui sibi ignosci postulant? Carthaginienses.
3.32. Again, in antitheses and comparisons the first words of alternate phrases are frequently repeated to produce correspondence, which was my reason for saying a little while back that this device came under the present topic rather than that which I was then discussing. “You pass wakeful nights that you may be able to reply to your clients; he that he and his army may arrive betimes at their destination. You are roused by cockcrow, he by the bugle's reveillé. You draw up your legal pleas, he sets the battle in array. You are on the watch that your clients be not taken at a disadvantage, he that cities or camps be not so taken.”
3.32. in contrapositis vel comparativis solet respondere primorum verborum alterna repetitio, quod modo huius esse loci potius dixi: tu de node, ut tuis consultatoribus respondeas; ille, ut eo quo intendit mature cum exercitu perveniat. gallorum, illum buccinarum cantus exsuscitat. actionem instituis; ille aciem instruit. caves, ne consultores tui, ille, ne urbes aut castra capiantur.
3.33. But the orator is not content with producing this effect, but proceeds to reverse the figure. “He knows and understands how to keep off the forces of the enemy, you how to keep off the rainwater; he is skilled to extend boundaries, you to delimit them.”
3.33. hac gratia non fuit contentus orator, vertit in contrarium eandem figuram: tenet et scit, ut hostium copiae, tu, ut aquae pluviae arceantur. exercitatus in propagandis finibus, tu in regendis.
3.34. A similar correspondence may be produced between the middle and the opening of a sentence, as in the line:te nemus Angitiae, vitrea te Fucinus unda.Or the middle may correspond to the end, as in the following sentence: “This ship, laden with the spoil of Sicily, while it was itself a portion of the spoil.” Nor will it be questioned that a like effect may be produced by the repetition of the middle of both clauses. Again, the end may correspond with the beginning. “Many grievous afflictions were devised for parents and for kinsfolk many.”
3.34. media quoque respondere vel primis, utnemus Angitiae, vitrea te Fucinus unda;vel ultimis ut navis onusta praeda Siciliensi, cum et ipsa esset ex praeda. quisquam dubitabit. idem fieri posse iteratis utrinque mediis. primis et ultima: et graves dolores inventi parentibus et propinquis multi.
3.35. There is also another form of repetition which simultaneously reiterates things that have already been said, and draws distinctions between them.Iphitus too with me and Pelias came,Iphitus bowed with age and PeliasSlow-limping with the wound Ulysses gave.This is styled ἐπάνοδος by the Greeks and regression by Roman writers.
3.35. et illud repetendi genus, quod simul proposita iterat et dividit:Iphitus et Pelias mecum, quorum Iphitus aevoiam gravior, Pelias et vulnere tardus Ulixi.Ἐπάνοδος dicitur Graece, nostri regressionem vocant. solum in eodem sensu, sed etiam in diverso eadem verba contra sumuntur: dignitas erat paene par, non par fortasse eorum qui sequebantur.
3.36. Nor are words only repeated to reaffirm the same meaning, but the repetition may serve to mark a contrast, as in the following sentence. “The reputation of the leaders was approximately equal, but that of their followers perhaps not so equal.” At times the cases and genders of the words repeated may be varied, as in “Great is the toil of speaking, and great the task, etc.”; a similar instance is found in Rutilius, but in a long period. I therefore merely cite the beginnings of the clauses. Pater hic tuus? patrem nunc appellas? patris tui filius es?
3.36. variatur casibus haec et generibus retractatio: est dicendi labor, magna res et cetera; et apud Rutilium longa περιόδῳ sed haec initia sententiarum sunt: hic tuus? patrem nunc appellas? patris tui filius es?
3.37. This figure may also be effected solely by change of cases, a proceeding which the Greeks call πολύπτωτον It may also be produced in other ways, as in the pro Cluentio: Quod autem tempus veneni dandi? illo die? illa frequentia? per quem porro datum? unde sumptum? quae porro interceptio poculi? cur non de integro autem datum?
3.37. casibus modo hoc schema, quod πολύπτωτον vocant. aliis etiam modis, ut pro Cluentio: autem tempus veneni dandi? illo die? illa frequentia? quem porro datum? unde sumptum? quae porro interceptio poculi?
3.38. The combination of different details is called μεταβολὴν by Caecilius, and may be exemplified by the following passage directed against Oppianicus in the pro Cluentio: “The local senate were unanimously of opinion that he had falsified the public registers at Larinum; no one would have any business dealings or make any contract with him, no one out of all his numerous relations and kinsfolk ever appointed him as guardian to his children,” with much more to the same effect.
3.38. cur non de integro autem datum? rerum, coniunctam diversitatem Caecilius μεταβολήν vocat, qualis est pro Cluentio locus in Oppianicum: tabulas publicas Larini censorias corrupisse decuriones universi iudicaverunt, cum illo nemo orationem, nemo rem ullam contrahebat, nemo illum ex tam multis cognatis et adfinibus tutorem unquam liberis suis scripsit, et deinceps adhuc multa.
3.39. In this case the details are massed together, but they may equally be distributed or dissipated, as I think Cicero says. For example:Here corn, there grapes, elsewhere the growth of treesMore freely rises,with the remainder of the passage.
3.39. haec in unum congeruntur, ita contra ilia dispersa sunt, quae a Cicerone dissipata dici puto:segetes, illic ueniunt felicius uuae,fetus alibi,et deinceps.
3.40. A wonderful mixture of figures may be found in Cicero in the following passage, where the first word is repeated last after a long interval, while the middle corresponds with the beginning, and the concluding words with the middle. “Yours is the work which we find here, conscript fathers, not mine, a fine piece of work too, but, as I have said, not mine, but yours.” This frequent repetition, which, as I have said, is produced by a mixture of figures, is called πλοκὴ by the Greeks: a letter of Cicero to Brutus will provide a further example.
3.40. vero apud Ciceronem mira figurarum mixtura deprehenditur, in qua et primum verbum longo post intervallo redditum est ultimum et media primis et mediis ultima congruunt: iam hic factum reprehenditur, patres conscripti, non meum; ac pulcherrimum quidem factum, verum, ut dixi, non meum, sed vestrum.
3.41. “When I had made my peace with Appius Claudius and made it through the agency of Gnaeus Pompeius, when then I had made my peace,” etc.
3.41. frequentiorem repetitionem πλοκήν vocant, quae fit ex permixtis figuris, ut supra dixi, utque se habet epistola ad Brutum, cum in gratiam redierim cum Appio Claudio, et redierim per Cn.
3.42. The like effect may be produced in the same sentence by repeating the same words in different forms, as in Persius:Is then to know in theeNothing unless another know thou knowest?and in Cicero, where he says, “For it was impossible for the judges as well to be condemned by their own judgement.”
3.42. Pompeium, ego ergo cum redierim. in iisdem sententiis crebrioribus mutata declinationibus iteratione verborum: ut apud Persium,adeonetuum nihil est, nisi te scire hoc sciat alter?Sed apud Ciceronem, enim poterant iudicio et hi damnari, qui iudicabant.
3.43. Whole sentences again end with the phrase with which they began. Take an example. “He came from Asia. What a strange thing. A tribune of the people came from Asia.” Nay, the first word of this same period is actually repeated at its close, thus making its third appearance: for to the words just quoted the orator adds, “Still for all that he came.” Sometimes a whole clause is repeated, although the order of the words is altered, as, for example, Quid Cleomenes facere potuit non enin possum quemquam insimulare falso, quid, inquam, magno opere potuit Cleomenes facere?
3.43. sensus quoque toti, quemadmodum coeperunt, desinunt: ex Asia. ipsum quam novum! plebis venit ex Asia. * eadem tamen periodo et verbum primum ultimum refertur, tertium iam sermone, adiectum est enim verumtamen venit. sententia quidem repetitur, sed non eodem verborum ordine: Cleomenes facere potuit? enim possum quemquam insimulare falso., inquam, magno opere potuit Cleomenes facere?
3.44. The first word of one clause is also frequently the same as the last of the preceding, a figure common in poetry.And ye,Pierian Muses, shall enhance their worthFor Gallus; Gallus, he for whom each hourMy love burns stronger.But it is not uncommon even in the orators. For example: “Yet this man lives. Lives? Why he even came into the senate house.”
3.44. etiam sententiae verbum ultimum ac sequentis primum frequenter est idem, quo quidem schemate utuntur poetae saepius:Pierides, vos haec facietis maxima Gallo,Gallo, cuius amor tantum mihi crescit in horas.Sed ne oratores quidem raro: tamen vivit; vivit? immo vero etiam in senatum venit.
3.45. Sometimes, as I remarked in connexion with the doubling of words, the beginnings and the conclusions of sentences are made to correspond by the use of other words with the same meaning. Here is an example of correspondence between the beginnings: “I would have faced every kind of danger; I would have exposed myself to treacherous attacks; I would have delivered myself over to public hatred.” An example of the correspondence of conclusions is provided by another passage in the same speech which follows close on that just cited: “For you have decided; you have passed sentence; you have given judgment.” Some call this synonzmy, others disjunction: both terms, despite their difference, are correct. For the words are differentiated, but their meaning is identical. Sometimes, again, words of the same meaning are grouped together. For instance, “Since this is so, Catiline, proceed on the path which you have entered; depart from the city, it is high time. The gates are open, get you forth.”
3.45. , sicut in geminatione verborum diximus, initia quoque et clausulae sententiarum alis, sed non alio tendentibus verbis inter se consonant. hoc modo: periculis omnibus, obtulerim insidiis, obiecerim invidiae. clausulae ibidem statim, enim statuistis, vos sententiam dixistis, vos iudicavistis. alii συνωνυμίαν alii disiunctionem vocant, utrumque, etiamsi est diversum, recte; nam est nominum idem significantium separatio. quoque verba idem significantia. cum ita sint, Catilina, perge quo coepisti; egredere aliquando ex urbe, patent portae, proficiscere.