Institutio Oratoria

that is the transference of the meaning of one word to another. It has, however, greater elegance when it is employed to distinguish the exact meanings of things, as in the following example:

This curse to the state could be repressed for a time, but not suppressed for ever;

A more trivial effect is produced by the following: Non Pisonum, sed pistorum, [*](Not of the Pisos, but of the bakers.) and Ex oratore arator, [*](Phil III. ix. 22: Orator turned ploughman. ) while phrases such as Ne patres conscripti videantur circumscripti, [*]( Auct. ad Herenn, iv. 22. That the conscript fathers be not cheated. ) or raro evenit, sed vehenenter venit, [*](Meaning uncertain.) are the worst of all. It does, however, sometimes happen that a bold and vigorous conception may derive a certain charm from the contrast between two words not dissimilar in sound.

I do

The old orators were at great pains to achieve elegance in the use of words similar or opposite in sound. Gorgias carried the practice to an extravagant pitch, while Isocrates, at any rate in his early days, was much addicted to it. Even Cicero delighted in it, but showed some restraint in the employment of a device which is not unattractive save when carried to excess, and, further, by the weight of his thought lent dignity to what would otherwise have been mere trivialities. For in itself this artifice is a flat and foolish affectation, but when it goes hand in hand with vigour of thought, it gives the impression of natural charm, which the speaker has not had to go far to find.

There are some four different forms of play upon verbal resemblances. The first occurs when we select some word which is not very unlike another, as in the line of Virgil

1. vuppesque tuae pubesque tuorum,

Aen. i. 399. [*](Your ships and the flower of your young warriors.)

A good effect may also be produced by an artifice such as the following, so long as the thought which it expresses be vigorous: quantum possis, in eo semper experire ut prosis. [*](Always try in such cases to make your efforts as useful as possible.) The name commonly applied to this is πάροσον though the Stoic Theon thinks that in cases of πάρισον the correspondence between the clauses must be exact.

The second form occurs when clauses conclude alike, the same syllables being placed at the end of each; this correspondence in the ending of two or more sentences is called homoeoteleuton. Here is an example: Non modo ad salutem eius exstinguendam sed etiam gloriam per tales viros infringendam. [*](Pro Mil. ii. 5. Not merely to destroy his personal security, but even to blacken his name by means of such ruffians. ) This figure is usually, though not invariably, found in the groups of three clauses, styled τρίκωλα, of which the following may be cited as an illustration: vicit pudorem libido, timorem audacia, rationed amentia. [*](See § 62.) But the device may be applied to four clauses or more. The effect may even be produced by single words; for example, Hecuba hoc dolet, pudet, piget, [*]( From an unknown tragedian. This fills Hecuba with grief, shame and loathing. ) or abiit, excessit, erupit, evasit. [*](See § 46.)

In the third form the correspondence is produced by the use of similar cases; it is known as ὁμοιόπτωτον But this name, though it implies a certain similarity, does not necessarily involve identity in termination, since it means no more than similarity of case, irrespective of the fact that words may be differently declined, and does not always occur at the end of a sentence; the correspondence may occur at the beginning, middle or

Nor need the words which correspond consist of the same number of syllables. For example, we find the following sentence in Domitius Afer: Amisso nuper infelicis aulae, [*]( The sense of infelicis aulae is uncertain. See Crit. note. This unhappy court having lost, if not all that might protect it in the hour of peril, at any rate all that might console it in moments of adversity. ) si non praesidio inter pericula, tamen solacio inter adversa. The best form of this figure is that in which the beginnings and ends of the clauses correspond (as in this case praesidio corresponds with solacio and pericula with adversa ), in such a way that there is a close resemblance between the words, while cadence and termination are virtually identical.

It is also desirable that the clauses should be of equal length, although as a matter of fact this forms the fourth figure of this class, and is known as ἰσόκωλον The following will serve as an example, being both ἰσόκωλον and ὁμοιόπτωτον: Si, quantum in agro locisque desertis audacia potest, tantum in foro atque iudiciis impudentia valeret; continuing, it combines ἰσόκωλον, ὁμοιόπτωτον, and ὁμοιοτέλευτον. :—non minus nunc in causa cederet Aulus Caecina Sexti Aebutii imnpudentiae, quam turn in vi facienda cessit audaciae. [*](Cic. pro Caec. i. 1. If shamelessness carried as much weight in the forum and the law courts as daring carries in the country and in lonely places, Aulus Caecina would now yield no less to the shamelessness of Sextus Aebutius in the present case than he yielded to his audacity in the use of violence. ) This passage derives an additional elegance from the figure which I mentioned above [*]( §§ 36, 66. It must be remembered that casus can be applied to verbs as well as nouns. ) as consisting in the repetition of words with an alteration of case, tense, mood, etc., to be found in this instance in the words non minus cederet quam cessit. The following, on the other

Antithesis, which Roman writers call either contrapositum or contentio, may be effected in more than one way. Single words may be contrasted with single, as in the passage recently quoted, Vicit pudorem libido, timorem audacia, [*](See § 62.) or the contrast may be between pairs of words, as in non nostri ingenii, vestri auxilii est, [*](pro Cluent. i. 4. This is beyond my power; it is your support that is required. ) or sentence may be contrasted with sentence, as in dominetur in contionibus, iaceat in iudiciis. [*](pro Cluent. ii. 5. See IX. ii. 51. )

Next to this another form may appropriately be placed, namely that which we have styled distinction and of which the following is an example: Odit populus Romanus privaiam luxuriam, publicam magoificentiam diligit. [*](pro Muren. xxxvi. 76. The Roman people hates private luxury, but loves public magnificence. Cp. § 65. ) The same is true of the figure by which words of similar termination, but of different meaning are placed at the end of corresponding clauses, as in ut quod in tempore mali fuit, nihil obsit, quod in causa boni fruit, prosit. [*](pro Cluent. xxix. 80. So that what was unfortunate in the occasion may prove no obstacle, while what was fortunate in the case may prove a positive advantage. )

Nor is the contrasted phrase always placed immediately after that to which it is opposed, as it is in the following instance: est igitur haec, indices, non scripta, sed nala lex: [*](pro Mil. iv. 10. This law then, gentlemen, was not written, but born. It is a law which we have not learned, received from others or read, but which we have derived, absorbed and copied from nature itself. ) but, as Cicero [*](See IX. i. 34.) says, we may have correspondence between subsequent particulars and others previously mentioned, as in the passage which immediately follows that just quoted: quam non didicimus, accepimus, leginmus, verum ex natura ipsa arrptluimus, hauusimus, epressimus.

Again the

Antithesis may also be effected by employing that figure, known as ἀντιμεταβολή by which words are repeated in different cases, tenses, moods, etc., as for instance when we say, non ut edam, vivo, sed ut vivam, edo (I do not live to eat, but eat to live). There is an instance of this in Cicero, [*](pro Cluent. ii. 5. That though there is no prejudice, guilt is punished, and if there is no guilt, prejudice is laid aside. ) where he has managed, while changing the case, to secure similarity of termination: ut et sine inridia culpa plectatur et sine culpa invidia ponatur.

Again the clauses may end with the same word, as when Cicero says of Sextus Roscius: etenim cum artifex eiusmodi est ut solus videatur dignus qui in scena spectetur, turn vir eiusmodi est ut solus dignus esse videatur qui eo non accedat. [*](pro Quintio xxv. 78. For while he is an artist of such talent as to seem the only actor on the stage worth looking at, he is also a man of such character as to seem the only man worthy of being exempted from appearing on the stage. ) There is also a special elegance which may be secured by placing names in antithesis, as in the following instance, Si consul Antonius, Brutus hostis; si conservator rei publicae Brutus, hostis Antonius. [*](Phil. iv. iii. 8. "If Antony is consul, Brutus is an enemy: if Brutus is the saviour of the state, Antony is an enemy. )

I have already said more than was necessary on the subject of figures. But there will still be some who think that the following (which they call ἀνθυποφορὰ is a figure: Incredibile est, quod dico, sed verum: [*](What I say is incredible, but true.ἀνθυποφορὰ = answer to imaginary objection. ) they say the same of Aliquis hoc semel tubit, neno bis, ego ter [*]( Some have endured this once, while no one has endured it twice, but I have endured it thrice. διέξοδος = going through in detail. ) (which they style διέξοδος ), and of Longius evects sum, sed redeo ad propositumr, [*](I have made a long digression, but now return to the point.ἄφοδος strictly = departure, referring to the digression, rather than the return to the point. ) which they call

There are some figures of speech which differ little from figures of thought, as for example that of hesitation. For when we hesitate over a thing, it belongs to the former class, whereas when we hesitate over a word, it must be assigned to the latter, as for instance if we say,

I do not know whether to call this wickedness or folly.

The same consideration applies to correction. For correction emends, where hesitation expresses a doubt. Some have even held that it applies to personification as well; they think, for example, that Avarice is the mother of cruelly, Sallust's O Romulus of Arpinum in his speech against Cicero, and the Thriasian Oedipus [*]( An allusion to some inhabitant of the Athenian village of Thria. ) of Menander are figures of speech. All these points have been discussed in full detail by those who have not given this subject merely incidental treatment as a portion of a larger theme, but have devoted whole books to the discussion of the topic: I allude to writers such as Caecilius, Dionysius, Rutilius, Cornificius, Visellius and not a few others, although there are living authors who will be no less famous than they.

Now though I am ready to admit that more figures of speech may perhaps be discovered by certain writers, I cannot agree that such figures are better than those which have been laid down by high authorities. Above all I would point out that Cicero has included a number of figures in the third book of the de Oratore, [*](See IX. i. 26.) which in his later work, the Orator, [*](See IX. i. 37.) he has omitted, thereby seeming to indicate that he condemned them. Some of these are figures of thought rather than of speech, such as meiosis, the introduction of the unexpected, imagery, answering our own questions, digression, permission, [*](See IX. ii. 25.) arguments drawn from opposites (for I suppose that by