<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:9.3.1-9.3.7</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:9.3.1-9.3.7</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2" type="translation" xml:lang="eng"><div n="9" type="textpart" subtype="book"><div n="3" type="textpart" subtype="section"><div n="1" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p>III. <hi rend="italic">Figures of speech</hi> 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 <hi rend="italic">figurative.</hi> For
                            example, we say <hi rend="italic">invidere hac re</hi> for to
                                <quote>grudge a thing,</quote> instead of <hi rend="italic">hanc
                                rem,</hi> which was the idiom of all the ancients, more especially
                            Cicero, and <hi rend="italic">incumbere illi</hi> (to lean upon him) for
                                <hi rend="italic">incumbere in ilium, plenum vino</hi> (full of
                            wine) for <hi rend="italic">plenum vini,</hi> and <hi rend="italic">huic
                                adulari</hi> (to flatter him) for <hi rend="italic">hunc
                                adulari.</hi> I might quote a thousand other examples, and only wish
                            I could say that the changes were not often changes for the worse. </p></div><div n="2" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> But to proceed, <hi rend="italic">figures of speech</hi> 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. <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> These grammatical figures would not be styled
                                    <quote>figures of speech</quote> in English. <quote>Figures of
                                    language</quote> would perhaps be more comprehensive, but
                                    <quote>figures of speech</quote> is the translation and direct
                                descendant of the original Greek <foreign xml:lang="grc">σχήματα
                                    λέξεως</foreign> and has therefore been used throughout. </note>
                            The former originates from the same sources as errors of language. For
                            every <hi rend="italic">figure</hi> of this kind would be an error, if
                            it were accidental and not deliberate. </p></div><div n="3" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> But as a rule such <hi rend="italic">figures</hi> 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. </p></div><div n="4" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> If a speaker use them sparingly and only as occasion demands, they will
                            serve as a seasoning to his style and <pb n="v7-9 p.445"/> 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. </p></div><div n="5" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> For abnormal <hi rend="italic">figures</hi> 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. <hi rend="italic">Figures,</hi> then,
                        </p></div><div n="6" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> may be found in connexion with the gender of nouns; for we find <hi rend="italic">oculis capti talpale</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Georg.</hi> i. 183. </note>
                            (blind moles) and <hi rend="italic">timidi damae</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Ecl.</hi>
                                viii. 28. </note> (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. <hi rend="italic">Figures</hi> may also affect verbs: for
                            example, we find such phrases <hi rend="italic">as fabricatus est
                                glatdium</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Cic. <hi rend="italic">pro Rab Post.</hi> iii. 7. <quote>He made a
                                    sword.</quote>
                        </note> or <hi rend="italic">inimicum poenitus
                                es.</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">pro Mil.</hi> xiii. 33. <quote>You punished an
                                enemy.</quote>
                        </note>
                     </p></div><div n="7" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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 <hi rend="italic">arbitror</hi> (think) and <hi rend="italic">suspicor</hi> (suspect), and the passive by the active, as in the
                            case of <hi rend="italic">vapulo</hi> (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 <hi rend="italic">luxuriatur</hi> or <hi rend="italic">luxuriat</hi> (luxuriate), <hi rend="italic">fluctuatur</hi> or <hi rend="italic">fluctuat</hi>
                            (fluctuate), <hi rend="italic">adsentior</hi> or <hi rend="italic">adsentio</hi> (agree). <hi rend="italic">Figures</hi> also occur in
                            connexion with number, </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>