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 contrast is not always expressed antithetically, as is shown by the following passage from Rutilius: nobis primis dii immortales fruges dedelunt, nos, quod soli accepimus, in omnes terras distribuimus. Ruatil. ii. 16. To us first of men the immortal gods gave corn, while we have distributed that which we alone have received to all the peoples of the earth.

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 ἄφοδος.

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. Auct. ad Hrem. IV. xxix. 40.

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 contrarium See IX. i. 33. sqq. If contrarium is what Quintilian supposes, its sense must be approximate to that given above. Cp. Auct. ad Herenn. iv. 25. contrarium est quod ex diversis rebus duabus alteram altera breviter etfacile confirmat. But it is possible that Cicero meant antithesis. he means what is elsewhere styled ἐναντιότης ), and proof borrowed from an opponent. There are some again which are not figures at all,

such as arrangement, distinction by headings, and circumscription, whether this latter term be intended to signify the concise expression of thought or definition, which is actually regarded by Cornificius and Rutilius as a figure of speech. With regard to the elegant transposition of words, that is, hyperbaton, which Caecilius also thinks is a figure, I have included it among tropes. As for mutation Immutatio in Cicero (IX. i. 35) seems to mean metonymy or ὑπαλλαγή (see Orator, xxvii. 92): The ἀλλοίωσις of Rutilius (i. 2) is however differentiation.

of the kind which Rutilius calls ἀλλοίωσις its function is to point out the differences between men, things and deeds: if it is used on an extended scale, it is not a figure, if on a narrower scale, it is mere antithesis, while if it is intended to mean hypallage, enough has already been said on the subject. VIII. 6. 23.

Again what sort of a figure is this addition of a reason, for what is advanced, which Rutilius calls αἰτιολογία ? ii. 19. It may also be doubted whether the assignment of a reason for each distinct statement, with which Rutilius Opening of Book I. opens his discussion of figures, is really a figure.

He calls it προσαπόδοσις and states The subj. servetur seems to indicate indirect speech. that strictly it applies to a number of propositions, since the reason is either attached to each proposition separately, as in the following passage from Gaius Antonius: Elected consul with Cicero for 63 B.C. But I do not fear him as an accuser, for I am innocent; I do not dread him as a rival candidate, for I am Antonius; I do not expect to see him consul, for he is Cicero ;

or, after two or three propositions have been stated, the reasons for them may be given continuously in the same order, as for example in the words that Brutus uses of Gnaeus Pompeius: For it is better to rule no man than to be the slave to any man: since one may live with honour without ruling, whereas life is no life for the slave.

But a number of reasons may also be assigned for one statement, as in the lines of Virgil: Georg. i. 86. Rhoades' translation. Whether that earth there from some hidden strength And fattening food derives, or that the tireBakes every blemish out, etc.Or that the heat unlocks new passages. . . .Or that it hardens more, etc. As to what Cicero means by reference,

I am in the dark: if he means ἀνάκλασις VIII. vi 23. or ἐπάνοδος IX. iii. 35. or ἀντιμεταβολή, IX. iii. 85. I have already discussed them. But whatever its meaning may be, he does not mention it in the Orator any more than the other terms I have just mentioned. The only figure of speech mentioned in that work, which I should prefer to regard as a figure of thought owing to its emotional character, is exclamation. I agree with him about all the rest. To these Caecilius adds periphrasis,

of which I have already spoken,5 while Cornificius VIII. vi. 59. For interpretations of all these terms except occultatio, see Auct. ad Herenn. iv. 15, 16, 17, 19, 23, 26, 28, 30, subjcitio is the suggesting of an argument that might be used by an opponent; articulus a clause consisting of one word. interpretation the explanation of one word by subsequent use of a synonym. adds interrogation, reasoning, suggestion, transition, concealment, and further, sentence, clause, isolated words, interpretation and conclusion. Of these the first (down to and including concealment) are figures of thought, while the remainder are not figures at all.

Rutilius also in addition to the figures found in other authors adds, παρομολογία The advancement of some stronger argument after the concession of some other point to our adversary. ἀναγκαῖον See IX. ii. 106. ἠθοποιΐα See IX. ii. 58. δικαιολογία, The statement of the justice of our cause in the briefest possible form. πρόληψις, See IX. ii. 16. χαρακτηρισμός Description of character or manners. βραχυλογία, See IX. iii. 50. παρασιώπησις The statement that we refrain from saying something, though making it perfectly clear what it is. παῤῥησία Freedom of speech. of which I say the same. I will pass by those authors who set no limit to their craze for inventing technical terms and even include among figures what really comes under the head of arguments.

With regard to genuine figures, I would briefly add that, while, suitably placed, they are a real ornament to style, they become perfectly fatuous when sought after overmuch. There are some who pay no consideration to the weight of their matter or the force of their thoughts and think themselves supreme artists, if only they succeed in forcing even the emptiest of words into figurative form, with the result that they are never tired of stringing figures together, despite the fact that it is as ridiculous to hunt for figures without reference to the matter as it is to discuss dress and gesture without reference to the body.

But even perfectly correct figures must not be packed too closely together. Changes of facial expression and glances of the eyes are most effective in pleading, but if the orator never ceases to distort his face with affected grimaces or to wag his head and roll his eyes, he becomes a laughing-stock. So too oratory possesses a natural mien, which while it is far from demanding a stolid and immovable rigidity should as far as possible restrict itself to the expression with which it is endowed by nature.

But it is of the first importance that we should know what are the requirements of time, place and character on each occasion of speaking. For the majority of these figures aim at delighting the hearer. But when terror, hatred and pity are the weapons called for in the fray, who will endure the orator who expresses his anger, his sorrow or his entreaties in neat antitheses, balanced cadences and exact correspondences? Too much care for our words under such circumstances weakens the impression of emotional sincerity, and wherever the orator displays his art unveiled, the hearer says, The truth is not in him.