<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:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg018.perseus-eng5:28</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg018.perseus-eng5:28</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div type="translation" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg018.perseus-eng5" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" xml:base="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg018.perseus-eng5:" n="28"><p><label>Momos</label> What you say in praise of plain-speaking, Apollo, is very just, though you do not practice


<pb n="p.36"/>



 it very much yourself in your oracles. They
are ambiguous and enigmatical, and in a non-commital way throw most things on disputed ground,
so that the hearers need another Apollo to tell
them what you mean. But what is your advice
in this case? How is Timokles's weakness in argument to be cured?</p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>