<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-eng2:8.3.38-8.3.57</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:8.3.38-8.3.57</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="8" type="textpart" subtype="book"><div n="3" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="38" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> The metaphorical use of words cannot be <pb n="v7-9 p.233"/> recommended
                            except in connected discourse. Enough has now been said on the subject
                            of single words, which, as I have pointed out elsewhere, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">I. v. 3.</note> have no
                            intrinsic value of their own. On the other hand, there is no word which
                            is intrinsically ugly unless it be beneath the dignity of the subject on
                            which we have to speak, excepting always such words as are nakedly
                            obscene. </p></div><div n="39" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> I would commend this remark to those who do not think it necessary to
                            avoid obscenity on the ground that no word is indecent in itself and
                            that, if a thing <hi rend="italic">is</hi> revolting, its unpleasantness
                            will be realised clearly enough by whatever name it is called.
                            Accordingly, I shall content myself with following the good old rules of
                            Roman modesty and, as I have already replied to such persons, shall
                            vindicate the cause of decency by saying no more on this unpleasant
                            subject. </p></div><div n="40" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Let us now pass to consider connected discourse. Its adornment may be
                            effected, primarily, in two ways; that is to say, we must consider first
                            our ideal of style, and secondly how we shall express this ideal in
                            actual words. The first essential is to realise clearly what we wish to
                            enhance or attenuate, to express with vigour or calm, in luxuriant or
                            austere language, at length or with conciseness, with gentleness or
                            asperity, magnificence or subtlety, gravity or wit. </p></div><div n="41" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> The next essential is to decide by what kind of metaphor, figures,
                            reflexions, methods and arrangement we may best produce the effect which
                            we desire. But, before I discuss ornament, I must first touch upon its
                            opposite, since the first of all virtues is the avoidance of faults.
                        </p></div><div n="42" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Therefore we must not expect any speech to be ornate that is not, in the
                            first place, <pb n="v7-9 p.235"/> acceptable. An acceptable style is
                            defined by Cicero <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Part. Or.,</hi> vi. 19. </note> as one which is
                            not over-elegant: not that our style does not require elegance and
                            polish, which are essential parts of ornament, but that excess is always
                            a vice. </p></div><div n="43" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> He desires, therefore, that our words should have a certain weight about
                            them, and that our thoughts should be of a serious cast or, at any rate,
                            adapted to the opinions and character of mankind. These points once
                            secured, we may proceed to employ those expressions which he regards as
                            conferring distinction on style, that is to say, specially selected
                            words and phrases, metaphor, hyperbole, appropriate epithets,
                            repetitions, synonyms and all such language as may suit our case and
                            provide an adequate representation of the facts. </p></div><div n="44" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> But since my first task is to point out the faults to be avoided, I will
                            begin by calling attention to the fault known as <foreign xml:lang="grc">κακέμφατον,</foreign> a term applied to the employment of language
                            to which perverted usage has given an obscene meaning: take, for
                            example, phrases such as <hi rend="italic">ductare exercitus and patrare
                                bellum,</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">ductare</hi> might mean <hi rend="italic">ad
                                    libidinem abducere. patrare bellum</hi> might mean <hi rend="italic">paedicare formosum.</hi>
                        </note> which were
                            employed by Sallust in their old and irreproachable sense, but, I regret
                            to say, cause amusement in certain quarters to-day. This, however, is
                            not, in my opinion, the fault of the writer, but of his readers; </p></div><div n="45" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> still it is one to be avoided, for we have perverted the purity of
                            language by our own corruption, and there is no course left to us but to
                            give ground before the victorious advance of vice. The same term is also
                            applied in the cases where an unfortunate collocation of words produces
                            an obscene suggestion. For example, in the phrase <hi rend="italic">cum
                                hominibus notis loqui,</hi> unless <hi rend="italic">hominibus</hi>
                            is placed between <hi rend="italic">cum</hi> and <hi rend="italic">notis,</hi> we shall commit ourselves to a phrase <pb n="v7-9 p.237"/> which will require some apology, since the final
                            letter of the first syllable, which cannot be pronounced without closing
                            the lips, will force us either to pause in a most unbecoming manner, or
                            by assimilation to the <hi rend="italic">n</hi> which follows <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">i.e.</hi>
                                pronouncing <hi rend="italic">cunnotis.</hi>
                        </note> will produce a
                            most objectionable suggestion. </p></div><div n="46" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> I might quote other collocations of words which are liable to the same
                            objection, but to discuss them in detail would be to fall into that very
                            fault which I have just said should be avoided. A similar offence
                            against modesty may be caused by the division of words, as, for example,
                            by the use of the nominative of <hi rend="italic">intercapedinis.</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">interccapedo,</hi> of which the last two syllables
                                might give rise to unseemly laughter; <hi rend="italic">pedo
                                    =</hi>
                           <quote>break wind.</quote>
                        </note>
                     </p></div><div n="47" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> And it is not merely in writing that this may occur, but you will find,
                            unless you exercise the greatest care, that there are a number of
                            persons who take pleasure in putting an indecent interpretation on
                            words, thinking, as Ovid <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Met.</hi> i. 502. </note> says: <quote rend="blockquote"><quote><l part="N">that whatsoe'er is hid is best
                                        of all.</l></quote></quote> Nay, an obscene meaning may be
                            extracted even from words which are as far removed from indecency as
                            possible. Celsus, for example, detects an instance of <foreign xml:lang="grc">κακέμφατον</foreign> in the Virgilian <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Georg.</hi> i.
                                357. </note> phrase: <quote rend="blockquote"><l part="N">incipiunt
                                    agitata tumescere;</l></quote> but if this point of view be
                            accepted, it will be risky to say anything at all. </p></div><div n="48" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Next to indecency of expression comes meanness, styled <foreign xml:lang="grc">ταπείνωσις,</foreign> when the grandeur or dignity of
                            anything is diminished by the words used, as in the line: <quote rend="blockquote"><l part="N"><quote>There is a rocky wart upon the
                                        mountain's brow.</quote><note anchored="true" place="unspecified">From an unknown
                                tragedian.</note></l></quote> The opposite fault, which is no less
                            serious, consists <pb n="v7-9 p.239"/> in calling small things by
                            extravagant names, though such a practice is permissible when
                            deliberately designed to raise a laugh. Consequently we must not call a
                            parricide a scamp, nor a man who keeps a harlot a villain, since the
                            first epithet is too weak and the second too strong. </p></div><div n="49" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> This fault will result in making our language dull, or coarse, jejune,
                            heavy, unpleasing or slovenly, all of which faults are best realised by
                            reference to the virtues which are their opposites, that is, point,
                            polish, richness, liveliness, charm, and finish. </p></div><div n="50" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> We must also avoid <foreign xml:lang="grc">μείωσις</foreign> a term
                            applied to meagreness and inadequacy of expression, although it is a
                            fault which characterises an obscure style rather than one which lacks
                            ornament. But <hi rend="italic">meiosis</hi> may be deliberately
                            employed, and is then called a figure, as also is <hi rend="italic">tautology,</hi> which means the repetition of a word or phrase.
                        </p></div><div n="51" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> The latter, though not avoided with special care even by the best
                            authors, may sometimes be regarded as a fault: it is, in fact, a blemish
                            into which Cicero not infrequently falls through indifference to such
                            minor details: take, for example, the following passage, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Pro
                                    Cluent.</hi> xxxv. 96. To bring out the effect criticised by
                                Cicero, <hi rend="italic">iudicium</hi> must he translated
                                    <quote>judgment.</quote> But <quote>trial</quote> is required to
                                give the correct sense. <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐπανάληψις</foreign>
                                = repetition. </note>
                        <quote>Judges, this judgment was not merely
                                unlike a judgment.</quote> It is sometimes given another name,
                                <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐπανάληψις,</foreign> under which
                            appellation it is ranked among figures, of which I shall give examples
                            when I come to the discussion of stylistic virtues. <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">IX. ii.</note>
                     </p></div><div n="52" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> A worse fault is <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὁμοείδεια,</foreign> or
                            sameness, a term applied to a style which has no variety to relieve its
                            tedium, and which presents a uniform monotony of hue. This is one of the
                            surest signs of lack of art, and produces a uniquely unpleasing effect,
                            not merely on the mind, but on the ear, on account of its <pb n="v7-9 p.241"/> sameness of thought, the uniformity of its figures,
                            and the monotony of its structure. </p></div><div n="53" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> We must also avoid <hi rend="italic">macrology,</hi> that is, the
                            employment of more words than are necessary, as, for instance, in the
                            sentence of Livy, <quote>The ambassadors, having failed to obtain peace,
                                went back home, whence they had come.</quote>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Fr.</hi> 62, <hi rend="italic">Hertz.</hi>
                        </note> On the other hand, <hi rend="italic">periphrasis,</hi> which is akin to this blemish, is regarded as a
                            virtue. Another fault is <hi rend="italic">pleonasm,</hi> when we
                            overload our style with a superfluity of words, as in the phrase,
                                <quote>I saw it with my eyes,</quote> where <quote>I saw it</quote>
                            would have been sufficient. </p></div><div n="54" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Cicero passed a witty comment on a fault of this kind in a declamation
                            of Hirtius when he said that a child had been carried for ten months in
                            his mother's womb. <quote>Oh,</quote> he said, <quote>I suppose other
                                women carry them in their bags.</quote>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">perulra</hi> means <quote>a
                                    small wallet.</quote> But it is noteworthy that in Apul. <hi rend="italic">Met.</hi> V. xiv. it is used <hi rend="italic">=
                                    uterus,</hi> and the <hi rend="italic">doubleentendre</hi> was
                                probably current in Cicero's time. </note> Sometimes, however, the
                            form of pleonasm, of which I have just given an example, may have a
                            pleasing effect when employed for the sake of emphasis, as in the
                            Virgilian phrase <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Aen.</hi> iv- 359. </note> : <quote rend="blockquote"><quote><l part="N">With mine own ears his voice I
                                        heard.</l></quote></quote> But whenever the addition is not
                            deliberate, </p></div><div n="55" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> but merely tame and redundant, it must be regarded as a fault. There is
                            also a fault entitled <foreign xml:lang="grc">περιεργία,</foreign> which
                            I may perhaps translate by superfluous elaboration, which differs from
                            its corresponding virtue much as fussiness differs from industry, and
                            superstition from religion. Finally, every word which neither helps the
                            sense nor the style may be regarded as faulty. </p></div><div n="56" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p><hi rend="italic">Cacozelia,</hi> or perverse affectation, is a fault in
                            every kind of style: for it includes all that is turgid, trivial,
                            luscious, redundant, far-fetched or extravagant, while the same name is
                            also applied to virtues <pb n="v7-9 p.243"/> carried to excess, when the
                            mind loses its critical sense and is misled by the false appearance of
                            beauty, the worst of all offences against style, since other faults are
                            due to carelessness, but this is deliberate. </p></div><div n="57" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> This form of affectation, however, affects style alone. For the
                            employment of arguments which might equally well be advanced by the
                            other side, or are foolish, inconsistent or superfluous, are all faults
                            of matter, whereas corruption of style is revealed in the employment of
                            improper or redundant words, in obscurity of meaning, effeminacy of
                            rhythm, or in the childish search for similar or ambiguous expressions.
                        </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>