On the other hand, onomatopoea, that is to say, the creation of a word, although regarded with the highest approbation by the Greeks, is scarcely permissible to a Roman. It is true that many words were created in this way by the original founders of the language, who adapted them to suit the sensation which they expressed. For instance, mugitus, lowing, sibilus, a hiss, and murmur owe their origin to this practice.

But to-day we consider that all has been done that can be done in this line, and do not venture on fresh creations, in spite of the fact that many of the words thus formed in antiquity are daily becoming obsolete. Indeed, we scarcely permit ourselves to use new derivatives, so they are called, which are formed in various ways from words in common use, such as Sullaturit, Cic. ad Att. IX. x. 6. he wishes to be a second Sulla, or proscripturit, he wishes to have a proscription, while laureati posies, laurelled door-posts, for lauru coronati, crowned with laurel, are similar formations.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This passage is too corrupt to admit of emendation or translation. There seem to be references to vio for eo and to arqtitollens. for which cp. arquitenens. Septemntriones can hardly be selected for censure, as it is not uncommon.

These facts make catachresis (of which abuse is a correct translation) all the more necessary. By this term is meant the practice of adapting the nearest available term to describe something for which no actual term exists, as in the line A horse they build by Pallas' art divine,Aen. II. xv. It is an abuse to say aedficant, which means literally "they make a house. or as in the expression found in tragedy, To AigialeusHis sire bears funeral offerings, Perhaps from the Medus of Pacuvius It is an abuse to use parental of funeral offerings made by father to son. The following examples are of a similar character.

Flasks are called acetabula, Lit. vinegar flasks. whatever they contain, and caskets pyxides, i.e. made of boxwood. of whatever material they are made, while parricide includes the murder of a mother or a brother. We must be careful to distinguish between abuse and metaphor, since the former is employed where there is no proper term available, and the latter when there is another term available. As for poets, they indulge in the abuse of words even in cases where proper terms do exist, and substitute words of somewhat similar meaning. But this is rare in prose.

Some, indeed, would give the name of catachresis even to cases such as where we call temerity valour or prodigality liberality. I, however, cannot agree with them; for in these instances word is not substituted for word, but thing for thing, since no one regards prodigality and liberality as meaning the same, but one man calls certain actions liberal and another prodigal, although neither for a moment doubts the difference between the two qualities.

There is but one of the tropes involving change of meaning which remains to be discussed, namely, metalepsis or transumption, which provides a transition from one trope to another. It is (if we except comedy) but rarely used in Latin, and is by no means to be commended, though it is not infrequently employed by the Greeks, who, for example, call Χείρων the centaur Ἥσσων Χείρων and ἥσσων both mean inferior. and substitute the epithet θοαί (swift) for ὄξειαι cp. Od. xv. 298. Θοός is used elsewhere to express sharpness. in referring to sharp-pointed islands. But who would endure a Roman if he called Verres sus Verres =boar; Catus=wise. or changed the name of Aelius Catus to Aelius doctus?

It is the nature of metalepsis to form a kind of intermediate step between the term transferred and the thing to which it is transferred, having no meaning in itself, but merely providing a transition. It is a trope with which to claim acquaintance, rather than one which we are ever likely to require to use. The commonest example is the following: cano is a synonym for canto and canto In the sense of to repeat. for dico, therefore cano is a synonym for dico, the intermediate step being provided by canto.

We need not waste any more time over it. I can see no use in it except, as I have already said, in comedy.

The remaining tropes are employed solely to adorn and enhance our style without any reference to the meaning. For the epithet, of which the correct translation is appositum, though some call it sequens, is clearly an ornament. Poets employ it with special frequency and freedom, since for them it is sufficient that the epithet should suit the word to which it is applied: consequently we shall not blame them when they speak of white teeth or liquid wine. Georg. III. 364. But in oratory an epithet is redundant unless it has some point. Now it will only have point when it adds something to the meaning, as for instance in the following: O abominable crime, O hideous lust!

But its decorative effect is greatest when it is metaphorical, as in the phrases unbridled greed Cic. in Cat. I. x. 25. or those mad piles of masonry. Pro Mil. xx. 53. The epithet is generally made into a trope by the addition of something to it, as when Virgil speaks of disgraceful poverty or sad old age. Aen. vi. 276 and 275. Here the addition is metonymy, turpis and tristis both substituting effect in place of cause: cp. § 27. But the nature of this form of embellishment is such that, while style is bare and inelegant without any epithets at all, it is overloaded when a large number are employed.

For then it becomes long-winded and cumbrous, in fact you might compare it to an army with as many camp-followers as soldiers, an army, that is to say, which has doubled its numbers without doubling its strength. None the less, not merely single epithets are employed, but we may find a number of them together, as in the following passage from Virgil: Aen. iii. 475. I have translated 476 ( cura deum, bis Pergameis erepte ruinis ) as well to bring out Quintilian's meaning. Quintilian assumes the rest of quotation to be known. Anchises, worthy deignedOf Venus' glorious bed, [beloved of heaven,Twice rescued from the wreck of Pergamum.]

Be this as it may, two epithets directly attached to one noun are unbecoming even in verse. There are some writers who refuse to regard an epithet as a trope, on the ground that it involves no change. It is not always a trope, but if separated from the word to which it belongs, it has a significance of its own and forms an antonomasia. For if you say, The man who destroyed Numantia and Carthage, it will be an antonomasia, whereas, if you add the word Scipio, the phrase will be an epithet. An epithet therefore cannot stand by itself.

Allegory, which is translated in Latin by inversio, either presents one thing in words and another in meaning, or else something absolutely opposed to the meaning of the words. The first type is generally produced by a series of metaphors. Take as an example: O ship, new waves will bear thee back to sea.What dost thou? Make the haven, come what may,Hor. Od. i. xiv. 1. and the rest of the ode, in which Horace represents the state under the semblance of a ship, the civil wars as tempests, and peace and good-will as the haven.

Such, again, is the claim of Lucretius: Lucr. IV. 1. Pierian fields I range untrod by man, and such again the passage where Virgil says, But nowA mighty length of plain we have travelled o'er;'Tis time to loose our horses' steaming necks.Georg. II. 541.