<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-eng2:9.3.43-9.3.49</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:9.3.43-9.3.49</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="43" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Whole sentences again end with the phrase with which they began. Take an
                            example. <quote>He came from Asia. What a strange thing. A tribune of
                                the people came from Asia.</quote>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> From the lost <hi rend="italic">in Q.
                                    Metellum.</hi>
                        </note> Nay, the first word of this same period is
                            actually repeated at its close, thus making its third appearance: for to
                            the words just quoted the orator adds, <quote>Still for all that he
                                came.</quote> Sometimes a whole clause is repeated, although the
                            order of the words is altered, as, for example, <hi rend="italic"> Quid
                                Cleomenes facere potuit non enin possum quemquam insimulare falso,
                                quid, inquam, </hi>
                        <pb n="v7-9 p.471"/>
                        <hi rend="italic">magno opere
                                potuit Cleomenes facere?</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Ecl.</hi> x. 72. </note>
                     </p></div><div n="44" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> The first word of one clause is also frequently the same as the last of
                            the preceding, a figure common in poetry. <quote rend="blockquote"><cit><quote><l part="N">And ye,</l><l part="N">Pierian Muses, shall
                                            enhance their worth</l><l part="N">For Gallus; Gallus,
                                            he for whom each hour</l><l part="N">My love burns
                                            stronger.</l></quote><bibl default="false"><hi rend="italic">Cat.</hi> I. i. 2.
                                    </bibl></cit></quote> But it is not uncommon even in the orators. For
                            example: <quote>Yet this man lives. Lives? Why he even came into the
                                senate house.</quote>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">§30.</note>
                     </p></div><div n="45" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Sometimes, as I remarked in connexion with the doubling of words, the beginnings and the conclusions of sentences are made to correspond
                            by the use of other words with the same meaning. Here is an example of
                            correspondence between the beginnings: <quote> I would have faced every
                                kind of danger; I would have exposed myself to treacherous attacks;
                                I would have delivered myself over to public hatred. </quote>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> From the lost <hi rend="italic">in Q. Metellaim.</hi>
                        </note> An example of the correspondence
                            of conclusions is provided by another passage in the same speech which
                            follows close on that just cited: <quote>For you have decided; you have
                                passed sentence; you have given judgment.</quote> Some call this <hi rend="italic">synonzmy,</hi> others <hi rend="italic">disjunction:</hi> both terms, despite their difference, are
                            correct. For the words are differentiated, but their meaning is
                            identical. Sometimes, again, words of the same meaning are grouped
                            together. For instance, <quote> Since this is so, Catiline, proceed on
                                the path which you have entered; depart from the city, it is high
                                time. The gates are open, get you forth. </quote>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">L. v. 10.</note>
                     </p></div><div n="46" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Or take this example from another book of the orations against Catiline,
                                <quote> He departed, he went <pb n="v7-9 p.473"/> hence; he burst
                                forth, he was gone. </quote>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">II. i. l.</note> This is regarded as a case of
                                <hi rend="italic">pleonasm</hi> by Caecilius, that is to say, as
                            language fuller than is absolutely required, like the phrase: <quote rend="blockquote"><cit><quote><l part="N">Myself before my very eyes I saw:</l></quote><bibl default="false"><hi rend="italic">Aen.</hi> xii. 638.
                                    </bibl></cit></quote> for <quote>myself</quote> is already implied by
                                <quote>I saw.</quote> But when such language is over weighted by
                            some purely superfluous addition, it is, as I have also pointed out
                            elsewhere, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">VIII. iii.
                                53.</note> a fault; whereas when, as in this case, it serves to make
                            the sense stronger and more obvious, it is a merit. <quote>I
                                saw,</quote>
                        <quote>myself,</quote>
                        <quote>before my very
                                eyes,</quote> are so many appeals to the emotion. </p></div><div n="47" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> I cannot therefore see why Caecilius should have stigmatised these words
                            by such a name, since the doubling and repetition of words and all forms
                            of addition may likewise be regarded as <hi rend="italic">pleonasms.</hi> And it is not merely words that are thus grouped
                            together. The same device may be applied to thoughts of similar content.
                                <quote> The wild confusion of his thoughts, the thick darkness shed
                                upon his soul by his crimes and the burning torches of the furies
                                all drove him on. </quote>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">
                                From the lost <hi rend="italic">in Pisonem.</hi>
                        </note>
                     </p></div><div n="48" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Words of different meaning may likewise be grouped together, as for
                            instance, <quote> The woman, the savage cruelty of the tyrant, love for
                                his father, anger beyond control, the madness of blind daring
                            </quote> ; <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">Probably from a
                                declamation.</note> or again, as in the following passage from Ovid,
                                <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Met.</hi> v. 17. </note>
                        <quote rend="blockquote"><quote><l part="F">But the dread Nereids' power,</l><l part="N">But
                                        horned Ammon, but that wild sea-beast</l><l part="N">To feed
                                        upon my vitals that must come.</l></quote></quote>
                     </p></div><div n="49" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> I have found some who call this also by the name of <foreign xml:lang="grc">πλοκή:</foreign> but I do not agree, as only one
                            figure is <pb n="v7-9 p.475"/> involved. We may also find a mixture of
                            words, some identical and others different in meaning; of this figure,
                            which the Greeks style <foreign xml:lang="grc">διαλλαγή,</foreign> the
                            following will provide an example: <quote> I ask my enemies whether
                                these plots were investigated, discovered and laid bare, overthrown,
                                crushed and destroyed by me. </quote>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> From the lost speech <hi rend="italic">in Q.
                                    Metullum.</hi>
                        </note> In this sentence
                                <quote>investigated,</quote>
                        <quote>discovered</quote> and
                                <quote>laid bare</quote> are different in meaning, while
                                <quote>overthrown,</quote>
                        <quote>crushed</quote> and
                                <quote>destroyed</quote> are similar in meaning to each other, but
                            different from the three previous. </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>