Rhetoric to Herennius

4.17–69

Now that we have discussed the genres of style,1 let us consider features that characterize a style that is effective and resolved. Of particular importance to the orator are elegance (or selectivity), arrangement and distinction.

Elegance allows for each and every passage to be expressed simply and clearly. It can be subdivided into Latinity and clarity. Latinity entails maintaining correct language free of fault. Two faults diminish Latinity, namely solecism and barbarism. Solecism occurs when a word does not agree with those preceding it in a group. (We will explain in our treatise on grammar² how to avoid these errors.)

Clarity makes a speech lucid and easy to understand. It entails using language that is customary and appropriate. Customary words are those employed in everyday conversation. Appropriate words are those that correspond to the subject.

Arrangement (juxtaposition) entails the ordering of words in such a way that all parts of an expression are equally polished. We shall achieve proper arrangement if we avoid frequent juxtapositions of vowels,³ which make an expression gaping and unarticulated, for example:

Many a alderberry oddly arranged

and if we avoid excessive repetition of the same letter, for which the following verse serves as an example (there’s no reason not to take examples from the writings of others):

O Titus Tatius tyrant truly triply tormented⁴

and this from the same poet:

who hadn’t heard how he’d hidden his horse*5

and if we avoid too much repetition of the same word:

When the reason of his reasoning is not really real,

there’s really no reason to rely on what he reasons⁶

and if we avoid words that have similar endings, as in:

weepingly, whiningly, woefully, pray for me⁷

and if we avoid placing words in odd locations, unless suited to our subject. Coelius often makes this mistake, for example:

In a previous book these things for you written we sent, Lucius Aelius.⁸

It is also necessary to avoid a long periodic expression, which strains the auditor’s ears and the speaker’s breath.

Setting aside these mistakes in arrangement, let us now consider the attainment of distinction.⁹ Distinction makes a speech polished and richly varied. It can be divided into figures of language and figures of thought.

Figures of Language

In a figure of language, the adornment consists in the particular polish given to the words themselves. In a figure of thought, the adornment consists of a special quality in the expressed idea or thought.

[Let us first consider figures of language.]¹⁰

In repetition, successive phrases begin with one and the same word, which may be used with the same or different meanings, for example:

To you must this deed be attributed, to you must we extend our thanks, to yourselves will this deed of yours be a source of honour.11

or

Scipio razed Numantia, Scipio destroyed Carthage, Scipio sealed the peace pact, Scipio saved the state.

or

You enter the forum? You see the light? You come into our presence? How dare you speak! How dare you seek! How dare you beg forgiveness! What on earth can you say in your defence? What on earth do you dare to demand? What on earth do you think we should concede to you? Did you not ignore your oath? Did you not betray your allies? Did you not raise your hand against your own blood? Did you not wallow in every kind of filth?

This figure can be quite charming, while also conveying intensity and vigour.

In conversion, we repeat, not the first word, as in the preceding, but the last, in subsequent phrases, like this:

Against the Carthaginians the Roman people justly prevailed, decisively prevailed, generously prevailed.

or

When civic harmony was destroyed, liberty was destroyed, trust was destroyed, friendship was destroyed, the very republic was destroyed.

or

Gaius Laelius was a self-made man, a talented man, a learned man, to all responsible people and plans a supportive man – and so within the state a leading man.

Intertwining employs both previous figures, repeating one word at the beginning and one at the end of successive phrases, for example:

Who broke treaties time and again? The Carthaginians! Who waged war in the cruellest manner possible? The Carthaginians! Who destroyed our beautiful Italy? The Carthaginians! Who dares to demand forgiveness? The Carthaginians! Yet you have to ask if it’s right to grant their request?

Another example:

Whom the senate has condemned, whom the people have condemned, whom the judgement of everyone has condemned – will you really vote to set him free?

Transduction is repetition of a word in a manner that, rather than causing annoyance, in fact improves the harmony of the speech, as follows:¹²

Anyone who thinks there is nothing in life more pleasant than life cannot possibly lead a virtuous life.

or

You call him a decent man, but if he had been a decent man he never would have sought the cruel execution of another decent man. You say he was his enemy. Is that why he fought so hard to take vengeance on an enemy that he became an enemy to himself?

or

Leave riches to the rich. You, on the other hand, should prefer virtue to riches. For if you are willing to compare riches with virtue, riches will hardly deserve to be among the entourage of virtue.

The same type of figure occurs when the same word is used in different functions, for example:

Why do you concern yourself with something that causes you such great concern? […]

or

I will stay with you, if the senate will stay my execution.

In the four figures I have just described, it’s not through the speaker’s inadequacy that the same word is repeated, rather the repetition conveys a certain liveliness, more easily recognized by the ears than can be demonstrated in writing.

Contrast or antithesis occurs when a passage is constructed around oppositions. For example:

Flattery starts out sweet, but ends up bitter.

or

To enemies you are conciliatory, to friends unforgiving.

or

When all is calm you are disturbed; when all is disturbed, you are calm. You are thrilled about the most boring matters; bored with the most thrilling. When silence is called for, you raise a shout; when it is time to speak up, you stay silent. You show up, you want to leave; you leave, you want to return. In peace you seek war, in war you long for peace. At public meetings you talk of courage, in battle you cannot endure the sound of the trumpet because you are a coward.

This figure gives our style distinction, making it impressive and ornate.

Outcry communicates pain or indignation through the direct address of some person, city, place or thing, in this manner:

You, Africanus, I now address – you whose name, even when dead, grants glory and lustre to the state. Your illustrious descendants have with their very blood fed the cruelty of their enemies.

or

Faithless Fregellae! How quickly your crime caused your collapse! Your brilliance once brightened Italy, now nothing remains of you but your ruins.

or

Enemies of the good! Bandits! Seekers of every innocent life! Do you now assume a right to slander, thanks to the perversity of our courts?

Provided that we use this type of outcry only rarely and when the significance of the subject seems to demand it, we will lead the listener to the state of indignation we intend.

Rhetorical question isn’t always impressive or attractive, but it can strengthen a speech by recapitulating all the problems in the opponent’s case, for example:

So when you were doing, and saying, and managing all of this, were you alienating the allies from the republic, or were you not? And should someone have been charged with putting a stop to you, or not?

It’s called explanation by means of question and answer when we ask ourselves the basis for every statement we make and provide a reason for each and every claim. Here is an example:

Our ancestors, if they convicted a woman of one crime, regarded her, on the basis of a single judgement, as guilty of many. How so? If they convicted her of unchastity, she was also considered guilty of poisoning. Why was that? Because a woman who had committed her body to base desire would be afraid of many people. Whom do you mean? Her husband, parents and everyone else she would see as affected by her disgrace. What then? Obviously she would want to kill those she feared. Why ‘obviously’? Because sound reason cannot constrain someone who is frightened at the magnitude of her crime, emboldened by immodesty and reckless due to her very nature as a woman. What then? What did they think of a woman who was guilty of poisoning? That she was necessarily guilty of unchastity. Why? Because nothing leads more easily to this crime than shameful love and violent lust. Besides, they thought that if a woman’s mind was corrupt, her body could hardly be chaste. So what? Isn’t the same true of men? Not at all. And why do you say that? Because different desires lead men to distinctly different crimes, whereas with women a single desire leads to all crimes.

Another example:

Our ancestors were right when they decided never to execute a king they had captured in battle. Why is that? Because in their view it wasn’t right to waste the advantages granted by fortune on punishing people whom the same fortune had recently elevated. But didn’t he lead an opposing army? I no longer recall. What on earth do you mean? A brave man, when victory is in doubt, considers his opponents enemies. But when they have been defeated, he thinks of them as fellow humans. His bravery lessens the war, his humanity augments the peace. And the enemy king – would he have done the same if he had been victorious? No, he would surely not have been so wise. Then why spare him? Because it is my practice to despise stupidity, not to imitate it.

This figure especially suits a conversational style and holds the attention of the listener with the charm of the exchange and anticipation of the explanations.

A saying or maxim is an expression drawn from life, which briefly expresses how things are or ought to be. For example:

Every beginning is difficult.

The man who always relies on luck is unaccustomed to honouring virtue.

A man is to be considered free when he is no longer slave to vice.

If nothing is enough for you, you’re just as poor as someone who really doesn’t have enough.

Choose the way of living that’s best. Practice will make you like it.

Simple statements of this sort are not to be avoided. Their brevity, when no explanation is needed, gives much delight.

But also worth using is the type of maxim that provides confirmation along with an explanation. For example:

The entire basis for a good life is to be found in virtue. That’s because only virtue is under its own control; everything else is subject to the rule of fortune.

or

Those who choose a friend on the basis of his good luck avoid him as soon as his luck changes. The reason they kept him company is gone, so there’s no reason to keep his friendship.

Some maxims are in the form of double statements. Here is an example in which no explanation is given:

Successful people are wrong to think they’ve escaped the blows of fortune. Wise people fear adversity even when they’re successful.

With an explanation, as follows:

Those who think it necessary to excuse the faults of adolescents are mistaken, for age is no impediment to good behaviour. Those who are harsh with adolescents are acting wisely: they want them to acquire at just the right time virtues they can practise all their life.

It’s best to insert maxims sparingly. We want people to think of us as pleaders, not preachers. That way, too, when maxims are introduced, they have a big effect. The listener will silently approve a statement drawn from everyday experience that is applied to the specifics of the case.

Reasoning from the contrary occurs when one of two opposing statements is used briefly and conveniently to prove the other. For example:

Do you imagine that a treacherous ally can be a trustworthy enemy? Would you expect a man who behaves with insufferable arrogance in private affairs to accept limits when he holds a position of power? Or that a man who never tells the truth among his friends will keep from lying at public meetings?

or

We dislodged them from the hills. Are we now afraid to fight them on the plains? When they were numerous, they were no match for us. Now that their numbers are reduced are we afraid that they are stronger?

This figure ought to be brief and uninterrupted. Its brevity and completeness are satisfying to listen to, and it effectively establishes the speaker’s point by establishing a contrast, arguing for what is doubtful on the basis of what is not at all doubtful. It either cannot be refuted or can only be refuted with great difficulty.

A colon, or limb, is a brief, self-contained unit that nonetheless does not convey the entirety of the idea but is instead continued by a successive colon. For example:

You were both helping the enemy

This is a single colon, it needs to be supplemented by another:

And hurting your friend.

Now this figure can consist of two cola, but the most effective and resolved contains three, for example:

You helped your enemy, you hurt your friend and you did not consider your own advantage.

or

You paid no attention to the republic, you gave no help to your friends, you offered no resistance to the enemy.

A comma, or digit, refers to the use of a differentiated sequence of individual words presented in a clipped style, as follows:

With voice, looks, ferocity you terrified your adversaries.

or

You destroyed your enemies with malice, abuse, manipulation, treachery.

This figure has a different sort of energy from the prior one. The prior attacks slowly and sparingly, the latter strikes quickly and repeatedly. Thus the former pulls back the arm and by a twist of the hand strikes the body with a sword, while with the second jabs the body quickly and repeatedly.

A period is a substantial and self-contained group of words in which all the thoughts are brought to completion. It’s especially useful in three instances: for a maxim, for reasoning from the contrary and for drawing a conclusion. As a maxim, here is an example:

Fortune cannot cause much trouble for a man who relies more heavily on virtue than on luck.

In argument from the contrary:

For if we don’t place much confidence in luck, then how can luck get in our way?

To draw a conclusion:

But if fortune has the greatest power over those who have entrusted their plans to luck, then we must not so entrust our plans, lest fortune come to dominate us.

With these three types a compressed style must be used to match the force of the period. Indeed, the orator will seem incompetent if he doesn’t express the maxim or argument from the contrary or the conclusion with close-packed words. To express other matters through periods of this sort isn’t wrong, but it isn’t necessary either.

The term conpar, or parallelism, refers to the use of several cola (of which we spoke previously) of roughly the same number of syllables. We don’t achieve this by strict counting – that would be childish – but experience and practice will create such a facility that more or less instinctively we can match a colon to the one preceding, for example:

In battle the father was seeking death.

At home the son was arranging a marriage.

Here the omens were predicting disaster.

or

To another man fortune granted success.

For this man effort yielded virtue.

Often with this figure the number of syllables is not exactly equal, but still seems so, if one colon is shorter by one or two syllables, or if one colon contains more syllables, but a syllable or syllables in the other are longer or fuller, so that the length or fullness of the syllables in one colon balances the greater number of syllables in the other.

The figure is called matched inflection (homoioptoton) when in the same passage two or more words of the same case ending are used, for example:

He loves women, hates children, fears vixen.*¹³

or

In cash he puts all expectation, he has no time for contemplation. His diligence secures his wealth, his negligence corrupts his mind. And yet although he lives this way, he thinks that nobody – besides himself – counts as anybody.

It’s called matched ending (homoioteleuton) when two words that don’t decline nonetheless end with the same sound, for example:

You dare to act shamelessly and strive to speak aimlessly.

You live resentfully, you break the rules intentionally, you talk unrepentantly.

With boldness you rage, with meekness you fawn.

These two figures, one consisting of similar word endings, the other of similar case endings, are themselves quite compatible with one another. This is why those who use them often place them together in the same part of a speech. Here is an example of how it should be done:

To consort with lovers, cavort with brothers.

Prefer beauties, defer duties.

Here the words that decline have similar declinations, those that don’t have similar endings.¹⁴

Punning occurs when a slight change of sound or spelling produces similar words with dissimilar meanings. There are several techniques, including weakening or contracting a given letter, for example:

That man who acts so high and mighty was a slave before he became a Slav.*15

or the reverse:

For all their betting, they take a beating.

The effect can also be achieved by lengthening a given vowel, as in:

The song of the swan distracted the swain.*¹⁶

or by shortening the vowel:

He seems eager for office, but I wonder: does he really prefer the Cūria to Curia?¹⁷

or by adding letters:

He must train himself to restrain himself.

or subtracting:

Had he looked for friends instead of fiends,¹⁸ he’d still be alive today.*

by transposing letters:

Would you rather trust a knave or a vain man?

or by changing them:

Carefully choose whom you chase.

These are puns or word-plays that depend on a slight change of letters or lengthening of vowels or transposition or something else of this sort.

There are other word plays in which the words are not so similar yet not really dissimilar, of which the following is an example:

Why I come, who I am, whom I condemn, whom I commend, what I demand you will soon find out.

There’s a certain similarity among the words, not as complete as in the prior examples, but worth employing on occasion.

Here’s another example of the same sort:

Let’s make sure the refined old men don’t think they’ll be confined.

This play shows a greater similarity than the one immediately preceding, but less than the earlier ones, because here some letters are added and others at the same time removed.

A third kind involves changing the case19 of one or more nouns. An example with one noun:

Alexander the Macedonian devoted his mind to virtue from childhood onward. Alexander’s virtues are known and praised throughout the world. It’s Alexander everyone fears, while loving him deeply. If to Alexander a longer life had been granted, Macedonian weapons would have flown across the ocean.

Here the change of cases applies to a single noun (Alexander). Changing the cases across several nouns produces a word play of the following sort:

Tiberius Gracchus, though he administered the republic, was prevented from living longer in the republic due to an undeserved death. To Gaius Gracchus a similar doom was assigned, which tore a man most beloved by the republic from its very bosom. Against Saturninus, betrayed by his trust in evildoers, the perfidious crime of murder was directed. O Drusus, how your blood spattered the walls of your home and the countenance of your father! And from Sulpicius, to whom they just before had conceded all, they now took the right not only to live, but even to be buried!

These last three figures, the one based on similar case endings, the other on similar word endings, the third on various sorts of puns, should be used only rarely in an actual speech since they don’t seem possible without a great deal of time and effort. Endeavours of this sort are better suited to amusement than to actual practice. As a result, the credibility, seriousness and austerity of the speaker are diminished if these devices are used in quick succession. They can reduce the speaker’s authority because they are charming and amusing rather than dignified and beautiful. Devices that are grand and beautiful are pleasing over a long stretch, but those that are clever and jingling soon become grating, and give offence to hearing, which is the most sensitive of the senses. Therefore, if we use these devices frequently, we seem to be entertaining ourselves with schoolboy exercises, but if we intersperse them here and there throughout, their scattered use brightens the entire speech.

Subjectio, or rhetorical question and answer, occurs when we ask our adversaries – or ourselves – what could possibly be said for them or against us. We then supply what should or should not be said, what will help us or hurt them, as follows:

I ask, then, how the defendant acquired his wealth. A substantial family legacy? But his father’s goods were sold. An inheritance from someone else? But that’s impossible: he was disinherited by all his near and dear. Did he win a judgement in a court case? Not only did no such thing occur, he even lost a fortune in a judicial wager. Well, then, if he wasn’t enriched by any of these means, he either grows gold at home, or he acquired his wealth illegally.

Another example:

Often have I observed, gentlemen of the jury, that many defendants seek protection from some honorable deed or association of theirs that not even their enemies can impeach. This defendant can do nothing of the sort! Can he seek refuge in the virtue of his father? No, you convicted that man of a capital crime. What about his own manner of life? What life? What honour? For you all see how he has carried on even in your presence. Perhaps he will list all of his relatives, so that they can move you to pity? No, he doesn’t have any. Will he introduce friends? There’s no one who wouldn’t be ashamed to be called his friend.

or

So I imagine that you accused your enemy, whom you considered guilty, openly in a court of law. Not so, for you killed him although there was no conviction. Did you fear the laws that forbid such conduct? On the contrary, you didn’t think any such had been written. When he reminded you of your longstanding friendship, were you moved? Not in the least, instead you killed him with all the more gusto. When his sons grovelled at your feet, were you then touched by pity? No, instead, out of cruelty, you even kept them from burying him.

This figure is quite energetic and impressive. When our question indicates what should have happened, our answer shows that it didn’t. Thus the indignation attached to the affair is easily intensified. The same figure can be used in reference to our own behaviour, for example:

For what could I do, surrounded as I was by so many Gauls? Was I to fight? But that would have entailed advancing with a small band of men. Besides, our position was very unfavourable. Remain in camp? But there was no reason to expect assistance, and we lacked the wherewithal to stay alive. Abandon camp? But we were under siege! Sacrifice the lives of the soldiers? But I was well aware that I had enrolled them on condition of preserving them safe and sound for their country and their families, if at all possible. Should I have rejected the enemy’s terms? Surely it’s more honourable to preserve troops than baggage.

Supplying answers in this manner makes it seem as if nothing was to be done except what actually was done.

Gradation or climax (ladder) is the figure in which the speaker only proceeds to the next word after he has advanced stepwise to the preceding one. Here’s an example:

What hope of liberty remains, if what they want is permitted, and what is permitted is possible, and what is possible, they dare, and what they dare, they actually do, and what they do troubles you not in the least?

or

I didn’t believe it without advising it. I didn’t advise it without beginning at once to do it. I didn’t begin to do it without finishing it. I didn’t finish it without approving what I had finished.

or

In the case of Africanus, effort produced virtue, virtue produced glory, glory produced – rivals!

or

Rule of Greece was in the hands of the Athenians. The Athenians were under the control of the Spartans. The Spartans had succumbed to the Thebans. The Thebans were defeated by the Macedonians, who to the rule of Greece in a short time annexed Asia, which they had defeated in war.

There’s a certain charm in the quick repetition of each preceding word, which is characteristic of this figure. Definition is a figure that communicates in a clear and concise manner the distinctive properties of an entity, for example:

The majesty of the republic encompasses the dignity and grandeur of the state.

Here’s another example:

This is not fiscal restraint, but greed; for fiscal restraint is the careful conservation of your own resources, greed the unjust pursuit of another’s.

or

This is not courage, but rashness; for courage is disregard for labour and risk, with an expectation of compensatory benefit, whereas rashness is submission to danger, like a gladiator, without any concern for the pain to be endured.

This figure is useful because it expresses the entire force and significance of a subject with great clarity and explains it briefly, so that it seems no further words are needed, nor could it be expressed more briefly.

Transition is the figure that concisely summarizes what has been said and briefly explains what is to follow, for example:

That’s how he behaved towards his country. Now see what he was like with his parents.

or

There you have my generosity towards him. Now hear how he returned the favour.

This figure has two advantages: it reminds the listener of what has been said and prepares him for what is to come.

Correction involves taking back what has been said and replacing it with something more appropriate, as in this example:

But if he had asked his hosts, or even merely hinted, he could easily have received what he wanted.

or

For after they had conquered – and at the same time been conquered, for how am I to call it a victory when it did more harm than good to the victors?

or

O envy, companion of virtue – how you follow good men, and often even harass them!

The listener is affected by this figure. For the expression in ordinary words seems rather bland, but when followed by the correction of the orator, it invites lively delivery. Still, someone might ask, ‘Would it not then be preferable to use the best and choicest word from the outset, especially when writing?’ There are times when it isn’t preferable, that is, when the change of wording will reveal that the matter is of such a sort that if expressed with a common word it might seem trivial, but when corrected to a more precise word, acquires greater significance. But if you had proceeded right away to the precise word, neither the idea nor the word would have received much attention.

Open concealment occurs when we say that we are passing over or don’t know or aren’t willing to say precisely what we are now saying, as in the following:

If this were the right time, I would speak of your boyhood, which you devoted to every sort of immodest behaviour. But I leave it to the side. And I pass over the reports of the tribunes concerning your poor attendance at military training. And that big fine you paid to Lucius Labeo isn’t worth mentioning. So I have nothing to say about these matters, but return to the issue of this trial.

or:

I don’t discuss the money you took from our allies. I don’t concern myself with all the cities, kingdoms and households you defrauded. I skip over all your thefts and robberies.

This figure is useful for indirectly drawing attention to a helpful point that isn’t strictly relevant, or would be long or embarrassing or complicated to explain, or easy to refute. It’s better to generate suspicion indirectly than to make a direct claim that could be refuted.

Disjunction occurs when each of two or more statements is brought to a conclusion with a distinct verb, for example:

Look how each city suffered at the hands of the Roman people: Numantia – destroyed! Carthage – obliterated! Corinth – demolished! Fregellae – ruined! Not at all did the physical strength of Numantia help, the military knowledge of Carthage assist, the cunning of the Corinthians preserve, the shared language and customs of Fregellae protect.

or

Through disease beauty fades, through old age it dies.

In this example both clauses, in the prior example each of several clauses, ends with a distinct verb.

Conjoining occurs when expressions are held together by a verb placed between them:

Beauty from disease withers, or from age.

Adjoining occurs when expressions are held together by a verb placed not between them but before or after. Before:

Withers beauty from disease or age.

or after:

Beauty from disease or age withers.

Disjunction creates a charming effect, and so we use it sparingly so as not to overdo it. Conjunction produces concision, and so is to be used more often. These three ornaments are of a single type.

Reduplication is repetition of one or more words for the sake of emphasis or in an appeal to pity, for example:

Chaos, Gaius Gracchus!²⁰ Domestic and civil chaos is what you foment.

or

Were you not moved when his mother fell at your feet? Were you not moved?

or

Do you really dare to come into our midst, you traitor? Yes, I say, traitor! Do you really dare to come into our midst?

The repetition of the word has a strong effect on the listener and inflicts a serious wound on the opposing side, as if a weapon were repeatedly piercing the same organ.

Interpretatio or restatement involves not repeating the same word but substituting for one word another that has the same meaning, for example:

The republic you thoroughly destroyed, the state you completely ruined.

or

You assaulted your father, you laid hands on your parent.

It goes without saying that the emotions of the listener will be stirred up when the gravity of the original expression is deepened by restatement.

Commutation occurs when two contrasting ideas are arranged in criss-cross order, in such a way that the second, though contrasting, proceeds directly from the first, for example:

You must eat to live, not live to eat.²¹

or

I avoid writing poetry because I can’t write the kind I like, and don’t like the kind I can.²²

or

What can be said about him isn’t being said, what is being said can’t be said.

or

A poem should be a speaking painting, a painting a silent poem.23

or

If you’re a fool you should say nothing. If you say nothing, it doesn’t mean you’re a fool.

One can’t deny that it turns out nicely when in communicating contrasting content the words are also transposed. I have appended additional examples²⁴ of this figure, which is difficult to construct, so that it will be clear that when it is well understood it can be devised with greater ease.

Surrender or concession is when we indicate in our speech that we are submitting the entire matter to the will of another, as follows:

Since, now that all of my goods have been snatched away, only soul and body remain to me, these things too, which are all that remain of my prior abundance, I submit to you and your authority. May you use and abuse me however you deem fit. Order what you will with impunity. Speak and I will obey.

Although this figure can be used elsewhere, it is especially suitable for arousing pity.

Indecision is when the orator appears to ask which of two or more is the best choice, as follows:

On that occasion the republic suffered due to the stupidity of the consuls, or if it must be said, their malice. Or both.

or

Did you really dare to speak, you of all people, a man most – but what epithet can I use that matches your character?

Process of elimination occurs when, having listed every possible explanation for something, we eliminate all but one, which we insist upon. For example:

Now that it is established that ‘your’ estate is actually mine, then you must demonstrate either that you took possession of it when it was empty, or made it yours through use, or bought it, or obtained it as an inheritance. But you can’t have taken possession of it when it was empty, because I was there! And even now you haven’t made it yours through use. There’s no evidence of a sale. And since I’m still alive you can’t have received my property as an inheritance. The only remaining explanation is that you forcibly expelled me from my land!

This figure is of greatest use for arguments involving inference from facts. But unlike many other figures, we can’t just use it when we feel like it, but only if the nature of the affair provides the opportunity.

Disconnection (asyndeton)²⁵ is an expression broken into distinct parts due to the omission of intervening conjunctions, as follows:

Be kind to your father, spare your relations, do favours for your friends, obey the laws.

or

Provide a full defence, refuse nothing, hand your slaves over for interrogation, make every effort to find the truth.

This type of expression has a great deal of energy and produces brevity.

Cutting off (aposiopesis) is when a saying is left incomplete, for example:

The contest between you and me is not an equal one, because the Roman people consider me – no, I won’t say it, I don’t want to seem arrogant. You, on the other hand, they have often regarded as a disgrace!

or

Do you dare to speak this way? You who recently at another man’s home – no, I can’t say it. I won’t disgrace myself by describing your own disgraceful behaviour.

Here, an unspoken suspicion is made more shocking than a clear and open account.

Conclusion, or wrapping up, pins down the logical consequence of what has been said or done previously by means of a short argument, as follows:

Now if the oracle said that the Greeks could not take Troy without the arrows of Philoctetes, and these arrows served no purpose but to kill Paris, then killing Paris was the same as taking Troy.

There remain ten additional figures of language that I have not scattered at random but separated from the preceding list, because they belong together in the same category. Their common characteristic is that in them language departs from the ordinary force of words and is gracefully applied to another meaning.

First of these figures is nominatio (onomatopoeia). It invites us, when a term is lacking or not really suitable, to supply it through imitation or signification: imitation, as when our ancestors spoke of roaring, mooing, murmuring or hissing; signification or pointing, as in the expression:

After he attacked the republic there was a crack-up among the leading men.

This figure is to be used sparingly. We don’t want to weary the listener with novelty. But if you use it well and on occasion, not only will it not offend, it will even improve your style.

Pronomination (antonomasia) involves using an alternative expression for something that cannot be identified by name, for example, if someone speaking about the Gracchi26 should say:

But the grandsons of Africanus were not of this sort.

Or again if someone speaking of his adversary were to say:

Observe, judges, how Mr Swordswinger here has treated me.

With this figure we can, whether praising or blaming, stylishly employ an epithet derived from a person’s physical or mental characteristics, or even extraneous matters, instead of a proper name.

Denomination (metonymy) consists of deriving an expression from something related, allowing the matter to be understood without use of the precise term. The new term can be taken from something greater than the target term, for example by saying ‘Capitoline’ when referring to the Tarpeian Rock.²⁷ It can be created by replacing the invention with the inventor, for example Liber instead of wine, Ceres instead of grain; or by substituting the instrument for its user, for example if in speaking of the Macedonians someone says, ‘Not so quickly did the sarisae get control of Greece’, or of the Gauls, ‘Not so easily was the mataris²⁸ driven out of Italy.’ It can also be attained by substituting cause for effect, for example if, in trying to show that a person did something in war, we say, ‘Mars forced you to act this way’, or by substituting effect for cause, for example calling an art ‘indolent’, because it makes people indolent, or cold weather ‘sluggish’, because it causes sluggishness, or in referring to contents by naming the container, for example:

Italy cannot be bested in warfare, nor Greece in intellectual endeavour.

Here, instead of Greek people and Italian people, the places that contain them are named. We can also refer to a container by naming its contents, for example saying gold or silver or ivory while meaning wealth. It’s more difficult to list all of these denominations one by one than actually to create them, for normal usage, not just of poets and orators, but even everyday speech, is full of such expressions.

Periphrasis entails speaking of something simple in a roundabout manner, for example:

The foresight of Scipio smashed the resources of Carthage.

For here, if we weren’t seeking to adorn our speech, we would simply say ‘Scipio’ and ‘Carthage’.

Transgression (hyperbaton) refers to changing the word order through reversal or transposition. As an example of reversal:

I am convinced the immortal gods gave you this on account of virtue – yours.²⁹

of transposition:

Fortune prevailed against you, unreliable as always. Chance removed the means of living well, every single one.³⁰

A transposition of this sort, provided it doesn’t create obscurity, will be very useful in constructing periods, which I discussed above. In such constructions we ought to create a more or less poetic rhythm, so that the period can be brought to a close in a resolved and polished style.

Surpassing (hyperbole) consists of going beyond the truth for the sake of maximizing or minimizing something. It can be used independently or in conjunction with comparison. Independently:

As long as we keep the peace in our own city, we will extend our power from the rising to the setting of the sun.

Hyperbole in conjunction with comparison can express similarity or superiority.

As an example of similarity:

His body was white as snow, his face as hot as fire.

of superiority:

His words flowed sweeter than honey.

or of the same type:

His weapons flashed more brightly than the rays of the sun.

Intellection (synecdoche) occurs when an entire entity is to be recognized from a part or a part from the whole. A whole from a part as follows:

Did not the wedding flutes remind you of his marriage?

For the entirety of the marriage ritual is inferred from a single indicator, flutes.

Part from whole, for example if someone in speaking to a person wearing expensive clothing or jewellery should say:

You display your riches and boast of your abundant wealth.

Sometimes from one many are understood:

The Spaniard came to the aid of the Carthaginian, as did the monstrous Transalpinian, and in Italy more than one wearer of the toga felt the same way.

And from several one can be understood:

Dire disaster struck his chests with grief, panting from the depths of his lungs³¹ he gasped with dread.

For in the first example many Spaniards and Gauls and togate citizens are to be understood, in the second just one chest and one lung. There the number is diminished for the sake of elegance; here it is increased to create a sense of seriousness.

Misuse (catachresis) entails (mis)using a similar and closely related term instead of the correct and precise one, for example:

The power of a human being is short.

He is sparing in height.

His strategy is protracted.

The speech was heavy.

A shrunken conversation.

Here it is easy to understand how closely related words have been transferred to different entities through a technique of misapplication.

Translatio or metaphor occurs when a word is transferred from one referent to another, with similarity seeming to make the transfer possible and correct. It is employed for the sake of putting something before the eyes, for example:

Due to this upheaval Italy awoke in sudden terror.

or for the sake of brevity:

The recent arrival of the army quickly extinguished the state.

or to avoid obscenity:

His mother enjoys marriage every day.

for the sake of amplifying:

No sorrow or calamity could fill his hatred or satisfy his wicked cruelty.

or diminishing:

He proclaims that he was of enormous assistance because in their difficulty he had wished them well.

or just to make our speech more polished:

At some point the plans of the republic, which have dried up from the malice of enemies, will be refreshed by the virtue of outstanding men.

It’s said that a metaphor should be modest, so that it makes a considered transition to a similar topic, rather than seeming to rush recklessly and eagerly, without any selectivity, to something that isn’t similar at all.

Permutation32 is a way of saying one thing literally but meaning something else. It takes three forms: similarity, argument, contrast. It takes the form of similarity when many metaphors of a similar type are used in succession:

For when dogs start to act like wolves, to whom can we entrust the protection of our flocks?

It takes the form of argument, when similarity of person, place or thing is introduced for the sake of augmenting or diminishing, for example if someone should call Drusus³³

the faded glory of the Gracchi.

It takes the form of contrast when for example by way of ridicule we call a spendthrift man ‘cheap’ and ‘miserly’. And in both the last type, based on contrast, and the first, based on similarity, we can also develop argument. For example, through similarity:

What says the king, our Agamemnon, or, seeing how cruel he is, our Atreus?³⁴

From contrast, if we should call an impious man who beat his father ‘Aeneas’, or a wanton adulterer ‘Hippolytus’.³⁵

Figures of Thought

This is pretty much everything to be said about figures of speech. Now let’s turn to figures of thought.

Distribution involves assigning certain specific matters to multiple distinct persons or things, for example:

If you cherish the reputation of the senate, you must reject this man. For he has always harshly assaulted the senate. If you want the equestrian rank to be held in high regard in your city, then you must choose to punish him severely; otherwise his shameful behaviour will be a blot upon an honourable class of men. If you have parents, show them through your punishment of this man that you will not tolerate impiety. If you have children, set an example of the penalty imposed by your state on people of this sort.

or

The job of the senate is to help the state by giving advice. The job of the magistrate is to execute the will of the senate with energy and attention to detail. The job of the people is to select and approve with its votes the best policies and most appropriate leaders.

or

The duty of the accuser is to bring charges. Of the defender to explain and refute. Of the witness to state what he knows and has heard. Of the presiding judge to keep everyone else to his assigned task. Therefore, Lucius Cassius, if you allow a witness, apart from saying what he knows and has heard, to draw inferences and develop arguments, you confuse the right of the accuser with that of the witness, you endorse the misconduct of a biased witness, and you force the defendant to defend himself twice.³⁶

This is a helpful device, for it expresses a great deal briefly and in assigning specific responsibilities clearly defines many things at once.

It’s called licence or outspokenness when in speaking before those we ought to respect or fear we nonetheless insist upon our own right to speak out because we seem to be telling the truth in criticizing them or those they love. Here is an example:

Are you surprised, fellow citizens, that your explanation is rejected by everyone? That no one takes your side, that no one stands up in your defence? Don’t be surprised, recognize that you are to blame. Why shouldn’t everyone shun and avoid this situation? Remember your past defenders, place before your eyes their services to you, consider how it turned out for them. Then recall how thanks to your negligence (for I must speak frankly) and total lack of effort, all of them were slaughtered right before your eyes, while their enemies, thanks to your votes, achieved the highest rank.

or

On what basis, gentlemen, did you hesitate to pass judgement or agree to grant this wicked man a second trial? Wasn’t it an open and shut case? Didn’t all the witnesses confirm his guilt? Wasn’t his defence a feeble joke? Were you afraid that if you condemned him at a first hearing you would be considered cruel? In avoiding an improbable accusation, you opened yourself up to a charge of cowardice. Despite the extraordinary public and private disasters, with even greater ones impending, you just sit and yawn. By day you wait for night, by night you wait for day. Every day brings news of another painful calamity: do you still dawdle in dealing with the cause of these disasters, raise him up for the destruction of the republic, keep him as long as possible in our city?

If it seems a little too acrimonious, this figure can be modified with certain mitigating expressions, for example something like the following can be introduced:

Here I look to your courage, I long for your wisdom, I feel the loss of your usual good sense.

That way any bad feeling caused by frank speech can be countered with praise. The praise diminishes the audience’s anger and annoyance, while the frankness prevents any misunderstanding. As in friendship, so in public speaking, frankness, at the right moment, can have a major impact. It keeps the audience from making a mistake and presents the speaker as an ally of both the audience and the truth.

There is a certain shrewder version of frankness of speech which occurs either when we criticize an audience in a way that they want to be criticized or when we say we are afraid of how an audience will take something which we know they will take very well, but insist that we will speak out anyway in the interests of truth. Here are examples of both.

Of the first:

My fellow citizens, you are too simple and easy-going, too trusting in each and every person. You think that everyone will struggle to keep his promises to you! But you are mistaken, detained by false hope due to your own naivety. You have chosen to seek from others what you could have taken for yourselves.

Of the second:

Yes, gentlemen, I was indeed friendly with that man, but as to that friendship, although I’m afraid of how you’re going to take this, still I must say it, you have deprived me of it. How’s that? Because in order to earn your approval, I have chosen to treat your attacker as my enemy rather than my friend.

Thus this figure, which is called frankness, takes two forms, as I have shown. It can be acrimonious, in which case it can be tempered with praise so as not to seem too harsh. Or it can take the form of pretence, which I described second, and which has no need of mitigation as its candour is not real and in fact fits the mindset of the listener.

Understatement (litotes) is reduction or attenuation of a claim to distinction in nature, fortune or effort on our part or that of our client. We use it in order to avoid the appearance of arrogant boasting. For example:

Now by rights, gentlemen, I can say that through effort and discipline I have become not unknowledgeable of military affairs.

If the speaker had said ‘the most knowledgeable’, even if it were true, he would seem arrogant. But as it is, what he has said is sufficient for avoiding resentment while securing approval.

Here is another example:

Did he become a criminal out of greed or necessity? Greed? But he was very helpful to his friends, which is a sign of generosity, the opposite of greed. Necessity? But his father left him an inheritance – I don’t mean to exaggerate – that was hardly what we would call small.

This way we avoid saying ‘big’ or ‘enormous’. We use this figure when speaking of great advantages enjoyed by ourselves or those we defend – the sorts of things that spark envy in life and opposition in oratory, if you discuss them thoughtlessly. Therefore just as we avoid envy in life by moderating our behaviour, we avoid opposition or hostility in speaking through careful consideration.

It’s called vivid description when we present a clear, detailed and sober account of a possible outcome:

But if, gentlemen, by your decision you free him, immediately, like a lion released from its cage or some other dreadful beast when its chains have been removed, he will fly here and there across the forum, whetting his appetite for the possessions of every one of you, charging at friend and foe alike, familiar or not, ruining the reputation of some, threatening the civil status of others, breaking up homes and households, undermining the foundations of the state. Therefore, gentlemen, drive him out of the city, free everyone from fear, take heed of your own safety. Trust me, gentlemen, if you release him unpunished, you set a wild and vicious beast upon yourselves.

Another example:

For if you impose a heavy penalty on the defendant, judges, with a single judgement you will have ended many lives. His aged father, all of whose hope is placed in the young man, will have no reason to go on living. His small children, deprived of their father’s protection, will be exposed to the ridicule and disrespect of their father’s enemies; his entire household will collapse from this undeserved calamity. But his enemies, having attained a bloody reward for the cruellest sort of victory, will rejoice in the sufferings of his people. Their arrogance will become evident in word and deed.

Another:

My fellow citizens, you all understand the terrible things that happen when a city is captured. Those who bore arms against the attackers are immediately executed in the cruellest way possible. Of the rest, those whose age and strength allow them to perform labour are carried off into slavery; those who cannot work are killed. At one and the same time a house will be set afire by the enemy and those whom nature or choice have united in intimacy and goodwill are torn apart from one another. Some children are snatched from the laps of their parents, others killed in their embrace, still others sexually assaulted at their parents’ feet. Gentlemen, there is no speaker capable of conveying the reality of the situation in words or communicating the magnitude of the disaster in a speech.

This figure can stir indignation or pity by clearly and concisely expressing potential outcomes in their entirety.

Division entails separating one point from another, with an explanation supplied for each.

What’s the point in reproaching you? If you’re a good person, you don’t deserve it; if not, you won’t be affected by what I say.

or

Why should I speak about my own accomplishments? If you remember them, I will bore you. If you have forgotten them, what can I possibly accomplish with words when my deeds have had no impact?

or

There are two things that can motivate a man to seek profit through shameful means. These are poverty and greed. We became familiar with your greed at the time of your falling-out with your brother. And we see now your poverty and need. So how can you insist that you had no motive for this crime?

The difference between division as a figure and division as the third part of a speech, following narration (which I discussed in book one), is as follows. Division as part of a speech outlines the topics to be treated in the rest of the speech. The division discussed here pertains to the matter immediately under consideration and breaks it down into two or three points for elaboration.

Accumulation involves gathering all of the dispersed aspects of a case into a single passage, to make the speech more impressive or incisive or to highlight the number of charges.

Is there any vice of which this criminal is free? What basis is there for wanting to exonerate him? He betrays his own chastity, plots against that of others. He is lustful, out of control, nasty, arrogant. He’s disrespectful of his parents, ungrateful to his friends, hostile to his relatives. He abuses his superiors, treats his peers with disdain, is cruel to those below him. In short, no one can stand him.

Of a similar sort is the kind of crowding together (frequentatio) that is so useful in conjectural cases. Accusations which when spoken separately can seem weak and trivial, if gathered together in one passage, can make the case seem clear rather than dubious. For example:

Gentlemen of the jury: don’t consider my arguments individually, but take them as a unified whole. If the defendant profited from the victim’s death, if his lifestyle is of the most shameful sort, his spirit most avaricious, his family property greatly reduced, and if the crime benefited no one but him, and if no one else had equal opportunity to commit the crime, and for him there were no more opportune means than the ones used; if he neglected nothing that was essential for the crime and did nothing that was not; and if he sought the most favourable place, the ideal occasion and the most opportune moment for committing the crime, and if he spent the longest period of time in completing the crime and did so with great hope of completing it unnoticed; and if in addition before the murder he was seen in the very place where it occurred, by himself, and shortly thereafter during the commission of the crime the voice of the victim was heard; and if after the murder, in the dead of night, as we established, the defendant returned to his home, and on the following day spoke about the murder in shaky and uncertain terms: if all of this has been confirmed either by free testimony or information obtained under torture, and is supported by the opinion of the common people, which must be true, as it arises from the facts; your task, gentlemen, is to assemble sure knowledge, not mere suspicion, on the basis of all of these considerations taken together. For while one or another of these facts may have raised suspicion just by chance, the fact that all of them from beginning to end apply to him is no coincidence but proof of his guilt.

This figure is very helpful. In a case based on inference it is almost always necessary and in other cases and speeches it is often worth employing.

Refining consists of revisiting a topic while appearing to say something different about it. This happens in two ways: we can repeat the point or elaborate on it. Even if we repeat the point, we express it differently, since our aim is to embellish the argument not bludgeon the listener. This alteration can take the form of words, delivery or approach.

Alteration will be verbal when, having made a point, we make it again using other words with the same meaning. For example:

No danger is so great that a wise man would think it to be avoided if the well-being of the country is at stake. When the eternal safety of the state is at issue, no person of good sense will consider fleeing even a danger to his life if he can benefit the republic. He will always make the decision to enter mortal danger if it is for the sake of the country.

Alteration entails a change of delivery if we speak first in a conversational style, then with great ferocity, then in one or another vocal register and with different gestures. While altering the words somewhat we alter the delivery dramatically. This sort of change can’t really be demonstrated in writing, but it’s easy to imagine, so no example is necessary.

The third type of alteration is in approach. We might express our meaning in dialogue form or through emotional arousal. Dialogue – which I will discuss more fully later in its place, now only briefly, as sufficient for this heading – consists of speech adapted to the rank of a specific person, as follows (for simplicity’s sake, I continue with the same theme as above):

Every wise man will believe that it is necessary to put oneself at risk for the sake of the republic. Often he will address himself as follows: ‘I was born not for myself alone, but even more so for my country. Let me pay the debt I owe to fate for my life by giving it for the well-being of the country. For the country nourished me. Safely and honourably it led me to my present age. It fortified my own capacity for judgement with good laws, outstanding customs and the best possible education. How can I possibly repay it for all that I have received?’ Because he speaks this way so often to himself, at a time of danger to the republic he will avoid no danger to himself.

The same topic can be approached as an occasion for stirring emotions. We present ourselves as emotionally affected while we seek to affect our listeners. For example:

Who is possessed of such limited power of thought, whose spirit is constrained to such narrow pathways of resentment, that he does not praise this man most eagerly and judge him most wise, a man who for the safety of the country, for the security of the city, for the prosperity of the republic zealously accepts and freely submits himself to great and terrible danger? My desire to give this man sufficient praise is much greater than my ability. And I am certain that all of you share this sentiment.

In short, we can achieve an altered presentation of the same topic through three means: words, delivery, approach, with approach taking two forms, dialogue and emotional appeal.

But when we elaborate or talk around the point, we use many different types of alteration. For example, in presenting a simple point, we might append a reason, then repeat the point either with or without reasons, then consider the contrary (all of which I have discussed under figures of speech), or add a simile or example (about which there will be more to say), then a conclusion (which I discussed in the second book, showing how to bring arguments to a conclusion; in this book we explained the figure of speech also known as conclusion). A refinement of this sort, which consists of multiple figures of speech and thought, can thus be quite elaborate. What follows is a treatment in seven parts – using the same subject matter as in the preceding example to help you understand how easily, thanks to rhetorical training, a simple point can be developed in multiple ways.

A wise man will avoid no danger if it is to the benefit of the republic. This is because often, if he will have elected not to perish for the sake of the republic, he will end up perishing along with it. Also, because all good things have been received from one’s country, no inconvenience for the sake of the country is considered too serious. Therefore, those who avoid undertaking a risk for the sake of the republic act like fools. They cannot avoid a negative outcome, and besides they will be exposed as ingrates to the state. But those who expose themselves to danger while confronting danger to the country are considered wise: they repay the honour that they owe to the republic, and they prefer to die for the many rather than with the many. And so it is grossly unfair, when it comes to the life that you received from nature and retained thanks to your country, for you to return it when nature demands but not to do so when your country asks. And although you have the opportunity to die on behalf of your country with the highest degree of virtue and honour, you prefer to live in shame and cowardice. And although you are willing to undergo risk for your friends and parents and other relations, for the republic, which embraces all of these as well as the most sacred name of fatherland, you are not willing to put yourself in danger.

Thus, just as we must condemn a man who on a voyage puts his own safety ahead of that of the ship, so we must speak out against one who in the crisis of the republic considers his own rather than the communal well-being. Indeed, from the breakup of a ship, many have escaped unharmed, from the shipwreck of the country, no one can swim off safely. Decius understood this well, for it’s said that he devoted himself to the gods of the Underworld and for the sake of his legions rushed into the midst of the enemy.37 He sacrificed his life, yet he did not lose it. He bought something secure at a cheap price, something magnificent for a small outlay. He gave his life, he received his country. He gave up his life’s breath, he acquired glory, which, being passed down from of old, daily shines more brightly. The value of accepting danger for the sake of the republic is evident on the basis of reason, and has been confirmed by examples. Surely those who accept any risk for the sake of their country deserve to be considered wise.

Refinement, then, is achieved in the ways just indicated. I have felt the need to elaborate on this topic both because it improves our presentation when we argue a case, and because it is a very effective exercise for developing the capacity for eloquence. It will be helpful to practise the different means of refinement outside the judicial context, and in the course of actual speeches to put them to use when we are amplifying our argument, as explained in the second book.

Dwelling on the point consists of taking our time over and even returning to the strongest argument, on which the case as a whole hinges. This is a very useful technique, especially suited to a good orator. For the audience is rendered incapable of turning its attention from the strongest point. It isn’t possible to append a suitable example, since this topic isn’t really separate from the rest of the case, like a limb from a body, but rather is like blood suffusing the whole of a speech.

Contrast is the bringing together of opposites. As I explained earlier, it can be a figure of speech, for example:

To enemies you are conciliatory, to friends unforgiving.

or a figure of thought:

You lament his losses, he rejoices in the blow to the republic. You fear for your fortunes, and for this reason he alone has confidence in his.

The difference between these two types of contrast is that one consists of words placed in close succession, in the other contrasting ideas are expressed comparatively.

Similitude is an expression that transfers a comparable element from a dissimilar topic. It is used as embellishment, as a means of proof, for the sake of clarity or to create vividness. And it is achieved through four methods as well: contrast, negation, parallel, brevity. Different methods are adapted to different goals.

For the sake of embellishment and through contrast, as follows:

Unlike in the palaestra,³⁸ where the person who receives the flaming torch runs more swiftly in the relay than the one who passes it along, the new general who takes command of the army is not better than the one who sets it down, for an exhausted runner passes the torch to one who is fresh, but an experienced general transmits command to one who is inexperienced.

The point is clear enough even without a similitude, and could be expressed as follows:

It’s said that good generals take command of armies from better ones.

But a similitude is incorporated for the sake of embellishment and to give the speech a certain dignity. Here it was expressed through contrast. For a similitude is expressed through contrast when we deny the resemblance between our subject and something else.

A similitude can be used as a negation and for the sake of proving a point, as follows:

An untamed horse, however well designed by nature, is not suited to the tasks expected of horses; just so, an uneducated man, however talented, cannot attain virtue.

The assertion that a man cannot attain virtue without education comes to seem closer to the truth when it is understood that not even an untrained horse is of much use as a horse. The comparison aims at proving a point, and is established through negation – as the word ‘not’ near the beginning of the passage makes clear.

A similitude is used for the sake of clarity – and expressed concisely – in the following:

In a friendship, as in a foot race, you train not just to reach the finish line, but to push yourself beyond it.

This similitude exposes the faulty reasoning of those who criticize others for keeping a promise to support a friend’s children even after his death. A runner must build such momentum that he is carried beyond the finish line; a friend must have so much goodwill that in his commitment to the friendship he goes beyond anything his friend could be aware of. This similitude is also expressed in a brief manner. For topic is not separated from topic, as in other instances, but the two are linked and expressed together.

A similitude is used for the sake of vividness, and in the form of a parallel, as follows:

Think of a cithara39 player who steps forward dressed in his finery – palla trimmed in gold, purple chlamys⁴⁰ embroidered with various colours, golden crown brightened with shining jewels. He holds a cithara adorned with gold and set off with ivory. His beauty, physique and pose assert his dignity.

If, having aroused the audience’s expectation in this way, suddenly, when all are silent, he emits a shrieking voice accompanied by the most embarrassing contortions of his body, the greater the expectation generated by his appearance, the greater the derision and contempt as he is thrown off the stage. So too, if a person who occupies an elevated position thanks to fortune and is supplied with great wealth, abounding in the gifts of fortune and all the advantages of nature, is nonetheless completely lacking in virtue and the arts (which are the teachers of virtue), the more plentiful, brilliant and inspiring his gifts, the greater the derision and contempt as he is driven from every gathering of good men.

This figure brings the matter before the eyes of all, embellishing both sides of the comparison by expressing in parallel manner the ineptitude of one party and the indolence of the other. With similitudes it’s important to make sure that when we introduce the target of the comparison, we use language adapted to the resemblance, as in the following:

Just as swallows make their appearance in springtime, when all danger of frost has passed …

And here, on the basis of resemblance but by means of metaphor, using the same words:

so too false friends make their appearance in calm times, but as soon as they see our fortunes grow cold, they fly away.

It’s easy to find similitudes if we keep before our eyes all manner of things, animate and inanimate, mute and articulate, wild and tame, on earth, in the sky, in the sea, artificial, accidental, natural, familiar and unfamiliar, and from their midst track down similitude, such as can embellish or instruct or clarify or place before the eyes. For there needn’t be resemblance between the totality of the items compared, but just with respect to the point of comparison.

An example is a presentation of some past deed or saying with specification by name of the author or agent. It serves the same functions as similitude. It makes the matter under discussion more ornate when it is employed for no reason except to make a good impression. It makes the matter easier to understand when it is used to clarify something that is a little obscure; more persuasive when it makes what is said seem likely to be true; and more vivid when it describes something in detail, almost as if you could touch it with your hand. I would have supplied an instance of each type, but I have already defined it in my discussion of refinement and explained its functions in my discussion of similitude. I would rather not write less than necessary for understanding or more than necessary once a topic has been understood.

Image-formation is comparison of one figure with another, with attention to similarity. This can be used for purposes of praise or blame.

For praise, as follows:

He entered battle with a body like that of a powerful bull, his lunge like that of a ferocious lion.

For blame, that is to induce hatred, as follows:

That man, who daily slithers through the forum like a hooded snake, with curved fangs, venomous glare and rasping breath, looking this way and that, trying to find someone, anyone whom he can infect with the evil content of his jaws, smearing it with his mouth, injecting it with his teeth, spattering it about with his tongue.

To induce envy or resentment, as follows:

That fellow, who boasts of his riches, shrieks and carries on like a castrated priest from Phrygia41 or an oracle-monger, all the while loaded and burdened down with gold.

To induce contempt, as follows:

That fellow is just like a snail who retreats into hiding and keeps still, while he is being carried off, house included, to be devoured in his entirety.

Portraying is when physical appearance is fashioned and expressed in words, to the point of being recognized, as in the following:

I’m talking about the man with the red face, the one who’s short, stooped, with white and somewhat curly hair, greyish eyes, a big welt on his chin – just in case any of you can remember him.

This figure is useful for designating an individual and appealing if it is brief and precise.

Characterization is when a person’s character is delineated by specific indicators, like markers assigned to a type. For example, if you wish to describe someone who is not necessarily rich, but likes to act as if he has money to burn:

The fellow who thought it was a big deal to be called rich, see now, judges, how he surveys us. Doesn’t he seem to be saying: ‘I’d gladly give you all a little something, if only you didn’t bore me so much.’ He props his chin on his left hand and imagines he is blinding us all with the brilliance of his jewellery and the gleam of his gold. When he spots his one and only slave – I know him, although I don’t think you do – he calls him first by one name, then by another and still another. ‘You there, Sannio,’ he says, ‘come and see to it that these barbarians don’t make a mess of things.’ He wants the ignorant who are within earshot to think he is selecting one slave from among many. And he tells him, in a whisper, to arrange the dining couches at home, to beg his uncle to let the Aethiopian accompany him to the baths, to station the Asturian before the door, or ready some other flimsy prop for his fake glory. Then he exclaims, so all can hear: ‘Make sure all the money is counted by nightfall, if that’s possible.’ The slave, who knows his master’s ways, responds, ‘You’d better send more slaves along, if you want it all counted today.’ ‘All right then,’ he says, ‘take Libanus and Sosia with you.’ ‘Of course.’

Then by chance guests arrive, men he had invited while on his grand tour overseas. The gentleman is no doubt troubled by this development, yet still he does not cease from his mischief. ‘You do well to visit,’ he says, ‘but you should have gone straight to my house.’ They reply, ‘We would have done so, if we knew where it was.’ ‘But you could have asked anyone! Still, come along with me.’ They follow him. His conversation consists entirely of boasting and bragging. When asked about the crops in the fields, he explains that it’s impossible to go and check them out because the villas have burned down, nor does he dare even now to rebuild. ‘Yet on my Tusculan estate, I have begun the crazy project of building on the same foundations.’ While talking this way, he approaches some house or other where a dining club was scheduled to meet that day. He enters with his guests, on the basis of his familiarity with the owner.

‘This is where I live,’ he says. He inspects the silver, which had been set out, and checks the coverings on the dining couches. He approves. The slave approaches, he says – audibly – that the master is on his way back, in case he would like to leave. ‘Is that so?’ he says. ‘Let us go, my friends, my brother returns from Falernum. I will meet him on the way. Do please come back at the tenth hour.’

The guests go on their way. He hurries home. As ordered, they return at the tenth hour. They ask for him, they discover whose house it really is, and realizing they’d been tricked, head to an inn. The next day they see the man. They complain and demand an explanation. He says that they had been misled by the similarity of the two places, and had missed his house by an entire street. To the detriment of his own health he had waited for them well into the night.

To his slave Sannio he had given the task of securing vessels, coverings and additional slaves. The clever little fellow had with some effort managed everything beautifully. And so our fellow leads his guests to his home. He says he’s lent his biggest house to a friend for a wedding celebration. Then the slave reports that the silver is being called for. The one who had provided it had grown fearful. ‘Away with you,’ he says, ‘I lent him my house, my staff. Does he want my silver as well? Well, even though I have guests, let him have it, we will enjoy the Samian ware.’42 Why bother reporting what he does next? The man’s character is such that the pretence he creates in a single day through bravado and boasting I could scarcely recount in a year of normal talking.

Character sketches of this sort, which provide descriptions consistent with the nature of a given person, offer a great deal of pleasure. They put before the eyes the entirety of a character type, whether of a braggart, as in our example, or of someone who is jealous, puffed-up, greedy, a social climber, a lover, a spendthrift, a thief, a professional informer: the driving passion of each type can be hauled up for scrutiny with this sort of characterization.

Dialogue consists of assigning to a given person a type of speech that suits his standing, for example:

When the city was overflowing with soldiers and everyone out of fear was staying indoors, this man comes forward in his military cloak, armed with a sword and spear, accompanied by three youths in similar get-up. Suddenly he bursts into a house, and demands in a booming voice, ‘Where is the rich man who owns this house? Why isn’t he here before me? Why are you all keeping quiet?’

Everyone else stayed silent, struck dumb with fear, while the wife of the unfortunate homeowner threw herself at our fellow’s feet: ‘I beg you, by all that is dearest to you in life, have mercy on us, do not destroy those who are already destroyed, show restraint in your good fortune. We too were once fortunate. You, too, are only human.’ ‘Why don’t you hand him over and stop hurting my ears with your pleas? He’s not going to get away.’ Meanwhile the master is informed of this monster’s arrival and told how he is loudly threatening death. As soon as he has heard, he says to Gorgias, his children’s attendant: ‘Gorgias, please, hide the children, protect them, lead them safely to adolescence.’ Scarcely had he spoken when the other man appears and says, ‘Are you still here, fool? Hasn’t my voice frightened you to death? Now satisfy my hatred and anger with your blood.’ But the master of the house responds courageously: ‘I was afraid that I had been defeated. But now I understand: you have no intention of combating me in court, where defeat is disgraceful and victory most beautiful. You only wish to kill. So be it, I will die, but I will not be vanquished.’

‘How eloquent you are at the last moment of your life! You see I have you in my control. Do you not wish to beg for your life?’ Then the wife speaks: ‘No! He is begging and beseeching! Please, take pity – and you, by the gods, embrace him. He is your master. He has conquered you – now conquer your pride.’ ‘Cease to speak words unworthy of me, wife. Be silent and tend to your own affairs. And as for you, go ahead, put an end to my life – and by my death deprive yourself of any hope of living well.’ The intruder pushed the wailing wife aside and as the homeowner started to say something or other, no doubt worthy of his virtue, he plunged the sword into his side.

In this example each character has been given language fitting his or her status, as should happen with this figure of thought.

There are also hypothetical dialogues, such as the following:

What do we imagine they will say if you decide the case that way? Won’t they speak as follows?

Then supply their speech.

Personification consists of inventing a conversation with an absent person as if he were present, or letting a mute or bodiless entity speak out, giving it appropriate shape and speech, or even action, as follows:

But if this unconquered city should speak, would it not speak as follows? ‘I, a city adorned with multiple trophies, enriched by unconditional triumphs, abounding in glorious victories, now, citizens, am assaulted by your seditious behaviour! Perfidious Carthage, powerful Numantia, brilliant Corinth – none of these could bring me to my knees. Am I now to be trampled and ground to bits by you pathetic nonentities?’

or

But if that famous Lucius Brutus43 should now return to life and appear here before you, would he not speak as follows? ‘I banished kings: you welcome tyrants. I brought forth liberty: you are unwilling to preserve it. I risked my life to liberate our country: you have no interest in being free, even when there is no risk involved.’

Personification of this sort can be used of many entities, even mute and inanimate ones. It is especially useful in creating emphasis and generating pity.

Implication suggests more than it actually says. It can be generated through exaggeration, ambiguity, logical consequence, self-interruption (aposiopesis) and similitude. Here’s an example constructed by exaggeration, with more being said than is really true in order to heighten the suspicion:

This man from so massive a patrimony so soon possesses not even a clay pot for acquiring fire.

Through ambiguity when a word can be understood in two or more senses, but is taken as the speaker wishes: for example, if one were to say of a man who has received many legacies:

Look out, you who see so much.⁴⁴

Just as ambiguities are to be avoided if they make our speech obscure, so too they are to be sought if they produce the right sort of implication. These can be found easily if we are familiar with and pay attention to the double and multiple meanings of words.

Implication through logical consequence comes about when we describe something that proceeds from something else, making the entire subject suspect. For example, if you say to the son of a fish-seller:

Be quiet, you, whose father wiped his nose on his arm.

Through breaking off if we begin to say something, then stop ourselves, leaving plenty of suspicion on the basis of what we have already said, for example:

A handsome young gentleman at a stranger’s house – I’d rather not say more.

Through similitude, when we make a comparison without additional comment, letting our meaning speak for itself, for example:

Saturninus, do not rely so heavily on the support of the people: the Gracchi are still unavenged.45

This figure is quite elegant and yet dignified. It allows the listener to draw an inference while the speaker stays silent.

Brevity means saying something in the absolute minimum number of words, for example:

On his way he captured Lemnos, next stationed a guard at Thasos, then destroyed the Bithynian city, then returned to the Hellespont, where he immediately took control of Abydos.

or

Recently consul, he was then first man in the state. He goes to Asia. He’s named public enemy and exile. He becomes commander-in-chief and finally consul for the seventh time.⁴⁶

Brevity allows us to say much in few words. It is to be used often, either when there is no need for a long speech or time does not allow us to dally.

We call it visualization when something is expressed in words in such a way that it seems to take place before our eyes. This can be accomplished if we include what happened before or after or during the event itself or if we do not back away from subsequent or surrounding circumstances, as follows:

As soon as Gracchus⁴⁷ sees that the people are wavering in fear that he will change his mind due to the decree of the senate, he calls for a public debate. Our villain, meanwhile, raging with criminal intent, flies from the temple of Jupiter. Sweating, eyes ablaze, hair on end, toga all twisted, with numerous henchmen he hurries forth. The herald calls for silence for the speaker. But our villain, out of control, presses his heel on a bench and snaps off its leg, ordering the others to do the same. Just as Gracchus begins the invocation to the gods, they all press forwards and rush towards him from different directions. From among the people a single voice cries out: ‘Run, Tiberius! Run! Don’t you see? Turn around and look!’ Then the fickle crowd, suddenly terrified, takes flight.

But he, foaming at the mouth with crime, exhaling cruelty from deep in his chest, twists his arm, and with Gracchus uncertain what is going on, yet not moving from his place, he strikes his temple. Gracchus, abandoning none of his innate virtue, falls in silence. The other, splattered with the pitiable blood of a most courageous man, as if he had accomplished a glorious deed, looks around, and joyously extending his criminal hand to his well-wishers, returns to the temple of Jupiter.

This figure enriches the subject under discussion and creates an appeal to pity, especially in narratives of such a sort. It gives substance to the whole affair and places it before the eyes of the audience.

All the means of adorning style I have now carefully assembled. If you practise them diligently, Herennius, you will make your style impressive, dignified and appealing. You will speak like a true orator and the argument you have developed will not be presented naked and unadorned in a vulgar manner.