[77] Interrogatio (rhetorical question), præsumptio (πρόληψις), dubitatio (ἀπορία, with several modifications), simulatio (including παρρησία and prosopopœia), apostrophe, sub oculos subjectio (ὑποτύπωσις, corresponding to the trope evidentia), dissimulatio (εἰρωνεία, distinguished from the trope ironia, and appearing also as ἀντίφρασις, confessio, concessio, consensio), reticentia (ἀποσιώπησις, with interruptio and digressio), imitatio (ἠθοποιία), pœnitentia, emphasis (also a trope), and finally various forms of insinuation by hint and double meaning. Other figures, as included by Rutilius Lupus and Celsus, Quintilian lists (IX. ii. 102), but does not describe. [78] For convenience of reference Quintilian’s grouping of _figuræ verborum_ in IX. iii. may be tabulated as follows:— Group 1, variations of syntax (3-27), such as hyperbaton. Group 2, modes of iteration (28-65), figuræ per adjectionem; e.g., ἐπάνοδος (regressio), πολύπτωτον, μεταβολή, πλοκή, συνωνυμία, πλεονασμός, διαλλαγή (with the accompanying syntactical variations, βραχυλογία, ἀσύνδετον, πολυσύνδετον), and, most important, climax (κλῖμαξ, gradatio), a term applied consistently to progressive iteration; related figuræ per detractionem, συνεζευγμένον, παραδιαστολή (distinctio). Group 3, word-play, paronomasia, annominatio (66-73), e.g., ἀντανάκλασις. Group 4, balance and antithesis (74-86). Quintilian introduces these Gorgian figures by saying: “Magnæ veteribus curæ fuit gratiam dicendi paribus et contrariis acquirere. Gorgias in hoc immodicus, copiosus ætate prima utique Isocrates fuit. Delectatus est his etiam M. Tullius” (74), and proceeds (75) to divide balance into: πάρισον, ὁμοιοτέλευτον, ὁμοιόπτωτον, ἰσόκωλον. The Gorgian figures are analyzed and exemplified by Méridier, 33. 162; Guignet, 106. Campbell includes them in a different classification, more distinctive for his analysis, and is generally followed by Sr M. Inviolata Barry, _St Augustine the orator, a study of the rhetorical qualities of St. Augustine’s Sermones ad Populum_, Washington, 1924 (Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, VI). Sr Barry’s table, pages 18-19, is useful for reference. [79] Incidentally the comparison and contrast with David is carried out much in the manner of a σύγκρισις. [80] For Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian on sentence rhythm, see ARP 27, 28, 59-61, 79. [81] Philostratus, I. 21 (84). [82] See Méridier’s analysis (20) of the distinction made by Hermogenes between true and false δεινότης. [83] Diary, March 14, 1826. [84] The classic formulation of this is the treatise _On the Sublime_, viii. CHAPTER II[1] ST. AUGUSTINE ON PREACHING (_DE DOCTRINA CHRISTIANA_, IV)