_Ly._ Good gracious, no; it would take us till midnight. No; you can look those out for yourself. Meanwhile, we had better take fresh ones, as we have only a quarter of an hour (by the way, never pronounce the 'h' in hour; that sounds dreadful). Then as to that outrage which you say I have committed upon you; if I were to speak of an outrage committed _against_ you, that would be another thing. _Pur._ Would it? _Ly._ Yes; an outrage _upon_ you must be committed upon you personally, in the shape of blows, interference with your liberty, or the like. An outrage _against_ you is upon something that belongs to you; he who does an outrage upon your wife, child, friend, or slave, does it against you. This distinction, however, does not apply to inanimate things. An 'outrage against' is a legitimate phrase with them, as when Plato talks in the _Symposium_ of an outrage against a proverb. _Pur._ Ah, I see now. _Ly._ Do you also see that the exchange of one for the other is a solecism? _Pur._ Yes, I shall know that for the future. _Ly._ And if a person were to use 'interchange' there instead of 'exchange,' what would you take him to mean? _Pur._ Just the same. _Ly._ Why, how can they be equivalent? Exchange is merely the substitution of one expression for another, the improper for the proper; whereas interchange involves a false statement[27]. _Pur._ I see now; exchange is the use of a loose instead of a precise expression, while interchange is the use of both expressions, each in the other's place. _Ly._ These subtleties are not unpleasing. Similarly, when we are concerned _with_ a person, it is in our own interest; but when we are concerned _for_ him, it is in his. It is true the phrases are sometimes confused, but there are those who observe the distinction; and it is as well to be on the safe side. _Pur._ Quite true. _Ly._ Now, can you tell me the difference between 'setting' and 'sitting,' or between 'be seated' and 'sit'? _Pur._ No; but I have heard you say that 'sit yourself' is a barbarism. _Ly._ Yes, quite so; but now I tell you that 'be seated' is not the same as 'sit.' _Pur._ Why, what may the difference be? _Ly._ When a man is on his legs, you can only tell him to be seated; but if he is seated already, you can tell him to sit still. Sit where thou art; we find us seats elsewhere. It means 'remain sitting,' you see. Here again we have to say that it is a mistake to reverse the expressions. And as to 'set' and 'sit,' surely it is the whole difference between transitive and intransitive? _Pur._ That is clear enough; go on; this is the way to teach. _Ly._ Or the only way you can learn? Well, do you know what a historian is? (_The explanation of this point appears to have dropped out of the MSS.--Translators._) _Pur._ Oh, yes, I quite see, after your lucid explanation. _Ly._ Now I daresay you think servility and servitude are the same; but I am aware of a considerable difference between them. _Pur._ Namely--?