If “spoke” is taken in its ordinary literal sense, the attribution to circumstances does not describe a real physical act. If it denotes revealing or signifying, the verb is a potential case of derivative metaphor.
Under al-Sakkaki’s account, the attribution can instead function as a clue to a hidden speaker-image. Yet analysis becomes inconsistent if the same use is indiscriminately called both literal and figurative in the identical respect.
Two questions should be separated: has the verb departed from conventional meaning, and how has its abstract subject been imagined in relation to a speaking human?