Chapter 2

τῶν μὲν οὖν λόγων, οὓς οὗτος ἄνω καὶ κάτω διακυκῶν ἔλεγε περὶ τῶν παραγεγραμμένων νόμων, οὔτε μὰ τοὺς θεοὺς οἶμαι ὑμᾶς μανθάνειν οὔτ’ αὐτὸς ἐδυνάμην συνεῖναιτοὺς πολλούς.

Demosthenesde Corona§ 111 (cp. § 57).

In prose, again, the extremely antithetic and artificial arrangement of words possible (without complete loss of clearness) in a highly inflected language may be illustrated from Thucydides:—

καὶ οὐ περὶ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἄρα οὔτε οὗτοι τῶν Ἑλλήνων οὔθ’ οἱ Ἕλληνες τῆς ἑαυτῶν τῷ Μήδῳ ἀντέστησαν, περὶ δὲ οἱ μὲν σφίσιν ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐκείνῳ καταδουλώσεως, οἱ δ’ ἐπὶ δεσπότου μεταβολῇ οὐκ ἀξυνετωτέρου, κακοξυνετωτέρου δέ.

Thucydides vi. 76.[9]

The following sentence of Demosthenes, with its carefully chosen position for the main subject Φίλιππος and the main verb ἐπηγγείλατο, shows how wellsuspenseand theperiodcan be worked in such a language:—

ὡς δὲ ταλαιπωρούμενοι τῷ μήκει τοῦ πολέμου οἱ τότε μὲν βαρεῖς νῦν δ’ ἀτυχεῖς Θηβαῖοι φανεροὶ πᾶσιν ἦσαν ἀναγκασθησόμενοι καταφεύγειν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς,Φίλιππος, ἵνα μὴ τοῦτο γένοιτο μηδὲ συνέλθοιεν αἱ πόλεις, ὑμῖν μὲν εἰρήνην ἐκείνοις δὲ βοήθειανἐπηγγείλατο.

Demosthenesde Corona§ 19.[10]

In an analytical language such as English a separate introductorysentence[11]would be almost necessary in order to bring out the point of a familiar passage in theCyropaedia:—

παῖς μέγας μικρὸν ἔχων χιτῶνα ἕτερον παῖδα μικρὸν μέγαν ἔχοντα χιτῶνα, ἐκδύσας αὐτόν, τὸν μὲν ἑαυτοῦ ἐκεῖνον ἠμφίεσε, τὸν δὲ ἐκείνου αὐτὸς ἐνέδυ.

XenophonCyropaediai. 3. 17.

And the force and variety gained by juxtaposition, or by chiastic arrangement, is obvious in such examples as:—

(1) τίπτε με, Πηλέος υἱέ, ποσὶν ταχέεσσι διώκεις,αὐτὸς θνητὸς ἐὼν θεὸν ἄμβροτον;

HomerIliadxxii. 8, 9.

(2) τί δῆτα, ὦ Μέλητε; τοσοῦτονσὺ ἐμοῦσοφώτερος εἶτηλικούτου ὄντος τηλικόσδε ὤν;

PlatoApology25D.

(3) οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ κρίσει μέν τις δικασθεὶς οὐκ ἂν ἐπὶ τῶνδικαίων καὶ καλῶνἐλεύθερος καὶ ὑγιὴς ἂν κριτὴς γένοιτο· ἀνάγκη γὰρ τῷ δωροδόκῳ τὰ οἰκεῖα μὲν φαίνεσθαικαλὰ καὶ δίκαια.

Longinusde Sublimitatec. xliv.

(4) καὶ τῶν κώλων ...ἀνίσων τε ὄντων καὶ ἀνομοίωνἀλλήλοιςἀνομοίους τε καὶ ἀνίσουςποιούμενοι τὰς διαιρέσεις.

Dionys. Halic.de Comp. Verb.c. xxvi.

The two last examples of elegant variation might, no doubt, be closely reproduced in modern languages. To the more important matter of emphasis, which arises in some of the other instances, a separate section must be devoted later.[12]

Though Dionysius does right to deny the existence of anatural or inevitable order in Greek and to emphasize the essential freedom of the language, he might well have recognized more explicitly that there is what may be termed a normal or usual order, and that it is precisely the departure from this normal usage which does much to give a definite character (good or bad, as the case may be) to the style of individual Greek authors. For instance, it is usual in Greek for an adjective to follow its noun, and for a negative to precede the word or words which it qualifies. There are, further, certain customary positions for the article (according as it is attributive or predicative); for the demonstrative pronouns in conjunction with the article; for αὐτός, according to the meaning which it bears; for the particles; for prepositions, conjunctions, and relative pronouns; and so forth. There is, in short, a grammatical order sanctioned by prevailing usage, an order which might be shown to hold good, commonly though not universally, in some of the grammatical constructions indicated by Dionysius in his fifth chapter. Now between this normal order, and lucidity of expression, there exists a close connexion.

It might easily be concluded, by a reader who knew thede Compositionealone among Dionysius’ critical essays, that he set little store by that clear writing which, as it presupposes clear thinking, is a rare and cardinal excellence of style. As the noun σαφήνεια occurs but once in the treatise and the adjective σαφής not much oftener, it might be supposed that he underrated a quality to which Aristotle and other writers of antiquity assign so high a place. Aristotle, indeed, regards it as a first essential of good style, which must be “clear without being mean” (λέξεως δὲ ἀρετὴ σαφῆ καὶ μὴ ταπεινὴν εἶναι, Aristot.Poet.xxii. 1: cp.Rhet.iii. 2. 1). Similarly Cicero puts clearness (sermo dilucidus) before ornament, asking how it is possible, “qui non dicat quod intellegamus, hunc posse quod admiremur dicere” (Cic.de Orat.iii. 9. 38). Horace’s approving reference tolucidus ordohas become proverbial.[13]And Quintilian allots the primacyto the same great quality: “nobis prima sit virtus perspicuitas, propria verba, rectus ordo, non in longum dilata conclusio; nihil neque desit neque superfluat” (Inst. Or.viii. 2. 22), and puts a high and not always attainable ideal before the orator in relation to his judicial auditor: “quare non, ut intellegere possit, sed, ne omnino possit non intellegere, curandum” (ibid.viii. 2. 24).

If Dionysius in the present treatise says little about lucidity, the sole reason is that heassumesit as a necessary and indispensable quality of style. In thede Thucydidec. 23 it is classed (together with purity and brevity) as one of the ἀρεταὶ ἀναγκαῖαι (in contradistinction to the ἀρεταὶ ἐπίθετοι, such as ἐνάργεια, ἡ τῶν ἠθῶν τε καὶ παθῶν μίμησις, etc.). The Greek critics recognized, however, that the plainer styles were more likely than the more elaborate ones to excel in lucidity,—that, in this respect, a Herodotus and a Lysias might be expected to surpass a Thucydides and a Demosthenes.[14]Among these authors let us choose Lysias and Thucydides, and see what praise or blame Dionysius awards to them upon this score. In the fourth chapter of thede Lysia, the lucidity of Lysias is contrasted with the obscurity often found in Thucydides and Demosthenes; and it is pointed out that this excellence is, in him, all the more admirable in that it is combined with a studious brevity, an opulent vocabulary, and a mind of great native force. And no finer example of pellucid clearness of narration could well be imagined than that quoted from Lysias in the sixth chapter of thede Isaeo: ἀναγκαῖόν μοι δοκεῖ εἶναι, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, περὶ τῆς φιλίας τῆς ἐμῆς καὶ τῆς Φερενίκου πρῶτον εἰπεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, κτλ. To the obscurities of Thucydides, on the other hand, as seen in his History and particularly in his Speeches, constant and mournful reference is made in the essay which has the historian for its subject. “You can almost count on your fingers,” says Dionysius, “the people who are capable of comprehending the whole of Thucydides; and not even they cando so without occasional recourse to a grammatical commentary.”[15]Dionysius, further, gives it as his opinion that the language of Thucydides was unique even in his own day; and he combats the view that a historian (as distinguished, say, from an advocate) may plead in excuse for an artificial style that he does not write for “people in the market-place, in workshops or in factories, nor for others who have not shared in a liberal education, but for men who have reached rhetoric and philosophy after passing through a full curriculum of approved studies, to whom therefore none of these expressions will appear unfamiliar.”[16]Obscurity and eccentricity, he says in effect, are not virtues except in the eyes of literary coteries; presumably a speaker speaks, and a writer writes, in order to be understood.[17]

Dionysius’ inadequate recognition of a normal order is naturally attended by some uncertainty in his attitude towards that kind ofemphasiswhich a departure from the normal order produces. It may, indeed, be thought that the effect of emphasis, and the best means of attaining it, are considered at the opening of the sixth chapter of the treatise, and that it comes under the heading both of σχηματισμός and of ἁρμονία. In the fifth chapter, however, we should have welcomed a clearer recognition of the emphasis which, as it seems to modern readers, falls upon ἄνδρα, μῆνιν, and ἠέλιος, when they come at the beginning of the line and so are the first words to accost the ear. Certainly in his own writing Dionysius shows that he appreciates the emphasis gained by thrusting a word to the front of the sentence: e.g. καιροῦ δὲ οὔτε ῥήτωρ οὐδεὶς οὔτε φιλόσοφος εἰς τόδε χρόνου τέχνην ὥρισεν (13221). Towards the end of chapter 7 he quotes from Demosthenes the words τὸ λαβεῖν οὖν τὰ διδόμενα ὁμολογῶν ἔννομον εἶναι, τὸ χάριν τούτων ἀποδοῦναι παρανόμων γράφῃ. He changes the order to ὁμολογῶν οὖν ἔννομονεἶναι τὸ λαβεῖν τὰ διδόμενα, παρανόμων γράφῃ τὸ τούτων χάριν ἀποδοῦναι, and then asks whether the passage will be ὁμοίως δικανικὴ καὶ στρογγύλη. To us it would seem that the chief loss is the loss of emphasis which is entailed (in Greek) by removing from the beginning of the clauses the important and contrasted phrases τὸ λαβεῖν τὰ διδόμενα and τὸ χάριν τούτων ἀποδοῦναι. Possibly this loss of emphasis is implied (among other things) in the words “δικανικὴ καὶ στρογγύλη.”[18]

Where it occurs in Dionysius, the word ἔμφασις bears the sense of ‘hint,’ ‘suggestion,’ ‘soupçon’ (de Thucyd.c. 16 ῥᾳθύμως ἐπιτετροχασμένα καὶ οὐδὲ τὴν ἐλαχίστην ἔμφασιν ἔχοντα τῆς δεινότητος ἐκείνης): a sense which is akin to its technical use of ‘hidden meaning’ (“significatio maior quam oratio,” Cic.Orat.40. 139; cp. Quintil. viii. 3. 83, ix. 2. 3, 64).[19]In our sense of emphasis due to position, the word ἔμφασις is perhaps hardly used even in the scholiasts; and it is possible that Greek has no single term to express the idea, though it may doubtless be one of the elements in view when a writer uses such expressions as ἁρμονία, σχηματισμός, and ὑπερβατόν.

A modern student of Greek, having to feel his way with practically no help from ancient authorities, will probably reach the conclusion that the rhetorical emphasis he has in mind is attained by placing a word in one of the less usual positions open to it. The word thus emphasized may come at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of a sentence, the real point being that the position should be (for that particular word) a little out of the ordinary. In Greek, however, as contrasted with English, the emphasis tends to fall on the earlier rather than the later words.[20]In delivery, it would seem that the Greeks found it more natural to stress the beginning than the conclusion of asentence. But an emphatic word may be found at the end as well as at the beginning, and may sometimes be placed neither at the end nor at the beginning.[21]

Allusion has already been made to the rhetorical emphasis which falls upon the opening words of theIliadand theOdyssey. As with “arma virumque cano” in theAeneid, the words μῆνιν and ἄνδρα seem to strike the keynote of the following Epics. And, in a less degree, a certain emphasis due to initial position (and contributing either to emotional effect or to logical clearness) is to be discerned throughout the poems: e.g. in the sixth book of theIliad:—

δυστήνωνδέ τε παῖδες ἐμῷ μένει ἀντιόωσιν.

HomerIliadvi. 127.

and

πέπλονδ’, ὅς τίς τοι χαριέστατος ἠδὲ μέγιστοςἔστιν ἐνὶ μεγάρῳ καί τοι πολὺ φίλτατος αὐτῇ,τὸν θὲς Ἀθηναίης ἐπὶ γούνασιν ἠϋκόμοιο, κτλ.

HomerIliadvi. 271.

Similarly with the following ten miscellaneous examples of various emphasis, taken chiefly from Dionysius’ favourite speech:—

(1) ἐκεῖνος γὰρ πολλοὺς ἐπιθυμητὰς καὶ ἀστοὺς καὶ ξένους λαβών,οὐδέναπώποτε μισθὸν τῆς συνουσίας ἐπράξατο, ἀλλὰ πᾶσιν ἀφθόνως ἐπήρκει τῶν ἑαυτοῦ.

XenophonMemorabiliai. 2. 60.

(2) καὶ ταραχώδης ἦν ἡ ναυμαχία, ἐν ᾗ αἱ Ἀττικαὶ νῆες παραγιγνόμεναι τοῖς Κερκυραίοις, εἴ πῃ πιέζοιντο,φόβονμὲν παρεῖχον τοῖς ἐναντίοις,μάχηςδὲ οὐκ ἦρχον δεδιότες οἱ στρατηγοὶ τὴν πρόρρησιν τῶν Ἀθηναίων.[22]

Thucydides i. 49.

(3)Ἀναξαγόρουοἴει κατηγορεῖν, ὦ φίλε Μέλητε, κτλ.

PlatoApology26D.

(4) οὐ γὰρτὰ ῥήματατὰς οἰκειότητας ἔφη βεβαιοῦν, μάλα σεμνῶς ὀνομάζων, ἀλλὰ τὸ ταὐτὰ συμφέρειν.

Demosthenesde Corona§ 35.

(5) οἱ μὲν κατάπτυστοι Θετταλοὶ καὶ ἀναίσθητοι Θηβαῖοι φίλον, εὐεργέτην, σωτῆρα τὸν Φίλιππον ἡγοῦντο·πάντ’ἐκεῖνος ἦν αὐτοῖς· οὐδὲ φωνὴν ἤκουον εἴ τις ἄλλο τι βούλοιτο λέγειν.

id.ib.§ 43.

(6) οὓς σὺζῶντας μέν,ὦ κίναδος, κολακεύων παρηκολούθεις,τεθνεώτων δ’οὐκ αἰσθάνει κατηγορῶν.

id.ib.§ 162.

(7) καὶ τότ’ εὐθὺς ἐμοῦ διαμαρτυρομένου καὶ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ “πόλεμονεἰς τὴν Ἀττικὴν εἰσάγεις, Αἰσχίνη, πόλεμον Ἀμφικτυονικόν, κτλ.”

id.ib.§ 143.

(8) ὃς γὰρἐμοῦφιλιππισμόν, ὦ γῆ καὶ θεοί, κατηγορεῖ, τί οὗτος οὐκ ἂν εἴποι;

id.ib.§ 294.

(9) ἀλλ’ οἶμαι οὐ δυνάμεθα·ἐλεεῖσθαιοὖν ἡμᾶς πολὺ μᾶλλον εἰκός ἐστίν που ὑπὸ ὑμῶν τῶν δεινῶν ἢ χαλεπαίνεσθαι.

PlatoRepublici. 336E.

(10) μηδ’ εἵμασι στρώσασ’ ἐπίφθονον πόροντίθει·θεούςτοι τοῖσδε τιμαλφεῖν χρεών.

AeschylusAgamemnon921.

It will be seen from some of the above examples that words may have emphasis if, though not actually placed at the very beginning of a sentence or a clause, they come as early as they well can. The three following passages will further illustrate this point:—

(1) καὶ ἐς Νικίαν τὸν Νικηράτου στρατηγὸν ὄντα ἀπεσήμαινεν, ἐχθρὸς ὢν καὶ ἐπιτιμῶν, ῥᾴδιον εἶναι παρασκευῇ, εἰἄνδρεςεἶεν οἱ στρατηγοί, πλεύσαντας λαβεῖν τοὺς ἐν τῇ νήσῳ, καὶ αὐτός γ’ ἄν, εἰ ἦρχε, ποιῆσαι τοῦτο.

Thucydides iv. 27.

(2) ὅ τι μὲν ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, πεπόνθατε ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν κατηγόρων, οὐκ οἶδα· ἐγὼ δ’ οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ὀλίγου ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην· οὕτω πιθανῶς ἔλεγον. καίτοιἀληθές γε, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, οὐδὲν εἰρήκασιν.

PlatoApologyinit.

(3) ἀλλὰ μὴν τὸν τότε συμβάντα ἐν τῇ πόλειθόρυβονἴστε μὲν ἅπαντες, μικρὰ δ’ ἀκούσατε ὅμως, αὐτὰ τἀναγκαιότατα ... οἱ δὲ τοὺς στρατηγοὺς μετεπέμποντο καὶ τὸν σαλπιγκτὴν ἐκάλουν, καὶθορύβουπλήρης ἦν ἡ πόλις.

Demosthenesde Corona§§ 168, 169.

Sometimes, however, emphatic words will be thrust right to the front through such devices as the postponement of an interrogative particle: e.g.

ἑστάναι, εἶπον, καὶ κινεῖσθαι τὸ αὐτὸ ἅμα κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸἆρα δυνατόν;

PlatoRepubliciv. 436C.

and

οἷον δίψα ἐστὶ δίψαἆρά γε θερμοῦ ποτοῦ ἢ ψυχροῦ, ἢ πολλοῦ ἢ ὀλίγου, ἢ καὶ ἑνὶ λόγῳ ποιοῦ τινος πώματος;

id.ib.iv. 437D.[23]

An uninflected language may well envy the grammatical resources which enable Greek or Latin poets to secure at once clearness and the utmost height of emotion in such lines as:

Ζεῦ πάτερ, ἀλλὰ σὺ ῥῦσαι ὑπ’ ἠέρος υἷας Ἀχαιῶν,ποίησον δ’ αἴθρην, δὸς δ’ ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἰδέσθαι·ἐν δὲ φάεικαὶ ὄλεσσον, ἐπεί νύ τοι εὔαδεν οὕτως.

HomerIliadxvii. 645.

Me, me,adsum qui feci, in me convertite ferrum,O Rutuli.

VirgilAeneidix. 427.[24]

The end as well as the beginning of a clause or sentence may bring emphasis when it is an unusual position for the particular word or phrase which stands there. Illustrations may perhaps be drawn from expressions conveying the idea of “death,” which (according to Dionysus in theFrogs) is the “heaviest of ills,” and which (be that as it may) is as little likely as any to be entertained lightheartedly, or to be mentioned without some degree of feeling and emphasis. At the beginning of a sentence, τεθνᾶσι clearly has emphasis in

τεθνᾶσ’ἀδελφοὶ καὶ πατὴρ οὑμὸς γέρων.

EuripidesHercules Furens539.

And in the following passage of Plato, it will be seen that the τὸν θάνατον which comes near the beginning of a clause is more emphatic than the τὸν θάνατον which comes at the end of a clause:—

οἶσθα δ’, ἦ δ’ ὅς, ὅτιτὸν θάνατονἡγοῦνται πάντες οἱ ἄλλοι τῶν μεγάλων κακῶν;—καὶ μάλ’, ἔφη.—οὐκοῦν φόβῳ μειζόνων κακῶν ὑπομένουσιν αὐτῶν οἱ ἀνδρεῖοι τὸν θάνατον, ὅταν ὑπομένωσιν;—ἔστι ταῦτα.

PlatoPhaedo68D.

The τὸν θάνατον before ἡγοῦνται is here emphatic on the same principle as the θάνατον before εἰσέθηκε in the passage (already alluded to) of theFrogs:—

θάνατονγὰρ εἰσέθηκε βαρύτατον κακόν.

AristophanesRanae1394.

But a word like θάνατος may also come with emphasis at the end of a sentence, if that order is rendered unusual by the interposition of additional words or by any other means which create a feeling of suspense and even of afterthought. For example:

τί δέ; τὰν Αἵδου ἡγούμενον εἶναί τε καὶ δεινὰ εἶναι οἴει τινὰ θάνατου ἀδεῆ ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἐν ταῖς μάχαις αἱρήσεσθαι πρὸ ἥττης τε καὶ δουλείαςθάνατον;

PlatoRepubliciii. 386B.

Here the θάνατον seems intended to repeat with emphasis the preceding θανάτου to which, itself, a considerable degree of prominence is assigned. So, perhaps,

ἀλλὰ νόμον δημοσίᾳ τὸν ταῦτα κωλύσοντα τέθεινται τουτονὶ καὶ πολλοὺς ἤδη παραβάντας τὸν νόμον τοῦτον ἐζημιώκασινθανάτῳ.

DemosthenesMidias§ 49.

and

... καὶ φοβερωτέρας ἡγήσεται τὰς ὕβρεις καὶ τὰς ἀτιμίας, ἃς ἐν δουλευούσῃ τῇ πόλει φέρειν ἀνάγκη,τοῦ θανάτου.

Demosthenesde Corona§ 205.

Some miscellaneous examples of words coming emphatically at the end of a clause or sentence are:—

(1) αἰτοῦμαι δ’ ὑμᾶς δοῦναι καὶ νῦν παισὶ μὲν καὶ γυναικὶ καὶ φίλοις καὶ πατρίδιεὐδαιμονίαν, ἐμοὶ δὲ οἷόν περ αἰῶνα δεδώκατε τοιαύτην καὶ τελευτὴν δοῦναι.

XenophonCyropaediaviii. 7.

(2) ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτους κολυμβηταὶ δυόμενοι ἐξέπριονμισθοῦ.[25]

Thucydides vii. 25.

(3) ὑψοῦ δὲ θάσσων ὑψόθεν χαμαιπετὴςπίπτει πρὸς οὖδας μυρίοις οἰμώγμασιΠενθεύς.[26]

EuripidesBacchae1111.

(4) ἴστε γὰρ δήπου τοῦθ’ ὅτι πάντες οἱ ξεναγοῦντες οὗτοι πόλεις καταλαμβάνοντες Ἑλληνίδας ἄρχειν ζητοῦσιν, καὶ πάντων, ὅσοι περ νόμοις οἰκεῖν βούλονται τὴν αὑτῶν ὄντες ἐλεύθεροι, κοινοὶ περιέρχονται κατὰ πᾶσαν χώραν, εἰ δεῖ τἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν,ἐχθροί.

DemosthenesAristocrates§ 139.

(5) δεῖ δὲ τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας ἐγχειρεῖν μὲν ἅπασιν ἀεὶ τοῖς καλοῖς, τὴν ἀγαθὴν προβαλλομένους ἐλπίδα, φέρειν δ’ ἃν ὁ θεὸς διδῷγενναίως.[27]

Demosthenesde Corona§ 97.

(6) εἶθ’ οὗτοι τὰ ὅπλα εἶχον ἐν ταῖς χερσὶνἀεί.

id.ib.§ 235.

(7) εἰ γὰρ ταῦτα προεῖτ’ ἀκονιτεί, περὶ ὧν οὐδένα κίνδυνον ὅντιν’ οὐχ ὑπέμειναν οἱ πρόγονοι, τίς οὐχὶ κατέπτυσεν ἂνσοῦ; μὴ γὰρ τῆς πόλεώς γε, μηδ’ ἐμοῦ.

id.ib.§ 200.

(8) ... ἡμῖν δὲ τοῖς λοιποῖς τὴν ταχίστην ἀπαλλαγὴν τῶν ἐπηρτημένων φόβων δότε καὶσωτηρίαν ἀσφαλῆ.[28]

id.ib.§ 324.

It may be added that, occasionally,boththe earlier and the later positions are emphatic in the same clause or sentence: e.g.

(1)τέκναγὰρ κατακτενῶτἄμ’.[29]

EuripidesMedea792.

(2)ὦταγὰρ τυγχάνει ἀνθρώποισι ἐόντα ἀπιστότεραὀφθαλμῶν.[30]

Herodotus i. 8.

(3) νῦν δὲ τὸ μὲν παρὸν ἀεὶ προϊέμενοι, τὰ δὲ μέλλοντ’ αὐτόματ’ οἰόμενοι σχήσειν καλῶς,ηὐξήσαμεν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, Φίλιππονἡμεῖς, καὶ κατεστήσαμεν τηλικοῦτον ἡλίκος οὐδείς πω βασιλεὺς γέγονεν Μακεδονίας.[31]

DemosthenesOlynthiacsi. § 9.

(4)πολλάκιςδὲ τοῦ κήρυκος ἐρωτῶντος οὐδὲν μᾶλλον ἀνίστατ’οὐδείς, ἁπάντων μὲν τῶν στρατηγῶν παρόντων, κτλ.

Demosthenesde Corona§ 117.

(5) καὶ μὴν καὶΦερὰςπρώην ὡς φίλος καὶ σύμμαχος εἰς Θετταλίαν ἐλθὼν ἔχει καταλαβών, καὶ τὰ τελευταῖα τοῖς ταλαιπώροις Ὠρείταις τουτοισὶ ἐπισκεψομένους ἔφη τοὺς στρατιώτας πεπομφέναι κατ’εὔνοιαν· πυνθάνεσθαι γὰρ αὐτοὺς ὡς νοσοῦσι καὶ στασιάζουσιν, συμμάχων δ’ εἶναι καὶ φίλων ἀληθινῶν ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις καιροῖς παρεῖναι.

DemosthenesPhilippicsiii. § 12.

(6) οὐλίθοιςἐτείχισα τὴν πόλιν οὐδὲ πλίνθοιςἐγώ, οὐδ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις μέγιστον τῶν ἐμαυτοῦ φρονῶ.

Demosthenesde Corona§ 299.

(7)ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶνπεπολίτευσαι πάντα, ἐγὼ δ’ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος.

id.ib.§ 265.

In connexion with the imperfect appreciation which thede Compositione Verborumshows of a normal order and of anemphasis produced by departure from it, attention may be drawn to the fact that the treatise contains no reference to the ‘figure’hyperbaton; and this although the figure had been recognized long before Dionysius’ time, and continued to be recognized long afterwards. It is first mentioned by Plato, who probably took over the notion from the Sophists: ἀλλ’ ὑπερβατὸν δεῖ θεῖναι ἐν τῷ ᾄσματι τὸ “ἀλαθέως” (PlatoProtag.343E,where the reference is to a poem of Simonides). The author of theRhetorica ad Alexandrum(c. 30) indicates it in the following terms: ἐὰν μὴ ὑπερβατῶς αὐτὰ [sc. τὰ ὀνόματα] τιθῶμεν, ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ τὰ ἐχόμενα ἑξῆς τάττωμεν. Quintilian treats of it in the passage beginning “Hyperbatonquoque, id est verbi transgressionem, quoniam frequenter ratio comparationis et decor poscit, non immerito inter virtutes habemus” (Inst. Or.viii. 6. 62).[32]The author of theTreatise on the Sublimedescribes and defines it thus: ἔστι δὲ λέξεων ἢ νοήσεων ἐκ τοῦ κατ’ ἀκολουθίαν κεκινημένη τάξις καὶ οἱονεὶ χαρακτὴρ ἐναγωνίου πάθους ἀληθέστατος (Longinusde Sublim.c. 22).[33]And, later still, Hermogenes and other writers on rhetoric are well acquainted with the figure. Dionysius, however, mentions it but seldom in any of his writings, and even then (e.g. τὰς ὑπερβατοὺς καὶ πολυπλόκους καὶ ἐξ ἀποκοπῆς πολλὰ σημαίνειν πράγματα βουλομένας καὶ διὰ μακροῦ τὰς ἀποδόσεις λαμβανούσας νοήσεις,de Thucyd.c. 52; cp. c. 31ibid.) is clearly thinking not of desirable but of highly undesirable “inversions.” He may have thought that its proper place was in poetry rather than in prose.

A modern writer on style would probably lay more stress on clearness and emphasis than on euphony. The ancient critics, on the other hand, seem to have taken the two former elements more or less for granted. Because they were easily attainable in languages so fully inflected as Greek and Latin, their attainment was regarded as an important matter indeed, but one which called for no special recognition of any kind. As Quintilian says, in reference to clearness, “nam emendate quidem ac lucide dicentium tenue praemium est, magisque ut vitiis carere quam ut aliquam magnam virtutem adeptus esse videaris” (Inst. Or.viii. 3. 1).[34]Dionysius, too, in thede Compositione Verborum, passes more readily over the two qualities of clearness and emphasis because he is not concerned with the πραγματικὸς τόπος.[35]He keeps rigorously to his real subject; and that is not the relation of words to the ideas of which they are the symbols. It is, rather, their relation to their own constituent elements (letters and syllables of diverse qualities and quantities) and to the pleasant impression which the apt collocation of many various words can make upon the ear. His task is to investigate the emotional power of the sound-elements of language when alone and when in combination—their euphonic and their symphonic effects. Hence the constant recurrence, throughout the treatise, of words like εὐφωνία, εὐρυθμία, εὐστομία, λειότης, ἁρμονία, σύνθεσις. The illustrative excerpts which he gives are so numerous and so happily chosen that no others need be added here.[36]A careful study of his examples, in the context in which they occur, will suggest many reflexions upon the freedom and adaptability of Greek order. But no absolute test of euphony

can be based upon them. Dionysius himself formulates no invariable rules upon the subject. In the last resort, the court of appeal must, as he sees, be the instinctive judgment of the ear (τὸ ἄλογον τῆς ἀκοῆς πάθος).[37]The part played by the ear has been well described by Quintilian: “ergo quem in poëmate locum habet versificatio, eum in oratione compositio. optime autem de illa iudicant aures, quae plena sentiunt et parum expleta desiderant et fragosis offenduntur et levibus mulcentur et contortis excitantur et stabilia probant, clauda deprehendunt, redundantia ac nimia fastidiunt” (Inst. Or.ix. 4. 116). Naturally the ear in question must be the individual ear (“auremtuaminterroga, quo quid loco conveniat dicere,” Aulus GelliusNoctes Att.xiii. 21); the criterion is subjective, not absolute.[38]But it is assumed that the ear in question has been trained and attuned by constant converse with the great masters, and that (like Flaubert in modern times) an author never writes without repeating the words aloud to himself. Thus trained, the ear will work in harmony with the mind: “aures enim vel animus aurium nuntio naturalem quandam in se continet vocum omnium mensionem” (Cic.Orat.53. 177). Both Cicero and Dionysius are well aware that style is personal and individual,—that it is no uniform and mechanical thing. Dionysius’ own position has been misunderstood by those who have judged thede Compositioneas if it were a complete treatise on the entire subject of style. In the eyes of Dionysius, words are not what dead stone and timber are in the eyes of the ordinary workman. They are, rather, the living elements which, in the secret places of his mind, the master-builder views as potential parts of some great temple.[39]They are what an individual makes them. Hence, just as Cicero writes “qua re sine, quaeso, sibi quemque scribere,

Suam quoíque sponsam, míhi meam; suum quoíque amorem, míhi meum”:

so Dionysius long ago anticipated the saying that the style is the man.[40]

Among the minor debts we owe to him is the fact that his minute analysis of rhythms, or feet, in passages of Thucydides, Pindar and others, helps to disclose the inner workings of the beautiful Greek language and to impress us with the importance attached by the ancients to what we moderns find it so hard fully to appreciate,—the effect on a Greek ear ofsyllabic quantityin prose as well as verse. And he insists no less upon the charm of variety,—the paramount necessity of avoiding monotony. He saw, for example, that the Greek inflexions (notwithstanding the many advantages which they brought with them) had at least one drawback: they are apt to lead to a certain sameness in case-endings. Accordingly he would, for instance, have approved (though he does not mention this particular passage) of the separation of the words σωτηρίαν ἀσφαλῆ from the other accusatives at the end of thede Corona: ἡμῖν δὲ τοῖς λοιποῖς τὴν ταχίστην ἀπαλλαγὴν τῶν ἐπηρτημένων φόβων δότε καὶ σωτηρίαν ἀσφαλῆ.[41]Further reference to these minutiae of style may fitly be made later, when the topics of “rhythm” and “music” are considered.[42]

Something has already been said, incidentally, about certain differences in word-order between the ancient and the modern European languages. In such a comparison Greek and Latin may be placed upon the same footing, as their points of contact are vastly more numerous than their points of divergence, considerable though these are.[43]

The points of contact become manifest when an attempt is made to translate into Latin, and into English, the sentence from Herodotus which Dionysius quotes, and twice recasts, in his fourth chapter:—

(1) Κροῖσος ἦν Λυδὸς μὲν γένος, παῖς δ’ Ἀλυάττου, τύραννος δ’ ἐθνῶν τῶν ἐντὸς Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ· ὃς ῥέων ἀπὸ μεσημβρίας μεταξὺ Σύρων τε καὶ Παφλαγόνων ἐξίησι πρὸς βορέαν ἄνεμον εἰς τὸν Εὔξεινον καλούμενον πόντον.

Herodotus i. 6.

Croesus genere quidem fuit Lydus, patre autem Alyatte; earum vero nationum tyrannus, quae intra Halym amnem sunt: qui, a meridie Syros ac Paphlagones interfluens, contra ventum Aquilonem in mare, quid vocant Euxinum, evolvitur.

(2) Κροῖσος ἦν υἱὸς μὲν Ἀλυάττου, γένος δὲ Λυδός, τύραννος δὲ τῶν ἐντὸς Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ ἐθνῶν· ὃς ἀπὸ μεσημβρίας ῥέων μεταξὺ Σύρων καὶ Παφλαγόνων εἰς τὸν Εὔξεινον καλούμενον πόντον ἐκδίδωσι πρὸς βορέαν ἄνεμον.

Croesus erat filius quidem Alyattis, genere autem Lydus, tyrannusque earum, quae intra sunt Halym amnem nationes; qui, a meridie interfluens Syros ac Paphlagones, in mare, quod vocant Euxinum, evolvitur contra ventum Aquilonem.

(3) Ἀλυάττου μὲν υἱὸς ἦν Κροῖσος, γένος δὲ Λυδός, τῶν δ’ ἐντὸς Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ τύραννος ἐθνῶν· ὃς ἀπὸ μεσημβρίας ῥέων Σύρων τε καὶ Παφλαγόνων μεταξὺ πρὸς βορέαν ἐξίησιν ἄνεμον ἐς τὸν καλούμενον πόντον Εὔξεινον.

Alyattis quidem filius erat Croesus, genere autem Lydus, earum, quae intra sunt Halym amnem, tyrannus nationum; qui, a meridie fluens Syros inter ac Paphlagones, contra Boream erumpit ventum in mare, quod vocant Euxinum.

In these sentences the Latin follows the Greek order closely, and might be made to follow it still more faithfully were it not that it seems better to diverge occasionally for special reasons: e.g. it is desirable, in rendering the original passage of Herodotus, to secure (as far as possible) a good rhythm. In English, on the other hand, the choice lies between a wide deviation and a rendering which is ambiguous and possibly grotesque. In fact (to recur once more to the main point) the freedom with which the order of words can be varied in a Greek or Latin sentence is without parallel in any modern analytical language, and the attendant gain in variety, rhythm, and nicety of emphasis is incalculable.[44]

Still, the modern languages have great powers, in this as in other ways: powers which will be incidentally illustrated later. M. Jules Lemaître has written, with reference to Ernest Renan: “Je trahis peut-être sa pensée en la traduisant; tant pis! Pourquoi a-t-il des finesses qui ne tiennent qu’à l’arrangement des mots?”[45]Thesefinessesare perhaps, as is here implied, hardly communicable, even though an earlier French writer has commended Malherbe as an author who

Back to Index Next