CHAPTER VIII

SHAPING OF CLAUSES

The principles governing the arrangement of clauses have now been stated. What principles govern their shaping?

The complete utterance of our thoughts takes more than one form. We throw them at one time into the shape of an assertion, at another into that of an inquiry, or a prayer, or a command, or a doubt, or a supposition, or some other shape of the kind; and into conformity with these we try to mould the diction itself. There are, in fact, many figures of diction, just as there are of thought. It is not possible to classify them exhaustively; indeed, they are perhaps innumerable. Their treatment would require a long disquisition and profound investigation. But that the same clause is not equally telling in all its various modes of presentation,

[Page 114]

ἢ οὕτως. ἐρῶ δὲ ἐπὶ παραδείγματος· εἰ τοῦτον ἐξήνεγκε τὸν τρόπον ὁ Δημοσθένης τὴν λέξιν ταύτην “ταῦτ’ εἰπὼν ἔγραψα, γράψας δ’ ἐπρέσβευσα, πρεσβεύσας δ’ ἔπεισα Θηβαίους,” ἆρ’ οὕτως ἂν συνέκειτο χαριέντως, ὡς νῦν σύγκειται; “οὐκ εἶπον μὲν ταῦτα, οὐκ ἔγραψα δέ· οὐδ’ ἔγραψα μέν, οὐκ 5 ἐπρέσβευσα δέ· οὐδ’ ἐπρέσβευσα μέν, οὐκ ἔπεισα δὲ Θηβαίους.” πολὺς δ’ ἂν εἴη μοι λόγος, εἰ περὶ πάντων βουλοίμην λέγειν τῶν σχηματισμῶν ὅσους τὰ κῶλα ἐπιδέχεται. ἀπόχρη δὲ εἰσαγωγῆς ἕνεκα τοσαῦτα εἰρῆσθαι.

IX

ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅτι γε καὶ μετασκευὰς δέχεται τῶν κώλων ἔνια 10 τοτὲ μὲν προσθήκας λαμβάνοντα οὐκ ἀναγκαίας ὡς πρὸς τὸν νοῦν, τοτὲ δὲ ἀφαιρέσεις ἀτελῆ ποιούσας τὴν διάνοιαν, ἃς οὐκ ἄλλου τινὸς ἕνεκα ποιοῦσι ποιηταί τε καὶ συγγραφεῖς ἢ τῆς ἁρμονίας, ἵν’ ἡδεῖα καὶ καλὴ γένηται, πάνυ ὀλίγου δεῖν οἴομαι λόγου. τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἂν ὁμολογήσαι τήνδε τὴν λέξιν ἣν ὁ 15 Δημοσθένης εἴρηκε προσθήκῃ πλεονάζειν οὐκ ἀναγκαίᾳ τῆς ἁρμονίας ἕνεκα; “ὁ γὰρ οἷς ἂν ἐγὼ ληφθείην, ταῦτα πράττων καὶ κατασκευαζόμενος, οὗτος ἐμοὶ πολεμεῖ, κἂν μήπω βάλλῃ μηδὲ τοξεύῃ.” ἐνταῦθα γὰρ οὐχὶ τοῦ ἀναγκαίου χάριν πρόσκειται τὸ τοξεύειν, ἀλλ’ ἵνα τὸ τελευταῖον κῶλον τὸ “κἂν 20 μήπω βάλλῃ” τραχύτερον τοῦ δέοντος ὂν καὶ οὐχ ἡδὺ ἀκουσθῆναι

2 εἰπ(ων) P, MV: εἴπ(ας) F, E 5 οὐκ prim. Dem.: καὶ οὐκ libri 6 δὲ alt om. F 7 δ’ F: om. PMV 14 γένοιτο PMV 15 ὁμολογῆσαι PV: ὁμολογήσηι F || μὲν post τήνδε habet F 19 ἐνταῦθα ... (21) βάλλῃ servarunt FM 21 βραχύτερον V: βραχυτέρα ex βραχύτερα P

1. Cicero (_Philipp._ xii. 3. 7) has the following climax: “Quid enim potest, per deos immortales! rei publicae prodesse nostra legatio? Prodesse dico? quid, si etiam obfutura est? Obfutura? quid, si iam nocuit atque obfuit?” Obviously it would be fatal to re-write this passage thus: “nostra legatio non poterit prodesse rei publicae, immo obfutura est, et iam nocuit.”

2. With =εἰπών= (rather than εἴπας) cp. line 5 (εἶπον, not εἶπα), though P gives προεῖπα in =280= 19. In the Epitome εἴπας is found in V only, the other three MSS. giving εἰπών.—In Hellenistic times the non-sigmatic aorists constantly occur with the -α of the sigmatic aorists; but it is hardly likely that so good an Atticist as Dionysius would attribute εἴπας to Demosthenes, and introduce cacophony.

4. Cp. Demetr. _de Eloc._ § 270 λαμβάνοιτ’ ἂν καὶ ἡ κλῖμαξ καλουμένη, ὥσπερ Δημοσθένει τὸ “οὐκ εἶπον μὲν ταῦτα, οὐκ ἔγραψα δέ· οὐδ’ ἔγραψα μέν, οὐκ ἔπεισα δὲ Θηβαίους”· σχεδὸν γὰρ ἐπαναβαίνοντι ὁ λόγος ἔοικεν ἐπὶ μειζόνων μείζονα· εἰ δὲ οὕτως εἴποι τις ταῦτα, “εἰπὼν ἐγὼ καὶ γράψας ἐπρέσβευσά τε καὶ ἔπεισα Θηβαίους,” διήγημα ἐρεῖ μόνον, δεινὸν δὲ οὐδέν.

8. Dionysius seems subsequently to have written a special treatise περὶ σχημάτων: cp. Quintil. ix. 3. 89 “haec omnia copiosius sunt exsecuti, qui non ut partem operis transcurrerunt sed proprie libros huic operi dedicaverunt, sicut Caecilius, Dionysius, Rutilius, Cornificius, Visellius aliique non pauci.” The use of νῦν in _de Demosth._ c. 39 seems to point to an intention of the kind on Dionysius’ part: ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι δὲ νῦν, ὅσα γένη σχηματισμῶν ἐστι τῶν τε κατωνομασμένων καὶ τῶν ἀκατονομάστων, καὶ τίσιν αὐτῶν ἡ τοιαύτη μάλιστα πέφυκεν ἁρμονία χαίρειν, οὐκ ἔχω καιρόν.

10. This sentence of Dionysius himself may serve to show how successfully and conveniently Greek, as compared with English, can make a conjunction depend on words which came long after (viz. πάνυ ὀλίγου δεῖν οἴομαι λόγου in line 14).

16. =προσθήκῃ οὐκ ἀναγκαίᾳ=: compare, for example, such harmonious redundancies as οἱ δ’ ἐπεὶ οὖν ἤγερθεν ὁμηγερέες τ’ ἐγένοντο (_Il._ i. 57) and “when we assemble and meet together” (Book of Common Prayer).

20. Quintil. ix. 4. 63 “namque eo fit ut, cum Demosthenis severa videatur compositio, πρῶτον μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῖς θεοῖς εὔχομαι πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις, et illa (quae ab uno, quod sciam, Bruto minus probatur, ceteris placet) κἂν μήπω βάλλῃ μηδὲ τοξεύῃ, Ciceronem carpant in his: _Familiaris coeperat esse balneatori_, et _Non minimum dura archipiratae_. Nam _balneatori_ et _archipiratae_ idem finis est qui πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις et qui μηδὲ τοξεύῃ: sed priora sunt severiora.”

21. In =τραχύτερον= Dionysius is apparently referring to the sound of two spondees (each forming a separate word) at the end of a sentence, and to the improvement effected by the addition of a cretic followed by a spondee.—P and V give βραχύτερον, which is perhaps right, since a clause that is _shorter_ than it ought to be can be improved (cp. =114= 16) by extension.

[Page 115]

I will show by an example. If Demosthenes had expressed himself thus in the following passage, “Having spoken thus, I moved a resolution; and having moved a resolution, I joined the embassy; and having joined the embassy, I convinced the Thebans,” would the sentence have been composed with the charm of its actual arrangement,—“I did not speak thus, and then fail to move a resolution; I did not move a resolution, and then fail to join the embassy; I did not join the embassy, and then fail to convince the Thebans”?[123] It would take me a long time to deal with all the modes of expression which clauses admit. It is enough to say thus much by way of introduction.