Chapter VII · GROUPING OF CLAUSES

The foregoing, then, is one branch of the art of composition which requires consideration: namely, that which relates to the primary parts and elements of speech. But there is another, as I said at the beginning, which is concerned with the so-called “members” (“clauses”), and this requires fuller and more elaborate treatment. My views on this topic I will try to express forthwith.

The clauses must be fitted to one another so as to present an aspect of harmony and concord; they must be given the best form which they admit of; they must further be remodelled if necessary by shortening, lengthening, and any other change of form which clauses admit. As to each of these details experience itself must be your teacher. It will often happen that the placing of one clause before or after another brings out a certain euphony and dignity, while a different grouping sounds unpleasing and undignified. My meaning will be clearer if illustrated by an example. There is a well-known passage of Thucydides in the speech of the Plataeans, a delightfully arranged sentence full of deep feeling, which is as follows: “And we fear, men of Sparta, lest you, our only hope, should

1 κἀποκέκρουκέ Us.: καὶ π(ερι)κέκρ(ου)κέ P,EFM: καὶ παρακέκρουκε V || ὁ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐποίησεν ἐποίησε F: ὁ ἐποίησε ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐποίησεν P: ὃ (τὸ V) ἐποίησεν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐποίησε M, V 2 ἔγραψε ἀντὶ τοῦ ἔγραψεν λέγων καὶ om. EF 4 ἐχωροφίλησε E: χωροφίλησε F: χωροφιλῆσαι PMV 5 φιλοχωρῆσαι PMV || τὸ F: λέγων τὸ PMV 6 ΐνα P, MV || ἁρμοσθεῖσαι PMV || καλλίονες EF 8 συνθετικῆς] συνθέσεως F 9 πρῶτα om. F || καὶ] καὶ τὰ EF || ἥδε EFM: om. PV 10 δέ om. P || ὥπερ P || καὶ κατ’] κατ’ F || ἔφην F: ἔφαμεν PMV 13 ὥστ’ P: ὥστε F: ὡς MV 14 προκατασκευάσαι E 16 μετασκευὴν Schaefer: κατασκευὴν libri 17 ἕκαστα EF 23 ἡμεῖς EF

2. χωρὶς τοῦ ν̄: Dionysius implies that, in his opinion, the so-called νῦ ἐφελκυστικόν is, or has become, an integral part of the verbal termination and is not reserved for use before vowels only. His view has some support in the usage of the best manuscripts.

Usener brackets the words ἔγραψε ... καί. But πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα suggests their retention, and their omission in an epitome (E) is natural. Dionysius wishes to indicate that his statement is general and does not apply simply to the particular verb ἐποίησε.

4. φιλοχωρεῖν and χωροφιλεῖν: see Glossary, under φιλοχωρεῖν.

5. Cp. Demosth. περὶ τῶν Συμμοριῶν § 2, πᾶς ὁ παρὼν φόβος λελύσεται.

9. ἥδε = ‘the foregoing,’ cp. n. on ταῦτα p. 106 supra.

10. ὥσπερ καὶ κατ’ ἀρχὰς ἔφην: 72 9, 104 9. The reading ἔφην (rather than ἔφαμεν) accords best with Dionysius’ usage.

23. Cp. Cic. Orat. cc. 63, 66 for similar Latin instances of the effect of a change in word-order.—The complete sentence in Thucyd. iii. 57 runs: καὶ οὔτε τῶν τότε ξυμμάχων ὠφελεῖ οὐδείς, ὑμεῖς τε, ὦ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, ἡ μόνη ἐλπίς, δέδιμεν μὴ οὐ βέβαιοι ἦτε.

ἡ μόνη ἐλπίς, δέδιμεν μὴ οὐ βέβαιοι ἦτε.” φέρε δή τις λύσας τὴν συζυγίαν ταύτην μεθαρμοσάτω τὰ κῶλα οὕτως· “ὑμεῖς τε, ὦ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, δέδιμεν μὴ οὐ βέβαιοι ἦτε, ἡ μόνη ἐλπίς.” ἆρ’ ἔτι μένει τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἡρμοσμένων τῶν κώλων ἡ αὐτὴ χάρις ἢ τὸ αὐτὸ πάθος; οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴποι. τί 5 δ’ εἰ τὴν Δημοσθένους λέξιν ταύτην “τὸ λαβεῖν οὖν τὰ διδόμενα ὁμολογῶν ἔννομον εἶναι, τὸ χάριν τούτων ἀποδοῦναι παρανόμων γράφῃ” λύσας τις καὶ μεταθεὶς τὰ κῶλα τουτονὶ τὸν τρόπον ἐξενέγκαι· “ὁμολογῶν οὖν ἔννομον εἶναι τὸ λαβεῖν τὰ διδόμενα, παρανόμων γράφῃ τὸ τούτων χάριν ἀποδοῦναι,” 10 ἆρ’ ὁμοίως ἔσται δικανικὴ καὶ στρογγύλη; ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ οἴομαι.

VIII

ἡ μὲν δὴ περὶ τὴν ἁρμογὴν τῶν κώλων θεωρία τοιαύτη, ἡ δὲ περὶ τὸν σχηματισμὸν ποδαπή; οὐκ ἔστιν εἷς τρόπος τῆς ἐκφορᾶς ἁπάντων τῶν νοημάτων, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν ὡς 15 ἀποφαινόμενοι λέγομεν, τὰ δ’ ὡς πυνθανόμενοι, τὰ δ’ ὡς εὐχόμενοι, τὰ δ’ ὡς ἐπιτάττοντες, τὰ δ’ ὡς διαποροῦντες, τὰ δ’ ὡς ὑποτιθέμενοι, τὰ δὲ ἄλλως πως σχηματίζοντες, οἷς ἀκολούθως καὶ τὴν λέξιν πειρώμεθα σχηματίζειν. πολλοὶ δὲ δήπου σχηματισμοὶ καὶ τῆς λέξεώς εἰσιν ὥσπερ καὶ τῆς 20 διανοίας, οὓς οὐχ οἷόν τε κεφαλαιωδῶς περιλαβεῖν, ἴσως δὲ καὶ ἄπειροι· περὶ ὧν καὶ πολὺς ὁ λόγος καὶ βαθεῖα ἡ θεωρία. οὐ δὴ τὸ αὐτὸ δύναται ποιεῖν τὸ αὐτὸ κῶλον οὕτω σχηματισθὲν

fail in steadfastness.”[121] Now let this order be disturbed and the clauses be re-arranged as follows: “And we fear, men of Sparta, lest you should fail in steadfastness, that are our only hope.” When the clauses are arranged in this way, does the same fine charm remain, or the same deep feeling? Plainly not. Again, take this passage of Demosthenes, “So you admit as constitutional the acceptance of the offerings; you indict as unconstitutional the rendering of thanks for them.”[122] Let the order be disturbed, and the clauses interchanged and presented in the following form: “So the acceptance of the offerings you admit as constitutional; the rendering of thanks for them you indict as unconstitutional.” Will the sentence be equally neat and effective? I, for my part, do not think so.