Thucydides i. 49.
(3) Ἀναξαγόρου οἴει κατηγορεῖν, ὦ φίλε Μέλητε, κτλ.
Plato Apology 26 D.
(4) οὐ γὰρ τὰ ῥήματα τὰς οἰκειότητας ἔφη βεβαιοῦν, μάλα σεμνῶς ὀνομάζων, ἀλλὰ τὸ ταὐτὰ συμφέρειν.
Demosthenes de 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 σὺ ζῶντας μέν, ὦ κίναδος, κολακεύων παρηκολούθεις, τεθνεώτων δ’ οὐκ αἰσθάνει κατηγορῶν.
id. ib. § 162.
(7) καὶ τότ’ εὐθὺς ἐμοῦ διαμαρτυρομένου καὶ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ “πόλεμον εἰς τὴν Ἀττικὴν εἰσάγεις, Αἰσχίνη, πόλεμον Ἀμφικτυονικόν, κτλ.”
id. ib. § 143.
(8) ὃς γὰρ ἐμοῦ φιλιππισμόν, ὦ γῆ καὶ θεοί, κατηγορεῖ, τί οὗτος οὐκ ἂν εἴποι;
id. ib. § 294.
(9) ἀλλ’ οἶμαι οὐ δυνάμεθα· ἐλεεῖσθαι οὖν ἡμᾶς πολὺ μᾶλλον εἰκός ἐστίν που ὑπὸ ὑμῶν τῶν δεινῶν ἢ χαλεπαίνεσθαι.
Plato Republic i. 336 E.
(10) μηδ’ εἵμασι στρώσασ’ ἐπίφθονον πόρον
τίθει· θεούς τοι τοῖσδε τιμαλφεῖν χρεών.
Aeschylus Agamemnon 921.
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, εἰ ἄνδρες εἶεν 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. καίτοι ἀληθές γε, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, οὐδὲν εἰρήκασιν.
Plato Apology init.
(3) ἀλλὰ μὴν τὸν τότε συμβάντα ἐν τῇ πόλει θόρυβον ἴστε μὲν ἅπαντες, μικρὰ δ’ ἀκούσατε ὅμως, αὐτὰ τἀναγκαιότατα ... οἱ δὲ τοὺς στρατηγοὺς μετεπέμποντο καὶ τὸν σαλπιγκτὴν ἐκάλουν, καὶ θορύβου πλήρης ἦν ἡ πόλις.
Demosthenes de 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 αὐτὸ ἆρα δυνατόν;
Plato Republic iv. 436 C.
and
οἷον δίψα ἐστὶ δίψα ἆρά γε θερμοῦ ποτοῦ ἢ ψυχροῦ, ἢ πολλοῦ ἢ ὀλίγου, ἢ καὶ ἑνὶ λόγῳ ποιοῦ τινος πώματος;
id. ib. iv. 437 D.
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 φάει καὶ ὄλεσσον, ἐπεί νύ τοι εὔαδεν οὕτως.
Homer Iliad xvii. 645.
Me, me, adsum qui feci, in me convertite ferrum,
O Rutuli.
Virgil Aeneid ix. 427.
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 the Frogs) 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.
Euripides Hercules Furens 539.
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, ὅτι τὸν θάνατον ἡγοῦνται πάντες οἱ ἄλλοι τῶν μεγάλων κακῶν; — καὶ μάλ’, ἔφη. — οὐκοῦν φόβῳ μειζόνων κακῶν ὑπομένουσιν αὐτῶν οἱ ἀνδρεῖοι τὸν θάνατον, ὅταν ὑπομένωσιν; — ἔστι ταῦτα.
Plato Phaedo 68 D.
The τὸν θάνατον before ἡγοῦνται is here emphatic on the same principle as the θάνατον before εἰσέθηκε in the passage (already alluded to) of the Frogs: —
θάνατον γὰρ εἰσέθηκε βαρύτατον κακόν.
Aristophanes Ranae 1394.
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 δουλείας θάνατον;
Plato Republic iii. 386 B.
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 ἐζημιώκασιν θανάτῳ.
Demosthenes Midias § 49.
and
... καὶ φοβερωτέρας ἡγήσεται τὰς ὕβρεις καὶ τὰς ἀτιμίας, ἃς ἐν δουλευούσῃ τῇ πόλει φέρειν ἀνάγκη, τοῦ θανάτου.
Demosthenes de 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 πατρίδι εὐδαιμονίαν, ἐμοὶ δὲ οἷόν περ αἰῶνα δεδώκατε τοιαύτην καὶ τελευτὴν δοῦναι.
Xenophon Cyropaedia viii. 7.<
br />
(2) ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτους κολυμβηταὶ δυόμενοι ἐξέπριον μισθοῦ.
Thucydides vii. 25.
(3) ὑψοῦ δὲ θάσσων ὑψόθεν χαμαιπετὴς
πίπτει πρὸς οὖδας μυρίοις οἰμώγμασι
Πενθεύς.
Euripides Bacchae 1111.
(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.
Demosthenes Aristocrates § 139.
(5) δεῖ δὲ τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας ἐγχειρεῖν μὲν ἅπασιν ἀεὶ τοῖς καλοῖς, τὴν ἀγαθὴν προβαλλομένους ἐλπίδα, φέρειν δ’ ἃν ὁ θεὸς διδῷ γενναίως.
Demosthenes de Corona § 97.
(6) εἶθ’ οὗτοι τὰ ὅπλα εἶχον ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν ἀεί.
id. ib. § 235.
(7) εἰ γὰρ ταῦτα προεῖτ’ ἀκονιτεί, περὶ ὧν οὐδένα κίνδυνον ὅντιν’ οὐχ ὑπέμειναν οἱ πρόγονοι, τίς οὐχὶ κατέπτυσεν ἂν σοῦ; μὴ γὰρ τῆς πόλεώς γε, μηδ’ ἐμοῦ.
id. ib. § 200.
(8) ... ἡμῖν δὲ τοῖς λοιποῖς τὴν ταχίστην ἀπαλλαγὴν τῶν ἐπηρτημένων φόβων δότε καὶ σωτηρίαν ἀσφαλῆ.
id. ib. § 324.
It may be added that, occasionally, both the earlier and the later positions are emphatic in the same clause or sentence: e.g.
(1) τέκνα γὰρ κατακτενῶ
τἄμ’.
Euripides Medea 792.
(2) ὦτα γὰρ τυγχάνει ἀνθρώποισι ἐόντα ἀπιστότερα ὀφθαλμῶν.
Herodotus i. 8.
(3) νῦν δὲ τὸ μὲν παρὸν ἀεὶ προϊέμενοι, τὰ δὲ μέλλοντ’ αὐτόματ’ οἰόμενοι σχήσειν καλῶς, ηὐξήσαμεν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, Φίλιππον ἡμεῖς, καὶ κατεστήσαμεν τηλικοῦτον ἡλίκος οὐδείς πω βασιλεὺς γέγονεν Μακεδονίας.
Demosthenes Olynthiacs i. § 9.
(4) πολλάκις δὲ τοῦ κήρυκος ἐρωτῶντος οὐδὲν μᾶλλον ἀνίστατ’ οὐδείς, ἁπάντων μὲν τῶν στρατηγῶν παρόντων, κτλ.
Demosthenes de Corona § 117.
(5) καὶ μὴν καὶ Φερὰς πρώην 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.
Demosthenes Philippics iii. § 12.
(6) οὐ λίθοις ἐτείχισα τὴν πόλιν οὐδὲ πλίνθοις ἐγώ, οὐδ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις μέγιστον τῶν ἐμαυτοῦ φρονῶ.
Demosthenes de Corona § 299.
(7) ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν πεπολίτευσαι πάντα, ἐγὼ δ’ ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος.
id. ib. § 265.
In connexion with the imperfect appreciation which the de Compositione Verborum shows of a normal order and of an emphasis 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” (Plato Protag. 343 E, where the reference is to a poem of Simonides). The author of the Rhetorica 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 “Hyperbaton quoque, id est verbi transgressionem, quoniam frequenter ratio comparationis et decor poscit, non immerito inter virtutes habemus” (Inst. Or. viii. 6. 62). The author of the Treatise on the Sublime describes and defines it thus: ἔστι δὲ λέξεων ἢ νοήσεων ἐκ τοῦ κατ’ ἀκολουθίαν κεκινημένη τάξις καὶ οἱονεὶ χαρακτὴρ ἐναγωνίου πάθους ἀληθέστατος (Longinus de Sublim. c. 22). 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. 31 ibid.) 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.
E. Euphony
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). Dionysius, too, in the de Compositione Verborum, passes more readily over the two qualities of clearness and emphasis because he is not concerned with the πραγματικὸς τόπος. 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. 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). 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 mul
centur 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 (“aurem tuam interroga, quo quid loco conveniat dicere,” Aulus Gellius Noctes Att. xiii. 21); the criterion is subjective, not absolute. 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 the de Compositione as 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. 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.
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 of syllabic quantity in 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 the de Corona: ἡμῖν δὲ τοῖς λοιποῖς τὴν ταχίστην ἀπαλλαγὴν τῶν ἐπηρτημένων φόβων δότε καὶ σωτηρίαν ἀσφαλῆ. Further reference to these minutiae of style may fitly be made later, when the topics of “rhythm” and “music” are considered.
Delphi Complete Works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Illustrated) (Delphi Ancient Classics Book 79) Page 120