THREE PROCESSES IN THE ART OF COMPOSITION
My view is that the science of composition has three functions. The
first is that of observing the combinations which are naturally adapted
to produce a beautiful and agreeable united effect; the second is
that of perceiving how to improve the harmonious appearance of the
whole by fashioning properly the several parts which we intend to fit
together; the third is that of perceiving what is required in the
way of modification of the material—I mean abridgment, expansion and
transformation—and of carrying out such changes in a manner appropriate
to the end in view. The effect of each of these processes I will
explain more clearly by means of illustrations drawn from industrial
arts
[Page 106]
ἃς ἅπαντες ἴσασιν, οἰκοδομικῇ λέγω καὶ ναυπηγικῇ καὶ ταῖς
παραπλησίαις· ὅ τε γὰρ οἰκοδόμος ὅταν πορίσηται τῆν ὕλην
ἐξ ἧς μέλλει κατασκευάζειν τὴν οἰκίαν, λίθους καὶ ξύλα καὶ
κέραμον καὶ τἆλλα πάντα, συντίθησιν ἐκ τούτων ἤδη τὸ
ἔργον τρία ταῦτα πραγματευόμενος, ποίῳ δεῖ λίθῳ τε καὶ ξύλῳ 5
καὶ πλίνθῳ ποῖον ἁρμόσαι λίθον ἢ ξύλον ἢ πλίνθον, ἔπειτα πῶς
τῶν ἁρμοζομένων ἕκαστον καὶ ἐπὶ ποίας πλευρᾶς ἑδράσαι, καὶ
τρίτον, εἴ τι δύσεδρόν ἐστιν, ἀποκροῦσαι καὶ περικόψαι καὶ
αὐτὸ τοῦτο εὔεδρον ποιῆσαι· ὅ τε ναυπηγὸς τὰ αὐτὰ ταῦτα
πραγματεύεται. τὰ δὴ παραπλήσιά φημι δεῖν ποιεῖν καὶ τοὺς 10
μέλλοντας εὖ συνθήσειν τὰ τοῦ λόγου μόρια, πρῶτον μὲν
σκοπεῖν, ποῖον ὄνομα ἢ ῥῆμα ἢ τῶν ἄλλων τι μορίων ποίῳ
συνταχθὲν ἐπιτηδείως ἔσται κείμενον καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἄμεινον
(οὐ γὰρ δὴ πάντα γε μετὰ πάντων τιθέμενα πέφυκεν ὁμοίως διατιθέναι
τὰς ἀκοάς)· ἔπειτα διακρίνειν, πῶς σχηματισθὲν τοὔνομα 15
ἢ τὸ ῥῆμα ἢ τῶν ἄλλων ὅ τι δήποτε χαριέστερον ἱδρυθήσεται
καὶ πρὸς τὰ ὑποκείμενα πρεπωδέστερον· λέγω δὲ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν
ὀνομάτων, πότερον ἑνικῶς ἢ πληθυντικῶς λαμβανόμενα κρείττω
λήψεται συζυγίαν, καὶ πότερον κατὰ τὴν ὀρθὴν ἐκφερόμενα
πτῶσιν ἢ κατὰ τῶν πλαγίων τινά, καὶ εἴ τινα πέφυκεν ἐξ 20
ἀρρενικῶν γίνεσθαι θηλυκὰ ἢ ἐκ θηλυκῶν ἀρρενικὰ ἢ οὐδέτερα
1 ναυτικῆι P, MV 3 λίθοις F 5 δεῖ EV: ex δηῖ P: δὴ FM || ξύλ(ω) et
πλίνθ(ω) P 8 κα(τα)κροῦσαι P^1 || καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ EF 9 ἑδραῖον P 10
τὰ δὴ] τὰ F: δή PMV ||ποιεῖν om. F 12 ποί(ω) P 14 μετα πάν[**TN: τ
written above ν of πάν] sic P 16 ϊδρυθήσεται P: ϊδρυνθήσεται F, EMV
18 πληθυντικῶς] π suprascripto θ̑ P || κρείτω P: κρείττονα E: κρείττο
F 19 πότερα FE 20 καὶ τίνα F 21 ἀρρενι(κων) P, M: ἀρ’ ἐνικῶν V:
ἀρρενων F, E: ἀρσενικῶν s
2. For comparisons between literary composition and civil or marine
architecture cp. _C.V._ c. 22, Quintil. _Inst. Or._ vii. 1 (proem.),
Cic. _de Or._ iii. 171. A metaphor from building underlies the
rhetorical use in all or most of such words as: κανών, γόμφος,
πυργοῦν, ἀντερείδειν, στηριγμός, ἀντιστηριγμός, ἕδρα, τέκτων, ὕλη,
κατασκευάζειν, ἐγκατάσκευος.
5. =ταῦτα= refers forward here, cp. =112= 8 with =112= 4. In =110= 9
ἥδε refers backward—‘the foregoing.’
7. =ἐπὶ ποίας πλευρᾶς=, ‘on what side,’ i.e. ‘with what attention to
stratification or grain.’ A builder likes to place stone in courses _as
it lay in the quarry_: he knows that, if what lay horizontally is set
perpendicularly, it will not last so well. Or the reference here may be
simply to the difference in general appearance made by laying a stone
in one of several possible ways.
10. If =ποιεῖν= be omitted with F, it must be mentally supplied from
the general sense of the verbs that follow. Cp. Plato _Gorg._ 491 D ἢ
τοῦτο μὲν οὐδὲν δεῖ, αὐτὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἄρχειν, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων; Demosth. _de
Cor._ § 139 καίτοι δυοῖν αὐτὸν ἀνάγκη θάτερον, ἢ μηδὲν ἐγκαλεῖν κτλ.,
Soph. _Philoct._ 310 ἐκεῖνο δ’ οὐδείς, ἡνίκ’ ἂν μνησθῶ, θέλει | σῶσαί
μ’ ἐς οἴκους, id. _Antig._ 497 θέλεις τι μεῖζον ἢ κατακτεῖναί μ’ ἑλών;
13. For _οὐκ ἄμεινον_ Usener substitutes εὖ ἢ ἄμεινον. The corruption
of εὖ ἢ to οὐκ might easily happen in uncial writing, and the reading
οὐκ is as old as the Epitome. But the εὖ comes unexpectedly after
ἐπιτηδείως, and the emendation is not convincing. The manuscript
reading has, therefore, been kept, though οὐκ ἄμεινον is a difficult
litotes.
15. =σχηματισθέν=: grammatical form, or _construction_, is clearly
meant here.
16. From here to the end of the chapter the general sense is: We must,
in the interests of harmonious composition, make the fullest possible
use of alternative forms—now a noun, now a verb; now a singular, now
a plural; now a nominative, now an oblique case; now a masculine, and
then a feminine or neuter; and so with voices, moods, and tenses—with
forms such as τουτονί and τοῦτον, ἰδών and κατιδών, χωροφιλῆσαι and
φιλοχωρῆσαι, λελύσεται and λυθήσεται,—and with elision, hiatus, and
the employment of νῦ ἐφελκυστικόν. Many of these points will be found
illustrated in _Ep. ad Amm. II._, where the subject of some of the
characters is as follows: c. 5 use of noun for verb, c. 6 use of
verb for noun, c. 7 substitution of passive for active voice, c. 9
interchange of singular and plural number, c. 10 interchange of the
three genders, c. 11 use of cases, c. 12 use of tenses. See D.H. pp.
138-49, together with the notes added on pp. 178-81. As _Ep. ad Amm.
II._ shows, Dionysius is fully alive to the dangers of this continual
straining of language. Absolutely interchangeable expressions are not
common.
18. =πληθυντικῶς=: cp. the use of the plural in Virg. _Aen._ 155 “vos
arae ensesque nefandi, | quos fugi.”
21. =ἐκ θηλυκῶν ἀρρενικά=: cf. Quintil. _Inst. Or._ ix. 3. 6 “fiunt
ergo et circa genus figurae in nominibus, nam et _oculis capti talpae_
[Virg. _Georg._ i. 183] et _timidi damae_ [Virg. _Ecl._ viii. 28,
_Georg._ iii. 539] dicuntur a Vergilio; sed subest ratio, quia sexus
uterque altero significatur, tamque mares esse talpas damasque quam
feminas, certum est.” Besides the reason given by Quintilian, the
desire to avoid monotony of termination (excessive ὁμοιοτέλευτον) also
counts.—The present passage may further be illustrated by Dionysius’
own words in _Ep. ad Amm. II._ c. 10: “Examples of the interchange of
masculines, feminines and neuters, in contravention of the ordinary
rules of language, are such as the following. He [Thucydides] uses
τάραχος in the masculine for ταραχή in the feminine, and similarly
ὄχλος for ὄχλησις. In place of τὴν βούλησιν and τὴν δύναμιν he uses τὸ
βουλόμενον and τὸ δυνάμενον.”
[Page 107]
familiar to all—house-building, ship-building, and the like. When a
builder has provided himself with the material from which he intends
to construct a house—stones, timbers, tiling, and all the rest—he then
puts together the structure from these, studying the following three
things: what stone, timber and brick can be united with what other
stone, timber and brick; next, how each piece of the material that is
being so united should be set, and on which of its faces; thirdly,
if anything fits badly, how that particular thing can be chipped and
trimmed and made to fit exactly. And the shipwright proceeds in just
the same way. A like course should, I affirm, be followed by those who
are to succeed in literary composition. They should first consider
in what groupings with one another nouns, verbs, or other parts of
speech, will be placed appropriately, and how not so well; for surely
every possible combination cannot affect the ear in the same way—it
is not in the nature of things that it should be so. Next they should
decide the form in which the noun or verb, or whatever else it may be,
will occupy its place most gracefully and most in harmony with the
ground-scheme. I mean, in the case of nouns, whether they will offer
a better combination if used in the singular or the plural; whether
they should be put in the nominative or in one of the oblique cases; or
which gender should be chosen if they admit of a feminine instead of a
masculine form,
[Page 108]
ἐκ τούτων, πῶς ἂν ἄμεινον σχηματισθείη, καὶ πάντα τὰ
τοιαῦτα· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ῥημάτων, πότερα κρείττω λαμβανόμενα
ἔσται, τὰ ὀρθὰ ἢ τὰ ὕπτια, καὶ κατὰ ποίας ἐγκλίσεις ἐκφερόμενα,
ἃς δή τινες πτώσεις ῥηματικὰς καλοῦσι, κρατίστην ἕδραν
λήψεται, καὶ ποίας παρεμφαίνοντα διαφορὰς χρόνων καὶ εἴ 5
τινα τοῖς ῥήμασιν ἄλλα παρακολουθεῖν πέφυκε (τὰ δ’ αὐτὰ
ταῦτα καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων τοῦ λόγου μερῶν φυλακτέον, ἵνα
μὴ καθ’ ἓν ἕκαστον λέγω)· ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις τὰ ληφθέντα
διακρίνειν, εἴ τι δεῖται μετασκευῆς ὄνομα ἢ ῥῆμα, πῶς ἂν
ἐναρμονιώτερόν τε καὶ εὐεδρότερον γένοιτο· τοῦτο τὸ στοιχεῖον 10
ἐν μὲν ποιητικῇ δαψιλέστερόν ἐστιν, ἐν δὲ λόγοις πεζοῖς
σπανιώτερον· πλὴν γίνεταί γε καὶ ἐν τούτοις ἐφ’ ὅσον ἂν
ἐγχωρῇ· ὅ τε γὰρ λέγων “εἰς τουτονὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα” προστέθεικέ
τι τῇ ἀντωνυμίᾳ γράμμα τῆς συνθέσεως στοχαζόμενος· ἄρτιον
γὰρ ἦν “εἰς τοῦτον τὸν ἀγῶνα” εἰπεῖν· καὶ πάλιν ὁ λέγων 15
“κατιδὼν Νεοπτόλεμον τὸν ὑποκριτήν” τῇ προθέσει παρηύξηκεν
τοὔνομα, τὸ γὰρ ἰδὼν ἀπέχρη· καὶ ὁ γράφων “μήτ’ ἰδίας
ἔχθρας μηδεμιᾶς ἕνεχ’ ἥκειν” ταῖς συναλοιφαῖς ἠλάττωκε τὰ
2 τε EFMV^1 || κρείττω EF: κρείττονα PMV || λαβόμενα ἔσται F: ἔσται
λαμβανόμενα EPMV 4 καλοῦσιν P 6 πέφυκεν P || δὲ PMV 8 ἓν om. F
9 δεῖται F: δεῖ PMV || μετὰ κα(τα)σκευ(ης) P, M || πῶς Usener: ὡς
libri 12 πλὴν EF: om. PMV || τε PV: om. F^{1}EM || ὅσο*ν F, E: ὁπόσον
PMV 14 ἀντ(ω)νυμία P 17 ἀπέχρη καὶ ὁ F: ἀπέχρηκεν ὅ τε P 18
ἔχθρας] ἔχθρας ἐμὲ Demosth. || ἔνεχ’ F: ἕνεκ’ PV || εικειν P^1, V ||
συναλειφαῖς F: συναλιφαῖς P
8. Cp. Batteux _Réflexions_ p. 181: “Cette opération [sc. μετασκευή]
ne peut pas avoir lieu en français, parce que nos mots sont faits et
consacrés dans leur forme par un usage que les écrivains ne peuvent ni
changer ni altérer: la poésie n’a pas sur ce point plus de privilége
que la prose; mais cela n’empêche pas que nous ne fassions dans notre
langue une grande partie des opérations qu’indique Denys d’Halicarnasse
dans le chapitre vi. Nous mettons dans nos verbes un temps pour un
autre, l’actif pour le passif, le passif pour l’actif; nous prenons les
substantifs adjectivement, les adjectifs substantivement, quelquefois
adverbialement, les singuliers pour les pluriels, les pluriels pour les
singuliers; nous changeons les personnes; nous varions les finales,
tantôt masculines, tantôt féminines; nous renversons les constructions,
nous faisons des ellipses hardies, etc. etc. Tous ceux qui font
des vers savent de combien de manières on tourne et retourne les
expressions d’une pensée qui résiste; ceux qui travaillent leur prose
le savent de même que les poëtes.”
9. For Usener’s correction =πῶς= cp. =106= 15, =108= 1; and for F’s
δεῖται cp. =104= 19.
11. Examples in Latin poetry would be ‘gnatus’ for ‘natus,’ or
‘amarunt’ and ‘amavere’ for ‘amaverunt.’
13. We have an English parallel in the dialect form ‘thik’ and
‘thikky,’ both of which stand for _this_; or ‘the forthcoming’ and
‘the coming’ might be employed in the translation, and ‘syllable’ be
substituted for ‘letter.’
14. =ἄρτιον=: for the meaning cp. ἀπέχρη =108= 17. The implication is
that τουτονί (as compared with τοῦτον) is περισσόν.
16. Demosth. περὶ τῆς Εἰρήνης § 6, πάλιν τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι,
κατιδὼν Νεοπτόλεμον τὸν ὑποκριτὴν τῷ μὲν τῆς τέχνης προσχήματι
τυγχάνοντ’ ἀδείας, κακὰ δ’ ἐργαζόμενον τὰ μέγιστα τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὰ
παρ’ ὑμῶν διοικοῦντα Φιλίππῳ καὶ πρυτανεύοντα, παρελθὼν εἶπον εἰς
ὑμᾶς, οὐδεμιᾶς ἰδίας οὔτ’ ἔχθρας οὔτε συκοφαντίας ἕνεκεν, ὡς ἐκ τῶν
μετὰ ταῦτ’ ἔργων γέγονε δῆλον. If κατιδών here means little or nothing
more than ἰδών, we might compare ‘entreat’ in the sense of ‘treat’,
or Chaucer’s use of ‘apperceive’ for ‘perceive.’ Dionysius’ meaning,
however, probably is not that τουτονί and τοῦτον, κατιδών and ἰδών,
are actual _synonyms_, but rather that the shorter form would have
_sufficed_.
17. Demosth. κατὰ Ἀριστοκράτους § 1, μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι,
νομίσῃ μήτ’ ἰδίας ἔχθρας ἐμὲ μηδεμιᾶς ἕνεχ’ ἥκειν Ἀριστοκράτους
κατηγορήσοντα τουτουΐ, μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον ἁμάρτημ’
ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειαν, ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἄρ’
ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ λογίζομαι καὶ σκοπῶ, ὑπὲρ τοῦ Χερρόνησον ἔχειν ὑμᾶς ἀσφαλῶς
καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθέντας ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς, περὶ τούτου μοί ἐστιν
ἅπασ’ ἡ σπουδή. The passage is fully discussed (from the rhythmical, or
metrical, point of view) in _C.V._ c. 25.
[Page 109]
or a masculine instead of a feminine, or a neuter instead of either:
and so on. With reference to verbs, again: which form it will be
best to adopt, the active or the passive, and in what moods (or
_verbal cases_, as some call them) they should be presented so as to
receive the best setting, as also what differences of tense should be
indicated; and so with all the other natural accidents of verbs. These
same methods must be followed in regard to the other parts of speech
also; there is no need to go into details. Further, with respect to the
words thus selected, if any noun or verb requires a modification of its
form, it must be decided how it can be brought into better harmony and
symmetry with its neighbours. This principle can be applied more freely
in poetry than in prose. Still, in prose also, it is applied, where
opportunity offers. The speaker who says “εἰς τουτονὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα”[118]
has added a letter to the pronoun with an eye to the effect of the
composition. The bare meaning would have been sufficiently conveyed by
saying “εἰς τοῦτον τὸν ἀγῶνα”. So in the words “κατιδὼν Νεοπτόλεμον
τὸν ὑποκριτήν”[119] the addition of the preposition has merely
expanded the word into κατιδών, since ἰδών alone would have conveyed
the meaning. So, too, in the expression “μήτ’ ἰδίας ἔχθρας μηδεμιᾶς
ἕνεχ’ ἥκειν”[120] the writer has cut off some of the letters, and has
condensed the
[Page 110]
μόρια τοῦ λόγου κἀποκέκρουκέ τινα τῶν γραμμάτων· καὶ ὁ
ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐποίησεν “ἐποίησε” λέγων χωρὶς τοῦ ν̄ καὶ “ἔγραψε”
ἀντὶ τοῦ ἔγραψεν λέγων καὶ “ἀφαιρήσομαι” ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀφαιρεθήσομαι
καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα, ὅ τ’ “ἐχωροφίλησε” λέγων τὸ
ἐφιλοχώρησε καὶ “λελύσεται” τὸ λυθήσεται καὶ τὰ τοιουτότροπα 5
μετασκευάζει τὰς λέξεις, ἵν’ αὐτῷ γένοιντο ἁρμοσθῆναι καλλίους
καὶ ἐπιτηδειότεραι.
VII
μία μὲν δὴ θεωρία τῆς συνθετικῆς ἐπιστήμης ἡ περὶ
αὐτὰ τὰ πρῶτα μόρια καὶ στοιχεῖα τῆς λέξεως ἥδε· ἑτέρα
δέ, ὥσπερ καὶ κατ’ ἀρχὰς ἔφην, ἡ περὶ τὰ καλούμενα κῶλα, 10
ποικιλωτέρας τε δεομένη πραγματείας καὶ μείζονος, ὑπὲρ ἧς
αὐτίκα δὴ πειράσομαι λέγειν ὡς ἔχω γνώμης. καὶ γὰρ
ταῦτα ἁρμόσαι πρὸς ἄλληλα δεῖ ὥστ’ οἰκεῖα φαίνεσθαι καὶ
φίλα καὶ σχηματίσαι ὡς ἂν ἐνδέχηται κράτιστα προσκατασκευάσαι
τε, εἴ πού τι δέοι, μειώσει καὶ πλεονασμῷ καὶ εἰ 15
δή τιν’ ἄλλην μετασκευὴν δέχεται τὰ κῶλα· τούτων δ’
ἕκαστον ἡ πεῖρα αὐτὴ διδάσκει· πολλάκις γὰρ τουτὶ τὸ
κῶλον τούτου μὲν προτεθὲν ἢ ἐπὶ τούτῳ τεθὲν εὐστομίαν
τινὰ ἐμφαίνει καὶ σεμνότητα, ἑτέραν δέ τινα συζυγίαν λαβὸν
ἄχαρι φαίνεται καὶ ἄσεμνον. ὃ δὲ λέγω, σαφέστερον ἔσται, 20
εἴ τις αὐτὸ ἐπὶ παραδείγματος ἴδοι. ἔστι δή τις παρὰ τῷ
Θουκυδίδῃ λέξις ἐν τῇ Πλαταιέων δημηγορίᾳ πάνυ χαριέντως
συγκειμένη καὶ μεστὴ πάθους ἥδε· “ὑμεῖς τε, ὦ Λακεδαιμόνιοι,
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.
[Page 111]
discourse through the elisions. So again by using “ἐποίησε” (without
the ν) in place of ἐποίησεν, and “ἔγραψε” in place of ἔγραψεν, and
“ἀφαιρήσομαι” in place of ἀφαιρεθήσομαι, and all instances of the
kind; and by saying “ἐχωροφίλησε” for ἐφιλοχώρησε and “λελύσεται” for
λυθήσεται, and things of that sort:—by such devices an author puts his
words into a new shape, in order that he may fit them together more
beautifully and appropriately.