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
[Page 112]
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
1 ἡ μόνη ἐλπίς add. in marg. F || ἡ μόνη] ἡμῶν ἡ EF^{1}M^1 || φέρε
... (4) ἦτε add. in marg. F 6 δ’ F: δὲ M: δαὶ PV 8 παρανόμον P:
παράνομον F || γράφηι· F: γράφηι· εἰ P, MV | τοῦτον PMV 10 παράνομον
FP: παρανόμῳ V || ἀποδιδόναι P 14 ποταπή PMV 15 τῆς om. P ||
ἁπάντων EF: om. PMV: τῶν om. F || ὀνομάτων PMV
2. It is impossible to give real English equivalents in cases like
this,—partly because of the fundamental differences between the two
languages, and partly because we do not know Dionysius’ own estimate of
the exact effect which the changes he introduces have upon the rhythm,
emphasis, and clearness of the sentence. The same considerations
apply in lines 6-10, where the English principle of emphasis makes it
necessary to depart widely from the Greek order in both the original
and the re-written form. See Introduction, pp. 17 ff. _supra_ (under
Emphasis). A striking instance of effective emphasis in English is
Macduff’s passionate out-burst:—
Not in the legions
Of horrid hell can come a devil more damn’d
In ills to top Macbeth.
“If you dispose the words in the usual manner, and say, ‘A more damned
devil in the legions of horrid hell cannot come to top Macbeth in
ills,’ we shall scarcely be persuaded that the thought is the same,”
Campbell _Philosophy of Rhetoric_ p. 496. Biblical instances are: (1)
“Nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin” (_Nehem._
xiii. 26); (2) “Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, do they
live for ever?” (_Zech._ i. 5).
8. Sometimes the manuscript testimony is quite clear as between such
forms as τουτονί and τοῦτον: cp. =116= 9 n. In doubtful cases the -ί
form might be adopted—in =64= 6 and =84= 17 as well as in =112= 8 and
=178= 10.
14. Cp. Quintil. vi. 3. 70 “figuras quoque montis, quae σχήματα
διανοίας dicuntur, res eadem recipit omnes, in quas nonnulli diviserunt
species dictorum. nam et interrogamus et dubitamus et affirmamus et
minamur et optamus, quaedam ut miserantes, quaedam ut irascentes
dicimus,” and Hor. _Ars. P._ 108 “format enim natura prius nos intus ad
omnem | fortunarum habitum; iuvat aut impellit ad iram | aut ad humum
maerore gravi deducit et angit; | post effert animi motus interprete
lingua.”
[Page 113]
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.