This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
καθάπερ ἄν] On καθάπερ ἂν (κατασκευάζοι), see above, note on I 1, 5 p. 9. δυνάμεις] sc. τοῦ πορίσαι λόγους, I 2, 7. On Rhetoric as a practical faculty, see Introd. pp. 14—19. It may be as well here to sum up the characteristics of Rhetoric which respectively entitle it to the name of ‘art’ and ‘faculty’. In so far as it is systematic, and follows a method—a logical method—and can look forward to results (implying a knowledge of causes and effects) in persuading its hearers, it is an art; as a practical exercise, not admitting of absolute exactness, or universal conclusions, employing the propositions of all arts and sciences, and the axioms common to them all, only as probable and popular, and having itself no special subject-matter, taking opposite sides of the same question indifferently and arriving at opposite conclusions (so Alexander Aphrodisiensis), it is a δύναμις, a faculty, capable of development and to be exercised in practice. μεταβαίνειν] See on I 2, 20. Vater (who seems to have misunderstood the passage), without reason or authority, would omit the words τῷ μεταβαίνειν, as not properly applicable to the context ἀλλὰ μὴ μόνον λόγων. And his view is so far supported by the Paraphrast, who also rejects them. Brandis, u. s. p. 46. No one but himself, however, would prefer to connect εἰς ἐπιστήμας with ἐπισκευάζων rather than μεταβαίνειν—a much more natural construction, though this often is certainly admissible—and secondly, the two words, though not absolutely necessary to the sense, are at least in perfect accordance with it when the passage is properly interpreted. ‘In proportion as...he will be unconsciously, unintentionally, effacing their real nature by passing over, in his attempt to reconstruct them (alter their formation or system), into sciences of definite special subjects, instead of those (ἐπιστήμας) which deal with mere words’, i.e. instead of confining himself to these latter. This is in fact a case of that very common violation of an ordinary grammatical rule which is called the ‘figure’, ζεῦγμα1 (a mere carelessness of expression dignified by that name), ‘a figure of speech’, as it is briefly expressed in Liddell and Scott's Lexicon, ‘wherein two subjects are used jointly with the same predicate, which strictly belongs only to one, as in Il. A 533, where ἔβη must be supplied with Ζεύς.’ So Herod. I 90, χρηστὰ ἔργα καὶ ἔπεα ποιέειν, where of course λέγειν is required with ἔπεα. Under this head comes the case before us, where to complete the intended sense we must supply ἀλλὰ μὴ μόνον (not τῷ μεταβαίνειν, but τῷ ἐπισκευάζειν ἐπιστήμας) λόγων. ἐπισκευάζειν, ‘to re-construct or re-constitute’, is opposed to κατασκευάζειν. The latter is ‘to lay down (κατά), settle or establish a system’; the former, ‘to construct anew or afresh, to renew’. ἐπί, from the primary sense of direction to, in place, passes into a secondary one of direction or succession in time, ‘after’; hence, thirdly, it takes the meaning of repetition, as anew, afresh, re- (in comp.), and of development in the way of growth, as in ἐπιδιδόναι ‘to augment or grow’. Hence ἐπισκευάζειν is properly to ‘refit’, ‘renew’, ‘repair’, ‘restore’, as walls, ships, bridges, roads (Thucyd., Xenoph., Demosth., see the Lexx.), and thence transferred to ‘reconstruction’ of a science or study. A similar sense of ἐπί appears in the verbs, ἐπειπεῖν ‘to say after, or add the words’, ἐπαγείρειν ‘to collect after or in addition’, ἐπιμανθάνειν, ἐπακολουθεῖν, ἐπανθεῖν, ἐπιβιοῦν (to live after, outlive), ἐπαναθεᾶσθαι (Xen. Cyr. V. 4, 11, to look at repeatedly, over and over again), ἐπαναχωρεῖν ibid., ἐπανιέναι, ἐπανέρχεσθαι, ἐπανορθοῦν. Rost. u. Palm, Lex. Art. ἐπί, p. 1046 a.
1 Of this so-called ‘figure’, ζεῦγμα, the illicit conjunction of the two heterogeneous notions or expressions under one vinculum, there are in fact two varieties, explained and abundantly illustrated from the works of Tacitus by Bötticher in his Lex. Tacit., Proleg. de Stili Taciti brevitate, p. LXXVIII sq., σύλληψις and ζεῦγμα proper. The figure in general is thus described, ‘qua aut genere aut personis aut alio quo modo diversa uno eodemque constructionis genere comprehenduntur’; but as I have failed to enter into the distinction which Bötticher makes between the two varieties I will substitute my own explanation of the difference. In σύλληψις the two terms are united in one construction with a third, to which one is referred literally, the other metaphorically, or at all events in different senses. This appears in the instances given, as dissimulationem nox et lascivia exemerat: nocte ac laetitia incaluisse: praeda famaque onusti: mixti copiis et laetitia. To these I will venture to add from a modern English writer the case of Miss Bolo in Pickwick, who after her defeat at whist in the Bath Assembly Rooms retires ‘in a flood of tears and a sedan chair’; to which Eur. Hel. 182, αὐγαῖσιν ἐν ταῖς χρυσέαις ἔν τε δόνακος ἔρνεσιν, is an exact parallel. In ζεῦγμα proper, this third term will not apply in any sense to both of the others, and some other word or phrase must necessarily be supplied to complete the sense; as in the passage of Herodotus quoted above, and in the text of Aristotle. Add to the examples collected from Tacitus by Bötticher, Hor. Od. III 4. 11, ludo fatigatumque somno. Liv. XXVII 46 sub fin. fessi somno ac vigiliis (fessi vigiliis ac propterea somno graves). Hom. Il. K 98, καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες ἠδὲ καὶ ὕπνῳ. Soph. Oed. R. 271, Electr. 72, 435, 6. Eur. Heracl. 312 Elms. ad loc., 839, 1040. Dem. de F. L. § 93, μὴ...ἐᾶτε, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς κ.τ.λ. Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 394, seq. and Matth. Gr. Gr. 634, Obs. 3, supply examples. Ernesti, in Lex. Techn. Gr. s. v., thus defines ζεῦγμα: in qua figura unum ad verbum plures sententiae referuntur, quarum unaquaeque desideraret illud, si sola poneretur. This use of the figure he has not illustrated. It seems to represent something quite different from the other; but what? The ζεῦγμα in fact is a kind of grammatical bracket, under which two heterogeneous expressions are improperly included. Another well-known example of this figure is the truly Irish epitaph on Boyle the Philosopher: ‘He was the father of Chemistry, and grand-uncle of the Earl of Cork.’
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.