previous next


‘And of asyndeta the same may be said, “I came, I met, I implored”’. I have translated this upon the supposition that there is no intention of distinguishing here the aorist and imperfect: ‘for (here again) delivery (i.e. intonation) must come into play, and it must not be spoken as if it were all one, with the same character and accent’. Of ἀσύνδετον or λύσις, the disconnected style, in which σύνδεσμοι ‘connecting particles’ are absent, comp. Demetrius, π. ἑρμηνείας § 194, ὅτι δὲ ὑποκριτικὸν λύσις παράδειγμα ἐγκείσθω τόδε, ἐδεξάμην, ἔτικτον, ἐκτρέφω, φίλε (Menander, Fr. Inc. 230, Meineke, u.s. IV 284). οὕτως γὰρ λελυμένον ἀναγκάσει καὶ τὸν μὴ θέλοντα ὑποκρίνεσθαι διὰ τὴν λύσιν: εἰ δὲ συνδήσας εἴποις, ἐδεξάμην καὶ ἔτικτον καὶ ἐκτρέφω, πολλὴν ἀπάθειαν τοῖς συνδέσμοις ἐμβαλεῖς. Of asyndeton two examples are given from Demosthenes by Hermogenes π. μεθόδου δεινότητος, § 11, Rhet. Gr. II 435, Spengel.

A good example of asyndeton, illustrating the rapidity and vivacity which it imparts to style, is supplied by Victorius from Demosth. c. Androt. § 68, ὁμοῦ μετοίκους, Ἀθηναίους, δέων, ἀπάγων, βοῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος. Add Cicero's abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.

The vivacity imparted to style by asyndeton and the opposite (the employment of connecting particles) is admirably explained and illustrated by Campbell, Phil. of Rhet. Bk. III sect. 2, near the end (2nd ed. Vol. II pp. 287—293.)

‘Further asyndeta have a certain special property; that (by their aid) many things seem to be said in the same time’ (as one thing would be, if they had been employed); ‘because the connecting particle (or connexion) converts several things into one, (Harris, Hermes, II 2, p. 240,) and therefore if it be withdrawn (extracted), plainly the contrary will take place; one will become many. Accordingly (the asyndeton) exaggerates (or amplifies: or multiplies, increases the number)1: “I came, I conversed, I supplicated”: (the hearer or reader) seems to overlook or survey a number of things that he (the speaker) said’. (I have followed Bekker, Ed. 3, πολλὰ δοκεῖ ὑπεριδεῖν ὅσα εἶπεν. Spengel has, πολλὰ δοκεῖ, ὑπερεῖδεν ὅσα εἶπον, which does not agree with MS A^{c}, and is also obscure. Bekker, Ed. 1, has πολλά: δοκεῖ δὲ ὑπεριδεῖν ὅσα εἶπον, ὅσα φημί).

‘And this is Homer's intention also in writing Nireus at the commencement of three lines running’. Il. II 671. On this Demetrius, π. ἑρμηνείας §§ 61, 62, τὸν δὲ Νιρέα, αὐτόν τε ὄντα μικρὸν καὶ τὰ πράγματα αὐτοῦ μικρότερα—all this is raised to magnitude and importance by ἐπαναφορά, repetition, and διάλυσις, asyndeton. He then quotes the three lines; and, § 62, continues, καὶ σχεδὸν ἅπαξ τοῦ Νιρέως ὀνομασθέντος ἐν τῷ δράματι (dramatic poetry) μεμνήμεθα οὐδὲν ἧττον τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως καὶ τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως, καίτοι κατ᾽ ἔπος ἕκαστον καλουμένων σχεδόν κ.τ.λ. concluding with an ingenious simile; ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς ἑστιάσεσι τὰ ὀλίγα διαταχθέντα πως (a few meats by a certain disposition or arrangement) πολλὰ φαίνεται, οὕτω κἀν τοῖς λόγοις. Comp. also Hermogenes, περὶ ἐπαναληψέως, de repetitione, π. μεθόδου δεινότητος, § 9 (Rhet. Gr. II 433, Spengel), who gives this example of Nireus, with others from Homer, Xenophon, and Demosthenes. Illustrations of this emphatic repetition, and especially of that of the pronoun αὐτός, occur in a fragm. of Aeschyl, Fragm. Inc. 266, quoted at length in Plat. Rep. II 383 B, the most forcible of them all: κἀγὼ (Thetis) τὸ Φοίβου θεῖον ἀψευδὲς στόμα ἤλπιζον εἶναι, μαντικῇ βρύον τέχνῃ. δ̓ αὐτὸς ὑμνῶν, αὐτὸς ἐν θοίνῃ παρών, <*>ὐτὸς τάδ̓ εἰπών, αὐτός ἐστιν κτανὼν τὸν παῖδα τὸν ἐμόν. After this it will be unnecessary to quote inferior specimens; such as Xen. Anab. III 2. 4, Aesch. Eumen. 765, with Paley's note, and Blomfield's note on 745, in Linwood's ed. p. 188, where several references are given.

‘For a person (or thing) of which many things are said must necessarily be often mentioned; and therefore (this is a fallacy) they think it follows (καί, that it is also true) that if the name is often repeated, there must be a great deal to say about its owner: so that by this fallacy (the poet) magnifies (Nireus) by mentioning him only once (i.e. in one place), and makes him famous though he nowhere afterwards speaks of him again’. This is the fallacy of illicit conversion of antecedent and consequent, de Soph. El. c. 5, 167 b 1, δὲ παρεπόμενον ἔλεγχος διὰ τὸ οἴεσθαι ἀντιστρέφειν τὴν ἀκολούθησιν κ.τ.λ. and Rhet. I 7. 5. Analogous to this is the fallacy exposed in III 7. 4.

Creative Commons License
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.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: