previous next

‘The first of these is (the proper use of) connective particles, that is, when they are made to correspond, in such a natural position (relation) of priority or posteriority to one another in the sentence, as some of them require; as μέν and ἐγὼ μέν require δέ and δέ (as correlatives)’. That is to say, the connective μέν (μὲνσύνδεσμος) requires an answering δέ in the apodosis, the one particle necessarily implying the other; and the same with ἐγὼ μέν, and δέ; μέν with ἐγώ necessarily implies a second, or other person, some one else, (see note on I 6. 22, and Donaldson, New Cratylus, § 154, there cited,) correlative and subsequent or posterior: and therefore in the construction of the sentence μέν is placed before (πρότερον), δέ after (ὕστερον).

On σύνδεσμος as a ‘part of speech’, see Introd. Appendix A to Bk. III c. 2, p. 371 seq.; and on its various senses in general, ib. Appendix D, p. 392; and again p. 437, in the analysis c. 25 (26) of the Rhet. ad Alex. The rule here given for the treatment of connectives is derived originally from Isocrates' τέχνη. Ibid. pp. 437, 8. The Rhet. ad Alex. also has it, c. 25 (26), 1, μετὰ δὲ συνδέσμους οὓς ἂν προείπῃς ἀποδίδου τοὺς ἀκολουθοῦντας; which is then exemplified by μέν and δέ, and καὶ, καί.

ἀποδιδόναι] to render, or ‘assign, to its proper place’, see note on I 1. 7. ἀντ-αποδιδόναι (in the following clause) is to do this so that there is a ‘reciprocal correspondence’ between the two, ἀντ-ἀλλήλοις. ‘But this reciprocal correspondence between them should be introduced (by the speaker, δεῖ τὸν λέγοντα) before the audience has had time to forget (ἕως μέμνηται, sc. ἀκροατής, while he still retains in his recollection) the first of the two connectives, with its accompanying clause; and the two should neither be too widely separated, nor should (another) conjunction be introduced before that which is absolutely required; for (such a construction) is seldom appropriate. “But I, as soon as he told me— for Cleon came entreating and requiring (claiming, demanding)—set out with them in my company.” For in examples like this, several clauses with conjunctions are prematurely inserted before that which is to correspond as the correlative’.

The example of this faulty construction here given is one of the very few which Aristotle has manufactured, contrary to his usual rule of citing examples from the sayings or writings of others supplied by memory. This has been noticed as one of the characteristic differences which distinguish Aristotle's Rhetoric from the Rhet. ad Alex.—see Introd. p. 4141—the author of the latter, almost invariably, illustrating his precepts by examples of his own. The example itself, as appears from the πολλοὶ σύνδεσμοι of the ensuing clause, is to be regarded, not as an actual exemplification of the fault, but only as a suggestion of what might be. In itself it is clear enough: but if these parenthetical clauses be multiplied—as in fact is very often done in Aristotle's own writings—. between protasis and apodosis, the hearer, or reader, is very apt to forget the commencement of the sentence, and the argument becomes confused.

‘But if the clauses that intervene (before) ἐπορευόμην (between the πρότασις and it) be numerous, it becomes obscure’. μεταξύ is not unfrequently used with only one of the two extremes, between which the intermediate lies, expressed: examples are, Arist. Ach. 432, Τηλέφου ῥακώματα. κεῖται δ᾽ ἄνωθεν τῶν Θυεστείων ῥακῶν, μεταξὺ τῶν Ἰνοῦς. Aesch. Choeph. 55, τὰ δ᾽ ἐν μεταιχμίῳ σκότου, for σκότου καὶ φάους. Others in Shilleto's note on Dem. de F. L. § 181, who compares with the last instance, our own twilight, i.e. ‘betwixt (darkness and) light’. Add Soph. Oed. Col. 583, τὰ ἐν μέσῳ. Ib. 291 (with Schneidewin's note). Eur. Hec. 437. [Isocr. Paneg. § 70, ἐν τῷ μεταξὺ τῆς χώρας, Dem. de Corona § 32, τὸν μεταξὺ χρόνον τῶν ὅρκων.]

A violation of this rule is pointed out by Arnold, on Thuc. I 32. 1. Comp. Quint. VIII 2. 14, 15. The parenthesis, τὸ μεταξύ, is there called interiectio. Interiectione, qua et oratores et historici frequenter utuntur, ut medio sermone aliquem inserant sensum, impediri solet intellectus, nisi quod interponitur breve est; Virg. Georg. III 79—83 being adduced as an example. This is properly referred by Quint. to perspicuitas.

1 Where “the single exception, of III 16” requires modification: but the exceptions are extremely rare.

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: