E. M. Cope, Commentary on the Rhetoric of Aristotle

---

---

‘The periodic style has two divisions, of which the one has its clauses (simply) divided, the other opposed to one another; an instance of simple division is, “I have often wondered that those who first assembled these universal gatherings and established the athletic contests...”’ διῃρημένη λέξις, “in qua membra periodi copula a se invicem distinguuntur.” Ernesti, Lex. Techn. Gr. διαιρεῖν. This is the opening of Isocrates' Panegyric Speech, supposed or intended to be delivered at the ‘General Assembly’ of the great Olympic games—whence the name. It is remarkable, and shews that Ar. could not have looked at the passage he was quoting, that the very next words to those at which his quotation stops, long before the end of the sentence, contain a regular antithesis or opposition of members, and the ‘simple division’ is absolutely confined to the words cited. I should suppose that he could not have been aware of this.

‘(An instance) of the antithetic period, wherein in each of the two clauses contrary by contrary are brought together, or (the same word is imposed as a yoke, i.e. bracket, or vinculum, on both contraries) the two contraries are coupled together by one and the same word, is “Both they served, them that remained, and them that followed; for the one they acquired more land than they had at home in addition, and to the others they left behind sufficient in what they had at home.” ὑπομονή, (staying behind) is contrary to ἀκολούθησις (following), ἱκανόν to πλεῖον’.

It is unnecessary to say that the passage is quoted wrong: it runs in the original, Paneg. § 35, 6, ἀμφ. δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀκολ. καὶ τοὺς ὑπομ. ἔσωσαν: τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἱκανὴν τὴν οἴκοι χώραν κατέλιπον, τοῖς δὲ πλείω τῆς ὑπαρχούσης ἐπόρισαν. The first clause is an exemplification of ἐπίζευξις, on which see note supra c. 5 § 7; the second, of the antithesis of contraries in two clauses balanced and opposed to one another.

In the quotation that follows, Paneg. § 41, the original is, ὥστε καὶ τοῖς χρημάτων δεομένοις καὶ τοῖς ἀπολαῦσαι τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ἀμφοτέροις ἁρμόττειν. Ar. in his alteration has adorned Isocrates' text with an additional rhetorical figure, the ὁμοιοτέλευτον or rhyming terminations of δεομένοις and βουλομένοις. ‘ἀπόλαυσις, (sensual) enjoyment, is opposed to κτήσει, acquisition’, as the text has it. As these two can hardly be considered antithetical, and nothing corresponding to κτήσει occurs in Isocr., are we to suppose that Ar., meaning to write ἐνδείᾳ, carelessly substituted κτήσει? or rather, that κτήσει is a mistake of a copyist for δεήσει, which occurs twice in the sense of ‘want’ II 7. 3 and 4: and also, in the same sense, Pseudo-Plato, Eryxias, 405 E bis.

Then follows a string of quotations from the same speech of Isocrates, illustrative of antithesis; § 48 (wrong), § 72 (right), § 89 (right again), § 105 (wrong), § 149 (right), § 181 (wrong), § 186 (wrong, ἄξειν for ἕξειν).

The passage τὸν μὲν Ἑλλήσποντον κ.τ.λ. occurs likewise in the funeral oration attributed to Lysias, § 29. This speech is marked as spurious by Baiter and Sauppe in their ed. of the Or. Att. If this be so, the figure is probably due to Isocrates, which is all the more likely as Lysias' style, λιτὴ καὶ ἀφελής, is usually free from these rhetorical artifices. Victorius refers to an imitation of this, Cic. de Fin. II 34. 112, Ut si Xerxes... Hellesponto iuncto, Athone perfosso, maria ambulavisset terramque navigasset. And Lucr. III 1042 (1029, Munro), ille quoque ipse (Xerxes) viam qui quondam per mare magnum stravit, et seq.

‘And what some one (some advocate, in accusation, whose name Ar. either had never heard, or didn't recollect) said against Peitholaus and Lycophron in the law-court (at some trial: quaere, theirs?), “And these fellows (οὗτοι, apparently ‘the accused’ or ‘opponents’ as usual) who used to sell you when they were at home, now that they have come to you here, have bought you”’. Peitholaus and Lycophron were brothers of Thebe, the wife of Alexander of Pherae. At her instigation they murdered their brother-in-law and succeeded him in the dynasty. They maintained themselves long against the attacks of Philip by the aid of Onomarchus the Phocian commander, but at last were defeated, 353—352 B. C., and Onomarchus slain; upon which they “retired with their mercenaries, 2000 in number, into Phokis.” Grote, Hist. Gr. from Diodorus, Vol. XI ch. LXXXVII pp. 366, 408, 9, 11, where Lycophron alone is mentioned as ‘the despot of Pherae’: in p. 412, Peitholaus and Lycophron are named together for the first time as joint commanders.

As the time, place, and circumstances, as well as the speaker, of what is here related, are alike utterly unknown, any attempt at interpreting it must be a mere guess. My conjecture is, (1) that the scene is a court of justice—where, no one can say; I will assume at Athens— (2) that οὗτοι are Peitholaus and Lycophron, as accused or defendants— this is suggested by εἰς Π. τις εἶπε and the use of οὗτοι—and if so, this must have been after their downfall: and (3) that, to give the remark a point, ἐώνηνται must have a double sense. ‘These fellows, says some one to the judges, used when they were at home, at Pherae, to sell you (as slaves)—ὑμᾶς maliciously identifies the Athenian judges with their fellow-countrymen, captives in Thessaly—now that they are come to you, the tables are turned, and they have to buy you’ (i. e. to bribe the judges). Victorius, but utterly without point, Videtur contumeliosa vox in eos iacta, qui pecunia, quam comparassent in suis civibus hostibus emancipandis, eadem postea uterentur in illis ab iisdem emendis, atque in servitudinem sibi adiudicandis.

‘For all these (passages) do what has been mentioned’, i. e. give an antithetical structure to the several sentences.