PA oe 42\4 8 RESO Cornell Aniversity Library THE GIFT OF THE ‘ bo hee. fat ie TROPES AND FIGURES ' OF ISAEUS A STUDY OF HIS RHETORICAL ART BY CHARLES ALEXANDER ROBINSON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY . FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY a oS ° 4904 P oes PRINCETON, N. J. C. S. ROBINSON & CO., UNIVERSITY PRINTERS Cornell University Library PA 4214.R65 S an Wii A THE TROPES AND FIGURES OF ISAEUS A STUDY OF HIS RHETORICAL ART BY CHARLES ALEXANDER ROBINSON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 4904 PRINCETON, N. J. \L. S&S ROBINSON & CO., UNIVERSITY PRINTERS & 6 2.0_B-6-S— A.te34et ae THE TROPES AND FIGURES OF ISAEUS INTRODUCTORY LitzratuRE.—Besides dissertations, theses, and other works to which my obligation is acknowledged passim, the chief authori- ties and editions used in the preparation of this dissertation are the following : Editions of Isaeus : SCHOEMANN (1881), BuERMANN (1883); ScHEIBE (Teub- ner, text only, 1889). ARISTOTLE, Rhetoric, Ed. of Cope and Sandys, Cambridge, 1877. RHETORES Graxcl, Spengel, Leipzig, 1885, (incl. Arist., cited ace’d to vol. & p.). Dionysius Hauic., Vol. V, de Isaeo Iudicium, Tauchnitz, Leipzig, 1889. CorniFicius, Rhetorica ad C. Herennium, Kayser, Leipzig, 1854. (Cornif.) QUINTILIAN, Institutio Orat., Halm, Leipzig, 1868. (Q.) GramMaticr Latini, Keil, Leipzig, 1857. Ruetores LaTini Minorzs (RLM), Halm, Leipzig, 1863. (H.) Ernest1, Lexicon Technologiae Lat. Rhet., Leipzig, 1797. GERBER, Die Sprache als Kunst, Bromberg, 1871—1874. (Gerb.) Perrot, L’ Blogquence politique et judiciaire d Athénes—Isée, Paris, 1873. Moy, Etude sur les Plaidoyers d’ Isée, Paris, 1876. (Moy). Roxver, Beitrage zur Erklirung und Kritik des Isaios, Jena, 1880. VoLEMANN, Die Rhetorik der Gr. u. Rom., 2te Aufl., Leipzig, 1885. (Volk.) ReEHDANTZ, Demos. Neun Philippische Reden—Indices, 4te Aufl., Leipzig, 1886, Buass, Die Attische Beredsamkeit, 2te Aufl., Leipzig, 1887—1893. (Blass). Scumip, Der Atticismus, Stuttgart, 1887—1896. JEBB, The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus, 2d Ed., London, 1893. (Jebb). CroisEt, Histoire de la Littérature Grecque, 2 Hd., Paris, 1896—1900. DsFINITION AND OtassiFication.—The following study of Isaeus’s rhetorical art is confined to a discussion of his tropes and Jigures. To determine exactly where the distinguishing line between these two classes of rhetorical ornament should be drawn 4 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. was a pugna inexplicabilis! in Quintilian’s time, and beyond the non mediocris inter auctores dissensio' of his day little advance has been made. Volkmann’s treatment? has the conservative merit of following Quintilian in the main, and refrains from increasing the confusion by adding a new classification. The same field has been threshed by Gerber and in more recent times by Straub,’ to whom, after Quintilian, Volkmann, and Blass,* I here acknowl- edge my special indebtedness. Definition — A. trope may be defined as the transfer of a word or expression from its own peculiar signification into another, é. g., metaphor, the trope xa’ é€oynv.’ A figure on the other hand is a form of expression artistically changed from the form in com- mon use, or in Quintilian’s own words: ergo figura sit arte aliqua novata forma dicendi.’ Both, then, are peculiar turns of expres- sion. While this is true, a determinate difference seems to lie in the fact that a figure does not necessarily imply a transfer, as Quintilian points out: nam et propriis verbis et ordine collocatis figura fiert potest.2 At the same time he adds: illud tamen notan- dum, coire frequenter in eadem sententia et tpdrov et figuram ; tam enim translatis verbis quam propriis figuratur oratio, illustrating the practical difficulty in adopting this dual classification.” Classification. — Sharing Quintilian’s feeling" towards the whole question of definition and classification, I have so far dis- regarded the distinction between tropes and figures and the usual sub-divisions”™ of the latter as to treat in connection with Figures 1Q. VIIL6.1; IX.1.10. *pp.415 ff. 5 De tropis et figuris quae inveniuntur in Orr. Demos. et Cic., Progr. Aschaffenburg., Wirceburg, 1883. * III 166-189, II 513- 519, and passim. ° Tropus est verbi vel sermonis a propria significatione in aliam cum virtute mutatio. Q. VIII. 6.1; cf. 2b. 1X.1.4. TryphoIII 191. Gerb. II! 26. Volk. 416. Straub 4. ®Q. VIII. 6.4 cum frequentissimus est tum longe pulcherri- mus. For a list of tropes see Moore, Servius on the Tropes and Figures of Vergil, Diss., J. H. U., 1891, p. 7. 71K.1.14. §1X.1.7, ®1X.1.9. © Volkmann’s distine- tion (p. 460) is clear but hardly disposes of the difficulty: der Tropus hat es also mit dem einzelnen Worte zu thun, an dessen Stelle ein anderes gesetzt wird, die Figur dagegen mit der inneren Verbindung der Worter unter einander, welche verindert wird, ohne dass die urspriingliche Bedeutung der Worter verindert wiirde, Cf. Q. IX.1.5. "nec mutatur vocabulis vis rerum... . sive tropi sive Jiqurae dicuntur, idem efficient. Q.IX.1.7f ™ Namely, figurae sententiarum (oxfuara Siavolas) and Jigurae verborum (cxjpara défews), distinguished thus: in figurae verborum, if the The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 5 of Dramatic Vivacity certain forms of rhetorical ornament which find a place at one time under figures, at another under tropes, or at the same time under both.* The four groups into which I have divided figures, and under which Isaeus’s rhetorical style will now be discussed, are: 1. Figures of Repetition. 2. Figures of Amplification. 3. Figures of Parallelism. 4. Figures of Dramatic Vivacity. I. Fieurzes ofr Repetition. Isaeus repeats himself so frequently! that repetition in its varied forms” becomes a characteristic feature of his style. a) Of a purposeless repetition of words* or thoughts, resulting in a lack of variety, Isaeus is seldom guilty. On the contrary his repetitions are almost invariably intentional® and reveal oratorical skill and words are changed the figure is destroyed, though the thought remains the same; in figurae sententiarum, the figure remains, even if the words are changed. See Alex. III10, Volk. 460. A further sub-division of figurae verborum into grammati- cal and rhetorical is made by Quintilian (IX.3.2). For examples of the former, see Lincke, De Elocutione Isaei, diss., Leipzig, 1884, de delectu verborum, pp. 20f. On whole subject, see Willmann De Figuris Grammaticis, diss., Berol., 1862. 8 ¢, g., Irony and Hyperbaton: ita quaedam perquam tenui limite dividuntur, ut cum ironia tam inter figuras sententiae quam inter tropos reperiatur, replppacw autem et brepBarby et dvouarorolay clari quoqgue auctores figuras verborum potius quam tropos diwerint. Q.1X.1.8; cf. ib. 2.44 ff. Trypho IIIT 191. Volk. 488. 1 Least in Orr. 4,8,10; by far the most in Or. 3, commenting on its length Blass (II 526) says: Lysias witrde aus diesem Stoffe nicht die Halfte gemacht haben, 2See Albrecht’s discussion in his Beitrige zur Textes kritck des Isaios, Hermes XVIII 367f. Lincke ch. I (de delectu verborum) passim. Blass II 502. 8 Though Isaeus here transgresses the rhetorical canons of Isocrates, his debt to the great stylist is nevertheless great, ¢. g., his avoidance of Hiatus in particular orations (p.65 ), his fondness of cxjua kar’ dpow Kat Géow (p. 13), the addition of needless clauses to round out his periods (see Isocratic Balance under Antithesis, Pp- 22) and not infrequent use of circumlocutions (for examples, see Lincke, p. 21). 4Jebb (II 278) notices ‘an ungraceful negligence’ in the polyptota in 7.5 (rovras. Tabtnv-——rTobrwy) and 8.7 (éxelvyyv—— éxelvys éxelvwv) ; cf. the repeti- tion, with slight variation, of xpduevos olxelws (6 times) and didgopos (4) in 1.80,88,34 ; of dwépayve (5) in 5.15; of elot yvijowr (8) in 6.58; Aklwoev 3.49,52 5 emery (—uq) 2.23; érdnolatov 8.10; droddbexxra: 6.10; see Lincke, pp. 16 f. ef. Albrecht, p. 368 7. 2. 6 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. versatility. b) In the sphere of argument, such repetitions so far from being faulty are a positive gain. The orator plays a bit of deception, causing his judges to imagine that his arguments are more numerous than they really are;’ or more often an argument is urged in a series of different forms.’ But it is with formal and strictly rhetorical repetition that this study is concerned, namely, the figures of repetition. These are: éravadimdwots (aa ), éravaopa (a ,@ )y avTia- tpody ( B, B), cvuprdoKny (a B,a B), éravactpopy ( , 8 ), and Kv«Xos (a ; a; ora Sa aietatly a). (Em)avadinroats (aa ).—(Ep)anadiplosis is the repeti- tion of a word(s) within, and regularly at the beginning of, the same clause.? This repetition is usually immediate and with few exceptions asyndetic. Reinforced by the impatient and restless effect of the latter, it is distinctly passionate and occurs most frequently in tragedy’® and the impassioned oratory" of Demos- thenes and Aeschines. With considerable feeling Isaeus repeats the stereotyped ov wa A’ ove in 11.35,35 (radta peydra Sixad éort, TavTa Kalb of vémot KeAevouvoty, ov wa Ala ov..... ov wa A’ odvx emt Trois éuois). Cf. 10.11 od totvur, & dvdpes, obSé KTr. 7.26 od yap dv Tote TocovTwY YpnudTwY ovK éeAaryyave. (Em)avadgopa (a ).—Epanaphora”™ is the repeti- tion of the same word(s) at the beginning of two or more succeeding 5 a Se. g., 5.46 AN’ obk éotpdreveat...... od dé, & Atk, wodlrys dy 0068? éorpadrevoat; 2.14 key-word, adopt, ‘rings out’; 12.9-10 § why rovrov Evpldyrov krn. repeated twice. Te, g., 8.60, 69-71 11.16,29. 8 Notably in Or. 3, e. g., in 32 45-52 the main argument is repeated six times; ef. 32 51-52; 55-58; 59-62; 64-65. ¥ avadlrrwols éore NéEew (Adkews THs abrfs, Anon. III 182) rpopopa érdddnXos, ofov, Adve, Adve TaANOES: ylverar dé cal weratd Aékews €uBeBAnudvys, wWsTd Gdn’ odK Zore tatra, ov €orcv. Zon. IIT 165.; cf. Gerb. II’ 192. Volk. 466. 10[, Bekker, homer. Blatter I 194. Harry, A Rhetorical Study of the Leptinean Orations, Diss., J. H. U., 1891, p. 86, ™ To avoid confusion, I here adopt the term, epanaphora, also preferred appar- ently by the ancient rhetoricians (see index of Walz or Spengel, s. v.) and restrict anaphora to another quite distinct figure (see Anaphora, p. 9¢). The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 7 clauses."* In Isaeus, instances of its most rhetorical and vigorous form, epanaphora in asyndeton, are few and, with a single excep- tion, confined to Or. 8, e. g., § 28 (3-fold and double’) wédev xp) mwiorevecOar Ta cipnudva; odK ex THY wapTUpLaV; olpal Ye. md0ev 8é rovs waprupas; ovK éx Tav Bacdvav; eixds ye. mdOeEV ovx éx; id. F. 23.1 (Sch.); § 14 (double) tévas edxds eiddvar Ta Tadad; SHrov Sti Tos ypwopevous TO TaTTO. WEMapTUPHKaGL TOtvuY aKxony odToL. Tivas MemaprupHKace ToivuD; § 29 Sis éxdobcicav, Sis eyyunbeicav; §§ 24, 24 (with dramatic HOorrovia),, od Se Tis eb; Tot Se Th mpoorjKe Odrrew; od yuyvooKw ce’ ov py eloe eis THY oikiav.” 11.85 TadTa peydra Sixad éort. TadTa Kal ot vdpo Kerevovow, The repetition in 7.5 (rodros TavTnv———rtovrwv), though epanaphoric and asyndetic, is omitted as probably being unintentional.“ Even the least effective form, epanaphora with connectives (especially mev 5€), is not frequent : 5.20 évavriov per évavriov 8. 6.43 tocaidra per TOTAUTNS 6é. 11.9,10 rereura per. TeneuTa o€, 2.3 ddo per dvo0 8é. 5.9 adetrero dé adetrero Oé. 6.25,25 rigap ths yap; i) dia Th ——i) Sia rt. = Of. 11.2 7.28,40 8.18 3.78. In a strictly formal sense epanaphora might include the repetition of any word, how- ever insignificant or unavoidable, e. g., common correlations like TOTE ev tore 5é, etc.,° and numerous cases of polysyndeton. A few instances of the latter in my opinion are not without rheto- rical effect: the repetition of ovd¢ (4\Xd) in two remarkable ex- amples of arsis, 7.35 (8-fold), 38 (4-fold) 5.44 (a@dX’ ot8——aarn’ ov’), 31f. (xa/), 45 f. (@AXAd). *AvrtiaTtpogy ( B, 8).—As in epanaphora succeeding clauses begin, so in antistrophe succeeding clauses end, with the 3 gravapopa 5é éorw Srav Svo Kal mrebvwv Kddwy Koupara drd THs airis Né~ews dpxnrat. Tib. III 72; cf. Aq. Rom. H. 82 (c, 34): hac figura vel frequentissime et Demos. et M, Tullius et omnes vehementes oratores utuntur, quando praecipue et ipsi commoti videri volunt, et iudicem commovere. Gerb. II! 195. Volk. 467. M4 Alex, III 29. 15 See n. 4, above, and Blass II 508. We. g., Tobro uev-——Tovro 6€ 3.28 11.80. Cf. 8.10 4 bc0e boo: 5.15 4 wey rddac TOA, 4} 8 Lorepov, ib. 25 6,58 8.15 ef re puxpda ef Te peydda Otor. 6.21 ef’ bard (8). 9.8 etre xard (2). 9.81 Kat did, (2) ete. 8 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. same word(s).” This figure is quite distinct from homoioteleuton : in the former an identity of words (repetition) is necessary, in the latter only a sameness of final syllables (assonance). Isaeus yields no clear-cut examples, even the following betray more accident than artifice: 5.11 71 éuBddas Kal tpiBava popet, Baomep adixov- peves Tt ei GuBadas K. popet. ib. 25a peév avtois ouppdpea .. . ei xal wn yéypartat,a& ov ovmhepan...e wy yéypamTas. 8.28 oimat ye. eixds ye. id. F 23.1 6.53 paprupelp, aptupeiv. 2.11 yevéa Oar, yevérbar. The apparent antistrophe in 3.52 ( neinoe, [n&lwoev})* should probably be regarded as unintentional, since the same repetition occurs in § 49 without regard to rhetorical effect.’ 8, a 8).—Symploke is epanaphora and antistrope combined.” Three examples already cited approach very nearly this highly artificial figure: 6.53 ols pév paptupeiv, ois 6é maptupely. 5.25 & jev wn yéyparra, & &é on yéyparrrat. 8.28 modev rye. rd0ev rye. id. F 28.1. "Avactpody ( 8, B ).—Anastrophe occurs when one clause begins with the last word of the preceding,” and like KUKos (a ete a) may be regarded as an imperfect chiastic arrangement.” An excellent example occurs in 8.32 Kerever yap Tpépey Tos yovdas* yoveis 8 eiot untnp xTr. Less perfect are: 6.31 mpocexadécaro cis eudbavay KaTaotacwr. Kataotayvtos 6é éxelvou mpos Tov adpyovta KTA. 8.17 Kal Tad? LupTrOK (a Ste GdAnOR avr éeoriv,... Oepdrovres tacaciv, ods obTos Tapa- Sodvat eis Bdcavov ot« OéAncEV, icact de... Ties, ods TrapéFomat Haprupas (the interposition of the relative clause weakening but hardly destroying the force of the repetition). Of. 1.5—— mept ToUT@Y, Trepl ov 1 (q dvricrpopy) gore 5¢ robro évavrlov mws TH émavapopg kara 7d Tédos éxdvrwy Tov Kdhwv Thy adrhy AdEy, Hermog. II 335; cf. Gerb. II} 198. Volk. 469. 18 See Scheibe, Praef. Crit. xx11. See n. 4, above, and Lincke p. 16. 0 cuumdonh éore obvberis x Te THs eravagopas Kal THs éravacrpopss (i. €., avTLoT po- gis, Alex. ITI 80) Zon. III 166; cf. Gerb. II! 201. Volk. 469. 1 éravacrpoph ylverat, Srav Td Tédos TOO Kwédou érépov Kddov Tis dpyyy Toujonrat Hermog II 886; cf. Gerb. Tl! 204. Volk. 471. » Of. Eph. 6.18-14——having done all, to stand. Stand, therefore, The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 9 KvxcnXos (a ‘ a; ora jer ae , a).—Kv«ros occurs when the first clause of a period begins and the last ends with the same word.% Hermogenes’s restriction of change of case, number, etc., is regularly disregarded. Some™ confine this figure to two succeeding clauses (a, ; a), but to limit the length of the period, if not unwarranted by Hermogenes’s defi- nition, is certainly inconsistent with the conception he had of it and the interpretation modern scholars put upon it, for the former illustrates his definition by Demos. 20.73, where two sentences intervene between the repeated word (Aéyerat), and a representa- tive of the latter™ cites an instance (Demos. 19.259-262) in which no less than a Teubner page separates the repeated word (véonpa). Were such authority lacking, a broader conception of this figure would seem reasonable and in the light of such examples is warranted. Tsaeus’s most perfect «vcdos occurs near the close of the im- passioned epilogue of Or. 5: (§ 46) GAN ovtn éotpdtevoat TocovTouv Kal TovovTou yevouevou trodéuou, eis Ov OAUVOLoL pev Kal vnoi@tat UTép Thabe THS ys aroOvncKovet payopevor TOIS TroEwLoLS, ov b¢, & Aux., moritns av 008’ éotpdtevoat. A less perfect example occurs in a well-rounded period at 1.36-37 oiwas 8 tuas TO ep judy Sixatov cadéotar av wap aitav trovTav muvOdvecOat......... aor ov xp Tap’ hudv, adrAa [Kat] wap’ avTav Tovtayv muvOdverOat TO Sixatov; cf. 6.45 (amroyetpotovnodvrwv amexeipotovncate); 2.37 (obros O€ o ouyyerns, TolovTes eat oUTOS). By some,” examples of a single clause beginning and ending with the same word (a a) are included, cf. 5.13 (uaptupyicas 6é radra éddw vevdouaptupiay). The following repetitions, verbally imperfect, may be regarded 23 kbxdos ylverar Grav dp’ ob Aptnral Tis dvouaros f Ajuaros els 7d adrd kaTrahnty mad pire mra@ow evadddtas wire oxfua pire xpbvov KTr... . eyxwpel @ Kal mepwdicGs abrd AexOfvar SévarGa. Hermog, II 252; cf. Gerb. II! 202. Volk. 471. 4 e.g, Kirk, Demosthenic Style in the Private Orations, Diss., J. H. U., 1895, p. 10. 2 Rehdantz, Xen, Anab. 5.8.18; 2.4. 20; 3. 2. 11, ete. 26 Kingsbury, A Rhet. Study of the Style of Andocides, Diss., J. H. U., 1899, p. 26. 10 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. as extensions of this figure: 10.18-20 ep! tovrwy airiov eimeiv éyopev date ob puxpas xomev aitias mepl Tov mpdywatos. 1.41-48 rots Kara yévos ndifecBar wadrdov 4) Tois Kata SiaPjKnv apdic Bntovet date... Whhicacbat Kata TO yévos .. . WadAOY A cata ras SiabHKas Tas od Sicaiws yeyevnuevas. Of. 6.57-58 of ob Movon bp Huev EXéyyovTat KTH. aT ov povov up Huy éhéyxeTat KT. Il. Freurzes or AMPLIFICATION.! In the group of figures just considered the repetition was essentially verbal and formal, the position of the repeated words determining in each case the precise character of the figure; in the following, repetition, for so it may be regarded, assumes the form of thought repetition or amplification, regardless of clausal position. In this group, I have included: 1. Synonyms (‘ Chain-shot’). 2. Syhua kar’ dpow Kai Gow (Arsis). 3. Epexegesis (oxfjua nal” 6dov Kai pépos). 4, Figura Etymologica. Synonyms.—The simplest form of amplification is the use of synonyms, so-called. The term, however, is unfortunate because misleading and one is inclined to substitute for it Gildersleeve’s ‘chain-shot,’ a happy metaphorical designation suggesting a verbal battery. By synonyms,’ then, is simply meant the linking together of several words, usually in pairs, which have about the same meaning. Isaeus uses them freely, though in their use as in the general sphere of brevity he inclines to Lysianic conciseness rather than Isocratic profuseness. Examples of pleonastic and meaning- less combinations, where the orator thinks and feels nothing in the added word, were not found. In Isaeus a thought is regularly 1See Rehdantz, Indices, s. v. Amplificatio. *guvwvupla dé dori bray TS xapaxrhpe Siaddpors dvduacr, 7H Suvdper dé 7d add Smroder xXpwpeba wreloow, Ev pev Kal rd abrd Bovduevor Syrodv, Alex. III 30; cf, Volk. 478. The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 11 enriched by synonyms only to add dignity? and emphasis. Like his fondness for cyfma Kat’ dpow x. Oéow, this predilection seems to betray the influence of Isocrates. The examples may be classi- fied as follows: 1. Linking of verbs, participles, and adverbs. a) of verbs : 2.2,44 Sdouat cad avT.Bor@ Kab ixeredw. 6.57 8.45 Séouar x. ixerevo. 9.37 avTiBore x. ixetedw. 11.22 wrdrre xk. Bnxavarat. 8.19 dyreirev od8 judioByrnce. 5.11 dvedite x. eyecare. 8.20 xarnyopeiv x. erdyyew. 8.26 dOciv x. exBdrrew k. kodvew cuvOdrrev, 11.32 éritpérew od8 Oita. 1.18 érravop- Oboa x. BeBardoar. 3.68 Sodvat x. SiabécOar. 8.2 éyouvot Biaca- Hevol kK. Kpatodot. 3.1 mpoceroijcato odd judicBirnoe. 8.38 cuverroiovy x, auvéBamrov. 4.19 ob dmroOavdvra dvelreto oir’ éxavoev ote doToAdyncev. 9.4 ov mpo’OeTo ods’ ayer. 9.28 epurevoe x. éyewpyer x. emote: Surhactov dEiov. 12.5 elacav [x. émé tperav}. 6.65 évayifover x. yéovrat. b) of participles: 2.14 tyaivor, cd dpovadv, ed vodv. '7.1,43 fav x. eb dpovdv. 8.29 Sls éxdoOcicav, Sis éyyunOeicav. 3.64 exdodeiaas x. acuvoiovcas. 8.22 ixerevodons K. Kdalovons. 1.11,43 opyifduevos x. otk dpOds Bovrevduevos. 8.41 KaTorKo- Soujoas x. ériBovretoas- 7.45 cxeyrduevos x. Staroyrbduevor. 1.49 Aeyoures x. Sucyupifduevor. 11.46 dpmoroynpeva x. dvaudic Bityta. 5.35 Kax@s mpatrovtTa K. Tevdpevov. 2.40 duoroynbévra x. duobdrra. 7.42 oixov ... avnpnkdtwy x. Tempaxdtav K. épnmov Trerounkdrav. 10.15 cipnudvor x. pewaptupnudvov. Also 1.34,40 6.51 9.87 10.17. ce) of adverbs: 5.43 xakds x. aicypds. 7.31 aicypas x. devas. 9.29 op0ds x. Siaiws. 10.11 rrapavdpas x. doedryas. 2. Linking of nouns and adjectives. a) of nouns: (Bad) 5.11 tBpews x. wapias. 6.46 Térpar x. avaisetav, 8.37 Oeparretats x. Kodaxetats. 1.8 avatoyurtiay x. aicypoxépdecav. 4.5 érjpea x. mapackevy. 38.13 wdyas x. Kdpous x. aoédyetav. (Good) 7.29 gircas x. edpeveias. 1.33 oixedtnTos 3 The dignity of synonyms has often been emphasized, c. g., Aq. Rom. H. 34 (c. 88): communio nominis utimur eo genere elocutionis, guotiens uno verbo non satis videmur dignitatem aut magnitudinem rei demonstrare ; cf. Dionysius’s defence of Demosthenes’s use of them against his critics (Dem. c. 58) and Blass II 503. 12 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. x. gb. ib. 42 cvyydverav x. otk. ib. 47 otk. x. dyxvotelay. 8.16 byleav x. ethow ayaOynv. 10.17 ovclay x. oixov. 12.3 tpodpijs Te x. ebroplas. 2.20 épnulav x. amadiav. ib. 47 Oey x. Satpdvev. 11.21 xowvwviay odd Sioporoylav. 5.47 mpoedpiav Kx. atederav. ib. 48 aypois x. ktipacw. 9.36 wrnwara x. iepd. (Judicial) 9.35 vowou x. Stxalov. 10.22 vduous x. Sixatov mpayua. 11.30 dixatov x. voor, 1.26 id. 2.26 vduos x. Sixatos. 11.18 Sikasov x. dpKous. 2.47 Sikata x. evopca. 6.4 év mia Widow Kk. évi ayo. 5.10 «. ert Tpomros K. KUpios K. avTidixos. 1.10 émitpomroy x. kiptov.* (Relations) 7.13,15,17,26,43 yevvijras x. ppdropes. 7.27 cuvyyeveis x. Ppdtopas. 6.64 9.8 Snudras «. dpdropas. 1.2 oixetot x. mpoonxovtes. ib. 7 avayxaious x. cuyyeveis. 8.9,10 oixéras x. Oepatraivas. 6.15 oixetov K. OLKETOD. b) of adjectives: 2.42 Sevdv x. aicypdv. ib. 41 aioypor x. érroveldiotov. ib. 43,48 Sewvov «. katayéXacTtov; dhadAros x. yndevds G£vos. 3.24 mdpepyov x. padrov. ib. 51 avardys 7) ToXunpds. 11.6 oxerrtos Kk. avaldys. 8.4 dvaiddotepov oddé Katapavéctepov. 5.10 oppavol x. Epnuor x. wévytes. 38.50 ednOn odd drlywpov TaV vémav. 8.48 aceryys x. Biasos. 2.23 dmrads x. aruyodvT. 7.34 dédiKos ovdé mrAcovextns. ib. 41 Kaxov ode aypynotov. 1.29 edvovarépous x. betpiwrépous. 6.47 9.13 tepav pn (x.) doiwy. 6.49 cepa x. evoeBH. 11.382 drra x. yvopipa. 3.19 adyrA@v x. éEaihyns yuyvo- pévov. 7.5 dryapos x. draws. 2.37,46 drraida x. dvevupov. ib. 23 érripOovov x. ov Sixatov. 8.19 doris K. éyyuntis. 6.47 vebm poe vd0n. 5.46 tocovTov «. TowovTov. 7.11 rotadrar K. THALKADTAL. Cf. 5.389 oft x. Tocadra. 8. Linking of phrases: 6.2 ovyyvdpnv te eye x. wer evvoias axpodcacbat. 7.14 noxe Kk. Ov éripereias eiyev. 8.20 yapuous éoriay K. yaunrlav eiceveyceiv. 10.1 «. rAéyev Seevol K. TwapacKkevdcacbat ixavot. 6.2 yphoOat rovras K. didous vouifev. 1.89 rails peyloras Enulas x. trois éoydrois dveldeot. 2.3 piros... x. emiTHdevos ... K. exphto oixelws. 3.19 olxeordrous x. ols av Tuyydvopyer ypdpevor pddota. 6.65 oclav x. kata Tods vopous. 7.18 8.12 dpOds K. x. T. vowous. 7.26 xuplas K. Kk. T. vowous. 2.2 mpoonkdvtws TE K. K. T. vopous. 4.2 dmdovatepov «x. Kata pvow wadrov. 8.16 (Avcias) ‘Not taking érirporov with olxelwv, see Schd, p. 182, The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 18 exolvmvovpev Kk. TH lepd cuveyerpoupyovpev K. cuverreTlOcuev K. TAXA cuverrotodmev. 5.7 SvaoTuynodons Ths mérAEwS K. TTATEWS yevoMerNS Kayavos. ib. 32 avaxpivavtes ...x. TuOduevor. ib. 47 drrepidor... kK. Katabpovncas. 12.3 é« madiov tpépwv Kx. aoKxdyv K. eis TOUS ppdropas eiadyav. ZxXjMa Kat’ "“Apowv cat Odccv.—Only imperfect defi- nitions are available, ¢.9., (oyfjma Tr.) cvvictratas ex THs ,,00” Kal THS evavtias avy Kal wadtota TOD ,, GAA” cvvddos pou, or, ein sondern nach voraufgegangener Negation.” No mention is made of a com- panion form, which, being less common, is often more rhetorical, namely, positive preceding negative. This dual character suggests the following simple classification : I. Negative—Positive, or where the negative statement precedes the positive, type: ov Aeyo arAN epyw (2.44). In its cumulative form: 7.38 (4-fold) ov« é« cuppoplas ... AAN éx TOV adTod darraver, ovdé Sevrepos ates Ov ANAA Kata pdvas, ove SUo0 étn SiadtTr@v adrAG auvexas ovd adootovpevos GAN KTr. 1b. 85 (8-fold) od6é aAACTpLOV GAN dvta aderdidody, 08 ad puxpa TweTov0as GANA peydra ayaba id? jpov, ov ad adiddtipov... add «Tr. With polysyndeton. ib. 44 (2-fold) 8.20 (8-fold). Hpexegetical: 9.12 (wapripwv) wy Tov pddoTa xpwmévov GrdAA TeV évtuydvTwv. 1.13 Texunplols xpjcOa wn Tois per’ Gpyhs mpayGeiow err. Antithetical: 1.3 ody Hui eyKarav GAN dpytoOels «Tr. 1b. 15 ody Hiv éyKadrav adrAa Acie rokepev. A very common type is 7.384 ov« ayvody ara capas cides. So 11.36,38 008 duds ayvoeiv ctr. 2.19 ob wapavody ovdé yuvarcl TreOopevos ... AN EU ppovdv. 5.29 ov avaryxaldpevor GAN Exdvres. 6.2 (with litotes) ayav ob puxpos adtois, adda mepl trav peylotov. 7.37 od axypjotous aAN ... TpoOvpordrovs. 8.1 ovx dmraidos TeAeuTHTAVTOS, GAN... waidas KatTadeXourroTos. ib. 4 pndev dyvonoavres GAA capas eiddtes. 2.5 ode dmpotxov adda THY lonv mpoika émiddvtes. 11.6 od rpociev arropeiv add’ edOds Aéyetv. ib. 16 ove hudisBHrovv aN Hovyiav eiyov. ib. 48 ov THY NeLTOUp- yourT@y KTX. Of special interest are: 5.24 ody Saas (not only not) Te éx Tod KAnpou cidnpas, GAAA MpocaTohwreKHs TeTTapdKovTa pds. 6.21 5 Or less properly Arsis, for brevity’s sake. 6 Anon, III 129; cf. Hermog. II 828. 7 Volk. 560. 14 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. oby Srews ératoato, dAAd TeACUTOY TavTEdas Sintato éxei. Cf. 8.25 1.14,15 od wdvov adrds on ecicexddecev, GXAA Kal... amé- meurpev. 2.14 ode... 008 dobevdv: aX tyatvor, eb ppovar, ed voov. 8.15 ovderdrote dvev jpav dA... TavTayov Taphpev. 6.24 od raldev vera éydwer GAN iva TodTov eioayayot. 11.28 ob? avd Sia tadra... ANN Ste KTA. 5.80 od Sid TA. 1.6 Ody Oru Adixas xivouvebo .. . AAN Ste aywviSouat mpos oixelovs. 2.23 ody S71 arn bri. Also: 2.15 ode éuavrov &va 7 d00, AXA Tpla Kal eixoow érn. 5.18,18 wy cvvapiOpetv ddrAG cuyydat Tas Andovs ov pdvos a&dra kal M. ib. 47 ob dia 7d yevos GANA Sia THY avdpayabiar. 6.52 pi) Siawaptupia cwdvev AAN evOvdiKia eiorévat. 7.12 pH cuy- yeveis dvdpas AANA Kal Tos TuydvTas. ib. 24 od KaTa Tov TaTépa GAA Kata THY pyTépa. 8.10 mH péArovat Sway EAeyyov AN On Sedwxdor. ib. 14 od SyHrrov Tois Hwerépors GAAA TOAD MadAOV GAN of waides; ov arr’ Hpels. Tois TovTwy paptvotv. ib. 31,81 adros py TovTos GAN Hiv mpoojne. ib. 32 ovK av obTos ib. 44 oddeuiav airlay elyopev GAN avaudicByTnToL KTrA. 9.3 émod 6€ obk értdnpodvTos GANA oTpaTevopevov. ib. 8 ef pt) dvev TOV olKElwv GrXA cuyyeveis Tapaxarécas. ib. 26 ovde rpoixa ara pucbor elrAndev. 10.3 od rodTwr. GNXNG THS euhs wnTpos waTp@os. ib. 13 pte wratpl dvr, GAN avewri@. ib. 18 od yap TodTd éote oKeTTéov, AAA TO TpPAayya et Sixatov t) pH. ib. 23 Tada 8é od TovTov dvTa adr Huérepa. 11.29 ov didwor pe? Huds Tots Hpuerepous GANA Tois mpos untpds. ib. 48 od yap TO épyov adaves opav dé nuas xtr. ib. 14 ody Tatch KTrA. 1.10 ody Huiv éyearor ovTws aaOevas Siaxeipmevos, GAN Ett TrOAXaY ovcdy éAridov. ib. 18 ov Aicat Bovdrdpuevos adtas adr éravopAdca. ib. 87 dor’ od xpH map Huav, AAXG [Kat] wap’ adtdv Tobrwv. ib. 50 pH ocvKodavteiv GANA Sixatws TovTav audisByteiv. 2.20 ovy tr’ éxelyns meicOels aAAa pdrdaora ev dd TAS épnuias. ib. 40 MevexdAss od mape- fpdver AANA TONY MaAXOV obTOS, 3.21 od pel Evds OvSE pera Svoiy, GAN ws dv weTa TrEloT@Y SuvducOa. 4.24 od 2oTw 6°A. 0b8’ 6’A. arn Erepot. 1.2 od« ayvoodvTes adAd Katayvevtes. ib. 3 ody Huiv éyKad@v arn dpyiobets. 8.25 ove exwrvdunv cuvOdrrev &dra mdvra cuvetrotouv, 4.14 ovk éav tis SiaOHTat pdvov gdpovav, 6.64 ob yap av earn untpos dvopa GAN’ édv erriderxvey. 5.387 oby 6 wathp ...Kkatédumev, AAN duels ore TH Wijdy. aNAG éav ed The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 15 II. Positive--Negative—Here the negative statement follows the positive, type: gpyo kal od Ady@ (2.38). 2.35 id. 7.16 TOTE mpdrepov 5é yu}. 8.33 yévos yap AAN ody) ouyyéveca TodT’ éoriy. 11.25 xara yévos nugicBirovr, od kata Sdow. 3.18 éraipa Hv TO Bovropevm Kal od yur). 5.5 eiSdres TadyOH arArAa py eEnrratnuevor, 7.32 dveyids dv GAN oik aderdds. ib. 43 gidias avrois TOA Hs trapyovons, éyOpas & odSeuas marore yevouervyns. 5.38 TovTO érédwxev, ovx elonveyxev. 1.45 of maides of TovTwr, ovx exel- vos éyiyvero Kupios. 6.65 tadta ydp éotw ereyyos Gravta Kal od Aovdopia. 10.21 tadra ydp ote wep Gv twas Sei thy Whdov eveyxeiv, ovK ef KTX. 2.38 mTpds eye ov mpos Tov M. 4.25 Sylepou Av kal ov Opacumdyov. 8.31 aderdpds odtos atta, wi adeAdudods. ib. 32 révd eivat KAnpovdmoyv arArAA pr Huds; ib. 88 Srws exelvos Soxoin Odarrev adrA wy éyd. 1.7 (Bomep) éxOpors Kal ovK avayxatous KTr. 5.30 ws éyOpodls GAN od mpoonKovras. 10.9 Kata Sig OnKas ddrdws € ove eeotw. 12.5 €& &dXov Tivds avdpos s ovK éx TOU Hmetépou Tratpds. 11.11 euol pev ayyioteterv, Tols & e& éxelvor yeyoveow otk Hv. 8.31 cuvoixqoat pev av TH yuvasel KUpuos Hv, Tov dé xpnudtwv ov« dv, AAW of aides (pos.—neg.—pos.). Cf. the following extensions: 4.27 ove amrodednunnacwy evOdde mévovtes axpnotol eciot TH TdAEL, AAA Kal oTpaTEvoVTAL K. eiapépovat ctr. 6.14 7.6,25,27,39 9.80 10.8,24 11.12,21. Erexecesis.—A third form of amplification is what may be designated broadly as epexegesis,’ including: a) oxyfjma Kal’ drov kal pwépos: 1.16 of rovTwy piror Kal Kndicavdpos.2 6.55 &y@orov évouile Sid Te THY GAAHV Trovypiay, Kal Sidte TOY Tuy yEvaV pdvoS KTH. Conversely: 5.8 i736 Médavos tod Aiyurriou cal tev éxeivou dirov? Cf. 9.4 7.35. b) instances where a thought is expanded by being stated both positively and negatively: 3.68 ovxoty peta tov Ouyatépav gore Sobvat kal SiaPdoOa Ta aitod: dvev S€ THY yvnoiwv Ouyatépwv ovy oidy Te KTA. 1.29 @ Kal dvayxaiov eb Toveiv Huds Kat aiaypov judy apermoa. 4.11 duds yxpy wep adtav as oidy Te our’ TSee Rehdantz, Indices, pp. 16 f. 8 From 3 28 it appears that Cephisander himself had been one of these friends. Sché., p. 185. 9ubi non Melanis, sed Dicaeogenis amici intelligendi sunt, ex quibus unum fuisse Melanem ex 3 49 apparet. Lincke, p. 24. 16 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. dxpiBéorata ekerdfew Kal pndey eis dcov dtvacbe mapanelrety. 8.15 10.10. c) epexegesis proper or where a thought is stated in a single word and then analysed or explained, e. g., 6.18 éddKer ebdalmav elvar (kal yap ovola...«. maides K. yuvy Kk. TEN érruetnads ebrbxer). 8.32 tpépev Tors youdas: yoveis 8 etait ptnp KT. 2.8 Sodvas yapiv tadryv atta, exdodvar GAXrw adTHy. ib. 13 povny tavtny KaTagduyny To é€elvat troinoacbat KTr. 3.45 éyor dv Tus Weddos mpopacicacba rpds twas: h yap Nabetv odds mpootroijcait av odtos, KTA. 7.84,34 euod dé meipay eidrnjdet, Soxtpactav ixavnv raBov. els te yap Tov matépa ... olos Hp axpiBas nde, THY 7 oikelwv ripen Kal TapavTOD mMpdrTeW émloTd- Mevov: ev apy TE, Oecpobernoas, nTA. 1.36-37 Kal yéver... Kal émitnoetiwos SréKeEtTo €l TE yap Oud THY TOD yévouS ayyLoTElay .. eb Te Od THY Gidlay KTrA. 2.11 bwadv ody BotrAomat Tov Erepov Toimoacbat, oroTép@ buoy Karas éxe. Other types are: 2.24 Tois wey arrows atracw avOparras Kai "EXAnot Kal BapBdpos. 11.49 dmavra yap Kal Thy Tpinpyn Kal abTov. .. amwdrece. 1b. 12 Tois mpos MT pos aderpois kat &deAgpais cal maiol roils TovT@v KTA. 8.35 Kipwr yap éxéktnto ovciav, & av., aypov wer... oixlas 8 ev adore 800. 2.46 rod KAnpov tod tatp@ov, cite peiSwv éotly obTos ete érdttov. 8.15 aAN et Te pixpa eb Te peydra OvoL, wravTayod... cuvetouev. 1.47 ev audorépas, & dv., kal év to Sodvat nal év TO NaBeiv. 7.29 ov ef unddrepov Tovtwy vripye, pnte &xOpa mmpos TovTous unre pirla mpos Huds. 3.72 AAN ov'te éyévero oT’ ott... eyyuTépo Huav ovbé cis > AdedPds ev yap OvK Hv AUTO, KTr. Fieura Erymonocica.—This figure, of less rhetorical than grammatical value, is regarded by some” as a species of allitera- tion. The alliterative element, in my opinion, is accidental rather than essential, since not infrequently it is either absent altogether or destroyed by intervening words.” Two important laws, which in no way apply to alliteration, are imperative in 10The common formulas, @drepa... 79... 4 (122,88 3.74), Erepa, (rofro)... H (etre) xrr. (8.58,24 7.33), obdérepov, oddev, duolws xrd. (12.2 4.3 7.25) are omitted ; also Sto, 6 wey... 6 dé type, e. g., 2.8 5.15,31,41,42 6.6,6,32 7.5,10,18 8.35, Ne. g., G. Landgraf, de. fig. etym. ling. Latinae, Acta Seminarii philol. Erlan- gensis, 1881, II, p. 5. 2e, g., 1.8 2.2,17,26,89,42 8.25,60 5.25,41 6.21,39,46,50 7.41 8,85 10.22 11.34. The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 17 figura etymologica: 1) that the words should be congeneric (necessitudo etymologica); 2) that they should be grammatically coordinated (necessitudo grammatica). Figura etymologica, then, may be defined as the concurrence, not immediate necessarily,” of two congeneric™’ and grammatically codrdinated words, which form a single, though intensified, idea. Isaeus in common with all the orators, especially Aeschines and Demosthenes, employs this figure more or less freely in its customary sphere, technical expressions of the courts and of politics : I. Judicialayava dywviferOat 2.48. ypapypareim ypapérte 5.25, cf. 9.12. ypadiy ypadets 8.41. x. yparpdpevos 11.31. Siabhwas S:€Oero 1.11,15,48. 8. StariPecOar 1.20. 8. as bdeBero 1.8 10.22 Fl. Scatntal amedintnoay 12.12. Startntod Siartav éyovros 12.11. Stenv dSucdoacbar 3.9. 8. Suedoavtes ib. 12. 54. édixdoato ib. 78. 8. katadedicdcOa 4.9. AREw Aaxelv 3.2,57,60, 62,67. 2. édrayov ib. 57. ArjEeas Ertayve 6.46. Anke, Hv Aaxov 3.48. paprtupiay paptuphoa 12.6. p. expaptupnodpevos 3.25. B. paptupneicas 3.11,56. pw. penaprupnuévov ib. 17. mw. Hv euaptipovy 11.25, cf. 9.10. pdprus Svewapripyoe radyOh 2.2,17. bh. TaANOR paptupodyvtas 8.5,138. pm. maptupnodvtay ib. 38. wndiopatov & énpicato 6.50. Il. Political.—dvaOypata avéBecav 5.41,44. apyas dpyewv 7.39. elahopav eiarveyxev 7.40. €. eiaevgvoxe 4.29. elaopas eloeveyc@ay 5.45. e. eloevnvdxyacw, cicpépe: 6.60,60. émé- Onua éréOnca 2.86. RecToupyias AevToupyfoat 5.36. A. edet- rovpynxe 6.60 7.88 5.45. esroupylav éEeevrovpynoer 7.40. plcOwow iv pcOwodpuevos 11.84. vicas veviencev 6.60. mopanv cuprréupa 6.50. otpatetas éotpdrevpar 2.42 7.41. 0. otpatevd- pevos 10.25 9.15. otpartelay éotpdrevtar 4.29. yopnyias éxopy- ynoay 5.41. yop yopnyav 7.40. Also: ydv@ yeydvace 3.59,61. Sénow Seduevos 9.34. Adyous Adyer 1.17 8.24. Adyou ey OFvae 3.59. Adyo b réyer 2.26. olklay dees 8.35. of. Hv oxet 6.21,39. motnow éroujOn 2.39. Ta Twempayyéva mempaxOar 5.7. axdypov 18 In alliteration, the concurrence is regularly immediate and of two or more words, 14 Kiihner (Gy, Lat., II. 72.2. b) includes words of kindred meaning, e. g., 1.14 2,28,31,38,40 4.5 8.17 11.6 12.9, cited on p. 18. 18 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. «rnpou 2.46. Of. aoOevdv véoov 1.14. mrelom Adyw eireiv 4.5. Spxov dpmooev 11.6 12.9. spxous dudcas 2.40,38. émipBovov mpaywa moray ib. 23. Swpeav Sodvar ib. 31. Aourrovs KaTareretp- mévovs 8.17. A closer study of these examples discloses a striking feature of this figure, namely, that the noun and verb are rarely found without a limiting adjective, pronoun, genitive, or equivalents. If the noun and verb occur unmodified, they are usually of dif- ferent signification (heterosema),’* otherwise there would be tau- tology. So in this list, excluding instances with the article or in conjunction with a relative clause, and those with equiva- lents, only two examples,” out of the total number (73), re- main unmodified. The rest have a limiting 1) adjective: 1.17 2.36,46 3.59 4.29,29 5.36,41,45 6.60,60,60 7.38,40 9.15.34 12.6; 2) adverb: 5.7; 8) pronoun: 1.11,15,20,48 2.43 3.9,25,59,78 6.46 7.40,40 8.24; 4) genitive: 3.2,57,57,60,62,67 (xAjpou AnévW), 4.9 (Sénv taddvtov), 8.41 (ypadyv bBpews); 5) equivalents: 5.41 (TovTwy paptipia ... avabjyata ... mynucia THS avTa@v aperis, avéGecav). 2.42 (otpateias, boat Tr.). 3.17 (év TH mporépa). 5.25 (emt tod Sumacrnpiov). ib. 45 (els Tov médreuov). Cf. 8.5,13 2.2,17 (7aAnOH paptupeiv). 12.12 (S:arrnTail ar ediytnoav). 4.9 (dienv Kata debix.); 6) with the article: 2.389 3.11,12,56 6.50,60* 7.39,41 8.35,38 10.25 12.11; 17) in conjunction with a relative clause, e. g., 1.3 (8saOnKaus, as diéOero), 2.26 3.43 5.44 6.21,89,50 10.22 11.25,34. In these the force of the figure is considerably weak- ened; in 9.10 5.15,37, it is practically lost. It should be further noted: a) that cumulative instances were rare (6.60 7.40 4.29); b) that examples of cognate subjects were included (2.2,17,39 8.11,17,56,59 4.9 5.25 8.5,18,88 12.12 Cf. 9.12). 16 For incomplete statistics of all the Att. Orr., see E. R. Schulze, Comment. philol. in honorem Ribbeckii, Leipzig, 1888, pp. 153 ff. Of. caBBarlonre rd cd BBarov (make the Sabbath a real Sabbath), logion 2, Adyia *Ino08 from an Early Greek Papyrus, Grenfell and Hunt, London, 1897. On this narrower signification of the noun, see Lobeck, Paralipomena Gramm. Gr. pp. 501f.; Kriger, Gr. Sprachlehre, 46.4.5.a.1. 1111.81 ypaphy ypayduevos (kal éué SiaBddAdwv) ; 3.61 ydvw yeydvacwy, The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 19 ITI. Fieurzes or PARALLELISM. These are the so-called Gorgianic Figures : PARISON, PAROMOION, ANTITHESIS, and PARONOMASIA.!. They belong to the figures of language (oxjwara déEews) and are distinctly rhetorical. In each case there is a parallelism: in parison, a parallelism of structure ; in paromoion, a parallelism of structure, enriched by the addi- tional element of sound; in antithesis, a parallelism of structure and sense; in paronomasia, a parallelism of sound and sense. Of the four, parison and paromoion are the most artificial, and lend an effect purely artistic;? antithesis and paronomasia, however, having been less dependent on Gorgias, possibly, for their intro- duction into literature * because of their natural popular character,‘ are less artificial, and should in each instance be strictly formal and betray rhetorical design. Ildpsoov or Iapicwous. — Aristotle’s definition will suf- fice: mapicwots 8 dav toa Ta KOAG.® An unimportant sub-species of parison is isocolon, which, prescribing a syllable-equality of cola,® may be relegated to the general storehouse of rhetorical figures, aptly styled ‘unnecessary refinements of terminology.’ How readily parison and paromoion combine,’ and how nat- urally parison occurs in antithetical cola,’ will appear from the examples. It will also be apparent that Isaeus seldom employs parison or paromoion with conscious art but more often accident, either due to an inflected language or the fact that any other order of words would have been unnatural, sometimes impossible, comes in to weaken, if not to vitiate, the effect of the apparent figure. To draw exactly the line between conscious art and accident, is difficult and apt to result in a subjective dogmatism. An endeavor has been made in the following examples to indicate 1 For a thorough review of the evidence on which this classification is based, see Robertson, The Gorgianie Figures in early Greek Prose, Diss., J. H. U., 1891, pp. 3-7. 2 Of. Hermog. II 334 f. 3 Robertson, pp. 8 f. 4 See Casanowicz, Paronomasia in the Old Testament, Diss., J. H. U., 1894, p. 5. 5 Arist. 1 194; cf. Hermog. II 382 f.; Gerb. Il’ 144; Volk. 482. © el6os dé Tod mapopolou rd lodkwdov erav toas xy Td KGa Tas cvhhaBds. Demetre III 267. Te, g., 1.15 2.25 4.10 5.44 7.28,44 8.29 10.1 11.36. 8e.g., 1.15 2.25 4.11 5.21,89,44 7.29 10.16. 20 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. this line approximately. In several instances, Isaeus betrays a very evident disregard, if not a positive dislike, for these figures.® Of the two, he prefers parison, and this preference is probably due to his fondness of antithesis, ‘the home of parison’. The exam- ples follow: 5.21 té seis dperovpeOa vejoavtes | Th obTOS Cn wOn HTTnOels 5 1d. 89 & éyw aioytvopat Néyelv | obTOs O€ Tovey ovx yoxydvero. ib. 44 Kal adros péev n&lovs Knextijcbat & cou obdev mpoonke xpyuata | Tois 5é Oeois ovx amédwxas & éxelvor éyiyvero ayddwata. 1.15 ody hwiv éyxarav | dAdra Acwwia rorendv. 8.29 dis éxdoGeicav | dis éyyunBeicay. 9.32 od pdvov tas SiaPjKas réy- ovres | GAAA Kab 7d yevos mpooTiOévres. 10.1 Kai Adyew Sewol | kat Tmapackevdcacar ixavoi. ib. 16 pédrovtes | dperyOncecbar pev pndev | EnpewOnoec Oar dé meyara. 11.36 dz pév ody | ode rep) TovTw@y ovdev Sixatov rremroinkev | ovTE Trept TOV GdrAwY aANOes ovdEev elpneev. 7.28 kat €& Gv jeovoay | kai €& dv gdecav. ib. 29 pnjre éyOpa mpos tovrous | wate didla mpos nuds. ib. 44 ob7’ exeivo maida eiorerroinkas | AAXA Tov oixoy éEnpnuaKas || ovde To’Tw av elomroinoas | AX’ ouoiws av Kal todTov éEepnudcas || Kal éyOpas wer THrLKavTnS UTapxovens avrois | dadrayhs Sé oddemsds- rool? vortepov yevouerns. 2.25 Cavta Oeparetcew | kal tedcvTHoavTa Odyrew. 4.10 4 TOV YpnudTav KrAnpovoucorTe | 4 Td TaLdlov aorov moincovrt. ib. 11 obtw yap dv | of’ of véwor KateppovodvTo | ore Ta yén bBpifero. So 4.12 8.1,46. An intentional extension of the thought for the sake of parallelism is seen in 1.29 6 | «ab avayKaiov ed rroveiy nuas | Kal aioypor judy dyedjoa. 4.11 dyads xp» wept abTav ws oldv 7’ axpiBéorata éEerdlew | Kal pndev eis daov SvvacGe maparelrev. 10.9 ovr’ dv éBovreTo TabTa [Sia lorpaEau | ote €Efv Sodvat Ta EavTov érépw. Cf. 11.48 7d ywplov aroddmevos |xal Tpinpn mpidpevos | Kai tavTny TAnpwodpevos. 9.4 opavres | Tov Tratépa Tov éuov appwarovvTa | éue S€ odk emidnwodvra. 7.17 éxelvm ovx amiatovvrav | eu Te ove ayvootytwy. Also 5.85 7.23. %e, g., paromoion is apparently avoided in: 11.383 axérw—)aBérw. id. 18 dedwxbrwv— reroinkbrwv. ib. 84 elrdrw: AaBérw. ib. 39 €xoun Hew (instead of peuolunv) ératvolunv, 1.1 7dOopev nkonev. ib, 84 éxotcas dpecxotcas. 2.28 AaBbpevos Bovdbuevos. Of, 6.23 (Erowro). 10.22 9.25 (gre gépwv). 2.10 (Odor). The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 21 Ilapopocov or ILapomolwors.—Paromoion (HOMOIOTELEU- TON) is structure-parallelism enriched by the additional element of sound-parallelism. Here Aristotle’s definition is too broad: mapopolwas & éav duoa Ta eoxata éyn éExdTepoy TO K@AOV. avaryKN dé 7) €v apyn 7) él TedevTHs éxew."° By thus defining paromoion as the similarity of words at the beginning or end of cola and adding: «al dpy% pév del Ta dvduata, 4 Sé TedevTH Tas éoydras curdraBas 7) TOD adtoU dvépatos mréces i} TO avTO dvoya, Aristotle includes epanaphora (a , a——) under similarity at the be- ginning of cola (ouotocdraprov™) and under similarity at the end of cola not only homoioteleuton and homoioptoton (ras éoydras ovaAnraBas 7) Tod abtod dvéuaros races) but also antistrophe (7 7d av7o dvowa). Unwilling to adopt this definition in its entirety, which would force one to regard antistrophe and epanaphora as Gorgianic figures,” I use the terms paromoion and homoioteleuton interchangeably, reckoning homoioptoton (identity of case) as a variety of homoioteleuton and polyptoton (change of case) as a variety of paronomasia (see p. 25). Few artistic or even intentional examples of paromoion occur in Isaeus. Even Or. 5, rich in other rhetorical ornament (see Tabular Summary, at end) yields but one highly rhetorical exam- ple, § 44* yxpnuara ayarXpara.% Orr. 7,8,and 11 can boast only of these: 7.28* jxovcav——ydecav. ib. 39 els avrov pév Ta pérpia avarioxev oidpevos Seiv, TAS dAXa TH WOAEL TEPLT OLELD. Largely accidental are: 11.24 od udvov 8€ rodto TeTolnKev, adda kal To TadvTev évavTi@taTov Tpayya elpynKeVv. 7.38 apoorotpevos— mapackevatopuevos. 8.29 Sis éxdobeicar, dis éyyunOeicav. 11.36 * memo linker elpnxev. ib. 33 SucacdcOw——npakdo Oo (avoided just before, Aayvérw AaBérw). ib. 28 Sédaxev metroinxev. Besides these, a few isolated instances: 2.25* Oepametoe Ganpeuv. 4.10 * eAnpovopjcovr-——rrotnoovtt. 1.23 dpyicOhvar den Ojvat. ib. 40 dvayxdcere momoete. 4.21 éEaraticas aTroaTephoar. 0 Arist. I 194; cf. Gerb. II) 149; Volk. 482. 11 Little warrant exists for this term, e. g., omitted by Volk. (p. 482); see Robertson, p. 18, with references. 2 Against this Blass (I 144) protests. 13 Examples with an asterisk will be found under parison (above) cited in full. 22 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. The effect of the homoioteleuta in the following is seriously impaired by the chance-element, e. g., in some, any other order of words would have been unnatural: 7.17*,29*,44* 9.4* 10.1* 1.15*. Cf. 11.48*. In others, a minor but not unimportant principle, correspondence of accent,“ is disregarded : 5.8 etoedOdvres AdyorTes. 7.39 yeu a@pereiv. 8.1 rorApaow éxriloot. 2.26 & vuvi Adyer, Kal ois rrovei. 4.24 pwaprupodow audio BntH- covotv. 7.40 rrovety cate. 9.382 rAdyovres mpoartilévres. Cf. 10.8 dvaicyvvrodcw, & avdpes, aktodor. 2.5 pirot ib. 10 Sdvra ynpotpopiyjoos | Kat TeXevTjcavta Odrpou abrov | kal... moimoot. ib. 28 mpabjva amooTqva. 4.13 d&dAXrayAvar—— peraypadhvar. Of homoioptoton: 8.26 abeiv x. éeBddrew K. Kove ovvOdr- rev. 3.54 5.16 7.85,42 8.40 11.20,85 12.2. ’"AvrTi@ects or “Avridetov.—By the Greek Rhetoricians antithesis is regularly defined as a contrast in words or thoughts or both.” But so inherent is the antithetical (wen dé) struc- ture in the Greek language that modern scholars™ incline to restrict it to a formal opposition of both words and thoughts.” The difficulty in detecting rhetorical design, usually great, is lessened somewhat in an author fond of antithesis, where the presumption is in favor of conscious art. This is true of Isaeus only in part, for, while Demosthenic strength in argument, the ‘home of antithesis,’ and occasionally an Isocratic straining after balanced symmetry of clauses are among his strong characteristics, in Orr. 3,4,6, and 12 formal antithesis is conspicuously absent. Among his best are those in the epilogue of Or. 5, §§ 39-47: 5.39 & éy@ aloytvopmar réyev, ovTos S€ rrocav ove yoxdvero (the distinct force of the infinitive and participle with aicydvoya: should be noted). 7b. 44 nat adros pév nElous xexthoOa & cor ovdev mpoahKe xphuata, Tos 5é Oeois ode arédwxas & éxeivwy éeylyveto aydApata oiKelot, M4 8uoor TH rovy (Tib. III 75). Be. g., dvrlderov pev odv éort 7d évayrlav Thy dvouaclay dua cal rhy Suva rots dvrixerpevors Exov, 7d Erepoy roUrwy. Anax. I? 68; cf. Gerb. II? 18; Volk, 485. 6 e, g., Volk. 487. Of, Anax. ib. kdddorov wey obv ely av 7d Kar’ dudébrepa dvrlOcrov, Kal ard Thy Sdvauywy Kal kara THY dvouactay, The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 23 (with parison, paromoion, and paronomasia). ib. 46 ’OrAtvAcoe Hey Kal vnoiras bmrép Thode THs ys aroOvycKovar maydomevot ois monrepiows, od bé, & Arx., worlrns dv obs éotpdtrevoat, ib. 21 ré nueis dhedovpueOa viehoavtes, # TL odtos ECnpoHOn yrrnOeis; 1b. 85 ovr’ édecty éote Sixaior Os KaKas mpatrovta Kal qevdpevor, oT eb Troeiy ws ayaOdv te cipyacpévov. 10.16 pédrdovTes apernOncer bat bev under, EnuwOhcecOat 58 weydra. 1.15 ovy Hiv éycarov adra Acivia Trodeuav. 2.15 xdddov Fv Sovra rele... MaAXov 7) TeA- eutncavta bBpitew. ib. 10 Sdvra ynpotpodiyoo Kal TedevTHoavTa Oaryror; the same, slightly varied, in 2.25,37,45 (cf. §§ 86,42,43). 7.17 éxetvp ode amicrovvrwy éud Te ode ayvootvrwv. ib. 29.29 purjre €xOpa impos tovrous urjre pirta mpos judas. Also 9.10,19 8.44 7.23 1.23,33,33,34,35,40,438. Cf 9.25. A few instances of antithesis of words or of thoughts only are not without rhetorical effect: 8.39 iva wr Soxoter obrou wer avnrwxevae Tava, éym dé ovd&. 1.11 KaKas Toeiv Huds éBovrHOn, Tors undev adtov Hdicnkdtas; 2.23 dvTav yap ait@ Traidwv éxetvw dvtt dad. 10.1 do7ep B. obtocl Stvarar Wevdh Aye... ob T@ Kayo TaANOR KTrA. 7.15 adros ev ovdev av te mpaEa .. . Suvnbeis, éuod dé. . . waa ofov te écouevov moeiv. Also 1.1 3.45 4.11,24 9.35 12.10. Ilapovounacia.—Paronomasia is preéminently a parallelism of sound,” irrespective of structure, i. ¢., of the relative position of the words in the cola. With this parallelism of sound may be coupled dissimilarity or similarity of sense: if the former, the figure is highly rhetorical and finds a place among the Gorgianic figures; if the latter, it is merely repetition in its simplest form. This gives rise to the following distinction in terminology and double treatment : I. Gorgianic Paronomasia, where the words vary but slightly in form and have a different meaning.” A real play on words 18 For other combinations, see notes 7 and 8, under parison. 19 y, R. KoplvOo, Sché., p. 292; Benseler, De Hiatu, etc., p. 186. 20 Like Alliteration and Assonance (Rime), paronomasia is dependent on the physical side of language, and probably antedates literature in written form; see Casanowicz, pp. 5f. 21 With this definition the Greek Rhetoricians substantially agree, ¢. g., (srapov. sylverat) bray Te TY AypOevruy els Thy Sidvoray dvoudrwv A pnudrev Bpaxd peraroujoayres érépay kuhowper evvoray, Alex. III 36; cf. Gerb. II’ 159; Volk. 479; Straub, p. 186; Casanowicz, p. 2. 24 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. exists and is most effective when consisting in a minimum of dissimilarity of sound and a maximum of dissimilarity of sense. Its various forms may be included under two heads: a) words of different roots (Parechesis”) : 5.34 wn pdvov Ta dvd mata aitav éyopev GAG Kal Ta yYpHmata. ib. 44 avdros pév HElovs KexThoOa...xpHhmata, Trois é Ocois ok amédmxas ... ayar- pata. 6.15 ovk els TH avdxprow povoy Sei tropilerOar dvd mara, GAA TH adnOcla yeyovdta aropalverOa. Cf. 2.40 dudcas SpKovs wadw viv nee TA SmorkoynOévtTa Kal duobévra trapa- Bas. 1.6 caxds roteiv Kakas wabeiv. b) words having the same root, rarely* remaining unchanged, usually with changes and additions : 1. Of the preposition: added in 2.8 éeito oty jyav Sodvat yap tavTny atte, éxdotvar adr adryy (his wife). 8.383 yévos yap AN odyt cuyyévera TovT’ éotiv; more often changed, ém.6é- Oo pt——é « didmpu, 1.89 2.3 3.8,49,51 8.8,8 10.25. 2.9 é« didomer amodiiocw. 5.84 &rowndicacbat Kateyndicato. 8.33 Hh pev (Ouyarnp) yap é& éxelvou yéyover, 6 Oé (45edpds) wert’ éxeivov. ib. 80,80 of wer’ éxeivou divtes 7} oi €& exelvou yeyovdres pev... cuyyevets, of © Exyovote. 6.43 tocadtTa pev toivur xXpjmata é« Ths oixias éx hopjoavtes qoavres, T.1 ef tis TereuTAcEY pédAdwV Siero, eb TL TaOOL, THY otctayv érépw, cal tadr év ypdupact xatébero. Ch. xara rors VO {LOUS. mapa T. vowous 11.6, etc. 2. Of other prefixes: added in 5.13,15 paprupycas 8& tadTa éddw yrevdopaptupidy ; changed in 7.9 é& edadpou te a rropwrépo. 1.2 od« ayvoobytes, @ dv., TO Sixavovy, AAAG TOANHY epnmiay Huadv catTayvovres. 11.88 ef 2. &tropa Ta Tpdypata KaTadiTovToS avTos ed ropos av. 2.43 bro pév ed Ppovodvtos .. . bd Sé mapa dpovorvtos. 5.43 ore eateCevyotpddnkas, érel ovdé Cetdyos exriow dpixov ovderrarrote. Of. 3.63 wn dev yévet mpoonKovta © Ou mpoaddous .. . Sta op- KaTa yévos Woo f 8 20 ¥. = cia > - ? aA poonKkoucay. : Yamous eoTlay Kal yaunrAlav eioeveyxeiv. “Tf the term parechesis (cf. modern pun) must be retained, the distinction is: in paronomasia there is identity of root, in parechesis, difference of root. See Casa- nowicz, p. 8, ~. 8; cf. Blass. II 176. 25 No example of a play on the same word unchanged was found. The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 25 2,46 derAnpov pev eve rrosely Tod KArAHpov. ib. 23 dvTav yap aiT@ matdwy éxeivp dvti dads. ib. 26 wordy cdpsov &xupov moufoar. 5.25 a pev adrois cumpéper...xvpid dacw elvat, ei cad By yéypanta, dS od cuppéper, ob Kvpta, ei my yéypar- ra. Of. 2.5. 3. Change of case (polyptoton): 6.28 obSels oddevl.. .od8e- lav. 3.68 obre Sotvat ovdevt obdév. 5.89 obtw Kal Toc adTa AeAetToUpynKe A, aro ToTovTwY xXpnudrwv (with irony). 9.1 éavut@—éavutovd 11.5. 4. Change of voice, mood, tense, etc.: 5.11 adcxovpevos te .. a8tK@v OteKTr. ib. 21 dvroddvta amodotvat. 38.79 yaunriay...eliceveyKety kat eioayayeiv ... Ovyatrépa. Ce. 6.21. 2. Repetitive Paronomasia. Paronomasia (in the wider sense), in which there is a rhetorical™ repetition of the same word in he same sense,” I have ventured to term repetitive paronomasia, é. g., 1.44 ob7’ éxeiv traiéa ei o TET OLNK@S AANA Tov olKov €En py - Maxas, ovde TovT@ av elamornoas AA Gpoiws av Kal TovTOV léEepnuooas. 8.12 cipeOhval tte tTav Cnrovpdvar Enreite ctpetv. 6.47 vdbw pyde vey. 11.25 (repetition of ara in a lively tilt with the opponent). 2.35,38 épyw «al od Ady@ (echoes of Kal Adyw Kai Epyw (2) in § 32). 7.30 tadra tadtT’ éyv@xe. 8.14 weuaprupyKace toivuy ylyveoKovow (2). 2.1 évroundn GAXov oixedtepov éuod Totnaart’ av. 3.7 TdOTE mounOjvat. ib, 22 ork dv Totnodpevos Tote, 5.24 adeotdvar, ib. 25 éyyunodpmevos amTocTas éyyunoacbat. 2.28 dvoupévors my OveicOar. 8.28 ére- OelEere éwidecnvus; ib. 4 wpocéacxerte Tpoaeyety. Alliteration.* —The simplest and probably the oldest” form of 2 Qn unrhetorical and careless repetition, see p. 5, x. 4. 25 This form of repetition is not treated in Greek Rhetoric; cf. Cornificius (Iv. 14, 20), s. v. traductio, quoted in Robertson, p. 26. 2% A modern term, probably first used by Pontanus, an Italian humanist of the xv. century (see Volk., 515, ». 2), but the figure is noted in Charisius (Keil I 282) _». Parhomoeon. Cf. Hermog. (II 251) under Parechesis; on the effect of the espective consonants, see Dionys., decomp. verborum, 311. 37 See Casanowicz, pp. 8 ff. 26 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. paronomasia is alliteration, or the recurrence” of the same initial letter(s) in succeeding words. Regularly the succession is imme- diate.” If the words are not alliterative but contain or end in” similar sounds, the figure is assonance. This poetic element Isaeus rarely introduces into his prose. Even the following, from which have been excluded purely accidental examples, aris- ing from the article and inflection, are largely unintentional : a) of alliteration, 8.59 yovm yeydvacr yunowo. ib. 2 tpla rddavra Tiunwa. 8.33 maurrodv mpdtepot. 10.18 was more 7oddy. 2.21 ovTas obros. 3.63 wndaydber und&. 9.24 rpooje: TwAOY TO TPayywa Kal Tos ovdey mpoojkovtas TeOwv. 3.68 Sodvar ovderi ovdev. 7.48 Botropar bia Bpaydwov buds drouvncas. Also: 1.17 BovrAoua Bpaxyéa. 10.9 éavrod érépw. ib. 15 Stcalws Soxdow. 1.12 Brame Bovdduevos. '7.30,42. 1.48. In figura etymologica, the following : (A) 8.59,67 5.36,45 7.38 1.17 (also cited below); (y) 3.61 11.31 3.59 (also cited above); (8) 1.15 2.81 9.34; (¢) 10.25; (x) 7.40; (v) 6.60; (cic) 6.60. b) of assonance: 2.18% épn we yphvat yjpar. 3.4" papruphoa éyyunoa. ib. 381 ern Sn (uh bet). 8.84 TeV TaTpdwY, TOL nanroov. 7.34 capas cidds. Cf. 2.27 eyo éyo. 11.12 & eyo. 6.56 mérepov Sixadrepov. c) of both combined: 4.27 réAXa rradvra Trovode. Ta TpocTaTTOmeva. 9.4 mpoorrovodmevos Titdas vids elorreTrornaOas ov mrpovOeTo 1.17 Tods Gddous Adyous Aéyerv. Of. 5.46 brrép rHode THs yas. ANAPHORA (ab, a/b’) and Curasmus (ab, b/a’).** —Of anaphora, in the wider sense, there are two distinct kinds.** One is a 8 Thus alliteration is also a form of repetition, under which it might properly be treated. * Of, Fig. Etym., p. 16. 0 For examples of Homoioptoton, see under Paromoion, p, 22. 31 Cited by Rehdantz, Indices, s. vv. % By these symbols is meant that a/b’ or b/a’ need not be verbal repetitions of ab or ba but that the relative succession of words is the same (anaphora) or re- versed (chiasmus). % Cf. Nagelsbach (Lat. Stylistik, Niirnberg, 1888, pp. 639 ff.): die einfache Anaphora nicht blos die bekannte Wiederholung desselben Wortes am Anfang mehrerer Sétze, sondern hier vornehmlich die Wiederkehr derselben Wortfolge entweder in dem namlichen Satze oder in verschiedenen. 54 See p. 6, 2. 12. The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 27 mere verbal repetition, epanaphora, and belongs to rhetoric; the other is a parallelism in clausal structure, anaphora, and belongs rather to style. The former has already been treated under fig- ures of repetition (p. 6), the latter with its closely related opposite (chiasmus) may receive brief mention in concluding the figures of parallelism. In chiasmus*® the confusion lies between it and anastrophe, but the relation these sustain to each other is similar to that of anaphora and epanaphora, thus: chiasmus (ab,b/a’) : anastrophe (-b,b-) : : anaphora (ab,a/b’) : epanaphora (a-, a-). Eiffect.—The satisfaction that the hearer takes in the symmet- rical balance of anaphora is compared by Moy (p. 105) to the listener’s enjoyment of certain musical phrases, where the pleasure of the ear is enhanced by the return of a motif, for which it has been prepared by a preceding and for which it has been waiting with eagerness. Yet the symmetry of Isaeus is logical rather than musical, and the reader’s mind is kept intent on the thought rather than the form. Thus it is that few instances either of anaphora or chiasmus were found formally perfect, while imperfect, or what may be called anaphoric and chiastic arrangements were not infrequent. The highest rhetorical effect is gained when the two are combined, either interwoven, or more commonly one (regularly anaphora) following the other. The best illustration of this last and perhaps the most characteristic of Isaeus is 3.75, where one chiastic and two anaphoric clauses are not only com- bined but combined in chiastic relation to one another, thus (omitting unessential words) : ék wav Tod | Ovyarépa eloayaryely X Kal wh rorfoacbas ddehpdr, ee eee éx 8¢ Tod | Todrov wer morjpoarGar—rhy dé wh eloayaryetv, Ae pa ee ee Thy peav &xdnpov karéornoe——* rdv dé kAypovbpor kar eure. So 3.68 day... Katadémn dppevas X av Se Onrelas Katadlry... mera Tov Ouyarépwr eae Sodvar wat SiabdcOa Ta avTod —=avev dé % Slight and imperfect mention of chiasmus is found in Greek Rhetoric; ef. Hermog. II 242 f.; Alex. III 40, under rpocvvardyryots ; Gerb, II! 221 f.; Volk. 488 ; Nagelsbach, 640; especially, Steele, Chiasmus in Sallust, etc., Diss,, J. H. U., 1890, Introd. 36 x and == indicate chiasmus and anaphora respectively. 28 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. Tov yunolov Ovyatépwr ody oldv re ode Tromoacbar ob're Sobvat ovdert ovdév tev éavrov. Anaphora follows chiasmus also in 1.4,20 6.60,60; in 7.48 and 9.1 chiasmus follows anaphora. Simple anaphora occurs in: 5.21 té jets dpedovpeOa vien- cartes, ) TL bos elnmiwbOn HTTnOels ; 1.9 Oeios Sv dppavodrs dvras. 5.47 brepioov ... olrnow, Katappovicas ... ateAadv. 11.48 70 xeopiov arrodduevos Kal Tpinpn mpiduevos Kal TavTHY TANPWOAUEVOS. 10.1? Kal Adyew Sewvol Kai mapacKevacacba ixavol. Also: 7.16,40 1.7,25,39,40,40,45 4.12,29 5.4,25 6.2,2 8.20,46 10.1! 11.9,10,47. Less perfect: 1.5,48 2.10,29 4.1 6.48,65 7.32,44 8.13. Largely accidental: 1.49 2.13,45 4.11,30 5.5,42 6.5,52 9.12. Of. 1.28, 83,87,42 9.36. Of chiasmus, the following: 5.14 adels yap tovs waptupas Kal HuaS mpodovs. 1.2 ovK ayvooivTes, @ av., TO Sixatov, AAXRA TOAAHY epnulay nuav Katayvovtes. ib. 3 ody Hmiv éyKar@v AAW dpytabels TOV oixelov Twi. 10.25 (double) xéopsov 8 évavrov mapéyov Kal roy Ta TpoctaTTépeva Kal Tas oTpaTeias oTpatevduevos. 6.60 (double) yopnyel mev tpaywdois, eis Sé Tos Tptaxoalous éeyyéyparTat Kal eiopéper Tas eiopopds. 5.41 wdcas perv yopnyias éyophynoer, eion- veyxav 5€...xpnuata roAdd. Also: 1.10% 2.15 5.8,30,30,36 6.3 7.41 8.42 10.9. Less perfect: 2.14 5.4,24,27 6.2,20,29 8.81,16,18 11.34. The following are incomplete (chiastic): 2.28... XaBd- Mevos Kat Bovrduevos... 38.79... eioeveynely Kal eicayayeiv... 8.44... AndOels cat mabov... ib. 17... icacw toact... 10.22... wept rev éavrod, mrepl wévTot THY adAOTpioy ... 7.36... merroinka: yeyupvacidpynka ... 8.3 amoorepav... erdyov. ib. 38 ameAndpévat ... drrodaBelv. 8.8? éxdidwor .. . émididwar. 9.24 Tmwrov ... welOwov. Cf. 1.44 2.26.44 5.7. IV. Ficurges or Dramatic Vivactty.! Under this head are included figures which lend a vivacious and dramatic effect to style, namely: PROSOPOPOEIA, APOSTROPHE, HYPOPHORA, PROLEPSIS, RHETORICAL QUESTION (and ANSWER), ASYNDETON, POLYSYNDETON, HYPERBATON, HYPOSTROPHE, and OATHS. 57 taking olxelwv with émlrporoy (Sché., p. 182). 1 Or the ‘enlivening ’ (belebende) figures, so-called. The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 29 Il pocwro7o0réa.—In prosopopoeia an absent character is introduced as if present? and an imaginary conversation follows. As generally accepted by the ancient rhetoricians, it included all forms of personification. Sustaining such a vital relation to nOorrotia,* accounts, perhaps, for only two Isaean instances: 6.53 mwas dv mepipavéctepov éEereyy Gein TA yevdh pewaptupynKas i} et Tis avTov époito: ,, Avdpderes, was oigOaKTrA. 8.24 Kalror ef wh Fv Ouyatpidods Kipwvos, otk adv tadta Siwpodoyeito, GAN éxeivous av tovs Adyous ereye ,,a0 Sé Tis ef; ool dé Ti mpoonKe: Odrrew; od yYLYVOCKM oe: Ov py eloe Els THY OiKiaV.” *"AwootTp 0% .—Apostrophe is here used in its narrow, tech- nical sense, as the act of turning from the judges to address the adversary.® It is not a habit ® with Isaeus, though his agonistic’ style of argumentation naturally lent itself to apostrophe and direct inter- rogation. Barring 6.25-26 and the instances in Or. 3, its effect is passionate, aggressive, and ironical, unfailing characteristics of this figure. Of sudden, sharp turns, 6.54 is an instance: the prosopopoeia in § 53 being followed after a short explanatory remark to the judges by the abrupt od 8 ov craparyevdmevos Siap- pndnv peuaptipncas xTA. More characteristic, as well as power- ful, is the long apostrophic arraignment of Dicaeogenes, with which Or. 5 ends (§§ 48-47) e. g., (§ 48) Tov pév TovTOU oixov av, 2 rpoownoroula éort rapayouevoy mpbcwmoy Td ovk els Td SixacThpiov mapdy, drodnuay A reOveds krv. Aps. 1 886; ef. rpoodmrov didahacis 4 mndérore yevoucvou, 7 yevouevou yey, odkére 58 viv dvros. Anon, IIT 177; Zon. ITI 162. 3 e.g., 4 Tois diya mpdowmrov mporrieioa Kal Mbyous avbrots dpyodlovs rpordmrovca.. Anon. IIT 212. * Of. Cornif. IV. 53.66 cum, aliqua, quae non adest, persona confingitur, quasi adsit, aut cum res muta aut informis fit eloquens et forma et et oratio attribuitur ad dignitatem accommodata aut actio quaedam. On whole subject, see Devries, Ethopoiia: A Rhet. Study of the Types of Character in the Orations of Lysias, Diss., J. H. U., 1892. 5 droarpoph 3€ éoriv bray ard TOy Sikacr av mpos Tov dvrliixov droorpépy Tov débyov. Tib. III 61; cf. Aq. Rom. H. (p. 25) ; Gerb. 11? 61; Volk. 500. 6 Occurring in Orr. 3,5,6,9, and 11, only. 7On Isaeus’s skill in the ‘art of grappling’ (7d évayanov), see Jebb II 305; ef. Moy, pp. 108 ff. 30 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. Aix., waparaBav kaxads Kal aicypds Sior@reKas, cal éEapyupiodpe- vos mreviav ddvpn, Tol dvadwoas ; KTA.... (§ 45) Sid ré ody aEdoes cov Tovs dixacTas arownpicacba, & Arc. ; introducing hypophora, which closes with the stinging od 6¢, & Avk., rorérns av 08 éotpdrevoat (§ 46); finally the abrupt fs oo oddév peérertwv, & Atxaisyeves, at the very end of the oration (§ 47), where a final appeal to the judges is naturally expected. With this instance should be compared another, equally characteristic of Isaeus and best illustrating the dramatic effect of this figure, 11.4-5: having previously addressed his opponent with the sharp command: od & avaPnO. Sedpo, erred) Sevvds ef SiaBaddrew Kal Tors vomovs Siactpé- gewv (§ 4), the speaker suddenly interrupts the reading of the law with the curt émioyes to the clerk, and then turns upon his adver- sary with the lively épwrncw oé. adedAdds eof 6 trais ‘Ayviouv adedpuidods €& adeAgpod 7 «Tr. (§ 5). At 9.23 a witness, the speak- er’s own uncle, receives somewhat similar treatment: «xa/ros, ‘Tepdxres, TrodAa Kayaba wabwv vd Ocoppdatov tod tatpos Tod éuod, Ste yelpov erpatres # vuvi, Kal bd Aatudpirou, ovderépw adtoiv thy a&iay xdpw arodiéws. The remaining instances are mere combinations of apostrophe and question in argumentative form. With one exception they occur in Or. 3: §§ 40-41; §§ 45-46; §§ 48-49; §§ 69-71. 6.25-26. ‘Trogopa or SuBsectio—Hypophora is an objection raised by the speaker himself, for the sake of immediate refutation. In its complete form, it is resolvable into a) wpéraciw (—7) érrayyedia THs bropopas), usually pyjcetey (etzror) dv ts, or simply add; b) bropopa (=the opponent’s objection); c) avtimpdétacis (= THs Adoews errayyedia) ; d) avOurodopa or Avots (=the speaker’s refu- tation).° A solitary example of its full form occurs at 10.18-19, 5 This abrupt ending is defended by Blass (II 546) on the ground of its being Isaean. Scheibe (praef. xxvii1) remarks: videtur deesse epilogus ; but cf. the endings of Orr. 8,8, and 10. The same independence and originality manifest themselves in his treatment of the proem : of the nine orations having proems, five (Orr. 1,2,5,6,7) open with pev solitarium (see n. 87, below) and Address; inthe proems of Orr. 3,4,8, and 10, the ethos naturally expected is lacking, e. g., the abrupt dvdpes diucacrat of 3.1; of the rest, the proem is wanting in Orr. 11 and 12; omitted in Or. 9. 9 Hermog. II 207; cf. Tib. III 77 (0. &. bray wh és mpoBalvy 6 Nyos, ANN’ brobels TL Ws Tapa Too dvridlxou 7 ws éx ToD mpdyyaros droKplynrat mpds airéy, wore dbo dvTi- Deyoueva mpbowra pupovuevos) ; Gerb. II? 54; Volk. 493; Rehdantz, Indices, s. v. The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 31 where the speaker removes a possible objection on the part of the judges; (protasis) tows obv dy tis, & dv., rov ypdvov tuav Oavpdoete, (hypophora) was mote mrodvy obras cidoapev . . . (antiprotasis) éyw Se ofpar ev od Sixatov elvar ... (anthypophora) o yap warip Kd. More commonly the protasis or antiprotasis or both are omitted and in Isaeus this shorter form gains additional liveliness,! since the opponent’s objection (iogopad) is regularly put in the form of an ironical question, the answer to which constitutes the speak- er’s own refutation (avOurogopa). Besides this, the whole hypo- phoric period is, with few exceptions, introduced by a question for amplification." A typical instance is 5.45-46: 8a ti obv aEwoes cou Tors Sixactas dro ndicacba, @ Auc.; mdétepov StL ToA- Nas Nevroupylas AeAELTOUPYNKAS TH TOAEL... 37) OS TPLNPAPX@V TOAG Kaka TOUS ToAEulous eipydow ...; AN’ Oddy cot TOUTWY TrémpaKTal. GAN ws otpati@Tns ayabds; GAN ovK éotpdrevoa xTr. Double hypophora occurs also at 2.21 4Sdws 8 dv wor Sox@ rodTou mubéabar tov ddckovtos ed dpovelv, tiva Toncacbar eyphy adtov TOY auy- yevav ; méTepa TOV viov TOY ToUTOU; AAN ovK dv aiT@ ewxer . AANA Tov THs aderdis . . 5 AAA THY apyHv ove éyéveTo ait@ ovdels TovTay Tay cuyyevav. 11.25 dia Ti dv petaddcev w@pmoddyour .. .; mérepa 8 obk Hv por rayelv, ef pa) Teloarpu ToUTOUS ; GAN’ 6 vdpos TH Bovroperm SiSwor tiv eEovoiav, Hate TodTo ob« Hv avtois evmeiv QAN ... paptuplav ...3 GAAA Kata yevos judicByTovy, ov KaTa Sdow, bor’ oddev ee paptipwv. 3.72-73 rivos yap vera ... ; morepov Ott ...3 GAN obtE éyeveTo OUT EoTL..... ovde eis, KTH. Single hypophora at 7.33. Without introductory question. 3.24 tows yap fv vy Ala wdpepyov kat paddov, «rr., with the refutation oddly introduced by question for amplification cal mas; dare [v.R. ols Bl.] «ra. 4.24 Of. ib. 20. Very like hypophora is 5.43 Tol avarooas ; ote yap els THY TOMY KTA. Ilpoxarddnpes or Proersis.—Closely related to hypo- 10 The quasi-dialogue effect of this figure, a one-sided affair, since the speaker represents both sides, is very prominent and often referred to, é. g-, in Tib.’s defini- tion above (wamep dto xrd.). Indeed, the rhetorical effect lies not 80 much in the interrogative as in the dialectic character of the hypophoric period. Cf. Blass I 415 (einlebhaftes dialogische Element) ; Harry, p. 34. 11 See Rhetorical Question, p. 33. 32 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. phora, but not to be confounded with it, is prolepsis.’ The distinction seems to be: in hypophora, objections largely hypo- thetical * and sometimes absurd, as appears from the irony usually present, are raised and removed; in prolepsis, a real argument is seriously anticipated and overthrown. Such a distinction justi- fies the citation here of 5.46 (@AN icws dia rovs rpoydvous afvwcess pou mAéov eye, xT.) Which immediately follows the hypophora in 5.45—46, and forms an integral part of the whole hypophoric period. At 11.5, prolepsis, in the unusual form of a threat, gives an unexpected turn to the apostrophe: xal draws mh éxeivo épeis, drt ewos adeAgpibods. Other examples are: 5.3 tows dé é’ éxeivov Tpéyretat Tov Adyov, KTA. ib. 28 qepl S€ émicKevAs .. . Kal mpdrepov elpne Atk. kal viv tows épei, @S ouoroynoavtes KTX. (transitional). 3.45 repli wer ody THs émidtnacias eyo. av Tis yreddos mpopacicacbar mMpos buds: 7) yap AaGeiv aPas mpooroincait’ av obTos, 7) Kal Yevdeo- Oat aiti@r’ av juds. Todto pév ody Trapopev. 9.10 tows Toivuv Krdwv ottocl dnow éyo & oiuarxTrA. Cf. 11.33-84 10.9-10 3.66-67. RuweEtoricaAL Question.—A rhetorical question ” is a question asked for effect and not for information. Therefore it expects and requires no answer.” Its effect lies in the fact that, when employed, the matter in hand is most self-evident and least re- quires a question, or, when put as a question, least requires an answer. Classification. As many objections have been made against the classification of Tiberius,” for instance, that attention (pocoy7) 12 Rhetorical prolepsis (an anticipation in argument) is quite distinct from its later grammatical extension (an anticipation in construction) ; for definition, see Tib. III 16; cf. Gerb. I 573 f.; IL? 98; Volk. 139, 279. 18 Instead of the efor dv ris of hypophora, there is the tows (dvrl5ixos) epet (5.28) of prolepsis; cf, 5.3,46 9.10, above. 14 The absence of rhetorical question in prolepsis should be noted. 15 No satisfactory definition nor adequate treatment of rhet. question was found in the Greek Rhetoricians, see 7. 17. 16 This does not preclude the speaker from answering a rhet. question rhetori- cally, see Rhetorical Answer. "7d mucparikoy ox fua Epya pev Exe réooapa, wpocoxhy, capjveay, évdpyeav, éreyxov. Tib. III 64; cf. Rehdantz, Indices, s, v. Frage; Gerb. II? 51; Volk. 491. The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 33 is the object of all rhetorical questions, so against the classi- fication which follows it may be urged, with some justice, that most rhetorical questions are mere assertions put in rhetorical form” and, therefore, to assert that rds ody dv rs capéatepov érrideifere ; (8.28) is merely the rhetorical equivalent of ovm oby dv Ts aapéatepov émidetEete, is to say that the former is a rhetorical question.” Upon closer examination, however, one particular element (appeal, etc.) usually becomes so prominent that some classification indicating this seems necessary. The following is based on the content of each question and at the same time bears a striking correspondence to Tiberius’s much abused classifica tion, based on the speaker’s object : Compare Tiberius’s 1. Questions for Amplification, mpocoxny (attention) including AvaXexrin dv cadnvetav (clearness) 2. Questions of Appeal €deyyX ov (conviction) 3. Questions of Assertion évdpyevav (vividness) 1. QuzstTIons FoR AMPLIFICATION or per suggestionem™,— Not infrequently a speaker interrupts the even flow of his dis- course by putting to himself”! a question (Selbstfrage), the unmis- takable object of which is to arouse the judges’ attention (eds mpocoxyv), at the same time to give them a hint of what will follow (per suggestionem) but especially to afford the orator himself an opportunity to volunteer an elaborate reply” of his own (amplification). Such a question, then, may be variously styled: els mpocoynv, per suggestionem, suggestive, Selbstfrage, or, more broadly, one for Amplification. 18 In Latin this is clearly indicated by their accusative and infinitive construc- tion in oratio obliqua, e. g., an quicquam superbius est? becomes in o. 0., an quic- quam superbius esse? (Livy, Bk. I, ch. 50). The development of such questions is nicely illustrated in 9.12, where the second apodosis of a double conditional sentence is unexpectedly put in interrogative form: ed pév..., elkds fv... el dé..., wm&s elds éoriv ...; 20 Or per subiectionem, see Q. IX. 2.15. ACf. épwrd ris éaurdpy, tva rov Nyov evxpivh ‘roujon' Thos ody evexa radra déyw ; (Anon. III 121). 22 Such answers are not to be confused with rhetorical answers (p. 89). 34 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. It is here that Isaeus displays the highest art, best illustrated perhaps in the epilogue of Or. 5, where the speaker’s sudden eruption of feeling against his adversary assumes the form of a challenge: § 43 tov wév rovrou oixov ot, & Ax., wapadkaBov Kaxas Kab aicypas Siore@d«xas, kal éEapyupiodmevos treviav ddvpy mot &varwoas; followed by a 3-fold negative answer (not rhetorical). Highly rhetorical are: 5.13 éedy dé Au., & av., ovxért tpas Sivatras éEarratav, relOa Mevé£evor... , Timotmoat; Kopsodmevov avTov mépos KTA. 6.86 Kal Th ToLodatv; amoypa- govot xTr. 11.4498 euy (otcla) roan TLS; yoplov év Oiven... Kal oixia év date ctr. 7.43 Ipovdarns 8€ ti brép THs audio RyTov- ons (a&to2) ; yew pev «Tr. ib. 24 ti yap Hrtov ait@ rhs cvyyevelas TaUTNS TMpoonKev; ov yap KaTa Tov matépa adda KTA. 11.11 TO 6€ yvooesOe TODO’, bt. ..3 adTds 6 vemos Snrdce. [7.31]*%. Some- times the questions are exceedingly brief, mere quid nune’s: 3.24 kai THs; 8.380 mas ydo; 6.63 Ti ett; 3.382 Tivos &exa; (with the answer in the form of an ironical question). Transitional, in three instances: 8.9 was dv tis SeiEee yeyevnueva dhavepas; eyo Sntav eEedpov. 9.22 kai ri det Todrov Aéyev; GAN ‘TepoxAFs xTr. (* Why Cleon alone to be censured?) 11.11 (cited above). Introducing hypophora.—Isaeus regularly* introduces hypo- phora with a question for amplification™®; 5.45 8a ri ov afta oes ...3 WwoTepov Sti KTA. 3.72 Tivos yap &vexa...3 mdrepov StL KTrA. 11.25 dia te. ..3 wétepa nTA. 7.33 Ti BéATiov av Erpakev...; h vm Aia radlov érrouncato . . .; 2.21 riva roijoacba exphy ...; mdtepa KTA. 11.32 th ody gor Tada, Kal Ti Siopifouac; (introduc- ing Prolepsis, see p. 31). AvadXextixov.”—Here the questions for amplification with their answers form a syllogistic series, thereby gaining the addi- *8 cf. 3.8-10, where the author challenges the truth of his opponent’s testimony (that his sister was the lawful wife of Pyrrhus) in aseries of non-rhetorical questions. *4 Following Scheibe’s better reading, I omit this very doubtful example; Schoemann reads 6:4 rf; mpoopOvrt xrd. ; Buermann, rl mpoopavri ; 5 Except 3.24 (though here the anthypophora is so introduced, xai més ;) and 4.24. 6 These questions are manifestly of the same type as the foregoing, although quite distinct from questions in hypophora, see p. 38. 216. €. bray wh drdOs duefly rdv Abyov, AAG pds Tedoww Kal dardxpiory ouddoylenrat & BovrNerar. Tib. TIL 67; cf. Gerb. II? 55; Volk. 492 f. The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 35 tional element of clearness. Or. 8 yields three remarkable ex- amples: § 147° tivas elxds eidévar Ta rradad; SHrov Sri Tors Xpomevous TH warm. pewaptuprxacr tolvuy dKony obror. Tivas eidévar TA Trept THY ExSoow ...; Tos éyyunoapmévous... . Ties Se kth. § 83°? Kipwvos mdrepov Ouydrnp i) aderpos éyyutépw Tod yévous earl; Shrdov yap Stu Ouydrnp: % mev yap e& éxeivou yéyover, o 6€ per’ exelvov. Ouyarpos 8é raises 7) aderdds ; mraides S1rrovbev yevos yap aXN ovdyt avyyevea Tour’ éotiv. § 2813° wdbev ypH miateverOar Ta eipnucva; ov ex TOV wapTUpLOV; oipal ye. Tdbev 5é rods wdptupas ; otK éx TOV Bacdvev; eixds ye. dev 8 arictelv Tois TOUT@Y Adyols; ovK ex Tov deve Tos édXeyxous; avayKN peyddy. In the last series, it should be noted that questions for positive assertion (§ 287*°), alternating with those for amplifica- tion, take the place of the answers naturally expected; further, that each question for assertion is followed by asyndetic rhetorical answer, and the whole summed up by a final question of asser- tion (neg.): (§ 287) was obv dv tis cadéotepov éridelEee yvnoiav ovoay Ouyarépa Kipwvos thy pntépa tiv éwnv i) TolTov Tov TpdToV émtdeaxves ; Almost identical is F. 23.1)-*. Also 7.404 «adrot ri Xp Tov pérpLov TroAirnv; introducing a double question of asser- tion (pos.): 7.40°° 1.237 kalrou was adv erepa TovTwv yévorTo amiorétepa; introducing question of appeal (1.23). 2. Questions or AppEAL.—In Isaeus, whose strong point is argument, or, as Sir William Jones puts it, ‘who lays close siege to the understandings of the jury’, appeal assumes the non- pathetic, aggressive form of argumentation, often with irony and indignation. Naturally this is prominent in Or. 3, where ‘all is argument.’ At four points the questions pile up in cumulative form, e. g., §§ 867% 371? (5-fold, with irony and betraying a sense of superiority); so § 39175, § 4817, §§ 50, 51°. Ina large number of instances, the argument assumes the form of an enthy- meme”, a sort of reductio ad absurdum or dilemma: 6.637 was obv darais Fv os Tis Tov éavtod adedgiSodv vidy rrornodpevos KaTéduTev KTR. 3 8.32 ras obv Sixaidy éorw, eddy pev pndev KaTadirocty, nuas inroSixous elvar THS KaKdTEWS, Hv wy TPe&poper, ei Sé TL KaTAAEAOMTa>GL, 8 Of. Jebb. II 291. 36 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. tévd’ elvat KANpovdpov GARA ph Huds; ovdayas Syrovdev. 11.12 ols 88 pnd ev reredXeuTnKas © eyo, SiSwow 6 vdpos THY “Aryviou KAnpovopiav, Tas ewod Te Covros Kal KaTa Tods Vdmous éyovTos olovTaL avrois elvar THY ayxioTelav; ovdapas SHovbev. 5.388 Katror Tas dEvov Oavpdtew, & av., ef éue éEnrrarnoev éva dvra, bs twas amavras xTr.; ib. 841? ov« obv Sewov ei Sejoerar twav, @ dv., Aewydpns atrownpicacbat & AtomreiOns kndectis Sv adtod kateyrnpicato; KTH. Also 1.237,2917,83'740 4.14 8.18 9.15 10.138. With in- dignant irony: 3.65 Hlevoxre? 6& dv tis dd éérpee TaV Tod Ilvppov Oetwv, ci Hv yunola Ovydrnp éxeive xatarerropérvn, NaBovra eye . ..5 my vouionte tpeis, @ dv. 10.17 4 erepor per, dtav crept xpnudrav SvaTvyaat, Tors opetepovs avTav Traidas eis Erépous olxous elorrotodat, iva pi meTaoxwat THS TOD TaTpds ATiuias’ ovToL bé dpa eis bmrdypewy ovolay Kal oiKov eicetroiovy adds avtots, tva Kal Ta brdpxovra mpocatroréceav ; ov« éott Tadta xTrA. Also 3.3827 12.8. The element of appeal is more prominent in the following, a) appeals to the judges’ intelligence and fairness: 1.11 was yap dv ev hpovav, ® av., KaK@s Troteiv Huas EBovrAnOn, Tors pyndev avrov noixnkoras ; ib. 27 Kaitou, & dv., Tivas Gv GAdovs Tadra eye éBov- AnOn paArAXroY } TovTOUS, ods Kal Cov ex THY avTOD TAEciaTA TOV oixelwv adder; 5.21,21 eel, & dv., e& Arc. ddrAnOF Adyar, TL Hues aperovpeba vixnoavres, ) Ti obros éEnwiwOn HrTnOels ; i yap améoTn povov..., Th eEnusovro adiotapevos Ov tipnv eiyev; Also 1.35,36 12.6. b) appeals to their opinion: 3.54 was obv tis capéorepov eEereyxor™ rpevdouaptuptav Siocwv xTrA.; 11.47 dpa puxpa ra Sidpopa éxatépas THs ovolas juav éori; ib. 23 ap’ tuiv o vopos Soxei trovety é€ovclay Kxowwwvias, cTr.; 8.43 dpa ep) pixpav tiwav Huiv Tov ayova Kateckedaxe; 9.26 th ody ypn, O av., dvowa Odabat ToUTw T@ avopl, davis EOédea obtw fpagdiws Sia Td éavTod Képdos TaY 29 While the omission of dy here can hardly be defended (héchst zweifelhaft bet Prosaikern, Kihner, Gram. II! 895.6 ; see especially Gildersleeve, Syntax of Clas- sical Greek, I 450), this optative, clearly of appeal (‘how should one?’), is not to be confounded with the usual potential opt. with d» of assertion (‘ how can one? ’= ‘it is impossible for one’). See Scho. (pp. 254 f.) who defends the omission and especially Roeder (pp. 48 ff.) who not only defends the pure optative here but con- tends for it also at 4.19 and 7.36. With dv omitted, these last would be questions of appeal, but following Scheibe’s reading (with dv), I have put them under ques- tions of assertion (p. 38). The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 37 teOvewtov Tivos Katarpevdecbar; Also 3.43,49%,77. In some, his own opinion (ofma: or vouito, with pe solitarium™) is added in rhetorical answer: 11.26 més ypy motods elvar voulfev Tors TOvTwY Adyous; éy@ pev olopat ovdapas. 9.31 Soxel dv ody duly *Aotudiros, @ av., olTw wev picdv...3 eyo wev ovx dv olopas, ef kal dSexdeis xTrd. Also 8.11. More indignant are: 3.24? 1.25 2.39 6.56 3.17,33,737 4.15 3.11. Questions in exclamation.—Lastly an appeal may be put in the form of an interrogative exclamation: 7.40173 Kak totrwv tiva Aectoupylay ov é€edertovpynoev; 7) Tiva eiohopay ovK« év mpwTos elonveyxev ; 7) TE TaparéAouTrey Ov mpoajKev ; 4.20? ri yap wrrodelreras T@ SvappHoyny omoroyoovrs; ib. 25 Kara Sdow yap eyovtos trod émt- Sedicacpevov, Ti havodytar AeyorTes of KaTA TO yévos AayXaVOTES ; 10.18? kal ris tuadv tadTa TecOnoeTar; 1.20 Th yap av yévoiTo ravTns pavia pelSov, ctr. Also 4.4 9.26. 4.7173 is a unique instance of light humor, so rare in Isaeus: the arrival of Nicos- tratus’s fortune suddenly plunges an incredible horde of pseudo- adopted sons into mourning, Tis yap ov« arrexelpato, érred}) Tw SU0 tardvrw é€& Axis nAOeTov; # Tis od wérXav iwariov épdpycer, ws OLa TO mev0os . ..3 4 wdaot ouyyevels Kal viels Kata Sdow mpoceTroincayTo tav Nixoorpatov ; * 3. QUESTIONS OF ASsSERTION.—The remaining questions,” not lacking elements common to those already cited, but possessing none in any marked degree, are classified as rhetorical equivalents of positive and negative assertion. These have a more formal character, the type® of the majority being a conditional sentence, the apodosis of which is put in interrogative form, introduced by més ov, if equivalent to a positive assertion, by ws, if equivalent to a negative assertion. For the most part, these occur without rhetorical answer. a) Questions equivalent to positive assertions: 1) without rhetorical answer: 6.46 cairo. mas obtos ob cadas eEedéyyer adTos avrov Ta 30 See Rhetorical Answer, p. 39, 7. 37. 81 The last (4.73) might also be regarded as a question for amplification, see the list of claimants which follows in 33 8 f. 32 Excepting those in combination with other figures, see below. 33 See n. 19, above. 38 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. aevdh penaptupyxdra ; ib. 58 xairor mas ob Sewdv, & dv., mpos Gedy ’Orupriav, eb KTr.; 11.4 ef O€ Tor pndev TovTwy eer eirreiv, TAS ovK dreyyOjoetat KTr.; 9.37 ei yap TodTov éroijoaTo vioy..., TAS od dd£eu Tois axovcact Trapavoeiv KTr.; 2.25 was ody od oxéTMa Adyar halverat ; ib. 271? mas od POovepds éoruy ; ghavas éEeréyxerat avardys dy; ib. 48 mas ovK av dewov... KaTa- yéracrov Soxoln KTr.; 4.19" mas od av avoowTaTos ein KTA.; Also 11.13,14. 2) with rhetorical answer: 7.40°° 8.2874% (F 23.17*°), cited under dvadextixdy (p. 34). b) Questions equivalent to negative assertions : 1) without rhetorical answer: 6.54 xairot rs oldv Te etdévat, @ av.; ib. 9 was dv Tis TODTOY TOApHoELEY EitrEiy WS OvK Ev eppdver; 7.86 Tis av Audis ByTHoELE KTH. ; TOS ov TTrept- 9.12 was elds dot adrnOeis civat tas SiaOynKas ; 6.531 was av Trepi- favéotepov ekeheyy Gein xTr.; 3.64 Tis dy ayevov } 6 Twathp Bov- AetoaiTo; Also 8.287 11.24 12.9 1.207 4.12,28. 2) with rhetor- ical answer: 7.82 mas dv mpocedécxnoey ...; ov éviv édXtricat SHrovOev. 11.19 ri ere Sei padeiv twas ...; eyo pév yap ws ev ppovovor tpiv ixava ra eipnueva vowito. Questions in combination with other figures.— Besides the questions already classified, several remain which seem to be inseparably connected with other figures and with figures of a particular group, namely, those, which naturally fall into interrogative form, hypophora, apostrophe, and prosopopoeia: a) Questions in hypo- phora:™ 2.217% 3,727,738! 4.24 5.457546 7.83? 11.257? Cf. 4.20%. b) Questions in apostrophe: 6.251726 (4-fold). 3.69, 70,71 (8-fold). 11.51? (2-fold). 3.411? (id.); 45,46 (id.); 48°49" (id.). The interlocking of the last two with 3.481? 49? (appeal) should be noted: 3.481? (addressed to the judges) are merely repetitions of 3.45,46 (addressed to the opponent) and the second thrust at the opponent in 3.48749 (4 «al radta radeiv ceavTov mpooroimoe; xTr.) is followed in turn by a final appeal to the judges (§ 497). c) Questions in prosopopoeia: 6.53? 8.2417. Distribution.—F rom the classified distribution according to ora- tions, presented in the Tabular Summary (p. 54), it will be observed The examples which follow have already been cited under their respective heads. The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 39 that the total number (161) exceeds the number of Teubner pages (188), showing that Isaeus makes abundant use of this figure. Relatively, Or. 3 leads with 40, or an average of over two per Teubner page. It also leads in the frequency of questions in cumulative form, e. ., 3.36173, 3712; ib. 48125, 4912; of. §§ 69-73; elsewhere with more effect, e. g., 8.2817 6.25123, 26 7.40 1-3: 4-6 ef. F 23.1°-§2)-* 11.24,25123.96, RuetoricaL ANSwER.—That a rhetorical question neither re- quires nor expects an answer, does not, as already stated,® pre- clude the orator from answering it rhetorically. Of this form of emphasis, employed previously ** by Andocides alone but exten- sively by Demosthenes later, Isaeus makes liberal use, regularly in asyndeton. In seven instances, of which 8.51 8.11 9.31 11.26 follow appeals to the judges’ opinion, he emphasizes his own opinion or convictions by the use of wey solitarium:* 3.37,51 11.19 éy@ pev yap (od) voullo. 8.11 11.26 éy® pév ofpar odd (odSapas). 9.31 éym pév ove av olomas, ef Kal Sexanis o ‘lepoxdis SiaOjKas ypevdeis amrodexvier (-o1 Bl.), etrA. 1.29 GAA Tadra bev, © dv., TOAAHY amotiav éye. Four instances in Or. 3, with striking similarity of phrasing, are reinforced by oath: §§ 25, 49 var pa Aia, ws éywye Ounv, el ye Fv adnOes 7d rpdyua. § 48 vy AZ’, et Hv aANOH KTA. § 89 vai wa Ala, ws eywr’ otal, xTr. His nega- tive and affirmative statements are strong and vary but slightly : 35 See n, 16, above. 36 Herforth (die Nachahmungen des Isae. wu. Isocr. Stils bet Demos., Progr., Griineberg i. Schles., 1880, p. 7) finds only three instances (Andoc. 1.22,89,102), Lincke, p. 55. 31 By pév solitarium is meant the occurrence of a vév without a corresponding 6é or its equivalent, dAdd, etc. Its force becomes apparent from itssphere: a) cwriously with the first person (expressed) of verbs of thinking, in varying forms, e. g., 12.7 éya wav yap otk olwac, ‘for my part’ (sc. let others think as they may), either modestly or with a tone of superiority : 3.27 tuérepov ob» epyov oxépacbat viv, el Soxet moroy elvac Td mpaypa. eyo wey yap voulfw, ék Trav elxéTwy okorovpevos, ToND apy BaNoy kTA. 10.18 éyu dé ofwat wey ob Slxaroy elvar (humbly), contrast 71 Oat pmév, & dy. xrrA. 21 pyoduny perv, © dv, xrh. 5.1 pbmeda per, w dy, Kr. (see p. 80, m. 8). Also 3.87,51 8.11 9.31 11.19,26 in rhet. ans., above. b) emphasizing a statement (6.1) or more often a single word, notably: 1.1 rod mev 4% peraBory por yéyover. 1.29 ddA Tatra per, & dv., roddyy dmiorlay Exe. 5.86 €repor pev xr, with no ellipsis of obros 8 ot here nor of xara 5¢ déow in 9.2 wore vév et bh ey krh. 9.19 dx prBas mev goew. Also 2.15 3.74 5.18,24,40,43 7.22. c) in combi- 40 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 8.32 11.12 odSapas Syrovbev. 7.82 od« eviv éraricar Sxrrovbev. 2.39 obde ev [v. R. ode] Sxrov. 10.17 ove gots radra. 8.28" olmai ye. ib. 28% eixds ye. ib. 28° avarynn weydry. [id. F 23.1179]. 3.66 um voplonte dpeis, & av. ib. TT GAN dpels, Os eywr’ olpas, od TITTEVTETE KTV. The following short, sharp statements resemble rhetorical answer in form and effect: 8.12 eixérws, d av. (following a state- ment regarding the superior trustworthiness of slave-testimony under torture). 10.23 totro yap Sixaidy éort. Cf. 3.384 word ye pdduct av, KTr. 8.38,383 SHrov yap Ste Ovyarnp maioes 8y- aroubev. ASYNDETON and PoLysynpETon.*—Asyndeton is the omission of connectives, polysyndeton the cumulation of them. Special ornament was probably felt in the former since in daily speech and all forms of literature syndetic prodigality was the rule, an asyndetic sentence the exception. Like anaphora and chiasmus they should be studied together, since the effect of each may be heightened by combination.” Asyndeton.—Isaeus employs asyndeton neither sparingly nor without variety and effect. Even its occurrence in the resump- tion of the speech after the introduction of laws or testimony, one of its weakest forms, is at times remarkably effective. Excep- tionally so is the interruption of the clerk at 11.51 (émioyes). Rhetorical question follows in 3.39,43 (indignant appeals to the judges, beginning Saxe? av iuiv) and 8.14' (rivas eixds eiddvar Ta manrata ;) and ib. 28° (wébev ypy xTr.;). Pathos and irony are nation with other particles, uev ofy 4.5 8.3; kat wey 64 10.12. Besides these, exam- ples of what may be called pseudo-pév solitarium are frequent, ¢.9., of wey... wer ... 6€ (dravdrnyis of wév) 6.10 2.42 f. 3.45,64f.; of mpdrov pév... frara (era), very often, 1.31 8.8,78 4.14,15 5.2 9.14,21,80,36 10.7 12.9, Also 7d pév mparov .. » éredh 5é, 4.9; wey... ddd, 6.43; uev od . . . ob why ddd, 8.5. Occasional care- lessness in the use of pév occurs, e.g., 8.18 4.18,22,29 5.4; or omission, e. g., 6.1 rovs [udv], line 2; 2b. rpogdew [uér], 1. 6; or sparing use, e, g., no instance on p. 98. [References.—Especially H. Schafer, De nonnullarum particularum apud Anti- phontem usu, diss., Gétt., 1877, pp. 34 ff. OC, Wetzell, Beitrage z. d. Gebrauche einiger Partikeln bei Antiphon, diss., Frank. am Main, 1879, p. 10, w. references. O. Ocltze, De particularum yév et 5é apud Thucydidem usu, diss., Halle, 1887, pp. 5 ff.] 88 Cf. Arist. 1 146; Hermog. II 435; Gerb. II! 211; Volk. 478. 59 Rarely in Isaeus, ¢. g., 11.5 5.10 2.14 7.41-42. The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 41 present in 5.25 (vadra pév memdvOapev td Aux., & dv.) and ib. 89 (eis wev THY TOA ObTw Kal TooadTa AcheTOUpynKe ALK. ad TOTCOUTMY xpnudrov). Also following testimony: 5.38,4 6.8,9,49 7.22,23, 26,29,37 9.5,19 10.8 11.1,6,12. In transitions: 10.22 8.46; at the beginning of the Sijynous, following an introductory ydp, two notable examples, 10.4 odros €XaBe x7H., especially 7.517 with 3-fold polyptoton of the demonstrative. Also 6.19'*. His use of the demonstrative (including ofrws, etc.) in resuming or com- menting on a previous statement, has unusual power: there is bitter irony in 2.23 (tobr’ gore 5 eérretipa), ib. 87 (roLodtds éorev obros); cf. ib. 21 (ody obras obtds éott pidoxprmaros); ib. 20; denunciation in 7.21 (es todo avatdelas éXndUOacr); ib. 23 (otra THy dvaidetay oddewiav Enuiav eivae vopiovar); 5.11 (ets rodTo BBpews wal prapias apixeto). Also: 8.24 (tadr’ eireiv mpoohxer). 3.231 (wera Svoty rovrow); ib. 237 (rovadra wév 7a TovTwv); ib. 67 (ratra mpds THY dvaiseav adtdv ruvOdvecbe); 7.451 (radTa wavra oxeyrauevot); ib. 9 (tovodros Hv exeivos); and 1.11 (but see Mne. 1x 440) 5.10 6.62% 7.1,16,28,45,45 8.36 11.3,427,43,44. The restless, impatient effect of this figure sometimes appears in the abrupt and occasionally brusque commands given to the clerk. Barring seven instances in Or. 3 (§§ 7, 12, 15, 42, 58, 56, 76) and the exceptional interruption cited above (11.5), Isaeus is uniformly polite in this respect, prefacing his command with xai por (€. g., 2.16,34 5.2,2,4 6.7,8,11,16,37,48 7.10 8.17,42 10.7), av 8é, etc. No impoliteness is felt in the asyndetic avad@nté pou kal rovr@v wdprupes (9.28) and adrol tuiv of Oacdrar paptuprjcov- ow (ib. 80), but the curt AaBe 7d yygiopa of 6.50 and rafe Kal ravTnv Thy waptupiav of 9.33 betray some impatience. Asyndeton is most effective, however, in its cumulative form, i. €., in an uninterrupted, asyndetic procession of words or clauses which form a connected whole. The prominent feature here is rapidity, e. g., 11.43 (4-fold) yopis d€ tovrey Katédimev ériTa, mpdBata, xpiOds, olvov, drrapas. ib. 41 (4-fold) édaxev dypov Tov ’Brevoiv Svoiv raddvrow, mpdBara éEjnovta, alyas éxatdv, émuTha, trmov Naumpdv. Cf. F 23.8. Two examples in the epilogue of Or. 6, the agonistic” character of which should be specially noted : 40 See n. 7, above, and Jebb IT 307. 42 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. §§ 64, 65 &re 8é wrod TéOamrat, év molos pynpact: Tis cide TA Vvope- Sdueva trowodvra Eixrynpova; § 62 yéypamras as ov ewxev odde Siero DidontHpwov: rodTo émidddecxtar yeddos dv. 2.14 ov8” acbevav: add tyaivov, eb dpovav, eb vodv. 8.29 map’ éexeivo tpepopevny, Ovyatépa vouifomevny, dis éxdoGeicar, Sis eyyunbeioav.™ ib. 45 é« paprupiav, é« Bacaver, é& abitav trav vopwr. ib. 34 Tov TaTpoav, TAY TaTToeav, TaV étt Tepattépw. 11.35 TadTa meydra Sixaid éort, tadra Kal oi vdpot xedevovowv, A striking example occurs in the prosopopoeia at 8.24 ,,ovd dé” ris ef; col S€é Th rpoorxet Oamrrew; ov yiyvooKkw ce: ov pH eloet eis THY oixiav.” 11.6 ard- Kptow ov dédaxev, ov paptupas TapéaxeTo, oY SpKoY dpmocev, ov Vd“ov avéyvoxev, Other clausal asyndeta, not cumulative: 11.57% éparncw aé. aderAdds eof 6 mais xtTrX. 5.43 Tov pév TovTOU oiKOY at, @ Atx., «Tr. (also in apostrophe). 7.411? (éud ye etpyoere ob aypya- tov), éotpaTevyas Tas oTpatelas TH TOdEL, TA TPOTTATTOMEVA TTOLA (making the statements distinct and isolated). 9.87 avTuBoro twas. Also: 8.64 4.22 (cuveddvrs) 6.97% (€av wx) 8.9 (avdyen) 9.35 (arédea tyiv) 11.47 F. 23.8. Finally, asyndeton occurs very frequently in question and answer: a) in question: 3.32 tivos évexa; (abrupt). 11.5% (ré TOUT@V TOV dvoudTwv, KTD.). 3.39,43; b) in answer : (rhetorical) 2.39 3.25,39,48,49,65 7.32 8.11,32,33 9.31 10.17 11.12,26 Cf 8.12 (eixdTws, & av.) ; following questions for amplification: 1.23 5.18 6.35,36,63 8.9 11.11,44; others: 8.29 10.14; c) in both ques- tion and answer: 8.14'~* (rivas ...3; S#AXov Gre Tas -..3 tovs KTA.) 1b. 281" (wdbev...; ov« ee... 3 olual ye. wdbev 8é...5 ov é«...3 ends ye.mdbev 8 ...3 ote ee. ..3 avdynn pweydAn. Cf F 23 1-7 i, 27-*. Polysyndeton—As asyndeton lent a cumulative effect, poly- syndeton draws attention to each separate element in the enumer- "| Also the following participial clauses, in pairs: 2.6,14 3.68 7.2,48 8.7,36,42 9.31 10.5,18; in genitive absolute: 7.15,17,48. “ On the indignant dé (absorbed in the pronoun) in exclamation and interroga- tion, see Sché., p. 890. 8 But Herw. and Naber read dypyaorop bs 7 éorpdrevuat.. . rody, see Mne. Ix (1881) 892; v (1877) 418. The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 43 ation.“ Only instances, in which the conjunctive particle is re- peated not less than three times, beginning with the first word, are cited:* a) of words, 7.85,36 x. tpinpapyelv x. modepelv x. xopnyeiy x. wav? . .. moteiv, GoTrEp KaKeivos. xKalrou ei K. cUYYyEVIS Kk. piros Kk. evepyérns x. pirdriuos x. SeSoxtwacpevos ctr. Further examples of cumulative polysyndeton are: 4.27,27 x. érevtovpynoev bpiv K. elonveyKe, K. GAAWS oTrovdaios Hv ToAiTHS: adTol 5é obToL obre amrodednujkacw ... ot’ évOdde pevovtes aypnatol eiot TH mMOrE, GANA K. oTpaTEevovTaL K. ciadepovet K. TaAXA TdVTA TroLOdaL Ta TpocTaTTopeva K. avTOUS ... Kocpmious Tapéyovewv. 1.26 évavTia K. TOS vows K. TH OiKaiw K. TH TOD TeTEMEUTHKOTOS yvOun Whpicac- Oat. ib. 85 «. vou x. Stxalous x. Savoia. ib. 89 x. h ocuyyevea K. ot véwor K. 4 Tap buav aioytvn. 5.10 K. émitporros Kx. Kdpios kK. avridicos. 6.1 Kx. ouveEérdevca Kk. cuvedvaTbynoa x. éddoper. ib. 21 «. thy yuvaina x. Tovs mraidas K. THY oixiav, ib. 39 pyre taiv Ouvyarépow unte TH yuvatxl avdrod pnte TOv oiketwv pyndevi. 4.18 ove avoclrous ote Pidous ovr’ év take. TH adTH. b) of phrases, €. g., 8.46 ponobévtes obv x. THY SpKkwv obs dudcartes SixaleTe, K. TOV Adyav ods cipnKapmer, K. TOV vopwv, 7 Sixatdy éoTL, TaUTH THY Wiipov THecGe (near end of epilogue). Also with cai: 1.7 2.36 3.51 5.385 6.4,17; with ove, eire: 1.40 ode dpa Sikata odd piv avrois cuudéepovta ovde Trois vdpois oporoyovmeva >ndueiobe. 6.21 a? id dappdxov e0 bd veoov & bm addov Tivds. Also 3.52 11.7. Hardly less effective are four instances where the conjunctive particle does not begin with the first word: 6.18 «ai yap ovola Hw ok drtyn abt@ kal Traides Kal yur, Kal TAAN’ errverKas ebriyer. 12.8 uGddov 4 TH warp TH Edgursjrou x. émol x. TH AdEAPO Kk. tTois ppdropar x. wdon TH HueTépa cuyyevelg. 7.42 ddrdos Te Kal ToUT@Y ... avnpnKdr@y x. TempaxdTwv K. Epnpov TETOLNKOTOV, 1) jL@V 88 x. AereToupynxdreav dn K. AevToupynocvTwy (with effective homoioptoton). 11.5 aSerpds éo6’ 6 mais “Ayviou, i) aderdidods “Of, Arist. I 146 (év tow xpbvyp Toda Soxel elpfjodar* 4 yap obvderpos ev ro Td moddd, wor’ édv earpeO7, S@Aov Bre Tobvayrlov ~orat 7d év 7oAXG). 45 The following occur in pairs, of words: (kal) 2.18,24,82,32,36,47 4.381 5.82,35 6.49,61,62 7.8,14,42 8.12 9.8,5,18,18,20,22 11.1849 12.9; (obre) 3.42,68 4.8; (ure) 8.28 6.47; of phrases: (kal) 1.5,9,17,19,29,86,41,45,47 4.13 5.31 6.5,9 7.16,25,80,86 8.18,38,44 9.4,81 11.89,50 12.11; (ovre) 1.29 4.29 6.26,58; 1.49 (uyre) ; 9.8 (etre). 44 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. €& aderhod 9 e& adeAPis yeyovds, i) aveyids, 7) e& aveipiod mpos Lntpos mpos matpos ; ib. 36 SuaBaAdrv Kal Tors vomous Tapdyeov KTH. Hyprrpaton.—In a broad sense, hyperbaton is any unnatural or unusual word-order (verbi transgressio).6 On its distinctly rhetorical® side, it refers to an abnormal separation of words grammatically and logically connected. Thus, an important word or phrase may, by removal from its natural position, be made emphatic and at the same time secure attention, since the hearer is kept in suspense till the necessary words follow, e. g., 8.40,40 obros wey yap éyet THY ovciav, ag’ Hs viv éott Namrpds, &NROT Pian ovdcpiav... dsaOnnenv. 11.22 ad obtos .. 707 dn WAdTTEL. 6.23 é éxelvov pev ovK av ert yévowTo maises tavtny THY niKiay ExovTos. 10.9 yunalou yap dvTos avt@ Anpoydpous vidos, 1.25 da th otw ev Etépm@ ypdrpas aita ypapparei@ xr. 8.31 (Sdons). 3.6 (eyyunris). ib. 33 (axptBas). Less usual is an interlocked arrangement, notably 5.41 «al rovrov Haptipia év Tois iepois avaOnwara éxeivot ex TOV TepidvT@Y, mYnmEela THS avTav apeths, avéBecav. 3.51 ote pndée 7d SéeaTov pépos érioods éxdodvar TH yunoia Ovyatpl trav tatpdwv. 4.21 ardov mordol On Tay év TH bTEpopia ATroOvnaKdYT@Y OSE YyLyVeoKoVTES éviovs Tis otclas HudicBytrnoav. -Of. 1.27,28 8.4,22,45. In the separation of the article and its noun, no special rhetorical force was detected. The following examples of words, made emphatic by being put last, may be added, e. g., 8.16 Kal ras éopras ijryomev map éexeivov madaas. 7.5 rovrows otciay 6 marnp kaTéAuTre TONAHY. ib. 7 nal tHv ovalay érroince KopicacOa Thy abtod waaav. 11.22 (wavrov). ib. 25 (udev); cf. ib. 15 (ob88 xara puxpev). F 23.2 (wéoas). Still another form of hyperbaton is PARENTHESIS (srapeuBory* or brepBatov Kata rapévOecw).— ‘6 Various terms arise as this affects two words only (anastrophe), separates a compound word (¢mesis), interrupts a sentence (iepBardv ard rapevOeow), violates the sequence of thought (hysteroproteron), or obscures the meaning (faulty hyper- baton or synchesis). Tib. (III 74) makes a 2-fold division: cara mapévOeow 4 xara dvarrpopyy ; cf. Q. VIII 6.62; Gerb. I 585; Volk. 486. “le. g., tmesis and anastrophe are grammatical. “Cf. Alex. III 89 (robro 7d oxfua rapaxetoOat pev done? TH vrepBarg, ered} Herat) ris Kara plow auvrdtews Tod Nbyou rlOeral Tis NbYos, Siagéper 5é exelvov... The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 45 Parenthesis has been aptly defined as ‘the principle of tmesis ap- plied to sentences.’ As an element of style it plays no promi- nent part in Isaeus. Besides variations of the usual &> dacw, etc.,” the following were found, mostly in narrative: 6.18 éddxee eddaimov elvat (Kal yap ovola fy ov« drétyn abt@ Kal mraides Kal yuri}, kal Tarn’ érrveieds edtbyer) ib. 8 eEov auduoBythoa AOnvaiwrv Te Bovdropevy «tr. (stating the case). 10.18 (od yap rodrd éote oxer- Téov, GAG TO TpGypwa ei Sixasov } wn) 3.64 (wep) dv ris dv dpevorv ) 6 mathnp Bovrevoasto ;) ib. 71 mpds € rovTas (TovTt yap Td Sewvdv éorw) 4.15 (rapa ravrwv yap @poddyntat Tois éyyuTat@ yévous Ta Tov TeAevTHcavTos yiyverOat) ib. 17 (ov yap dv joa revdouaptupiav émioknwes) 5.12 kal mpoofjKoyv ait@ Tod KAjpou pépos dcov ep éuol, 2.33 ddv €0é\wow avaBaivew (cial yap tovtwy oixeior) ib, 32 @pdoapev e0 troteiy GAXAGS Ex TOD émtAOlmoU yYpdvoV, KaTa Stvaptv eivar. 1.41 ypy O¢, & av, ..., Owep woveite (a graceful compliment to the judges). 2.1836 kai éyo nal 7 yuvyn 9 éuyH. 9.11 py Soxodvra civas HAMOtov. ib. 12 TovTwy dé Hy TOV padiota ypwpevoy «Tr. Also 11.17,27,27. Related®™ to hyperbaton, and to parenthesis especially, is HypostropHe.—In hypostrophe, the orator catches up the thread of his narrative after a parenthesis or several parenthetical clauses and makes a fresh start. This is done either by repeat- ing the subject, or, as in the case of Isaeus, by adding the de- monstrative, ¢. g., 1.28 Kredvupos & bs fv... ofros pdvos éBovrero xTr. 10.12 ovde’Ap. ye ode ’Arr., ols ..., ode TOUTOLS e&jv. 12.9 6 matinp 6 huérepos, bv-.., ob TOS KTA. 8.16 Te h 58 wapepBory lilav Exee Sidvorav: Kal ris pev brepBdoews, Bray ri pépos r&v brapxévrwy Epys, BAdwes Tov voiv kal Td oXua dvaiphoes~ i twapeuBory de kat dn dpOeioa ob BAdwre Thy didvoav). Wolk. 437. 49 Moore, p. 35. 50 ¢, g., 1.20,21,24,29 3.18,88,89 4.24 6.41,44,66 11.16,387 4.27 (Ws mdvres toact) 6.10 (dv adrp) 8.9 (ws uewaprépyxev obros) 1,11 {elr’ dpOds etre ph) 8.25 (vat ua Ala, ds Zywye Suny, el ye Hv dAnes 7d wpayua) cf. 1b. 39,49. 1¢, g., Tib. (III 74), having divided hyperbaton into ¥. card rapévOeow and 4. xara dvacrpodyv, by his examples identifies the latter with troorpopy. Cf. Hermog. (II 438) who identifies hyperbaton with parenthesis. 52 Of. Hermog. II 345 (éfa:petras rolvuy bmriérnra Abyou) and Anon. ILI 1389 (Brep év TG péow Sexbuevov emeuBodhy Epxerar wadey éri rhv adiynowv) ; anacolutha are rare in Isaeus: Lincke (pp. 88 f.) cites 1.20 2.14,42 9.15; cf. 11.10 (inaccuracy) and 1.10,12,49 (probably corrupt), see Blass Il 531. 46 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. Aul te O0wv TH Kryoiw, mepl iv... Ovolav TaUTNS HES éxowvovodpev. 8.77 THY otTw KoLWhY ravTnv KTrA. 9.4 08 bé plrou atrol kal mpovervto xt. So 3.19,20 5.12. Akin to hypostrophe is a favorite form of emphasis with Isaeus, the con- densation of one or more clauses into a single word. Typical instances are: 2.48,48 ef mpoddcw... was ov av Sewov...; Kal > t n a 2 A X a f > > 3 ov povov TadT’ éaTi Ta TroLobVTa Me... aNd Eb KTH. ,TauT éotl Ta AUTODYTGa pe. ib.23...ToVvT’ éorwi éritia. Also 1.6 2.13,20 3.9,51,61,67,79 4.19,22,26 6.28,52,64 7.1,10,13, 45,45 8.6,24,380 9.5 10.8,5 11.17,25,27,30,33,35. The fol- lowing with obras: 6.44 ot8 ef yvijow hoa ove” oUT@ mpoohcev «Tr. 7.43 BovrAopar Sia Bpaydwy twas bropvyjcas ottw KataBaivew. 8.44 bs poryds AnPOels Kal maday 6 TH mpooncee . .. 008’ @¢ «Tr. Also: 8.4,12,18 11.18,35. Cf. a similar use of Tove, €. g., 2.42 ef Hvixa pév 0 Meverdrfs eixé Tt, Tore pev axa éuavtov vidv ait@ tomocacba (with epanalepsis of pév). 6.40 088 érrerdy ovdé Tote. tb. 82 9.15. OaTHS (6m0TLKa ox pata)™.—Compared with his prede- cessors,*! Isaeus makes frequent use of oaths under the four fol- lowing forms: 1) vai »a.—This earlier form, in Demosthenes and later writers entirely usurped by the derived form v7, is used by Isaeus alone of all the orators.” The three instances occur in rhetorical answer: 3.25,39,49 vat wa Ada, as éywye Gunr, el ye Hv adnOes To wpiyypa. 2) wa.—11.35,35 od wa Ava ob——ovd wa Al? otk. ib. 86 oiuat pa Tods Oeovs ovd tpas ayvoeiv. 4.24 wa Av’ add ode eotw. 8.29 eywye pa tods Beads Tods "OrAvpmiovs. F 23.2. 38) v4.—A favorite form in hypophora, €. J., 8.24 icws yap jv vy Alia mdpepyov etd. ib. 73 4.20 (adda vy Ata). 7.383 (4 vy Ada). Also 3.48 vy Al’, ef Hv adnOF KTr. (in rhet. answ.). 6.61 @o7 ob POoveicOai eiow aEtoL, AXAA TOAD paddrov vi Alia wai tov ’AmérrA® obro. 4) rpdés.—ln im- perative and interrogative sentences: 2.47 mx cepildnte, mpos Oedv kal Satpdvar, «tA. 6.58 Kalror mas od Sevdv, @ adv., 38 Hermog. II 442; cf. expdvnois (exclamation), Volk. 498, *4e, g., only three instances are cited (Lys. 18.95 19.34,54) by Kihnlein (De vi et usu precandi et iurandi formularum apud decem orr. Att., Program, Neustadt a. d. H., 1882. 5 Kiihnlein, p. 50. The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 47 mwpos Gedy "Odummlav, etr.; F 23.1 wdbev ypy mioreverOar Ta eipnuéva pos OeHv; No examples of curses were found. Of the remaining tropes and figures, which, in a strict sense, neither fall under the divisions already treated nor form a sepa- rate class by themselves, the most important, e. g., irony, oxymo- ron, and metaphor, are more nearly related to the figures just considered. Two purely stylistic features, hiatus and address, are added in conclusion. ’Amoctomnats, Tapadrecrwes, and Stamwdpyacs' form a natural group. Their rhetorical effect,? familiar to modern oratory, 1s essentially the same; in azrociwmnow a real omission is made, but made in such a way that the thing omitted gains exaggerated importance and tends to arouse in the mind of the judges the gravest suspicions against the speaker’s opponent ; * in maparers, while pretending to pass the point over in silence, the orator has managed to say all that he wished ;* and in &az- pnows the same pretense of omission is made, coupled with feigned perplexity and doubt.’ Isaeus rarely makes use of these figures in their perfected rhetorical form, e. g., the nearest approach to Svamdpnows is found in 1.34 aan éywye, ef xatnyopety éBovrAovTO Tov SiaOynxav 7) Tod TereNevTHKOTOS, OvK 010 6 TL AY GAXAO TpPOS Das elrov, cTA. Of rrapddenfis, however, an excellent example occurs at 5.17 érresdn 8& toiro havepov éyévero eEatpeOeicoy TaV ~hdov, & mev Tov SixacTav Kal juav edenOn Acwydpns 7) boa hpiv éeEeyévero dvampdéacOar Tote, ovK 018 & te Set Adyew, & SE GporoynOn Hpiv, tabdta dxovoate. Of. 3.45 meph mer ody ths émidicaclas éxou dv THs eddos mpopacicacbat rpds buds: 7) yap Nabeiv odds mpooroncatt’ 1The Latin terms are reticentia (praecisio), praeteritio, and dubitatio respec- tively. 2 arbre wapddeis kal droousmyots ylverar; bray BovdyOdpev Thy brévoray pelfova karacrfoa. Too mpdyyaros év 7H yuan Tay axovbvrwr Aéyouev. Hermog. II 430. 3 drooubryols gore Oyos ertrelywy 7d Tapaciwmrduevov } maparelrwy TO yiwwoKdpevor, owner 7d alcxpov. Alex. III 22; cf. Tib. III 62 d. é. bray wéddwy deve mpdyya aérd per drocwmrhay, Thy 56 drévoiay abrod Karadiry. Volk. 503. Sar. é., Bray Soxodyrés Te mapadireiy undév Hrrov héeywper airé. Alex, III 28; cf. Tib. III 60; Volk. 501. 53. 2, Srav Ws Siamopay Tus d det elev ndxeiva kal Ere whelw heyy. Tib. IIT 61; cf. Q. IX 2.19; Volk. 496. 48 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. dv oftos, ) al WevSeoOar aiti@r’ dv Huds. Todro pev ody Tapapev (illustrating the transitional® feature of this figure). So 11.20 Toru pe SiaBddrew drra Te TOAAA, Tepl dy Toujoouat TOUS Adryous raya, xTr. 1b. 44 4 wey Toivyy Ztpatokdéovs obcla Kal melov ravrns éotiv: GN Vorepov Tep) THY mapaxreTrToMevov bd TovT@V «tr. In 5.89 there is a sort of combination of aroctwrnos and mapdrenpis: THY S€ pntépa tiv TovToOV KaOnpevnv év TO... lep@ mdvres éopav, kal TOUTH éyKadodaar & eyo aicxtvopar Néyetv, obToS 8 moray otk yoxdvero. In rpodidpOacus’ or praemunitio, the speaker, suspecting that what he is about to say will give offense, seeks the good will of his hearers by assuming an apologetic tone, e. g.,in 5.8 he takes pains to explain that no reflection is cast on the court, which, misled and deceived, had previously decided against him: eis 88 75 Stxacrhpiov eicenOdvres . . . NOUKHOnMEV, Ody bd TOV SiKa- otav KT. 8.34 Sédona Sé pH Alay cporoyotmeva Adywv évoyreiy tpiv Sé&w rr. F 15.1 puxpa dé wou axovoate, iva pndels trordBy bpav os éyw mporerela i) GAAD Til AdiKia pds TA Evpdbous mpdy- pata mpoondOov. A kindred but weaker form is the orator’s promise to be brief: 6.9,19 7.4,43 11.382. No example of érrudidpOwars * was found. Communicatio® (avaxolvwars), or a pretended deliberation with the judges (in which the speaker poses as remarkably fair and sincere), occurs at 3.11 srepl dv ef Senoee cal? Exacrov SredOeiv, odk dv wdvv puxpov epyov yévouro. av peév ovdv bweis KedednTe, Trepl éeviwv punobelnv av abrav: ei S€ tio buoy andes drove éeotiv, KTH. In trrotes” or under-statement," a positive idea is made em- & nam nisi in transitionibus fere non adhibetur, Straub, p. 102. Tar. é., Brav wed\dAwpév Te Towbrov Aéyew, O Setral tTivos Oepamelas, wore wy Xareras abrd mpocdétacGar Tov dxpoarihy, Kal rpoPeparevwper atrév. Alex. III 14; cf. Tib. IIT 62 (x. €., bray bromredwy mporkpoverv 7d pnOnoduevov waparrArac rovs dxovovras). 8 Cf. Hermog. II 883; Alex. III 15; Gerb. II? 57; Volk. 496. 9Q. IX 2.20; Volk. 497. 10 Alex, (III 37) sub dvrevayriwois thus defines it: 8rav rd évavrlov byoud. Tivos Tiddvres ard éxetvo onualvwuer ; cf. Gerb, Il? 47; Volk. 484; C. Weyman, Studien uber die Figur der Litotes, diss,, Leipzig, 1886. Cf. Servius (Verg. Aen. I 77) : litotes fit, guotienscumque minus dicimus et plus significamus per contrarium intellegentes ; note, e. g., the periphrasis in 11.39 (elkdrws uv obk dy Exouu duper). The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 49 phatic by denying its opposite. The rhetorical force lies in the double negative thus arising, whether expressed or implied. Isaeus makes somewhat liberal use of this figure: 9.26 3.11 od puxpdv; 6.18 12.3 (-d); 7.29 10.20 (-Gs). 6.18 od« drtyn; 38.55 (-ov); 8.85 (-a). 7.84 od« dduxos; 5.11 (-Bv). 7.89 oddev adixdv. ib .45 8.46 avdev ayvociv. 8.29 ovdels dyvoei. 7.17 ode ayvootvtwy; ib. 19 (-wevov). ib. 17 ove amiorotvrwy; 12.11 (-civ). 1.7 obd8ey arronrel- movtes. 38.40 ovk arropd. ib. 79 ur) auvnpoveire. 4.14 wy rapavodr. 740 undev aroxptrtecOat. ib. 41,41 od xaxdv ovdé dypnatov. 9.11 od AdOpa. ib. 5 ov8 av adbros eapvos yévorro. 11.39 ov« av &youpe pépapu. Eaamples in Arsis.—The addition of the positive statement in arsis may weaken, but does not in all cases destroy, the effect of the preceding litotes, e. g.: 6.2 6 yap dyav od pixpos avrtois, GANG Trepl Tov meyictov. 7.34 8.4 11.36,38 (odK dyvody andra capes edas). 1.2 odK &yvoodrTes GANG. . . KaTAaYVOVTES. 8.15 odSemmmoTte...advev Huav aX... TavTaxod Trapi- pev. 9.8 6 wy dvevntrA. 11.6 od rpochKev Atopetv arr’ evOrs Agye.. 1.6 0d wiKpa arrodkadcati——@Ada ... TavTAa... Trepte- molnoe. 2.5 00K A potKor GrAAB THY tanv mpoika. ib. 19 arn ed dpovav. 7.37 od yap aypHaotous GAN... wpoOvumotdtovs. 8.1 obKn &ratdos TENEVTHTAVTOS, AAA’... Taldas .. . KaTAAEAOLTTOTOS. Oxymoron ” (o€vumpov) or paradox is the juxtaposition of words sharply antithetical and involving an apparent contradic- tion. Its sphere is a limited one, confined mainly to tragedy ; in oratory occurrences are rare.*= Though no example was found in Isaeus, not unlike in rhetorical effect are the following jux- tapositions, in which the antithesis is sharp but not contradictory : 5.8 of Sua tas THs méAcews cuugdopas éEovalav odiow aidrtois ov Tapavowr > A - , QAUTOUS EUPTOETE Hryobvro elvat KexTHoOal Te TaAAACTpLA KTA. 1b. 10 Kal ovde KaTa Td + - / an 2 / > t 2 2 ny édyworov pépos THS oiKetdtHTOS éX€ov Tap avTod érvyov. Cf. 8.40 ofros pev yap eyet THY ovciav, ad’ fs viv éoTt Naurpds, &rArAotplav. 5.11 apeddpevos adrov Ta dvTa wévyTa Tweroinxer, 2 Volk. 434, 18 See Rehdantz, s. v. Antithese. 50 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. Irony .—Sarcasm, scorn, reprobation, and the like, so often and so naturally accompany irony that no attempt is here made to follow the ancient rhetoricians in distinguishing its various forms and sub-divisions.% In Isaeus its sphere is practically con- fined to three orations (3, 5, and 2). The vigorous argumentation of Or. 3 repeatedly assumes an ironical tone, e. g., §§ 8-10: Nicodemus has testified that his sister was the legal wife of Pyrrhus. The falsity of this testimony is set forth in a series of non-rhetorical questions, the irony underlying which comes to the surface in such expressions as 4 éyyunTy yuvn and avryy éyyuicar™ (cf. § 78). In Or. 5, the carefully painted portrait of Dicaeogenes’s character does not lack the ‘stinging touches’ of bitter irony and indignation, e. g., the examination of Dicaeo- genes’s action against Cephisodotus, his own nephew, §§ 10-11. The irony of Or. 2, on the other hand, appears for the most part in an ironical repetition of epithets, suggesting affection, e. g., §§ 35 (6 Beios rolvuy obroa!); 24 (6 Sé Oeios obtoct otk aicytverat KTr.); 87 (obros 5é 6 ouyyerys, ... ToLodTds éotiv obros). Of. 5.24-5 (6Bpucpévos bd tod Aueasoyeévous. TavTa pev tremovOapev t7é Aux. xTr.) This concentration of indignant or bitter feeling into single words, usually those of good meaning,’ is a natural habit of irony, e. g., the indignant dé tocattns mpocddou ot Tw KaNXOS exopHyncer (1. €., TETAPTOS... Tpaywoois, Kal ruppiyLoTais totaros) of 5.86; the hypophoric aA a> otpatiotns ayabos; of ib. 46; the brusque od & advan Seidpo, erred) Secvos ef dvaBadrrew xTr. of 11.4. Also 3.70 aA & ’yadd, robrTo pev Kal rabeiv dycair’ av twas. 8.40 THY odciay, af’ Hs viv dort Aaptpds, Gdrotplav. 9.11 pH Soxodvra eivar ArAMOov. 10.25 arAAA yap, @ dv., ovx ixavev dott KTA, 12.7 Bote Sos Kav Tov avridtcobvTwY 4 elpwvela, Nyos mpocrowovpevos 7d evavrlov ot Ayer, Zon. III 164; id. Alex. III 22; cf. Volk. 501. The long list begins capxacuss, wvernpiopds, xrevacuds, dacuppds, doreicuds, Xaptevricuds, karayédws, cxGupa, etc. See Straub, p. 74, 16 Of. 33 31-82; 87-389; 65-66; 70-71. Moy (p. 107) comments: comme tous ces mots, femme légitime, donner en légitime mariage, déposer en justice, reviennent avec une insistance ironique mettre le mensonge en évidence. 18 Cf. elpwvela é. Eupacis kaxlas dv eddhywv pnudrwy (Anon. IIT 140). The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 51 hiv Tod cepvotdrov wuOolunv. 1.12 tiv & odclav aderdoOm Tov xpnotov émriBouvrevodvrwv., 2.33 elta vuv) tavt) Ta ayaa Trovodow eas. 5.39 obtw Kal rocaira redeTovpynxe Aue. ard TocoUToV xpnuarov. There is irony in the unexpected turn given to the sentence in 4.28 (dare 70rd pAdAov TovToUS TpogHKeEl KTA.) Isaeus’s irony is seldom witty. The light touch, however, in 3.31 amuses: Oavualw oby ci 6 avnp 6 cvvoiKav Trelw } OKT ern _ dn ph noe Tovvoua THs éavtTod yuvaixds. In 9.14 he accredits Astyphilus with a prophetic gift in order to account for the other- wise improbable coincidence that having served in so many cam- paigns he should have made his will just before the last: ¢atverat 8 6 ’Actiditos T@ TOUTWY Ady@ TA pédAAOVTA EcecOa mTpoEdds. The youn in 3.66 has an ironical color: oddels yap avOporev pice TO AvotTEAOUY, KTA. The sneer in 6.13 (ws éEapKécor et dvopa pévoyv topicawro) is sarcastic. Cf. 10.1 éBSovdcuny mer, & ay., &otep Hevaiveros obroat Sivatas wevdh réyetv Oapparéws, otra Kaya TahnOH «tr. In the irony of 2.20, the chill of what Blass terms Jrostigen Witz may be detected: date ob trapadpovay paiveras ovd€é TH yuvaikl weoGeds, ct wy dpa THY épnutay adrov Kai Thy arradiay obdros BovAeTas TO dvowa TodTO Tpocaryopevety. The remaining examples are found in a) rhetorical question : 8.37 dp’ ody Soxel To tpwav Odéyopas oUTaS Exev ypnuadtov Nixddnmos, dore wapadimeiy av Te THY To.ovTwv; with a tone of indignant superiority, repeated in § 39. Also 3.32,65,707-71. b) hypo- phora: 2.21 3.24 4.24 5.45-46. 7.33 (9 vh Ala ratdlov ézouy- gato AaBov Tapa TovTev dirwv dvrwr, Kal TovTw THY ovolay éexev;)' Closely related to irony is EXECRATIO or DENUNCIATION.—Isaeus also brings out the base- ness of his opponent into bold relief by frequent use of the following denunciatory expressions, often with a tone of con- temptuous superiority: adi«la 5.81. aloypoxdpdera 1.8. aicypas 5.48. dvaidis 2.27 11.6; -raros 1.27; -ea 3.18,67 4.19 6.13, 43,46 '7.21,23. advaioyuvros 3.85 6.54; -ratos 3.40,72 8.18; tia 1.2,8,26 8.40 11.14; -odvras 1.47. avoowwratos 4.19. aceryis 8.48. Bderupia 8.42. Biaros 8.43. xaxds 5.43. piapia 19 Following Schémann’s reading (roérwv), rightly defended by Lincke, p. 60; Sché., pp. 370 f. 52 The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 5.11. wdrcoveEia 8.2 11.36. smovnpds 3.389; -ratos 5.85; -pia 8.40 5.18 6.55 11.20. cuxopavtia 11.31. oyérrros 2.25 11.6. bBpis 5.11; -wévos ib. 24. POovepds 2.27. To these should be added two remarkable expressions: the Aristophanic nickname given to Diocles in 8.3 (tov Opéorny émixadovpevov), repeated in § 44; and 10.25 (otxov xatameradepactnKeévat). From this list it appears that denunciatory epithets are con- spicuously absent in Orr. 9 and 12, and infrequent in Orr. 10,7,4, and 2. Metaphor.—Metaphor, or the transfer of a word from its proper sphere,” arises, to follow Quintilian : # 1. cum in rebus animalibus aliud pro alio ponitur, e. g., 9.85 BpaBeurds for diuaords. 8.27 ove érdrAunoe ypideas of a per- son. Cf. 5.80 dmectAncer & édvvarTo. 2. aut inanima pro aliis generis eiusdem sumuntur. These are more numerous: 5.41 papripia for pynmeia aperhs; cf. 7.40 dv [mapripia],” uvnwela THS exetvou pirotimlas 6 Tplarous éxeivos ExryKe. 2.13 xataduyhy tis épnuias Kal maparyvynv tod Biov, of adoption. 10.23 dv emi robrov Tov Adyov Katagpedyy. Soxtwacia (7.34) and Badcavos (9.29) in the general sense of ‘test.’ 3.77 rév adtod Tod Qelov éxpaptupiay, referring to certain acts, mentioned in § 75 (see Scho., p. 264); cf. 2.88 paprupodvras epym Kal od Adyw. 9.36 TeTehevTHnKdTA AcTUpidov Tapavolas aipyoere (convict). 11.32 & éy@ dia Bpaxéwr eirov cal Tapaxatadémevos tuiv wynpovever (‘deposited in judges’ memory’). 8.389 ta abradv éxxdyrayu (=eludere) tavrnv tiv tepoovdiay (i. e., ‘to rob the dead’). 3.82 ) ta Kat rod THs THOnS dvd patos TOD bd TOD TaTpds TebEVTOS GkXNpov 6 avnp KatTacTHoeeV clvat THY avTod yuvaika; 5.29 adeimev avT@ Tos Kkaprrovs, said of buildings. 3. aut pro rebus animalibus inanima, e. g., 8.41 Tov pev Thy mpeo- Butépay éxyovta katotxodSopnoas (linked with ém:Bovnevoas). 0 uerapopd éore dékis weradepopévy dard Tod Kuplou éxl 7d wh KUpiov euddoews 7 duowd- ews tvexa. Trypho 111191; ef. Gerb. II! 82ff.; Volk 417; Straub, pp. 26-70. On Isaeus’s aversion to poetical and tropical expressions generally, see Blass II 604; Jebb IL 277 2. 8; Lincke, pp. 19 f. ; Sché. passim. 2 VIII 6.9f.; cf. Hermog. II 254. 2 Following Sauppe’s conjecture, see Scheibe, praef. crit., XXXIV. The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 53 4. aut contra, e. g., 7.32 Tpinpapxovvra, said of an estate (oixov). Cf. ib. 42 rotrwy tprnpapyobyra olxov revrerddavrov avnpnKkoTov. Tvépn or sententia.—As defined by the ancient rhetoricians, anopavors xaOddov™ or vox universalis,+ English proverb or maxim. With the ‘golden rule’ contrast 3.66 odSels yap avOpdrav pucel 70 AvatTeoby, ovdE Trepl Trelovos Tors GAXoTplous EavTOD mroveiras. 12.5 MnTpULd yap 4 ToUTOU mATnp éyeveTo Tals Huerépats ddeAdais, eidOact 8€ mas as él 76 Todd SiaddperOar arAjAas al Te unTpal Kad ai mpoyovot. 1.19 Trois wey yap ddrous KaKetvav dv dv dpyicbdvres Tors oixelous adixnowow borepov petrapere. ib. 18 rois wer’ dpyhs mpay- Geiow, ev ols Gravres Teptxapev duaptdvev. [2.8 oddels yap micdv Twa ixerever adT@.] Cf. 11.47 tois yap pndev Sixasov &yovar KT. 8.32 éxeivor yap apyy Tod yevous elal, KTH. ZeveMa.—Zeugma (érefevryuevor)” occurs at 5.39 (riv untépa) Kabnpévnv mavres E®pwv Kab ToUTw éyxaXrodaav, ib. 47 Atkasoyévous kareicbar vids i ‘Appodiou (sc. dmrdyovos). TapuLtarR SuMMARY. The following table presents in summary form the results of this study. The large preponderance of the figures of amplifica- cation and dramatic vivacity over the figures of repetition and parallelism will appear from the totals at the extreme right. Abundant (relatively) use of ornament is indicated by heavy type; as to absence of ornament, often quite as significant, it should be noted that no examples of Allegory, Antonomasia, Metalepsis, Metonomy, Simile, Synecdoche, and other tropes and figures not appearing in the table, were found. For the sake of com- pleteness, certain stylistic features, treated in connection with the tropes and figures proper, have been included. 3 Arist. I 142. 4Q. VIII 5.3. 2% A probable gloss, see Scheibe, praef. crit., xvi f. %6 Zon, III 168; Q. 1X 3.62; Gerb. I 503; Volk. 476. TABULAR SUMMARY Oration «6 @ 44s es I Il HE IV v VI | VIE | VIE} IX XI | XI ah ‘ot. Teubner pages ..... 11.4 | 11.1 | 18.8] 7.8 | 13.6 | 15.7 | 11.6 | 13.2 | 10.4] 7.2) 14.4] 3.4 FIGURES OF REPETITION Anastrophe ....... 1 2 3 Antistrophe* ...... Epanadiplosis ...... 2 2 Epanaphora....... 1 5 3 2 5 3 19 KUKA0e gs oe ea we we 1 1 2 SupmrAoky 2. ee eee 1 1 1 3 Totals 1 1 Z 5 2 5 FIGURES OF PARALLELISM Antithesis........ 10 6 1 2 5 5 2 3 2 1} 37 Parison ......-.- 2 1 4 3 8 3 1 3 1 21 Paromoion........ 2 1 2 1 8 1 4 14 Paronomasial...... 2 Z 4 9 2 2 6 1 1 84 Totals .......- 16 | 15 5 8| 18 2) 13 | 12 4 6 6 1 FIGURES OF AMPLIFICATION PATSAS 5. i ser See Ho ty 8h ow “WP 1 15 11 2 3| 10 6| 10] 16 4 6| 10 1] 94 Epexegesis........ 4 5 3 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 26 Figura Etymologica. . . 6 8) 17 3 8 9 6 6 2 2 3 8/ 73 Synonyms........ 14] 18 10 3 12 11} 13] 16 8 6 8 2} 121 Totals .. 39 | 42 32 10| 31 28 | 32| 42 14 15 23 6 ‘ FIGURES OF DRAMATIC VIVACITY Apostrophe ....... 4 4 2 1 2 13 Asyndeton........ 2 6| 19 1 8 14/| 20| 25 8 5| 20 128 Hyperbaton....... 4. 3 1 1 1 2 4 ] 3 17 Hypophora. ...... 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 12 Es poeeenne oe 2 6 8 3 1 6 6 8 8 3 8 1| 55 Osthsss cz cee aa es 1 6 2 2 1 1 8 16 Prolepsis......... 1 3 1 1 6 Prosopopoeia ...... 1 1 2 Question: Amplification 1 1 3 8 2 4} 10 1 4 29 Appeal. ... i 1| 24 8 5 2 8 4 4 8 4 21 % Assertion... 1 4 1 8 5 4 4 2 5 1} 80 In Figures. . 2 11 2 3 5 1 2 4 30 Rhetorical Answer ... 1 a! 8 1 5 1 1 3 21 "Aroowmmyois*®, 2. 1 ee Communicatio...... 1 1 Atamépnois*. 26 1 ee Tron yee ta eee es ew 1 6 9 2 5 1 1 2 2 1 1| 3 Litotes....... . 2 2 5 1 1 8) 13 5 4 1 4 2) 42 Metaphor ........ 1 2 8 4 8 3 1 1 18 Oxymoron* ....... Paraleipsis........ 1 1 Polysyndeton ...... 5 1 2 8 2 Zz 8 1 1 2 27 Tlpodudp@wors «2 ww we 1 1 2 Totals ....... 28 34 |110 27 48 51| 64] 75 30 19| 67 7 & Grand Totals 84 | 92 |147 45| 99 86 | 1 | 137 48 40 | 101 14 (Stylistic) Address ......... 18 12 5 10| 20 WW 8 9| 19 Alliteration¢ ...... 5 8 9 1 2 6 2 3 eG § - Anaphora........ 12 4 2 5 6 8 5 8 2 2 4 Chiasmus......... 4 2 2 9 7 2 4 1 2 1 Denunciation....... 6 3 7 2 8 5 2 8 1 6 LVOMM 2 6 Heed Be 2 1 1 Parenthesis ....... 1 4 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 Paronomasia II..... 5 1 2 1 2 4 1 CURING oe sei cw eee es 2 * For imperfect examples, see Index, s. v. + Including assonance. The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. 55 SUPPLEMENTARY. Hiatus.—In the case of Isaeus, hiatus has an historical as well as a stylistic interest. It is not my purpose, however, to try to determine on the basis of this test the exact period of Isaeus’s Isocratic discipleship,' or the precise dates of the different ora- tions. This test, already applied by Benseler,? breaks down completely in a single but notable instance: Or. 8, the probable date of which (s. ¢. 375) places it among his earlier speeches, reveals even greater care than Or. 7, one of his later speeches, in which, it is well known, Isaeus betrays marked care. Rela- tively, Or. 1 shows the greatest care, Or. 8 standing next; then follow 7 and 11, all excepting Or. 8 being late (circa 860-353 B. c.). It hardly need be stated that it is not the studious and artificial care of Isocrates nor the golden mean of Demosthenes. What Isaeus’s attitude towards the hiatus-question was will appear from the following tables. In their preparation, Scheibe’s text (Teubner) was used. Table I, including foot-note A, exhibits all instances of Aphaeresis, Crasis, and Elision, and indicates the relative frequency of these forms: the first column (heavy type) tabulating occurrences where hiatus is avoided by use of the apostrophe, the second, where it occurs. Table II, on the other hand, ineludes the particles and word-endings, with which hiatus could not be avoided by use of the apostrophe, and for that rea- son was least offensive. Therefore, this table, and not the first, affords the true test of an author’s care. In the first place, the presence or absence of the apostrophe (Table I), excessive use of which offends, may be due to scribe or editor* as well as author. In the second place, the results of Table I are misleading, e. g., from it, hiatus would seem to occur least in Or. 11 (176:39), 1Variously referred: by Benseler (p. 192), on basis of hiatus-test, to a little before 860 B. c.; by Blass (II 488) to 400-390 B. c.; by Jebb. (II 266) to 893-390 B. C. 2 De Hiatu in Oratoribus Atticis et Historicis Graecis. 3 See Blass’s edition (Teubner) of Demosthenes, passim. TABLE I 1d o> of oo ©|Nen [ PQVOWM AGHA wo HO ONO AOA NOE NE Hr MOD [rH | rico ea O16 re eo ct Ll HH N N ed 7 SEPA C3 CO PR CONSID AI NIC CO RCO NO LO GINDN9 OD COSFLONICOCOCONN 26D LO FELON COLO COIN NI00 2 = Si SNROSBT ASS BOR Torre ONAN EE = ck mN N eS Col aN oO Ae sd — AM =—N + _- _- = = oo a = oa oo — a HN A OO = oo S S< x LOT NRA a er) AQMNSENDSEN ON NR CONCNMMm re NEN o- = © = sre wo wt oD ON = w = Cort ne So Ae 8 re, | © Ar co —— ~N NN MD = N a el o tH oS oO aaa et OD ANNO rire mana IN im = se . = cf fer S - = oO- = Dp —- + NO =N = A = n N = me me N aaa Tt rAd N m We) m4 ms N S3 S 6 (NO Neos SNe Omen oO woe SOrreee N NM Me ND ND al N = = = 5 6 co eS me Qa OO CO ON Ta a oO x > « [AN ON — N ND = SMR Kin rion eresroon ~N 2 ~ = “N S cS AS = = os Ae TOON oO = > 0 fon tN N MD MN AN CNL eat Nomi = -— NON Lo a = ND S eee e- zn bee AN AN AnH = oO a= = Me = rn) — ao w oo eS tie = Se x £0 a ao rr ANrr rT Mr- - re rip co NE N ae a = oy SAT Aa AN wr aaa a a oS Zo) =O N = a — = ae = = ON = AAT No OOO co 3 oF = NN we ND —~N ND rer me fF N | FN OMOr NO Nee NN es = = co a mt Oe et mrs oO re a rr x os os z oo ae = - io ree NEN iD Lmrco NN Nr LOENCO N = N o Ol eee eM SE Re ee Se ae ee ER ee ek ee : —_— me an * a zg ae a ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Be ee ee < 4 E aoe ee tae ee : § PoE Be Ses Paes lie er ae ae eS ; : ma "3 S ta ie a, eS ee a ee oe me a me . . . . . . . . . . «ee o 8 : "e i % - "eh : 8° .©s 88s ss 3 2 pinay Se dae ao . “. . 8 tb ale me x "te : “ £ . * mi oe 3 3 $3 az 3 8 : 3 ak 7.3 aL Ba “bh see Alliteration. Asyndeton (40). — (after testimony) 8.89,43 5.8,4,25,39 6.8,9,49 7.22,23, 26,29,87 8.141,28! 9.5,19 10.8 11.1, 5,6,12 (transitional) 6.191? 7.517% 8.46 10.4,22 (with demonstrative) 1.11 2.20,21,28,37 8.28,28,67 6.10,11 6.62% 7.1,9,16,21,28,28,45,45,45 8.24,36 11.3, 427,43,44 (commands to clerk) 3.7,12, 15, 42, 58, 56, 76 6.50 9,28, 30, 38 [11.5] (cumulative) 2.14 6.62,64-65 8.24,29,84,45 11.6,85,41,48 F 23.3 (clausal) 8.64 4.22 6.43 6.975 7.411? 8.9 9.35,87 11.573,47 F 23.3 (ques- tion) 8.82,39,48 11.54 (answer) 1.23 2.89 3.25,89,48,49,65 5.18 6.35,36,63 7.32 8.9,11,12,29,82,33 9.81 10.14,17 11.11,12,26,44 (both) 8.14%~4,281—" F 28,11-7,21-8, , Chain-shot: see Synonyms. Chiasmus (26,28).—1.2,8,[10] 2.15 5.8, 14,30,80,36,41 6.3,60 7.41 8.42 10. 9,25 ‘Less perfect: 2.14 5.4,24,27 6.2, 20,29 8.8,16,18 11.84 Chiastic: 2.28 3.79 7.86 8.3,8,17,38,44 9.24 10.22 Cf. 1.44 2.26,44 5.7 With anaphora: see anaphora. Communicatio (48) .—38.11. Denunciation (51). —1.2,8,8,26,27,47 62 Index. 2.25,27,27 3.18,35,89,40,40,67,72 4.19, 19 6.11,11,18,24,31,35,48,48 6.18,48, 46,54,55 7.21,238 8, 2,8,13, 40, 42, 48, 48,44 10.26 11.6,6,14,20,31,36. Acamébpnots (47).—Cf. 1.34. Epanadiplosis (6).—11.85,35 Cf. 7.26 10.11. Epanaphora (6).—2.3 5,9,20 6.25, 25,48 8.14, 24,24,28,29 11.9,10,35 F 23.1 Cf. 3.78 7.2840 8.18 11.2 (in polysyndeton) 5.31,44,45 7.85,38. Epexegesis (15).— 1.16, 29, 36-37, 47 2.8,11,18,24,46 3.45,68,72 4.11 5.8 6.18,55 7.29,84,34 8.15,15,32,85 10.10 11.12,49. Cf. 7,35 9.4 Figura Etymologica (16).—1.3,11,15, 17,20,48 2.2,17,26,36,39,42,43,46 3.2, 9,11,12,17,25,48,56,57,57,59, 59, 60,61,62, 67,78 4.9,29,29 5.7,25,36,41,41,44,45,45 6.21,89,46,50,50,60,60,60,60 7.38,39,40, 40,40,41 8.5,18,24,35,38,41 9.15, 34 10.22,25 11.25,81,84 12.6,11,12 F1 Cf. 1.14 2.28,81,38,40 4.5 8.17 9.10, 12 116 12.9 Tvdpn (58).—1.18,19 [2.8] 8.66 12.5 Of, 8.82 11.47. Hiatus: see Tables, pp. 56 and 58. Homoioptoton: see Paromoion. Hyperbaton (44).—1.25 8.6,38 6.28 7.5,7 8.16,31,40,40 10.9 11.22,22,25 Cf, 11.15 F 23.2 (interlocking) 3.51 4.21 5.41 cf. 1.27,28 8.4,22,45 dmép- Baroy xara mapévOerw: 1.41 2.18,32,33, 36 3.64,71 4.15,17 5.12 6.3,18 9.11,12 10.18 11.17,27,27 [see note 50, p. 45]. Hypophora (30).—(full form) 10.18- 19 (double) 2.21 3.72-73 5.45-46 11.25 (single) 3.24 4.24 7.88 Cf. 4.20 5.48. Hypostrophe (45).—1.28 8.19,20,77 6.12 8.16 9.4 10.12 12.9 (emphatic repetition with ro6ro, ovrws, etc.) 1.6 2.13,20,23,42,43,48 3.9,61,61,67,79 4. 19,22,26 6.28,82,40,44,62,64 7.1,10,13, 43,465,456 8.4,6,12,18,24,80,44 9.5,15 10.8,5 11.17,18,25,27,80,38,35,35. Trony (50).—1.12 2.20,21,24,33,35, 87 3,.8-10,24,31,32,37,39,65-66,70,70-71 4.24,28 5.10-11,24-25, 36, 89, 45-46 6.18 7.88 8.40 9.11,14 10.1,25 11.4 12.7. Kékdos (9).—5.46 1.86-37 Cf. 2.37 5.138 6.45 (extensions) 1.41-43 10. 18-20 Cf. 6.57-58. Litotes (48).—1.7 8.11,29,40,55,79 4,14 5.11 6.18,18 7.17,17,19,29,34, 89,40,41,41,45 8.36,46 9.5,11,26 10. 20 11.89 12.8,11 In arsis: 1.2 2.5, 19 6.2 7.6,84,87 8.1,4,15 9.8 11.6, 36,38. Méy solitarium (89).—(with Ist person of verbs of thinking) 2.1 38.27,37,51 6.1 7.1 8.11 9.81 10.18 11.19,26 12.7 (emphasizing single words) 1.1,29 2.15 8.74 5.18,24,36,40,43 6.1 7.22 9.2,19 Cf. 4.5 8.38 10.12 (pseudo-) 1.381 2.42 8.8,45,64,78 4.9,14,15 5.2 6.10,48 8.5 9.14,21,80,386 10.7 12.9. Metaphor (52).—2.13 38.32,77 5.29, 80,41 7.82,34,40,42 8.27,39,41 9.29, 35,86 10.23 11.82. Oaths (46).—(vat ud) 8.25,39,49 (ud) 4.24 8.29 11.35,85,36 F 23.2 (vf) 8.24,48,73 4.20 6.61 733 (apés) 2.47 6.58 F 23.1. Oxymoron (49). — (sharp juxtaposi- tions) 5.8,10 Of. 5.11 8.40. Tlapddewpis (47).—5.17 Cf. 3.45 5.39 11.20,44. Parechesis: see Paronomasia I. Parenthesis : see Hyperbaton. Parison (19).—1.15,29 2.25 4.10,11, 11,12 5.21,39,44 7.28,29,44(3-f.) 8.1, 29,46 9.32 10.1,9,16 11.386 Of. 5.35 7.17,28 9.4 11.48. Paromoion (21).—1.23,40 2.25 4.10, 21 5.44 7.28,38,89 8.29 11.24,28, 33,36 Less perfect or accidental: 1.15 2.26 4.24 6.8 7.17,29,39,40,44 8.1 9.4,82 10.1 Of. 2.5,10,28 4.13 10.8 11.48 (homoioptoton) 3.54 5.16 7.35, 42 8.2640 11.20,85 12.2. Paronomasia (28).—I. Gorgianic : 1.2, 89 2.3,8,9,23,26,438,46 3.8,49, 51,79 §.11,18,15,21,25,34,43 6.48 7.1,9 8.8,8, Index. 63 80,80,33,88 10.26 11.88 Cf 2.5 3.68 6.21 8.20 11.6 (parechesis) 5.34,44 6.15 Cf 1.6 2.40 (polyptoton) 3.68 5.89 6.28 9.1 11.5 II. Repetitive - 2.1, 22,28, 35,38 3.7 6.24,25 6,47 7,80,44 8.4,12,14,28 11.25. Polyptoton: see Paronomasia I. Polysyndeton (40,42).—(words) 1.26, 85,89 4.18,27,27 5.10 6.1,18,21,89 7.85,86 12.8 (phrases) 1.7,40 2.36 8.5152 6.85 6.4,17,21 7.42 8.46 11.5,7 [In pairs: (words) with cal 2,18,24,32,82,386,47 4.81 6.382,35 6.49,61,62 7.8,14,42 8.12 9.3,6,13,18, 20,22 11.1849 12.9; with ovre (ujre) 8.28,42,68 4.8 6.47 (phrases) with cal 1.5,9,17,19,29,86,41,45,47 4.13 5.31 6.5,9 7.16,25,30,36 8.18,38,44 9.4,31 11.39,50 12.11; with obre, etc., 1.29, 49 4.29 6.26,53 9.8]. TpodibpOwors (48).—5.8 8.84 F 15.1 Cf. 6.9,19 7.4,43 11.82. Prolepsis (31).—3.45 5.8,28,46 9.10 11.5 Of. 3.66-67 10.9-10 11.83-84, Prosopopoeia (29).—6.53 8.24. Rhetorical Answer (89).—1.29 2.89 8.25,37,39,48,49,51,66,77 7.82 8.11,28, 28,28,82 9.381 10.17 11.12,19,26 F 23.1,1,1, Rhetorical Question (32).— 1, Amplification (83) : 3.241,821 5.18, 43 6,386,631 7.24,43 8.9,30 9.22 11.11, 44 (introducing hypophora) 2.21! 8.721 5.451 7.881 = 11.251,82 (pro- lepsis) Atadexrixéy: 1.231°2) 7,404(56) 8.14128,98135(246) 3312 BF 93,4185(246) (see Assertion). 2. Appeal (85): (cumulative) 3.36123, 8712; 39123; 4812; 50,5112 (en- thymeme, reductio ad absurdum) 1.237, 2912331240 8.82265 4.14 6.8422, 88 6.63? 8.18.82 9.15 10.13,17 11.12 12.8 (to judges’ intelligence, fairness or opinion) 1.11,25,27,35,36 2.39 8.11, 17, 242, 38, 48, 492, 64, 732, 77: 4.15 5.2112 6.56 8.11,48 9.26,31 11.28,26,47 12.6 (in exclamation) 1.20 4.4,7128,202,25 7.40128 9.26 10.137. 8. Assertion (37): a) positive: 2.25,2712, 43 4.19 6.4658 9.37 11.4,13,14; 7.4058 8.28246 23.1246 [see Ara- Aexrixbv] b) negative: 1.202 3.64 4.12,23 6.9,581,54 7.82,86 8.287 9.12 11.19,24 12.9, 4. In other figures (38): (hypophora) 2.2173 3.722.731 4.24 5.4523,46 7,832 11.2523 Cf. 4.201 (apostrophe) 3.4112, 45,46,48°,491,69,70,71 6.25123,26 11. 512 (prosopopoeia) 6.58? 8,2412 Symploce (8).—6.25 6.53 8.28 F 23.1. Synonyms (10).—(verbs) 44 3.1,68 4.19 6.11 19,20,26,388,45 9.4,28,37 11.22,32 [12.5] (participles) 1.11,34,40,48,49 2.14,40 8.64 5.85 6.51 7.1,42,48,45 8.22,29,41 9.87 10.15,17 11.46 (ad- verbs) 5.48 7.81 9.29 10.11 (nouns) 1.8,10,26,38,42,47 2.20,26,47,47 3.18 4.5 5.10,11,48,47 64,46 7.29 8.16, 87 9.35,36 10.17,22 11.18,21,80 123 Cf. (relations) 1.2,7 6.15,64 7.18,15, 17,26,27,43 8.9,10 9.8 (adjectives) 1.29 2.28,23,37,41,42,48,48,46 3.19, 24,50,51 5.10,46 6.47,47,49 7.5,11, 84,41 8.4,19,43 9.138 11.6,82 Cf. 5.89 (phrases) 1.89 2.2.38 3.1219 4.2 65.7,82,47 6.2,2,65 7.14,18,26 8.16,20 10.1 12.3. Zeugma (58).—5.39,47. 1.18 2.2, 6,57,65 8.2, GAYLORD DATE DUE PRINTEDINU.B.A. he oy ra f) A eg ale 3