Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

which was superior, in point of exact correspondence, to the subsequent vulgate which became the basis for Alexandrian criticism. The Homer of Plato has been shewn to differ in more than mere minutiae from this vulgate. In one case, at least, the Homer of Aristophanes so differed. It was probably a long and gradual process by which the vulgate won its ascendancy.

Remarks were made by Professors Gudemann and Elwell, and by the author in reply.

16. "Qote in the Orators, with special reference to Isocrates, by W. A. Eckels, of Baltimore.

Professor Gildersleeve (A. J. P. XIV. 241) records his conviction that “it is safe to speak of stylistic effect within the range of 6ote,” and indicates as a marked source of such effect the use of Wote with or without a preceding correlative (oŰTWS, TOLOÛTOS, etc.). The same writer (A. J. P. VII. 171) notes Isocrates' effective use of cote correlative in the construction of long periods. Seume (De Sententiis Consecutivis Graecis) speaks of the large use of the bote sentence in the orators, and its “great oratorical force.”

This paper aimed to give a few results of a study undertaken in pursuance of these suggestions, with a view to testing the value of cote as an index of style in the orators. Only the more general and obvious results could find place in so brief a summary.

Isocrates is an author in whom we especially look for the conscious use of rhetorical effects. The plan of this study has been to compare Isocrates' use of cote (1) with that of several other orators ; (2) in the different classes of Isocratean writings; (3) in different orations of the same class; (4) in different parts of the same oration. The points especially studied have been (1) the use of the moods, (2) the employment or omission of the correlative, and (3) the frequency of occurrence of bote in general. The conclusion was reached that (3) is of minor importance as a stylistic test, while (2) is of decided value.

Taking the average occurrence of Kore to the Teubner page in six orators, the curve runs thus: Antiphon .28; Lysias .95; Isocrates 1.00; Isaeus .69; Demosthenes .49; Aeschines .30. These results are interesting, but it is not easy to connect them with characteristic differences of style. We should hardly expect, 2.g., so close a correspondence in authors differing so widely as Isocrates and Lysias.

But the test of correlation brings out a real difference. In Isocrates, correlative cote greatly preponderates over non-correlative. In Lysias it falls a little below it. Isoc. correlative : non-correlative :: 21:1; Lys. I:11. Here we seem to have a true norm of style — the free bote in the simpler, less periodic style of Lysias, the correlative come in the more complicated structure of Isocrates. Isaeus marks a further gain for the non-correlative type - cor. 1; non-cor. 11. The closer “grip” of argument in Isaeus still had need of bote as a logical instrument; it could better dispense with the rhetorically effective oûtws — COTE, which was brought into frequent service by the narrative of Isocrates and Lysias.

1 The ratio of correlative to non-correlative in the six orators studied stands thus: Ant. 1 : 2}; Lys. 1:1}; Isoc. 21:1; Isae. 1: Ið; Dem. 11:1; Aesch. i}: 1.

Again, compare two works of Isocrates. The Ado. Euthynum is a strictly forensic work — close argument, almost devoid of narrative, so concise and plain in style as to be denied to Isocrates by some. The Helen is an epideictic speech of the most ornate type, full of flowing periods and involved sentences. In the average of the occurrence of some they both occupy a high place, — the Euth. first of the twenty-one works, the Helen sixth. But these éste sentences differ widely in rhetorical effect. Out of 15 cases in the Euth., 12 are of the noncorrelative type; and almost all these represent what may be called the “ WOTE of logical inference,” — a sort of “therefore,” introducing an opinion or conclu. sion. Out of 18 examples in the Helen, 16 are of the correlative type — the outWS often at the head of its clause, giving an effective balance. For the two types, compare Euth. 5 and Hel. 37. The predominance of these two types in ratios of 4:1 and 8: 1 respectively seems an excellent index to the widely differing styles of these two orations.

Attention was now concentrated on Isocrates, and a table presented showing the average occurrence for each oration, for each class, the number of correlatives and non-correlatives in each oration, and the ratio of correlatives to noncorrelatives for each class. The works are classified according to Jebb, thus avoiding any tendency to twist the classification in the interest of a theory. The ratios of correlative to non-correlative for the several classes are as follows: (1) Epideictic, 3} : 1; (2) Philosophical (Essays on Education), 21:1; (3) Political, 24:1; (4) Forensic, i}:1; (5) Hortatory, ito: 1.

Assuming that the correlative wote is suited to a dignified, elaborate, and consciously rhetorical style, this order of classes is much what we should expect. Epideictic discourse is the natural home of this kind of writing, and the Philosophical and Political, in Isocrates at least, are much tinged with it. Hortatory and Forensic work involve an opposite tendency (on the yévos Olkavikóv, cf. Panath. I), and are unfriendly to elaborate periods and correlative structure.

The test of correlation was next applied to the individual orations within each department. When we find a work differing widely in its use of cote from the normal usage of its class, we inquire whether it is in other respects abnormal — whether it is a fair representative of that class. In nearly every instance wide departures from type in the use of Kote were found to coincide with lack of conformity in other respects. The Archidamus, e.g., stands lowest in the Political class in use of the correlative type, - correl. i: non-correl. I, as against 21:1 for its class. But this speech was noted by the Pseudo-Longinus as an instance of mpoo wronola — feigned speech of another; the speaker is a young man and a Spartan prince. In closeness of argument and earnestness of tone it approaches the forensic class, and recedes furthest from the epideictic coloring which marks the Areopagiticus and Panegyricus — orations which stand at the opposite end of this class in respect to correlation, with ratios of correl. 41 : noncorrel. 1, and 3: 1, respectively.

The widest variations in style in any one class are found in the Forensic, and here are seen the widest extremes in the use of cote correlative and non

i Euth. 5: Nexias toivuv Ejduvov ideiw mèv exel, httOV Sývatal déyelv: wot' oùk čoti ' ότι αν επήρθη αδίκως επΕυθύνουν ελθείν.

Hel. 37: OjTo Yap vouku00S Kai Kakos đọce: The Lótv, ôơn em gai võv xvos s execvov πραότητος εν τοις ήθεσιν ημών καταλελειφθαι.

correlative. Here, too, the question of genuineness has been oftenest raised. The non-correlative extreme is represented by the Euthynus, whose peculiarities have already been noted, and which may be called the “ ultra-forensic” specimen ofu Isocrates' style. At the opposite poles .stand the Trapeziticus and De Bigis. The former was regarded by Benseler as a school exercise; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus lays especial stress on its “ epideictic" character. As to the use of bote, it shows a ratio of correl. 3} : non-correl. 1.

The De Bigis, ostensibly a court speech, is in effect a glorification of the elder Alcibiades. Jebb notes its “thoroughly epideictic" character. In its use of correlation it stands highest of the Forensic works, and second in the whole Isocratean corpus: — correl. 41: non-correl. I.

But the tone is not uniform throughout the whole fragment, and an analysis was here presented showing its composite structure. A speech assigned to one department may show clearly-marked strata of material belonging properly to another. The divisions made were: (1) (secs. 5–21) narrative mixed with argument — the tone partly apologetic; (2) (25–38) pure narrative — bold and unqualified panegyric; (3) (39-50) argument and personal plea. In use of KOTE, (1) shows correl. 3: non-correl. I; in (2) (having 10 examples in all) every one is correl.; in (3) all are non-correls. This analysis and the estimate of the stylistic features of the several divisions are closely confirmed by Drerup (Neu. Fahrb. Suppl. Bd. 22, h. 2). He concludes that “this oration proves the forensic diction in Isocrates to be different from the epideictic.”

An analysis was also made of the Panegyricus, one of the longer speeches and one of the most consciously artistic. The sections which are clearly of the epideictic order,- pieces of “fine writing," recounting the ancient achievements of Athens, — aggregating one-half of the speech, show a ratio of correl. to noncorrel. of 41:1, as against 3: 1 for the whole work, and 11: 1 for those portions which could be described as the opposite of epideictic.

Analyses of a number of other orations showed similar results, not always so striking as those presented, but in the main consistent with them and tending to show the stylistic belongings of these two types of cote sentence.

The use of the moods after come appears not to be, per se, an index of style. It is true, e.g., that Lysias has a larger ratio of finite verbs to infinitives than Isocrates, — 2: 1 as against 11 : 1; but this loses independent significance when we recall the larger use in Lysias of the non-correlative type of cote sentence; for in this type the finite verb, for obvious reasons, almost crowds out the infinitive. To get at the separate value of the mood test, we ought to eliminate the factor of correlation, i.e. compare the use of moods within each type. The differences are found to be very slight. In non-correlative examples we find that the ratio of finite verbs to infinitives is as 3: 1 for Lysias, 37 : 1 for Isocrates. In correlative examples, Lysias has 7 finite : 6 infinitives; Isocrates, 11:9. So, in different speeches and parts of speeches of these authors, so long as we study the correlative and non-correlative types separately, statistics of the moods have no story to tell of a difference in style. That the use of the finite verb is not a mark of negligentia, its preponderance in Isocrates would seem to show with sufficient clearness. The fact comes out still more clearly in a comparison of Isocrates and Xenophon. In Isocrates finite verbs stand to infinitives as 1.1:1; in Xenophon, as 11:1 (according to Wehmann's figures).

17. Plato's Studies in Greek Literature, by Carleton L. Brownson, of Yale University.

External evidence regarding Plato's. literary tastes and studies is not wanting, but it is far less adequate and trustworthy than the internal evidence. It is the latter, therefore, which the present paper aims to collect and analyze, considering first, the comments which are to be found in Plato's dialogues upon poetry and the poets, and second, his citations from the works of poets of his own age and of the earlier centuries. The few famous passages, however, which condemn so sternly the moral teachings of Homer, Hesiod, and the dramatists are reserved to be the subject of a later paper.

I. Plato regards the poets as the earliest sages of Greece, “our fathers and leaders in wisdom" (Lys. 214. A.), their mission corresponding to that of the philosophers in later times (cf. Prot. 316 D., Theaet. 152 E.). They differ, however, from the philosophers in that their wisdom is the product of inspiration, not of reason. This difference is everywhere (0.8. Apol. 22 C., Ion 533 D. ff., Leg. 719 C.) strongly insisted upon, as marking the superiority of the philosopher. In general, Plato sometimes speaks kindly of the poet (cf. especially Symp. 209 A. ff., Phaedr. 245 A.), but more often slightingly. He is one of the unnecessary additions to a state (Rep. 373 B.), his aim is merely to flatter and give pleasure (Gorg. 501 ff.), and he is rated among the very lowest as regards his comprehension of truth (Phaedr. 248 D.).

Plato has nevertheless made the art of the poet a subject of careful study. This is shown by the well-known passage (Rep. 392 D. ff.), in which he marks the boundaries between the various types of poetry. The first lines of the Iliad are referred to as illustrating a combination of the narrative and mimetic methods. Change the direct to indirect discourse, and the result is simple narrative; or drop the lines which intervene between the speeches, and we have tragedy. It follows, then, that poetry may be either simple narrative or imitation or a combination of both. Clearly Plato is here preparing the foundation upon which Aristotle builds in the Poetics, while at the same time making it evident that he might himself have reared the superstructure.

Plato also proves by very frequent allusions his full knowledge of everything pertaining to the art of the dramatist. Not only does he resort to the theatre for illustrations and comparisons in almost all the dialogues, but he employs in at least two instances (Symp. 194 B., Rep. 373 B.) technical expressions of the playwright which are found nowhere else in classic Greek literature.

II. Plato's references to individual poets and his citations from their works are so numerous that they can only be treated in the most cursory manner. Even the earliest, half mythical bards of Greece – Amphion, Marsyas, Olympus, Orpheus, Musaeus, Eumolpus, Thamyris — are all known to him. Orpheus, indeed, is directly quoted in several instances. Coming to the more real names of later times, we find Plato gleaning over the entire field of Greek literature. In all his citations he is seeking primarily such passages as will serve his purpose in philosophical argument, either by way of proof or of illustration. This fact explains why he cites Theognis more often than Sappho, and Euripides more often than Sophocles. On the other hand, he often quotes what seems to him false or injurious doctrine in order to refute it, while again, laying aside any utilitarian motive, he simply yields to the natural impulse of the widely read man of letters. Plato seldom suggests, even by a word, his opinion of the poet from whom he is quoting. Only to Homer does he award an unstinted measure of praise, to Hesiod the lesser honor which constant association with Homer reflects upon him.

Among the writers of elegiac verse, Plato quotes more or less frequently from Tyrtaeus, Solon, Phocylides, and Theognis. Archilochus, the iambic poet, is not quoted, but is mentioned with honor. The lyric poets, excepting Pindar and Simonides, receive rather scant attention. Plato has not transcribed a line from Sappho, Alcaeus, or Anacreon. Simonides, however, is quoted in several dialogues, being even thought worthy to furnish a theme for discussion to such men as Socrates and Protagoras. From Pindar we have no less than eleven citations in almost as many dialogues, a fact which must be taken as showing how highly Plato regarded the Theban poet.

Among the comedians Plato has rather a wide acquaintance. He either quotes or alludes to Epicharmus, Pherecrates, Eupolis, Plato Comicus, and Aristophanes. On the other hand, it is very noticeable that he neither mentions nor quotes a single tragedian except the three great masters and Agathon. Euripides, the most quotable of the three, is quoted rather more frequently than Aeschylus, i.e. the former in eleven instances, the latter in nine. Euripides is also referred to in at least two passages (Rep. 568 A., Phaedr. 268 C.) as a representative tragedian. Sophocles, strange to say, is almost ignored. He is not once mentioned by name as the author of a single quotation, and only once (Symp. 196 C.) can we be entirely sure that Plato is quoting from him. This fact has given rise to the supposition that the philosopher cherished some ill feeling towards Sophocles. Such a supposition is rendered entirely improbable by a consideration of the two passages in Plato (Rep. 329 B.C., Phaedr. 268 C.D.) in which Sophocles is mentioned by name.

Epic poetry to Plato is comprised in the works of Homer and Hesiod. The cyclic poets are not so much as mentioned. Only once (Euthyphro 12 A.B.) two verses are cited which the scholiast ascribes to the Cypria. Hesiod is directly quoted fourteen times in eight dialogues. But one of these quotations is from the Theogony, the rest from the Works and Days. The references to the poet are comparatively numerous and, as has been suggested, for the most part complimentary. Nevertheless Plato seems to have been less thoroughly acquainted with Hesiod than with any other great poet. The most inexact quotation in all the dialogues (Rep. 469 A., Crat. 397 E.) is one from the Works and Days, while on the other hand two passages in the Cratylus (396 C., 402 B.) show that Plato was entirely unfamiliar with the Theogony.

Coming now to Homer, we find that Plato quotes from the Iliad 77, from the Odlyssey 35 times. The total number of quotations, therefore, is 112, of lines quoted 212. From all other poets cited we have a total of about 170 lines in about 75 quotations. Further, apart from direct quotations or general allusions, Plato refers to individual Homeric lines or passages 77 times. He either quotes or refers to passages in 23 books of the Iliad and 18 of the Odyssey, 41 in all out of 48; and some Homeric quotation or reference is found in all the dialogues which Christ (Griech. Litteraturgesch., p. 376 ff.) classes as genuine except two - the Parmenides and Critias. The Republic contains rather more than a third of the total number of citations.

« ПредишнаНапред »