FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   >>  
ordingly, of unfamiliar terms is necessary. These, the strange word, the metaphor, the ornamental equivalent, etc.. will save the language from seeming mean and prosaic, while the ordinary words in it will secure the requisite clearness. What helps most, however, to render the Diction at once clear and non-prosaic is the use of the lengthened, curtailed, and altered forms of words. Their deviation from the ordinary words will, by making the language unlike that in general use give it a non-prosaic appearance; and their having much in common with the words in general use will give it the quality of clearness. It is not right, then, to condemn these modes of speech, and ridicule the poet for using them, as some have done; e.g. the elder Euclid, who said it was easy to make poetry if one were to be allowed to lengthen the words in the statement itself as much as one likes--a procedure he caricatured by reading '_Epixarhon eidon Marathonade Badi--gonta_, and _ouk han g' eramenos ton ekeinou helle boron_ as verses. A too apparent use of these licences has certainly a ludicrous effect, but they are not alone in that; the rule of moderation applies to all the constituents of the poetic vocabulary; even with metaphors, strange words, and the rest, the effect will be the same, if one uses them improperly and with a view to provoking laughter. The proper use of them is a very different thing. To realize the difference one should take an epic verse and see how it reads when the normal words are introduced. The same should be done too with the strange word, the metaphor, and the rest; for one has only to put the ordinary words in their place to see the truth of what we are saying. The same iambic, for instance, is found in Aeschylus and Euripides, and as it stands in the former it is a poor line; whereas Euripides, by the change of a single word, the substitution of a strange for what is by usage the ordinary word, has made it seem a fine one. Aeschylus having said in his _Philoctetes_: _phagedaina he mon sarkas hesthiei podos_ Euripides has merely altered the hesthiei here into thoinatai. Or suppose _nun de m' heon holigos te kai outidanos kai haeikos_ to be altered by the substitution of the ordinary words into _nun de m' heon mikros te kai hasthenikos kai haeidos_ Or the line _diphron haeikelion katatheis olingen te trapexan_ into _diphron moxtheron katatheis mikran te trapexan_ Or heiones boosin into
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   >>  



Top keywords:

ordinary

 

strange

 
altered
 
Euripides
 
prosaic
 

hesthiei

 

Aeschylus

 

general

 

substitution

 

effect


trapexan

 

diphron

 

language

 

katatheis

 

clearness

 
metaphor
 

introduced

 
normal
 

proper

 
provoking

laughter

 

improperly

 
vocabulary
 

metaphors

 

difference

 

realize

 

holigos

 

outidanos

 

haeikos

 

suppose


thoinatai

 
mikros
 

hasthenikos

 

mikran

 

heiones

 

boosin

 

moxtheron

 

olingen

 

haeidos

 

haeikelion


sarkas

 

stands

 

iambic

 

instance

 

change

 

single

 
Philoctetes
 
phagedaina
 
poetic
 

deviation