296 Harry M. Hubbell, Ph.D., 



I. 155- col. T\\& sophists commit more soloecisms than anyone else. There 



is no art of style, such as they desire, and as is found in other 



lines of study. To sum up the question of style — one style is 



common to all. (I. e. the natural.) 



XIII ' ^^ ' Obscurity is of two kinds, intentional and unintentional. It 



is intentional when one has nothing- to say, and conceals the 



poverty of his thought by obscure language that he may seem 



XIV.' ' to say something useful. [Connected with this] is the use of 



many digressions, poetic images, recondite allusions and archaic 



I, 157, col. language. Soloecisms prevent the hearer from understanding 



^^- many things. Only the true philosopher is free from these 



I. 158, col. faults. Unintentional obscurity arises from not mastering the 



^^^- subject, or not observing the proper formation of periods either 



in writing or speaking, and in general from failure to use pure 



Greek, and from believing that words are in harmony with 



things.^ 



barbarism was a mistake in a single word e. g. in the use of a wrong 

 ending, while soloecism was a mistake in syntax. The two overlapped 

 somewhat, and it remained a question whether to use hanc meaning a 

 man, was a soloecism or barbarism. (Cf. Quint. I, 5, 34 ff.. Diomed. 

 455K.) Quintilian with his usual good sense decides that this is a soloe- 

 cism. 



Quintilian and later authorities include under barbarism mistakes in the 

 use of the aspirate and in accent, which some teste Philodcmo preferred 

 to make a separate class. (Quint. I, 5, 19; I, 5, 22; Donat. p. 392K.) 

 The definition of eWt^vLtJixbs here given is parallelled in Herodian, De 

 Soloecismo et Barbarismo, Nauck, Lex. Vindob. p. 311, 9; 'E/jurij^e/s rtr 

 ri iffTiv iWrjVKTfids, e^r;, 'to Trdtrats raii 5ia\fKTais opdQs XP^"'^'*'- In their 

 origin there seems to have been no distinction between soloecism and 

 barbarism. Aristotle uses the terms interchangeably (Soph. El. Ill) ; 

 Hegesias has the same confusion (ap. Dion. Hal., De Comp. Verb. 18, p. 

 82, 5 U. et R.). The first clear statement of the distinction which after- 

 wards became fixed is in Diogenes of Babylon ap. Diog. Laert. VU. i. 59. 

 But the question was far from being settled by his dictum, as this passage 

 from Philodemus shows. 



■'' Reading <rijfi4>[u3va] for <7viJL4>[avrj] lines 24, 25. Does he refer to the 

 doctrine, elaborated by the Stoics though not originated by them, of the 

 onomatopoetic origin of language? Cf. Arist. Rhet. Ill, i, 8; Plato Crat. 

 423A; August. Princ. Dialect., VI (I, 1412M). Of the Stoic position the 

 latter says: Stoici autumant, quos Cicero in hac re irridet, nulhini e^se 

 verbum, cuius non certa ratio explicari possit. Et quia hoc modo sug- 

 gerere facile f uit, si diceres hoc infinitum esse ; quibus verbis alterius verbi 

 originem intcrpretaveris, eorum rursus a te originem quaerendam esse 



