Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| His unsuccessful attempt to be consistent with his own statements after Basil has confuted him.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
§40. His unsuccessful
attempt to be consistent with his own statements after Basil has
confuted him.
For notice how bitter he is
against one who did detect the rottenness and weakness of his work of
mischief; how he revenges himself all he can, and that is only by abuse
and vilification: in these, however, he possesses abundant ability.
Those who would give elegance of style to a discourse have a way of
filling out the places that want rhythm with certain conjunctive
particles221
| 221 conjunctive particles, σύνδεσμοι. In Aristotle’s Poetics (xx. 6), these are reckoned
as one of the 8 ‘parts of speech.’ The term σύνδεσμος
is illustrated by the examples μὲν, ἤτοι,
δὴ, which leaves no doubt that it
includes at all events conjunctions and particles. Its general
character is defined in his Rhetoric iii. 12, 4: “It makes many
(sentences) one.” Harris (Hermes ii. c. 2), thus defines a
conjunction, “A part of speech devoid of signification itself,
but so formed as to help signification by making two or more
significant sentences to be one significant sentence,” a
definition which manifestly comes from Aristotle.
The comparison here
seems to be between these constantly recurring particles, themselves
‘devoid of signification,’ in an ‘elegant’
discourse, and the perpetually used epithets, “fools,”
&c., which, though utterly meaningless, serve to connect his
dislocated paragraphs. The ‘assembly’ (σύναξις, always of the synagogue or the Communion. See Suicer) of
his words is brought, it is ironically implied, into some sort of
harmony by these means. | , whereby they introduce more euphony
and connexion into the assembly of their phrases; so does Eunomius
garnish his work with abusive epithets in most of his passages, as
though he wished to make a display of this overflowing power of
invective. Again we are ‘fools,’ again we ‘fail in
correct reasoning,’ and ‘meddle in the controversy without
the preparation which its importance requires,’ and ‘miss
the speaker’s meaning.’ Such, and still more than these,
are the phrases used of our Master by this decorous orator. But perhaps
after all there is good reason in his anger; and this pamphleteer is
justly indignant. For why should Basil have stung him by thus exposing
the weakness of this teaching of his? Why should he have uncovered to
the sight of the simpler brethren the blasphemy veiled beneath his
plausible sophistries? Why should he not have let silence cover the
unsoundness of this view? Why gibbet the wretched man, when he ought to
have pitied him, and kept the veil over the indecency of his argument?
He actually finds out and makes a spectacle of one who has somehow got
to be admired amongst his private pupils for cleverness and shrewdness!
Eunomius had said somewhere in his works that the attribute of being
ungenerate “follows” the deity. Our Master remarked upon
this phrase of his that a thing which “follows” must be
amongst the externals, whereas the actual Being is not one of these,
but indicates the very existence of anything, so far as it does exist.
Then this gentle yet unconquerable opponent is furious, and pours along
a copious stream of invective, because our Master, on hearing that
phrase, apprehended the sense of it as well. But what did he do wrong,
if he firmly insisted only upon the meaning of your own writings. If
indeed he had seized illogically on what was said, all that you say
would be true, and we should have to ignore what he did; but seeing
that you are blushing at his reproof, why do you not erase the word
from your pamphlet, instead of abusing the reprover? ‘Yes, but he
did not understand the drift of the argument. Well, how do we do wrong,
if being human, we guessed at the meaning from your actual words,
having no comprehension of that which was buried in your heart? It is
for God to see the inscrutable, and to inspect the characters of that
which we have no means of comprehending, and to be cognizant of
unlikeness222
| 222 A hit
at the Anomœans. ‘Your subtle distinctions, in the invisible
world of your own mind, between the meanings of “following”
are like the unlikenesses which you see between the Three
Persons.’ | in the invisible
world. We can only judge by what we hear.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
