¹ Literature:

Fehling = Fehling, D., Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgia (Berlin 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

dejong-de Pater = de Jong, W. R.-de Pater, W. A., Van Redenering tot firmele Structuur (Assen 1981).Google Scholar

Dawe = Dawe, R. D., Oedipus Rex (Cambridge 1982).Google Scholar

Denn. = Denniston, J. D., The Greek particle ² (Oxford 1959).Google Scholar

K.G.= Kühner, R.–Gerth, B., Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache (Hannover 1890–1892).Google Scholar

Kneale–Kneale = Kneale, William–Kneale, Marthe, The development of Logic (Oxford 1986; corr. ed. of ist cd. 1962).Google Scholar

Lloyd = Lloyd, G. E. R., Polarity and analogy (Cambridge 1966).Google Scholar

Lyons = Lyons, John, Semantics i (Cambridge 1977).Google Scholar

Miller = Miller, Andrew, From Delos to Delphi (Leiden 1980).Google Scholar

Verdenius = Verdenius, W. J., A Commentary on Hesiod Works and Days vv. t–382 (Leiden 1985).Google Scholar

West (Th.) = West, M. L., Hesiod—Theogony (Oxford 1966).Google Scholar

West (Erga)=id., Hesiod, —Works and Days (Oxford 1978).Google Scholar

² Of great importance is Lyons (n. 1) chap. 9: Semantics ii: sense relations, and from this chapter esp. I: Opposition and contrast (pp. 270–80).

³ ῾Ηδονἡ and λὺπη are opposites in Greek: cf. Plato, Phaedo 60 b: . . . τοῦτο ὂ καλουσιν οὶ ἂνθρωποι ὴδὺ ὼς θαυμασὶως πὲφυκε πρὸς τὸ δοκου ὲναντὶον ειναι, τὸ λυπηρὸν κτλ cf. also Arist. Eth. Nic. 1110 B 11–3: . . . καὶ οὶ μὲν [πρὰττουσι]λυπηρῶς οὶ δὲ . . . μεθ᾿ ὴδονῆς κτλ and id De Motu An. 701 b 33 ff.: τὸ μὲν γὰρ λυπηρὸν φευκτὸν τὸ δ᾿ ὴδὺ διωκτὸν . . . ἒστι δὲ τὰ λυπηρὰ λαὶ ὴδὶα σχεδὸν μετὰ ψυξεὼς τινος καὶ θερμὸτὴτος τινος; furthermore Gorgias, Helena 10: . . . ὲπαγωγοὶ ὴδονῆς, ὰπαγωγοὶ λὺπης, and finally SVF iii 378.19–21: ὴδονὴν μὲν ὂταν τυγχἀνωμεν ὢν ἐπεθυμοῦμευ ἢ ἐκφὺγωμεν ἂ ὲφοβοὺμεθα λὺπην δὲ, ὂταν ὰποτυγχὰνωμεν ῶν ὲπεθυμοῡμεν η̄ περι πὲσωμεν οῑς ἐφοβοὺμεθα

⁴ For the emphatic effects of heaping negatives, ‘a device common in 〈Black〉, Chaucerian and Shakespearian English, and in many languages in the world’, fulfilling ‘a need for vividness and emphasis’ cf. Aitchison, Jean, Language change: progress or decay? (Fontana paperback 1981, 126).Google Scholar In the present case the effect is further heightened by asyndeton.

⁵ The following symbols will be used:

(Q)=opposite of Q, =all non-Q in the same universe-of-discourse.

∼ =negation,

& = ‘and’—(καὶ, (-)δὲ, -τε)

↔ = ‘but’—(ὰλλὰ)

⁶ Equipollent opposition is usual in Greek, while privative opp. is rare: cf. Dawe (n. 1) ad v. 58; cf. furthermore Lyons (n. 1) 275 and 279.

⁷ Cf. Kneale-Kneale (n. 1) 57; dejong-de Pater (n. 1) 92–3.

⁸ K.G. ii 586.8.

⁹ Cf. Lyons (n. 1) 277.

¹⁰ Cf. Lyons (n. 1) 276; the same is implied by Denn.; 2—see note 11.

¹¹ Denniston, 2, observes: ‘In rhetorical questions the order of relative importance is reversed, and the ὰλλ᾿οὐ clause bears the stress'. This holds, to my mind, for all ὰλλ᾿οὐ clauses under consideration, i.e. for all ὰλλ᾿οὐ clauses of my type B.

¹² Cf. Lyons (n. 1) 160.

¹³ Cf. Lyons (n. 1) 175 (referring to Ogdcn and Richards).

¹⁴ Denn., 2.

¹⁵ Denn., ibid.

¹⁶ Fehling (n. 1) 272 n. 1.