By the rejection of the bill, they seemed to declare, that the House had been bought, was bought, and should be bought again.
Grattan, speech in the Irish Parliament (1792)
I have been faithful to you, and useful to you, and I am attached to you. But I can’t consent, and I won’t consent, and I never did consent, and I never will consent to be lost in you.
Dickens, Little Dorrit (1857)
That example from Dickens is a double case of epistrophe; the second sentence illustrates our current pattern. One result of the device is to stress the occurrence of the action at all times, but notice that he also weaves in language of ability or obligation: not just never did and never will but also can’t and won’t. The same general idea:
I do not know whether in all countries or in all ages that responsibility could be maintained, but I do say that here and now in this wealthy country and in this scientific age it does in my opinion exist, is not discharged, ought to be discharged, and will have to be discharged.
Churchill, speech at Dundee (1908)
4. Things sharing the same quality, which is repeated at the end of every example.
In the first place, the transaction was illegal from beginning to end. The impeachment was illegal. The process was illegal. The service was illegal. If Charles wished to prosecute the five members for treason, a bill against them should have been sent to a grand jury.
Macaulay, Hallam (1828)
The French Revolution is of Christian origin. The newspaper is of Christian origin. The anarchists are of Christian origin. Physical science is of Christian origin. The attack on Christianity is of Christian origin. There is one thing, and one thing only, in existence at the present day which can in any sense accurately be said to be of pagan origin, and that is Christianity.
Chesterton, Heretics (1905)
In both of those examples the speaker is making a comprehensive claim – illegal from beginning to end, for example, or that everything except Christianity is of Christian origin. The epistrophe causes the pervasiveness to be felt more fully than it would if claimed once in simple form.
In another effective use of the same pattern, the speaker borrows a word offered by another – perhaps by an antagonist – and gives his own examples of its meaning. Irony or indignation are at home in these constructions.
“But you were always a good man of business, Jacob,” faltered Scrooge, who now began to apply this to himself.
“Business!” cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. “Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”
Dickens, A Christmas Carol (1843)
“Mr. Micawber,” said I, “what is the matter? Pray speak out. You are among friends.”
“Among friends, Sir?” repeated Mr. Micawber; and all he had reserved came breaking out of him. “Good Heavens, it is principally because I am among friends that my state of mind is what it is. What is the matter, gentlemen? What is not the matter? Villainy is the matter; baseness is the matter; deception, fraud, conspiracy, are the matter; and the name of the whole atrocious mass is–HEEP!”
Dickens, David Copperfield (1850)
[A]nd if I cannot say fie upon them, what shall I say of the men who, with these things of a constant and perpetual occurrence staring them in the face, talk to us of the immorality of the ballot, and tell us, forsooth, that it is an un-English proceeding. Un-English! . . . Fraud is indeed un-English; and dissimulation, and deception, and duplicity, and double-dealing, and promise-breaking, all, every vice akin to these vile things are indeed un-English; but tyranny, base, abominable tyranny, is un-English; hard-hearted persecution of poor fanatic wretches is un-English; crouching fear on one side, and ferocious menace and relentless savageness upon the other, are un-English! Of your existing system of voting these are the consequences.
Sheil, speech in the House of Commons (1843)
5. Same general condition, different details, as when the speaker means to apply several adjectives or adverbs to the same complement or object:
I hate to be poor, and we are degradingly poor, offensively poor, miserably poor, beastly poor.
Dickens, Our Mutual Friend (1865)
The divisions between uses of this pattern lie in about the same places as we have seen under other recent headings. Sometimes the effect is to stress the general condition over the detailed variations on it, as in the example just shown and here:
The tariff is a usurpation; it is a dangerous usurpation; it is a palpable usurpation; it is a deliberate usurpation.
Webster, Reply to Hayne (1830)
It might be presumptuous to say that I took a leading part, but I certainly took an early part, a decided part, and an earnest part, in rejecting this broad grant of three millions of dollars, without limitation of purpose or specification of object, called for by no recommendation, founded on no estimate, made necessary by no state of things which was known to us.
Webster, speech in the Senate (1836)
That example from Webster includes, after the epistrophe, an attractive use of isocolon – the use of consecutive phrases with a repeated structure (and not necessarily with repeated words, though in Webster’s case the repeated no in the last three rounds is a little use of conduplicatio). We consider isocolon fully in a later chapter.
The speaker also may wish to make claims that are more distinct, and use the epistrophe at the end not to emphasize the repeated words for their own sake but to link the different claims in some way – perhaps for the sake of comparison, as here:
That is the wisdom of the past, for all wisdom is not new wisdom.
Churchill, speech in the House of Commons (1938)
That this House should have no power of expulsion is a hard saying. That this House should have a general discretionary power of disqualification is a dangerous saying. That the people should not choose their own representative, is a saying that shakes the Constitution. That this House should name the representative, is a saying which, followed by practice, subverts the constitution.
Burke, Speech Relative to the Middlesex Election (1771)
Notice that each of these last two examples varies the position of the repeated element, using it at the end of a phrase or sentence twice (the epistrophe) but then also using it in the middle of another phrase or two. In Burke’s case the word saying is moved from the end of the first two sentences to the middle of the last two – which makes room for a fresh round of epistrophe with constitution.
6. Different acts done in the same way: a construction typically used to make the influence of a modifier seem pervasive.
I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you, and so following; but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you.
The Merchant of Venice, 1, 3
“You see me, young man; I never learned Greek, and I don’t find that I have ever missed it. I have had a Doctor’s cap and gown without Greek; I have ten thousand florins a year without Greek; I eat heartily without Greek; and, in short,” continued he, “as I don’t know Greek, I do not believe there is any good in it.”
Goldsmith, The Vicar of Wakefield (1766)
[T]hey judge of us with a true knowledge of, and just deference for, our character – that a country enlightened as Ireland, chartered as Ireland, armed as Ireland, and injured as Ireland, will be satisfied with nothing less than liberty.