By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Literary Composition - Being the Greek Text of the De Compositione Verborum
Author: Halicarnassus, Dionysius of
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Literary Composition - Being the Greek Text of the De Compositione Verborum" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

J. Wisewell, Stephen Rowland, and the Online Distributed

Transcriber’s Note:

Special Characters

    Metrical notation is used in the original book to mark the length
    or weight of syllables in scansion. In the e-text, the metrical
    notation is placed on a separate line above the text and uses the
    following Unicode symbols:

        metrical short: ᴗ (U+1D17)
        metrical long: – (U+2013)
        metrical short over long: ⏓ (U+23D3)
        metrical long over short: ⏒ (U+23D2)

    When Greek letters are cited as examples in the original book they
    have an overline printed above them (e.g., λ̅, ν̄), much as in
    English cited letters are underlined or italicized. A combining
    macron (U+0304) is used in this e-text above single letters to
    represent the overline. In cases where the overline extends above
    more than one letter, combining overline U+0305 is used because it
    gives a better result (e.g., κ̅δ̅).

    Since there is no precomposed Unicode character for omicron with
    acute and diaeresis (e.g., το̈́ῦτοτε), this e-text uses U+0308
    combining diaeresis and U+0301 combining acute accent above the

    The following additional character modifications used in the
    original book are represented in the e-text as follows:

        o with breve above: ο̆ (U+0306)
        o with macron above: ο̄ (U+0304)
        θ with inverted breve above: θ̑ (U+0311)

    Unicode symbols for some of the above cases are currently not well
    supported by standard fonts, and they may be displayed imperfectly
    or not at all.

    In the critical apparatus there are several occurrences of a letter
    printed above another letter. Since this cannot be reproduced in an
    e-text in a standard way, a Transcriber’s Note of the form [**TN:
    φ written above first τ of στατωνα] is entered into the e-text at
    that point.

Text that is widely-spaced (gesperrt) for emphasis in the original
is surrounded here with #, a character not otherwise used (e.g.,
#χειρῶν#). Equals signs (=) indicate =bold= passages; superscript text
is denoted by a preceding caret symbol (e.g., PV^2).

Page numbers and page breaks from the original text have been retained
throughout in order to preserve the usefulness of the many page
references in the explanatory notes, glossary, appendices and indices.

Page images of a different copy, but the same edition, of
the original book can be viewed at The Internet Archive:


    Page 40: ὠδῇ -> ᾠδῇ
    Page 108, note 16: οὐδεμίας -> οὐδεμιᾶς
    Page 109, line 21: μηδεμίας -> μηδεμιᾶς
    Page 112, note 14: διάνοιας -> διανοίας
    Page 182, note 9: Διά -> Δία
    Page 188, critical apparatus to line 5: συγκαμφθείς -> συγκαμφθεὶς
    Page 204, line 11: ἀλλ -> ἀλλ’
    Page 232, line 1: οὐχι -> οὐχὶ
    Page 334, s.v. ᾠδή: ὠδικός -> ᾠδικός

Dionysius of Halicarnassus

On Literary Composition



















          _Tantum series iuncturaque pollet,
  Tantum de medio sumptis accedit honoris._

                              HORACE _Ars Poetica_ 242, 243.

  _See Dionysius Homer’s thoughts refine,
  And call new beauties forth from every line._

                              POPE _Essay on Criticism_ 665, 666.

[Page vii]


_It is a happy instinct that leads Pope to find in Dionysius a gifted
interpreter of Homer’s poetry, who can ‘call new beauties forth from
every line.’ In his entire attitude, not only towards Homer but towards
Sappho and Simonides, Herodotus and Demosthenes, Dionysius has proved
that he can rise above the debased standards of the ages immediately
preceding his own, and can discern and proclaim a classic excellence.
He has thus contributed not a little to confirm our belief in the
essential continuity of critical principles—in the existence of a firm
and permanent basis for the judgments of taste._[1]

_The breadth of interest and the discriminating enthusiasm with which
in the present treatise Dionysius of Halicarnassus (or ‘Denis of
Halicarnasse’, as we might prefer to call him) approaches his special
subject of literary composition, or word-order, may be inferred from
the table of contents, the detailed summary, and the brief statement
on page 10 of the Introduction.[2] It is an interest which impels him
to touch, incidentally but most suggestively, on such topics as Greek
Pronunciation, Accent, Music. It is an enthusiasm which prompts him
to speak of ‘words soft as a maiden’s cheek’_ (ὀνόματα μαλακὰ καὶ
παρθενωπά), _to describe Homer as ‘of all poets the most many-voiced’_
(πολυφωνότατος ἁπάντων τῶν ποιητῶν), _and to attribute to Thucydides
‘an old-world and_

[Page viii]

_masterful nobility of style’_ (ἀρχαϊκόν τι καὶ αὔθαδες κάλλος).
_Expressions so apt and vivid as these, together with the easy flow
and natural arrangement of the whole treatise, tend to prove that
Dionysius is not laboriously compiling his matter as he goes along, but
is writing out of a full mind, is dealing with a subject which has long
occupied his thoughts, and is imparting one section only of a large and
well-ordered body of critical doctrine in the command of which he feels

_That to the Greeks literature was an art—that with them, the sound
was echo to the sense—that they were keenly alive to all the magic
and music of beautiful speech: where shall we find these truths more
vividly brought out than in the present treatise? And if we are still
to teach the great Greek authors in the original language and not in
translations, surely it is of supreme importance to lay stress on
points of artistic form, most especially in a literature where form
and substance are so indissolubly allied as in that of Greece and
when we are fortunate enough to have the aid of a writer who knows
so well as does Dionysius (see page 41) that noble style is but the
reflection of those noble thoughts and feelings which should inspire
a nation’s life. Nevertheless, the_ de Compositione _lies almost dead
and forgotten, seldom mentioned and still more seldom read; and one is
sometimes tempted to think of the eager curiosity with which it would
most certainly be welcomed had it lately been discovered in the sands
of Egypt or in some buried house at Herculaneum. A new ode of Sappho,
and a ‘precious tender-hearted scroll of pure Simonides,’ would rejoice
the man of letters, while the philologist would revel in the stray
hints upon Greek pronunciation. So striking an addition to the Greek
criticism of Greek literature would be hailed with acclamation, and it
would be gladly acknowledged that its skilful author had known how to
enliven a difficult subject by means of eloquence, enthusiasm, humour,
variety in vocabulary and in method of presentation generally, and
had made his readers realize that the beauty of a verse or of a prose
period largely depends upon the harmonious collocation of those_ sounds
_of which human speech primarily consists._

[Page ix]

_A word may be said upon some of the modern bearings of the treatise.
Dionysius is undoubtedly right in holding that consummate poets are
consummate craftsmen—that even so early a poet as Homer_ =φιλοτεχνεῖ=.
_Our British habit of thought leads us to dwell on the spontaneity
of literary achievement rather than on its artistic finish. We are
apt to sneer, as some degenerate Greeks did in Dionysius’ time
(pages 262-270), at the contention that even genius cannot dispense
with literary pains, and to insist in a one-sided way on the axiom
that where genius begins rules end. But a reference to the greatest
names in our own literature will confirm the view that the highest
excellence must be preceded by study and practice, however eminent
the natural gifts of an author may be. Would any one hesitate to
say whether_ Paradise Lost _or_ Lycidas _is the more mature example
of Miltonic poetry? Shakespeare, with his creative genius and
all-embracing humanity, may seem to soar far above these so-called
artificial trammels. But, here again, could any one doubt, on
grounds of style alone, whether_ Hamlet _or_ The Two Gentlemen of
Verona _was the earlier play? To be able fully to appreciate such
differences is no small result of a literary education; and though
the rhetoric of each language is in a large degree special to that
language, it is notwithstanding true that our western literatures are
closely interrelated—that they should continually be compared and
contrasted—and that modern literary theory can gain much in stimulus
and suggestion from that ancient literary theory which had its origin
in Greece, and which by way of Rome (where Dionysius taught Greek
literature in the age of Horace) was transmitted to the modern world._

_In the present edition an endeavour has been made to suggest some
of the many points at which Dionysius’ principles and precepts are
applicable to the modern languages and literatures. Efforts, too, have
been made to smooth away, by means of the Glossary and the English
Translation, those technical difficulties which might easily deter even
the advanced Greek student (not to mention the wider of cultivated
readers generally) from seeking in the_

[Page x]

de Compositione _that literary help which it is so well able to give.
The edition has been many years in preparation; and special pains have
been taken with the English Translation, as it is the first to be
published and as its execution presents great and obvious difficulties.
The Glossary will show how rich and varied is Dionysius’ rhetorical
terminology, and it may also serve as a contribution towards that new
Lexicon of Greek and Roman Rhetoric which is a pressing need. It seems
not unnatural to treat thus fully a work of which no annotated edition
in any language has appeared for a hundred years. For the constitution
of the Greek text, on the other hand, the recent critical edition of
Dionysius’ literary essays by Usener and Radermacher is of the highest
importance. The present editor desires here to acknowledge the debt he
owes to their admirable apparatus criticus, the exhaustiveness of which
he has not attempted to equal, though he has thought it desirable to
report (with their aid) a good many seemingly insignificant errors or
variants which may serve to throw some light on the comparative value
of the chief documentary authorities. He may add that he has himself
collated, for the purposes of the present recension, the best Paris
manuscript (P 1741, which contains Aristotle’s_ Rhetoric _and_ Poetics,
_Demetrius_ de Elocutione, _Dionysius_ de Compositione Verborum _and_
Ep. ii. ad Amm., _etc.), and that he has explained on pages 56-60 his
views with regard to some of the textual problems presented by the

_It is a pleasure further to acknowledge the ever ready aid he has
received from his personal friends---from Dr. A. S. Way, who has not
only contributed the verse-translations throughout the treatise but
has given help of unusual range and worth in other directions also,
and from Mr. L. H. G. Greenwood, Mr. G. B. Mathews, Mr. P. N. Ure, and
Professor T. Hudson Williams, who have read the proofs and made most
valuable suggestions. Nor should the great care shown in the printing
of the book by Messrs. R. & R. Clark’s able staff of compositors and
readers be passed over without a word of grateful mention._

_It may perhaps not be out of place to state in conclusion that_

[Page xi]

_the editor hopes next to publish, in continuation of this series of
contributions to the study of the Greek literary critics, a number of
essays and dissertations grouped round the_ Rhetoric _of Aristotle.
The_ Rhetoric _is a remarkable product of its great author’s maturity,
in reading which constant reference should be made to Aristotle’s
other works, to the writings of his predecessors, and to those later
Greek and Roman critics who illustrate it in so many ways. Studies
of the kind indicated ought to contain much of modern and permanent
interest. Not long ago a distinguished man of science wrote, ‘one
literary art, the art of rhetoric, may be weakened and lost when the
scientific spirit becomes predominant—that sort of rhetoric, I mean,
which may be fitly described as insincere eloquence. Rhetoric seeks
above all to persuade, and in a completely scientific age men will
only allow themselves to be persuaded by force of reason.’ The writer
seems to recognize that there may be a good as well as a bad rhetoric,
but perhaps it hardly falls within his scope to make it clear that
the Greeks, from whom the art and the term come, were themselves well
aware of this fact, even though the age in which they lived might not
be completely scientific. The vicious type of rhetoric which he justly
censures is exemplified in the_ Rhetorica ad Alexandrum. _In this
book—for whose date the antiquity of a recently-discovered manuscript
(published in the_ Hibeh Papyri i. 114 ff.) _suggests the age of
Aristotle, though Aristotle himself is certainly not the author—the
aim of rhetoric is assumed to be persuasion at any price. But how
different is the spirit of Plato in the_ Phaedrus _and the_ Gorgias,
_and of Aristotle in the_ Rhetoric. _To take Aristotle only. He looks
at rhetoric with the sincerity of a lover of truth and with the breadth
of a lover of wisdom. He recognizes that the art may be abused; but
‘so may all good things except virtue itself, and particularly the
most useful things, such as strength, health, wealth, generalship.’
Its function is ‘not to persuade, but to ascertain in any given case
the available means of persuasion.’ Mental self-defence is a duty no
less than physical self-defence; but though it is necessary to know bad
arguments in order to be ready to parry_

[Page xii]

_them, we must not use them ourselves (for ‘one must not be the
advocate of evil’), nor must we try to warp the feelings of the judge
(for this would be like ‘making crooked a carpenter’s rule which
you are about to use’). Season must be our weapon, and we must have
confidence that the truth will prevail (for ‘truth and justice are by
nature stronger than their opposites’ and ‘what is true and better is
by nature the easier to prove and the more convincing’). The whole work
is conceived in the same spirit—that of attention to truth rather than
to mere persuasion, to matter rather than to manner, to the solid facts
of human nature rather than to the shallow blandishments of style. The
author of the most scientific treatise that has yet been written on
rhetoric manifestly held a lofty view of his subject; and so far from
commending an insincere eloquence, he says less than we could wish
about literary beauties and the arts of style. Here Dionysius, in his
various critical works, happily serves to supplement him. Though he has
the art of speaking specially in view, Dionysius draws his literary
illustrations from so wide a field that the art of literature may be
regarded as his theme. The method he inculcates is that which every
literary aspirant follows, consciously or unconsciously, in regard to
his own language—the reading and imitation of the great writers by whom
its capacities have been enlarged. To us, no less than to his Roman
pupil Rufus, the practice and the precepts of those Greeks who attained
an unsurpassed excellence in the art of literature have an enduring
interest. For they help the fruitful study of our own literature; and
that literature, we all rejoice to think, has not only a great past
behind it but a great future in store for it._

        December 6, 1909._

[Page xiii]






      B. NORMAL ORDER      14

      C. LUCIDITY      15

      D. EMPHASIS      17

      E. EUPHONY      27







      D. GREEK GRAMMAR      46






  GLOSSARY      285


    A. OBSCURITY IN GREEK      335





    B. NAMES AND MATTERS      354

[Page 1]




A GENERAL account of the life and literary activities of Dionysius will
be found in the volume entitled _Dionysius of Halicarnassus: the Three
Literary Letters_, where the _de Compositione Verborum_ is briefly
described in connexion with the other critical essays of its author.
Here a fuller summary of the treatise seems necessary before an attempt
is made to estimate its value and to follow up some of the highly
interesting questions which it raises.

The date of the _de Compositione_ is not known, but may be conjectured
to lie between the years 20 and 10 B.C. The book is a birthday offering
from Dionysius, as a teacher of rhetoric in Rome, to his pupil Rufus

=c. 1.= This book is a birthday present which deals with the art of
speech, and so will be found particularly useful to youths who look
forward to a public career. Oratorical excellence depends on skill
exercised in two directions—in the sphere of subject matter and in the
sphere of expression (πραγματικὸς τόπος and λεκτικὸς τόπος). In the
former sphere, maturity of judgment and experience is required: in the
latter the young are more at home, but they need careful guidance at
the start. The λεκτικὸς τόπος has two subdivisions, ἐκλογὴ ὀνομάτων and
σύνθεσις ὀνομάτων. The _composition_ of words is to be treated now:
the _choice_ of words is to be treated next year, if Heaven keeps the
author “safe and sound.” The chief headings in the present treatise are
to be the following:—

    (1) The nature of composition, and its effect;

    (2) Its aims, and how it attains them;

    (3) Its varieties, with their characteristic features and the
 author’s preferences among them;

    (4) The poetical element in prose and the prose element in verse,
 and the means of cultivating both—of imparting the flavour of poetry
 to prose and the ease of prose to poetry.

[Page 2]

=c. 2.= “_Composition_ is, as the very name indicates, a certain mutual
arrangement of the parts of speech, or elements of diction, as some
prefer to call them.” The parts of speech recognized by Theodectes
and Aristotle and their contemporaries were three in number, viz.
nouns, verbs, and connectives. The number was raised, by the Stoics
and others, to four through the separation of the article from the
connectives. Later were added the adjective, the pronoun, the adverb,
the preposition, the participle, and certain other subdivisions. These
principal parts of speech form, when joined and set side by side,
the _cola_ (‘members,’ ‘clauses’). The union of _cola_ completes the
“periods,” and these make up the entire discourse. The functions of
composition are to arrange the words fittingly, to assign the proper
structure to the _cola_, and to divide the discourse carefully into

In its effects, though not in order of time, the composition of words
comes before the choice of words.

=c. 3.= Our thoughts are uttered either in verse or in prose. In
both alike, composition can invest the lowliest words with charm and
distinction. By way of foretaste, two passages (one of poetry, the
other of prose) may be quoted in illustration. The first is from the
opening of the 16th _Odyssey_, where the lines allure not by elaborate
language or lofty theme, but by the sheer beauty with which the
words are grouped. The prose example is furnished by that passage of
Herodotus (i. 8-10) which describes the unworthy behaviour of Candaules
towards his wife. Here, too, the charm resides not in the incident nor
in the words which describe it, but in the deft arrangement of the

=c. 4.= The powerful effect of composition will be still further
realized if some choice passages of verse and prose be taken and the
order of the words disturbed. Homer and Herodotus once more provide
examples. Certain lines in the twelfth and thirteenth books of the
_Iliad_ are chosen, and transformed, with disastrous effects, from
hexameters into two varieties of tetrameters. A short passage of
Herodotus is turned about in a similar way, one of the two versions
being in the style of Thucydides, the other in the odious manner of
Hegesias. Composition may in fact be likened to the Homeric Athena, who
with a touch of her magic wand could make the same Odysseus resemble
either a beggar or a gallant prince. The neglect of composition has
lamentable results in writers like Duris, Polybius, Chrysippus,
and others. Failing to find the subject satisfactorily treated by
previous authors, Dionysius has himself endeavoured to discover some
natural principle to form a starting-point (φυσικὴ ἀφορμή). He has not
succeeded, but he will describe his attempt.

=c. 5.= It had occurred to him that, in a natural order, verbs would

[Page 3]

follow nouns and precede adverbs, while things which happened first in
time would come first in narration. But these (and other) rules were
seen to be untrustworthy, when tested by the actual practice of the
great authors.

=c. 6.= As far as words (or elements of discourse) are concerned, the
art of composition operates in three ways—through (1) the choice of
elements likely to combine effectively; (2) the discernment of the
particular shapes or constructions (i.e. singular or plural number,
nominative or oblique case, active or passive voice, etc.) to be given
to each element in order that the structure may be improved; (3) the
perception of the modification which these shapes need in view of the
materials. Each of the processes can be illustrated from the arts of
house-building and ship-building—of civil and marine architecture. This
analogy is developed at some length.

=c. 7.= In the case of the _cola_, the processes are two. (1) The
_cola_ must be rightly arranged. For instance, in a passage of
Thucydides (iii. 57) the order in which they come makes all the
difference. So, too, in Demosthenes _de Corona_ § 119.

=c. 8.= (2) The right “turn,” or “shaping,” must be given to the
_cola_, so that they may faithfully reflect the various aims and moods
of the speaker or writer. A good example will be found in Demosthenes
_de Corona_ § 179.

=c. 9.= Under (2) it is to be noted that the _cola_ may be lengthened
or shortened for the sake of literary effect. Examples are given from
Demosthenes, Plato, Sophocles, and again Demosthenes.—The same remarks
will apply to periods as to _cola_. Further, the art of composition
must determine when it is fitting to employ periods and when not.

=c. 10.= Next come the aims and methods of good composition. The two
chief aims are charm and beauty or nobility: the ear craves these
in composition, just as the eye in a work of pictorial art. The two
qualities are, however, not identical. Thucydides, for example, and
Antiphon possess beauty but lack charm. Ctesias, on the other hand, and
Xenophon are charming (pleasing, agreeable), but deficient in beauty.
Herodotus combines the two excellences.

=c. 11.= The chief sources of charm and beauty (or nobility) are four:
music, rhythm, variety, and propriety. Charm and beauty, themselves,
have many subdivisions. The instinctive appreciation of music and
rhythm on the part of a popular audience may be noticed during a
performance in some house of entertainment. Variety, too, and propriety
are indispensable. As to the music of speech, it is to be observed that
there is a sort of oratorical cadence which differs from music proper
in quantity only, not in quality. The speaking voice does not rise in
pitch above three tones and a half: it confines itself to the interval
of the Fifth. The singing voice, on the other hand, uses a greater
number of intervals, not only the Fifth but

[Page 4]

(beginning with the Octave) the Fifth, the Fourth, the Tone, and the
Semitone, and, as some think, still slighter intervals. Other points of
difference are that, in singing, the words are subordinate to the air,
and the length of the syllables is regulated by the musical time. So
the speaking voice can show good melody without being “melodic,” and
show good rhythms without being “rhythmic.” There is, in fact, music in
speech, but not the whole of music.

=c. 12.= Various sounds affect the ear in various ways. The cause
lies in the nature of the letters; and as their nature cannot be
changed, there should be a judicious intermixture of pleasant with
unpleasant sounds. Short words, too, must be mingled with long, and
long with short. The same variety, too, must be practised in the use
of figures, and in other ways. But even variety must not be carried to
excess: uniformity is sometimes equally pleasant. Tact is needed, and
to impart tact is no easy task. It is to be remembered that not even
the commonest words need be shunned by good writers: they can all be
dignified by means of composition, as is seen in Homer’s poems.

=c. 13.= Beauty of composition will be attained by the same means as
charm of composition,—by melody, rhythm, variety, propriety. And the
nature of the letters themselves will play an equal part in determining
the character of the composition.

=c. 14.= The twenty-four letters of the Greek alphabet are now examined
from the phonetic point of view. The object is to trace to some of
its ultimate elements the secret of the variety and music found in
beautiful language. The nature and the qualities of the letters must
be understood by the writer who would know how to vary his style in
an ever-changing and musical way. The letters (γράμματα), or elements
(στοιχεῖα), may be divided into vowels (φωνήεντα, φωναί) and consonants
(ψόφοι), and the consonants into semivowels (ἡμίφωνα) and mutes
(ἄφωνα). The vowels can be pronounced by themselves; the semivowels
sound best when combined with vowels; the mutes cannot be uttered at
all except in combination. There are seven vowels: two short, ε and ο;
two long, η and ω; and three common,—α, ι, and υ. The semivowels are
eight in number: five single, viz. λ, μ, ν, ρ, ς, and three double,
viz. ζ, ξ, ψ. The nine mutes may be classified as: ψιλά (_tenues_) κ,
π, τ; δασέα (_aspiratae_) χ, φ, θ; and μέσα (_mediae_) γ, β, δ. Or
they may be arranged according to the part chiefly concerned in their
production: whether it is the _lip_,—π, φ, β; the _teeth_,—τ, θ, δ; or
the _throat_,—κ, χ, γ. That is to say, Dionysius recognizes (though
he does not use the technical adjectives) a division into _labials_,
_dentals_, and _gutturals_. Among these various letters a regular
hierarchy is established by him. Long vowels are held to be more
euphonious than short vowels. The order of euphony for the vowels is,
from the top downwards, as follows: ᾱ, η, ω, υ, ι, ο, ε; and (for the
semivowels) first the double

[Page 5]

consonants, then λ, μ, ν, ρ, and lastly ς, which is condemned in strong
terms. Among the mutes, the rough (the aspirates) are regarded as
superior to the middle, and the middle to the smooth. The physiological
processes by which the several letters are produced are described with
some particularity in the light of the phonetics of the day.

=c. 15.= _Syllables_, as well as letters considered singly, contribute
to variety of style. Of the syllables (or small groups of letters)
there are many different kinds. The principal difference is that some
are short and others long. But the difference does not end there, since
some are shorter than the short and others longer than the long. The
fact is that, from the metrical point of view, the vowels and final
consonants alone count in determining the length of a syllable, whereas
in actual delivery the initial consonants also have to be considered.
For instance, a speaker will find that the initial syllable of στρόφος
takes more time to utter than that of τρόπος; and so with τρόπος by
the side of Ῥόδος, and with Ῥόδος by the side of ὁδός. In the same
way, σπλήν is really longer than the vowel η standing by itself. And
further: syllables differ not only in quantity but in sound, some being
pleasant and others unpleasant, according to the nature of the letters
which compose them. Great poets and prose-writers have an instinctive
perception of these facts, and skilfully adapt their very syllables
and letters to the emotions which they wish to portray; e.g. Homer in
_Odyss._ ix. 415, 416, and in _Il._ xvii. 265, xxii. 220, 221, 476,
xviii. 225.

=c. 16.= Poets and prose-writers frame, or borrow from their
predecessors in earlier generations, such imitative forms (words whose
sound suggests their sense) as ῥοχθεῖ, κλάγξας, βρέμεται, σμαραγεῖ,
ῥοῖζος: all of which are found in Homer. Nature is here the great
teacher; she prompts us to use, in their right connexion, words
so expressive as μύκημα, χρεμετισμός, φριμαγμός, βρόμος, πάταγος,
συριγμός, and the like. The first writer to broach the subject of
etymology was Plato, particularly in his _Cratylus_.

With regard to the music of sounds, the general conclusion is that
variety and beauty of style depend upon variety and beauty of words,
syllables, and letters. To clinch the matter, Dionysius quotes (with
appropriate comments) further illustrations from Homer—_Odyssey_ xvii.
36, 37, vi. 162, 163, etc. Theophrastus, in his work on _Style_, has
distinguished two classes of words—those which are beautiful (or noble)
and those which are mean and paltry. Our aim should be to intermingle
the latter kind, when we are forced to employ them (as sometimes we
are), with the better sort, as has been done by Homer (_Il._ ii.
494-501) in his enumeration of the Boeotian towns.

=c. 17.= Rhythm, also, is an important element in good composition.
For our present purpose, a _rhythm_ and a _foot_ may be regarded
as synonymous. Of disyllabic and trisyllabic feet the following
descriptive list is given:—

[Page 6]

                _A. Disyllabic Feet._

        Name.          |Quantities.|          Qualities.
                       |           |
1. ἡγεμών, πυρρίχιος.  |   ᴗ   ᴗ   | Wanting in seriousness and dignity.
                       |           |
2. σπονδεῖος.          |   –   –   | Full of dignity.
                       |           |
3. ἴαμβος.             |   ᴗ   –   | Not lacking in nobility.
                       |           |
4. τροχαῖος.           |   –   ᴗ   | Less manly and noble than the iambus.

                _B. Trisyllabic Feet_

        Name.          |Quantities.|          Qualities.
                       |           |
1. χορεῖος, τρίβραχυς. |  ᴗ  ᴗ  ᴗ  | Mean and unimpressive.
                       |           |
2. μολοττός.           |  –  –  –  | Dignified and far-striding.
                       |           |
3. ἀμφίβραχυς.         |  ᴗ  –  ᴗ  | Effeminate and unattractive.
                       |           |
4. ἀνάπαιστος.         |  ᴗ  ᴗ  –  | Stately.
                       |           |
5. δάκτυλος.           |  –  ᴗ  ᴗ  | Contributes greatly to beauty of style.
                       |           |
6. κρητικός.           |  –  ᴗ  –  | Not lacking in nobility.
                       |           |
7. βακχεῖος.           |  –  –  ᴗ  | Virile and grave.
                       |           |
8. ὑποβακχεῖος.        |  ᴗ  –  –  | Virile and grave.

Various lines are quoted from the poets in order to illustrate the
effect of these several feet.

=c. 18.= As each word has a rhythmical value (great or small) which
cannot be changed, all depends on the skill with which we arrange
the words at our disposal so as to blend artistically the inferior
with the better. To illustrate his meaning, Dionysius quotes, and
gives a rhythmical analysis of, passages from Thucydides, Plato, and
Demosthenes. The excerpt from Thucydides is a part of the Funeral
Oration attributed to Pericles (ii. 35). The rhythms here used are
shown to be dignified ones, such as spondees, anapaests, dactyls, etc.
Thucydides, we are told, deservedly has a name for elevation and for
choice language, since he habitually introduces noble rhythms. From
Plato is taken a short passage of the _Menexenus_ (236 D); and this too
is shown to owe its dignity and beauty to the beautiful and striking
rhythms that compose it. If Plato had only been as clever in the choice
of words as he is unrivalled in the art of combining them, he “had even
outstript” Demosthenes, as far as beauty of style is concerned, or
“had left the issue in doubt.” Demosthenes is the foremost of orators,
and may be regarded as a model alike in his choice of words and in
the beauty with which he arranges them. The opening of the _Crown_,
with its careful avoidance of all ignoble rhythms, will prove his
pre-eminence. Deficiency in this respect can be illustrated just as

[Page 7]

by the writings of Hegesias, who would seem to have shunned good
rhythms out of sheer wilfulness. A passage is quoted from Hegesias’
_History_—a passage which, if well written, would have moved to
sympathetic tears rather than to derisive laughter. With it are
contrasted some famous lines of the _Iliad_ (xxii. 395-411) which, we
are told, owe their nobility largely to the beauty of their rhythms.

=c. 19.= The third element in good composition is variety (ἡ μεταβολή).
In the use of rhythms to impart variety, prose enjoys much greater
freedom than poetry. Epic poets must needs employ the hexameter line:
the writers of lyric verse must make antistrophe correspond to strophe,
however greatly they may strive for liberty in other respects. That
prose style is best which exhibits the greatest variety in the way of
periods, clauses, rhythms, figures, and the like; and its charm is
all the greater if the art that fashions it lies hidden. In point of
variety, Herodotus, Plato and Demosthenes hold the foremost place:
Isocrates and his followers are distinguished rather by monotony of

=c. 20.= The fourth element is fitness or propriety (τὸ πρέπον).
Propriety is described as the harmony which an author establishes
between his style, and the actions and persons of which he treats.
Common experience proves that ordinary people, in describing an
event, will vary the order of their words (and the point here is the
arrangement, not the choice of words) in accordance with the emotions
which it excites in them. Similarly, artistic writers should follow
their own aesthetic instincts in the matter. Homer has done so with
surpassing effect. A fine instance is furnished by the lines (_Odyssey_
xi. 593-598) which depict the torment of Sisyphus—the slow upheaval of
his rock, and its rapid rolling down the hill once it has reached the

=c. 21.= After these theoretical and technical discussions there
arises the question: what are the different kinds of composition or
arrangement,—what are the different _harmonies_? The answer given
is that there are three: (1) the austere (αὐστηρά), (2) the smooth
(γλαφυρά), (3) the harmoniously blended (εὔκρατος) or intermediate

=c. 22.= The characteristic features of austere composition are set
forth in considerable detail: both generally and in reference to words,
clauses, periods. Among its principal representatives are mentioned:
Antimachus of Colophon and Empedocles in epic poetry, Pindar in lyric,
Aeschylus in tragic; in history, Thucydides; in oratory, Antiphon. The
beginning of a Pindaric dithyramb and the opening sentences of the
introduction to Thucydides’ _History_ are minutely examined from this
point of view. [Any attempt to summarize fully this chapter and those
which follow is hardly possible owing to the nature of the subject
matter. The chapters are important, and will repay a careful study.]

=c. 23.= Smooth composition is next characterized in a similar

[Page 8]

way. Its chief representatives may be taken to be: Hesiod, Sappho,
Anacreon, Simonides, Euripides, Ephorus, Theopompus, Isocrates. In
illustration are quoted (with sundry comments) Sappho’s _Hymn to
Aphrodite_ and the introductory passage from Isocrates’ _Areopagiticus_.

=c. 24.= “The third, the mean of the two kinds already mentioned, which
I call _harmoniously blended_ (or _intermediate_) for lack of a proper
and better name, has no form peculiar to itself, but is a judicious
blend of the other two and a selection from the most effective features
of each.” This third is the best variety of composition because it is a
kind of golden mean; and its highest representative is Homer, in whom
we find a union of the severe and the polished forms of arrangement.
On a lower plane are other votaries of the golden mean: among lyric
poets Stesichorus and Alcaeus, among tragedians Sophocles, among
historians Herodotus, among orators Demosthenes, and among philosophers
Democritus, Plato and Aristotle. Illustrative examples are, in this
case, unnecessary.

=c. 25.= These discussions lead up to a final question,—that of the
relations between prose and poetry. And first: in what way can prose
be made to resemble a beautiful poem or lyric? It is in metre, even
more than in the choice of words, that poetry differs from prose.
Consequently prose cannot become like metrical and lyrical writing,
unless it contains, though not obtrusively, metres and rhythms within
it. It must not be manifestly _in_ metre or _in_ rhythm (for in that
case it will be a poem or a lyric and will desert its own specific
character), but it is enough that it should simply appear rhythmical
and metrical. It will thus be poetical, although not a poem; lyrical,
although not a lyric. Passages are then taken from the opening of the
_Aristocrates_ and the _Crown_ of Demosthenes and are subjected to a
minute metrical analysis. The result of the scrutiny is (it is claimed)
to show that many metrical lines are latent in good prose, the author
having taken care to disguise slightly their metrical character. In
an eloquent passage Dionysius then submits that the great end in
view warranted all these anxious pains on the part of Demosthenes.
Demosthenes was no mere peddler, but a consummate artist who had the
judgment of posterity always before his mind. Isocrates, also, and
Plato spent no less trouble on their writings, as witness the story
about the opening passage of the _Republic_. It is, further, to be
noticed that such careful processes, though deliberate at first, become
in the end unconscious and almost instinctive, just as accomplished
musicians do not think of every note they strike on their instrument,
nor skilled readers of every single letter which meets their eyes in
the book that lies open before them.

=c. 26.= Secondly (and lastly) comes a question which is the
counterpart of that asked in c. 25: namely, in what way can a poem or
lyric be made to resemble beautiful prose? The two principal means are:
(1) so to arrange the clauses that they do not invariably

[Page 9]

begin and end together with the lines; (2) to vary the clauses and
periods in length and form. These things are more difficult to do where
the metre is uniform, as in heroic and iambic verse. In lyric poems the
task is easier, since the variety of their metres brings them a point
nearer to prose. At the same time, while avoiding monotony and while
generally causing his verse to resemble beautiful prose, the poet must
remember that the so-called “prosaic character” is a defect. We are,
however, here thinking not of vulgar prose but of the highest civil
oratory. In order to show that, in poetry, clauses can be of different
sorts and sizes, and can also be so far independent of the metre as
almost to give the effect of an unbroken prose-narrative, Dionysius
draws some concluding illustrations from the 14th _Odyssey_, the
_Telephus_ of Euripides, and the _Danaë_ of Simonides.

       *       *       *       *       *

The following Tabular Analysis may help to make the general structure
of the treatise still clearer:—

I. CHAPTERS 1-5. INTRODUCTORY. The nature of composition, and its
effect.—Instances of the fatal neglect of composition.—The secret of
composition not to be found in grammatical rules.


    1. cc. 6-9: (α) Three processes in the art of composition, c. 6.

       (β) Grouping of clauses, c. 7.
       (γ) Shaping of clauses, c. 8.
       (δ) Lengthening and shortening of clauses and periods, c. 9.

    2. cc. 10-20: Charm and beauty of composition, and the four means
       of attaining these qualities:—

       (α) Preliminary remarks, cc. 10-13.
       (β) Four means: (1) μέλος, cc. 14-16.
                       (2) ῥυθμός, cc. 17, 18.
                       (3) μεταβολή, c. 19.
                       (4) τὸ πρέπον, c. 20.


            (1) σύνθεσις αὐστηρά, c. 22.
            (2) σύνθεσις γλαφυρά, c. 23.
            (3) σύνθεσις εὔκρατος (or κοινή), c. 24.


NOTE.—The existing division into chapters is not always a happy one. As
a help to the reader, a few words of summary have been prefixed to each
chapter of the English Translation.

[Page 10]

The Greek Epitome is about one-third the length of the original. It is
of early but uncertain date (cp. Usener _de Dionysii Halicarnassensis
Libris Manuscriptis_ p. viii, n. 7), and is preserved in the following
codices: Darmstadiensis, Monacensis, Rehdigeranus, Vaticanus Urbinas.
It has survived along with the original; and instead of superseding
and extinguishing the unabridged work, as ancient epitomes seem often
to have done, it contributes not a little to its elucidation. Had it
been preserved at the expense of the original, we should have still
possessed the Sappho, but should have lost the Simonides. Towards the
end, the Epitome is executed with less care than at the beginning.



The strong and the weak points of the _de Compositione Verborum_ will
appear from the foregoing summary, and still more from the treatise
itself and the notes appended to it. Dionysius’ book is unique: no
other of its kind has come down to us from classical antiquity. Its
immediate subject is the Order of Words in Greek. But its author is
happily led to raise fundamental questions such as the relations
between Prose and Poetry, together with incidental points of Greek
Pronunciation and Accentuation; and generally to take so wide a range
that no English title less comprehensive than _On Literary Composition_
seems to fit the contents of the work.[3] The discursive enthusiasm
of the writer is obvious. Not less striking, however, is the sound
literary taste which converts his quotations into a true anthology
and preserves some priceless remains of Sappho and Simonides. It will
be necessary to point out certain weaknesses of Dionysius from time
to time. But his weaknesses are far more than counterbalanced by his
great excellences. Some of his shortcomings are those of his age,—an
age which was a stranger to the modern method of comparison as applied
to literary investigation. Others, again, are more apparent than real.
When, for example, certain omissions are observable in some directions
along with ample expatiations in others, it is to be remembered (1)
that Dionysius is dealing with the department

[Page 11]

of expression and not with that of subject matter, (2) that, in the
department of expression, he is concerned with the composition (or
arrangement) of words and not with their selection, and (3) that, in
regard to composition, he is here interested primarily not in lucidity
nor in emphasis, but in euphony. Hence we must not expect him to dwell
on that great governing principle of literary composition,—logical
connexion. To its importance, however, he is fully alive, as is clear
from a passage in his essay on Isocrates: “The thought” [in Isocrates,
who pays excessive heed to smoothness of style and a pleasant cadence]
“is often the slave of rhythmical expression, and truth is sacrificed
to elegance.... But the natural course is for the expression to follow
the ideas, not the ideas the expression.”[4] And though, in the _de
Compositione_, it is his business to discourse rather upon sound than
upon sense, yet the orderly way in which the subject matter of the
treatise is presented shows in itself that Dionysius was well aware
that the chief essential for a book is a basis of clear thinking and
broad logical arrangement, and that, as a consequence, its excellence
is to be sought even more in its chapters and its paragraphs than
in its flowing periods.[5] It may be well to touch, with a similar
regard to sequence and with occasional references to modern parallels
or contrasts, upon one or two aspects of his main theme which his
own treatment of it suggests as suitable for further discussion and

A. _Freedom and Elasticity_

In his fifth chapter Dionysius shows, with no difficulty and with much
vivacity, that it is impossible to lay down universal rules governing
the order of words in Greek. He admits that he had been inclined to
entertain _a priori_ views on the question of the natural precedence of
certain parts of speech and to hold that nouns should precede verbs,
verbs adverbs, and so forth.[6]

[Page 12]

But he had proceeded, with that sound practical judgment which
distinguishes him, to test his theories in the light of Homer’s usage.
He had then found them wanting. “Trial invariably wrecked my views
and revealed their utter worthlessness.” The examples of variety in
word-order which he quotes from the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_ are
most interesting and instructive. But a modern reader, familiar with
languages whose paucity of inflexions often offers freedom only at the
price of ambiguity, has more cause than any ancient writer to wonder at
the liberty which Greek enjoys in this respect. No doubt the long gap
between πολὺν and χρόνον in the _Frogs_ has, and is intended to have, a
comic effect. But there is no sort of ambiguity in the sentence, since
the poet takes care to use no noun with which the adjective could agree
until the right noun at length comes and relieves the listener of his
suspense and growing curiosity,—

      εἰ δ’ ἐγὼ ὀρθὸς ἰδεῖν βίον ἀνέρος ἢ τρόπον ὅστις ἔτ’ οἰμώξεται,
      οὐ =πολὺν= οὐδ’ ὁ πίθηκος οὗτος ὁ νῦν ἐνοχλῶν,
      Κλειγένης ὁ μικρός,
      ὁ πονηρότατος βαλανεὺς ὁπόσοι κρατοῦσι κυκησιτέφρου
      ψευδολίτρου κονίας
      καὶ Κιμωλίας γῆς,
      =χρόνον= ἐνδιατρίψει.

                              Aristophanes _Ranae_ 706-13.

Here as many as twenty-one words divide an adjective from its noun,
though noun and adjective are usually placed close together.[7] But,
even in serious poetry, the same thing is to be noticed, though on a
less surprising scale. For example:

      ἦν δ’ οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς οὔτε χείματος =τέκμαρ=
      οὔτ’ ἀνθεμώδους ἦρος οὔτε καρπίμου
      θέρους =βέβαιον=.

                              Aeschylus _Prometheus Vinctus_ 454-6.

Here the adjective follows the noun, but (as before) there is no
ambiguity, though there is much added emphasis due to the apparent
afterthought. Similarly:

[Page 13]

      ἐν δὲ =νομὸν= ποίησε περικλυτὸς ἀμφιγυήεις
      ἐν καλῇ βήσσῃ =μέγαν= οἰῶν ἀργεννάων.[8]

                              Homer _Iliad_ xviii. 587, 588.

And in prose the dependence of a genitive may be quite clear, though
the distance between it and the words on which it depends be great: e.g.

    =τῶν μὲν οὖν λόγων=, οὓς οὗτος ἄνω καὶ κάτω διακυκῶν ἔλεγε περὶ τῶν
        παραγεγραμμένων νόμων, οὔτε μὰ τοὺς θεοὺς οἶμαι ὑμᾶς μανθάνειν
        οὔτ’ αὐτὸς ἐδυνάμην συνεῖναι =τοὺς πολλούς=.

                              Demosthenes _de Corona_ § 111 (cp. § 57).

In prose, again, the extremely antithetic and artificial arrangement
of words possible (without complete loss of clearness) in a highly
inflected language may be illustrated from Thucydides:—

    καὶ οὐ περὶ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἄρα οὔτε οὗτοι τῶν Ἑλλήνων οὔθ’ οἱ
        Ἕλληνες τῆς ἑαυτῶν τῷ Μήδῳ ἀντέστησαν, περὶ δὲ οἱ μὲν σφίσιν
        ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐκείνῳ καταδουλώσεως, οἱ δ’ ἐπὶ δεσπότου μεταβολῇ οὐκ
        ἀξυνετωτέρου, κακοξυνετωτέρου δέ.

                              Thucydides vi. 76.[9]

The following sentence of Demosthenes, with its carefully chosen
position for the main subject Φίλιππος and the main verb ἐπηγγείλατο,
shows how well _suspense_ and the _period_ can be worked in such a

    ὡς δὲ ταλαιπωρούμενοι τῷ μήκει τοῦ πολέμου οἱ τότε μὲν βαρεῖς
        νῦν δ’ ἀτυχεῖς Θηβαῖοι φανεροὶ πᾶσιν ἦσαν ἀναγκασθησόμενοι
        καταφεύγειν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς, =Φίλιππος=, ἵνα μὴ τοῦτο γένοιτο μηδὲ
        συνέλθοιεν αἱ πόλεις, ὑμῖν μὲν εἰρήνην ἐκείνοις δὲ βοήθειαν

                              Demosthenes _de Corona_ § 19.[10]

In an analytical language such as English a separate introductory

[Page 14]

sentence[11] would be almost necessary in order to bring out the point
of a familiar passage in the _Cyropaedia_:—

    παῖς μέγας μικρὸν ἔχων χιτῶνα ἕτερον παῖδα μικρὸν μέγαν ἔχοντα
        χιτῶνα, ἐκδύσας αὐτόν, τὸν μὲν ἑαυτοῦ ἐκεῖνον ἠμφίεσε, τὸν δὲ
        ἐκείνου αὐτὸς ἐνέδυ.

                              Xenophon _Cyropaedia_ i. 3. 17.

And the force and variety gained by juxtaposition, or by chiastic
arrangement, is obvious in such examples as:—

    (1) τίπτε με, Πηλέος υἱέ, ποσὶν ταχέεσσι διώκεις,
        =αὐτὸς θνητὸς ἐὼν θεὸν ἄμβροτον=;

                              Homer _Iliad_ xxii. 8, 9.

    (2) τί δῆτα, ὦ Μέλητε; τοσοῦτον =σὺ ἐμοῦ= σοφώτερος εἶ =τηλικούτου
        ὄντος τηλικόσδε ὤν=;

                              Plato _Apology_ 25 D.

    (3) οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ κρίσει μέν τις δικασθεὶς οὐκ ἂν ἐπὶ τῶν =δικαίων καὶ
        καλῶν= ἐλεύθερος καὶ ὑγιὴς ἂν κριτὴς γένοιτο· ἀνάγκη γὰρ τῷ
        δωροδόκῳ τὰ οἰκεῖα μὲν φαίνεσθαι =καλὰ καὶ δίκαια=.

                              Longinus _de Sublimitate_ c. xliv.

    (4) καὶ τῶν κώλων ... =ἀνίσων τε ὄντων καὶ ἀνομοίων= ἀλλήλοις
        =ἀνομοίους τε καὶ ἀνίσους= ποιούμενοι τὰς διαιρέσεις.

                              Dionys. Halic. _de Comp. Verb._ c. xxvi.

The two last examples of elegant variation might, no doubt, be
closely reproduced in modern languages. To the more important matter
of emphasis, which arises in some of the other instances, a separate
section must be devoted later.[12]

B. _Normal Order_

Though Dionysius does right to deny the existence of a

[Page 15]

natural or inevitable order in Greek and to emphasize the essential
freedom of the language, he might well have recognized more explicitly
that there is what may be termed a normal or usual order, and that it
is precisely the departure from this normal usage which does much to
give a definite character (good or bad, as the case may be) to the
style of individual Greek authors. For instance, it is usual in Greek
for an adjective to follow its noun, and for a negative to precede
the word or words which it qualifies. There are, further, certain
customary positions for the article (according as it is attributive
or predicative); for the demonstrative pronouns in conjunction with
the article; for αὐτός, according to the meaning which it bears; for
the particles; for prepositions, conjunctions, and relative pronouns;
and so forth. There is, in short, a grammatical order sanctioned by
prevailing usage, an order which might be shown to hold good, commonly
though not universally, in some of the grammatical constructions
indicated by Dionysius in his fifth chapter. Now between this normal
order, and lucidity of expression, there exists a close connexion.

C. _Lucidity_

It might easily be concluded, by a reader who knew the _de
Compositione_ alone among Dionysius’ critical essays, that he set
little store by that clear writing which, as it presupposes clear
thinking, is a rare and cardinal excellence of style. As the noun
σαφήνεια occurs but once in the treatise and the adjective σαφής not
much oftener, it might be supposed that he underrated a quality to
which Aristotle and other writers of antiquity assign so high a place.
Aristotle, indeed, regards it as a first essential of good style,
which must be “clear without being mean” (λέξεως δὲ ἀρετὴ σαφῆ καὶ
μὴ ταπεινὴν εἶναι, Aristot. _Poet._ xxii. 1: cp. _Rhet._ iii. 2. 1).
Similarly Cicero puts clearness (_sermo dilucidus_) before ornament,
asking how it is possible, “qui non dicat quod intellegamus, hunc posse
quod admiremur dicere” (Cic. _de Orat._ iii. 9. 38). Horace’s approving
reference to _lucidus ordo_ has become proverbial.[13] And Quintilian
allots the primacy

[Page 16]

to the same great quality: “nobis prima sit virtus perspicuitas,
propria verba, rectus ordo, non in longum dilata conclusio; nihil neque
desit neque superfluat” (_Inst. Or._ viii. 2. 22), and puts a high
and not always attainable ideal before the orator in relation to his
judicial auditor: “quare non, ut intellegere possit, sed, ne omnino
possit non intellegere, curandum” (_ibid._ viii. 2. 24).

If Dionysius in the present treatise says little about lucidity, the
sole reason is that he _assumes_ it as a necessary and indispensable
quality of style. In the _de Thucydide_ c. 23 it is classed (together
with purity and brevity) as one of the ἀρεταὶ ἀναγκαῖαι (in
contradistinction to the ἀρεταὶ ἐπίθετοι, such as ἐνάργεια, ἡ τῶν ἠθῶν
τε καὶ παθῶν μίμησις, etc.). The Greek critics recognized, however,
that the plainer styles were more likely than the more elaborate ones
to excel in lucidity,—that, in this respect, a Herodotus and a Lysias
might be expected to surpass a Thucydides and a Demosthenes.[14] Among
these authors let us choose Lysias and Thucydides, and see what praise
or blame Dionysius awards to them upon this score. In the fourth
chapter of the _de Lysia_, the lucidity of Lysias is contrasted with
the obscurity often found in Thucydides and Demosthenes; and it is
pointed out that this excellence is, in him, all the more admirable in
that it is combined with a studious brevity, an opulent vocabulary,
and a mind of great native force. And no finer example of pellucid
clearness of narration could well be imagined than that quoted from
Lysias in the sixth chapter of the _de Isaeo_: ἀναγκαῖόν μοι δοκεῖ
εἶναι, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, περὶ τῆς φιλίας τῆς ἐμῆς καὶ τῆς Φερενίκου
πρῶτον εἰπεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, κτλ. To the obscurities of Thucydides, on the
other hand, as seen in his History and particularly in his Speeches,
constant and mournful reference is made in the essay which has the
historian for its subject. “You can almost count on your fingers,” says
Dionysius, “the people who are capable of comprehending the whole of
Thucydides; and not even they can

[Page 17]

do so without occasional recourse to a grammatical commentary.”[15]
Dionysius, further, gives it as his opinion that the language of
Thucydides was unique even in his own day; and he combats the view
that a historian (as distinguished, say, from an advocate) may plead
in excuse for an artificial style that he does not write for “people
in the market-place, in workshops or in factories, nor for others who
have not shared in a liberal education, but for men who have reached
rhetoric and philosophy after passing through a full curriculum of
approved studies, to whom therefore none of these expressions will
appear unfamiliar.”[16] Obscurity and eccentricity, he says in effect,
are not virtues except in the eyes of literary coteries; presumably a
speaker speaks, and a writer writes, in order to be understood.[17]

D. _Emphasis_

Dionysius’ inadequate recognition of a normal order is naturally
attended by some uncertainty in his attitude towards that kind of
_emphasis_ which a departure from the normal order produces. It may,
indeed, be thought that the effect of emphasis, and the best means of
attaining it, are considered at the opening of the sixth chapter of
the treatise, and that it comes under the heading both of σχηματισμός
and of ἁρμονία. In the fifth chapter, however, we should have welcomed
a clearer recognition of the emphasis which, as it seems to modern
readers, falls upon ἄνδρα, μῆνιν, and ἠέλιος, when they come at the
beginning of the line and so are the first words to accost the ear.
Certainly in his own writing Dionysius shows that he appreciates the
emphasis gained by thrusting a word to the front of the sentence:
e.g. καιροῦ δὲ οὔτε ῥήτωρ οὐδεὶς οὔτε φιλόσοφος εἰς τόδε χρόνου
τέχνην ὥρισεν (=132= 21). Towards the end of chapter 7 he quotes from
Demosthenes the words τὸ λαβεῖν οὖν τὰ διδόμενα ὁμολογῶν ἔννομον εἶναι,
τὸ χάριν τούτων ἀποδοῦναι παρανόμων γράφῃ. He changes the order to
ὁμολογῶν οὖν ἔννομον

[Page 18]

εἶναι τὸ λαβεῖν τὰ διδόμενα, παρανόμων γράφῃ τὸ τούτων χάριν
ἀποδοῦναι, and then asks whether the passage will be ὁμοίως δικανικὴ
καὶ στρογγύλη. To us it would seem that the chief loss is the loss of
emphasis which is entailed (in Greek) by removing from the beginning of
the clauses the important and contrasted phrases τὸ λαβεῖν τὰ διδόμενα
and τὸ χάριν τούτων ἀποδοῦναι. Possibly this loss of emphasis is
implied (among other things) in the words “δικανικὴ καὶ στρογγύλη.”[18]

Where it occurs in Dionysius, the word ἔμφασις bears the sense
of ‘hint,’ ‘suggestion,’ ‘soupçon’ (_de Thucyd._ c. 16 ῥᾳθύμως
ἐπιτετροχασμένα καὶ οὐδὲ τὴν ἐλαχίστην ἔμφασιν ἔχοντα τῆς δεινότητος
ἐκείνης): a sense which is akin to its technical use of ‘hidden
meaning’ (“significatio maior quam oratio,” Cic. _Orat._ 40. 139; cp.
Quintil. viii. 3. 83, ix. 2. 3, 64).[19] In our sense of emphasis
due to position, the word ἔμφασις is perhaps hardly used even in the
scholiasts; and it is possible that Greek has no single term to express
the idea, though it may doubtless be one of the elements in view when a
writer uses such expressions as ἁρμονία, σχηματισμός, and ὑπερβατόν.

A modern student of Greek, having to feel his way with practically no
help from ancient authorities, will probably reach the conclusion that
the rhetorical emphasis he has in mind is attained by placing a word in
one of the less usual positions open to it. The word thus emphasized
may come at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of a sentence,
the real point being that the position should be (for that particular
word) a little out of the ordinary. In Greek, however, as contrasted
with English, the emphasis tends to fall on the earlier rather than the
later words.[20] In delivery, it would seem that the Greeks found it
more natural to stress the beginning than the conclusion of a

[Page 19]

sentence. But an emphatic word may be found at the end as well as at
the beginning, and may sometimes be placed neither at the end nor at
the beginning.[21]

Allusion has already been made to the rhetorical emphasis which falls
upon the opening words of the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_. As with “arma
virumque cano” in the _Aeneid_, the words μῆνιν and ἄνδρα seem to
strike the keynote of the following Epics. And, in a less degree, a
certain emphasis due to initial position (and contributing either to
emotional effect or to logical clearness) is to be discerned throughout
the poems: e.g. in the sixth book of the _Iliad_:—

        =δυστήνων= δέ τε παῖδες ἐμῷ μένει ἀντιόωσιν.

                              Homer _Iliad_ vi. 127.


        =πέπλον= δ’, ὅς τίς τοι χαριέστατος ἠδὲ μέγιστος
        ἔστιν ἐνὶ μεγάρῳ καί τοι πολὺ φίλτατος αὐτῇ,
        τὸν θὲς Ἀθηναίης ἐπὶ γούνασιν ἠϋκόμοιο, κτλ.

                              Homer _Iliad_ vi. 271.

Similarly with the following ten miscellaneous examples of various
emphasis, taken chiefly from Dionysius’ favourite speech:—

    (1) ἐκεῖνος γὰρ πολλοὺς ἐπιθυμητὰς καὶ ἀστοὺς καὶ ξένους λαβών,
        =οὐδένα= πώποτε μισθὸν τῆς συνουσίας ἐπράξατο, ἀλλὰ πᾶσιν
        ἀφθόνως ἐπήρκει τῶν ἑαυτοῦ.

                              Xenophon _Memorabilia_ i. 2. 60.

    (2) καὶ ταραχώδης ἦν ἡ ναυμαχία, ἐν ᾗ αἱ Ἀττικαὶ νῆες
        παραγιγνόμεναι τοῖς Κερκυραίοις, εἴ πῃ πιέζοιντο, =φόβον= μὲν
        παρεῖχον τοῖς ἐναντίοις, =μάχης= δὲ οὐκ ἦρχον δεδιότες οἱ
        στρατηγοὶ τὴν πρόρρησιν τῶν Ἀθηναίων.[22]

                              Thucydides i. 49.

    (3) =Ἀναξαγόρου= οἴει κατηγορεῖν, ὦ φίλε Μέλητε, κτλ.

                              Plato _Apology_ 26 D.

[Page 20]

    (4) οὐ γὰρ =τὰ ῥήματα= τὰς οἰκειότητας ἔφη βεβαιοῦν, μάλα σεμνῶς
        ὀνομάζων, ἀλλὰ τὸ ταὐτὰ συμφέρειν.

                              Demosthenes _de Corona_ § 35.

    (5) οἱ μὲν κατάπτυστοι Θετταλοὶ καὶ ἀναίσθητοι Θηβαῖοι φίλον,
        εὐεργέτην, σωτῆρα τὸν Φίλιππον ἡγοῦντο· =πάντ’= ἐκεῖνος ἦν
        αὐτοῖς· οὐδὲ φωνὴν ἤκουον εἴ τις ἄλλο τι βούλοιτο λέγειν.

                              id. _ib._ § 43.

    (6) οὓς σὺ =ζῶντας μέν,= ὦ κίναδος, κολακεύων παρηκολούθεις,
        =τεθνεώτων δ’= οὐκ αἰσθάνει κατηγορῶν.

                              id. _ib._ § 162.

    (7) καὶ τότ’ εὐθὺς ἐμοῦ διαμαρτυρομένου καὶ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ
        “=πόλεμον= εἰς τὴν Ἀττικὴν εἰσάγεις, Αἰσχίνη, πόλεμον
        Ἀμφικτυονικόν, κτλ.”

                              id. _ib._ § 143.

    (8) ὃς γὰρ =ἐμοῦ= φιλιππισμόν, ὦ γῆ καὶ θεοί, κατηγορεῖ, τί οὗτος
        οὐκ ἂν εἴποι;

                              id. _ib._ § 294.

    (9) ἀλλ’ οἶμαι οὐ δυνάμεθα· =ἐλεεῖσθαι= οὖν ἡμᾶς πολὺ μᾶλλον εἰκός
        ἐστίν που ὑπὸ ὑμῶν τῶν δεινῶν ἢ χαλεπαίνεσθαι.

                              Plato _Republic_ i. 336 E.

    (10) μηδ’ εἵμασι στρώσασ’ ἐπίφθονον πόρον
         τίθει· =θεούς= τοι τοῖσδε τιμαλφεῖν χρεών.

                              Aeschylus _Agamemnon_ 921.

It will be seen from some of the above examples that words may have
emphasis if, though not actually placed at the very beginning of a
sentence or a clause, they come as early as they well can. The three
following passages will further illustrate this point:—

    (1) καὶ ἐς Νικίαν τὸν Νικηράτου στρατηγὸν ὄντα ἀπεσήμαινεν, ἐχθρὸς
        ὢν καὶ ἐπιτιμῶν, ῥᾴδιον εἶναι παρασκευῇ, εἰ =ἄνδρες= εἶεν οἱ
        στρατηγοί, πλεύσαντας λαβεῖν τοὺς ἐν τῇ νήσῳ, καὶ αὐτός γ’ ἄν,
        εἰ ἦρχε, ποιῆσαι τοῦτο.

                              Thucydides iv. 27.

[Page 21]

    (2) ὅ τι μὲν ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, πεπόνθατε ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν
        κατηγόρων, οὐκ οἶδα· ἐγὼ δ’ οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ὀλίγου
        ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην· οὕτω πιθανῶς ἔλεγον. καίτοι =ἀληθές γε=, ὡς
        ἔπος εἰπεῖν, οὐδὲν εἰρήκασιν.

                              Plato _Apology_ init.

    (3) ἀλλὰ μὴν τὸν τότε συμβάντα ἐν τῇ πόλει =θόρυβον= ἴστε μὲν
        ἅπαντες, μικρὰ δ’ ἀκούσατε ὅμως, αὐτὰ τἀναγκαιότατα ... οἱ δὲ
        τοὺς στρατηγοὺς μετεπέμποντο καὶ τὸν σαλπιγκτὴν ἐκάλουν, καὶ
        =θορύβου= πλήρης ἦν ἡ πόλις.

                              Demosthenes _de Corona_ §§ 168, 169.

Sometimes, however, emphatic words will be thrust right to the front
through such devices as the postponement of an interrogative particle:

    =ἑστάναι, εἶπον, καὶ κινεῖσθαι τὸ αὐτὸ ἅμα κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ= ἆρα

                              Plato _Republic_ iv. 436 C.


    =οἷον δίψα ἐστὶ δίψα= ἆρά γε θερμοῦ ποτοῦ ἢ ψυχροῦ, ἢ πολλοῦ ἢ
        ὀλίγου, ἢ καὶ ἑνὶ λόγῳ ποιοῦ τινος πώματος;

                              id. _ib._ iv. 437 D.[23]

An uninflected language may well envy the grammatical resources which
enable Greek or Latin poets to secure at once clearness and the utmost
height of emotion in such lines as:

    Ζεῦ πάτερ, ἀλλὰ σὺ ῥῦσαι ὑπ’ ἠέρος υἷας Ἀχαιῶν,
    ποίησον δ’ αἴθρην, δὸς δ’ ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἰδέσθαι·
    =ἐν δὲ φάει= καὶ ὄλεσσον, ἐπεί νύ τοι εὔαδεν οὕτως.

                              Homer _Iliad_ xvii. 645.

    _Me, me,_ adsum qui feci, in me convertite ferrum,
    O Rutuli.

                              Virgil _Aeneid_ ix. 427.[24]

[Page 22]

The end as well as the beginning of a clause or sentence may bring
emphasis when it is an unusual position for the particular word or
phrase which stands there. Illustrations may perhaps be drawn from
expressions conveying the idea of “death,” which (according to Dionysus
in the _Frogs_) is the “heaviest of ills,” and which (be that as it
may) is as little likely as any to be entertained lightheartedly, or
to be mentioned without some degree of feeling and emphasis. At the
beginning of a sentence, τεθνᾶσι clearly has emphasis in

            =τεθνᾶσ’= ἀδελφοὶ καὶ πατὴρ οὑμὸς γέρων.

                              Euripides _Hercules Furens_ 539.

And in the following passage of Plato, it will be seen that the τὸν
θάνατον which comes near the beginning of a clause is more emphatic
than the τὸν θάνατον which comes at the end of a clause:—

    οἶσθα δ’, ἦ δ’ ὅς, ὅτι =τὸν θάνατον= ἡγοῦνται πάντες οἱ ἄλλοι
        τῶν μεγάλων κακῶν;—καὶ μάλ’, ἔφη.—οὐκοῦν φόβῳ μειζόνων
        κακῶν ὑπομένουσιν αὐτῶν οἱ ἀνδρεῖοι τὸν θάνατον, ὅταν
        ὑπομένωσιν;—ἔστι ταῦτα.

                              Plato _Phaedo_ 68 D.

The τὸν θάνατον before ἡγοῦνται is here emphatic on the same principle
as the θάνατον before εἰσέθηκε in the passage (already alluded to) of
the _Frogs_:—

            =θάνατον= γὰρ εἰσέθηκε βαρύτατον κακόν.

                              Aristophanes _Ranae_ 1394.

But a word like θάνατος may also come with emphasis at the end of
a sentence, if that order is rendered unusual by the interposition
of additional words or by any other means which create a feeling of
suspense and even of afterthought. For example:

[Page 23]

    τί δέ; τὰν Αἵδου ἡγούμενον εἶναί τε καὶ δεινὰ εἶναι οἴει τινὰ
        θάνατου ἀδεῆ ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἐν ταῖς μάχαις αἱρήσεσθαι πρὸ ἥττης τε
        καὶ δουλείας =θάνατον=;

                              Plato _Republic_ iii. 386 B.

Here the θάνατον seems intended to repeat with emphasis the preceding
θανάτου to which, itself, a considerable degree of prominence is
assigned. So, perhaps,

    ἀλλὰ νόμον δημοσίᾳ τὸν ταῦτα κωλύσοντα τέθεινται τουτονὶ καὶ
        πολλοὺς ἤδη παραβάντας τὸν νόμον τοῦτον ἐζημιώκασιν =θανάτῳ=.

                              Demosthenes _Midias_ § 49.


    ... καὶ φοβερωτέρας ἡγήσεται τὰς ὕβρεις καὶ τὰς ἀτιμίας, ἃς ἐν
        δουλευούσῃ τῇ πόλει φέρειν ἀνάγκη, =τοῦ θανάτου=.

                              Demosthenes _de Corona_ § 205.

Some miscellaneous examples of words coming emphatically at the end of
a clause or sentence are:—

    (1) αἰτοῦμαι δ’ ὑμᾶς δοῦναι καὶ νῦν παισὶ μὲν καὶ γυναικὶ καὶ
        φίλοις καὶ πατρίδι =εὐδαιμονίαν=, ἐμοὶ δὲ οἷόν περ αἰῶνα
        δεδώκατε τοιαύτην καὶ τελευτὴν δοῦναι.

                              Xenophon _Cyropaedia_ viii. 7.

    (2) ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτους κολυμβηταὶ δυόμενοι ἐξέπριον =μισθοῦ=.[25]

                              Thucydides vii. 25.

    (3) ὑψοῦ δὲ θάσσων ὑψόθεν χαμαιπετὴς
        πίπτει πρὸς οὖδας μυρίοις οἰμώγμασι

                              Euripides _Bacchae_ 1111.

    (4) ἴστε γὰρ δήπου τοῦθ’ ὅτι πάντες οἱ ξεναγοῦντες οὗτοι πόλεις
        καταλαμβάνοντες Ἑλληνίδας ἄρχειν ζητοῦσιν, καὶ πάντων, ὅσοι
        περ νόμοις οἰκεῖν βούλονται τὴν αὑτῶν ὄντες ἐλεύθεροι, κοινοὶ
        περιέρχονται κατὰ πᾶσαν χώραν, εἰ δεῖ τἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, =ἐχθροί=.

                              Demosthenes _Aristocrates_ § 139.

[Page 24]

    (5) δεῖ δὲ τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας ἐγχειρεῖν μὲν ἅπασιν ἀεὶ τοῖς
        καλοῖς, τὴν ἀγαθὴν προβαλλομένους ἐλπίδα, φέρειν δ’ ἃν ὁ θεὸς
        διδῷ =γενναίως=.[27]

                              Demosthenes _de Corona_ § 97.

    (6) εἶθ’ οὗτοι τὰ ὅπλα εἶχον ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν =ἀεί=.

                              id. _ib._ § 235.

    (7) εἰ γὰρ ταῦτα προεῖτ’ ἀκονιτεί, περὶ ὧν οὐδένα κίνδυνον ὅντιν’
        οὐχ ὑπέμειναν οἱ πρόγονοι, τίς οὐχὶ κατέπτυσεν ἂν =σοῦ=; μὴ γὰρ
        τῆς πόλεώς γε, μηδ’ ἐμοῦ.

                              id. _ib._ § 200.

    (8) ... ἡμῖν δὲ τοῖς λοιποῖς τὴν ταχίστην ἀπαλλαγὴν τῶν ἐπηρτημένων
        φόβων δότε καὶ =σωτηρίαν ἀσφαλῆ=.[28]

                              id. _ib._ § 324.

It may be added that, occasionally, _both_ the earlier and the later
positions are emphatic in the same clause or sentence: e.g.

    (1)               =τέκνα= γὰρ κατακτενῶ

                              Euripides _Medea_ 792.

    (2) =ὦτα= γὰρ τυγχάνει ἀνθρώποισι ἐόντα ἀπιστότερα =ὀφθαλμῶν=.[30]

                              Herodotus i. 8.

    (3) νῦν δὲ τὸ μὲν παρὸν ἀεὶ προϊέμενοι, τὰ δὲ μέλλοντ’ αὐτόματ’
        οἰόμενοι σχήσειν καλῶς, =ηὐξήσαμεν=, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι,
        Φίλιππον =ἡμεῖς=, καὶ κατεστήσαμεν τηλικοῦτον ἡλίκος οὐδείς πω
        βασιλεὺς γέγονεν Μακεδονίας.[31]

[Page 25]

                              Demosthenes _Olynthiacs_ i. § 9.

    (4) =πολλάκις= δὲ τοῦ κήρυκος ἐρωτῶντος οὐδὲν μᾶλλον ἀνίστατ’
        =οὐδείς=, ἁπάντων μὲν τῶν στρατηγῶν παρόντων, κτλ.

                              Demosthenes _de Corona_ § 117.

    (5) καὶ μὴν καὶ =Φερὰς= πρώην ὡς φίλος καὶ σύμμαχος εἰς Θετταλίαν
        ἐλθὼν ἔχει καταλαβών, καὶ τὰ τελευταῖα τοῖς ταλαιπώροις
        Ὠρείταις τουτοισὶ ἐπισκεψομένους ἔφη τοὺς στρατιώτας πεπομφέναι
        κατ’ =εὔνοιαν=· πυνθάνεσθαι γὰρ αὐτοὺς ὡς νοσοῦσι καὶ
        στασιάζουσιν, συμμάχων δ’ εἶναι καὶ φίλων ἀληθινῶν ἐν τοῖς
        τοιούτοις καιροῖς παρεῖναι.

                              Demosthenes _Philippics_ iii. § 12.

    (6) οὐ =λίθοις= ἐτείχισα τὴν πόλιν οὐδὲ πλίνθοις =ἐγώ=, οὐδ’ ἐπὶ
        τούτοις μέγιστον τῶν ἐμαυτοῦ φρονῶ.

                              Demosthenes _de Corona_ § 299.

    (7) =ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν= πεπολίτευσαι πάντα, ἐγὼ δ’ =ὑπὲρ τῆς

                              id. _ib._ § 265.

In connexion with the imperfect appreciation which the _de Compositione
Verborum_ shows of a normal order and of an

[Page 26]

emphasis produced by departure from it, attention may be drawn to
the fact that the treatise contains no reference to the ‘figure’
_hyperbaton_; and this although the figure had been recognized long
before Dionysius’ time, and continued to be recognized long afterwards.
It is first mentioned by Plato, who probably took over the notion from
the Sophists: ἀλλ’ ὑπερβατὸν δεῖ θεῖναι ἐν τῷ ᾄσματι τὸ “ἀλαθέως”
(Plato _Protag._ 343 E, where the reference is to a poem of Simonides).
The author of the _Rhetorica ad Alexandrum_ (c. 30) indicates it in
the following terms: ἐὰν μὴ ὑπερβατῶς αὐτὰ [sc. τὰ ὀνόματα] τιθῶμεν,
ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ τὰ ἐχόμενα ἑξῆς τάττωμεν. Quintilian treats of it in the
passage beginning “_Hyperbaton_ quoque, id est verbi transgressionem,
quoniam frequenter ratio comparationis et decor poscit, non immerito
inter virtutes habemus” (_Inst. Or._ viii. 6. 62).[32] The author of
the _Treatise on the Sublime_ describes and defines it thus: ἔστι δὲ
λέξεων ἢ νοήσεων ἐκ τοῦ κατ’ ἀκολουθίαν κεκινημένη τάξις καὶ οἱονεὶ
χαρακτὴρ ἐναγωνίου πάθους ἀληθέστατος (Longinus _de Sublim._ c.
22).[33] And, later still, Hermogenes and other writers on rhetoric are
well acquainted with the figure. Dionysius, however, mentions it but
seldom in any of his writings, and even then (e.g. τὰς ὑπερβατοὺς καὶ
πολυπλόκους καὶ ἐξ ἀποκοπῆς πολλὰ σημαίνειν πράγματα βουλομένας καὶ διὰ
μακροῦ τὰς ἀποδόσεις λαμβανούσας νοήσεις, _de Thucyd._ c. 52; cp. c. 31
_ibid._) is clearly thinking not of desirable but of highly undesirable
“inversions.” He may have thought that its proper place was in poetry
rather than in prose.

[Page 27]

E. _Euphony_

A modern writer on style would probably lay more stress on clearness
and emphasis than on euphony. The ancient critics, on the other hand,
seem to have taken the two former elements more or less for granted.
Because they were easily attainable in languages so fully inflected as
Greek and Latin, their attainment was regarded as an important matter
indeed, but one which called for no special recognition of any kind.
As Quintilian says, in reference to clearness, “nam emendate quidem ac
lucide dicentium tenue praemium est, magisque ut vitiis carere quam ut
aliquam magnam virtutem adeptus esse videaris” (_Inst. Or._ viii. 3.
1).[34] Dionysius, too, in the _de Compositione Verborum_, passes more
readily over the two qualities of clearness and emphasis because he
is not concerned with the πραγματικὸς τόπος.[35] He keeps rigorously
to his real subject; and that is not the relation of words to the
ideas of which they are the symbols. It is, rather, their relation
to their own constituent elements (letters and syllables of diverse
qualities and quantities) and to the pleasant impression which the apt
collocation of many various words can make upon the ear. His task is
to investigate the emotional power of the sound-elements of language
when alone and when in combination—their euphonic and their symphonic
effects. Hence the constant recurrence, throughout the treatise, of
words like εὐφωνία, εὐρυθμία, εὐστομία, λειότης, ἁρμονία, σύνθεσις. The
illustrative excerpts which he gives are so numerous and so happily
chosen that no others need be added here.[36] A careful study of
his examples, in the context in which they occur, will suggest many
reflexions upon the freedom and adaptability of Greek order. But no
absolute test of euphony

[Page 28]

can be based upon them. Dionysius himself formulates no invariable
rules upon the subject. In the last resort, the court of appeal must,
as he sees, be the instinctive judgment of the ear (τὸ ἄλογον τῆς
ἀκοῆς πάθος).[37] The part played by the ear has been well described
by Quintilian: “ergo quem in poëmate locum habet versificatio, eum
in oratione compositio. optime autem de illa iudicant aures, quae
plena sentiunt et parum expleta desiderant et fragosis offenduntur et
levibus mulcentur et contortis excitantur et stabilia probant, clauda
deprehendunt, redundantia ac nimia fastidiunt” (_Inst. Or._ ix. 4.
116). Naturally the ear in question must be the individual ear (“aurem
_tuam_ interroga, quo quid loco conveniat dicere,” Aulus Gellius
_Noctes Att._ xiii. 21); the criterion is subjective, not absolute.[38]
But it is assumed that the ear in question has been trained and attuned
by constant converse with the great masters, and that (like Flaubert in
modern times) an author never writes without repeating the words aloud
to himself. Thus trained, the ear will work in harmony with the mind:
“aures enim vel animus aurium nuntio naturalem quandam in se continet
vocum omnium mensionem” (Cic. _Orat._ 53. 177). Both Cicero and
Dionysius are well aware that style is personal and individual,—that it
is no uniform and mechanical thing. Dionysius’ own position has been
misunderstood by those who have judged the _de Compositione_ as if it
were a complete treatise on the entire subject of style. In the eyes of
Dionysius, words are not what dead stone and timber are in the eyes of
the ordinary workman. They are, rather, the living elements which, in
the secret places of his mind, the master-builder views as potential
parts of some great temple.[39] They are what an individual makes
them. Hence, just as Cicero writes “qua re sine, quaeso, sibi quemque

    Suam quoíque sponsam, míhi meam; suum quoíque amorem, míhi meum”:

so Dionysius long ago anticipated the saying that the style is the

[Page 29]

Among the minor debts we owe to him is the fact that his minute
analysis of rhythms, or feet, in passages of Thucydides, Pindar and
others, helps to disclose the inner workings of the beautiful Greek
language and to impress us with the importance attached by the ancients
to what we moderns find it so hard fully to appreciate,—the effect on
a Greek ear of _syllabic quantity_ in prose as well as verse. And he
insists no less upon the charm of variety,—the paramount necessity
of avoiding monotony. He saw, for example, that the Greek inflexions
(notwithstanding the many advantages which they brought with them) had
at least one drawback: they are apt to lead to a certain sameness in
case-endings. Accordingly he would, for instance, have approved (though
he does not mention this particular passage) of the separation of the
words σωτηρίαν ἀσφαλῆ from the other accusatives at the end of the _de
Corona_: ἡμῖν δὲ τοῖς λοιποῖς τὴν ταχίστην ἀπαλλαγὴν τῶν ἐπηρτημένων
φόβων δότε καὶ σωτηρίαν ἀσφαλῆ.[41] Further reference to these minutiae
of style may fitly be made later, when the topics of “rhythm” and
“music” are considered.[42]

F. _Greek and Latin compared with Modern Languages, in regard to

Something has already been said, incidentally, about certain
differences in word-order between the ancient and the modern European
languages. In such a comparison Greek and Latin may be placed upon the
same footing, as their points of contact are vastly more numerous than
their points of divergence, considerable though these are.[43]

[Page 30]

The points of contact become manifest when an attempt is made to
translate into Latin, and into English, the sentence from Herodotus
which Dionysius quotes, and twice recasts, in his fourth chapter:—

    (1) Κροῖσος ἦν Λυδὸς μὲν γένος, παῖς δ’ Ἀλυάττου, τύραννος δ’ ἐθνῶν
        τῶν ἐντὸς Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ· ὃς ῥέων ἀπὸ μεσημβρίας μεταξὺ Σύρων
        τε καὶ Παφλαγόνων ἐξίησι πρὸς βορέαν ἄνεμον εἰς τὸν Εὔξεινον
        καλούμενον πόντον.

                              Herodotus i. 6.

    _Croesus genere quidem fuit Lydus, patre autem Alyatte; earum vero
        nationum tyrannus, quae intra Halym amnem sunt: qui, a meridie
        Syros ac Paphlagones interfluens, contra ventum Aquilonem in
        mare, quid vocant Euxinum, evolvitur._

    (2) Κροῖσος ἦν υἱὸς μὲν Ἀλυάττου, γένος δὲ Λυδός, τύραννος δὲ τῶν
        ἐντὸς Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ ἐθνῶν· ὃς ἀπὸ μεσημβρίας ῥέων μεταξὺ Σύρων
        καὶ Παφλαγόνων εἰς τὸν Εὔξεινον καλούμενον πόντον ἐκδίδωσι πρὸς
        βορέαν ἄνεμον.

    _Croesus erat filius quidem Alyattis, genere autem Lydus,
        tyrannusque earum, quae intra sunt Halym amnem nationes; qui, a
        meridie interfluens Syros ac Paphlagones, in mare, quod vocant
        Euxinum, evolvitur contra ventum Aquilonem._

    (3) Ἀλυάττου μὲν υἱὸς ἦν Κροῖσος, γένος δὲ Λυδός, τῶν δ’ ἐντὸς
        Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ τύραννος ἐθνῶν· ὃς ἀπὸ μεσημβρίας ῥέων Σύρων
        τε καὶ Παφλαγόνων μεταξὺ πρὸς βορέαν ἐξίησιν ἄνεμον ἐς τὸν
        καλούμενον πόντον Εὔξεινον.

    _Alyattis quidem filius erat Croesus, genere autem Lydus, earum,
        quae intra sunt Halym amnem, tyrannus nationum; qui, a meridie
        fluens Syros inter ac Paphlagones, contra Boream erumpit ventum
        in mare, quod vocant Euxinum._

[Page 31]

In these sentences the Latin follows the Greek order closely, and
might be made to follow it still more faithfully were it not that it
seems better to diverge occasionally for special reasons: e.g. it is
desirable, in rendering the original passage of Herodotus, to secure
(as far as possible) a good rhythm. In English, on the other hand, the
choice lies between a wide deviation and a rendering which is ambiguous
and possibly grotesque. In fact (to recur once more to the main point)
the freedom with which the order of words can be varied in a Greek or
Latin sentence is without parallel in any modern analytical language,
and the attendant gain in variety, rhythm, and nicety of emphasis is

Still, the modern languages have great powers, in this as in other
ways: powers which will be incidentally illustrated later. M. Jules
Lemaître has written, with reference to Ernest Renan: “Je trahis
peut-être sa pensée en la traduisant; tant pis! Pourquoi a-t-il des
finesses qui ne tiennent qu’à l’arrangement des mots?”[45] These
_finesses_ are perhaps, as is here implied, hardly communicable, even
though an earlier French writer has commended Malherbe as an author who

        D’un mot mis en sa place enseigna le pouvoir.[46]

It may well be that these matters, if not altogether the

[Page 32]

“mysteries” which Dionysius terms them, are eternally elusive because
they depend upon the infinite variety of the human mind. Yet some
studies in English literary theory, such as might be suggested by
Dionysius’ treatise, could not fail to be of interest, and might
be instructive also. Something of the kind has been already done,
without reference to Dionysius or other Greek critics, by Robert
Louis Stevenson in his essay on _Some Technical Elements of Style in
Literature_.[47] Each language has, in truth, a rhetoric of its own.
But the various languages, ancient and modern, can help one another in
the way of comparison and contrast.

These methods of comparison and contrast have—as regards
word-order—been excellently applied to the ancient and the modern
languages by Henri Weil and T. D. Goodell. Weil’s chief service is to
have pointed out so clearly the principle that the order of syntax must
be separated in thought from the order of ideas, and was by both Greeks
and Romans freely so separated in practice, whereas in the modern
languages (owing to the lack of inflexions) this practical separation
is less frequent. Goodell, starting from the postulate that the order
of words in a language represents the order in which the speaker or
writer chooses, for various reasons, to bring his ideas before the mind
of another, discusses (with constant reference to modern languages) the
order of words in Greek, from the standpoint of _syntax_, _rhetoric_,
and _euphony_. In the course of a carefully reasoned exposition, he
corrects and supplements many of Weil’s observations.

The full title of Weil’s book is _De l’ordre des mots dans les langues
anciennes comparées aux langues modernes: question de grammaire
générale_ (3rd edition, Paris, 1879). There is an English translation
by C. W.

[Page 33]

Super (Boston, 1887), with notes and additions. Goodell’s paper on
“The Order of Words in Greek” is printed in the _Transactions of
the American Philological Association_ vol. xxi. Other writings on
the subject are: Charles Short’s “Essay on the Order of Words in
Attic Greek Prose,”—prefixed to Drisler’s edition of C. D. Yonge’s
_English-Greek Lexicon_,—which is an extensive collection of examples,
but is weak in scientific classification and in clear enunciation
of principles; H. L. Ebeling’s “Some Statistics on the Order of
Words in Greek,” contributed to _Studies in Honour of Basil Lanneau
Gildersleeve_, and including some valuable investigations into the
order in which subject, object, and verb usually come in Greek;
inquiries into the practice of individual authors, e.g. Spratt on the
“Order of Words in Thucydides” (Spratt’s edition of Thucydides, Book
VI.), and Riddell on the “Arrangement of Words and Clauses in Plato”
(Riddell’s edition of Plato’s _Apology_), or various dissertations such
as Th. Harmsen _de verborum collocatione apud Aeschylum, Sophoclem,
Euripidem capita selecta_, Ph. Both _de Antiphontis et Thucydidis
genere dicendi_, J. J. Braun _de collocatione verborum apud Thucydidem
observationes_, F. Darpe _de verborum apud Thucydidem collocatione_;
and in Latin such elaborate studies as Hilberg’s _Die Gesetze der
Wortstellung im Pentameter des Ovid_. An interesting book which
compares Cicero’s Latin translations (prose and verse) with their Greek
originals is V. Clavel’s _de M. T. Cicerone Graecorum Interprete_.
In _Harvard Studies in Classical Philology_ vol. vii. pp. 223-233,
J. W. H. Walden discusses Weil’s statement that “an emphatic word,
if followed by a word which, though syntactically necessary to the
sentence, is in itself unemphatic, receives an access of emphasis from
the lingering of the attention which results from the juxtaposition of
the two.” Reference may also be made to A. Bergaigne’s “Essai sur la
construction grammaticale considérée dans son développement historique,
en Sanskrit, en Grec, en Latin, dans les langues romanes et dans les
langues germaniques,” in the _Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique
de Paris_ vol. vii. The subject is, further, glanced at in the Greek
Grammars of Kühner and others. But in modern times, as in those of
Dionysius, it has on the whole failed to receive the attention which
its importance would seem to demand.

G. _Prose and Poetry: Rhythm and Metre_

Readers of the _de Compositione_ cannot fail to notice that, catholic
as he is in his literary tastes, Dionysius reserves his highest
admiration for two authors,—Homer in poetry and Demosthenes in prose;
and that he seems to regard them as equally valid authorities for the
immediate purpose which he has in view. Homer is quoted throughout the
treatise, on the first

[Page 34]

page and on the last; and Demosthenes inspires (in c. 25) its most
eloquent passage. That outburst is a triumphant vindication of
Demosthenes’ methods as a sedulous artist. Dionysius sees that he
is one of those men who spare no pains over the art they love—that
Demosthenes, like Homer, =φιλοτεχνεῖ= (=200= 18; cp. =154= 20).

In seeming thus to draw no very clear line between verse and prose,
Dionysius is at one with most of the Greek and Roman critics; and
this attitude is readily intelligible in the light of the historical
development of Greek literature, in which Homer (who was a master
of oratory[48] as well as of poetry) heralds the intellectual life
of all Greece, while Demosthenes is the last great voice of free
Athens. But the approximations of prose to poetry, and of poetry to
prose, which Dionysius describes in his twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth
chapters should not create the impression that, in his opinion,
the prose-writer was free to borrow any and every weapon from the
armoury of the poet. Of one poetical artifice he says, in c. 6, “this
principle can be applied freely in poetry, but sparingly in prose”;
and elsewhere he calls attention to qualities which he regards as
over-poetical in the styles of Thucydides and Plato.[49] Yet he did
clearly wish that good prose should borrow as much as possible from
poetry, while still remaining good prose. And although he agrees, in
general, with Aristotle’s exposition of the formal differences between
prose and poetry, he does not adhere quite firmly to the Aristotelian

[Page 35]

In the _Rhetoric_, Aristotle insists that the styles of poetry and
prose are distinct. The difference is this: “prose should have rhythm
but not metre, or it will be poetry. The rhythm, however, should not
be of too marked a character: it should not pass beyond a certain
point.”[51] In the same way, Dionysius (_C.V._ c. 25) declares that
prose must not be manifestly metrical or rhythmical, lest it should
desert its own specific character. It should simply _appear_ to be the
one and the other, so that it may be poetical although not a poem, and
lyrical although not a lyric. But, in practice, Dionysius is found to
cast longing eyes upon the formal advantages which poetry possesses,
and to wish to infuse into public speeches a definite metrical element,
which seems alien to the genius of prose, and which would have failed
to gain the sanction of Aristotle, though this appears to be claimed
for it.[52] It is not here a question of the ordinary methods of
imparting force and variety to word-arrangement. In regard to these,
Dionysius’ precepts are, in general, sound and helpful enough; and if,
now and then, the process is extolled in what may seem extravagant
terms, we have only to think of the vast difference which slight
variations of word-order will make even in our modern analytical
languages. For example:

        Cut is the branch that might have grown full straight.

                              Marlowe _Doctor Faustus_.

[Page 36]

        Killed with report that old man eloquent.

                              Milton _Sonnets_.

        Schön war ich auch, und das war mein Verderben.

                              Goethe _Faust_.

The effect of these lines would be sadly marred if we were to read “the
branch is cut,” “that eloquent old man,” and “ich war auch schön.”[53]
In Greek prose, no less than in Greek poetry, inversions like those
just quoted would be quite legitimate. This at least we can affirm,
though it would be rash to attempt to lay down any general rules with
regard to the differences between Greek order in verse and in prose.
It is better to follow Dionysius’ example and to cull illustrations
from both alike impartially, with only two qualifications. First, the
Greek word-arrangement is even freer in verse than in prose, though the
clause-arrangement and the sentence-arrangement of Greek poetry show
(as Dionysius implies in c. 26) a general tendency to coincide with the
metrical arrangement. Second, an absolutely metrical arrangement is
foreign to the best traditions of Greek prose. It is the second point
that is of importance here; and notwithstanding the almost furtive
character which he attributes to the metrical lines detected by him
in the _Aristocrates_, it is obvious that Dionysius has in mind a
very close and deliberate approximation to the canons of verse and is
prepared to strain his material in order to attain it.[54] Here, again,
some modern illustrations may be of interest. The writers of the Tudor
period seem to have had a special fondness for, and an ear attuned to,
what may be roughly regarded as hexameter measures. This predilection

[Page 37]

appears both in their rendering of the Bible and in the Book of Common

    How art thou | fallen from | Heaven, O | Lucifer, | son of the | morning.
    How art | thou cut | down to the | ground, which didst | weaken the | nations.[55]
    Why do the | heathen | rage, and the | people im | agine a | vain thing?
    (He) poureth con | tempt upon | princes and | weakeneth the | strength of the | mighty.
    God is gone | up with a | shout, the | Lord with the | sound of a | trumpet.
    (The) kings of the | earth stood | up, and the | rulers took | counsel to | gether.
    Dearly be | loved | brethren, the | Scripture | moveth us |.

The rhythms into which modern prose-writers drop are usually iambic
or trochaic. This is so with Ruskin and Carlyle, and it would be easy
to quote examples from their writings.[56] But, as in ancient so in
modern times, the best criticism looks with favour on rhythmical,
with disfavour on metrical prose. Prose, it is held, loses its true
character—as the minister primarily of reason rather than of emotion—if
it is made to conform to the rigid laws of metre.

If Dionysius fails to prove that metrical lines, thinly disguised, are
a marked feature of the style of Demosthenes, no greater fortune has
attended some attempts made in our own day to establish such exact
rhythmical laws as that of the systematic avoidance, in Greek oratory,
of a number of short syllables in close succession. It is clear that
Demosthenes’ ear, with that kind of instinct which comes from musical
aptitude and long training (cp. _C.V._ =266= 13 ff., =268= 12), shunned
undignified accumulations of short syllables, but not with so pedantic
a persistency that he could not on occasion use forms like πεφενάκικεν
or διατετέλεκεν or προσαγαγόμενον. If he formulated to himself a
principle, instead of trusting to inspiration controlled by long
experience, this principle would be that which Cicero attributes to a
critic who was almost contemporary with Demosthenes: “namque ego illud
adsentior Theophrasto, qui putat orationem, quae quidem sit polita
atque facta quodam modo, _non astricte, sed_

[Page 38]

_remissius numerosam_ esse oportere” (Cic. _de Orat._ iii. 48.
184).[57] The necessary limits to be observed in these curious
inquiries are well indicated by Quintilian, who utters some sensible
warnings against any attempts continually to scent metre in prose or to
ban some feet while admitting others: “neque enim loqui possumus nisi
syllabis brevibus ac longis, ex quibus pedes fiunt ... miror autem in
hac opinione doctissimos homines fuisse, ut alios pedes ita eligerent
aliosque damnarent, quasi ullus esset, quem non sit necesse in oratione
deprehendi” (Quintil. _Inst. Or._ ix. 4. 61 and 87).[58]

On the subject of prose and poetry, Coleridge’s _Biographia Literaria_
(ed. Shawcross, Clarendon Press, 1907) is likely long to hold its
unique position. Theodore Watts-Dunton’s article on “Poetry” in the
_Encyclopaedia Britannica_ contains an appreciative estimate of the
good service done to criticism by Dionysius in the _de Compositione_.
The article by Louis Havet on _La Prose métrique_ (in _La Grande
Encyclopédie_, xxvii. 804-806) deals with what we should call
“rhythmical prose,” the French terminology differing here from our own.
Some account of _enjambement_ (with ancient and modern illustrations)
will be found in the Notes, pp. 270 ff. The recent writings on Greek
rhythm and metre are almost endless. Some of them will be suggested by
the names of: Rossbach, Westphal, Weil, Schmidt, Christ, Gleditsch,
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Goodell, Masqueray, Blass.

With regard to the relation between metre and rhythm, there is not
a little suggestiveness in the saying of the historical Longinus:
μέτρου δὲ πατὴρ ῥυθμὸς καὶ θεός (Proleg. in Heph. Ench.; Westphal
_Script. Metr. Graeci_ i. 82). There is also, in our day, an increasing
recognition of the intimate alliance between Greek poetry and Greek
music; it is more and more seen that lyric stanzas are formed out of
figures and phrases, rather than from mere mechanical feet. Nor is it
to be forgotten that poetic rhythm may probably be traced

[Page 39]

back to the regular movements of the limbs in dancing. The views
of Blass on ancient prose rhythm are given in his _Die attische
Beredsamkeit_, _Die Rhythmen der attischen Kunstprosa_ (_Isokrates,
Demosthenes, Platon_), and _Die Rhythmen der asianischen und
römischen Kunstprosa_ (_Paulus, Hebräerbrief, Pausanias, Cicero,
Seneca, Curtius, Apuleius_); and some of them are summarized in an
article which he contributed, shortly before his death, to _Hermathena_
(“On Attic Prose Rhythm” _Hermathena_ No. xxxii., 1906). Probably his
tendency was to seek after too much uniformity in such matters as
the avoidance of hiatus and of successive short syllables, or as the
symmetrical correspondences between clauses within the period. The
best Attic orators were here guided, more or less consciously, by two
principles to which Dionysius constantly refers: (1) μεταβολή, or the
love of variety; (2) τὸ πρέπον, or the sense of propriety. This sense
of propriety rejected all such obvious and systematic art as should
cause a speech to seem, in Aristotle’s words, πεπλασμένος and ἀπίθανος
(_Rhet._ iii. 2. 4; 8. 1). Still, Demosthenes’ greatest speeches were
no doubt carefully revised before they were given to the world; and
so the blade may have been cold-polished, after leaving the forge of
the imagination. It is to be noticed that, in the matter of hiatus,
for example, some of the best manuscripts of Demosthenes do seem to
observe a strict parsimony; and this careful avoidance of open vowels
may be due ultimately rather to Demosthenes himself than to an early
scholar-editor. Whatever the final judgment on Blass’s work may be,
he will have done good service by directing attention anew to a point
so hard for the modern ear to appreciate as the great part played in
artistic Greek prose by the subtle use of time,—of long and short
syllables arranged in a kind of general equipoise rather than in any
regular and definite succession. How singularly important that part was
reckoned to be, such passages of Dionysius as the following help to
indicate: οὐ γὰρ δὴ φαῦλόν τι πρᾶγμα ῥυθμὸς ἐν λόγοις οὐδὲ προσθήκης
τινὸς μοῖραν ἔχον οὐκ ἀναγκαίας, ἀλλ’ εἰ δεῖ τἀληθές, ὡς ἐμὴ δόξα,
εἰπεῖν, ἁπάντων κυριώτατον τῶν γοητεύειν δυναμένων καὶ κηλεῖν τὰς ἀκοάς
(_de Demosth._ c. 39).



A. _Greek Music: in Relation to the Greek Language_

For the modern student there is perhaps no more valuable chapter of the
_de Compositione_ than that (c. 11) which treats of the musical element
in Greek speech. It helps to bring home

[Page 40]

the fact that, among the ancient Greeks, “the science of public
oratory was a musical science, differing from vocal and instrumental
music in degree, not in kind” (μουσικὴ γάρ τις ἦν καὶ ἡ τῶν πολιτικῶν
λόγων ἐπιστήμη τῷ ποσῷ διαλλάττουσα τῆς ἐν ᾠδῇ καὶ ὀργάνοις, οὐχὶ τῷ
ποιῷ, =124= 20). The extraordinary sensitiveness of Greek audiences
to the music of sounds is described by Dionysius, who also indicates
the musical intervals observed in singing and in speaking, and
touches on the relation borne by the words to the music in a song.
His statements, further, give countenance to the view that “the chief
elements of utterance—pitch, time, and stress—were independent in
ancient Greek speech, just as they are in music. And the fact that
they were independent goes a long way to prove our main contention,
viz. that ancient Greek speech had a peculiar quasi-musical character,
and consequently that the difficulty which modern scholars feel in
understanding the ancient statements on such matters as accent and
quantity is simply the difficulty of conceiving a form of utterance
of which no examples can now be observed.”[59] Even Aristotle, Greek
though he was, seems to have felt imperfectly those harmonies of
balanced cadence which come from the poet, or artistic prose-writer,
to whom words are as notes to the musician. And if Aristotle, a Greek
though not an Athenian, shows himself not fully alive to the music of
the most musical of languages, it is hardly matter for wonder that
writers of our own rough island prose should be far from feeling that
they are musicians playing on an instrument of many strings, and should
be ready, as Dionysius might have said in his most serious vein, εἰς
γέλωτα λαμβάνειν τὰ σπουδαιότατα δι’ ἀπειρίαν (=252= 16). It is true
that, on the other side, we have R. L. Stevenson, who writes: “Each
phrase of each sentence, like an air or recitative in music, should be
so artfully compounded out of longs and shorts, out of accented and
unaccented syllables, as to gratify the sensual ear. And of this the
ear is the sole judge.”[60] Dionysius and Stevenson are, admittedly,
slight names to set against that of Aristotle. But this is no reason
why they should not be allowed to supplement his statements when he is
too deeply concerned with matter and substance to say much about manner
and the niceties and enchantments

[Page 41]

of form. And Dionysius is—it must in justice be conceded—no mere
word-taster but a man genuinely alive to the great issues that dignify
and ennoble style. He can, for example, thus describe the effect,
subsequent and immediate, of Demosthenes’ speeches: “When I take up
one of his speeches, I am entranced and am carried hither and thither,
stirred now by one emotion, now by another. I feel distrust, anxiety,
fear, disdain, hatred, pity, good-will, anger, jealousy. I am agitated
by every passion in turn that can sway the human heart, and am like
those who are being initiated into wild mystic rites.... When we who
are centuries removed from that time, and are in no way affected by
the matters at issue, are thus swept off our feet and mastered and
borne wherever the discourse leads us, what must have been the feelings
excited by the speaker in the minds of the Athenians and the Greeks
generally, when living interests of their own were at stake, and when
the great orator, whose reputation stood so high, spoke from the heart
and revealed the promptings of his inmost soul?”[61]

In addition to D. B. Monro’s book on Greek music, reference may be made
to such works as Rossbach and Westphal’s _Theorie der musischen Künste
der Hellenen_, H. S. Macran’s edition of Aristoxenus’ _Harmonics_ (from
the Introduction to which a quotation of some length will be found in
the note on =194= 7), and the edition of Plutarch’s _de Musica_ by H.
Weil and Th. Reinach. The articles, by W. H. Frere and H. S. Macran,
on Greek Music in the new edition of Grove’s _Dictionary of Music and
Musicians_ should also be consulted, as well as the essay, by H. R.
Fairclough, on “The Connexion between Music and Poetry in Early Greek
Literature” in _Studies in Honour of Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve_. The
close connexion between music and verbal harmony is brought out in
Longinus _de Sublim._ cc. 39-41. In Grenfell and Hunt’s _Hibeh Papyri_,
Part i. (1906), p. 45, there is a short “Discourse on Music” which the
editors are inclined to attribute to Hippias of Elis, the contemporary
of Socrates.

B. _Accent in Ancient Greek_

If there were any doubt that the Greek accent was an affair of pitch
rather than of stress, the eleventh chapter of this treatise would go
far to remove it. It is clear that Dionysius describes the difference
between the acute and the grave accent as a variation of pitch, and
that he considers this variation to

[Page 42]

be approximately the same as the musical interval of a fifth, or (as
he himself explains) three tones and a semitone. Similarly Aristoxenus
(_Harm._ i. 18) writes λέγεται γὰρ δὴ καὶ λογῶδές τι μέλος, τὸ
συγκείμενον ἐκ τῶν προσῳδιῶν τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασιν· φυσικὸν γὰρ τὸ
ἐπιτείνειν καὶ ἀνιέναι ἐν τῷ διαλέγεσθαι (‘for there is a kind of
melody in speech which depends upon the accent of words, as the voice
in speaking rises and sinks by a natural law,’ Macran). The expression
προσῳδία itself (cp. τάσεις φωνῆς αἱ καλούμεναι προσῳδίαι, =196= 16)
implies a melodic character, and the adjectives (ὀξύς and βαρύς) which
denote ‘acute’ and ‘grave’ are used regularly in Greek music for what
we call ‘high’ and ‘low’ pitch.[62] It would be hard to believe that
βαρύς could ever have indicated an _absence of stress_.

That such a musical pitch—such a rising or falling of tone—can be
quite independent of quantity seems to be proved by the analogy of
Vedic Sanskrit, inasmuch as, when reciting verses in that language,
the native priests are said to succeed in keeping quantity and musical
accent altogether distinct. “We cannot now say exactly how Homer’s
verse sounded in the ears of the Greeks themselves; and yet we can tell
even this more nearly than Matthew Arnold imagined. Sanskrit verse,
like Greek, had both quantity and musical accent; and the recitation
of the Vedic poems, as handed down by immemorial tradition, and as it
may be heard to-day, keeps both these elements clear. It is a sort of
intoned recitative, most impressive and agreeable to the sensitive

A useful handbook on the general subject of Greek Accentuation
(including its musical character) is Vendryes’ _Traité d’accentuation
grecque_, which is prefaced by a bibliographical list. The volume is
noticed, in the _Classical Review_ xix. 363-367, by J. P. Postgate, who
supplements it in some important directions. There is also a discussion
of the nature and theory of the Greek accent in Hadley’s _Essays_ pp.
110-127. As Monro (_Modes_ p. 113) remarks, it is our habit of using
Latin translations of the terms of Greek grammar that has tended to
obscure the fact that those terms belong in almost every case to the
ordinary vocabulary of music. The point of the illustration drawn from
the _Orestes_, in the _C.V._ c. 11, is that the musical setting in
question neglected entirely the natural tune, or accent, of the words.
It is not to be assumed that Dionysius approved (except within narrow
limits) of this practice or of the

[Page 43]

corresponding neglect of syllabic quantity (=128= 19). He probably
regarded such excesses as innovations due to inferior schools of music
and rhythm. In the hymns found at Delphi (and also in an inscription
discovered by W. M. Ramsay) there is a remarkable correspondence
between the musical notes and the accentuation of the words, as was
pointed out by Monro (_Modes_ pp. 90, 91, 116, 141; and _Classical
Review_ ix. 467-470). It is the hymns to Apollo (belonging probably to
the early part of the third century B.C.), in which the acute accents
usually coincide with a rise of pitch, that Dionysius would doubtless
have regarded as embodying the classical practice. In early times, it
must be remembered, words and music were written by the same man; cp.
G. S. Farnell _Greek Lyric Poetry_ pp. 41, 42. The chief surviving
fragments of Greek music (including the recent discoveries at Delphi)
will be found in C. Jan’s _Musici Scriptores Graeci_ (with Supplement),
as published by Teubner.

C. _Pronunciation of Ancient Greek_

The _de Compositione_ is not a treatise on Greek Pronunciation, or
even on Greek Phonetics. The sections which touch upon these subjects
are strictly subsidiary to the main theme; they are literary rather
than philological in aim. There was, in fact, no independent study of
phonetics in Greek antiquity; the subject was simply a handmaid in the
service of music and rhetoric. Hence the reference early in c. 14 to
the authority of Aristoxenus “the musician,” and the constant endeavour
to rank the letters according to standards of beautiful sound. Still,
though Dionysius’ object in describing the way in which the different
letters are produced is not scientific but aesthetic and euphonic, much
praise is due to the rigorous thoroughness which led him to undertake
such an investigation at all. And it has had important incidental

One modern authority claims that, notwithstanding difficulties in
the interpretation of the _de Compositione_ due either to vague
statements in the text or to defective knowledge on our own part, it
is possible to reconstruct, with essential accuracy, the “Dionysian
Pronunciation of Greek,” or (in other words) the pronunciation current
among cultivated Greeks during the fifty years preceding the birth of
Christ; while another authority has given a transliteration of the
Lord’s Prayer, according to the original text, in the Hellenistic
pronunciation of the first century A.D.[64] It is, further, maintained
that, thanks to the general progress of philological

[Page 44]

research, we can in the main reproduce with certainty the sounds
(including even the aspirates) actually heard at Athens in the fourth
century B.C.—with such certainty, at all events, as will suffice for
the practical purposes of the modern teacher.[65]

Two circumstances render it unsafe to lean unduly on Dionysius’
evidence in determining the pronunciation of the earlier Greek period.
Although he studied with enthusiasm the literature produced by Greece
in her prime, and would certainly desire to read it to his pupils in
the same tones as might have been used by its original authors, it
is hardly likely that the pronunciation of the language had changed
less in three or four hundred years than that (say) of English has
changed since the days of Shakespeare.[66] The other circumstance is
the uncertainty which attends some of his statements, quite apart
from any question of the period which they may be supposed to cover.
This uncertainty is due to the fact that there was no science of
phonetics in his day, and that consequently his explanations are
sometimes obscure, either in themselves or at all events to their
modern interpreters. But in many other cases he is, fortunately,
explicit and easily understood. One example only shall be given, but
that an important one: the pronunciation of ζ. In =144= 9-12, it is
clearly indicated that ζ is a double letter, and that it is composed
of σ and δ (in that order): διπλᾶ δὲ τρία τό τε ζ̄ καὶ τὸ ξ̄ καὶ
τὸ ψ̄. διπλᾶ δὲ λέγουσιν αὐτὰ ἤτοι διὰ τὸ σύνθετα εἶναι τὸ μὲν ζ̄
διὰ τοῦ σ̄ καὶ δ̄, τὸ δὲ ξ̄ διὰ τοῦ κ̄ καὶ σ̄, τὸ δὲ ψ̄ διὰ τοῦ π̄
καὶ σ̄, κτλ. The manuscript testimony is here in favour of σ̄ καὶ
δ̄ (rather than the reverse order), and it may be noticed that the
similar reading, ὐπασ̅δ̅εύξαισα, is well supported in Sappho’s _Hymn to
Aphrodite_ (=238= 9). The statement is not in any way contradicted by
the further statements in =146= 5 and =148= 6; and taken together with
other evidence (e.g. such forms as συρίσδειν = συρίζειν, κωμάσδειν =
κωμάζειν, Ἀθήναζε = Ἀθήνασδε), it seems to establish this as

[Page 45]

at least one pronunciation of ζ. The actual pronunciation may well have
varied at different times and in different places. Some authorities
think that in fifth-century Greece the sound was like that of English
=zd= in the word ‘gla=z=e=d=,’ while in the fourth century it roughly
resembled =dz= in the word ‘a=dz=e’ (Arnold and Conway, _op. cit._ pp.
6, 7).

The book which deals most directly with the _de Compositione_ in
relation to Greek pronunciation is A. J. Ellis’ _English, Dionysian,
and Hellenic Pronunciation of Greek, considered in reference to
School and College Use_. In applying great phonetic skill to the
interpretation of Dionysius’ statements, the author of this pamphlet
has done much service; but he abandons too lightly any attempt to
recover a still earlier pronunciation, and shows an uncritical spirit
in so readily believing (p. 4) that Erasmus could be hoaxed in the
matter of Greek pronunciation. A more trustworthy work is F. Blass’
_Pronunciation of Ancient Greek_ (translated by W. J. Purton), in which
the scientific aids towards a reconstruction of the old pronunciation
are marshalled with much force. Arnold and Conway’s _Restored
Pronunciation of Greek and Latin_, and Giles’ _Manual of Comparative
Philology_ (pp. 114-118: especially p. 115 for ζ), contain a succinct
statement of probable results. There is also a good article, by W.
G. Clark, on Greek Pronunciation and Accentuation in the _Journal of
Philology_ i. pp. 98-108; with which should be compared the papers
by Wratislaw and Geldart in vol. ii. of the same journal. The entire
conflict on the subject of Greek pronunciation, as waged by the early
combatants in England and Holland, is reflected in Havercamp’s two
volumes entitled _Sylloge Scriptorum qui de linguae Graecae vera et
recta pronuntiatione commentarios reliquerunt, videlicet Adolphi
Mekerchi, Theodori Bezae, Jacobi Ceratini et Henrici Stephani_ (Leyden,
1736), and his _Sylloge Altera Scriptorum qui ... reliquerunt,
videlicet Desiderii Erasmi, Stephani Vintoniensis Episcopi,
Cantabrigiensis Academiae Cancellarii, Joannis Checi, Thomae Smith,
Gregorii Martini, et Erasmi Schmidt_ (Leyden, 1740). Erasmus’ dialogue
_de recta Latini Graecique sermonis pronunciatione_ (Basle, 1528) was,
in its way, a true work of science in that it laid stress on the fact
that variety of symbols implied variety of sounds, and that diphthongal
writing implied a diphthongal pronunciation. Attention has lately
been directed to the fact that Erasmus claims no originality for his
views on this subject, and that he had been anticipated, in varying
degrees, by Jerome Aleander in France, by Aldus Manutius in Italy, and
(earlier still) by the Spanish humanist, Antonio of Lebrixa (Bywater
_The Erasmian Pronunciation of Greek and its Precursors_ Oxford, 1908).
It may be noted, in passing, that when enumerating the errors of his
Byzantine contemporaries, Antonio mentions that they pronounced Ζ “as a
single letter, whereas

[Page 46]

it was really composite, and stood for SD” (Bywater, p. 20). Among the
immediate successors of Erasmus in this field the most interesting,
perhaps, is Sir Thomas Smith (1513-1577), who, like Cheke, was one of
the “etists” and so incurred the wrath of Stephen Gardiner and drew
out that edict which threatened various penalties (including corporal
punishment for boys) against the practice of unlawful innovations in
the province of Greek pronunciation. It was Smith who, in his treatise
_de recta et emendata linguae Graecae pronuntiatione_ (Havercamp, ii.
542), detected a lacuna in the text of _C.V._ =140= 16 as current
in his time, and secured the right sense by the insertion of δύο δὲ
βραχέα τό τε ε̄ καὶ τὸ ο̄ after τὸ ω̄ (in l. 17). Echoes, more or
less distinct, of the long dispute as to the pronunciation of the
ancient classical languages may be heard in such various quarters as:
(1) [Beaumont and] Fletcher’s _Elder Brother_ ii. 1, “Though I can
speak no Greek, I love the sound on’t; it goes so thundering as it
conjur’d devils”; (2) King James I. (in an address to the University of
Edinburgh, delivered at Stirling), “I follow his [George Buchanan’s]
pronunciation, both of his Latin and Greek, and am sorry that my people
of England do not the like; for certainly their pronunciation utterly
fails the grace of these two learned languages”; and (3) Gibbon’s
reference to “our most corrupt and barbarous mode of uttering Latin.”
In modern times a constant effort is being made to get nearer to the
true pronunciation of the two classical languages; and (to speak of
Greek alone) some interesting side-lights have been shed on the subject
by the discovery of Anglo-Saxon or Oriental transliterations (cp.
Hadley _Essays_ pp. 128-140, and Bendall in _Journal of Philology_
xxix. 199-201). The application of well-ascertained results to the
teaching of Greek pronunciation could be injurious only if it were
allowed to impede the principal object of Greek study—contact with the
great minds of the past. But an attempt to recapture some part of the
music of the Greek language is hardly likely to have this disastrous

D. _Greek Grammar_

Grammar, like phonetics, was by the ancients often regarded as a
part of “music.”[67] It would not, therefore, seem unnatural to his
readers that, in a treatise on euphony, Dionysius should continually
be referring to the _parts of speech_ (τὰ μόρια τοῦ λόγου). He also
uses freely such technical terms of grammar as: πτῶσις, ἔγκλισις,
ἀπαρέμφατος, πληθυντικῶς, ὕπτιος, ἀρρενικός, θηλυκός, οὐδέτερος,
ἄρθρον, ὄνομα, πρόθεσις, σύνδεσμος, etc. Though himself concerned more
immediately with the euphonic relations

[Page 47]

of words, he is fully alive to the phenomena of their syntactical
relations. His remarks on grammatical points show, as might have been
expected, many points of contact with the brief treatise of another
Dionysius—Dionysius Thrax, who was born a full century earlier than
himself. Dionysius Thrax was a pupil of Aristarchus, and produced
the earliest formal Greek Grammar. Some interesting hints as to the
successive steps in grammatical analysis which had made such a Grammar
possible may be found in the second chapter of the _de Compositione_,
where special mention is made of Theodectes, Aristotle, and “the
leaders of the Stoic School.” In c. 5, a useful protest is raised
against the tyranny of grammar, which so often seeks to control by iron
“rules” the infinite variety and living flexibility of language.

The standard edition of _Dionysii Thracis Ars Grammatica_ is that by
Uhlig (Leipzig, 1883). The whole question of ancient views on grammar
can be studied in Steinthal’s _Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei
den Griechen und Römern, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Logik_ (2nd
ed., Berlin, 1890-91).

E. _Sources of the_ de Compositione

It must strike every reader of the treatise, that Dionysius
combines some assertion of originality with many acknowledgments
of indebtedness to predecessors. In this there is, of course, no
necessary inconsistency. The work covers a wide field, and implies an
acquaintance with many special studies. While referring with gratitude
and respect to the admitted authorities in these various branches of
learning or science, Dionysius claims for himself a certain originality
of idea and of treatment. He is among the first to have written a
separate treatise on this particular subject, and he is the first to
have attempted an adequate treatment of it.[68]

In making these acknowledgments, Dionysius does not specify any Latin
writers, nor indeed any recent writers whatsoever. When Quintilian, in
the fourth chapter of his Ninth Book, is himself writing a short _de
Compositione_, he mentions “Halicarnasseus Dionysius” and (with special
respect) “M. Tullius.”[69]

[Page 48]

But Dionysius says not a word about Cicero or Horace, although the
former was partly and the latter fully contemporary with himself, and
although they, like himself, were students of literary composition. As
his work on early Roman history shows, Dionysius was not ignorant of
Latin; and it is unfortunate that he did not think of comparing Greek
writers with Latin. But the comparative method of literary criticism
hardly existed in Greek antiquity, notwithstanding the reference to
Cicero and Demosthenes in the _de Sublimitate_, whose author (it may
be added here) not only treats of σύνθεσις in two of his chapters,
but also tells us that he had already dealt with the subject in two
separate treatises.[70]

To his Greek predecessors Dionysius often refers in general terms.
For example, they are called οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν in =140= 7, οἱ πρότερον
in =96= 7, and οἱ ἀρχαῖοι in =68= 9. The last term best suggests
Dionysius’ habitual attitude, which was that of looking to the past
for the finest work in criticism as well as in literature.[71] And
so it will be found that, though the _de Compositione Verborum_
contains incidental references to the Stoics and to other leaders of
thought, its highest respect seems to be reserved for Aristotle and
his disciples Theophrastus and Aristoxenus.[72] But the question of
Dionysius’ obligations to his predecessors (and to the Peripatetics
particularly) is so large and far-reaching that it must be treated
separately elsewhere. Meanwhile, let it be noted how considerably his
various writings illustrate, and are illustrated by, the _Rhetoric_ of

As to its originality, the book may well be left to answer for itself.
It does not read like a dull compilation. The learning is there, but it
is lightly borne, and none can doubt that the writer has long thought
over his subject and can give to others the fruits of his reflexions
with verve and a contagious enthusiasm. The work has an easy flow of
its own, as though it had been rapidly (but not carelessly) written,
out of a well-stored mind, while its author was busy

[Page 49]

with his teaching and with the many literary enterprises to which he so
often refers. It must be conceded that a literary critic who deals with
so difficult, many-sided, and elusive a subject as that of composition
can hardly avoid some errors of detail, since he cannot hope to be a
master in all the accessory sciences upon which he has to lean. But
we may well be content if he preserves for later ages much invaluable
literature and teaching which would otherwise have been lost,—if he
himself maintains (amid corrupting influences) high standards in his
literary preferences and in his own writing,—and if he sheds a ray of
light upon many a hidden beauty of Greek style which would but for him
be shrouded in darkness.

Reference may be made to G. Ammon _de Dionysii Halicarnassensis
Librorum Rhetoricorum Fontibus_ and to G. Mestwerdt _de Dionysii
Halicarnassensis in libro de Compositione Verborum Studiis_. One
section of the subject is also treated in G. L. Hendrickson’s valuable
papers on the ‘Peripatetic Mean of Style and the Three Stylistic
Characters’ and on the ‘Origin and Meaning of the Ancient Characters
of Style’ in the _American Journal of Philology_ vols. xxv. and xxvi.;
and in H. P. Breitenbach’s dissertation on _The ‘De Compositione’ of
Dionysius of Halicarnassus considered with reference to the ‘Rhetoric’
of Aristotle_.

F. _Quotations and Literary References in the_ de Compositione

The greatest of all the lyrical passages quoted in the treatise is
Sappho’s _Hymn to Aphrodite_. But great as this is, it does not stand
alone. It has companions, if not equals, in the _Danaë_ of Simonides
and in the opening of a Pindaric dithyramb. The very preservation of
these splendid relics, as of some slighter ones, we owe to Dionysius
alone.[74] The total extent of the quotations made in the course of the
treatise may be judged from the references given at the foot of the
translation: these illustrative extracts form a substantial part of the
work they illustrate. The width of Dionysius’ literary outlook may also
be inferred from the following roughly-drawn Chronological Table, which
(for the sake of completeness) includes some authors who are mentioned
but not actually quoted:—

[Page 50]


|          |  Epic      | Elegiac |             |           | Comedy and |
|   B.C.   | Poetry.    |   and   |   Lyric.    |  Tragedy. | Satire.    |
|          |            | Iambic. |             |           |            |
|          |            |         |             |           |            |
|Before 700|  Homer     |   ...   |     ...     |   ...     |    ...     |
|          |  Hesiod    |         |             |           |            |
|          |            |         |             |           |            |
| 700-600  |    ...     |  Archi- | Alcaeus     |   ...     |    ...     |
|          |            |  lochus | Sappho      |           |            |
|          |            |         | Stesichorus |           |            |
|          |            |         |             |           |            |
| 600-500  |    ...     |   ...   | Anacreon    |   ...     |    ...     |
|          |            |         |             |           |            |
| 500-400  |    ...     |   ...   | Simonides   | Aeschylus |Aristophanes|
|          |            |         | Pindar      | Sophocles |            |
|          |            |         | Bacchylides | Euripides |            |
|          |            |         |             |           |            |
| 400-300  | Antimachus |   ...   | Philoxenus  |   ...     |    ...     |
|          |    of      |         | Timotheus   |           |            |
|          |  Colophon  |         | Telestes    |           |            |
|          |            |         |             |           |            |
|          |            |         |             |           |            |
|          |            |         |             |           |            |
| 300-200  |    ...     | [Calli- |     ...     |   ...     |  Euphorio  |
|          |            | machus] |             |           |Chersonesita|
|          |            |         |             |           |            |
|          |            |         |             |           |  Sotades   |
|          |            |         |             |           |            |
|          |            |         |             |           |            |
|          |            |         |             |           |            |
| 200-100  |    ...     |   ...   |     ...     |    ...    |    ...     |

|          |            |             |            | Grammar;      |
|   B.C.   |  History.  | Oratory and | Philosophy.| Musical and   |
|          |            |  Rhetoric.  |            | Metrical      |
|          |            |             |            | Science, etc. |
|Before 700|    ...     |     ...     |    ...     |      ...      |
|          |            |             |            |               |
|          |            |             |            |               |
| 700-600  |    ...     |     ...     |    ...     |      ...      |
|          |            |             |            |               |
|          |            |             |            |               |
|          |            |             |            |               |
| 600-500  |    ...     |     ...     |    ...     |      ...      |
|          |            |             |            |               |
| 500-400  | Herodotus  | Gorgias     | Empedocles |      ...      |
|          | Thucydides | Antiphon    |   (verse)  |               |
|          |            |             | Democritus |               |
|          |            |             |            |               |
| 400-300  | Ctesias    | Isocrates   | Plato      | Aristoxenus   |
|          | Xenophon   | Aeschines   | Aristotle  |               |
|          | Theopompus | Demosthenes |Theophrastus|               |
|          | Ephorus    | Theodectes  |            |               |
|          |            |             |            |               |
| 300-200  |    ...     | Hegesias    | Epicurus   | Aristophanes  |
|          |            |             |  and the   |      of       |
|          |            |             | Epicureans |  Byzantium    |
|          |            |             |            |               |
|          |            |             | Chrysippus |               |
|          |            |             |  and the   |               |
|          |            |             |  Stoics    |               |
|          |            |             |            |               |
| 200-100  | Polybius   |     ...     |   ...      |      ...      |

[Page 51]

To this list might be added the minor historians, of the third and
second centuries B.C., who are mentioned together with Polybius in c.
4, and of whom some account will be found in the notes on that chapter:
Phylarchus, Duris, Psaon, Demetrius of Callatis, Hieronymus, Antigonus,
Heracleides, and Hegesianax. And it will be noticed, further, that the
treatise contains a large number of unassigned verse-fragments, which
can only be referred, vaguely, to some lyric poet or to the lyric
portions of some tragic poet. By such anonymous fragments, as well as
by the poems quoted under the names of Sappho and Simonides, we are
reminded of the many lost works of Greek literature and of the happy
surprises which Egypt or Herculaneum or the Sultan’s Library may still
have in store for us. If the quotations as a whole—identified and
unidentified, previously known and previously unknown—are passed in
review, it will be found that Dionysius has given us a small Anthology
of Greek prose and verse. While strictly relevant to the main theme,
his illustrations are chosen with so much taste, and from so wide a
field of study, that (to adapt his own words) οὐκ ἀηδὴς ὁ λόγος ἐγένετο
πολλοῖς ὥσπερ ἄνθεσι διαποικιλλόμενος τοῖς ἐαρινοῖς.[75]

Two prose-writers mentioned by Dionysius seem to invite special
comment: Polybius and Hegesias. It is not without a kind of shock that
we find the great historian Polybius classed, along with Phylarchus and
the rest, among writers whose works no man can bring himself to read
from cover to cover.[76] But we have to remember that the judgment is
passed solely from the standpoint of style; and from this restricted
standpoint, it can hardly be said that subsequent critics have ventured
to reverse it and to maintain that Polybius is (to use the modern
expression) an eminently “readable” author. Let one modern estimate be
quoted, and that from a writer who appreciates fully the greatness of
Polybius’ theory of history, and

[Page 52]

who, on the other hand, is not concerned to vindicate the soundness
of Dionysius’ judgment: “Unfortunately, his [Polybius’] style is a
serious deterrent to the reader. We long for the ease, the finished
grace, the flowing simplicity of Herodotus; or again, for the terse
and rapid phrase of Thucydides, the energy, the precision of each
single word, the sentence packed with thought. Polybius has lost the
Greek artistic feeling for writing, the delicate sense of proportion,
the faculty of reserve. The freshness and distinction of the Attic
idiom are gone. He writes with an insipid and colourless monotony.
In arranging his materials he is equally inartistic. He is always
anticipating objections and digressing; he wearies you with dilating on
the excellence of his own method; he even assures you that the size and
price of his book ought not to keep people from buying it. Admirable
as is the substance of his writing, he pays the penalty attaching to
neglect of form—he is read by the few.”[77]

Hegesias is not only mentioned, but quoted, in the treatise. A few
detached sentences are given from his writings, and one longer passage.
In c. 4 Dionysius rewrites a brief extract from Herodotus in utter
defiance of the customary rules (or practices) of Greek word-order, and
then exclaims, “This form of composition resembles that of Hegesias:
it is affected, degenerate, enervated.” He proceeds: “In such trumpery
arts the man is a hierophant. He writes, for instance, ‘After a
goodly festival another goodly one keep we.’ ‘Of Magnesia am I, the
mighty land, a man of Sipylus I.’ ‘No little drop into the Theban
waters spewed Dionysus: O yea, sweet is the stream, but madness it

In c. 18 Dionysius illustrates the beauty of prose-rhythm from
Thucydides, Plato, and Demosthenes. He then assigns to Hegesias a bad
pre-eminence among writers who have neglected this essential of their
art. Quoting a passage of some length from his _History_, he asks how
it compares with Homer’s description

[Page 53]

of a similar scene; and he holds the vast superiority of the latter to
be due ‘chiefly, if not entirely, to the difference in the rhythms.’
In the words just cited there is obviously much exaggeration. But we
must allow for Dionysius’ preoccupation in this treatise (cp. τοῦτ’ ἦν
σχεδὸν ᾧ μάλιστα διαλλάττει ποιητής τε ποιητοῦ καὶ ῥήτωρ ῥήτορος, τὸ
συντιθέναι δεξιῶς τὰ ὀνόματα, =92= 18-20), and must, at any rate, try
to discover wherein the main defect of Hegesias’ rhythms is supposed
to lie. It is probable that no single thing in the passage offends the
ear of Dionysius so much as the double trochees (or their metrical
equivalent) which are found at the end of so many of the clauses. This
double trochee, or dichoree, is found in its normal form (– ᴗ – ⏒) at
the end of such _cola_ as those which terminate in: τοῖς ἀρίστοις, καὶ
τὸ πλῆθος, εἰς τὸ τολμᾶν, τῇ μαχαίρᾳ, καὶ Φιλωτᾶς, καὶ τὸ χρῶμα, σκαιὸν
ἐχθρόν. The metrical equivalent ᴗ ᴗ ᴗ – ⏒ occurs in such instances
as: πρότερον οὕτως, ἕνεκα πρᾶξαι, κατακοπῆναι, καθικετεύων. It is
interesting to observe that this final dichoree is regarded both by
Cicero and by Quintilian as characteristic of the Asiatic orators.[78]
Let it be added that, in the extract from Hegesias, the dichorees
are not confined to the close of clauses but occur freely in other

[Page 54]

while many of the sentences are short and the reverse of periodic; and
it will be granted that Cicero has good ground for calling attention
to the jerky, or staccato, character of the style in question. In the
_Orator_ (67. 226) the effect of Hegesias’ writing is thus described:
“quam (sc. numerosam comprehensionem) perverse fugiens Hegesias, dum
ille quoque imitari Lysiam volt, alterum paene Demosthenem, saltat
incidens particulas.” And his manner is amusingly parodied in one of
the letters to Atticus (_ad Att._ xii. 6): “de Caelio vide, quaeso, ne
quae lacuna sit in auro: | ego ista non novi; | sed certe in collubo
est detrimenti satis. | huc aurum si accedit |—sed quid loquor? | tu
videbis. | habes Hegesiae genus! quod Varro laudat.”[79] Two further
specimens (not given by Dionysius) of Hegesias’ style will add point to
Cicero’s parody. The first is preserved by Strabo (_Geogr._ 396): ὁρῶ
τὴν ἀκρόπολιν | καὶ τὸ περιττῆς τριαίνης | ἐκεῖθι σημεῖον· | ὁρῶ τὴν
Ἐλευσῖνα, | καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν γέγονα μύστης· | ἐκεῖνο Λεωκόριον· | τοῦτο
Θησεῖον· | οὐ δύναμαι δηλῶσαι | καθ’ ἓν ἕκαστον. The other specimen is
quoted by Photius (_Bibl._ cod. 250) from Agatharchides, the geographer
of Cnidus: ὅμοιον πεποίηκας, Ἀλέξανδρε, Θήβας κατασκάψας, ὡς ἂν εἰ ὁ
Ζεὺς ἐκ τῆς κατ’ οὐρανὸν μερίδος ἐκβάλλοι τὴν σελήνην. ὑπολείπομαι γὰρ
τὸν ἥλιον ταῖς Ἀθήναις. δύο γὰρ αὗται πόλεις τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἦσαν ὄψεις.
διὸ καὶ περὶ τῆς ἑτέρας ἀγωνιῶ νῦν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ εἷς αὐτῶν ὀφθαλμὸς ἡ
Θηβαίων ἐκκέκοπται πόλις.[80]

It is quite clear, from his express statements, that Dionysius, in his
criticisms, has in view, mainly if not entirely, the bad rhythms of
Hegesias. But the passages which he quotes seem open to criticism on
other grounds as well. The long extract in c. 18 contains metaphors
which might well seem violent to the Greeks, who allowed themselves
less licence than the moderns do in this direction (e.g. ἡ μὲν οὖν
ἐλπὶς αὕτη συνέδραμεν εἰς τὸ τολμᾶν, and τοὺς δ’ ἄλλους ὀργὴ πρόσφατος
ἐπίμπρα); and it is high-flown expressions of this kind which the
author of the _de Sublimitate_ has in view when he writes: τά γε μὴν

[Page 55]

τοιαῦτα καὶ Ἡγησίου καὶ Ματρίδος· πολλαχοῦ γὰρ ἐνθουσιᾶν ἑαυτοῖς
δοκοῦντες οὐ βακχεύουσιν ἀλλὰ παίζουσιν (iii. 2). False emphasis,
too, and a general desire to purchase notoriety by the cheap method
of eccentric word-order, would appear to be implied in Dionysius’ own
parody in c. 4 (=90= 15-19). For example, Ἀλυάττου and ἐθνῶν, though
not in themselves important, are assigned prominent positions at the
beginning and the end of the sentence. But the greatest of all the
defects of Hegesias—especially when compared with Homer—is a certain
vulgarity of tone.

The contrast drawn between Hegesias and Homer may seem overstrained,
but it is eminently characteristic of Dionysius. Homer was to him the
great pure fount of Greek, and his own constant desire was “antiquos
accedere fontes.” Hegesias, on the other hand, typifies to him the
decline in Greek literature which followed the death of Alexander,
whose exploits he records with so feeble a magniloquence. And yet the
curious thing is that Hegesias, who lived probably in the earlier part
of the third century, aspires (as Cicero tells us) to copy Lysias. But
while endeavouring thus to imitate one of the most Attic of the Attic
writers, he came, by the irony of fate, to be regarded as the founder
of the degenerate Asiatic school: Ἡγησίας ὁ ῥήτωρ, ὃς ἦρξε μάλιστα τοῦ
Ἀσιανοῦ λεγομένου ζήλου, παραφθείρας τὸ καθεστηκὸς ἔθος τὸ Ἀττικόν
(Strabo _Geogr._ xiv. 1. 41).[81] In the terms “Attic” and “Asiatic”
there often lurks some confusion of thought, as well as no little
prejudice and rhetorical animosity. But of Dionysius, as compared with
Hegesias, it is clearly within the mark to say that, though he lived
two centuries later, he has vastly more of the true Attic feeling for
purity of style; and that, though he may himself have cherished wild
dreams of turning back the tide of language, yet in league with some
leading Romans of his day he did good service by showing how the best
Attic models may hold out to future ages shining examples of the skill
and beauty which all men should strive after in handling the language
of their birth.

[Page 56]

For Dionysius in relation to contemporary Romans, and to the struggle
between Asianism and Atticism, reference may be made to _Dionysius of
Halicarnassus: the Three Literary Letters_ pp. 34-49.

G. _Manuscripts and Text_

The chief authorities for the text of the _de Compositione_ are
indicated in the following list of abbreviations employed in the
apparatus criticus of the present edition:—

_Siglorum in notulis criticis adhibitorum Index_

  F = cod. Florentinus Laurentianus lix. 15. saec. xii.
  P = cod. Parisinus bibl. nat. 1741. saec. xi. (x.).
  M = cod. Venetus Marcianus 508. saec. xv.
  V = cod. Vergetii Parisiensis bibl. nat. 1798. saec. xvi.

  E = Διονυσίου Ἁλικαρνασέως τοῦ περὶ Συνθέσεως Ὀνομάτων =Ἐπιτομή=.
          saec. inc.

  R = Rhetor Graecus (Scholiasta Hermogenis περὶ ἰδεῶν, i. 6).
          saec. inc.

  a = editio princeps Aldi Manutii (Aldi Manutii Rhetores Graeci,
          tom. i.), Venetiis. 1508.
  s = editio Roberti Stephani, Lutetiae. 1547.
  r = exemplum Reiskianum, Lipsiae. 1775.
 Us = exemplum ab Usenero et Radermachero Lipsiae nuper editum.

The Florentine manuscript (F) contains, besides certain writings of
other authors, the following works of Dionysius: (1) the essays on
Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, and Dinarchus: and (2) the _de Compositione
Verborum_ (as far as the words πειρατέον δὴ καὶ περὶ τούτων λέγειν ἃ
φρονῶ in c. 25). The Paris manuscript 1741 (P) is the famous codex
which contains not only the _de Comp. Verb._, but also Aristotle’s
_Rhetoric_ and _Poetics_, Demetrius _de Elocutione_, Dionysius
Halic. _Ep. ad Amm. II._, _De Vet. Scr._, etc. Some notes upon the
manuscript are given in _Demetrius on Style_ pp. 209-11; and the editor
has examined it once more at Paris for the purposes of the present
recension. The remaining manuscripts are considerably later than F and

[Page 57]

M belongs to the fifteenth century, and V was copied by the Cretan
calligrapher Ange Vergèce (as he was called in France) in the sixteenth
century. The edition of Robert Stephens is based upon V. In the
_Journal of Philology_ xxvii. pp. 83 ff., there is a careful collation,
by A. B. Poynton, of “Some Readings of MS. Canonici 45” (C: sixteenth
century) in the Bodleian Library, with regard to which the collator
says: “Despite the care with which the work is done, the manuscript is
not of much value as a presentation of the Florentine tradition, since
F exists and the writer of C is rather a διασκευαστής than a copyist.
The interest of the manuscript is antiquarian and bibliographical....
It is a copy made at some time in the sixteenth century, probably after
1560. It is based on the Florentine MS. with _variae lectiones_ and
marginal notes. It has not the appearance of being a mechanical copy:
rather it seems to be the work of a scholar who was conversant with the
MSS. of the treatise and, while he was aware of the importance of the
Florentine MS., saw that in many cases it needed to be corrected.”

The dates of the Epitome and of the _Rhetor Graecus_ are uncertain.
But both are early and highly important authorities. The latter quotes
c. 14 only of the treatise, but the quotation enabled Usener to show
that the text of F agreed in the main with that of the _Rhetor_ and
of the Epitome. The result was to enhance greatly the authority of
F, with which earlier editors had merely an indirect and imperfect
acquaintance. But by a not unnatural reaction against the excessive
attention paid to what may be called the P group (PMV: though M and V
sometimes coincide with F against P), Usener is inclined too readily
to follow F, or even E, when standing alone. Still, while the readings
supported only by F, or E, or P should be carefully scrutinized and
independently judged, the concurrent testimony of FE and any other MS.
is very strong indeed.

Two passages taken almost at a venture (say, the first twenty lines
of c. 12 and the last twenty of c. 19) would be enough to show that
neither F nor P can be exclusively followed, and that Usener himself is
often (more often than is indicated in this edition) driven to desert
F, which in fact contains, in these or other places, a large number of
impossible or even absurd readings.[82]

[Page 58]

Where, however, there are genuine instances of various readings (as
εὐκαιροτέραις: εὐροωτέραις in the last of the passages just specified),
it seems best to follow F (especially when supported by other
authorities), even though the hand of an ingenious early scholar may
sometimes with reason be suspected.[83]

One reason for accepting with reserve the unsupported testimony of F is
that its evidence is sometimes far from sound in regard to quotations
from authors whose text is well established from other sources. In the
principal quotations from Pindar and Thucydides this defect is not so
manifest; and it may even be claimed that its text of the Pindaric
dithyramb, and of the Herodotus extract on p. 82, is distinguished by
many excellent features, though not so many as Usener was at first
inclined to claim in the case of the Pindar. But in the extract
from the _Areopagiticus_ of Isocrates which is given in c. 23, the
text presented by F (as compared with that presented by P) seems to
suggest that, in dealing with Dionysius’ own words as well as with his
quotations, the transcriber may have felt entitled to make rather free
alterations on his own account. In order to provide readers with the
means of judging for themselves, the critical apparatus has been made
specially full at this point.[84]

Usener’s text of the _de Compositione_ deserves the highest respect:
it is the last undertaking of one of the greatest philologists of the
nineteenth century, and every succeeding editor must find himself deep
in its debt. Its record of readings is full to exhaustiveness. In the
present edition less wealth of detail is attempted (especially in
regard to F and R), though all really

[Page 59]

important and typical variations have, it is hoped, been duly
registered, and particular attention has been paid to the minute
collation of P. But apart from the correction of misprints (as on
pp. =124= 13, =132= 23, =250= 7), it is hoped that the following
among other readings will commend themselves (on an examination of
the sections of the Notes or Glossary in which they are defended) as
superior to those adopted by Usener (and indicated here in brackets)
from conjecture or on manuscript authority: =64= 11 (σοὶ omitted), =70=
5 (εὖ τί), =78= 17 (παλαιαί), =80= 13 (παιδικόν), =94= 13 (προβαῖεν),
=94= 16 (σπουδάζεσθαι), =98= 20 (οἷά τινα), =106= 13 (εὖ ἢ), =132= 20
(θηρᾶν), =142= 9 (σπανίζει), etc.

H. _Recent Writings connected with the_ de Compositione

A full bibliography, covering not only the _de Compositione_ of
Dionysius but his rhetorical and critical works generally, is given in
the present editor’s _Dionysius of Halicarnassus: the Three Literary
Letters_ (published in January 1901), pp. 209-219. The following are
(in chronological order) the early editors who have done most to
further the study of the _de Compositione_: Aldus Manutius (_editio
princeps_), Robertus Stephanus, F. Sylburg, J. Upton, J. J. Reiske,
G. H. Schaefer, and F. Goeller. Much interest still attaches to C.
Batteux’ publication (1788): _Traité de l’arrangement des mots:
traduit du grec de Denys d’Halicarnasse; avec des réflexions sur la
langue française, comparée avec la langue grecque_. The translation
is too free and based on too poor a text to meet the needs of exact
scholarship. But the _Réflexions_ (which accompany the translation,
in vol. vi. of the author’s _Principes de littérature_) are full of
suggestive remarks. Another excellent literary study of Dionysius
is that of Max. Egger: _Denys d’Halicarnasse: essai sur la critique
littéraire et la rhétorique chez les Grecs au siècle d’Auguste_
(Paris, 1902). As its title indicates, this volume takes a wide
range; and it reveals that full competence in these matters which it
is natural to expect from the son of Émile Egger. A short general
account, by Radermacher, of Dionysius’ critical essays will be found in
Pauly-Wissowa’s _Realencyclopädie_ vol. v.

The first volume of Usener and Radermacher’s text was included in the
bibliographical list mentioned above. In 1904 appeared the second
volume, containing the _de Compositione_ and

[Page 60]

some other critical writings of Dionysius (_Dionysii Halicarnasei
opuscula ediderunt Hermannus Usener et Ludovicus Radermacher. Voluminis
sec. fasc. prior._ _Lipsiae_, 1904). The second volume is on a par
with the first, which was welcomed, as a notable achievement, in the
_Classical Review_ xiv. pp. 452-455, where also attention was drawn (p.
454 _a_) to a questionable emendation previously introduced by Usener
into the text of the _de Imitatione_. This emendation is withdrawn
in Usener’s second volume—a fact which may be mentioned as one proof
among many that his tendency was to grow more conservative and, in
particular, more attentive to the testimony of P 1741. The titles of
A. B. Poynton’s articles on Dionysius are: “Oxford MSS. of Dionysius
Halicarnasseus, _De Compositione Verborum_” (_Journal of Philology_
xxvii. pp. 70-99), and “Oxford MSS. of the _Opuscula_ of Dionysius
of Halicarnassus” (_Journal of Philology_ xxviii. pp. 162-185).
Among other useful _subsidia_ lately published may be mentioned: W.
Kroll’s “Randbemerkungen” in _Rhein. Mus._ lxii. pp. 86-101, and
Larue van Hook’s _Metaphorical Terminology of Greek Rhetoric and
Literary Criticism_ (Chicago, 1905). R. H. Tukey (_Classical Review_,
September 1909, p. 188) makes the interesting suggestion that “the _De
Compositione_ belongs chronologically between the two parts of the _De
Demosthene_.” The use of the present tense δηλοῦται, in _C.V._ =182= 8
may be held to countenance this view.

In some recent books of larger scope it is pleasant to notice an
increased appreciation of the high value of the work done by Dionysius
in the field of literary criticism. Certain of these estimates may be
quoted in conclusion. R. C. Jebb, in the _Companion to Greek Studies_
p. 137: “The maturity of the ‘Attic revival’ is represented at Rome, in
the Augustan age, by the best literary critic of antiquity, Dionysius
of Halicarnassus.” A. and M. Croiset _Histoire de la littérature
grecque_ v. p. 371: “Les uns et les autres [les contemporains et les
rhéteurs des âges suivants] appréciaient avec raison l’érudition de
Denys, la justesse de son esprit, sa finesse dans le discernement des
ressemblances et des différences, la solidité de sa doctrine, son
goût dans le choix des exemples. De plus, ils se sentaient touchés,
comme nous et plus que nous, par la vivacité de ses admirations, par
cette sorte de foi communicative, qui faisait de lui le défenseur des
traditions classiques.” Wilamowitz-Moellendorff

[Page 61]

_Die griechische Literatur des Altertums_ pp. 102 and 148: “Von
unbestreitbar hohem und dauerndem Werte ist die andere Seite der
rhetorischen Theorie und Praxis, die sich auf den Ausdruck erstreckt,
die Stilistik.... Es ist ein hohes Lob, dass er (Dionysios von
Halikarnass) im Grunde dieselbe stilistische Überzeugung vertritt wie
Cicero, und wir sind ihm für die Erhaltung von ungemein viel Wichtigem
zu Dank verpflichtet; seine Schriften über die attischen Redner und
über die Wortfügung sind auch eine nicht nur belehrende, sondern
gefällige Lekture.” J. E. Sandys _History of Classical Scholarship_ i.
p. 279: “In the minute and technical criticism of the art and craft
of Greek literature, the works of Dionysius stand alone in all the
centuries that elapsed between the _Rhetoric_ of Aristotle and the
treatise _On the Sublime_.” G. Saintsbury _History of Criticism_ i.
pp. 136, 137, 132: “Dionysius is a very considerable critic, and one
to whom justice has not usually, if at all, yet been done.... A critic
who saw far, and for the most part truly, into the proper province of
literary criticism.... This treatise [sc. the _de Compositione_], if
studied carefully, must raise some astonishment that Dionysius should
have been spoken of disrespectfully by anyone who himself possesses
competence in criticism. From more points of view than one, the piece
gives Dionysius no mean rank as a critic.” S. H. Butcher _Harvard
Lectures on Greek Subjects_ pp. 236, 239: “Of his fine perception of
the harmonies of Greek speech we can entertain no reasonable doubt....
We cannot dismiss his general criticism as unsound or fanciful. The
whole history of the evolution of Greek prose, and the practice of the
great masters of the art, support his main contention.” With these
extracts may be coupled one from the _Spectator_ of March 23, 1901:
“In this treatise Dionysius reviews and attempts to explain the art of
literature. It is a brilliant effort to analyse the sensuous emotions
produced by the harmonious arrangement of beautiful words. Its eternal
truth might make it a textbook for to-day.”

[Page 62]

In the Notes and Glossary, as in the Introduction, references are
usually given to the lines, as well as the pages, of the Greek
text here printed: e.g. =80= 7 = page =80= line 7 of the _De
Compositione_.—The following abbreviations are used in referring to
volumes already issued by the editor:—

    D.H. = ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus: the Three Literary Letters.’
    Long. = ‘Longinus on the Sublime.’
    Demetr. = ‘Demetrius on Style.’

[Page 63]



[Page 64]




      “Δῶρόν τοι καὶ ἐγώ, τέκνον φίλε, τοῦτο δίδωμι,”

καθάπερ ἡ παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ φησὶν Ἑλένη ξενίζουσα τὸν Τηλέμαχον,      5
πρώτην ἡμέραν ἄγοντι ταύτην γενέθλιον, ἀφ’ οὗ παραγέγονας
εἰς ἀνδρὸς ἡλικίαν, ἡδίστην καὶ τιμιωτάτην ἑορτῶν ἐμοί· πλὴν
οὔτε #χειρῶν# δημιούργημα πέμπω σοι τῶν ἐμῶν, ὡς ἐκείνη
φησὶ διδοῦσα τῷ μειρακίῳ τὸν πέπλον, οὔτ’ #ἐς γάμου# μόνον
#ὥραν# καὶ #γαμετῆς# χάριν εὔθετον, ἀλλὰ ποίημα μὲν καὶ γέννημα      10
παιδείας καὶ ψυχῆς τῆς ἐμῆς, κτῆμα δὲ σοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ
καὶ χρῆμα πρὸς ἁπάσας τὰς ἐν τῷ βίῳ χρείας ὁπόσαι γίνονται
διὰ λόγων ὠφέλιμον, ἀναγκαιότατον ἁπάντων χρημάτων,
εἴ τι κἀγὼ τυγχάνω τῶν δεόντων φρονῶν, ἅπασι μὲν ὁμοίως
τοῖς ἀσκοῦσι τοὺς πολιτικοὺς λόγους, ἐν ᾗ ποτ’ ἂν ἡλικίᾳ      15

1 ἁλικαρνασσέως PV^2   4 καὶ om. V   6 ταυτηνὶ PMV   7 ἡδίστην om. P
8 χεῖρον PV^1   9 ἔφη PV || οὔτε εἰς PMV   11 σοὶ om. E   12 πάσας EF
13 ὠφέλιμον V: ὠφελίμων EFM: ὠφέλιμοι P   14 τι] τι δὴ MV

2. For the meaning and rendering of =σύνθεσις= see Glossary, p. 326

5. In ll. 5, 8, 9, 10, the reference is to _Odyssey_ xv. 123-127:—

          Ἑλένη δὲ παρίστατο καλλιπάρῃος
    πέπλον ἔχουσ’ ἐν χερσίν, ἔπος τ’ ἔφατ’ ἐκ τ’ ὀνόμαζε·
    Δῶρον τοι καὶ ἐγώ, τέκνον φίλε, τοῦτο δίδωμι,
    μνῆμ’ Ἑλένης χειρῶν, πολυηράτου ἐς γάμου ὥρην,
    σῇ ἀλόχῳ φορέειν.

10. The word =γαμετή= is used by Dionysius in the interesting and
highly characteristic passage which opens the _de Antiq. Oratoribus_
(c. 2).—Here Sauppe conjectures γαμετῇ for γαμετῆς.—For =εὔθετος=
cf. _de Thucyd._ c. 55 τὸ διηγηματικὸν μέρος αὐτῆς πλὴν ὀλίγων
πάνυ θαυμαστῶς ἔχειν καὶ εἰς πάσας εἶναι τὰς χρείας εὔθετον, τὸ δὲ
δημηγορικὸν οὐχ ἅπαν εἰς μίμησιν ἐπιτήδειον εἶναι.

11. =κτῆμα ... χρῆμα=, ‘a treasure and a tool,’ ‘a compliment and an
implement’: similarly =264= 14 φθόνῳ καὶ χρόνῳ (the reading of PMV),
and =268= 9 χρόνῳ τε πολλῷ καὶ πόνῳ, =184= 25 ἀγνοίας ... προνοίας.
Cp. the jingles found in the fragments of Gorgias, or in Aristophanes
(ῥώμῃ ... γνώμῃ, _Av._ 637, 638; σχῆμα ... λῆμα, _Ran._ 463). Such
rhyming tendencies (frequent in the orations of Cicero) are condemned
in prose-writing by modern taste, though they have, in the course of
centuries, found much acceptance in poetry.—For the antithesis in κτῆμα
... χρῆμα cp. Isocr. _ad Demonicum_ 28, Cic. _ad Fam._ vii. 29, 30,
Lucr. _de Rer. Nat._ iii. 971.

The Epitome (except E^r) omits =σοι=, thus securing brevity at the
price of rhythm, antithesis, and point. Cp. =66= 13, where E omits

14. =κἀγώ=: the καί gives a modest tone, as in Soph. _Philoct._ 192
εἴπερ κἀγώ τι φρονῶ (Jebb).

15. =πολιτικούς=: see =Glossary=, s.v.

[Page 65]






To you, Rufus Metilius, whose worthy father is my most honoured
friend, “I also offer this gift, dear child,”[85] as Helen, in Homer,
says while entertaining Telemachus. To-day you are keeping your first
birthday after your arrival at man’s estate; and of all feasts this is
to me the most welcome and most precious. I am not, however, sending
you the work of my own _hands_ (to quote Helen’s words when she offers
the robe to her young guest), nor what is fitted only for the season
of marriage and “meet to pleasure a bride withal.”[86] No, it is the
product and the child of my studies and my brain, and also something
for you to keep and use in all the business of life which is effected
through speech: an aid most necessary, if my estimate is of any
account, to all alike who practise civil oratory,

[Page 66]

τε καὶ ἕξει τυγχάνωσιν ὄντες· μάλιστα δὲ τοῖς μειρακίοις τε
καὶ νεωστὶ τοῦ μαθήματος ἁπτομένοις ὑμῖν, ὦ Ῥοῦφε Μετίλιε
πατρὸς ἀγαθοῦ, κἀμοὶ τιμιωτάτου φίλων.

διττῆς γὰρ οὔσης ἀσκήσεως περὶ πάντας ὡς εἰπεῖν τοὺς
λόγους, τῆς περὶ τὰ νοήματα καὶ τῆς περὶ τὰ ὀνόματα, ὧν ἡ      5
μὲν τοῦ πραγματικοῦ τόπου μᾶλλον ἐφάπτεσθαι δόξειεν ἄν,
ἡ δὲ τοῦ λεκτικοῦ, καὶ πάντων ὅσοι τοῦ λέγειν εὖ στοχάζονται
περὶ ἀμφοτέρας τὰς θεωρίας τοῦ λόγου ταύτας σπουδαζόντων
ἐξ ἴσου, ἡ μὲν ἐπὶ τὰ πράγματα καὶ τὴν ἐν τούτοις
φρόνησιν ἄγουσα ἡμᾶς ἐπιστήμη βραδεῖά ἐστι καὶ χαλεπὴ      10
νέοις, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀδύνατος εἰς ἀγενείων καὶ μειρακίων πεσεῖν
ἡλικίαν· ἀκμαζούσης γὰρ ἤδη συνέσεώς ἐστι καὶ πολιαῖς
κατηρτυμένης ἡλικίας ἡ τούτων κατάληψις οἰκειοτέρα, πολλῇ
μὲν ἱστορίᾳ λόγων τε καὶ ἔργων, πολλῇ δὲ πείρᾳ καὶ συμφορᾷ
παθῶν οἰκείων τε καὶ ἀλλοτρίων συναυξομένη· τὸ δὲ περὶ      15
τὰς λέξεις φιλόκαλον καὶ ταῖς νεαραῖς πέφυκε συνανθεῖν
οὐχ ἧττον ἡλικίαις. ἐπτόηται γὰρ ἅπασα νέου ψυχὴ περὶ
τὸν τῆς ἑρμηνείας ὡραϊσμόν, ἀλόγους τινὰς καὶ ὥσπερ ἐνθουσιώδεις
ἐπὶ τοῦτο λαμβάνουσα τὰς ὁρμάς· οἷς πολλῆς πάνυ

1 τε καὶ PV: ἢ FM || τε om. F   2 νεωστὶ PMV: ἄρτι F || μετίλιε FP:
μελίτιε EMV   3 καμοὶ P,MV: καὶ ἐμοὶ F   4 ἀσκήσεως EPMV: ὑποθέσεως F
  5 νοήματα καὶ τὴν λέξιν ὧν EF   6 μᾶλλον ἐφάπτεσθαι om. M   9 τούτοις
EPMV: αὐτοῖς F   10 ἐπιστημηι F^1   11 καὶ EFMV: ἢ P   12 ἀγμαζούσης F^1
|| πολιαῖς κατηρτυμένης FMVs: κεκοσμημένης P   13 ἡλικίαις M^2 (cf.
v. 17 infra) || ἡ τούτων κατάληψις F γρ M: ἐστὶν ἡ τούτων κατάληψις
E: ἡ τούτων γνῶσις ἐστὶν PMV || οἰκει[ο]τέρα cum litura F,PMV: om. E
  15 συναυξανομένη PMV   16 φιλόκαλον EFP: φιλότιμον καὶ φιλόκαλον MV
|| πέφυκε συνανθεῖν Reiskius: πεφυκὸς συνανθεῖν P: συνανθεῖν εἴωθεν
οὐχ ἧττον EF: πεφυκὸς συνανθεῖν (εἴωθεν addit M) οὐχ ἧττον MV   19 ἐπὶ
τοῦτο EF^2: ἐπὶ τοῦτον F^1MV: om. P || τὰς EFM: om. PV

2. For the plural =ὑμῖν= cp. Long. xii. 5 ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ὑμεῖς [‘you
Romans’] ἂν ἄμεινον ἐπικρίνοιτε.

=Ῥοῦφε Μετίλιε=: reference may be made to the editor’s article on
‘The Literary Circle of Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ in the _Classical
Review_ xiv. (year 1900), pp. 439-442. Dionysius clearly numbered many
Romans among his friends and pupils. Dedicatory books, or poems, were
not uncommon gifts on birthdays: compare

    Ἀντίπατρος Πείσωνι γενέθλιον ὤπασε βίβλον
      μικρήν, ἐν δὲ μιῇ νυκτὶ πονησάμενος.
    ἵλαος ἀλλὰ δέχοιτο, καὶ αἰνήσειεν ἀοιδόν,
      Ζεὺς μέγας ὡς ὀλίγῳ πειθόμενος λιβάνῳ.

                              Antipater Thessalonic.
                              _Epigr. Anthol. Pal._ ix. 93.

    θύει σοὶ τόδε γράμμα γενεθλιακαῖσιν ἐν ὥραις,
      Καῖσαρ, Νειλαίη Μοῦσα Λεωνιδέω.
    Καλλιόπης γὰρ ἄκαπνον ἀεὶ θύος· εἰς δὲ νέωτα,
      ἢν ἐθέλῃς, θύσει τοῦδε περισσότερα.

                              Leonidas Alexandr. _ib._ vi. 321.

3. Reiske’s conjecture <παῖ> is plausible rather than necessary: cp.
_Il._ xxi. 109 πατρὸς δ’ εἴμ’ ἀγαθοῖο and _Odyss._ iv. 611 αἵματος εἶς
ἀγαθοῖο.—In the words =κἀμοὶ τιμιωτάτου φίλων= Dionysius illustrates
his own contention (in c. 25) that fragments of metrical lines are
occasionally found in prose writings. [F, however, has καὶ ἐμοί.]

6. =πραγματικοῦ ... λεκτικοῦ=: see Gloss., s.v.

13. =κατηρτυμένης=: cp. the sense of ‘break in,’ as in Soph. _Antig._
477 σμικρῷ χαλινῷ δ’ οἶδα τοὺς θυμουμένους | ἵππους καταρτυθέντας and
Plut. _Vit. Themist._ c. 2 καὶ τοὺς τραχυτάτους πώλους ἀρίστους ἵππους
γίνεσθαι φάσκων, ὅταν ἧς προσήκει τύχωσι παιδείας καὶ καταρτύσεως. So
Plato _Legg._ 808 D (of a child regarded as ‘the most intractable of
animals’) ὅσῳ μάλιστα ἔχει πηγὴν τοῦ φρονεῖν μήπω κατηρτυμένην.—On
=πολιαῖς= (although supported by FMV) Usener candidly remarks “fort.
πολιαῖς interpolatum.”—Against =κατάληψις= (notwithstanding its strong
manuscript support) must be weighed: (1) Dionysius’ anti-Stoicism, (2)
the likely intrusion of a comparatively late word.

14. =συμφορᾷ=: perhaps the meaning is ‘comparison of,’ as (according to
a possible interpretation) τὰς ξυμφορὰς ... τῶν βουλευμάτων in Soph.
_Oed. Tyr._ 44, 45.

15. =συναυξομένη=: the form αὐξάνω (and its compounds) does not seem to
be used by Dionysius.

17. =οὐχ ἧττον= (EFMV) should be retained: cp. n. on line 13. The
words can hardly be regarded as a gloss on =καὶ= ταῖς νεαραῖς, though
εἴωθεν (see critical notes) is probably a gloss on πέφυκε, which would
subsequently be changed to πεφυκός.

=ἐπτόηται=: not infrequent in earlier and in later Greek. Aesch. _Prom.
V._ 856 ἐπτοημένοι φρένας (‘with their hearts wildly beating’), Plato
_Phaedo_ 68 C περὶ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας μὴ ἐπτοῆσθαι (so _Rep._ 439 D), Plut.
_Mor._ 40 F βλὰξ ἄνθρωπος ἐπὶ παντὶ λόγῳ φιλεῖ ἐπτοῆσθαι (quoted from
Heracleitus), id. _ib._ 1128 B ἐπτοημένους περὶ τὰ ὄψα, Chrysostom
_de Sacerdotio_ c. 1 περὶ τὰς ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ (i.e. the theatre) τέρψεις
ἐπτοημένον.—For youth in relation to the arts of style cp. Plut. _Vit.
Demosth._ c. 2 (last sentence).

18. =ἑρμηνείας=: see Gloss., s.v.

[Page 67]

whatever their age and temperament, but especially to youths like you
who are just beginning to take up the study.

We may say that in practically all speaking two things must have
unremitting attention: the ideas and the words. In the former case,
the sphere of subject matter is chiefly concerned; in the latter, that
of expression; and all who aim at becoming good speakers give equally
earnest attention to both these aspects of discourse. But the science
which guides us to selection of matter, and to judgment in handling
it, is hampered with difficulties for the young; indeed, for beardless
striplings, its difficulties are insurmountable. The perfect grasp of
things in all their bearings belongs rather to a matured understanding,
and to an age that is disciplined by grey hairs,—an age whose powers
are developed by prolonged investigation of discourse and action, and
by many experiences of its own and much sharing in the fortunes of
others. But the love of literary beauty flourishes naturally in the
days of youth as much as in later life. For elegance of expression has
a fascination for all young minds, making them feel impulses that are
instinctive and akin to

[Page 68]

καὶ ἔμφρονος δεῖ τῆς πρώτης ἐπιστάσεώς τε καὶ ἀγωγῆς, εἰ
μέλλουσι μὴ πᾶν “ὅ τι κεν ἐπ’ ἀκαιρίμαν γλῶσσαν ἔπος ἔλθῃ”
λέγειν μηδ’ εἰκῇ συνθήσειν τὰ προστυχόντα ἀλλήλοις, ἀλλ’
ἐκλογῇ τε χρήσεσθαι καθαρῶν ἅμα καὶ γενναίων ὀνομάτων καὶ
συνθέσει ταῦτα κοσμήσειν μεμιγμένον ἐχούσῃ τῷ σεμνῷ τὸ      5
ἡδύ. εἰς δὴ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος, ὃ δεῖ πρῶτον νέοις ἀσκεῖσθαι,
“συμβάλλομαί σοι μέλος εἰς ἔρωτα” τὴν περὶ τῆς συνθέσεως
τῶν ὀνομάτων πραγματείαν ὀλίγοις μὲν ἐπὶ νοῦν ἐλθοῦσαν,
ὅσοι τῶν ἀρχαίων ῥητορικὰς ἢ διαλεκτικὰς συνέγραψαν τέχνας,
οὐδενὶ δ’ ἀκριβῶς οὐδ’ ἀποχρώντως μέχρι τοῦ παρόντος ἐξειργασμένην,   10
ὡς ἐγὼ πείθομαι. ἐὰν δ’ ἐγγένηταί μοι σχολή, καὶ
περὶ τῆς ἐκλογῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων ἑτέραν ἐξοίσω σοι γραφήν,
ἵνα τὸν λεκτικὸν τόπον τελείως ἐξειργασμένον ἔχῃς. ἐκείνην
μὲν οὖν τὴν πραγματείαν εἰς νέωτα πάλιν ὥραις ταῖς αὐταῖς
προσδέχου θεῶν ἡμᾶς φυλαττόντων ἀσινεῖς τε καὶ ἀνόσους, εἰ      15
δήποτε ἡμῖν ἄρα τούτου πέπρωται βεβαίως τυχεῖν· νυνὶ δὲ
ἣν τὸ δαιμόνιον ἐπὶ νοῦν ἤγαγέ μοι πραγματείαν δέχου.

κεφάλαια δ’ αὐτῆς ἐστιν ἃ πρόκειταί μοι δεῖξαι ταῦτα,
τίς τε ἐστὶν ἡ τῆς συνθέσεως φύσις καὶ τίνα ἰσχὺν ἔχει, καὶ
τίνων στοχάζεται καὶ πῶς αὐτῶν τυγχάνει, καὶ τίνες αἱ γενικώταται     20
αὐτῆς εἰσι διαφοραὶ καὶ τίς ἑκάστης χαρακτὴρ καὶ ποίαν

1 ἐπιστάσεως EF: ἐπιστασίας PMV   3 μηδὲ PF^1V || εἰκῆ sine iota PF^2:
εἰκεῖ F^1 || ἀλλὰ PMV   4 τε χρήσεσθαι s: τε χρήσασθαι PMV: κεχρῆσθαι
sine τε EF   5 τῶ σεμνῶ sine iota P: σεμνῶ[ι] cum litura F   6 ἐσ F
  7 συμβάλλομέν F || μέλος M. Schmidt: μέρος libri || εἰς F: εἰς τὸν
PMV || τὴν (ex τῆς) F,M: τὸν P,V in marg.: τὸ r || τῆς F: om. PMV   8
ὀλίγοις] οὐκ ὀλίγοις V in marg. || ἐλθοῦσαν ἐπινοῦν F   9 ἀρχομένων M
|| διαλεκτικὰς F: καὶ λεκτικὰς P: καὶ διαλεκτικὰς MV   10 et 11 δὲ PMV
  10 ἀποχρώντως οὐδ’ ἀκριβῶς F || οὐδὲ PMV   12 σοι om. F   13 ἔχης P
sine iota   15 ἀνούσους P   16 ἄρα om. F   17 δέχου F: προσδέχου PMV
18 δὲ PMV || ταῦτα δεῖξαι F   19 τε om. M   21 τίνες ἑκάστης χαρακτῆρες

2. The reference is to the indiscretions of an impertinent
tongue,—‘Whatever, without rhyme and reason, | Occurs to the tongue out
of season’: Lat. _quicquid in buccam_. Cp. Lucian _de conscrib. hist._
c. 32 ἀναπλάττοντες ὅ τι κεν ἐπ’ ἀκαιρίμαν γλῶσσαν, φασίν, ἔλθῃ.

4. The κεχρῆσθαι of EF perhaps points to τε χρῆσθαι as the right
reading. We should then have λέγειν ... συν#θήσειν#, χρῆσθαι ...
κοσ#μήσειν#: a combination of present and future infinitives which
would be in keeping with Dionysius’ love of _variety_ (μεταβολή).

6. “Write νέους. The dative with the passive present, though of course
possible, is unlikely in Dionysius. ἀσκῶ can take two accusatives,” H.
Richards in _Classical Review_ xix. 252.

7. M. Schmidt’s conjecture =μέλος= (M. Schmidt _Diatribe in
Dithyrambum_, Berol. 1845) seems to be established by Athenaeus xv. 692
D ἐπεὶ δ’ ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου ἐσμέν, συμβαλοῦμαί τι μέλος ὑμῖν εἰς ἔρωτα,
κατὰ τὸν Κυθήριον ποιητήν: cp. _ib._ vi. 271 B συμβαλοῦμαί τι καὶ αὐτὸς
μέλος εἰς ἔρωτα τῷ σοφῷ καὶ φιλτάτῳ Δημοκρίτῳ.—In itself, however,
συμβάλλομαι μέρος gives good sense (cp. Plato _Legg._ 836 D τί μέρος
ἡμῖν ξυμβάλλοιτ’ ἂν πρὸς ἀρετήν;); and the repetition of μέρος might
be deliberate,—‘to this part of the subject ... I contribute as my
part.’—ἔρανον [corrupted into ἔρον, ἔρων, ἔρωτα] might be conjectured
in place of ἔρωτα, if any considerable change were needed.

8. In estimating Dionysius’ obligations to his predecessors, it should
be noticed that the correct reading here is not οὐκ ὀλίγοις (as in
the editions of Reiske and Schaefer) but ὀλίγοις.—For =συνθέσεως= see
Gloss., s.v.

11. Either (1) ἐὰν δ’ ἐγγένηταί μοι (without σχολή), or (2) ἐὰν δὲ
γένηταί μοι σχολή, would be more natural. Cp. H. Richards in _Classical
Review_, l.c.

12. Either Dionysius did not fulfil his design, or this treatise on the
‘choice of words’ has been lost. For other lost works of Dionysius see
D.H. p. 7.

14. =εἰς νέωτα=: Hesychius, εἰς τὸ ἐπιὸν ἢ νέον ἔτος. Cp. Theophr. _de
c. Pl._ iii. 16. 2 τὸν εἰς νέωτα καρπόν.

17. =τὸ δαιμόνιον=: cp. _de Demosth._ c. 58 ad f. ἐὰν δὲ σῴζῃ τὸ
δαιμόνιον ἡμᾶς κτλ.

18. =ταῦτα=: compare =86= 4, =90= 15, =100= 12, 27, =106= 5, and
contrast =98= 20, 21, =100= 16, 17, 18.

[Page 69]

inspiration. Young people need, at the beginning, much prudent
oversight and guidance, if they are not to utter

            What word soe’er may have sprung
            To the tip of an ill-timed tongue,[87]

nor to form at random any chance combinations, but to select pure
and noble words, and to place them in the beautiful setting of a
composition that unites charm to dignity. So in this department, the
first in which the young should exercise themselves, “for love’s
service I lend you a strain,”[88] in the shape of this treatise on
literary composition. The subject has occurred to but few of all the
ancients who have composed manuals of rhetoric or dialectic, and by
none has it been, to the best of my belief, accurately or adequately
treated up to the present time. If I find leisure, I will produce
another book for you—one on the choice of words, in order that you may
have the subject of expression exhaustively treated. You may expect
that treatise next year at the same festive season, the gods guarding
us from accident and disease, if it so be that our destiny has reserved
for us the secure attainment of this blessing. But now accept the
treatise which my good genius has suggested to me.

The chief heads under which I propose to treat the subject are the
following: what is the nature of composition, and where its strength
lies; what are its aims and how it attains them; what are its principal
varieties, what is the distinctive

[Page 70]

κρατίστην αὐτῶν εἶναι πείθομαι, καὶ ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις, τί ποτ’
ἐστὶ τὸ ποιητικὸν ἐκεῖνο καὶ εὔγλωσσον καὶ μελιχρὸν ἐν ταῖς
ἀκοαῖς, ὃ πέφυκε τῇ συνθέσει τῆς πεζῆς λέξεως παρακολουθεῖν,
ποιητικῆς τε κατασκευῆς τὸν ἀποίητον ἐκμιμουμένης λόγον καὶ
σφόδρα ἐν τῇ μιμήσει κατορθούσης ποῦ τὸ κράτος, καὶ διὰ      5
ποίας ἂν ἐπιτηδεύσεως ἐγγένοιτο ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν. τοιαυτὶ
μὲν δή τινά ἐστιν ὡς τύπῳ περιλαβεῖν ὑπὲρ ὧν μέλλω λέγειν,
ἄρχεται δὲ ἐνθένδ’ ἡ πραγματεία.


ἡ σύνθεσις ἔστι μέν, ὥσπερ καὶ αὐτὸ δηλοῖ τοὔνομα,
ποιά τις θέσις παρ’ ἄλληλα τῶν τοῦ λόγου μορίων, ἃ δὴ καὶ      10
στοιχεῖά τινες τῆς λέξεως καλοῦσιν. ταῦτα δὲ Θεοδέκτης μὲν
καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ οἱ κατ’ ἐκείνους φιλοσοφήσαντες τοὺς
χρόνους ἄχρι τριῶν προήγαγον, ὀνόματα καὶ ῥήματα καὶ
συνδέσμους πρῶτα μέρη τῆς λέξεως ποιοῦντες. οἱ δὲ μετὰ
τούτους γενόμενοι, καὶ μάλιστα οἱ τῆς Στωικῆς αἱρέσεως      15
ἡγεμόνες, ἕως τεττάρων προὐβίβασαν, χωρίσαντες ἀπὸ τῶν
συνδέσμων τὰ ἄρθρα. εἶθ’ οἱ μεταγενέστεροι τὰ προσηγορικὰ
διελόντες ἀπὸ τῶν ὀνοματικῶν πέντε ἀπεφήναντο τὰ πρῶτα
μέρη. ἕτεροι δὲ καὶ τὰς ἀντονομασίας ἀποζεύξαντες ἀπὸ τῶν
ὀνομάτων ἕκτον στοιχεῖον τοῦτ’ ἐποίησαν. οἱ δὲ καὶ τὰ      20
ἐπιρρήματα διεῖλον ἀπὸ τῶν ῥημάτων καὶ τὰς προθέσεις ἀπὸ

1 εἶναι F: om PMV   4 ποιητικῆς τε om. P || ἐκμημουμένης P^1   5 ποῦ]
αὐτοῦ PV: τοῦτο FM: αὐτῷ s   6 ἐγγένοιτο F: γένοιτο PMV   8 ἄρχεται
δὲ ἐνθένδ’ ἡ πραγματεία om. s || δὲ om. V || ἔνθεν PF^2: ἐντεῦθεν
F^1MV   9 ἔστι μὲν EFM: ἐστιν PV   13 προῆγον F   14 μετὰ τούτους F:
μετ’ αὐτοὺς PMV   16 τεσσάρων F   19 ἀντωνυμίας V   20 τοῦτο PMV   21
ἐπ[ι]ρρήματα cum litura P || διεῖλον PMV: διελόντες F

4. =κατασκευῆς=: see Gloss., s.v.

5. Usener’s conjecture εὖ τί may derive some colour from the manuscript
readings in =72= 10. But =270= 11 shows that εὖ is not necessary
here, and ποῦ is nearer the manuscript tradition. Cp. also =250= 3
(κατορθουμένοις), =198= 11 (κατόρθωμα), _de Thucyd._ c. 1 (τῆς δυνάμεως
οὐκ ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἔργοις κατορθούσης). Other examples are quoted in
Long. p. 202.

7. =ὑπέρ=: cp. =72= 3, 17: περί, =68= 12.

10. _de Demosth._ c. 48 τοῖς πρώτοις μορίοις τῆς λέξεως, ἃ δὴ στοιχεῖα
ὑπό τινων καλεῖται, εἴτε τρία ταῦτ’ ἐστίν, ὡς Θεοδέκτῃ τε καὶ
Ἀριστοτέλει δοκεῖ, ὀνόματα καὶ ῥήματα καὶ σύνδεσμοι, εἴτε τέτταρα, ὡς
τοῖς περὶ Ζήνωνα τὸν Στωικόν, εἴτε πλείω, δύο ταῦτα ἀκολουθεῖ μέλος καὶ
χρόνος ἴσα. Quintil. i. 4. 18, 19 “tum videbit, ad quem hoc pertinet,
quot et quae partes orationis; quamquam de numero parum convenit.
veteres enim, quorum fuerunt Aristoteles quoque atque Theodectes, verba
modo et nomina et convinctiones tradiderunt; videlicet quod in verbis
vim sermonis, in nominibus materiam (quia alterum est quod loquimur,
alterum de quo loquimur), in convinctionibus autem complexus eorum
esse iudicaverunt; quas coniunctiones a plerisque dici scio, sed haec
videtur ex συνδέσμῳ magis propria translatio. paulatim a philosophis ac
maxime Stoicis auctus est numerus, ac primum convinctionibus articuli
adiecti, post praepositiones: nominibus appellatio, deinde pronomen,
deinde mixtum verbo participium, ipsis verbis adverbia. noster sermo
articulos non desiderat, ideoque in alias partes orationis sparguntur.”
Quintilian elsewhere (ii. 15. 10) writes: “a quo non dissentit
Theodectes, sive ipsius id opus est, quod de rhetorice nomine eius
inscribitur, sive ut creditum est Aristotelis.” It is hardly likely
that in i. 4. 18 Quintilian is translating from the _de C.V._ c. 2; the
coincidences are, rather, due to the use of common sources.—Dionysius
does not mention Dionysius Thrax, the author of the first Greek
Grammar, nor does he seem to take account of Aristot. _Poet._ c. 20.

13. The Arabic grammarians in the same way reckon ‘verbs,’ ‘nouns,’ and

15. Cp. =96= 8, 12 _infra_.

17. =τὰ προσηγορικὰ διελόντες=: cp. Dionysius Thrax _Ars Gramm._ p.
23 (Uhlig) τοῦ δὲ λόγου μέρη ἐστὶν ὀκτώ· ὄνομα, ῥῆμα, μετοχή, ἄρθρον,
ἀντωνυμία, πρόθεσις, ἐπίρρημα, σύνδεσμος· ἡ γὰρ προσηγορία ὡς εἶδος τῷ
ὀνόματι ὑποβέβληται.

21. This seems to imply that adverbs were originally included in
verbs—that, for example, εὖ ποιεῖν (like _bene facere_ in Plautus) was
regarded as a quasi-compound. It is to be remembered that the division
of words in writing is a later invention.

[Page 71]

feature of each, and which of them I believe to be the most effective;
and still further, what is that poetical element, so pleasant on the
tongue and so sweet to the ear, which naturally accompanies composition
in prose, and wherein lies the effectiveness of that poetical art
which imitates plain prose and succeeds excellently in doing so, and
by what method each of those two results may be attained. Such, in
broad outline, are the topics with which I intend to deal, and on this
programme my treatise is based.



_Composition_ is, as the very name indicates, a certain arrangement
of the parts of speech, or elements of diction, as some call them.
These were reckoned as three only by Theodectes and Aristotle and the
philosophers of those times, who regarded nouns, verbs and connectives
as the primary parts of speech. Their successors, particularly the
leaders of the Stoic school, raised the number to four, separating the
articles from the connectives. Then the later inquirers divided the
appellatives from the substantives, and represented the primary parts
of speech as five. Others detached the pronouns from the nouns, and so
introduced a sixth element. Others, again, divided the adverbs from the
verbs, the prepositions

[Page 72]

τῶν συνδέσμων καὶ τὰς μετοχὰς ἀπὸ τῶν προσηγορικῶν, οἱ δὲ
καὶ ἄλλας τινὰς προσαγαγόντες τομὰς πολλὰ τὰ πρῶτα μόρια
τῆς λέξεως ἐποίησαν· ὑπὲρ ὧν οὐ μικρὸς ἂν εἴη λόγος. πλὴν
ἥ γε τῶν πρῶτων εἴτε τριῶν ἢ τεττάρων εἴθ’ ὅσων δήποτε
ὄντων μερῶν πλοκὴ καὶ παράθεσις τὰ λεγόμενα ποιεῖ      5
κῶλα, ἔπειθ’ ἡ τούτων ἁρμονία τὰς καλουμένας συμπληροῖ
περιόδους, αὗται δὲ τὸν σύμπαντα τελειοῦσι λόγον. ἔστι δὴ
τῆς συνθέσεως ἔργα τά τε ὀνόματα οἰκείως θεῖναι παρ’ ἄλληλα
καὶ τοῖς κώλοις ἀποδοῦναι τὴν προσήκουσαν ἁρμονίαν καὶ ταῖς
περιόδοις διαλαβεῖν εὖ τὸν λόγον.      10

δευτέρα δ’ οὖσα μοῖρα τῶν περὶ τὸν λεκτικὸν τόπον
θεωρημάτων κατὰ γοῦν τὴν τάξιν (ἡγεῖται γὰρ ἡ τῶν
ὀνομάτων ἐκλογὴ καὶ προϋφίσταται ταύτης κατὰ φύσιν)
ἡδονὴν καὶ πειθὼ καὶ κράτος ἐν τοῖς λόγοις οὐκ ὀλίγῳ
κρεῖττον ἐκείνης ἔχει. καὶ μηδεὶς ἡγήσηται παράδοξον, εἰ      15
πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων ὄντων θεωρημάτων περὶ τὴν ἐκλογήν,
ὑπὲρ ὧν πολὺς ἐγένετο φιλοσόφοις τε καὶ πολιτικοῖς ἀνδράσι
λόγος, ἡ σύνθεσις δευτέραν ἔχουσα χώραν τῇ τάξει καὶ λόγων
οὐδέ, πολλοῦ δεῖ, τῶν ἴσων ἐκείνῃ τυχοῦσα τοσαύτην ἰσχὺν
ἔχει καὶ δύναμιν ὥστε περιεῖναι πάντων τῶν ἐκείνης ἔργων      20
καὶ κρατεῖν, ἐνθυμούμενος ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων τεχνῶν,
ὅσαι διαφόρους ὕλας λαμβάνουσαι συμφορητὸν ἐκ τούτων
ποιοῦσι τὸ τέλος, ὡς οἰκοδομική τε καὶ τεκτονικὴ καὶ ποικιλτικὴ
καὶ ὅσαι ταῖς τοιαύταις εἰσὶν ὁμοιογενεῖς, αἱ συνθετικαὶ
δυνάμεις τῇ μὲν τάξει δεύτεραι τῶν ἐκλεκτικῶν εἰσι, τῇ δὲ      25
δυνάμει πρότεραι· ὥστ’ εἰ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ τὸ αὐτὸ συμβέβηκεν,
οὐκ ἄτοπον ἡγητέον. οὐδὲν δὲ κωλύει καὶ πίστεις παρασχεῖν

2 προσαγαγόντες F: εἰσάγοντες PVa: προεισαγαγόντες M   3 οὐ μικρὸς
PMV: πολλὺς sic F   4 τῶν τριῶν PMV: * * * τριῶν * * * * F   5 καὶ om.
P^1   8 οἰκείως θεῖναι τά τε ὀνόματα (verbis in hunc modum dispositis)
PMV || παράλληλα PM, corr. F^1   9 ἀποδιδόναι F || ἀρμονίαν FP: sic
passim   10 λαβεῖν F^1 || εὖ τὸν EF: αὐτὸν ὅλον τὸν PMV   11 δὲ PMV
12 κατὰ γοὖν F: κατανοοῦντι EPMV   14 τοῖς EF: om. PMV || ὀλίγον M   15
κρεῖττον EFM: κρείττω PV || ἡγήσεται F  17 καὶ ῥητορικοῖς PMV || ἀνδρᾶσι
F: ἀνδράσιν P   18 χώραν ἔχουσα F || συντάξει F^1   19 ἐκείνη (sine
iota) FP   21 ἐπὶ EF: αἱ περὶ PMV   22 δ(ια)αφόρους P^1 || λαμβάνουσιν
F: λαμβάνουσι M   23 τε om. EF || πολιτικὴ E   24 ταῖς τοιαύταις PMV:
ταύτης F || ὁμοιογενεῖς P: ὁμογενεῖς FMV   25 τῶν λεκτικῶν E

6. =ἁρμονία=: see Gloss., s.v.

8. Cic. _de Orat._ iii. 43. 171 “sequitur continuatio verborum, quae
duas res maxime, collocationem primum, deinde modum quendam formamque
desiderat. collocationis est componere et struere verba sic, ut neve
asper eorum concursus neve hiulcus sit, sed quodam modo coagmentatus et
levis; in quo lepide soceri mei persona lusit is, qui elegantissime id
facere potuit, Lucilius:

    quam lepide λέξεις compostae! ut tesserulae omnes
    arte pavimento atque emblemate vermiculato.”

9. In the actual contents of his treatise Dionysius pays more attention
to the ὀνόματα than to the κῶλα and περίοδοι. The importance of
employing periods judiciously is indicated in =118= 15.

12. κατανοοῦντι (the more difficult and better supported reading) may
be right, cp. =90= 12 εἰσπλέοντι (from Thucydides).

13. Cic. _Brut._ 72. 253 “primoque in libro dixerit (Caesar) verborum
dilectum originem esse eloquentiae.”

25. For the antithesis cp. Demosth. _Olynth._ iii. 15 τὸ γὰρ πράττειν
τοῦ λέγειν καὶ χειροτονεῖν ὕστερον ὂν τῇ τάξει, πρότερον τῇ δυνάμει καὶ
κρεῖττόν ἐστιν.

[Page 73]

from the connectives and the participles from the appellatives; while
others introduced still further subdivisions, and so multiplied the
primary parts of speech. The subject would afford scope for quite a
long discussion. Enough to say that the combination or juxtaposition
of these primary parts, be they three, or four, or whatever may be
their number, forms the so-called “members” (or clauses) of a sentence.
Further, the fitting together of these clauses constitutes what are
termed the “periods,” and these make up the complete discourse. The
function of composition is to put words together in an appropriate
order, to assign a suitable connexion to clauses, and to distribute the
whole discourse properly into periods.

Although in logical order arrangement of words occupies the second
place when the department of expression is under investigation, since
the selection of them naturally takes precedence and is assumed to be
already made; yet it is upon arrangement, far more than upon selection,
that persuasion, charm, and literary power depend. And let no one deem
it strange that, whereas many serious investigations have been made
regarding the choice of words,—investigations which have given rise
to much debate among philosophers and political orators,—composition,
though it holds the second place in order, and has been the subject
of far fewer discussions than the other, yet possesses so much solid
strength, so much active energy, that it triumphantly outstrips all the
other’s achievements. It must be remembered that, in the case of all
the other arts which employ various materials and produce from them a
composite result,—arts such as building, carpentry, embroidery, and the
like,—the faculties of composition are second in order of time to those
of selection, but are nevertheless of greater importance. Hence it must
not be thought abnormal that the same principle obtains with respect to
discourse. But we may as well submit proofs of this statement,

[Page 74]

τοῦ προκειμένου, μή τι δόξωμεν ἐξ ἑτοίμου λαμβάνειν τῶν ἀμφισβήτησιν
ἐχόντων λόγων.


ἔστι τοίνυν πᾶσα λέξις ᾗ σημαίνομεν τὰς νοήσεις ἡ μὲν
ἔμμετρος, ἡ δὲ ἄμετρος· ὧν ἑκατέρα καλῆς μὲν ἁρμονίας
τυχοῦσα καλὸν οἵα τ’ ἐστὶ ποιεῖν καὶ τὸ μέτρον καὶ τὸν      5
λόγον, ἀνεπιστάτως δὲ καὶ ὡς ἔτυχεν ῥιπτομένη προσαπόλλυσι
καὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ χρήσιμον. πολλοὶ γοῦν καὶ
ποιηταὶ καὶ συγγραφεῖς φιλόσοφοί τε καὶ ῥήτορες λέξεις
πάνυ καλὰς καὶ πρεπούσας τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις ἐκλέξαντες
ἐπιμελῶς, ἁρμονίαν δὲ αὐταῖς ἀποδόντες εἰκαίαν τινὰ καὶ      10
ἄμουσον οὐδὲν χρηστὸν ἀπέλαυσαν ἐκείνου τοῦ πόνου. ἕτεροι
δ’ εὐκαταφρόνητα καὶ ταπεινὰ λαβόντες ὀνόματα, συνθέντες
δ’ αὐτὰ ἡδέως καὶ περιττῶς πολλὴν τὴν ἀφροδίτην τῷ λόγῳ
περιέθηκαν. καὶ σχεδὸν ἀνάλογόν τι πεπονθέναι δόξειεν ἂν
ἡ σύνθεσις πρὸς τὴν ἐκλογήν, ὃ πάσχει τὰ ὀνόματα πρὸς      15
τὰ νοήματα. ὥσπερ γὰρ οὐδὲν ὄφελος διανοίας ἐστὶ χρηστῆς,
εἰ μή τις αὐτῇ κόσμον ἀποδώσει καλῆς ὀνομασίας, οὕτω
κἀνταῦθα οὐδέν ἐστι προὔργου λέξιν εὑρεῖν καθαρὰν καὶ καλλιρήμονα,
εἰ μὴ καὶ κόσμον αὐτῇ τις ἁρμονίας τὸν προσήκοντα
περιθήσει.      20

ἵνα δὲ μὴ δόξω φάσιν ἀναπόδεικτον λέγειν, ἐξ ὧν
ἐπείσθην κρεῖττον εἶναι καὶ τελειότερον ἄσκημα τῆς ἐκλογῆς

4 ἄμετρος ἣ δ’ (ex ἥδ’ corr.) ἔμμετρος F,E || καλ(ῶς) P || μὲν om. M
  5 οἵα τ’ M: οἷά τ’ PV: οἷά τε F,E || καὶ τὸ FE: τὸ PMV   6 ἔτυχεν]
ἔοικε M || ῥιπτομένη PMVE: ῥιπτουμένη F   7 τὸ om. F^1 || γοὖν καὶ F,E:
γοῦν PMV   10 ἀποδόντες E γρ M: [ἀποδόν]τες cum litura F: περιθέντες
PV: παραθέντες M   12 δὲ PMV   13 δε PV || ἀντὰ P^1 || ἰδίως EFM^1:
ἡδέως ex ἱδίως P^1: ἰδέως M^2 || τ(ῶ) λόγ(ω) P: τῶν λόγων M   14 ἂν om.
M   16 ἐστὶ ante διανοίας ponunt EF   17 κόσμον * * * * * P || ἀποδώσῃ
F   18 καὶ ἐνταῦθα EF || πούργου P^1 (ρ suprascr. P^2): προὔργον V ||
καλλιῥήμονα FM,P: καλλιῤῥήμονα V   19 τίς F: τ(ῆς) P,MV   21 φασὶν
libri: corr. Krueger || ἀναπόδεικτον P: ἀναπόδεικτα F^2MV: ἀπόδεικτα
F^1   22 κρεῖττον] καὶ κρεῖττον F || τελεώτερον M

1. =ἐξ ἑτοίμου λαμβάνειν=: cp. =78= 13 ἐξ ἑτοίμου λαβὼν ἐχρήσατο.

9. There is much similarity, both in thought and in expression, between
this passage and the _de Sublimitate_ xl. 2: ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅτι γε πολλοὶ
καὶ συγγραφέων καὶ ποιητῶν οὐκ ὄντες ὑψηλοὶ φύσει, μήποτε δὲ καὶ
ἀμεγέθεις, ὅμως κοινοῖς καὶ δημώδεσι τοῖς ὀνόμασι καὶ οὐδὲν ἐπαγομένοις
περιττὸν ὡς τὰ πολλὰ συγχρώμενοι, διὰ μόνου τοῦ συνθεῖναι καὶ ἁρμόσαι
ταῦτα δ’ ὅμως ὄγκον καὶ διάστημα καὶ τὸ μὴ ταπεινοὶ δοκεῖν εἶναι
περιεβάλοντο, καθάπερ ἄλλοι τε πολλοὶ καὶ Φίλιστος, Ἀριστοφάνης ἔν
τισιν, ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις Εὐριπίδης, ἱκανῶς ἡμῖν δεδήλωται. The author
of the _de Subl._ had, as he himself tells us, dealt with the subject
of composition ἐν δυσὶν συντάγμασιν (xxxix. 1 _ibid._).

13. ἰδίως may be right, meaning with περιττῶς ‘in a special and
distinctive manner.’

14. The Aristotelian ἀναλογία is before the author’s mind here, just as
is the Aristotelian doctrine of τὸ μέσον later in the treatise (=246=

17. _de Demosth._ c. 18 οὐχ ἅπαντα δέ γε τὰ πράγματα τὴν αὐτὴν ἀπαιτεῖ
διάλεκτον, ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ὥσπερ σώμασι πρέπουσά τις ἐσθής, οὕτως καὶ
νοήμασιν ἁρμόττουσά τις ὀνομασία.

18. =προὔργου=: cp. Plato _Alcib. II._ 149 E ὥστε οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς ἦν
προὔργου θύειν τε καὶ δῶρα τελεῖν μάτην.

21. MS. Canon. 45 has φάσιν, ἀναπόδεικτον, as reported (_Journal of
Philology_ xxvii. 84) by A. B. Poynton, who compares Aristot. _Eth.
Nic._ 1143 b 12 ὥστε δεῖ προσέχειν τῶν ἐμπείρων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων ἢ
φρονίμων ταῖς ἀναποδείκτοις φάσεσι καὶ δόξαις οὐχ ἧττον τῶν ἀποδείξεων.
διὰ γὰρ τὸ ἔχειν ἐκ τῆς ἐμπειρίας ὄμμα ὁρῶσιν ὀρθῶς. Probably Dionysius
has this passage of Aristotle in his mind, and wishes it to be
understood that he does not mean to dogmatize simply on the score of
being an old and experienced teacher. In the _Rhet. ad Alex._ 1432 a
33, an _oath_ is defined as: μετὰ θείας παραλήψεως φάσις ἀναπόδεικτος.

[Page 75]

that we may not be thought to assume off-hand the truth of a doubtful



Every utterance, then, by which we express our thoughts is either in
metre or not in metre. Whichever it be, it can, when aided by beautiful
arrangement, attain beauty whether of verse or prose. But speech, if
flung out carelessly at random, at the same time spoils the value of
the thought. Many poets, and prose-writers (philosophers and orators),
have carefully chosen expressions that are distinctly beautiful and
appropriate to the subject matter, but have reaped no benefit from
their trouble because they have given them a rude and haphazard sort of
arrangement: whereas others have invested their discourse with great
beauty by taking humble, unpretending words, and arranging them with
charm and distinction. It may well be thought that composition is to
selection what words are to ideas. For just as a fine thought is of
no avail unless it be clothed in beautiful language, so here too pure
and elegant expression, is useless unless it be attired in the right
vesture of arrangement.

But to guard myself against the appearance of making an unsupported
assertion, I will try to show by an appeal to facts

[Page 76]

τὴν σύνθεσιν, ἔργῳ πειράσομαι δεικνύναι, ἐμμέτρων τε καὶ
πεζῶν λόγων ἀπαρχὰς ὀλίγας προχειρισάμενος. λαμβανέσθω
δὲ ποιητῶν μὲν Ὅμηρος, συγγραφέων δὲ Ἡρόδοτος· ἀπόχρη
γὰρ ἐκ τούτων καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων εἰκάσαι. ἔστι δὴ παρ’
Ὁμήρῳ μὲν ὁ παρὰ τῷ συβώτῃ καταγόμενος Ὀδυσσεὺς περὶ      5
τὴν ἑωθινὴν ὥραν ἀκρατίζεσθαι μέλλων, ὡς τοῖς παλαιοῖς
ἔθος ἦν· ἔπειτα ὁ Τηλέμαχος αὐτοῖς ἐπιφαινόμενος ἐκ τῆς εἰς
Πελοπόννησον ἀποδημίας· πραγμάτια λιτὰ καὶ βιωτικὰ
ἡρμηνευμένα ὑπέρευ. ποῦ δ’ ἐστὶν ἡ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἀρετή;
τὰ ποιήματα δηλώσει παρατεθέντα αὐτά·      10

        τὼ δ’ αὖτ’ ἐν κλισίῃς Ὀδυσεὺς καὶ δῖος ὑφορβὸς
        ἐντύνοντ’ ἄριστον ἅμ’ ἠοῖ κειαμένω πῦρ
        ἔκπεμψάν τε νομῆας ἅμ’ ἀγρομένοισι σύεσσι.
        Τηλέμαχον δὲ περίσσαινον κύνες ὑλακόμωροι
        οὐδ’ ὕλαον προσιόντα. νόησε δὲ δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς      15
        σαίνοντάς τε κύνας, ὑπὸ δὲ κτύπος ἦλθε ποδοῖιν·
        αἶψα δ’ ἄρ’ Εὔμαιον προσεφώνεεν ἐγγὺς ἐόντα·
          Εὔμαι’, ἦ μάλα τίς τοι ἐλεύσεται ἐνθάδ’ ἑταῖρος
        ἢ καὶ γνώριμος ἄλλος, ἐπεὶ κύνες οὐχ ὑλάουσιν,
        ἀλλὰ περισσαίνουσι· ποδῶν δ’ ὑπὸ δοῦπον ἀκούω.      20
          οὔπω πᾶν εἴρητο ἔπος, ὅτε οἱ φίλος υἱὸς
        ἔστη ἐνὶ προθύροισι. ταφὼν δ’ ἀνόρουσε συβώτης·

1 ἔργω F || δεικνῦναι F || ἐνμέτρων F   4 εἰκᾶσαι F   5 ὁμήρ(ω) P ||
τῳ om. P || σϊβώτηι P: corr. in margine P^2 || ὀδυσεὺς P   8 πραγμάτια
λιτὰ καὶ PV: πραγμάτια ἅττα F: πραγματιάττα λιτὰ καὶ M   9 δ’ ἔστιν F:
δέ (ἐστιν) P   11 κλισίησ’ EFV: κλισίῃ Hom. || ὀδυσσεὺς FP^2M^1V   12
ἐντύνοντ(ες) P,V   13 ἐκπέμψαντε EFPM || ἀγρομένοισ(ιν) P  14 περίσαινον
FEV   15 ὀδυσεὺς P   16 περί τε κτύπος Hom.   17 ἂρ sic FP || ἔπεα
πτερόεντα προσηύδα Hom.   18 ἐῦμαι’ P: εὔμαιε V   20 περισαίνουσι FV
22 ἐπὶ F || προθύροισ(ιν) P

5. The extract from the _Odyssey_ well illustrates that Homeric
nobleness which pervades even the homeliest scenes; and Dionysius
is right in pointing out that this nobleness does not depend on any
striking choice of phrase, since Homer’s language is usually quite
plain and straightforward.

6. On _Odyss._ xvi. 2 (ἄριστον) there is the following scholium, ὅτι
καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἰλιάδι ἅμα τῇ ἀνατολῇ ἐσθίουσιν: and similarly on Theocr.
i. 50, πρωΐας ἔτι οὔσης ὀλίγον τινὰ ἐσθίομεν ἄρτον καὶ ἄκρατον οἶνον

9. The charm of a simple scene, simply but beautifully described, is
seen in Virg. _Ecl._ vii. 1-15; _Georg._ ii. 385-9; _Aen._ v. 328-30,
357-60. (The Latin illustrations, here and elsewhere, are for the most
part the _exempla Latina_ suggested by Simon Bircov (Bircovius), a
Polish scholar who lived early in the seventeenth century.)

11. By “Hom.” in the critical notes is meant the best attested reading
in the text of Homer. κλισίῃς, however, has some support among the
manuscripts of Homer; and so has the form ἂρ in =76= 17, and πέσεν in
=78= 1.

14. Monro (_Odyss._ xiv. 29) regards ὑλακόμωρος as a kind of parody of
the heroic epithets ἐγχεσίμωρος and ἰόμωρος, and thinks that we cannot
tell what precise meaning (if any) was conveyed by the latter part of
the compound. See, further, his note on _Iliad_ ii. 692.

20. The construction must be ὑπὸ ποδῶν: cp. _Il._ ii. 465 ὑπὸ χθὼν
σμερδαλέον κονάβιζε ποδῶν. The force of ὑπό is half-way between the
literal sense of ‘under’ and the derived sense of ‘caused by’ (Monro).

[Page 77]

the reasons which have convinced me that composition is a more
important and effective art than mere selection of words. I will first
examine a few specimen passages in prose and verse. Among poets let
Homer be taken, among prose-writers Herodotus: from these may be formed
an adequate notion of the rest.

Well, in Homer we find Odysseus tarrying in the swineherd’s hut and
about to break his fast at dawn, as they used to do in ancient days.
Telemachus then appears in sight, returning from his sojourn in the
Peloponnese. Trifling incidents of everyday life as these are, they are
inimitably portrayed. But wherein lies the excellence of expression? I
shall quote the lines, and they will speak for themselves:—

    As anigh came Telemachus’ feet, the king and the swineherd wight
    Made ready the morning meat, and by this was the fire alight;—
    They had sent the herdmen away with the pasturing swine at the dawning;—
    Lo, the dogs have forgotten to bay, and around the prince are they fawning!
    And Odysseus the godlike marked the leap and the whine of the hounds
    That ever at strangers barked; and his ear caught footfall-sounds.
    Straightway he spake, for beside him was sitting the master of swine:
    “Of a surety, Eumaeus, hitherward cometh a comrade of thine,
    Or some one the bandogs know, and not with barking greet,
    But they fawn upon him; moreover I hear the treading of feet.”
    Not yet were the words well done, when the porchway darkened: a face
    Was there in the door,—his son! and Eumaeus sprang up in amaze.

[Page 78]

        ἐκ δ’ ἄρα οἱ χειρῶν πέσεν ἄγγεα, τοῖς ἐπονεῖτο
        κιρνὰς αἴθοπα οἶνον. ὁ δ’ ἀντίος ἔδραμ’ ἄνακτος·
        κύσσε δέ μιν κεφαλήν τε καὶ ἄμφω φάεα καλὰ
        χεῖράς τ’ ἀμφοτέρας· θαλερὸν δέ οἱ ἔκπεσε δάκρυ.

ταῦθ’ ὅτι μὲν ἐπάγεται καὶ κηλεῖ τὰς ἀκοὰς ποιημάτων      5
τε τῶν πάνυ ἡδίστων οὐδενὸς ἥττω μοῖραν ἔχει, πάντες ἂν
οἶδ’ ὅτι μαρτυρήσειαν. ποῦ δὴ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ πειθὼ καὶ
διὰ τί τοιαῦτά ἐστι, πότερον διὰ τὴν ἐκλογὴν τῶν ὀνομάτων
ἢ διὰ τὴν σύνθεσιν; οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴποι διὰ τὴν ἐκλογήν, ὡς
ἐγὼ πείθομαι· διὰ γὰρ τῶν εὐτελεστάτων καὶ ταπεινοτάτων      10
ὀνομάτων πέπλεκται πᾶσα ἡ λέξις, οἷς ἂν καὶ γεωργὸς καὶ
θαλαττουργὸς καὶ χειροτέχνης καὶ πᾶς ὁ μηδεμίαν ὤραν τοῦ
λέγειν εὖ ποιούμενος ἐξ ἑτοίμου λαβὼν ἐχρήσατο. λυθέντος
γοῦν τοῦ μέτρου φαῦλα φανήσεται τὰ αὐτὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἄζηλα·
οὔτε γὰρ μεταφοραί τινες ἐν αὐτοῖς εὐγενεῖς ἔνεισιν οὔτε      15
ὑπαλλαγαὶ οὔτε καταχρήσεις οὔτ’ ἄλλη τροπικὴ διάλεκτος
οὐδεμία, οὐδὲ δὴ γλῶτται πολλαί τινες οὐδὲ ξένα ἢ πεποιημένα
ὀνόματα. τί οὖν λείπεται μὴ οὐχὶ τὴν σύνθεσιν τοῦ
κάλλους τῆς ἑρμηνείας αἰτιᾶσθαι; τοιαῦτα δ’ ἐστὶ παρὰ τῷ

1 πέσον Hom.   2 αἴθωπα PM || ἔδραμ(εν) F: ἔδραμ’ E: ἦλθεν PMV Hom.
  3 καὶ φαλήν P   5 ἐπάγεταί τε καὶ F   6 τῶν F: καὶ τῶν PMV || οὐδ’
ἑνὸς F^1 || ἥττων F   7 εὖ ante οἶδ’ habet F   8 τοιαύτη F^1 || πότερα
F   9 ἐκλογ[ὴ]ν cum litura P || ὡς ἐγὼ πείθομαι om. F   10 καὶ FE: τε
καὶ PMV   12 ὤραν Sylburgius: ὥραν PMV: ὧραν F γρ φροντίδα in marg. M
  13 λαβῶν P   14 γοὖν F: γ’ οὖν P   15 ἐν αὐτοῖς (αὐταῖς P) εὐγενεῖς
ἔνεισιν PMV: εἰσὶν εὐγενεῖς ἐν αὐτοῖς EF   16 οὔτε ἄλλη PV || οὐδεμία
διάλεκτος F   17 οὐδεδὴ P: οὔτε δὴ FMV || γλῶσσαι F || οὐδὲ Sauppius:
οὔτε PMV: ἢ in rasura F^2   19 τοιαῦτ(α) (εστι) P,MV

7. Perhaps ποῦ δὲ δή: cp. =116= 9.

9. Cp. Hor. _Ars P._ 47 “dixeris egregie notum si callida verbum |
reddiderit iunctura novum.”

On the other hand, the importance of ἐκλογή is illustrated by
Aristotle’s comparison (_Poetics_ xxii. 7) of νῦν δέ μ’ ἐὼν ὀλίγος τε
καὶ οὐτιδανὸς καὶ ἀεικής with νῦν δέ μ’ ἐὼν μικρός τε καὶ ἀσθενικὸς καὶ

10. Cp. J. W. Mackail in _Class. Rev._ xxii. 70, “A quality of the
finest Greek poetry, from Homer to the late anthologists, is its power
of taking common language and transforming it into poetry by an all but
imperceptible touch.” The quality is exemplified in Euripides, though
it did not originate with him (κλέπτεται δ’ εὖ, ἐάν τις ἐκ τῆς εἰωθυίας
διαλέκτου ἐκλέγων συντιθῇ· ὅπερ Εὐριπίδης ποιεῖ καὶ ὑπέδειξε πρῶτος,
Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 2, 4: cp. Long. p. 146). So “tantum series
iuncturaque pollet, | tantum _de medio sumptis_ accedit honoris” (Hor.
_Ars P._ 242-3).

13. =λυθέντος γοῦν=, κτλ. Cp. Isocr. _Evag._ 10 οἱ μὲν (sc. ποιηταὶ)
μετὰ μέτρων καὶ ῥυθμῶν ἅπαντα ποιοῦσιν ... ἃ τοσαύτην ἔχει χάριν,
ὥστ’ ἂν καὶ τῇ λέξει καὶ τοῖς ἐνθυμήμασιν ἔχῃ κακῶς, ὅμως αὐταῖς ταῖς
εὐρυθμίαις καὶ ταῖς συμμετρίαις ψυχαγωγοῦσι τοὺς ἀκούοντας. γνοίη
δ’ ἄν τις ἐκεῖθεν τὴν δύναμιν αὐτῶν· ἢν γάρ τις τῶν ποιημάτων τῶν
εὐδοκιμούντων τὰ μὲν ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς διανοίας καταλίπῃ, τὸ δὲ μέτρον
διαλύσῃ, φανήσεται πολὺ καταδεέστερα τῆς δόξης ἧς νῦν ἔχομεν περὶ αὐτῶν.

14. =ἄζηλα=: this adjective occurs also in the _de Demosth._ c. 28, and
more than once in the _Antiqq. Rom._

16. =ὑπαλλαγαί, καταχρήσεις=: see Glossary, s. vv.

17. Usener reads γλῶτται παλαιαί τινες. But (1) γλῶτται are usually
παλαιαί (cp. Galen _Gloss. Hipp._ xix. 63 ὅσα τοίνυν τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐν
μὲν τοῖς πάλαι χρόνοις ἦν συνήθη, νῦν δὲ οὐκέτι ἐστί, τὰ μὲν τοιαῦτα
γλώττας καλοῦσι, κτλ.): (2) the phrase πολλοί τινες is elsewhere
used by Dionysius, e.g. _de Lysia_ c. 1 οὔτε πολλοῖς τισι κατέλιπεν
ὑπερβολήν, κτλ.

18, 19. An interesting modern parallel is that passage in Coleridge’s
_Biographia Literaria_ (c. 18) which touches on the stanza (in
Wordsworth’s _Lyrical Ballads_) beginning “In distant countries I have
been.” Coleridge remarks, “The words here are doubtless such as are
current in all ranks of life; and of course not less so in the hamlet
and cottage than in the shop, manufactory, college, or palace. But
is this the _order_ in which the rustic would have placed the words?
I am grievously deceived, if the following less _compact_ mode of
commencing the same tale be not a far more faithful copy, ‘I have been
in many parts, far and near, and I don’t know that I ever saw before
a man crying by himself in the public road; a grown man I mean that
was neither sick nor hurt,’” etc.—In this connexion see also F. W.
H. Myers’ _Wordsworth_, pp. 106 ff., for the _music_ in Wordsworth’s
_Affliction of Margaret_.

[Page 79]

    Dropped from his hands to the floor the bowls, wherein erst he began
    The flame-flushed wine to pour, and to meet his lord he ran;
    And he kissed that dear-loved head, and both his beautiful eyes;
    And he kissed his hands, and he shed warm tears in his glad surprise.[89]

Everybody would, I am sure, testify that these lines cast a spell
of enchantment on the ear, and rank second to no poetry whatsoever,
however exquisite it may be. But what is the secret of their
fascination, and what causes them to be what they are? Is it the
selection of words, or the composition? No one will say “the
selection”: of that I am convinced. For the diction consists, warp and
woof, of the most ordinary, the humblest words, such as might have
been used off-hand by a farmer, a seaman, an artisan, or anybody else
who takes no account of elegant speech. You have only to break up the
metre, and these very same lines will seem commonplace and unworthy of
admiration. For they contain neither noble metaphors nor _hypallages_
nor _catachreses_ nor any other figurative language; nor yet many
unusual terms, nor foreign or new-coined words. What alternative, then,
is left but to attribute the beauty of the style to the composition?
There are countless

[Page 80]

ποιητῇ μυρία, ὡς εὖ οἶδ’ ὅτι πάντες ἴσασιν· ἐμοὶ δ’ ὑπομνήσεως
ἕνεκα λέγοντι ἀρκεῖ ταῦτα μόνα εἰρῆσθαι.

φέρε δὴ μεταβῶμεν καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν πεζὴν διάλεκτον καὶ
σκοπῶμεν, εἰ κἀκείνῃ τοῦτο συμβέβηκε τὸ πάθος, ὥστε περὶ
μικρὰ καὶ φαῦλα πράγματά τε καὶ ὀνόματα συνταχθέντα      5
καλῶς μεγάλας γίνεσθαι τὰς χάριτας. ἔστι δὴ παρὰ τῷ
Ἡροδότῳ βασιλεύς τις Λυδῶν, ὃν ἐκεῖνος Κανδαύλην <καλεῖ,
Μυρσίλον δὲ> καλεῖσθαί φησιν ὑφ’ Ἑλλήνων, τῆς ἑαυτοῦ
γυναικὸς ἐρῶν, ἔπειτα ἀξιῶν τινα τῶν ἑταίρων αὐτοῦ γυμνὴν
τὴν ἄνθρωπον ἰδεῖν, ὁ δὲ ἀπομαχόμενος μὴ ἀναγκασθῆναι, ὡς      10
δὲ οὐκ ἔπειθεν, ὑπομένων τε καὶ θεώμενος αὐτήν—πρᾶγμα
οὐχ ὅτι σεμνὸν ἢ καλλιλογεῖσθαι ἐπιτήδειον, ἀλλὰ καὶ
ταπεινὸν καὶ ἐπικίνδυνον καὶ τοῦ αἰσχροῦ μᾶλλον ἢ τοῦ καλοῦ
ἐγγυτέρω· ἀλλ’ εἴρηται σφόδρα δεξιῶς, καὶ κρεῖττον γέγονεν
ἀκουσθῆναι λεγόμενον ἢ ὀφθῆναι γινόμενον. ἵνα δὲ μή τις      15
ὑπολάβῃ τὴν διάλεκτον εἶναι τῆς ἡδονῆς αἰτίαν τῇ λέξει,
μεταθεὶς αὐτῆς τὸν χαρακτῆρα εἰς τὴν Ἀτθίδα γλῶτταν καὶ
οὐδὲν ἄλλο περιεργασάμενος οὕτως ἐξοίσω τὸν διάλογον.

“Γύνη, οὐ γάρ σε δοκῶ πείθεσθαί μοι λέγοντι περὶ τοῦ
εἴδους τῆς γυναικός· ὦτα γὰρ τυγχάνει ἀνθρώποις ὄντα      20
ἀπιστότερα ὀφθαλμῶν· ποίει ὅπως ἐκείνην θεάσῃ γυμνήν. ὁ

1 δε P,MV   2 εἰρεῖσθαι P   3 μ[ε]ταβῶμεν cum litura P || ἤδη ante
καὶ ἐπὶ add. F || διάλεξιν F   4 καὶ ἐκείνη F || τοῦτο F: τὸ αὐτὸ PV:
τοῦτο αὐτὸ M || τὸ F: om. PMV   6 ἡδονὰς post μεγάλας add. F || τὰς
PMV: καὶ F   7 καλεῖ Μυρσίλον δὲ om. FM: καλεῖ Μυρσίλον δὲ καλεῖσθαι
om. PV: supplevit Sylburgius coll. Herod. i. 7   9 τινα post αὐτοῦ
ponit F   10 ὁ δὲ PMV: ὃσ F   11 δὲ om. F || αὐτὴν· πρᾶγμα F: αὐτὴν τὸ
πρᾶγμα P: αὐτὴν ἦν· τὸ δὲ πρᾶγμα MV   12 ἐπιτήδειον] δυνάμενον E   13
ταπεινὸν EPMV: παιδικὸν F   14 ἀλλὰ PM   16 τηῖ P   17 γλῶσσαν F   18
περιειργασμένος P || τὸν λόγον F   19 περὶ] τ(ους) περι P: τὰ περὶ Va
20 τυγχάνει] ὑπάρχει F

4. Usener’s conjecture παρὰ (for περὶ) may be held to find some support
from =92= 21 and =256= 10, but on the other hand Dionysius’ love of
μεταβολή has always to be remembered.

6. F’s reading ἡδονὰς γίνεσθαι καὶ adds still another καί to the four
already used in this sentence. The two nouns ἡδονὰς ... χάριτας are
superficially attractive, but the plural ἡδοναί is not common in this

9. =γυμνήν=: some light is thrown on various phases of Greek and
non-Greek feeling with regard to any exposure of the person by such
passages as Thucyd. i. 6, Plato _Menex._ 236 D, Herod. i. 10 (ad f.).
As to the women of Sparta cp. Gardner and Jevons _Greek Antiquities_
pp. 352, 353.

10. For the participles cp. p. 76 ll. 5-7.

12. =οὐχ ὅτι= (in a context which gives it the meaning of _non solum
non_) occurs elsewhere in Dionysius: e.g. _Antiqq. Rom._ ii. c. 18 καὶ
οὐχ ὅτι θεῶν ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἀνθρώπων ἀγαθῶν ἀξίους.

13. =ταπεινόν= (which is weightily supported) seems to correspond
better than παιδικόν to σεμνόν.—F’s reading παιδικὸν might perhaps
be translated ‘sportive’ or ‘freakish’ (with a reference to boyish
pranks); cp. D.H. p. 196 (s.v. μειρακιώδης) and p. 199 (s.v.
παιδιώδης), and Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 11 fin. εἰσὶ δὲ ὑπερβολαὶ
μειρακιώδεις ... διὸ πρεσβυτέρῳ λέγειν ἀπρεπές.

17. So, in _de Demosth._ c. 41, μετακεκόμισται δ’ εἰς τὴν Ἀτθίδα
διάλεκτον ἡ λέξις (the passage in question being Herod. vii. 8). For
the charm of the Ionic dialect cp. Quintil. ix. 4. 18 “in Herodoto vero
cum omnia (ut ego quidem sentio) lenitur fluunt, tum ipsa διάλεκτος
habet eam iucunditatem, ut latentes etiam numeros complexa videatur.”

18. =οὐδὲν ἄλλο περιεργασάμενος=: notwithstanding this undertaking, the
variations from the traditional text of Herodotus are (as will be seen
on reference to the critical footnotes) considerable.

It is no doubt possible that F’s reading τὸν λόγον (‘the story’) is
original, and was changed to τὸν διάλογον (‘the conversation’) because
the whole story is not quoted. But such readings of F as ὑπάρχει
(for τυγχάνει l. 20: against the MSS. of Herodotus) show that its
unsupported testimony must be received with much reserve.

20. This passage of Herodotus may have been before Horace’s mind (_Ars
P._ 180): “segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem | quam quae sunt
oculis subiecta fidelibus et quae | ipse sibi tradit spectator.” Cp.
also Shakespeare _Coriolanus_ iii. 2 “the eyes of the ignorant | (are)
more learned than the ears.” In the Greek the emphatic position of both
ὦτα and ὀφθαλμῶν is to be noticed; cp. Introduction, pp. 19-25, for
emphasis at the end and at the beginning of clauses.

[Page 81]

passages of this kind in Homer, as everybody of course is well aware.
It is enough to quote this single instance by way of reminder.

Let us now pass on to the language of prose and see if the same
principle holds good of it too—that great graces invest trifling and
commonplace acts and words, when they are cast into the mould of
beautiful composition. For instance, there is in Herodotus a certain
Lydian king whom he calls Candaules, adding that he was called Myrsilus
by the Greeks. Candaules is represented as infatuated with admiration
of his wife, and then as insisting on one of his friends seeing the
poor woman naked. The friend struggled hard against the constraint
put upon him; but failing to shake the king’s resolve, he submitted,
and viewed her. The incident, as an incident, is not only lacking in
dignity and, for the purpose of embellishment, intractable, but is
also vulgar and hazardous and more akin to the repulsive than to the
beautiful. But it has been related with great dexterity: it has been
made something far better to hear told than it was to see done. And,
that no one may imagine that it is to the dialect that the charm of
the story is due, I will change its distinctive forms into Attic,
and without any further meddling with the language will give the
conversation as it stands:—

“‘Of a truth, Gyges, I think that thou dost not believe what I say
concerning the beauty of my wife; indeed, men trust their ears less
fully than their eyes. Contrive, therefore, to see her

[Page 82]

δ’ ἀναβοήσας εἶπε· Δέσποτα, τίνα λόγον λέγεις οὐχ ὑγιᾶ,
κελεύων με δέσποιναν τὴν ἐμὴν θεάσασθαι γυμνήν; ἅμα δὲ
χιτῶνι ἐκδυομένῳ συνεκδύεται καὶ τὴν αἰδῶ γυνή. πάλαι
δὲ τὰ καλὰ ἀνθρώποις ἐξεύρηται, ἐξ ὧν μανθάνειν δεῖ· ἐν οἷς
ἓν τόδ’ ἐστίν, ὁρᾶν τινα τὰ ἑαυτοῦ. ἐγὼ δὲ πείθομαι ἐκείνην      5
εἶναι πασῶν γυναικῶν καλλίστην, καὶ σοῦ δέομαι μὴ
δεῖσθαι ἀνόμων. ὁ μὲν δὴ λέγων ταῦτα ἀπεμάχετο, ὁ δ’
ἠμείβετο τοῖσδε· Θάρσει Γύγη, καὶ μὴ φοβοῦ μήτ’ ἐμέ, ὡς
πειρώμενόν σου λέγω λόγον τόνδε, μήτε γυναῖκα τὴν ἐμήν,
μή τί σοι ἐξ αὐτῆς γένηται βλάβος. ἀρχὴν γὰρ ἐγὼ μηχανήσομαι      10
οὕτως, ὥστε μηδὲ μαθεῖν αὐτὴν ὀφθεῖσαν ὑπὸ σοῦ.
ἀγαγὼν γάρ σε εἰς τὸ οἴκημα, ἐν ᾧ κοιμώμεθα, ὄπισθε τῆς
ἀνοιγομένης θύρας στήσω· μετὰ δὲ ἐμὲ εἰσελθόντα παρέσται
καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἐμὴ εἰς κοίτην. κεῖται δ’ ἐγγὺς τῆς εἰσόδου
θρόνος· ἐπὶ τοῦτον τῶν ἱματίων καθ’ ἓν ἕκαστον ἐκδῦσα      15
θήσει, καὶ καθ’ ἡσυχίαν πολλὴν παρέσται σοι θεάσασθαι.
ὅταν δ’ ἀπὸ τοῦ θρόνου πορεύηται ἐπὶ τὴν εὐνὴν κατὰ νώτου
τε αὐτῆς γένῃ, σοὶ μελέτω τὸ ἐντεῦθεν, ὅπως μή σε ὄψεται
ἀπιόντα διὰ θυρῶν. ὁ μὲν δὴ ὡς οὐκ ἐδύνατο διαφυγεῖν,
ἕτοιμος ἦν [ποιεῖν ταῦτα].”      20

1 δ’ F: δὲ PMV: δὲ μέγα Her. (exc. ACP) || λέγεις λόγον Her.   3
ἐκδυομένῳ F, Her.: ἐκδυομένη PMV   5 ἐν τώδε (τῶδε corr.) F, MV: ἐν τωῖ
δε P || ἔνεστιν corr. F^1, M   6 εἶναι post γυναικῶν traiciunt PMV
7 δεῖσθαι F, Her.: χρήιζειν P, MV || ἀνομῶν P || ταῦτα] τοιαῦτα Her.
|| post ἀπεμάχετο haec verba habet Her., ἀρρωδέων μή τί οἱ ἐξ αὐτῶν
γένηται κακόν || δὲ P   8 ὡς σέο πειρώμενον (vel πειρώμενος) Her.
9 λόγον λέγω PMV || τόνδε ... ἐγὼ om. add. in marg. P^2   10 τ[ι] σοι
cum litura F: τισ P   12 ἄγων P: ἐγὼ Her. || ἐσ P,M || ὄπισθεν PMV
13 θυραστήσω P^1   14 καὶ post παρέσται om F || ἐς PMV || δὲ PMV   15
ἐκδῦσα ante καθ’ ponunt PMV || ἐκδύνουσα Her.   16 παρέξει Her.   17 ὅτ’
ἂν FP ut solent: ἐπεὰν Her. || δε P, MV 18 μελέτω σοι F   19 ἰόντα Her.
|| δ[ι]α cum litura P || ἐδύνατο F, Her. (exc. RSVb): ἠδύνατο PMV ||
διαφεύγειν P   20 ἦν ἕτοιμος Her. || ποιεῖν ταῦτα (τά γ’ αὐτά P) om.

3. Cp. Diog. Laert. _Vit. Pythag._ § 43 τῇ δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον ἄνδρα
μελλούσῃ πορεύεσθαι παρῄνει (sc. Θεανὼ) ἅμα τοῖς ἐνδύμασι καὶ τὴν
αἰσχύνην ἀποτίθεσθαι, ἀνισταμένην τε πάλιν ἅμ’ αὐτοῖσιν ἀναλαμβάνειν.

14. εἰς κοίτην and ἐγγὺς τῆς εἰσόδου are Dionysius’ Attic equivalents
for ἐς κοῖτον and ἀγχοῦ τῆς ἐσόδου.

15. =καθ’ ἓν ἕκαστον=: cp. Herod. viii. 113 ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων συμμάχων
ἐξελέγετο κατ’ ὀλίγους.

20. Perhaps the effect of Herodotus’ style is best conveyed by the
Elizabethan translation (published in 1584) of Barnaby Rich, which
is, however, confined to books i. and ii. In _The Famous History of
Herodotus_, by B. R. (i.e., probably, Barnaby Rich), Dionysius’ extract
from Herod. i. 8 is freely Englished thus: “My faithful servant Gyges,
whereas thou seemest not to credit the large vaunts and often brags
which I make of my lady’s beauty and comeliness (the ears of men
being much more incredulous than their eyes), behold I will so bring
to pass that thou shalt see her naked. Whereat the poor gentleman
greatly abashed, and in no wise willing to assent thereto, made answer
as followeth, My lord (quoth he) what manner of speech is this which
unadvisedly you use in persuading me to behold my lady’s secrets, for
a woman, you know, the more in sight the less in shame: who together
with her garments layeth aside her modesty. Honest precepts have been
devised by our elders which we ought to remember, whereof this is one,
that every man ought to behold his own. For mine own part I easily
believe you that of all women in the world there is none comparable
unto her in beauty. Wherefore I beseech your grace to have me excused,
if in a case so heinous and unlawful I somewhat refuse to obey your
will. Gyges having in this sort acquitted himself, fearing the danger
that might ensue, the king began afresh to reply, saying, My good
Gyges, take heart at grace, and fear not, lest either myself do go
about to examine and feel thy meaning by the coloured glose of feigned
speech, or that the queen my lady take occasion to work thy displeasure
hereby. Pull up thy spirits, and leave all to me: it is I that will
work the means, whereby she shall never know any part of herself to
have been seen by any creature living. Listen then awhile and give ear
to my counsel:—When night is come, the door of the chamber wherein we
lie being wide set open, I will covertly place thee behind the same:
straight at my entrance thereinto, her custom is not to be long
after me, directly at her coming in, there standeth a bench, whereat
unclothing herself, she accustometh to lay her garments upon it,
propounding her divine and angelical body, to be seen and viewed for
a long space. This done, as she turns from the bench to bedward, her
back being toward thee, have care to slip privily out of the doors lest
haply she espy thee.—The gentleman seeing himself taken in a trap, that
in no wise he could escape without performance of his lord’s folly,
gave his assent.” [From the rare copy in the British Museum, with the
spelling modernized.]

If Dionysius does not quote the _sequel_ of the story, the reason may
well be that he expects his readers to find it, or to have found it, in
the pages of Herodotus himself.

[Page 83]

naked.’ But he cried out and said: ‘My lord, what is this foolish word
thou sayest, bidding me look upon my lady naked? for a woman, when she
puts off her dress, puts off her shamefastness also. Men of old time
have found out excellent precepts, which it behoves us to learn and
observe; and among them is this—“Let a man keep his eyes on his own.”
As for me, I am fully persuaded that she is the fairest of all women,
and I beseech thee not to require of me aught that is unlawful.’ Thus
he spoke, and strove with him. But the other answered and said: ‘Be of
good cheer, Gyges, and fear not that I say this to prove thee, or that
harm will come to thee from my wife. For, in the first place, I will
contrive after such a fashion that she shall not even know that she has
been seen by thee. I will bring thee into the room where we sleep, and
set thee behind the door that stands ajar; and after I have entered, my
wife will come to bed. Now, near the entrance there is a seat; and on
this she will place each of her garments as she puts them off, so that
thou wilt have time enough to behold. But when she passes from the seat
to the couch, and thou art behind her back, then take heed that she see
thee not as thou goest away through the door.’ Forasmuch, then, as he
could not escape, he consented to do after this manner.”[90]

[Page 84]

οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι τις οὐδὲ ἐνταῦθα εἰπεῖν, ὅτι τὸ ἀξίωμα καὶ
ἡ σεμνότης τῶν ὀνομάτων εὔμορφον πεποίηκε τὴν φράσιν·
ἀνεπιτήδευτα γάρ ἐστι καὶ ἀνέκλεκτα, οἷα ἡ φύσις τέθεικεν
σύμβολα τοῖς πράγμασιν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἥρμοττεν ἴσως κρείττοσι
χρήσασθαι ἑτέροις. ἀνάγκη δὲ δήπου, ὅταν τοῖς κυριωτάτοις      5
τε καὶ προσεχεστάτοις ὀνόμασιν ἐκφέρηται τὰ νοήματα, μηδὲν
σεμνότερον εἶναι, ἢ οἷά ἐστιν. ὅτι δὲ οὐδὲν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐστι
σεμνὸν οὐδὲ περιττόν, ὁ βουλόμενος εἴσεται μεταθεὶς οὐδὲν
ὅτι μὴ τὴν ἁρμονίαν. πολλὰ δὲ καὶ παρὰ τούτῳ τῷ ἀνδρὶ
τοιαῦτά ἐστιν, ἐξ ὧν ἄν τις τεκμήραιτο, ὅτι οὐκ ἐν τῷ κάλλει      10
τῶν ὀνομάτων ἡ πειθὼ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἦν, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῇ συζυγίᾳ.
καὶ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἱκανὰ ταῦτα.


ἵνα δὲ πολὺ μᾶλλον αἴσθηταί τις, ὅσην ἔχει ῥώμην ἡ
συνθετικὴ δύναμις ἔν τε ποιήμασι καὶ λόγοις, λήψομαί τινας
εὖ ἔχειν δοκούσας λέξεις, ὧν τὰς ἁρμονίας μεταθεὶς ἀλλοῖα      15
φαίνεσθαι ποιήσω καὶ τὰ μέτρα καὶ τοὺς λόγους. λαμβανέσθω
δὲ πρῶτον μὲν ἐκ τῶν Ὁμηρικῶν ταυτί·

        ἀλλ’ ἔχεν ὥστε τάλαντα γυνὴ χερνῆτις ἀληθής,
        ἥ τε σταθμὸν ἔχουσα καὶ εἴριον ἀμφὶς ἀνέλκει
        ἰσάζουσ’, ἵνα παισὶν ἀεικέα μισθὸν ἄροιτο.      20

τοῦτο τὸ μέτρον ἡρωϊκόν ἐστιν ἑξάπουν τέλειον, κατὰ δάκτυλον

1 οὐδὲν F   2 πεποίηκεν P   3 ἡ om. PV || τέθεικεν FP: τέθεικε EMV 4
κρείττοσ(ιν) P   5 δὲ δὴ [που] FM: δε P: δὴ Vs   8 περιττὸν οὐδὲ σεμνὸν
F   9 τοῦτο (-τω corr.) τ(ω) P   11 ἦν * * ἀλλ’ P   12 καὶ] ἦν καὶ M: ἦ
καὶ V   13 τις FM: om. PV   14 ποιήμασιν P   15 ἀλλοίας P   17 μὲν om.
PMV || ταυτί PMV: ταῦτα F   18 ἔχεν FM: ἔχον PV Hom.   19 εἰριον deleto
accentu P   20 ἄρηται Hom.   21 ἡρωϊκόν PMV: ἡρῷόν F

3. P gives ἀφηκέναι in =262= 22, and τέθηκεν may possibly be right
here. The -η- forms are found in some MSS. of Eurip. _Hel._ 1059 and
Demosth. _Chers._ 34. But cp. =108= 13.

9. =καὶ παρὰ τούτῳ=: perhaps ‘in Herodotus _as well as in Homer_.’
Reiske, πολλὰ δὲ καὶ <ἄλλα> παρὰ τούτῳ τῷ ἀνδρὶ τοιαῦτά ἐστιν.

10. Dionysius seems to allow too little for the charming _naïveté_ of
Herodotus’ mental attitude, which is surely characteristic, whether
or no Herodotus was the first to tell the story. Cp. D.H. p. 11 n.
1. The narrative which opens in Livy xxxix. c. 9 may be compared and

18. The verse illustrations used on pp. 84, 86 are similarly treated by
Hermogenes (Walz _Rhett. Gr._ iii. 230, 231; cp. p. 715 _ibid._).

21. It seems better to read =ἡρωϊκόν= here (with PMV) rather than ἡρῷον
(with F), as the form ἡρωϊκός is found consistently elsewhere (=86= 3,
=88= 7, =172= 17, =206= 10).

Dionysius tends to regard the Homeric hexameter as the original
and perfect metre, from which all others are inferior deflexions.
Metres, after all, have their associations; the associations of the
Homeric hexameter were eminently noble; and so even the choral odes
of Aeschylus gain where the heroic line is most employed. So much, at
any rate, may be conceded to Dionysius’ point of view, prone though he
is to the kind of exaggeration which Tennyson (_Life_ i. 469, 470) so
effectively parodies.

[Page 85]

Here again no one can say that the grace of the style is due to the
impressiveness and the dignity of the words. These have not been
picked and chosen with studious care; they are simply the labels
affixed to things by Nature. Indeed, it would perhaps have been
out of place to use other and grander words. I take it, in fact,
to be always necessary, whenever ideas are expressed in proper and
appropriate language, that no word should be more dignified than the
nature of the ideas. That there is no stately or grandiose word in the
present passage, any one who likes may prove by simply changing the
arrangement. There are many similar passages in this author, from which
it can be seen that the fascination of his style does not after all
lie in the beauty of the words but in their combination. We need not
discuss this question further.



To show yet more conclusively the great force wielded by the faculty of
composition both in poetry and prose, I will quote some passages which
are universally regarded as fine, and show what a different air is
imparted to both verse and prose by a mere change in their arrangement.
First let these lines be taken from the Homeric poems:—

    But with them was it as with a toil-bowed woman righteous-souled—
    In her scales be the weights and the wool, and the balance on high doth
        she hold
    Poised level, that so may the hard-earned bread to her babes be doled.[91]

This metre is the complete heroic metre of six feet, the basis

[Page 86]

πόδα βαινόμενον. ἐγὼ δὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων τούτων μετακινήσας
τὴν σύνθεσιν τοὺς αὐτοὺς στίχους ἀντὶ μὲν ἑξαμέτρων ποιήσω
τετραμέτρους, ἀντὶ δὲ ἡρωϊκῶν προσοδιακοὺς τὸν τρόπον

        ἀλλ’ ἔχεν ὥστε γυνὴ χερνῆτις τάλαντ’ ἀληθής,      5
        ἥ τ’ εἴριον ἀμφὶς καὶ σταθμὸν ἔχουσ’ ἀνέλκει
        ἰσάζουσ’, ἵν’ ἀεικέα παισὶν ἄροιτο μισθόν.

τοιαῦτά ἐστι τὰ πριάπεια, ὑπό τινων δ’ ἰθυφάλλια λεγόμενα,

        οὐ βέβηλος, ὦ τελέται τοῦ νέου Διονύσου,      10
        κἀγὼ δ’ ἐξ εὐεργεσίης ὠργιασμένος ἥκω.

ἄλλους πάλιν λαβὼν στίχους Ὁμηρικούς, οὔτε προσθεὶς
αὐτοῖς οὐδὲν οὔτε ἀφελών, τὴν δὲ σύνθεσιν ἀλλάξας μόνον
ἕτερον ἀποδώσω γένος τὸ τετράμετρον καλούμενον Ἰωνικόν·

        ὣς ὁ πρόσθ’ ἵππων καὶ δίφρου κεῖτο τανυσθείς,      15
        βεβρυχώς, κόνιος δεδραγμένος αἱματοέσσης.

        ὣς ὁ πρόσθ’ ἵππων καὶ δίφρου κεῖτο τανυσθείς,
        αἱματοέσσης κόνιος δεδραγμένος, βεβρυχώς.

1 πόδα δάκτυλον PMV || τῶν] τῶν αὐτῶν PV   3 προσωιδιακοὺς FP:
προσῳδικοὺς MV   5 ἔχεν FMV: ἔχον P scholl. Hermogenis || τάλαντ’ F:
τάλαντα PMV   6 ἥ τ’ FM: ἣ PV || ἐχ(ων)ουσ’ P: ἔχουσα F || ἄνελκει
P: ἕλκει F   8 [ὑ]πό τινων δὲ ἰθυφάλλια cum litura F, MV: διφίλια P
  10 συμβέβηλος F || τελεταί (sic) P: λέγεται FMV || δρονύσου P   11
εὐεργεσίης P: ἐργασίης MV: ἐργασίας F || ὀργιασμένος F: ὡργια*σμένος P
  13 οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς PV   14 γένος τὸ F: μέλος PMV || τὸ ante καλούμενον
dant PMV   16, 17 om. F   16 αἱματοσέσ(η)ς P: αἱματοέσης V

3. Maximus Planudes (Walz _Rhett. Gr._ v. 491), referring to this
passage, says: ἃ πῶς ἂν εἶεν προσῳδικὰ (v. προσῳδιακὰ) καὶ προσόμοια
τοῖς πριαπείοις, ἢ πάλιν πῶς ταῦτα πριάπεια, οὐδαμῶς ἔχω συνορᾶν. For
the _prosodia_ (προσόδια, sc. ᾄσματα: also called προσοδιακοί), or
processional songs, see Weir Smyth’s _Greek Melic Poets_ p. xxxiii.;
and for the various metres employed see pp. xxxiv., xxxv. _ibid._
It is clear that Dionysius is not here thinking specially of the
so-called προσοδιακὸς πούς (– – ᴗ). Cp. Bacchyl. _Fragm._ 19 (Bergk: 7,
Jebb).—Reading προσῳδικοὺς (with the inferior MSS.), and translating
by ‘accentual,’ A. J. Ellis (_English, Dionysian, and Hellenic
Pronunciation of Greek_ p. 37) thinks that Dionysius means “verses in
which the effect of high pitch was increased by superadding stress,
so as to give it preponderance over mere quantity”; and he points out
that E. M. Geldart shows (_Journal of Philology_ 1869, vol. ii. p. 160)
that these transformed lines of Homer, if read as modern Greek, would
give rather rough στίχοι πολιτικοί, or the usual modern accentual verse
[the ‘city verses’ referred to by Gibbon, c. 53]. Though it is perhaps
unlikely that Dionysius makes any direct reference to such a change, a
stress-accent may, even in his day, have gradually been triumphing over
that pitch-accent which was consistent with the observance of metrical
quantity. Cp. F. Spencer _French Verse_ p. 70.

5. The metrical difficulties presented by these sections of the _C. V._
are discussed in Amsel’s _de Vi atque Indole Rhythmorum quid Veteres
Iudicaverint_ pp. 32 ff. The unprofitably ingenious efforts of some
ancient writers to derive every kind of metre from the heroic hexameter
and the iambic trimeter might be capped, and parodied, by an attempt
to turn such a line as _Il._ xxiii. 644 (ἔργων τοιούτων. ἐμὲ δὲ χρὴ
γήραϊ λυγρῷ) into an iambic trimeter: the only thing needed being that
the ι of γήραϊ should be not adscript but subscript. So Schol. Ven. A
(_ad loc._) ὅτι ὁ στίχος οὗτος καὶ ἑξάμετρος γίνεται καὶ τρίμετρος παρὰ
τὴν ἀγωγὴν τῆς προφορᾶς, and Schol. Townl. ἐπιτέτευκται ὁ στίχος ταῖς
κοιναῖς, ὥστ’ ἢν θέλωμεν καὶ ἴαμβος ἔσται, ὡς τὸ “σμύρνης ἀκράτου καὶ
κέδρου νηλεῖ καπνῷ” (for the doubtful ascription of this last line to
Callimachus see Schneider’s _Callimachea_ ii. 777).

10. For the author of these Priapean verses—Euphorion (or Euphronius)
‘of the Chersonese’—see the long discussion in Susemihl’s _Gesch. d.
griech. Litt. in der Alexandrinerzeit_ i. 281, 283. It is Hephaestion
(_de Metris Enchiridion_ c. 16, ed. Westphal) who attributes the lines
Εὐφορίωνι τῷ Χερρονησιώτῃ.

15. The commentators on Hermogenes secure trochees by changing the
order of the words in this line—ἔκειτο καὶ δίφρου τανυσθείς, or
τανυσθεὶς κεῖτο καὶ δίφρου.

[Page 87]

of which is the dactyl. I will change the order of the words, and
will turn the same lines into tetrameters instead of hexameters, into
prosodiacs instead of heroics. Thus:—

    But it was with them as with a righteous-souled woman toil-bowed,
    In her scales weights and wool lie, on high doth she hold the balance
    Level-poised, so that bread hardly-earned may be doled to her babes.

Such are the following Priapean, or (as some call them) ithyphallic,

    I am no profane one, O young Dionysus’ votaries;
    By his favour come I too initiate as one of his.[92]

Taking again other lines of Homer, and neither adding nor withdrawing
anything, but simply varying the order, I will produce another kind of
verse, the so-called Ionic tetrameter:—

    So there outstretched was he lying, his steeds and his chariot before,
    Groaning, convulsively clutching the dust that was red with his gore.[93]

    So there outstretched was he lying, his steeds and his chariot before,
    At the dust that was red with his gore clutching convulsively, groaning.

[Page 88]

τοιαῦτ’ ἐστὶ τὰ Σωτάδεια ταυτί·

        ἔνθ’ οἱ μὲν ἐπ’ ἄκραισι πυραῖς νέκυες ἔκειντο
        γῆς ἐπὶ ξένης, ὀρφανὰ τείχεα προλιπόντες
        Ἑλλάδος ἱερῆς καὶ μυχὸν ἑστίης πατρῴης,
        ἥβην τ’ ἐρατὴν καὶ καλὸν ἡλίου πρόσωπον.      5

δυναίμην δ’ ἂν ἔτι πολλὰς ἰδέας μέτρων καὶ διαφόρους εἰς τὸν
ἡρωϊκὸν ἐμπιπτούσας στίχον ἐπιδεικνύναι, τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ τοῖς
ἄλλοις ὀλίγου δεῖν πᾶσι συμβεβηκὸς μέτροις τε καὶ ῥυθμοῖς
ἀποφαίνειν, ὥστε τῆς μὲν ἐκλογῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων τῆς αὐτῆς
μενούσης, τῆς δὲ συνθέσεως μόνης μεταπεσούσης τά τε      10
μέτρα μεταρρυθμίζεσθαι καὶ συμμεταπίπτειν αὐτοῖς τὰ
σχήματα, τὰ χρώματα, τὰ ἤθη, τὰ πάθη, τὴν ὅλην τῶν
ποιημάτων ἀξίωσιν· ἀλλ’ ἀναγκασθήσομαι πλειόνων ἅψασθαι
θεωρημάτων, ὧν ἔνια ὀλίγοις πάνυ ἐστὶ γνώριμα. ἐπὶ πολλῶν
δ’ ἴσως καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα ἐπὶ τῶν τοιούτων καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι      15
τὰ Εὐριπίδεια ταῦτα ἐπενεγκεῖν·

                             μή μοι
        λεπτῶν θίγγανε μύθων, ψυχή·
        τί περισσὰ φρονεῖς; εἰ μὴ μέλλεις
        σεμνύνεσθαι παρ’ ὁμοίοις.      20

ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐάσειν μοι δοκῶ κατὰ τὸ παρόν. ὅτι δὲ
καὶ ἡ πεζὴ λέξις τὸ αὐτὸ δύναται παθεῖν τῇ ἐμμέτρῳ μενόντων
μὲν τῶν ὀνομάτων, ἀλλαττομένης δὲ τῆς συνθέσεως,
πάρεστι τῷ βουλομένῳ σκοπεῖν. λήψομαι δ’ ἐκ τῆς Ἡροδότου
λέξεως τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ἱστορίας, ἐπειδὴ καὶ γνώριμός ἐστι      25
τοῖς πολλοῖς, μεταθεὶς τὸν χαρακτῆρα τῆς διαλέκτου μόνον.

1 τοιαῦτα PMV || Σωτάδεια Planudes: σωτάδια libri   2 ἄκραισι FM:
ἄκραις PV || ἔγκειντο F   5 ἥβη, suprascr. ν P^1 || ἐρατὴν Hermannus:
ἐραστὴν F: ἐρατεινὴν PMV   6 δυναίμην PV: ἐδυνάμην FM   7 δὲ PMV ||
καὶ P: κἂν F: κἀν MV   8 τε om. F   9 ὀμάτων, suprascr. νο P^1   10
μεταπιπτούσης (πεσούσης in marg.) F: μεταπεσούσης M: μάλιστα πεσούσης
PV   12 τὰ πάθη om. P   13 ἀλλ’ ἀναγκασθήσομαι] ἀναγκασθήσομαι δὲ F:
ἀλλ’ ἀν(αν)κασθήσομαι P || ἅπτεσθαι P   14 γνώρισμα F^1   15 δὲ PMV
|| καὶ om. P   19 μέλλοις F   21 οὗν F   22 ἐμμέτρω ὄντων PMV   23
τῶν F: τῶν αὐτῶν E: om. PMV || ἀλλασομένης P: ἀλλασσομένης MV   24 τῶ
βουλομέν(ω) P || δὲ PMV et =90= 1   25 ἐπειδὴ F: ἐπεὶ PMV

1. These lines of Sotades are quoted by two of the commentators on
Hermogenes—by John of Sicily (Walz vi. 243) and by an anonymous
scholiast (Walz vii. 985). See further in Glossary, s.v. =Σωτάδειος=.

7. Palaeographically κἀν (MV) is tempting, since the other readings
(κἂν and καὶ) could easily be derived from it. But the difficulty is
that Dionysius seems elsewhere to use the simple dative with συμβαίνω,
and would probably have expressed the meaning ‘in the case of’ by ἐπί
with the genitive. καὶ ἔν γε τῇ ἀρχαίᾳ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ φωνῇ αὐτὸ συμβαίνει
τὸ ὄνομα (Plato _Crat._ 398 B) is not parallel.

12. Quintil. _Inst. Or._ ix. 4. 14, 15 “nam quaedam et sententiis
parva et elocutione modica virtus haec sola commendat. denique quod
cuique visum erit vehementer, dulciter, speciose dictum, solvat et
turbet: aberit omnis vis, iucunditas, decor ... illud notasse satis
habeo, quo pulchriora et sensu et elocutione dissolveris, hoc orationem
magis deformem fore, quia neglegentia collocationis ipsa verborum luce

21. =ἐάσειν μοι δοκῶ= = _omittere mihi placet_; cp. Aristoph. _Plut._
1186, _Aves_ 671, _Vespae_ 177.

22. Compare the interesting passage in Cic. _Orat._ 70. 232 “Quantum
autem sit apte dicere, experire licet, si aut compositi oratoris bene
structam collocationem dissolvas permutatione verborum; corrumpatur
enim tota res ... perierit tota res ... videsne, ut ordine verborum
paululum commutato, eisdem tamen verbis stante sententia, ad nihilum
omnia recidant, cum sint ex aptis dissoluta?” [Various examples are
given in the course of the section.]

23. The Epitome here has μενόντων γὰρ τῶν αὐτῶν ὀνομάτων,
ἀλλαττομένης δὲ τῆς συνθέσεως, #καταφανὲς τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ ἄμουσόν τε καὶ

[Page 89]

Such are the following Sotadean lines:—

    There upon the summit of the burning pyres their corpses lay
    In an alien land, the widowed walls forsaken far away,
    Walls of sacred Hellas; and the hearths upon the homeland shore,
    Winsome youth, the sun’s fair face—forsaken all for evermore![94]

I could, if I wished, adduce many more different types of measures
all belonging to the class of the heroic line, and show that the same
thing is true of almost all the other metres and rhythms, namely that,
when the choice of words remains unaltered and only the arrangement is
changed, the verses invariably lose their rhythm, while their formation
is ruined, together with the complexion, the character, the feeling,
and the whole effectiveness of the lines. But in so doing I should be
obliged to touch on a number of speculations, with some of which very
few are familiar. To many speculations, perhaps, and particularly to
those bearing on the matter in hand, the lines of Euripides may fitly
be applied:—

    With subtleties meddle not thou, O soul of mine:
    Wherefore be overwise, except in thy fellows’ eyes
    Thou lookest to be revered as for wisdom divine?[95]

So I think it wise to leave this ground unworked for the present. But
anyone who cares may satisfy himself that the diction of prose can be
affected in the same way as that of verse when the words are retained
but the order is changed. I will take from the writings of Herodotus
the opening of his History, since it is familiar to most people, simply
changing the

[Page 90]

“Κροῖσος ἦν Λυδὸς μὲν γένος, παῖς δ’ Ἀλυάττου, τύραννος δ’
ἐθνῶν τῶν ἐντὸς Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ· ὃς ῥέων ἀπὸ μεσημβρίας
μεταξὺ Σύρων τε καὶ Παφλαγόνων ἐξίησι πρὸς βορέαν ἄνεμον
εἰς τὸν Εὔξεινον καλούμενον πόντον.” μετατίθημι τῆς λέξεως
ταύτης τὴν ἁρμονίαν, καὶ γενήσεταί μοι οὐκέτι ὑπαγωγικὸν      5
τὸ πλάσμα οὐδ’ ἱστορικόν, ἀλλ’ ὀρθὸν μᾶλλον καὶ ἐναγώνιον·
“Κροῖσος ἦν υἱὸς μὲν Ἀλυάττου, γένος δὲ Λυδός, τύραννος δὲ
τῶν ἐντὸς Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ ἐθνῶν· ὃς ἀπὸ μεσημβρίας ῥέων
μεταξὺ Σύρων καὶ Παφλαγόνων εἰς τὸν Εὔξεινον καλούμενον
πόντον ἐκδίδωσι πρὸς βορέαν ἄνεμον.” οὗτος ὁ χαρακτὴρ οὐ      10
πολὺ ἀπέχειν ἂν δόξειεν τῶν Θουκυδίδου τούτων· “Ἐπίδαμνός
ἐστι πόλις ἐν δεξιᾷ εἰσπλέοντι τὸν Ἰόνιον κόλπον· προσοικοῦσι
δ’ αὐτὴν Ταυλάντιοι βάρβαροι, Ἰλλυρικὸν ἔθνος.”
πάλιν δὲ ἀλλάξας τὴν αὐτὴν λέξιν ἑτέραν αὐτῇ μορφὴν ἀποδώσω
τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· “Ἀλυάττου μὲν υἱὸς ἦν Κροῖσος,      15
γένος δὲ Λυδός, τῶν δ’ ἐντὸς Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ τύραννος ἐθνῶν·
ὃς ἀπὸ μεσημβρίας ῥέων Σύρων τε καὶ Παφλαγόνων μεταξὺ
πρὸς βορέαν ἐξίησιν ἄνεμον ἐς τὸν καλούμενον πόντον
Εὔξεινον.” Ἡγησιακὸν τὸ σχῆμα τοῦτο τῆς συνθέσεως,
μικρόκομψον, ἀγεννές, μαλθακόν· τούτων γὰρ τῶν λήρων      20

1 κροῖσσος P || ἀλυάττεω E   2 ἄλυος FMV ut 8, 16 infra FPMV   3 ἐξίησιν
P   4 μαιτατίθημι P: μάρτυρα τίθημι M   5 γενησετέμοι suprascr. αί P^1
|| ὑπαγωγικὸν F: ἐπαγ(ω)γικον suprascr. ϋ P: ἐπαγωγικὸν MV   6 οὐδε
P,MV   7 ἦν Ἀλυάττου μὲν παῖς E || ἀλυ*άττου P   9 παφλαγόνων καὶ σύρων
F   10 ὁ suprascr. P^1   11 δόξειε F 12 (εστι) * * P || πρ(οσ)οικοῦσιν
P   13 δὲ PV   14 δὲ ἀλλάξας F: διαλλάξας PMV || αὐτῆι add. in margine
F^1: αὐτὴν PM   16 δ’ om. PV   18 ἐξίησιν FM: ἔξεισιν PV || ἐς F: εἰς
PMV ut supra   20 ἀγεννες P,V: ἀγενὲς FMa

3. Hude (following Dionysius) conjecturally restores τε in the text
of Herodotus. Usener, on the other hand, thinks that Dionysius has
deliberately inserted τε here and in l. 17 while omitting it in l. 9.

10. This rugged re-writing of Herodotus shows a real appreciation of
style and should be compared with the remarks which Demetrius (_de
Eloc._ § 48) makes on Thucydides’ avoidance of smoothness and evenness
of composition, and on his liking for jolting rhythms (e.g. “from
other maladies this year, by common consent, was free,” rather than
“by common consent, this year was free from other maladies”): καὶ ὁ
Θουκυδίδης δὲ πανταχοῦ σχεδὸν φεύγει τὸ λεῖον καὶ ὁμαλὲς τῆς συνθέσεως,
καὶ ἀεὶ μᾶλλόν τι προσκρούοντι ἔοικεν, ὥσπερ οἱ τὰς τραχείας ὁδοὺς
πορευόμενοι, ἐπὰν λέγῃ ὅτι “τὸ μὲν δὴ ἔτος, ὡς ὡμολόγητο, ἄνοσον ἐς τὰς
ἄλλας ἀσθενείας ἐτύγχανεν ὄν.” ῥᾷον μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἥδιον ὧδ’ ἄν τις εἶπεν,
ὅτι “ἄνοσον ἐς τὰς ἄλλας ἀσθενείας ὂν ἐτύγχανεν,” ἀφῄρητο δ’ αὐτοῦ τὴν
μεγαλοπρέπειαν.—Hermogenes (Walz _Rhett. Gr._ iii. 206) shows how the
passage would be changed for the worse by such a πλαγιασμός as the use
of a genitive absolute at the start: e.g. Κροίσου ὄντος κτλ.

11. From this point onwards, the less important of the manuscript
variants are not recorded in the _critical apparatus_, except in the
case of P which the editor has examined personally.

12. Demetrius (_de Eloc._ § 199), in quoting this passage, reads
ἐσπλέοντι εἰς: and this may be correct reading in Thucyd. i. 24.

19. Hegesias, in the eyes of Dionysius, was a writer whose originality
displayed itself in unnatural contortions of language; cp.
Introduction, pp. 52-55 _supra_. The merits of a natural, untutored
prose-order have been indicated once for all by Molière (_Le Bourgeois
Gentilhomme_ ii. 4): “MONSIEUR JOURDAN. Je voudrais donc lui mettre
dans un billet: _Belle Marquise, vos beaux yeux me font mourir
d’amour_; mais je voudrais que cela fût mis d’une manière galante,
que cela fût tourné gentiment ... Non, vous dis-je, je ne veux que
ces seules paroles-là dans le billet; mais tournées à la mode, bien
arrangées comme il faut. Je vous prie de me dire un peu, pour voir,
les diverses manières dont on les peut mettre.—MAÎTRE DE PHILOSOPHIE.
On les peut mettre premièrement comme vous avez dit: _Belle Marquise,
vos beaux yeux me font mourir d’amour._ Ou bien: _D’amour mourir me
font, belle Marquise, vos beaux yeux_. Ou bien: _Vos yeux beaux d’amour
me font, belle Marquise, mourir_. Ou bien: _Mourir vos beaux yeux,
belle Marquise, d'amour me font_. Ou bien: _Me font vos yeux beaux
mourir, belle Marquise, d’amour_. [This is, apparently the crowning
absurdity.]—M. JOURDAIN. Mais de toutes ces façons-là, laquelle
est la meilleure?—MAÎTRE DE PHILOSOPHIE. Celle que vous avez dite:
_Belle Marquise, vos beaux yeux me font mourir d’amour_.—M. JOURDAIN.
=Cependant je n’ai point étudié, et j’ai fait cela tout du premier

20. The phrase is perhaps suggested by Aristoph. _Nub._ 359 σύ τε,
λεπτοτάτων λήρων ἱερεῦ, φράζε πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὅ τι χρῄζεις. Cp. Cic. _pro
Sestio_ 17. 39 “stuprorum sacerdos,” and also D.H. p. 169 (note on
καὶ πολὺς ὁ τελέτης ἐστὶν ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις παρ’ αὐτῷ). ‘Hierophant,’
‘adept,’ ‘past master,’ will give something of the idea.

[Page 91]

nature of the dialect: “Croesus was a Lydian by birth and the son of
Alyattes. He was lord over all the nations on this side of the river
Halys, which flows from the south between Syria and Paphlagonia, and
falls, towards the north, into the sea which is called the Euxine.”[96]
I change the order here, and the cast of the passage will become no
longer that of a spacious narrative, but tense rather and forensic:
“Croesus was the son of Alyattes, and by birth a Lydian. He was lord,
on this side of the river Halys, over all nations; which river from the
south flowing between Syria and Paphlagonia runs into the sea which
is called the Euxine and debouches towards the north.” This style
would seem not to differ widely from that of Thucydides in the words:
“Epidamnus is a city on the right as you enter the Ionian Gulf: its
next neighbours are barbarians, the Taulantii, an Illyrian race.”[97]
Once more I will recast the same passage and give a new form to it as
follows: “Alyattes’ son was Croesus, by birth a Lydian. Lord over all
nations he was, on this side of the river Halys; which river, from the
south flowing between Syria and Paphlagonia, falls, with northward run,
into the Euxine-called sea.” This affected, degenerate, emasculate way
of arranging words resembles that of Hegesias, the high-priest of this
kind of nonsense. He

[Page 92]

ἱερεὺς ἐκεῖνος ἀνὴρ τοιαῦτα γράφων· “Ἐξ ἀγαθῆς ἑορτῆς
ἀγαθὴν ἄγομεν ἄλλην.” “Ἀπὸ Μαγνησίας εἰμὶ τῆς μεγάλης
Σιπυλεύς.” “Οὐ γὰρ μικρὰν εἰς Θηβαίων ὕδωρ ἔπτυσεν ὁ
Διόνυσος· ἡδὺς μὲν γάρ ἐστι, ποιεῖ δὲ μαίνεσθαι.”

ἅλις ἔστω παραδειγμάτων. ἱκανῶς γὰρ οἴομαι πεποιηκέναι      5
φανερὸν ὃ προὔκειτό μοι, ὅτι μείζονα ἰσχὺν ἔχει τῆς
ἐκλογῆς ἡ σύνθεσις. καί μοι δοκεῖ τις οὐκ ἂν ἁμαρτεῖν
εἰκάσας αὐτὴν τῇ Ὁμηρικῇ Ἀθηνᾷ· ἐκείνη τε γὰρ τὸν
Ὀδυσσέα τὸν αὐτὸν ὄντα ἄλλοτε ἀλλοῖον ἐποίει φαίνεσθαι,
τοτὲ μὲν μικρὸν καὶ ῥυσὸν καὶ αἰσχρὸν      10

        πτωχῷ λευγαλέῳ ἐναλίγκιον ἠδὲ γέροντι,

τοτὲ δὲ τῇ αὐτῇ ῥάβδῳ πάλιν ἐφαψαμένη

        μείζονά τ’ εἰσιδέειν καὶ πάσσονα θῆκεν ἰδέσθαι, κὰδ δὲ κάρητος
        οὔλας ἧκε κόμας ὑακινθίνῳ ἄνθει ὁμοίας,      15

αὕτη τε τὰ αὐτὰ λαμβάνουσα ὀνόματα τοτὲ μὲν ἄμορφα καὶ
πτωχὰ καὶ ταπεινὰ ποιεῖ φαίνεσθαι τὰ νοήματα, τοτὲ δ’
ὑψηλὰ καὶ πλούσια [καὶ ἁδρὰ] καὶ καλά. καὶ τοῦτ’ ἦν
σχεδὸν ᾧ μάλιστα διαλλάττει ποιητής τε ποιητοῦ καὶ ῥήτωρ
ῥήτορος, τὸ συντιθέναι δεξιῶς τὰ ὀνόματα. τοῖς μὲν οὖν      20
ἀρχαίοις ὀλίγου δεῖν πᾶσι πολλὴ ἐπιτήδευσις ἦν αὐτοῦ, παρ’
ὃ καὶ καλά ἐστιν αὐτῶν τά τε μέτρα καὶ τὰ μέλη καὶ οἱ
λόγοι· τοῖς δὲ μεταγενεστέροις οὐκέτι πλὴν ὀλίγων· χρόνῳ δ’

1 ἀνὴρ libri: cf. D.H. p. 169   5 ἅλις F: ἂν P || ἔστω F: ἔστω τῶν
PMV || ἱκαν(ῶς) P^1   7 δοκεῖ τις οὐκ ἂν PV: οὐ δοκεῖ τις EFM ||
ἁμαρτάνειν PMV   10 μὲν μικρὸν καὶ ῥυσὸν EF: μὲν ῥυσὸν καὶ μικρὸν PMV
11 ἠδὲ] ἠδὲ καὶ F || γέροντα P   12 ῥάβδω P   15 ὑακινθίν(ω) P   16 αὕτη
Sylburgius: αὐτή libri   17 πτωχὰ καὶ ταπεινὰ PMV: ταπεινὰ καὶ πτωχὰ EF
|| δὲ PMV   18 καὶ ἁδρὰ delevit Sadaeus || τοῦτ’ ἦν σχεδὸν ὧι PE: τοῦτ’
ἦν ὃ (ᾧ M) FM: τούτῳ V   19 διαλάττει P   20 τὸ EFP: τῷ MV   21 πᾶσιν P
|| ἐπιτήδευσις Sylburgius: ἐπίδοσις libri   22 τε om. PV   23 οὐκ ἔστι
P || χρον(ω) P

2. Possibly Hegesias began one of his books in this grandiloquent
fashion, referring to his birth in Magnesia at the foot of Mount

3. =μικράν=: understand ψακάδα or λιβάδα. Casaubon conjectured μιαρὰν:
Reiske, μικρὰν <χολὴν>.

4. =ἡδύς=: sc. ὁ ποταμός. An easy course would be to change ἡδύς to ἡδύ
with Reiske; but there is no manuscript variant, and the ambiguity and
awkward ellipse may be part of Hegesias’ offence.

13. Vettori suggested the omission here of θῆκεν ἰδέσθαι.

16. Cp. Isocr. Paneg. § 8 ἐπειδὴ δ’ οἱ λόγοι τοιαύτην ἔχουσι τὴν φύσιν,
ὥσθ’ οἷον τ’ εἶναι περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν πολλαχῶς ἐξηγήσασθαι, καὶ τά τε
μεγάλα ταπεινὰ ποιῆσαι καὶ τοῖς μικροῖς περιθεῖναι, κτλ.

17. The antitheses are ὑψηλά)(ταπεινά, πλούσια)(πτωχά, καλά)(ἄμορφα.
The order πτωχὰ καὶ ταπεινά in PMV gives a chiasmus. ἁδρά is the gloss
of some rhetorician on ὑψηλά (cp. _de Demosth._ c. 34, where this gloss
actually occurs in one of the manuscripts). The word ἁδρός does not
belong to Dionysius’ rhetorical terminology; cp. Long. p. 194.

18. =ἦν=, ‘was all the time,’ ‘is after all’ (cp. =192= 8, etc.).

20. Quintil. ix. 4. 16 “itaque ut confiteor, paene ultimam oratoribus
artem compositionis, quae quidem perfecta sit, contigisse: ita illis
quoque priscis habitam inter curas, in quantum adhuc profecerant, puto.
neque enim mihi quamlibet magnus auctor Cicero persuaserit, Lysian,
Herodotum, Thucydiden parum studiosos eius fuisse”; Dionys. Hal. _de
Demosth._ c. 36 πολλή τις ἐγένετο ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ἐπιθυμία καὶ πρόνοια
τοῦ καλῶς ἁρμόττειν τὰ ὀνόματα ἔν τε μέτροις καὶ δίχα μέτρων, καὶ
πάντες, ὅσοι σπουδαίας ἐβουλήθησαν ἐξενεγκεῖν γραφάς, οὐ μόνον ἐζήτησαν
ὀνομάσαι τὰ νοήματα καλῶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὰ <τὰ ὀνόματα> εὐκόσμῳ συνθέσει

21. The conjecture =ἐπιτήδευσις= may be illustrated by =70= 6, =212=
19, =256= 18, and also by _de Demosth._ c. 36 (the sentence preceding
that just quoted).—The manuscript reading ἐπίδοσις might possibly be
retained and translated “made numerous contributions to it.” Disselbeck
suggests δόσις, and compares _de Demosth._ cc. 18, 48, 51.

[Page 93]

writes, for instance, “After a goodly festival another goodly one keep
we.” “Of Magnesia am I, the mighty land, a man of Sipylus I.” “No
little drop into the Theban waters spewed Dionysus: Oh yea, sweet it
is, but madness it engendereth.”[98]

Enough of examples. I think I have I sufficiently proved my point
that composition is more effective than selection. In fact, it seems
to me that one might fairly compare the former to Athena in Homer.
For she used to make the same Odysseus appear now in one form, now in
another,—at one time puny and wrinkled and ugly,

    In semblance like to a beggar wretched and eld-forlorn,[99]

at another time, by a fresh touch of the selfsame wand,

    She moulded him taller to see, and broader: his wavy hair
    She caused o’er his shoulders to fall as the hyacinth’s purple rare.[100]

So, too, composition takes the same words, and makes the ideas they
convey appear at one time unlovely, beggarly and mean; at another,
exalted, rich and beautiful. A main difference between poet and poet,
orator and orator, really does lie in the aptness with which they
arrange their words. Almost all the ancients made a special study of
this; and consequently their poems, their lyrics, and their prose are
things of beauty. But among their successors, with few exceptions, this
was no longer so.

[Page 94]

ὕστερον παντάπασιν ἠμελήθη καὶ οὐδεὶς ᾤετο δεῖν ἀναγκαῖον
αὐτὸ εἶναι οὐδὲ συμβάλλεσθαί τι τῷ κάλλει τῶν λόγων·
τοιγάρτοι τοιαύτας συντάξεις κατέλιπον οἵας οὐδεὶς ὑπομένει
μέχρι κορωνίδος διελθεῖν, Φύλαρχον λέγω καὶ Δοῦριν καὶ
Πολύβιον καὶ Ψάωνα καὶ τὸν Καλλατιανὸν Δημήτριον      5
Ἱερώνυμόν τε καὶ Ἀντίγονον καὶ Ἡρακλείδην καὶ Ἡγησιάνακτα
καὶ ἄλλους μυρίους· ὧν ἁπάντων εἰ τὰ ὀνόματα
βουλοίμην λέγειν, ἐπιλείψει με ὁ τῆς ἡμέρας χρόνος. καὶ τί
δεῖ τούτους θαυμάζειν, ὅπου γε καὶ οἱ φιλοσοφίαν ἐπαγγελλόμενοι
καὶ τὰς διαλεκτικὰς ἐκφέροντες τέχνας οὕτως εἰσὶν      10
ἄθλιοι περὶ τὴν σύνθεσιν τῶν ὀνομάτων ὥστε αἰδεῖσθαι καὶ
λέγειν; ἀπόχρη δὲ τεκμηρίῳ χρήσασθαι τοῦ λόγου Χρυσίππῳ
τῷ Στωϊκῷ (περαιτέρω γὰρ οὐκ ἂν προβαίην)· τούτου γὰρ
οὔτ’ ἄμεινον οὐδεὶς τὰς διαλεκτικὰς τέχνας ἠκρίβωσεν οὔτε
ἁρμονίᾳ χείρονι συνταχθέντας ἐξήνεγκε λόγους τῶν γοῦν      15
ὀνόματος καὶ δόξης ἀξιωθέντων. καίτοι σπουδάζειν γέ τινες

1 οὐδεῖσ P   2 τι om. P || τ(ω) P   3 κατέλειπον P   4 φύταρχον PM
  5 σάωνα PMV: στατωνα [**TN: φ written above first τ of στατωνα]
F || καλατιανὸν P: καλαντιανὸν MV: καλανδιανὸν F   6 ἀντίγονον F:
ἀντίλογον PMV || ἡγησι(α)νακτα P,F: ἡγησίννακτα M: ἡγησίαν μάγνητα V
  7 εἰ post ὀνόματα ponunt PMV   9 οἱ F^2P: om. F^1: οἱ τὴν MV   12 τῶι
λόγωι χρυσίππου τοῦ στωικοῦ PMV   13 τοῦτο F   14 οὔτε (ante ἄμεινον)
PMV   15 χείρονι ante ἁρμονίᾳ habent PMV || γ’ οὖν F,M: om. PV   16
σπουδάζειν PMV: σπουδάζεσθαι F

1. =ᾤετο δεῖν ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὸ εἶναι=: pleonasm. Perhaps ᾤετ’ ἀσκεῖν
ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὸ εἶναι, or the like.

4. =Phylarchus=: a native of Athens, or (acc. to some ancient
authorities) of Naucratis in Egypt. He flourished under Ptolemy
Euergetes (247-222 B.C.), and continued (in 28 books) the historical
works of Hieronymus and Duris. The period covered was that from
Pyrrhus’ invasion of the Peloponnese to the death of Cleomenes (272-220
B.C.). Remains in C. Müller _Fragm. Hist. Gr._ i. 334-58.

=Duris of Samos=: a pupil of Theophrastus. Flourished under Ptolemy
Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.); wrote a history which extended from the
battle of Leuctra to the year 281 or later. Among his other writings
was a Life of Agathocles. Fragments in C. Müller ii. 466-88. He is
mentioned in Cic. _ad Att._ vi. 1. 18: “num idcirco Duris Samius, homo
in historia diligens, quod cum multis erravit, irridetur?”

5. =Polybius=: see Introduction, pp. 51, 52 _supra_.

=Psaon=, of Plataea: a third-century historian, who wrote in thirty
books. Cp. C. Müller iii. 198 (and ii. 360).

=Demetrius= (of Callatis, Calatis, Callatia, or Callantia: the town
appears under all these names): wrote thirty books of history in the
third century. Cp. C. Müller iv. 380, 381.

6. =Hieronymus=, of Cardia: wrote, in the third century, a history of
the Diadochi and the Epigoni. Fragments in C. Müller ii. 450-61.

=Antigonus=: of uncertain date (probably second century) and country,
but apparently identical with the Antigonus mentioned, among writers
who had touched on early Roman history, in _Antiqq. Rom._ i. 6 πρῶτον
μέν, ὅσα κἀμὲ εἰδέναι, τὴν Ῥωμαϊκὴν ἀρχαιολογίαν ἐπιδραμόντος Ἱερωνύμου
τοῦ Καρδιανοῦ συγγραφέως, ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν Ἐπιγόνων πραγματείᾳ· ἔπειτα
Τιμαίου τοῦ Σικελιώτου, τὰ μὲν ἀρχαῖα τῶν ἱστοριῶν ἐν ταῖς κοιναῖς
ἱστορίαις ἀφηγησαμένου, τοὺς δὲ πρὸς Πύρρον τὸν Ἠπειρώτην πολέμους
εἰς ἰδίαν καταχωρίσαντος πραγματείαν· ἅμα δὲ τούτοις Ἀντιγόνου τε καὶ
Πολυβίου, καὶ Σιληνοῦ, καὶ μυρίων ἄλλων τοῖς αὐτοῖς πράγμασιν οὐχ
ὁμοίως ἐπιβαλόντων· ὧν ἕκαστος ὀλίγα, καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτὰ διεσπουδασμένως
οὐδὲ ἀκριβῶς, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν ἐπιτυχόντων ἀκουσμάτων συνθείς, ἀνέγραψεν.—In
the present passage Ἀντίλογον, Ἀντίλοχον, Ἀντίοχον, and Ἀμφίλοχον are
also read or conjectured.

=Heracleides=: a historian who probably flourished during the reign of
Ptolemy Philometor (181-146 B.C.).

=Hegesianax=: a second-century historian, who seems to have written on
the history and legends of Troy (Τρωϊκά). Cp. C. Müller iii. 68-70.

8. Cp. Demosth. _de Cor._ § 296 ἐπιλείψει με λέγοντα ἡ ἡμέρα τὰ τῶν
προδοτῶν ὀνόματα, and _Epist. ad. Hebr._ xi. 32 καὶ τί ἔτι λέγω;
ἐπιλείψει με γὰρ διηγούμενον ὁ χρόνος περὶ Γεδεών, κτλ. So Cic. _Rosc.
Am._ 32. 89 “tempus, hercule, te citius quam oratio deficeret,” and
_Verr._ ii. 2, 21, 52 “nam me dies, vox, latera deficiant, si hoc nunc
vociferari velim, quam miserum indignumque sit,” etc.

9. =ὅπου γε=: cp. Long. _de Subl._ iv. 4 τί δεῖ περὶ Τιμαίου λέγειν,
ὅπου γε καὶ οἱ ἥρωες ἐκεῖνοι, Ξενοφῶντα λέγω καὶ Πλάτωνα, καίτοιγε ἐκ
τῆς Σωκράτους ὄντες παλαίστρας, ὅμως διὰ τὰ οὕτως μικροχαρῆ ποτε ἑαυτῶν

12. The reading τῷ λόγῳ Χρυσίππου τοῦ Στωικοῦ (PMV) would mean “to
point, in proof, to the style (τῷ λόγῳ = ‘discourse,’ ‘writing,’
‘style’; cp. =96= 2) of Chrysippus.” With the general estimate compare
Cic. _de Fin._ iv. 3. 7 “quamquam scripsit artem rhetoricam Cleanthes,
Chrysippus etiam, sed sic, ut, si quis obmutescere concupierit, nihil
aliud legere debeat.”

13. The manuscript reading προβαίην should be retained, as against
Usener’s conjecture προβαῖεν, which perhaps could hardly mean ‘none
could sink to greater depths than he,’—if that is the sense intended
by Usener. Cp. Aesch. _Prom. V._ 247 μή πού τι προὔβης τῶνδε καὶ
περαιτέρω—words which Dionysius may have had in mind; and Plato
_Phaedr._ 239 D ἃ δῆλα καὶ οὐκ ἄξιον περαιτέρω προβαίνειν.

16. =σπουδάζειν=: Usener adopts F’s reading σπουδάζεσθαι, with the
remark “medii rari vestigium servandum erat.” But he quotes no
examples; and Dionysius elsewhere uses the active (e.g. σπουδαζόντων,
=66= 8 _supra_). The verb is so frequently found in a passive form and
signification, that it seems unlikely that forms common to passive
and middle would be used in the middle when the active was available.
A middle _future_, σπουδάσομαι, occurs in Plato _Euthyphro_ 3 B and
in Demosth. _Mid._ 213; but the _future_ middle in many verbs stands
quite by itself, and in the passage of Demosthenes we have σπουδάσεται
... σπουδάσατε, while in the passage of Plato there is an important
variation in the reading.

[Page 95]

At last, in later times, it was utterly neglected; no one thought
it absolutely indispensable, or that it contributed anything to the
beauty of discourse. Consequently they left behind them lucubrations
that no one has the patience to read from beginning to end. I mean
men like Phylarchus, Duris, Polybius, Psaon, Demetrius of Callatis,
Hieronymus, Antigonus, Heracleides, Hegesianax, and countless others:
a whole day would not be enough if I tried to repeat the bare names
of them all.[101] But why wonder at these, when even those who call
themselves professors of philosophy and publish manuals of dialectic
fail so wretchedly in the arrangement of their words that I shrink from
even mentioning their names? It is quite enough to point, in proof of
my statement, to Chrysippus the Stoic: for farther I will not go. Among
writers who have achieved any name or distinction, none have written
their treatises on dialectic with greater accuracy, and none have
published discourses which are worse specimens of composition. And yet
some of them claimed

[Page 96]

προσεποιήθησαν αὐτῶν καὶ περὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος ὡς ἀναγκαῖον
ὂν τῷ λόγῳ καὶ τέχνας γέ τινας ἔγραψαν ὑπὲρ τῆς συντάξεως
τῶν τοῦ λόγου μορίων· ἀλλὰ πολύ τι πάντες ἀπὸ τῆς
ἀληθείας ἀπεπλάγχθησαν καὶ οὐδ’ ὄναρ εἶδον, τί ποτ’ ἐστὶ
τὸ ποιοῦν ἡδεῖαν καὶ καλὴν τὴν σύνθεσιν. ἐγὼ γοῦν ὅτε      5
διέγνων συντάττεσθαι ταύτην τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, ἐζήτουν εἴ τι
τοῖς πρότερον εἴρηται περὶ αὐτῆς καὶ μάλιστα τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς
Στοᾶς φιλοσόφοις, εἰδὼς τοὺς ἄνδρας οὐ μικρὰν φροντίδα τοῦ
λεκτικοῦ τόπου ποιουμένους· δεῖ γὰρ αὐτοῖς τἀληθῆ μαρτυρεῖν.
οὐδαμῇ δ’ οὐδὲν εἰρημένον ὑπ’ οὐδενὸς ὁρῶν τῶν γοῦν      10
ὀνόματος ἠξιωμένων οὔτε μεῖζον οὔτ’ ἔλαττον εἰς ἣν ἐγὼ
προῄρημαι πραγματείαν, ἃς δὲ Χρύσιππος καταλέλοιπε
συντάξεις διττὰς ἐπιγραφὴν ἐχούσας “περὶ τῆς συντάξεως
τῶν τοῦ λόγου μερῶν” οὐ ῥητορικὴν θεωρίαν ἐχούσας ἀλλὰ
διαλεκτικήν, ὡς ἴσασιν οἱ τὰς βίβλους ἀνεγνωκότες, ὑπὲρ      15
ἀξιωμάτων συντάξεως ἀληθῶν τε καὶ ψευδῶν καὶ δυνατῶν
καὶ ἀδυνάτων ἐνδεχομένων τε καὶ μεταπιπτόντων καὶ ἀμφιβόλων
καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν τοιουτοτρόπων, οὐδεμίαν οὔτ’ ὠφέλειαν
οὔτε χρείαν τοῖς πολιτικοῖς λόγοις συμβαλλομένας εἰς γοῦν
ἡδονὴν καὶ κάλλος ἑρμηνείας, ὧν δεῖ στοχάζεσθαι τὴν      20
σύνθεσιν· ταύτης μὲν τῆς πραγματείας ἀπέστην, ἐσκόπουν
δ’ αὐτὸς ἐπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ γενόμενος, εἴ τινα δυναίμην εὑρεῖν
φυσικὴν ἀφορμήν, ἐπειδὴ παντὸς πράγματος καὶ πάσης ζητήσεως
αὕτη δοκεῖ κρατίστη εἶναι ἀρχή. ἁψάμενος δέ τινων
θεωρημάτων καὶ δόξας ὁδῷ μοι τὸ πρᾶγμα χωρεῖν ὡς ἔμαθον      25
ἑτέρωσέ ποι ταύτην ἄγουσαν ἐμὲ τὴν ὁδόν, οὐχ ὅποι προὐθέμην

1 αὐτῶι F,M   2 ὂν F: om. P || τ(ω) λογ(ω) P || γε om. PMV || ἔγραψαν
PM: ἔγραψεν F: ἐπέγραψαν V || ὑπερ * * P   4 ἀπεπλανήθησαν PMV || οὐδε
P, MV   5 ἐγὼ γ’ οὖν F: ἔγωγ’ οὖν PMV || ὅτε διέγνων PMV: ὅτ’ ἔγνων F
  9 τόπου] λόγου F || τε ποιημένους P   10 οὐδαμεῖ (suprascr. ηι) P^1
|| δ’ om. P || εἰρημένον om. PMV || γοῦν om. PV   13 περὶ] οὐ περὶ PM
14 οὐ] καὶ P   16 τε] δὲ PMV   17 ἀμφιλόβων P   18 οὔτ’ ὠφέλειαν om. P
  19 συμβαλλομένων PMV   20 καὶ F: ἢ PMV   22 δὲ PMV   24 δοκεῖ] δοκεῖ
καὶ P   25 μοι FP: τινι MV || τὰ πράγματα προχωρεῖν F   26 ἐμὲ om. F ||
προὐθέμην PMV: πρ[ου]θέμην ‘πορευοίμην cum litura F

4. =οὐδ’ ὄναρ εἶδον= = ‘ne somnio quidem viderunt,’ ‘ne per somnia
quidem viderunt.’

6. For =ἔγνων= (as a v.l. for διέγνων) =συντάττεσθαι= cp. _Antiqq.
Rom._ i. 1 ... οὔτε διαβολὰς καθ’ ἑτέρων ἐγνωκὼς ποιεῖσθαι συγγραφέων.
The passage which begins here and ends with the words πραγματείας
ἀπέστην is quoted under the head _Dialectica_ in von Arnim’s _Stoicorum
Veterum Fragmenta_ ii. 67.

9 ff. Cic. _Brut._ 31. 118 “Tum Brutus: Quam hoc idem in nostris
contingere intellego quod in Graecis, ut omnes fere Stoici
prudentissimi in disserendo sint et id arte faciant sintque architecti
paene verborum, idem traducti a disputando ad dicendum inopes

13. Diogenes Laertius (vii. 192. 3), in enumerating Chrysippus’ logical
works, writes: σύνταξις δευτέρα· περὶ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῶν
λεγομένων ε′, περὶ τῆς συντάξεως τῶν λεγομένων δ′, περὶ τῆς συντάξεως
καὶ στοιχείων τῶν λεγομένων πρὸς Φίλιππον γ′, περὶ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ
λόγου πρὸς Νικίαν α′, περὶ τοῦ πρὸς ἕτερα λεγομένου α′.

23. =φυσικὴν ἀφορμήν=: this suggests the Stoic point of view.

26. The reading of F looks like an attempt to gloss προὐθέμην.

[Page 97]

to make a serious study of this department also, as being absolutely
essential to good writing, and wrote some manuals on the grouping
of the parts of speech. But they all went far astray from the truth
and never even dreamt what it is that makes composition attractive
and beautiful. At any rate, when I resolved to treat of this subject
methodically, I tried to find out whether anything at all had been
said about it by earlier writers, and particularly by the philosophers
of the Porch, because I knew that these worthies were accustomed to
pay no little attention to the department of discourse: one must
give them their due. But in no single instance did I light upon any
contribution, great or small, made by any author, of any reputation
at all events, to the subject of my choice. As for the two treatises
which Chrysippus has bequeathed to us, entitled “on the grouping of the
parts of speech,” they contain, as those who have read the books are
aware, not a rhetorical but a dialectical investigation, dealing with
the grouping of propositions, true and false, possible and impossible,
admissible and variable, ambiguous, and so forth. These contribute no
assistance or benefit to civil oratory, so far at any rate as charm and
beauty of style are concerned; and yet these qualities should be the
chief aim of composition. So I desisted from this inquiry, and falling
back upon my own resources proceeded to consider whether I could
find some starting-point indicated by nature itself, since nature is
generally accepted as the best first principle in every operation and
every inquiry. So applying myself to certain lines of investigation,
I was beginning to think that the plan was making fair progress, when
I became aware that my path of progress was leading me in a quite
different direction, and not towards the goal which I

[Page 98]

καὶ ἀναγκαῖον ἦν ἐλθεῖν, ἀπέστην. κωλύσει δ’ οὐδὲν
ἴσως κἀκείνης ἅψασθαι τῆς θεωρίας καὶ τὰς αἰτίας εἰπεῖν δι’
ἃς ἐξέλιπον αὐτήν, ἵνα μή με δόξῃ τις ἀγνοίᾳ παρελθεῖν
αὐτὴν ἀλλὰ προαιρέσει.


ἐδόκει δή μοι τῇ φύσει μάλιστα ἡμᾶς ἑπομένους οὕτω      5
δεῖν ἁρμόττειν τὰ μόρια τοῦ λόγου, ὡς ἐκείνη βούλεται.
αὐτίκα τὰ ὀνόματα πρῶτα ἡγούμην τάττειν τῶν ῥημάτων (τὰ
μὲν γὰρ τὴν οὐσίαν δηλοῦν, τὰ δὲ τὸ συμβεβηκός, πρότερον
δ’ εἶναι τῇ φύσει τὴν οὐσίαν τῶν συμβεβηκότων), ὡς τὰ
Ὁμηρικὰ ἔχει ταυτί·      10

        ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα, πολύτροπον


        μῆνιν ἄειδε, θεά


        ἠέλιος δ’ ἀνόρουσε λιπών      15

καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια τούτοις· ἡγεῖται μὲν γὰρ ἐν τούτοις τὰ
ὀνόματα, ἕπεται δὲ τὰ ῥήματα. πιθανὸς ὁ λόγος, ἀλλ’ οὐκ
ἀληθὴς ἔδοξεν εἶναί μοι. ἕτερα γοῦν παράσχοιτ’ ἄν τις παραδείγματα
παρὰ τῷ αὐτῷ ποιητῇ κείμενα ἐναντίως συντεταγμένα
ἢ ταῦτα συντέτακται, καλὰ δὲ οὐχ ἧττον καὶ πιθανά. τίνα      20
οὖν ἐστι ταῦτα;

1 δὲ PV   3 ἀγνοία F   6 ἐκείνηι βεβούληται P   7 πρῶτα post ὀνόματα
om. PMV || ἡγούμην PMV: ἠξίουν F || πρὸ ante τῶν add. PMV   8 οὐσίαν
FV: αἰτίαν PM || δηλοῖ F   9 δε P, V || τῇ φύσει om. F   10 ταυτί om.
PMV   18 παράσχοιτ’ ἄν τις PMV: παράσχοι τις ἂν F   19 τ(ω) αυτ(ω) P
  20 δὲ Sauppius: τε libri

5. There seems to be a touch of quiet humour in Dionysius’
retrospection (during this _causerie_ of his) on the simplicity which
had led him to think that he could frame _a priori_ rules as to
Nature’s Order. Cp. =102= 15 in particular.

7. F’s reading, πρῶτα τῶν ῥημάτων, receives some support from =174= 18
_infra_. But cp. Steph. s.v. πρῶτος.—F’s reading ἠξίουν is probably
due to some corrector who was unaware that there is good classical
authority for ἡγοῦμαι = ἡγοῦμαι δεῖν.

The following passage of Quintilian (ix. 4. 23-27) illustrates this
chapter in many ways: “est et alius naturalis ordo, ut _viros ac
feminas, diem ac noctem, ortum et occasum_ dicas potius quam retrorsum.
quaedam ordine permutato fiunt supervacua, ut _fratres gemini_; nam si
_gemini_ praecesserint, _fratres_ addere non est necesse. illa nimia
quorundam fuit observatio, ut vocabula verbis, verba rursus adverbiis,
nomina appositis et pronominibus essent priora. nam fit contra quoque
frequenter non indecore. nec non et illud nimiae superstitionis,
uti quaeque sint tempore, ita facere etiam ordine priora; non quin
frequenter sit hoc melius, sed quia interim plus valent ante gesta
ideoque levioribus superponenda sunt. verbo sensum cludere, multo, si
compositio patiatur, optimum est. in verbis enim sermonis vis est. si
id asperum erit, cedet haec ratio numeris, ut fit apud summos Graecos
Latinosque oratores frequentissime. sine dubio erit omne, quod non
cludet, hyperbaton, et ipsum hoc inter tropos vel figuras, quae sunt
virtutes, receptum est. non enim ad pedes verba dimensa sunt, ideoque
ex loco transferuntur in locum, ut iungantur, quo congruunt maxime.
sicut in structura saxorum rudium etiam ipsa enormitas invenit, cui
applicari et in quo possit insistere. felicissimus tamen sermo est, cui
et rectus ordo et apta iunctura et cum his numerus opportune cadens

8. =πρότερον=: probably adverbial; cp. Hom. _Il._ vii. 424 and ix. 551.

15. The completed line (_Odyss._ iii. 1) is: ἠέλιος δ’ ἀνόρουσε, λιπὼν
περικαλλέα λίμνην κτλ.

18. =παράσχοιτ’ ἄν τις=: for the middle voice cp. =214= 6 and =122= 14.

20. Usener’s οἷά τινα seems a needless and somewhat violent change
for the manuscript reading τίνα οὖν. No doubt οἷά ἐστι ταῦτα is found
in =100= 27; but (1) Dionysius’ love of μεταβολή in style should
be remembered, (2) οἷά τινα is not a usual phrase, (3) the lively
rhetorical question is characteristic.

[Page 99]

sought and which I felt I must attain; and so I gave up the attempt. I
may as well, perhaps, touch on that inquiry also, and state the reasons
which led me to abandon it, so that I may not be open to the suspicion
of having passed it by in ignorance, and not of deliberate choice.



Well, my notion was that we ought to follow mother nature to the
utmost, and to link together the parts of speech according to her
promptings. For example, I thought I must place nouns before verbs:
the former, you see, indicate the substance, the latter the accident,
and in the nature of things the substance takes precedence of its
accidents! Thus we find in Homer:—

    The hero to me chant thou, Song-queen, the resourceful man;[102]


    The Wrath sing, Goddess, thou;[103]


    The sun leapt up, as he left;[104]

and other lines of the same kind, where the nouns lead the way and the
verbs follow. The principle is attractive, but I came to the conclusion
that it was not sound. At any rate, a reader might confront me with
other instances in the same poet where the arrangement is the opposite
of this, and yet the lines are no less beautiful and attractive. What
are the instances in point?

[Page 100]

        κλῦθί μευ, αἰγιόχοιο Διὸς τέκος Ἀτρυτώνη


        ἔσπετε νῦν μοι, Μοῦσαι, Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχουσαι ...
        μνῆσαι πατρὸς σεῖο, θεοῖς ἐπιείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ.

ἐν γὰρ τούτοις ἡγεῖται μὲν τὰ ῥήματα, ὑποτέτακται δὲ τὰ      5
ὀνόματα· καὶ οὐδεὶς ἂν αἰτιάσαιτο τὴν σύνταξιν αὐτῶν ὡς

ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις ἄμεινον ἐδόκουν εἶναι τὰ ῥήματα πρότερα
τάττειν τῶν ἐπιρρημάτων, ἐπειδὴ πρότερόν ἐστι τῇ φύσει τὸ
ποιοῦν ἢ πάσχον τῶν συνεδρευόντων αὐτοῖς, τρόπου λέγω καὶ      10
τόπου καὶ χρόνου καὶ τῶν παραπλησίων, ἃ δὴ καλοῦμεν
ἐπιρρήματα, παραδείγμασι χρώμενος τούτοις·

        τύπτε δ’ ἐπιστροφάδην, τῶν δὲ στόνος ὤρνυτ’ ἀεικής ...
        ἤριπε δ’ ἐξοπίσω, ἀπὸ δὲ ψυχὴν ἐκάπυσσεν ...
        ἐκλίνθη δ’ ἑτέρωσε, δέπας δέ οἱ ἔκπεσε χειρός.      15

ἐν ἅπασι γὰρ δὴ τούτοις ὕστερα τέτακται [ἅμα] τῶν ῥημάτων
τὰ ἐπιρρήματα. καὶ τοῦτο πιθανὸν μὲν ὡς τὸ πρῶτον, οὐκ
ἀληθὲς δὲ ὡς οὐδ’ ἐκεῖνο. τάδε γὰρ δὴ παρὰ τῷ αὐτῷ ποιητῇ
ἐναντίως ἢ ἐκεῖνα εἴρηται·

        βοτρυδὸν δὲ πέτονται ἐπ’ ἄνθεσιν εἰαρινοῖσι ...      20
        σήμερον ἄνδρα φάοσδε μογοστόκος Εἰλείθυια

ἆρ’ οὖν τι χείρω γέγονε τὰ ποιήματα ὑποταχθέντων ἐνταῦθα
τοῖς ἐπιρρήμασι τῶν ῥημάτων; οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴποι.

ἔτι καὶ τόδε ᾤμην δεῖν μὴ παρέργως φυλάττειν, ὅπως τὰ      25
πρότερα τοῖς χρόνοις καὶ τῇ τάξει πρότερα λαμβάνηται· οἷά
ἐστι ταυτί·

3 ἕσπετε F || ἔχουσαι. καὶ M   4 σοῖο Hom.   5 τὰ prius om. PMV   6
αὐτῶν PMV: ταύτην F   8 πρότερα τάττειν PMV: προτάττειν F   9 ἐστι
πρότερον F   10 πάσχειν F^1   12 παραδείγμασιν P   13 ὄρνυτ’ PMV  16 γὰρ
δὴ F: γὰρ PMV || ἅμα τῶν FPM: καὶ τῶν V^1: τῶν V^2   18 οὐδὲ PMV ||
τάδε γὰρ δὴ F: καὶ γὰρ δὴ καὶ ταῦτα PMV || αὐτῶι F: om. PMV  19 ἢ ἐκεῖνα
PMV: ἐκείνοις F   21 φάος δὲ F: φάωσδε P || εἰλήθυια PM   23 χείρω τι
PMV || γέγονεν P || ἐνταῦθα PMV: ἐνθάδε F   24 οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴποι F: om.
PMV   25 τόδε Sylburgius: τάδε libri || ὠιμην F, M: ὠιόμην P, V   26
τῆι τάξει καὶ τοῖς χρόνοις F   27 ταυτί PMV: ταῦτα F

8. =πρότερα= τάττειν ... ἐπειδὴ =πρότερον= ἐστι: probably this pointed
repetition is intentional on the part of Dionysius. πρότερα τάττειν
might afterwards be changed to προτάττειν for the sake of brevity.

18. ταῦτα (PMV) may be right, as ταῦτα in Dionysius can be used of
what follows as well as of what precedes; cp. n. on =106= 5. So in
Plato _Rep._ vi. 510 ῥᾷον γὰρ τούτων προειρημένων μαθήσει, and Xen.
_Anab._ iii. 1. 41 ὡς μὴ τοῦτο μόνον ἐννοῶνται τί πείσονται ἀλλὰ καὶ
τί ποιήσουσι. For Thucydides’ usage cp. Shilleto’s note on Thucyd. i.
31 § 4. In =100= 16-=102= 25 (and further) there are several instances
in which F’s readings (though given in the text) may emanate from some
early Greek editor rather than from Dionysius himself: cp. =100= 24
with =112= 5.

26. Cp. Ter. _Andr._ i. 1. 100 “funus interim | procedit: sequimur; ad
sepulcrum venimus; | in ignem impositast; fletur.”

[Page 101]

    Hear me, thou Child of the Aegis-bearer, unwearied Power;[105]


    Tell to me, Muses, now in Olympian halls that abide;[106]


    Remember thy father, Achilles, thou godlike glorious man.[107]

In these lines the verbs are in the front rank, and the nouns stationed
behind them. Yet no one would impugn the arrangement of the words as

Moreover, I imagined it was better to place verbs in front of adverbs,
since in the nature of things what acts or is acted upon takes
precedence of those auxiliaries, modal, local, temporal, and the like,
which we call adverbs. I relied on the following as examples:—

    Smote them on this side and on that, and arose the ghastly groan;[108]
    Fell she backward-reeling, and gasped her spirit away;[109]
    Reeled he backward: the cup from his hand-grasp fell to the floor.[110]

In all these cases the adverbs are placed after the verbs. This
principle, like the other, is attractive; but it is equally unsound.
For here are passages in the same poet expressed in the opposite way:

    Clusterwise hover they ever above the flowers of spring;[111]
    To-day shall Eileithyia the Queen of Travail bring
    A man to the light.[112]

Well, are the lines at all inferior because the verbs are placed after
the adverbs? No one can say so.

Once more, I imagined that I ought always most scrupulously to observe
the principle that things earlier in time should be inserted earlier in
the sentence. The following are examples:—

[Page 102]

        αὖ ἔρυσαν μὲν πρῶτα καὶ ἔσφαξαν καὶ ἔδειραν


        λίγξε βιός, νευρὴ δὲ μέγ’ ἴαχεν, ἆλτο δ’ ὀϊστός


        σφαῖραν ἔπειτ’ ἔρριψε μετ’ ἀμφίπολον βασίλεια·      5
        ἀμφιπόλου μὲν ἅμαρτε, βαθείῃ δ’ ἔμβαλε δίνῃ.

νὴ Δία, φαίη τις ἄν, εἴ γε μὴ καὶ ἄλλα ἦν πολλὰ οὐχ οὕτω
συντεταγμένα ποιήματα οὐδὲν ἧττον ἢ ταῦτα καλά·

        πλῆξε δ’ ἀνασχόμενος σχίζῃ δρυός, ἣν λίπε κείων.

πρότερον γὰρ δήπου τὸ ἐπανατείνασθαί ἐστι τοῦ πλῆξαι. καὶ      10

        ἤλασεν ἄγχι στάς, πέλεκυς δ’ ἀπέκοψε τένοντας

πρῶτον γὰρ δήπου προσῆκεν τῷ μέλλοντι τὸν πέλεκυν
ἐμβάλλειν εἰς τοὺς τένοντας τοῦ ταύρου τὸ στῆναι αὐτοῦ      15
πλησίον. ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις ἠξίουν τὰ μὲν ὀνοματικὰ προτάττειν
τῶν ἐπιθέτων, τὰ δὲ προσηγορικὰ τῶν ὀνοματικῶν,
τὰς δ’ ἀντονομασίας τῶν προσηγορικῶν, ἔν τε τοῖς ῥήμασι
φυλάττειν, ἵνα τὰ ὀρθὰ τῶν ἐγκλινομένων ἡγῆται καὶ τὰ
παρεμφατικὰ τῶν ἀπαρεμφάτων, καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα πολλά.      20
πάντα δὲ ταῦτα διεσάλευεν ἡ πεῖρα καὶ τοῦ μηδενὸς ἄξια
ἀπέφαινε. τοτὲ μὲν γὰρ ἐκ τούτων ἐγίνετο καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων
αὐτοῖς ἡδεῖα ἡ σύνθεσις καὶ καλή, τοτὲ δ’ ἐκ τῶν μὴ τοιούτων
ἀλλ’ ἐναντίων. διὰ ταύτας μὲν δὴ τὰς αἰτίας τῆς τοιαύτης
θεωρίας ἀπέστην. ἐμνήσθην δ’ αὐτῶν καὶ νῦν οὐχ ὡς σπουδῆς      25

3 ἆλτο P   5 ἔρριψεν P   7 εἴ γε μὴ F: εἰ PM || καὶ ἄλλα PMV: οὐχ *
F^1: ἄλλα suprascr. F^2 || ἦν πολλὰ F: πολλὰ ἦν PMa || οὕτως FP^1   8
ἢ FV: ἦ M: ἦν P   9 πλῆξε δ’ F: πλῆξεν PMV: κόψε δ’ Hom. || ἣν λίπε]
κάλλιπε P || κιών libri   14 προσῆκεν F: προσήκει PMV   16 τούτοις καὶ
MVs || ἠξίου P   18 δὲ PMV || ἀντωνομασίας PF^2M^2: ὠνομασίας M^1:
ἀντωνυμίας F^1V || ῥήμασιν P   19 ἐγκεκλιμένων PMV   20 ἀπαρεμφατικὰ PV
|| παρεμφατικῶν P   21 διεσάλευσεν MV   22 ἀπέφαινεν P: ἀπέφηνε MV   23
τότε δ’ F: τοτὲ δὲ PV: τὸ δὲ M   24 ἀλλ’] μηδ’ F || τοιαύτης F: om. PMV
  25 δὲ PMV

1. In Homer αὖ ἔρυσαν should probably be printed as one word, αὐέρυσαν.
Cp. note on =71= 21 _supra_.

7. All this passage is in close correspondence with Quintil. ix. 4. 24,
as quoted in the note on =98= 7 _supra_.

9. Homer’s line actually begins with κόψε δ’ ἀνασχόμενος. Here
Dionysius gives πλῆξε δ’ ἀνασχόμενος, while in _Antiqq. Rom._ vii. 62
he has κόψε δ’ ἀπαρχόμενος. In both cases he is, doubtless, quoting
from memory.

10. The order actually adopted by Homer in these passages is that which
the rhetoricians describe as πρωθύστερον, ὕστερον πρότερον, ὑστερολογία.

16. =ἠξίουν τὰ μὲν ὀνοματικὰ προτάττειν τῶν ἐπιθέτων=: the Greek
adjective (unless emphatic) is usually placed after the noun. But it
could easily be shown from the varying usage of the modern European
nations that there is no ‘law of nature,’ one way or the other, on the
subject. In general, however, these logical notions of grammatical
order which Dionysius felt himself prompted to reject on behalf of
Greek (which is synthetic in character) tally with the actual practice
of the modern analytical languages.

[Page 103]

    They drew back the beasts’ necks first, then severed the throats and


    Clangeth the horn, loud singeth the sinew, and leapeth the shaft;[114]


    The ball by the princess was tossed thereafter to one of her girls;
    But it missed the maid, and was lost in the river’s eddying swirls.[115]

“Certainly,” a reader might reply,—“if it were not for the fact that
there are plenty of other lines not arranged in this order of yours,
and yet as fine as those you have quoted; as

    And he smote it, upstrained to the stroke, with an oak-billet cloven

Surely the arms must be raised _before_ the blow is dealt! And further:—

    He struck as he stood hard by, and the axe through the sinews shore
    Of the neck.[117]

Surely a man who is about to drive his axe into a bull’s sinews should
take his stand near it _first_!”

Still further: I imagined it the correct thing to put my substantives
before my adjectives, appellatives before substantives, pronouns
before appellatives; and with verbs, to be very careful that primary
should precede secondary forms, and indicatives infinitives,—and so
on. But trial invariably wrecked these views and revealed their utter
worthlessness. At one time charm and beauty of composition did result
from these and similar collocations,—at other times from collocations
not of this sort but the opposite. And so for these reasons I abandoned
all such speculations as the above. Nor is it for any serious value it

[Page 104]

ἀξίων, καὶ τὰς διαλεκτικὰς παρεθέμην τέχνας οὐχ ὡς ἀναγκαίας,
ἀλλ’ ἵνα μηδεὶς δοκῶν ἔχειν τι αὐτὰς χρήσιμον εἰς τὴν
παροῦσαν θεωρίαν περὶ πολλοῦ ποιῆται εἰδέναι, θηρευθεὶς ταῖς
ἐπιγραφαῖς τῶν πραγματειῶν ὁμοιότητά τινα ἐχούσαις καὶ τῇ
δόξῃ τῶν συνταξαμένων αὐτάς.      5

ἐπάνειμι δ’ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑπόθεσιν ἀφ’ ἧς εἰς ταῦτ’
ἐξέβην, ὅτι πολλὴ πρόνοια τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ἦν καὶ ποιηταῖς καὶ
συγγραφεῦσι φιλοσόφοις τε καὶ ῥήτορσι τῆς ἰδέας ταύτης, καὶ
οὔτε τὰ ὀνόματα τοῖς ὀνόμασιν οὔτε τὰ κῶλα τοῖς κώλοις
οὔτε τὰς περιόδους ἀλλήλαις εἰκῇ συνάπτειν ᾤοντο δεῖν, τέχνη      10
δέ τις ἦν παρ’ αὐτοῖς καὶ θεωρήματα οἷς χρώμενοι συνετίθεσαν
εὖ. τίνα δ’ ἦν τὰ θεωρήματα ταῦτα, ἐγὼ πειράσομαι διδάσκειν,
ὡς ἂν οἷός τε ὦ, ὅσα μοι δύναμις ἐγένετο συνεξευρεῖν,
οὐχ ἅπαντα λέγων ἀλλ’ αὐτὰ τὰ ἀναγκαιότατα.


δοκεῖ μοι τῆς συνθετικῆς ἐπιστήμης τρία ἔργα εἶναι· ἓν      15
μὲν ἰδεῖν, τί μετὰ τίνος ἁρμοττόμενον πέφυκε καλὴν καὶ
ἡδεῖαν λήψεσθαι συζυγίαν· ἕτερον δὲ γνῶναι τῶν ἁρμόττεσθαι
μελλόντων πρὸς ἄλληλα πῶς ἂν ἕκαστον σχηματισθὲν κρείττονα
ποιήσειε φαίνεσθαι τὴν ἁρμονίαν· τρίτον δ’ εἴ τι δεῖται μετασκευῆς
τῶν λαμβανομένων, ἀφαιρέσεως λέγω καὶ προσθέσεως      20
καὶ ἀλλοιώσεως, γνῶναί τε καὶ πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν χρείαν
οἰκείως ἐξεργάσασθαι. ὅ τι δὲ τούτων ἕκαστον δύναται, σαφέστερον
ἐρῶ χρησάμενος εἰκόσι τῶν δημιουργικῶν τεχνῶν τισιν

8 συγγραφεῦσιν et ῥήτορσιν P || φιλοσόφοις τε] καὶ φιλοσόφοις F   10
εἰκῆι sic FP   12 ἐγὼ πειράσομαι FM: πειράσομαι PV   13 ἐξευρεῖν P
  16 μετά τινος P || ἁρμοττόμενον PMV: ἁρμοζόμενον EF   19 φαίνεσθαι
ποιήσειεν P, V || εἴ τι P: δὲ τί EFMV || κατασκευ(ης) P   20
ἀφαιρέσ(ως) P || λέγω ... ἀλλοιώσεως om. P || προσθέσεως EF: προσθήκης
PMV   21 τε F: τε πῶς PMV   22 ὅτι F: τί PMV   23 δημιουργῶν PM^1V

3. =θηρευθείς=: cp. Eur. _Hippol._ 957 θηρεύουσι γὰρ | σεμνοῖς λόγοισιν
αἰσχρὰ μηχανώμενοι, and Xen. _Cyrop._ viii. 2. 2 τούτοις ἐπειρᾶτο τὴν
φιλίαν θηρεύειν.

4. =ἐπιγραφαῖς=: cp. the excerpt from Diog. Laert., =96= 13 _supra_,
and Cic. _de Or._ ii. 14. 61 “in philosophos vestros si quando incidi,
deceptus indicibus librorum, qui sunt fere inscripti de rebus notis
et illustribus, de virtute, de iustitia, de honestate, de voluptate,
verbum prorsus nullum intellego; ita sunt angustiis et concisis
disputationibus illigati.”

5. =τῶν συνταξαμένων αὐτάς=: Zeno and Chrysippus in particular.

6. The statement in =92= 21 is here resumed.

13. =συνεξευρεῖν=: perhaps, ‘to investigate _together_,’ i.e. by a
comparative method.

14. =αὐτὰ τὰ ἀναγκαιότατα=: as in Demosthenes, e.g. _de Cor._ §§ 126,

16. Probably =ἁρμοττόμενον= (rather than ἁρμοζόμενον) should be
preferred here, as ἁρμόττεσθαι is used in the next line but one. It
seems likely that Dionysius would use the Attic form ἁρμόττω with
aorist ἥρμοσα, ἡρμόσθην, etc.; cp. =98= 6, =106= 6, 7, =110= 6, 13,
=112= 2, 4, =124= 19, =198= 23, =230= 22. Perhaps =106= 7 should be
changed accordingly.

17. =λήψεσθαι= after πέφυκε = μέλλει.—=συζυγίαν=: Dionysius rightly
recognizes that a word-order, already settled in the writer’s mind, may
influence both his choice of language and grammatical forms he adopts.

20. =προσθέσεως= (cp. =116= 16) seems right. But προσθήκη, though
generally used of the part added (=114= 11, =150= 13, =152= 12), may
(in =212= 14, =274= 22) refer to the process: cp. N.T. use of βάπτισμα.

[Page 105]

possesses that I recall this mental process now. I have cited those
manuals on dialectic not because I think it necessary to have them, but
in order to prevent anyone from supposing that they contain anything
of real service for the present inquiry, and from regarding it as
important to study them. It is easy to be inveigled by their titles,
which suggest some affinity with the subject; or by the reputation of
their compilers.

I will now revert to the original proposition, from which I have
strayed into these digressions. It was that the ancients (poets and
historians, philosophers and rhetoricians) were greatly preoccupied
with this branch of inquiry. They never thought that words, clauses, or
periods should be combined at haphazard. They had rules and principles
of their own; and it was by following these that they composed so well.
What these principles were, I shall try to explain so far as I can;
stating, not all, but just the most essential, of those that I have
been able to investigate.



My view is that the science of composition has three functions. The
first is that of observing the combinations which are naturally adapted
to produce a beautiful and agreeable united effect; the second is
that of perceiving how to improve the harmonious appearance of the
whole by fashioning properly the several parts which we intend to fit
together; the third is that of perceiving what is required in the
way of modification of the material—I mean abridgment, expansion and
transformation—and of carrying out such changes in a manner appropriate
to the end in view. The effect of each of these processes I will
explain more clearly by means of illustrations drawn from industrial

[Page 106]

ἃς ἅπαντες ἴσασιν, οἰκοδομικῇ λέγω καὶ ναυπηγικῇ καὶ ταῖς
παραπλησίαις· ὅ τε γὰρ οἰκοδόμος ὅταν πορίσηται τῆν ὕλην
ἐξ ἧς μέλλει κατασκευάζειν τὴν οἰκίαν, λίθους καὶ ξύλα καὶ
κέραμον καὶ τἆλλα πάντα, συντίθησιν ἐκ τούτων ἤδη τὸ
ἔργον τρία ταῦτα πραγματευόμενος, ποίῳ δεῖ λίθῳ τε καὶ ξύλῳ      5
καὶ πλίνθῳ ποῖον ἁρμόσαι λίθον ἢ ξύλον ἢ πλίνθον, ἔπειτα πῶς
τῶν ἁρμοζομένων ἕκαστον καὶ ἐπὶ ποίας πλευρᾶς ἑδράσαι, καὶ
τρίτον, εἴ τι δύσεδρόν ἐστιν, ἀποκροῦσαι καὶ περικόψαι καὶ
αὐτὸ τοῦτο εὔεδρον ποιῆσαι· ὅ τε ναυπηγὸς τὰ αὐτὰ ταῦτα
πραγματεύεται. τὰ δὴ παραπλήσιά φημι δεῖν ποιεῖν καὶ τοὺς      10
μέλλοντας εὖ συνθήσειν τὰ τοῦ λόγου μόρια, πρῶτον μὲν
σκοπεῖν, ποῖον ὄνομα ἢ ῥῆμα ἢ τῶν ἄλλων τι μορίων ποίῳ
συνταχθὲν ἐπιτηδείως ἔσται κείμενον καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἄμεινον
(οὐ γὰρ δὴ πάντα γε μετὰ πάντων τιθέμενα πέφυκεν ὁμοίως διατιθέναι
τὰς ἀκοάς)· ἔπειτα διακρίνειν, πῶς σχηματισθὲν τοὔνομα      15
ἢ τὸ ῥῆμα ἢ τῶν ἄλλων ὅ τι δήποτε χαριέστερον ἱδρυθήσεται
καὶ πρὸς τὰ ὑποκείμενα πρεπωδέστερον· λέγω δὲ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν
ὀνομάτων, πότερον ἑνικῶς ἢ πληθυντικῶς λαμβανόμενα κρείττω
λήψεται συζυγίαν, καὶ πότερον κατὰ τὴν ὀρθὴν ἐκφερόμενα
πτῶσιν ἢ κατὰ τῶν πλαγίων τινά, καὶ εἴ τινα πέφυκεν ἐξ      20
ἀρρενικῶν γίνεσθαι θηλυκὰ ἢ ἐκ θηλυκῶν ἀρρενικὰ ἢ οὐδέτερα

1 ναυτικῆι P, MV   3 λίθοις F   5 δεῖ EV: ex δηῖ P: δὴ FM || ξύλ(ω) et
πλίνθ(ω) P   8 κα(τα)κροῦσαι P^1 || καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ EF   9 ἑδραῖον P   10
τὰ δὴ] τὰ F: δή PMV ||ποιεῖν om. F   12 ποί(ω) P   14 μετα πάν[**TN: τ
written above ν of πάν] sic P   16 ϊδρυθήσεται P: ϊδρυνθήσεται F, EMV
  18 πληθυντικῶς] π suprascripto θ̑ P || κρείτω P: κρείττονα E: κρείττο
F   19 πότερα FE   20 καὶ τίνα F   21 ἀρρενι(κων) P, M: ἀρ’ ἐνικῶν V:
ἀρρενων F, E: ἀρσενικῶν s

2. For comparisons between literary composition and civil or marine
architecture cp. _C.V._ c. 22, Quintil. _Inst. Or._ vii. 1 (proem.),
Cic. _de Or._ iii. 171. A metaphor from building underlies the
rhetorical use in all or most of such words as: κανών, γόμφος,
πυργοῦν, ἀντερείδειν, στηριγμός, ἀντιστηριγμός, ἕδρα, τέκτων, ὕλη,
κατασκευάζειν, ἐγκατάσκευος.

5. =ταῦτα= refers forward here, cp. =112= 8 with =112= 4. In =110= 9
ἥδε refers backward—‘the foregoing.’

7. =ἐπὶ ποίας πλευρᾶς=, ‘on what side,’ i.e. ‘with what attention to
stratification or grain.’ A builder likes to place stone in courses _as
it lay in the quarry_: he knows that, if what lay horizontally is set
perpendicularly, it will not last so well. Or the reference here may be
simply to the difference in general appearance made by laying a stone
in one of several possible ways.

10. If =ποιεῖν= be omitted with F, it must be mentally supplied from
the general sense of the verbs that follow. Cp. Plato _Gorg._ 491 D ἢ
τοῦτο μὲν οὐδὲν δεῖ, αὐτὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἄρχειν, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων; Demosth. _de
Cor._ § 139 καίτοι δυοῖν αὐτὸν ἀνάγκη θάτερον, ἢ μηδὲν ἐγκαλεῖν κτλ.,
Soph. _Philoct._ 310 ἐκεῖνο δ’ οὐδείς, ἡνίκ’ ἂν μνησθῶ, θέλει | σῶσαί
μ’ ἐς οἴκους, id. _Antig._ 497 θέλεις τι μεῖζον ἢ κατακτεῖναί μ’ ἑλών;

13. For _οὐκ ἄμεινον_ Usener substitutes εὖ ἢ ἄμεινον. The corruption
of εὖ ἢ to οὐκ might easily happen in uncial writing, and the reading
οὐκ is as old as the Epitome. But the εὖ comes unexpectedly after
ἐπιτηδείως, and the emendation is not convincing. The manuscript
reading has, therefore, been kept, though οὐκ ἄμεινον is a difficult

15. =σχηματισθέν=: grammatical form, or _construction_, is clearly
meant here.

16. From here to the end of the chapter the general sense is: We must,
in the interests of harmonious composition, make the fullest possible
use of alternative forms—now a noun, now a verb; now a singular, now
a plural; now a nominative, now an oblique case; now a masculine, and
then a feminine or neuter; and so with voices, moods, and tenses—with
forms such as τουτονί and τοῦτον, ἰδών and κατιδών, χωροφιλῆσαι and
φιλοχωρῆσαι, λελύσεται and λυθήσεται,—and with elision, hiatus, and
the employment of νῦ ἐφελκυστικόν. Many of these points will be found
illustrated in _Ep. ad Amm. II._, where the subject of some of the
characters is as follows: c. 5 use of noun for verb, c. 6 use of
verb for noun, c. 7 substitution of passive for active voice, c. 9
interchange of singular and plural number, c. 10 interchange of the
three genders, c. 11 use of cases, c. 12 use of tenses. See D.H. pp.
138-49, together with the notes added on pp. 178-81. As _Ep. ad Amm.
II._ shows, Dionysius is fully alive to the dangers of this continual
straining of language. Absolutely interchangeable expressions are not

18. =πληθυντικῶς=: cp. the use of the plural in Virg. _Aen._ 155 “vos
arae ensesque nefandi, | quos fugi.”

21. =ἐκ θηλυκῶν ἀρρενικά=: cf. Quintil. _Inst. Or._ ix. 3. 6 “fiunt
ergo et circa genus figurae in nominibus, nam et _oculis capti talpae_
[Virg. _Georg._ i. 183] et _timidi damae_ [Virg. _Ecl._ viii. 28,
_Georg._ iii. 539] dicuntur a Vergilio; sed subest ratio, quia sexus
uterque altero significatur, tamque mares esse talpas damasque quam
feminas, certum est.” Besides the reason given by Quintilian, the
desire to avoid monotony of termination (excessive ὁμοιοτέλευτον) also
counts.—The present passage may further be illustrated by Dionysius’
own words in _Ep. ad Amm. II._ c. 10: “Examples of the interchange of
masculines, feminines and neuters, in contravention of the ordinary
rules of language, are such as the following. He [Thucydides] uses
τάραχος in the masculine for ταραχή in the feminine, and similarly
ὄχλος for ὄχλησις. In place of τὴν βούλησιν and τὴν δύναμιν he uses τὸ
βουλόμενον and τὸ δυνάμενον.”

[Page 107]

familiar to all—house-building, ship-building, and the like. When a
builder has provided himself with the material from which he intends
to construct a house—stones, timbers, tiling, and all the rest—he then
puts together the structure from these, studying the following three
things: what stone, timber and brick can be united with what other
stone, timber and brick; next, how each piece of the material that is
being so united should be set, and on which of its faces; thirdly,
if anything fits badly, how that particular thing can be chipped and
trimmed and made to fit exactly. And the shipwright proceeds in just
the same way. A like course should, I affirm, be followed by those who
are to succeed in literary composition. They should first consider
in what groupings with one another nouns, verbs, or other parts of
speech, will be placed appropriately, and how not so well; for surely
every possible combination cannot affect the ear in the same way—it
is not in the nature of things that it should be so. Next they should
decide the form in which the noun or verb, or whatever else it may be,
will occupy its place most gracefully and most in harmony with the
ground-scheme. I mean, in the case of nouns, whether they will offer
a better combination if used in the singular or the plural; whether
they should be put in the nominative or in one of the oblique cases; or
which gender should be chosen if they admit of a feminine instead of a
masculine form,

[Page 108]

ἐκ τούτων, πῶς ἂν ἄμεινον σχηματισθείη, καὶ πάντα τὰ
τοιαῦτα· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ῥημάτων, πότερα κρείττω λαμβανόμενα
ἔσται, τὰ ὀρθὰ ἢ τὰ ὕπτια, καὶ κατὰ ποίας ἐγκλίσεις ἐκφερόμενα,
ἃς δή τινες πτώσεις ῥηματικὰς καλοῦσι, κρατίστην ἕδραν
λήψεται, καὶ ποίας παρεμφαίνοντα διαφορὰς χρόνων καὶ εἴ      5
τινα τοῖς ῥήμασιν ἄλλα παρακολουθεῖν πέφυκε (τὰ δ’ αὐτὰ
ταῦτα καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων τοῦ λόγου μερῶν φυλακτέον, ἵνα
μὴ καθ’ ἓν ἕκαστον λέγω)· ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις τὰ ληφθέντα
διακρίνειν, εἴ τι δεῖται μετασκευῆς ὄνομα ἢ ῥῆμα, πῶς ἂν
ἐναρμονιώτερόν τε καὶ εὐεδρότερον γένοιτο· τοῦτο τὸ στοιχεῖον      10
ἐν μὲν ποιητικῇ δαψιλέστερόν ἐστιν, ἐν δὲ λόγοις πεζοῖς
σπανιώτερον· πλὴν γίνεταί γε καὶ ἐν τούτοις ἐφ’ ὅσον ἂν
ἐγχωρῇ· ὅ τε γὰρ λέγων “εἰς τουτονὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα” προστέθεικέ
τι τῇ ἀντωνυμίᾳ γράμμα τῆς συνθέσεως στοχαζόμενος· ἄρτιον
γὰρ ἦν “εἰς τοῦτον τὸν ἀγῶνα” εἰπεῖν· καὶ πάλιν ὁ λέγων      15
“κατιδὼν Νεοπτόλεμον τὸν ὑποκριτήν” τῇ προθέσει παρηύξηκεν
τοὔνομα, τὸ γὰρ ἰδὼν ἀπέχρη· καὶ ὁ γράφων “μήτ’ ἰδίας
ἔχθρας μηδεμιᾶς ἕνεχ’ ἥκειν” ταῖς συναλοιφαῖς ἠλάττωκε τὰ

2 τε EFMV^1 || κρείττω EF: κρείττονα PMV || λαβόμενα ἔσται F: ἔσται
λαμβανόμενα EPMV   4 καλοῦσιν P   6 πέφυκεν P || δὲ PMV   8 ἓν om. F
  9 δεῖται F: δεῖ PMV || μετὰ κα(τα)σκευ(ης) P, M || πῶς Usener: ὡς
libri   12 πλὴν EF: om. PMV || τε PV: om. F^{1}EM || ὅσο*ν F, E: ὁπόσον
PMV   14 ἀντ(ω)νυμία P   17 ἀπέχρη καὶ ὁ F: ἀπέχρηκεν ὅ τε P   18
ἔχθρας] ἔχθρας ἐμὲ Demosth. || ἔνεχ’ F: ἕνεκ’ PV || εικειν P^1, V ||
συναλειφαῖς F: συναλιφαῖς P

8. Cp. Batteux _Réflexions_ p. 181: “Cette opération [sc. μετασκευή]
ne peut pas avoir lieu en français, parce que nos mots sont faits et
consacrés dans leur forme par un usage que les écrivains ne peuvent ni
changer ni altérer: la poésie n’a pas sur ce point plus de privilége
que la prose; mais cela n’empêche pas que nous ne fassions dans notre
langue une grande partie des opérations qu’indique Denys d’Halicarnasse
dans le chapitre vi. Nous mettons dans nos verbes un temps pour un
autre, l’actif pour le passif, le passif pour l’actif; nous prenons les
substantifs adjectivement, les adjectifs substantivement, quelquefois
adverbialement, les singuliers pour les pluriels, les pluriels pour les
singuliers; nous changeons les personnes; nous varions les finales,
tantôt masculines, tantôt féminines; nous renversons les constructions,
nous faisons des ellipses hardies, etc. etc. Tous ceux qui font
des vers savent de combien de manières on tourne et retourne les
expressions d’une pensée qui résiste; ceux qui travaillent leur prose
le savent de même que les poëtes.”

9. For Usener’s correction =πῶς= cp. =106= 15, =108= 1; and for F’s
δεῖται cp. =104= 19.

11. Examples in Latin poetry would be ‘gnatus’ for ‘natus,’ or
‘amarunt’ and ‘amavere’ for ‘amaverunt.’

13. We have an English parallel in the dialect form ‘thik’ and
‘thikky,’ both of which stand for _this_; or ‘the forthcoming’ and
‘the coming’ might be employed in the translation, and ‘syllable’ be
substituted for ‘letter.’

14. =ἄρτιον=: for the meaning cp. ἀπέχρη =108= 17. The implication is
that τουτονί (as compared with τοῦτον) is περισσόν.

16. Demosth. περὶ τῆς Εἰρήνης § 6, πάλιν τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι,
κατιδὼν Νεοπτόλεμον τὸν ὑποκριτὴν τῷ μὲν τῆς τέχνης προσχήματι
τυγχάνοντ’ ἀδείας, κακὰ δ’ ἐργαζόμενον τὰ μέγιστα τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὰ
παρ’ ὑμῶν διοικοῦντα Φιλίππῳ καὶ πρυτανεύοντα, παρελθὼν εἶπον εἰς
ὑμᾶς, οὐδεμιᾶς ἰδίας οὔτ’ ἔχθρας οὔτε συκοφαντίας ἕνεκεν, ὡς ἐκ τῶν
μετὰ ταῦτ’ ἔργων γέγονε δῆλον. If κατιδών here means little or nothing
more than ἰδών, we might compare ‘entreat’ in the sense of ‘treat’,
or Chaucer’s use of ‘apperceive’ for ‘perceive.’ Dionysius’ meaning,
however, probably is not that τουτονί and τοῦτον, κατιδών and ἰδών,
are actual _synonyms_, but rather that the shorter form would have

17. Demosth. κατὰ Ἀριστοκράτους § 1, μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι,
νομίσῃ μήτ’ ἰδίας ἔχθρας ἐμὲ μηδεμιᾶς ἕνεχ’ ἥκειν Ἀριστοκράτους
κατηγορήσοντα τουτουΐ, μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον ἁμάρτημ’
ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειαν, ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἄρ’
ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ λογίζομαι καὶ σκοπῶ, ὑπὲρ τοῦ Χερρόνησον ἔχειν ὑμᾶς ἀσφαλῶς
καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθέντας ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς, περὶ τούτου μοί ἐστιν
ἅπασ’ ἡ σπουδή. The passage is fully discussed (from the rhythmical, or
metrical, point of view) in _C.V._ c. 25.

[Page 109]

or a masculine instead of a feminine, or a neuter instead of either:
and so on. With reference to verbs, again: which form it will be
best to adopt, the active or the passive, and in what moods (or
_verbal cases_, as some call them) they should be presented so as to
receive the best setting, as also what differences of tense should be
indicated; and so with all the other natural accidents of verbs. These
same methods must be followed in regard to the other parts of speech
also; there is no need to go into details. Further, with respect to the
words thus selected, if any noun or verb requires a modification of its
form, it must be decided how it can be brought into better harmony and
symmetry with its neighbours. This principle can be applied more freely
in poetry than in prose. Still, in prose also, it is applied, where
opportunity offers. The speaker who says “εἰς τουτονὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα”[118]
has added a letter to the pronoun with an eye to the effect of the
composition. The bare meaning would have been sufficiently conveyed by
saying “εἰς τοῦτον τὸν ἀγῶνα”. So in the words “κατιδὼν Νεοπτόλεμον
τὸν ὑποκριτήν”[119] the addition of the preposition has merely
expanded the word into κατιδών, since ἰδών alone would have conveyed
the meaning. So, too, in the expression “μήτ’ ἰδίας ἔχθρας μηδεμιᾶς
ἕνεχ’ ἥκειν”[120] the writer has cut off some of the letters, and has
condensed the

[Page 110]

μόρια τοῦ λόγου κἀποκέκρουκέ τινα τῶν γραμμάτων· καὶ ὁ
ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐποίησεν “ἐποίησε” λέγων χωρὶς τοῦ ν̄ καὶ “ἔγραψε”
ἀντὶ τοῦ ἔγραψεν λέγων καὶ “ἀφαιρήσομαι” ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀφαιρεθήσομαι
καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα, ὅ τ’ “ἐχωροφίλησε” λέγων τὸ
ἐφιλοχώρησε καὶ “λελύσεται” τὸ λυθήσεται καὶ τὰ τοιουτότροπα      5
μετασκευάζει τὰς λέξεις, ἵν’ αὐτῷ γένοιντο ἁρμοσθῆναι καλλίους
καὶ ἐπιτηδειότεραι.


μία μὲν δὴ θεωρία τῆς συνθετικῆς ἐπιστήμης ἡ περὶ
αὐτὰ τὰ πρῶτα μόρια καὶ στοιχεῖα τῆς λέξεως ἥδε· ἑτέρα
δέ, ὥσπερ καὶ κατ’ ἀρχὰς ἔφην, ἡ περὶ τὰ καλούμενα κῶλα,      10
ποικιλωτέρας τε δεομένη πραγματείας καὶ μείζονος, ὑπὲρ ἧς
αὐτίκα δὴ πειράσομαι λέγειν ὡς ἔχω γνώμης. καὶ γὰρ
ταῦτα ἁρμόσαι πρὸς ἄλληλα δεῖ ὥστ’ οἰκεῖα φαίνεσθαι καὶ
φίλα καὶ σχηματίσαι ὡς ἂν ἐνδέχηται κράτιστα προσκατασκευάσαι
τε, εἴ πού τι δέοι, μειώσει καὶ πλεονασμῷ καὶ εἰ      15
δή τιν’ ἄλλην μετασκευὴν δέχεται τὰ κῶλα· τούτων δ’
ἕκαστον ἡ πεῖρα αὐτὴ διδάσκει· πολλάκις γὰρ τουτὶ τὸ
κῶλον τούτου μὲν προτεθὲν ἢ ἐπὶ τούτῳ τεθὲν εὐστομίαν
τινὰ ἐμφαίνει καὶ σεμνότητα, ἑτέραν δέ τινα συζυγίαν λαβὸν
ἄχαρι φαίνεται καὶ ἄσεμνον. ὃ δὲ λέγω, σαφέστερον ἔσται,      20
εἴ τις αὐτὸ ἐπὶ παραδείγματος ἴδοι. ἔστι δή τις παρὰ τῷ
Θουκυδίδῃ λέξις ἐν τῇ Πλαταιέων δημηγορίᾳ πάνυ χαριέντως
συγκειμένη καὶ μεστὴ πάθους ἥδε· “ὑμεῖς τε, ὦ Λακεδαιμόνιοι,

1 κἀποκέκρουκέ Us.: καὶ π(ερι)κέκρ(ου)κέ P,EFM: καὶ παρακέκρουκε V ||
ὁ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐποίησεν ἐποίησε F: ὁ ἐποίησε ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐποίησεν P: ὃ (τὸ V)
ἐποίησεν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐποίησε M, V   2 ἔγραψε ἀντὶ τοῦ ἔγραψεν λέγων καὶ
om. EF   4 ἐχωροφίλησε E: χωροφίλησε F: χωροφιλῆσαι PMV   5 φιλοχωρῆσαι
PMV || τὸ F: λέγων τὸ PMV   6 ΐνα P, MV || ἁρμοσθεῖσαι PMV || καλλίονες
EF   8 συνθετικῆς] συνθέσεως F   9 πρῶτα om. F || καὶ] καὶ τὰ EF ||
ἥδε EFM: om. PV   10 δέ om. P || ὥπερ P || καὶ κατ’] κατ’ F || ἔφην
F: ἔφαμεν PMV   13 ὥστ’ P: ὥστε F: ὡς MV   14 προκατασκευάσαι E   16
μετασκευὴν Schaefer: κατασκευὴν libri   17 ἕκαστα EF   23 ἡμεῖς EF

2. =χωρὶς τοῦ ν̄=: Dionysius implies that, in his opinion, the
so-called νῦ ἐφελκυστικόν is, or has become, an integral part of the
verbal termination and is not reserved for use before vowels only. His
view has some support in the usage of the best manuscripts.

Usener brackets the words =ἔγραψε ... καί=. But πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα
suggests their retention, and their omission in an epitome (E) is
natural. Dionysius wishes to indicate that his statement is general and
does not apply simply to the particular verb ἐποίησε.

4. =φιλοχωρεῖν= and =χωροφιλεῖν=: see Glossary, under φιλοχωρεῖν.

5. Cp. Demosth. περὶ τῶν Συμμοριῶν § 2, πᾶς ὁ παρὼν φόβος λελύσεται.

9. =ἥδε= = ‘the foregoing,’ cp. n. on ταῦτα p. 106 _supra_.

10. =ὥσπερ καὶ κατ’ ἀρχὰς ἔφην=: =72= 9, =104= 9. The reading ἔφην
(rather than ἔφαμεν) accords best with Dionysius’ usage.

23. Cp. Cic. _Orat._ cc. 63, 66 for similar Latin instances of the
effect of a change in word-order.—The complete sentence in Thucyd.
iii. 57 runs: καὶ οὔτε τῶν τότε ξυμμάχων ὠφελεῖ οὐδείς, ὑμεῖς τε, ὦ
Λακεδαιμόνιοι, ἡ μόνη ἐλπίς, δέδιμεν μὴ οὐ βέβαιοι ἦτε.

[Page 111]

discourse through the elisions. So again by using “ἐποίησε” (without
the ν) in place of ἐποίησεν, and “ἔγραψε” in place of ἔγραψεν, and
“ἀφαιρήσομαι” in place of ἀφαιρεθήσομαι, and all instances of the
kind; and by saying “ἐχωροφίλησε” for ἐφιλοχώρησε and “λελύσεται” for
λυθήσεται, and things of that sort:—by such devices an author puts his
words into a new shape, in order that he may fit them together more
beautifully and appropriately.



The foregoing, then, is one branch of the art of composition which
requires consideration: namely, that which relates to the primary
parts and elements of speech. But there is another, as I said at the
beginning, which is concerned with the so-called “members” (“clauses”),
and this requires fuller and more elaborate treatment. My views on this
topic I will try to express forthwith.

The clauses must be fitted to one another so as to present an aspect
of harmony and concord; they must be given the best form which they
admit of; they must further be remodelled if necessary by shortening,
lengthening, and any other change of form which clauses admit. As to
each of these details experience itself must be your teacher. It will
often happen that the placing of one clause before or after another
brings out a certain euphony and dignity, while a different grouping
sounds unpleasing and undignified. My meaning will be clearer if
illustrated by an example. There is a well-known passage of Thucydides
in the speech of the Plataeans, a delightfully arranged sentence full
of deep feeling, which is as follows: “And we fear, men of Sparta, lest
you, our only hope, should

[Page 112]

ἡ μόνη ἐλπίς, δέδιμεν μὴ οὐ βέβαιοι ἦτε.” φέρε δή τις
λύσας τὴν συζυγίαν ταύτην μεθαρμοσάτω τὰ κῶλα οὕτως·
“ὑμεῖς τε, ὦ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, δέδιμεν μὴ οὐ βέβαιοι ἦτε, ἡ
μόνη ἐλπίς.” ἆρ’ ἔτι μένει τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἡρμοσμένων τῶν
κώλων ἡ αὐτὴ χάρις ἢ τὸ αὐτὸ πάθος; οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴποι. τί      5
δ’ εἰ τὴν Δημοσθένους λέξιν ταύτην “τὸ λαβεῖν οὖν τὰ
διδόμενα ὁμολογῶν ἔννομον εἶναι, τὸ χάριν τούτων ἀποδοῦναι
παρανόμων γράφῃ” λύσας τις καὶ μεταθεὶς τὰ κῶλα τουτονὶ
τὸν τρόπον ἐξενέγκαι· “ὁμολογῶν οὖν ἔννομον εἶναι τὸ λαβεῖν
τὰ διδόμενα, παρανόμων γράφῃ τὸ τούτων χάριν ἀποδοῦναι,”      10
ἆρ’ ὁμοίως ἔσται δικανικὴ καὶ στρογγύλη; ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ


ἡ μὲν δὴ περὶ τὴν ἁρμογὴν τῶν κώλων θεωρία τοιαύτη,
ἡ δὲ περὶ τὸν σχηματισμὸν ποδαπή; οὐκ ἔστιν εἷς τρόπος
τῆς ἐκφορᾶς ἁπάντων τῶν νοημάτων, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν ὡς      15
ἀποφαινόμενοι λέγομεν, τὰ δ’ ὡς πυνθανόμενοι, τὰ δ’ ὡς
εὐχόμενοι, τὰ δ’ ὡς ἐπιτάττοντες, τὰ δ’ ὡς διαποροῦντες, τὰ
δ’ ὡς ὑποτιθέμενοι, τὰ δὲ ἄλλως πως σχηματίζοντες, οἷς
ἀκολούθως καὶ τὴν λέξιν πειρώμεθα σχηματίζειν. πολλοὶ δὲ
δήπου σχηματισμοὶ καὶ τῆς λέξεώς εἰσιν ὥσπερ καὶ τῆς      20
διανοίας, οὓς οὐχ οἷόν τε κεφαλαιωδῶς περιλαβεῖν, ἴσως δὲ
καὶ ἄπειροι· περὶ ὧν καὶ πολὺς ὁ λόγος καὶ βαθεῖα ἡ θεωρία.
οὐ δὴ τὸ αὐτὸ δύναται ποιεῖν τὸ αὐτὸ κῶλον οὕτω σχηματισθὲν

1 ἡ μόνη ἐλπίς add. in marg. F || ἡ μόνη] ἡμῶν ἡ EF^{1}M^1 || φέρε
... (4) ἦτε add. in marg. F   6 δ’ F: δὲ M: δαὶ PV   8 παρανόμον P:
παράνομον F || γράφηι· F: γράφηι· εἰ P, MV | τοῦτον PMV   10 παράνομον
FP: παρανόμῳ V || ἀποδιδόναι P   14 ποταπή PMV   15 τῆς om. P ||
ἁπάντων EF: om. PMV: τῶν om. F || ὀνομάτων PMV

2. It is impossible to give real English equivalents in cases like
this,—partly because of the fundamental differences between the two
languages, and partly because we do not know Dionysius’ own estimate of
the exact effect which the changes he introduces have upon the rhythm,
emphasis, and clearness of the sentence. The same considerations
apply in lines 6-10, where the English principle of emphasis makes it
necessary to depart widely from the Greek order in both the original
and the re-written form. See Introduction, pp. 17 ff. _supra_ (under
Emphasis). A striking instance of effective emphasis in English is
Macduff’s passionate out-burst:—

                    Not in the legions
    Of horrid hell can come a devil more damn’d
    In ills to top Macbeth.

“If you dispose the words in the usual manner, and say, ‘A more damned
devil in the legions of horrid hell cannot come to top Macbeth in
ills,’ we shall scarcely be persuaded that the thought is the same,”
Campbell _Philosophy of Rhetoric_ p. 496. Biblical instances are: (1)
“Nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin” (_Nehem._
xiii. 26); (2) “Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, do they
live for ever?” (_Zech._ i. 5).

8. Sometimes the manuscript testimony is quite clear as between such
forms as τουτονί and τοῦτον: cp. =116= 9 n. In doubtful cases the -ί
form might be adopted—in =64= 6 and =84= 17 as well as in =112= 8 and
=178= 10.

14. Cp. Quintil. vi. 3. 70 “figuras quoque montis, quae σχήματα
διανοίας dicuntur, res eadem recipit omnes, in quas nonnulli diviserunt
species dictorum. nam et interrogamus et dubitamus et affirmamus et
minamur et optamus, quaedam ut miserantes, quaedam ut irascentes
dicimus,” and Hor. _Ars. P._ 108 “format enim natura prius nos intus ad
omnem | fortunarum habitum; iuvat aut impellit ad iram | aut ad humum
maerore gravi deducit et angit; | post effert animi motus interprete

[Page 113]

fail in steadfastness.”[121] Now let this order be disturbed and the
clauses be re-arranged as follows: “And we fear, men of Sparta, lest
you should fail in steadfastness, that are our only hope.” When the
clauses are arranged in this way, does the same fine charm remain,
or the same deep feeling? Plainly not. Again, take this passage of
Demosthenes, “So you admit as constitutional the acceptance of the
offerings; you indict as unconstitutional the rendering of thanks for
them.”[122] Let the order be disturbed, and the clauses interchanged
and presented in the following form: “So the acceptance of the
offerings you admit as constitutional; the rendering of thanks for them
you indict as unconstitutional.” Will the sentence be equally neat and
effective? I, for my part, do not think so.



The principles governing the arrangement of clauses have now been
stated. What principles govern their shaping?

The complete utterance of our thoughts takes more than one form. We
throw them at one time into the shape of an assertion, at another
into that of an inquiry, or a prayer, or a command, or a doubt, or a
supposition, or some other shape of the kind; and into conformity with
these we try to mould the diction itself. There are, in fact, many
figures of diction, just as there are of thought. It is not possible to
classify them exhaustively; indeed, they are perhaps innumerable. Their
treatment would require a long disquisition and profound investigation.
But that the same clause is not equally telling in all its various
modes of presentation,

[Page 114]

ἢ οὕτως. ἐρῶ δὲ ἐπὶ παραδείγματος· εἰ τοῦτον ἐξήνεγκε
τὸν τρόπον ὁ Δημοσθένης τὴν λέξιν ταύτην “ταῦτ’ εἰπὼν
ἔγραψα, γράψας δ’ ἐπρέσβευσα, πρεσβεύσας δ’ ἔπεισα Θηβαίους,”
ἆρ’ οὕτως ἂν συνέκειτο χαριέντως, ὡς νῦν σύγκειται;
“οὐκ εἶπον μὲν ταῦτα, οὐκ ἔγραψα δέ· οὐδ’ ἔγραψα μέν, οὐκ      5
ἐπρέσβευσα δέ· οὐδ’ ἐπρέσβευσα μέν, οὐκ ἔπεισα δὲ Θηβαίους.”
πολὺς δ’ ἂν εἴη μοι λόγος, εἰ περὶ πάντων βουλοίμην λέγειν
τῶν σχηματισμῶν ὅσους τὰ κῶλα ἐπιδέχεται. ἀπόχρη δὲ
εἰσαγωγῆς ἕνεκα τοσαῦτα εἰρῆσθαι.


ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅτι γε καὶ μετασκευὰς δέχεται τῶν κώλων ἔνια      10
τοτὲ μὲν προσθήκας λαμβάνοντα οὐκ ἀναγκαίας ὡς πρὸς τὸν
νοῦν, τοτὲ δὲ ἀφαιρέσεις ἀτελῆ ποιούσας τὴν διάνοιαν, ἃς οὐκ
ἄλλου τινὸς ἕνεκα ποιοῦσι ποιηταί τε καὶ συγγραφεῖς ἢ τῆς
ἁρμονίας, ἵν’ ἡδεῖα καὶ καλὴ γένηται, πάνυ ὀλίγου δεῖν οἴομαι
λόγου. τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἂν ὁμολογήσαι τήνδε τὴν λέξιν ἣν ὁ      15
Δημοσθένης εἴρηκε προσθήκῃ πλεονάζειν οὐκ ἀναγκαίᾳ τῆς
ἁρμονίας ἕνεκα; “ὁ γὰρ οἷς ἂν ἐγὼ ληφθείην, ταῦτα πράττων
καὶ κατασκευαζόμενος, οὗτος ἐμοὶ πολεμεῖ, κἂν μήπω βάλλῃ
μηδὲ τοξεύῃ.” ἐνταῦθα γὰρ οὐχὶ τοῦ ἀναγκαίου χάριν πρόσκειται
τὸ τοξεύειν, ἀλλ’ ἵνα τὸ τελευταῖον κῶλον τὸ “κἂν      20
μήπω βάλλῃ” τραχύτερον τοῦ δέοντος ὂν καὶ οὐχ ἡδὺ ἀκουσθῆναι

2 εἰπ(ων) P, MV: εἴπ(ας) F, E   5 οὐκ prim. Dem.: καὶ οὐκ libri   6
δὲ alt om. F   7 δ’ F: om. PMV   14 γένοιτο PMV   15 ὁμολογῆσαι PV:
ὁμολογήσηι F || μὲν post τήνδε habet F   19 ἐνταῦθα ... (21) βάλλῃ
servarunt FM   21 βραχύτερον V: βραχυτέρα ex βραχύτερα P

1. Cicero (_Philipp._ xii. 3. 7) has the following climax: “Quid enim
potest, per deos immortales! rei publicae prodesse nostra legatio?
Prodesse dico? quid, si etiam obfutura est? Obfutura? quid, si iam
nocuit atque obfuit?” Obviously it would be fatal to re-write this
passage thus: “nostra legatio non poterit prodesse rei publicae, immo
obfutura est, et iam nocuit.”

2. With =εἰπών= (rather than εἴπας) cp. line 5 (εἶπον, not εἶπα),
though P gives προεῖπα in =280= 19. In the Epitome εἴπας is found in
V only, the other three MSS. giving εἰπών.—In Hellenistic times the
non-sigmatic aorists constantly occur with the -α of the sigmatic
aorists; but it is hardly likely that so good an Atticist as Dionysius
would attribute εἴπας to Demosthenes, and introduce cacophony.

4. Cp. Demetr. _de Eloc._ § 270 λαμβάνοιτ’ ἂν καὶ ἡ κλῖμαξ καλουμένη,
ὥσπερ Δημοσθένει τὸ “οὐκ εἶπον μὲν ταῦτα, οὐκ ἔγραψα δέ· οὐδ’ ἔγραψα
μέν, οὐκ ἔπεισα δὲ Θηβαίους”· σχεδὸν γὰρ ἐπαναβαίνοντι ὁ λόγος ἔοικεν
ἐπὶ μειζόνων μείζονα· εἰ δὲ οὕτως εἴποι τις ταῦτα, “εἰπὼν ἐγὼ καὶ
γράψας ἐπρέσβευσά τε καὶ ἔπεισα Θηβαίους,” διήγημα ἐρεῖ μόνον, δεινὸν
δὲ οὐδέν.

8. Dionysius seems subsequently to have written a special treatise περὶ
σχημάτων: cp. Quintil. ix. 3. 89 “haec omnia copiosius sunt exsecuti,
qui non ut partem operis transcurrerunt sed proprie libros huic operi
dedicaverunt, sicut Caecilius, Dionysius, Rutilius, Cornificius,
Visellius aliique non pauci.” The use of νῦν in _de Demosth._ c.
39 seems to point to an intention of the kind on Dionysius’ part:
ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι δὲ νῦν, ὅσα γένη σχηματισμῶν ἐστι τῶν τε κατωνομασμένων
καὶ τῶν ἀκατονομάστων, καὶ τίσιν αὐτῶν ἡ τοιαύτη μάλιστα πέφυκεν
ἁρμονία χαίρειν, οὐκ ἔχω καιρόν.

10. This sentence of Dionysius himself may serve to show how
successfully and conveniently Greek, as compared with English, can make
a conjunction depend on words which came long after (viz. πάνυ ὀλίγου
δεῖν οἴομαι λόγου in line 14).

16. =προσθήκῃ οὐκ ἀναγκαίᾳ=: compare, for example, such harmonious
redundancies as οἱ δ’ ἐπεὶ οὖν ἤγερθεν ὁμηγερέες τ’ ἐγένοντο (_Il._ i.
57) and “when we assemble and meet together” (Book of Common Prayer).

20. Quintil. ix. 4. 63 “namque eo fit ut, cum Demosthenis severa
videatur compositio, πρῶτον μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῖς θεοῖς εὔχομαι
πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις, et illa (quae ab uno, quod sciam, Bruto minus
probatur, ceteris placet) κἂν μήπω βάλλῃ μηδὲ τοξεύῃ, Ciceronem carpant
in his: _Familiaris coeperat esse balneatori_, et _Non minimum dura
archipiratae_. Nam _balneatori_ et _archipiratae_ idem finis est qui
πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις et qui μηδὲ τοξεύῃ: sed priora sunt severiora.”

21. In =τραχύτερον= Dionysius is apparently referring to the sound of
two spondees (each forming a separate word) at the end of a sentence,
and to the improvement effected by the addition of a cretic followed
by a spondee.—P and V give βραχύτερον, which is perhaps right, since a
clause that is _shorter_ than it ought to be can be improved (cp. =114=
16) by extension.

[Page 115]

I will show by an example. If Demosthenes had expressed himself thus
in the following passage, “Having spoken thus, I moved a resolution;
and having moved a resolution, I joined the embassy; and having joined
the embassy, I convinced the Thebans,” would the sentence have been
composed with the charm of its actual arrangement,—“I did not speak
thus, and then fail to move a resolution; I did not move a resolution,
and then fail to join the embassy; I did not join the embassy, and then
fail to convince the Thebans”?[123] It would take me a long time to
deal with all the modes of expression which clauses admit. It is enough
to say thus much by way of introduction.



I think I can in a very few words show that some clauses admit changes
which take the form now of additions not necessary to the sense, now of
curtailments rendering the sense incomplete; and that these changes are
introduced by poets and prose-writers simply in order to add charm and
beauty to the rhythm. Thus the following expression used by Demosthenes
indisputably contains a pleonastic addition made for the sake of the
rhythm: “He who contrives and prepares means whereby I may be captured
is at war with me, though not yet shooting javelins or arrows.”[124]
Here the reference to “arrows” is added not out of necessity, but in
order that the last clause “though not yet shooting javelins,” being
rougher than it ought to be and not pleasant to

[Page 116]

τῇ προσθήκῃ ταύτῃ γένηται χαριέστερον. καὶ ἔτι τὴν
Πλατωνικὴν ἐκείνην περίοδον, ἣν ἐν τῷ ἐπιταφίῳ ὁ ἀνὴρ
γράφει, τίς οὐκ ἂν φαίη παραπληρώματι λέξεως οὐκ ἀναγκαίῳ
προσηρανίσθαι; “ἔργων γὰρ εὖ πραχθέντων λόγῳ καλῶς
ῥηθέντι μνήμη καὶ κόσμος γίνεται τοῖς πράξασι παρὰ τῶν      5
ἀκουσάντων.” ἐνταυθοῖ γὰρ τὸ “παρὰ τῶν ἀκουσάντων” πρὸς
οὐδὲν ἀναγκαῖον λέγεται, ἀλλ’ ἵνα τὸ τελευταῖον κῶλον τὸ
“τοῖς πράξασι” πάρισόν τε καὶ ἐφάμιλλον τοῖς πρὸ αὐτοῦ
γένηται. τί δὲ δὴ τὸ παρ’ Αἰσχίνῃ λεγόμενον τουτί “ἐπὶ
σαυτὸν καλεῖς, ἐπὶ τοὺς νόμους καλεῖς, ἐπὶ τὴν δημοκρατίαν      10
καλεῖς,” τρίκωλον ἐν τοῖς πάνυ ἐπαινούμενον, οὐχὶ τῆς αὐτῆς
ἰδέας ἔχεται; ὃ γὰρ οἷόν τε ἦν ἑνὶ κώλῳ περιληφθῆναι τόνδε
τὸν τρόπον “ἐπὶ σεαυτὸν καὶ τοὺς νόμους καὶ τὴν δημοκρατίαν
καλεῖς,” τοῦτο εἰς τρία διῄρηται, τῆς αὐτῆς λέξεως οὐ τοῦ
ἀναγκαίου ἕνεκα, τοῦ δὲ ἡδίω ποιῆσαι τὴν ἁρμονίαν πολλάκις      15
τεθείσης [καὶ προσέτι πάθος τῷ λόγῳ]. τῆς μὲν δὴ προσθέσεως
ἣ γίνεται τοῖς κώλοις οὗτος ὁ τρόπος· τῆς ἀφαιρέσεως
δὲ τίς; ὅταν τῶν ἀναγκαίων τι λέγεσθαι λυπεῖν μέλλῃ καὶ
διοχλεῖν τὴν ἀκρόασιν, ἀφαιρεθὲν δὲ χαριεστέραν ποιῇ τὴν
ἁρμονίαν· οἷά ἐστιν ἐν μὲν τοῖς μέτροις τὰ Σοφόκλεια ταυτί·      20

        μύω τε καὶ δέδορκα κἀξανίσταμαι
        πλέον φυλάσσων αὐτὸς ἢ φυλάσσομαι·

ἐνταυθοῖ γὰρ ὁ δεύτερος στίχος ἐκ δυεῖν σύγκειται κώλων οὐχ
ὅλων· τελεία γὰρ ἂν ἡ λέξις ἦν οὕτως ἐξενεχθεῖσα “πλεῖον

1 γεγένηται PMV || χαριέστερα F   6 ἐνταυθοῖ ... ἀκουσάντων F, E: om.
PMV   7 τὸ ante τοῖς om. EF   11 ἐπαινουμένοις F   15 ἡδείαν F, M 16
καὶ ... λόγῳ secl. Us.: προσἔτι F, M: πρόσεστι PV   19 ποιῆι P, M:
ποιεῖ EFV: ποιεῖν coni. Reiskius   20 ἁρμονίαν F: ἐρμηνείαν P, MV ||
οἵα F: οἷάπέρ PMV || μὲν F: om. PMV   21 καὶ ξυνίσταμαι P   22 πλέον
... (24) ἐξενεχθεῖσα om. P

2. =ὁ ἀνήρ= is used by Dionysius with various shades of meaning,—‘the
author,’ ‘the Master,’ ‘the worthy,’ etc. Cp. =96= 8, =182= 2, =184=
12, =186= 2, =198= 4, =228= 15, =264= 25.

5. In the actual text of _Menex._ 236 E there is a slight difference of
order, viz. τοῖς πράξασι γίγνεται instead of γίνεται τοῖς πράξασι (as
Dionysius gives it).

6. The Epitome makes the meaning quite plain by inserting παραπλήρωμα
τῆς λέξεως between ἀκουσάντων and πρὸς οὐδέν.

9. Here all MSS. agree in giving the form =τουτί=. The same agreement
will be found in =86= 9, =110= 17, =116= 20, =120= 24, =156= 15, =158=
5, etc.

10. Demetrius, _de Eloc._ § 268, regards this sentence as an example
of three ‘figures,’—anaphora, asyndeton, and homoeoteleuton. He
adds, “Were we to write ‘you summon him against yourself and the
laws and the democracy,’ the force would vanish together with the
figures.”—Similarly, “Appius eos [servos] postulavit et produxit” would
be less telling than “Quis eos postulavit? Appius. Quis produxit?
Appius. Unde? ab Appio” (Cic. _pro Milone_ 22. 59).

11. =τῆς αὐτῆς ἰδέας=, ‘the same form of expression,’ i.e. the
effectively pleonastic.

16. If the words =καὶ προσέτι πάθος τῷ λόγῳ= are retained, ποιῆσαι (in
a slightly different sense) must be repeated in order to govern πάθος:
unless some such word as γίγνεται can be supplied.

21. The context of these lines of Sophocles is not known, but the idea
may well be that of ‘uneasy lies the head’ or οὐ χρὴ παννύχιον εὕδειν
βουληφόρον ἄνδρα (_Il._ ii. 24). The ‘elliptical’ effect (an ellipse
being implied by ἀφαίρεσις, cp. =116= 17) is produced by the presence
of αὐτός, which suggests that ἑτέρους and ὑφ’ ἑτέρων are to be mentally
supplied.—Cp. Cic. _in Q. Caec. Divin._ 18. 58 “hic tu, si laesum te a
Verre esse dices, patiar et concedam: si iniuriam tibi factam quereris,
_defendam et negabo_”; and Racine _Andromaque_ iv. 5 “Je t’aimais
inconstant; _qu’aurais-je fait fidèle_?”

[Page 117]

the ear, may be made more attractive by this addition. Again, the
famous period of Plato which that author inserts in the Funeral
Speech has beyond dispute been extended by a supplement not necessary
to the sense: “When deeds have been nobly done, then through speech
finely uttered there come honour and remembrance to the doers from
the hearers.”[125] Here the words “from the hearers” are not at all
necessary to the sense; they are added in order that the last clause,
“to the doers,” may correspond with and balance what has preceded it.
Again, take these words found in Aeschines, “you summon him against
yourself; you summon him against the laws; you summon him against
the democracy,”[126] a sentence of great celebrity, formed of three
clauses: does it not belong to the class we are considering? What could
have been embraced in one clause as follows, “you summon him against
yourself and the laws and the democracy,” has been divided into three,
the same expression being repeated not from any necessity but in order
to make the rhythm more agreeable.

In such ways, then, may clauses be expanded: how can they be abridged?
This comes about when something necessary to the sense is likely to
offend and jar on the ear, and when, consequently, its removal adds
to the charm of the rhythm. An example, in verse, is afforded by the
following lines of Sophocles:—

        I close mine eyes, I open them, I rise—
        Myself the warder rather than the warded.[127]

Here the second line is composed of two imperfect clauses. The
expression would have been complete if it had run thus,

[Page 118]

φυλάσσων αὐτὸς ἑτέρους ἢ φυλασσόμενος ὑφ’ ἑτέρων,” τὸ δὲ
μέτρον ἠδίκητο καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἔσχεν ἣν νυνὶ χάριν ἔχει. ἐν δὲ
τοῖς πεζοῖς λόγοις τὰ τοιαῦτα· “ἐγὼ δ’ ὅτι μὲν τινῶν κατηγοροῦντα
πάντας ἀφαιρεῖσθαι τὴν ἀτέλειαν τῶν ἀδίκων ἐστίν,
ἐάσω.” μεμείωται γὰρ κἀνταῦθα τῶν πρώτων δυεῖν κώλων      5
ἑκάτερον· αὐτοτελῆ δ’ ἂν ἦν, εἴ τις αὐτὰ οὕτως ἐξήνεγκεν·
“ἐγὼ δ’ ὅτι μὲν τινῶν κατηγοροῦντα ὡς οὐκ ἐπιτηδείων ἔχειν
τὴν ἀτέλειαν πάντας ἀφαιρεῖσθαι καὶ τοὺς δικαίως αὐτῆς
τυχόντας τῶν ἀδίκων ἐστίν, ἐάσω.” ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐδόκει τῷ
Δημοσθένει πλείονα ποιεῖσθαι πρόνοιαν τῆς ἀκριβείας τῶν      10
κώλων ἢ τῆς εὐρυθμίας.

τὰ δ’ αὐτὰ εἰρήσθω μοι καὶ περὶ τῶν καλουμένων περιόδων·
καὶ γὰρ ταύτας χρὴ τάς τε προηγουμένας καὶ τὰς ἑπομένας
οἰκείως συναρμόττειν, ὅταν ἐν περιόδοις προσήκῃ τὸν λόγον
ἐκφέρειν· οὐ γὰρ δὴ πανταχῇ γε τὸ ἐμπερίοδον χρήσιμον.      15
καὶ αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο τὸ θεώρημα τῆς συνθετικῆς ἐπιστήμης ἴδιον,
πότε δεῖ χρῆσθαι περιόδοις καὶ μέχρι πόσου καὶ πότε μή.


διωρισμένων δή μοι τούτων ἀκόλουθον ἂν εἴη τὸ λέγειν,
τίνα ἐστὶν ὧν δεῖ στοχάζεσθαι τὸν βουλόμενον συντιθέναι τὴν
λέξιν εὖ καὶ διὰ τίνων θεωρημάτων τυγχάνοι τις ἂν ὧν      20
βούλεται. δοκεῖ δέ μοι δύο ταῦτ’ εἶναι <τὰ> γενικώτατα, ὧν
ἐφίεσθαι δεῖ τοὺς συντιθέντας μέτρα τε καὶ λόγους, ἥ τε ἡδονὴ
καὶ τὸ καλόν· ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἐπιζητεῖ ταῦτα ἡ ἀκοή, ὅμοιόν
τι πάσχουσα τῇ ὁράσει· καὶ γὰρ ἐκείνη πλάσματα καὶ γραφὰς

2 νυνὶ χάριν ἔχει EPMV: νῦν ἔχει χάριν F   4 ἀτέλειαν] δωρειὰν Demosth.
  6 ἀτελῆ δὲ F   12 τὰ δ’ αὐτὰ F: ταῦτα δὲ MV: ταῦ(τα) δι’ P   13
ταύτας E: ταῦτα F: ταύταις PMV || ταῖς τε προηγουμέναις καὶ ταῖς
ταύταις (ταύταις om. E) ἑπομέναις EPMV   14 ἐν FE: ἐν ταῖς PMV   17
περιόδωι P   18 ὡρισμένων P || τὸ λέγειν PMV: λέγειν F   21 τὰ add.
Sauppius || γενικώτατα F, M: τελικ(ω)τατα P, M^{1}V   22 μέτρα FP: εὖ
μέτρα MV

4. Dionysius does not appear to feel that =τῶν ἀδίκων= is in any
way ambiguous,—that it might, at first sight, seem to depend on τὴν
ἀτέλειαν. In Greek a dependent genitive usually (at any rate in
Thucydides; see p. 337 _infra_) precedes the noun on which it depends;
and, in any case, the speaker would here pause slightly between τὴν
ἀτέλειαν and τῶν ἀδίκων.

15. =οὐ γὰρ δὴ πανταχῇ γε τὸ ἐμπερίοδον χρήσιμον.= For an instance of
the ‘running’ style, interspersed with the periodic, see Thucyd. i.
9. 2, where Shilleto remarks: “This paragraph seems to me to convey
far more than any other which I have read an exemplification of the
εἰρομένη λέξις of Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 9. 2 (λέγω δὲ εἰρομένην, ἣ
οὐδὲν ἔχει τέλος καθ’ αὑτήν, ἂν μὴ τὸ πρᾶγμα λεγόμενον τελειωθῇ). How
Thukydides, so great a master of the κατεστραμμένη, ἐν περιόδοις,
λέξις, should have written it, is to me a marvel.”

[Page 119]

“myself warding others rather than being warded by others.” But
violence would have been done to the metre, and the line would not
have acquired the charm which it actually has. In prose there are such
instances as: “I will pass by the fact that it is a piece of injustice,
simply because a man brings charges against some individuals, to
attempt to withhold exemption from every one.”[128] Here, too, each
of the two first clauses is abbreviated. They would have been each
complete in itself if worded thus: “I will pass by the fact that it
is a piece of injustice, simply because a man brings charges against
some individuals and declares them unfit for exemption, to attempt
to withhold that privilege from every one—even those who are justly
entitled to it.” But Demosthenes did not approve of paying more heed to
the exactitude of the clauses than to the beauty of the rhythm.

I wish what I have just said to be understood as applying also to
what are called “periods.” For, when it is fitting to express one’s
meaning in periods, these too must be arranged so as to precede or
follow each other appropriately. It must, of course, be understood that
the periodic style is not suitable everywhere: and the question when
periods should be used and to what extent, and when not, is precisely
one of those with which the science of composition deals.



Now that I have laid down these broad outlines, the next step will be
to state what should be the aims kept in view by the man who wishes to
compose well, and by what methods his object can be attained. It seems
to me that the two essentials to be aimed at by those who compose in
verse and prose are charm and beauty. The ear craves for both of these.
It is affected in somewhat the same way as the sense of sight which,

[Page 120]

καὶ γλυφὰς καὶ ὅσα δημιουργήματα χειρῶν ἐστιν ἀνθρωπίνων
ὁρῶσα ὅταν εὑρίσκῃ τό τε ἡδὺ ἐνὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ τὸ καλόν,
ἀρκεῖται καὶ οὐδὲν ἔτι ποθεῖ. καὶ μὴ παράδοξον ἡγήσηταί
τις, εἰ δύο ποιῶ τέλη καὶ χωρίζω τὸ καλὸν ἀπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς,
μηδ’ ἄτοπον εἶναι νομίσῃ, εἴ τινα ἡγοῦμαι λέξιν ἡδέως μὲν      5
συγκεῖσθαι, μὴ καλῶς δέ, ἢ καλῶς μέν, οὐ μὴν καὶ ἡδέως·
φέρει γὰρ ἡ ἀλήθεια τὸ τοιοῦτον καὶ οὐδὲν ἀξιῶ καινόν· ἥ
γε τοι Θουκυδίδου λέξις καὶ ἡ Ἀντιφῶντος τοῦ Ῥαμνουσίου
καλῶς μὲν σύγκειται νὴ Δία, εἴπερ τινὲς καὶ ἄλλαι, καὶ
οὐκ ἄν τις αὐτὰς ἔχοι μέμψασθαι κατὰ τοῦτο, οὐ μὴν ἡδέως      10
γε πάνυ· ἡ δέ γε τοῦ Κνιδίου συγγραφέως Κτησίου καὶ ἡ
τοῦ Σωκρατικοῦ Ξενοφῶντος ἡδέως μὲν ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα, οὐ
μὴν καλῶς γ’ ἐφ’ ὅσον ἔδει· λέγω δὲ κοινότερον, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ
καθάπαξ, ἐπεὶ καὶ παρ’ ἐκείνοις ἥρμοσταί τινα ἡδέως καὶ
παρὰ τούτοις καλῶς. ἡ δὲ Ἡροδότου σύνθεσις ἀμφότερα      15
ταῦτα ἔχει, καὶ γὰρ ἡδεῖά ἐστι καὶ καλή.


ἐξ ὧν δ’ οἶμαι γενήσεσθαι λέξιν ἡδεῖαν καὶ καλήν, τέτταρά
ἐστι ταῦτα τὰ κυριώτατα καὶ κράτιστα, μέλος καὶ ῥυθμὸς καὶ
μεταβολὴ καὶ τὸ παρακολουθοῦν τοῖς τρισὶ τούτοις πρέπον.
τάττω δὲ ὑπὸ μὲν τὴν ἡδονὴν τήν τε ὥραν καὶ τὴν χάριν καὶ      20
τὴν εὐστομίαν καὶ τὴν γλυκύτητα καὶ τὸ πιθανὸν καὶ πάντα
τὰ τοιαῦτα, ὑπὸ δὲ τὸ καλὸν τήν τε μεγαλοπρέπειαν καὶ τὸ
βάρος καὶ τὴν σεμνολογίαν καὶ τὸ ἀξίωμα καὶ τὸν πίνον καὶ
τὰ τούτοις ὅμοια. ταυτὶ γάρ μοι δοκεῖ κυριώτατα εἶναι καὶ
ὥσπερ κεφάλαια τῶν ἄλλων ἐν ἑκατέρῳ. ὧν μὲν οὖν στοχάζονται      25
πάντες οἱ σπουδῇ γράφοντες μέτρον ἢ μέλος ἢ τὴν
λεγομένην πεζὴν λέξιν, ταῦτ’ ἐστὶ καὶ οὐκ οἶδ’ εἴ τι παρὰ

1 ἐστιν F: εἰσιν M: om. PV   2 ἐνὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς F: ἐνὸν αὐτοῖς PMV   8
καὶ ἡ PMV: καὶ EF   9 καὶ οὐκ ... τοῦτο F: om. PMV   14 ἐπεὶ κἀκείνοις
P || καὶ posterius] ὡς καὶ EF: ὡς M   17 γενέσθαι FE   18 κράτιστα PMV:
τὰ κράτιστα F   20 τήν τε EFM: τὴν PV   23 τὸν πίνον] τοπι(θα)ν(ον) P,
EFM^{1}V: πῖνος suprascr. M   26 μέτρον ἡ μέλος P, MV: μέλος ἢ μέτρον F

2. =τὸ καλόν=: see Glossary, s.v. καλός.

11. For =Ctesias= cp. Demetr. _de Eloc._ §§ 213-16, where a fine
passage is quoted from him; also p. 247 _ibid._ Photius (_Bibl. Cod._
72) says of Ctesias: ἔστι δὲ οὗτος ὁ συγγραφεὺς σαφής τε καὶ ἀφελὴς
λίαν· διὸ καὶ ἡδονῇ αὐτῷ σύγκρατός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος.

12. =Ξενοφῶντος=: cp. Diog. Laert. ii. 6. 57 ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ καὶ Ἀττικὴ
Μοῦσα γλυκύτητι τῆς ἑρμηνείας, and Cic. _Orat._ 19. 63 “et Xenophontis
voce Musas quasi locutas ferunt.”—For =τοῦ Σωκρατικοῦ= cp. Quintil. x.
1. 75 “Xenophon non excidit mihi sed inter philosophos reddendus est.”

14. =καθάπαξ=, ‘absolutely,’ ‘universally,’ ‘exclusively.’ So in =132=

18. Cp _de Demosth._ c. 47 εὕρισκε δὴ τὰ μὲν αὐτὰ ἀμφοτέρων ὄντα αἴτια,
τὰ μέλη καὶ τοὺς ῥυθμοὺς καὶ τὰς μεταβολὰς καὶ τὸ παρακολουθοῦν ἅπασιν
αὐτοῖς πρέπον, οὐ μὴν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἑκάτερα σχηματιζόμενα.

25. =ἑκάτερον= means (here and in =122= 1) ἥ τε ἡδονὴ καὶ τὸ καλόν.

[Page 121]

when it looks upon moulded figures, pictures, carvings, or any other
works of human hands, and finds both charm and beauty residing in
them, is satisfied and longs for nothing more. And let not anyone be
surprised at my assuming that there are two distinct objects in style,
and at my separating beauty from charm; nor let him think it strange if
I hold that a piece of composition may possess charm but not beauty, or
beauty without charm. Such is the verdict of actual experience; I am
introducing no novel axiom. The styles of Thucydides and of Antiphon
of Rhamnus are surely examples of beautiful composition, if ever there
were any, and are beyond all possible cavil from this point of view,
but they are not remarkable for their charm. On the other hand, the
style of the historian Ctesias of Cnidus, and that of Xenophon the
disciple of Socrates, are charming in the highest possible degree, but
not as beautiful as they should have been. I am speaking generally, not
absolutely; I admit that in the former authors there are instances of
charming, in the latter of beautiful arrangement. But the composition
of Herodotus has both these qualities; it is at once charming and



Among the sources of charm and beauty in style there are, I conceive,
four which are paramount and essential,—melody, rhythm, variety, and
the appropriateness demanded by these three. Under “charm” I class
freshness, grace, euphony, sweetness, persuasiveness, and all similar
qualities; and under “beauty” grandeur, impressiveness, solemnity,
dignity, mellowness, and the like. For these seem to me the most
important—the main heads, so to speak, in either case. The aims set
before themselves by all serious writers in epic, dramatic, or lyric
poetry, or in the so-called “language of prose,” are those specified,
and I think

[Page 122]

ταῦθ’ ἕτερον· οἱ δὲ πρωτεύσαντες ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τε τούτων καὶ
ἐν ἀμφοτέροις πολλοί τε καὶ ἀγαθοὶ ἄνδρες· παραδείγματα δὲ
αὐτῶν ἑκάστου φέρειν ἐν τῷ παρόντι οὐκ ἐγχωρεῖ, ἵνα μὴ
περὶ ταῦτα κατατρίψω τὸν λόγον· καὶ ἅμα εἴ τι λεχθῆναι
περί τινος αὐτῶν καθήκει καὶ δεήσει που μαρτυριῶν, ἕτερος      5
αὐτοῖς ἔσται καιρὸς ἐπιτηδειότερος, ὅταν τοὺς χαρακτῆρας τῶν
ἁρμονιῶν ὑπογράφω. νῦν δὲ ταῦτ’ εἰρῆσθαι περὶ αὐτῶν
ἀπόχρη. ἐπάνειμι δὲ πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰς διαιρέσεις, ἃς ἐποιησάμην
τῆς θ’ ἡδείας συνθέσεως καὶ τῆς καλῆς, ἵνα μοι καὶ καθ’ ὁδόν,
ὥς φασι, χωρῇ ὁ λόγος.      10

ἔφην δὴ τὴν ἀκοὴν ἥδεσθαι πρώτοις μὲν τοῖς μέλεσιν,
ἔπειτα τοῖς ῥυθμοῖς, τρίτον ταῖς μεταβολαῖς, ἐν δὲ τούτοις
ἅπασι τῷ πρέποντι. ὅτι δὲ ἀληθῆ λέγω, τὴν πεῖραν αὐτὴν
παρέξομαι μάρτυρα, ἣν οὐχ οἷόν τε διαβάλλειν τοῖς κοινοῖς
πάθεσιν ὁμολογουμένην· τίς γάρ ἐστιν ὃς οὐχ ὑπὸ μὲν ταύτης      15
τῆς μελῳδίας ἄγεται καὶ γοητεύεται, ὑφ’ ἑτέρας δέ τινος οὐδὲν
πάσχει τοιοῦτον, καὶ ὑπὸ μὲν τούτων τῶν ῥυθμῶν οἰκειοῦται,
ὑπὸ δὲ τούτων διοχλεῖται; ἤδη δ’ ἔγωγε καὶ ἐν τοῖς πολυανθρωποτάτοις
θεάτροις, ἃ συμπληροῖ παντοδαπὸς καὶ ἄμουσος
ὄχλος, ἔδοξα καταμαθεῖν, ὡς φυσική τις ἁπάντων ἐστὶν ἡμῶν      20
οἰκειότης πρὸς ἐμμέλειάν τε καὶ εὐρυθμίαν, κιθαριστήν τε
ἀγαθὸν σφόδρα εὐδοκιμοῦντα ἰδὼν θορυβηθέντα ὑπὸ τοῦ
πλήθους, ὅτι μίαν χορδὴν ἀσύμφωνον ἔκρουσε καὶ διέφθειρεν
τὸ μέλος, καὶ αὐλητὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ἄκρας ἕξεως χρώμενον τοῖς
ὀργάνοις τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο παθόντα, ὅτι σομφὸν ἐμπνεύσας ἢ μὴ

1 τε om. M || τούτων om. PV   3 αὐτῶν FM: αὐτὴν P || ἑκάστου FM: καθ’
ἕκαστον PV || ἐν τῷ παρόντι om. P   4 εἴ τι V: εἴ τινα F: καὶ εἴ τι P:
καὶ εἴ τινα M   6 ἐπιτήδειος F   7 νυνὶ F   9 καὶ καθ’ ὁδόν] καὶ om.
PMV   11 δὴ F: δὲ PMV   12 ἐν F: ἐπὶ PMV   14 παρέξω F   18 τούτων δὲ
EF   20 ἐστὶν ἁπάντων PMV   24 ἀπὸ F: κα(τὰ) P, MV   25 τὸ αὐτὸ F: καὶ
αὐτὸ PV: καὶ αὐτὸν M || σομφὸν F γρ M: ἀσύμφων(ον) P, M^{1}V

9. =καθ’ ὁδόν, ὥς φασι, χωρῇ ὁ λόγος.= The metaphor here may be
rendered ‘keep to the track’ or ‘keep to the path prescribed.’ But
possibly it is not felt much more strongly than in Cicero’s “non quo
ignorare vos arbitrer, sed ut _ratione et via procedat oratio_” (_de
Finibus_ i. 9. 29). _Ratione et via_ (‘rationally and methodically,’
‘on scientific principles’) often corresponds to μεθόδῳ in Greek. In
=96= 25 ὁδῷ χωρεῖν is found, and ὁδοῦ τε καὶ τέχνης χωρίς in =262= 21.

13. A clearer rendering might be “the appropriateness which these three

19. =παντοδαπός=: cp. Hor. _Ars P._ 212 “indoctus quid enim saperet
liberque laborum | rusticus urbano confusus, turpis honesto?”

20. Probably Dionysius has in mind a Greek theatre. But Roman theatres
also contained sensitive hearers: cp. Cic. _de Orat._ iii. 196 “quotus
enim quisque est qui teneat artem numerorum ac modorum? at in eis
si paulum modo offensum est, ut aut contractione brevius fieret aut
productione longius, theatra tota reclamant. quid, hoc non idem fit in
vocibus, ut a multitudine et populo non modo catervae atque concentus,
sed etiam ipsi sibi singuli discrepantes eiciantur? mirabile est,
cum plurimum in faciendo intersit inter doctum et rudem, quam non
multum differat in iudicando”; id. _ibid._ iii. 98 “quanto molliores
sunt et delicatiores in cantu flexiones et falsae voculae quam certae
et severae! quibus tamen non modo austeri, sed, si saepius fiunt,
multitudo ipsa reclamat”; id. _Parad._ iii. 26 “histrio si paulum se
movit extra numerum aut si versus pronuntiatus est syllaba una brevior
aut longior, exsibilatur, exploditur.” In modern Italy (so it is
sometimes stated) the least slip on the part of a singer excites the
audience to howls of derision and execration. At Athens, an actor’s
false articulation was as fatal as a singer’s false note: cp. the case
of Hegelochus (Aristoph. _Ran._ 303, 304).

25. ἀσύμφωνον (found in P and in other MSS.) is probably an echo from
line 23.

[Page 123]

these are all. There are many excellent authors who have been
distinguished in one or both of these qualities. It is not possible
at present to adduce examples from the writings of each one of them;
I must not waste time over such details; and besides, if it seems
incumbent on me to say something about some of them individually, and
to quote from them anywhere in support of my views, I shall have a more
suitable opportunity for doing so, when I sketch the various types
of literary arrangement. For the present, what I have said of them
is quite sufficient. So I will now return to the division I made of
composition into charming and beautiful, in order that my discourse may
“keep to the track,” as the saying is.

Well, I said that the ear delighted first of all in melody, then in
rhythm, thirdly in variety, and finally in appropriateness as applied
to these other qualities. As a witness to the truth of my words I will
bring forward experience itself, for it cannot be challenged, confirmed
as it is by the general sentiment of mankind. Who is there that is not
enthralled by the spell of one melody while he remains unaffected in
any such way by another,—that is not captivated by this rhythm while
that does but jar upon him? Ere now I myself, even in the most popular
theatres, thronged by a mixed and uncultured multitude, have seemed to
observe that all of us have a sort of natural appreciation for correct
melody and good rhythm. I have seen an accomplished harpist, of high
repute, hissed by the public because he struck a single false note and
so spoilt the melody. I have seen, too, a flute-player, who handled his
instrument with the practised skill of a master, suffer the same fate
because he blew thickly or, through

[Page 124]

πιέσας τὸ στόμα θρυλιγμὸν ἢ τὴν καλουμένην ἐκμέλειαν
ηὔλησε. καίτοι γ’ εἴ τις κελεύσειε τὸν ἰδιώτην τούτων τι ὧν
ἐνεκάλει τοῖς τεχνίταις ὡς ἡμαρτημένων, αὐτὸν ποιῆσαι λαβόντα
τὰ ὄργανα, οὐκ ἂν δύναιτο. τί δήποτε; ὅτι τοῦτο μὲν
ἐπιστήμης ἐστίν, ἧς οὐ πάντες μετειλήφαμεν, ἐκεῖνο δὲ πάθους      5
ὃ πᾶσιν ἀπέδωκεν ἡ φύσις. τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ῥυθμῶν
γινόμενον ἐθεασάμην, ἅμα πάντας ἀγανακτοῦντας καὶ δυσαρεστουμένους,
ὅτε τις ἢ κροῦσιν ἢ κίνησιν ἢ φωνὴν ἐν ἀσυμμέτροις
ποιήσαιτο χρόνοις καὶ τοὺς ῥυθμοὺς ἀφανίσειεν. καὶ
οὐχὶ τὰ μὲν ἐμμελῆ καὶ εὔρυθμα ἡδονῆς ἀγωγά ἐστι καὶ      10
πάντες ὑπ’ αὐτῶν κηλούμεθα, αἱ μεταβολαὶ δὲ καὶ τὸ πρέπον
οὐκ ἔχουσι τὴν αὐτὴν ὥραν καὶ χάριν οὐδ’ ὑπὸ πάντων
ὁμοίως διακούονται· ἀλλὰ κἀκεῖνα πάνυ κηλεῖ πάντας ἡμᾶς
κατορθούμενα καὶ εἰς πολλὴν ὄχλησιν ἄγει διαμαρτανόμενα·
τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἂν ὁμολογήσειεν; τεκμαίρομαι δέ, ὅτι καὶ τῆς      15
ὀργανικῆς μούσης καὶ τῆς ἐν ᾠδῇ καὶ τῆς ἐν ὀρχήσει χάριτος
<μὲν> ἐν ἅπασι διευστοχούσης, μεταβολὰς δὲ μὴ ποιησαμένης
εὐκαίρους ἢ τοῦ πρέποντος ἀποπλανηθείσης βαρὺς μὲν ὁ κόρος,
ἀηδὲς δὲ τὸ μὴ τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις ἁρμόττον φαίνεται. καὶ οὐκ
ἀλλοτρίᾳ κέχρημαι τοῦ πράγματος εἰκόνι. μουσικὴ γάρ τις      20
ἦν καὶ ἡ τῶν πολιτικῶν λόγων ἐπιστήμη τῷ ποσῷ διαλλάττουσα
τῆς ἐν ᾠδῇ καὶ ὀργάνοις, οὐχὶ τῷ ποιῷ· καὶ γὰρ ἐν
ταύτῃ καὶ μέλος ἔχουσιν αἱ λέξεις καὶ ῥυθμὸν καὶ μεταβολὴν
καὶ πρέπον, ὥστε καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτης ἡ ἀκοὴ τέρπεται μὲν τοῖς
μέλεσιν, ἄγεται δὲ τοῖς ῥυθμοῖς, ἀσπάζεται δὲ τὰς μεταβολάς,      25

3 ἐγκαλεῖ F   5 πάθους PMV: πᾶθος F   8 φωνὴν PMV: μορφὴν F   10
εὐμελῆ PMV || ἀγωγά F, suprascr. M: μεστὰ PM^{1}V   13 διακούονται
V: διοικοῦνται FPM   14 ἁμαρτανόμενα PMV   16 ὠιδῆι F, E: ὠιδαῖς
γοητείας P, MV   17 μὲν ins. Us. ex E   19 φαίνεται EF: ἐφάνη PMV   21
διαλλάττουσι τοῖς F   22 ὠιδῆι F: ὠιδαῖς EPMV Syrianus   23 ῥυθμὸν PMV
Syrianus: ῥυθμοὺς EF

3. It would weaken the argument to add (as has been suggested) ὀρθῶς or
ἄμεινον. The critic may be right, even if he cannot play at all; and
the player may retort, ‘Play it yourself, then,’ without adding ‘right’
or ‘better.’

5. =ἐπιστήμης=: cp. Ov. _ex Ponto_ iii. 9. 15 “non eadem ratio est
sentire et demere morbos: | sensus inest cunctis, tollitur arte malum,”
and Cic. _de Orat._ iii. 195 “omnes enim tacito quodam sensu sine ulla
arte aut ratione quae sint in artibus ac rationibus recta ac prava
diiudicant; idque cum faciunt in picturis et in signis et in aliis
operibus, ad quorum intellegentiam a natura minus habent instrumenti,
tum multo ostendunt magis in verborum, numerorum vocumque iudicio; quod
ea sunt in communibus infixa sensibus nec earum rerum quemquam funditus
natura esse voluit expertem. itaque non solum verbis arte positis
moventur omnes, verum etiam numeris ac vocibus.”

If πάθος be read, the meaning will be ‘the other is an instinct
imparted to all by nature.’

8. With μορφήν the translation will run: ‘when a note on an instrument,
a step in dancing, or a gesture (pose, attitude) in dancing, is
rendered by a performer out of time, and so the rhythm is lost.’

14. =διαμαρτανόμενα=, _manqué_: cp. ἡμαρτημέναι πολιτεῖαι, and the
like, in Plato.

16. =χάριτος= depends on =διευστοχούσης= (the same construction as with
the uncompounded verb εὐστοχεῖν).

20. This passage (=μουσικὴ γάρ ... οἰκεῖον=) is quoted (after Syrianus)
in Walz _Rhett. Gr._ v. 474.

21. ἦν, ‘was all along,’ ‘is after all’: cp. =92= 18.

22. For the passage that follows cp. Aristoxenus _Harmonics_ i. 3
πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἁπάντων τὴν τῆς φωνῆς κίνησιν διοριστέον τῷ μέλλοντι
πραγματεύεσθαι περὶ μέλους αὐτὴν τὴν κατὰ τόπον. οὐ γὰρ εἷς τρόπος
αὐτῆς ὢν τυγχάνει· κινεῖται μὲν γὰρ καὶ διαλεγομένων ἡμῶν καὶ
μελῳδούντων τὴν εἰρημένην κίνησιν, ὀξὺ γὰρ καὶ βαρὺ δῆλον ὡς ἐν
ἀμφοτέροις τούτοις ἔνεστιν—αὕτη δ’ ἐστὶν ἡ κατὰ τόπον καθ’ ἣν ὀξύ τε
καὶ βαρὺ γίγνεται—ἀλλ’ οὐ ταὐτὸν εἶδος τῆς κινήσεως ἑκατέρας ἐστίν.

[Page 125]

not compressing his lips, produced a harsh sound or so-called “broken
note” as he played. Nevertheless, if the amateur critic were summoned
to take up the instrument and himself to render any of the pieces
with whose performance by professionals he was just now finding
fault, he would be unable to do it. Why so? Because this is an affair
of technical skill, in which we are not all partakers; the other of
feeling, which is nature’s universal gift to man. I have noticed the
same thing occur in the case of rhythms. Everybody is vexed and annoyed
when a performer strikes an instrument, takes a step, or sings a note,
out of time, and so destroys the rhythm.

Again, it must not be supposed that, while melody and rhythm excite
pleasure, and we are all enchanted by them, variety and appropriateness
have less freshness and grace, or less effect on any of their hearers.
No, these too fairly enchant us all when they are really attained,
just as their absence jars upon us intensely. This is surely beyond
dispute. I may refer, in confirmation, to the case of instrumental
music, whether it accompanies singing or dancing; if it attains grace
perfectly and throughout, but fails to introduce variety in due season
or deviates from what is appropriate, the effect is dull satiety and
that disagreeable impression which is made by anything out of harmony
with the subject. Nor is my illustration foreign to the matter in
hand. The science of public oratory is, after all, a sort of musical
science, differing from vocal and instrumental music in degree, not in
kind. In oratory, too, the words involve melody, rhythm, variety, and
appropriateness; so that, in this case also, the ear delights in the
melodies, is fascinated by the rhythms, welcomes the variations, and
craves always

[Page 126]

ποθεῖ δ’ ἐπὶ πάντων τὸ οἰκεῖον, ἡ δὲ διαλλαγὴ κατὰ τὸ
μᾶλλον καὶ τὸ ἧττον.

διαλέκτου μὲν οὖν μέλος ἑνὶ μετρεῖται διαστήματι τῷ
λεγομένῳ διὰ πέντε ὡς ἔγγιστα, καὶ οὔτε ἐπιτείνεται πέρα
τῶν τριῶν τόνων καὶ ἡμιτονίου ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ οὔτ’ ἀνίεται τοῦ      5
χωρίου τούτου πλέον ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύ. οὐ μὴν ἅπασα λέξις ἡ
καθ’ ἓν μόριον λόγου ταττομένη ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς λέγεται τάσεως,
ἀλλ’ ἡ μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς ὀξείας, ἡ δ’ ἐπὶ τῆς βαρείας, ἡ δ’ ἐπ’
ἀμφοῖν. τῶν δὲ ἀμφοτέρας τὰς τάσεις ἐχουσῶν αἱ μὲν κατὰ
μίαν συλλαβὴν συνεφθαρμένον ἔχουσι τῷ ὀξεῖ τὸ βαρύ, ἃς      10
δὴ περισπωμένας καλοῦμεν· αἱ δὲ ἐν ἑτέρᾳ τε καὶ ἑτέρᾳ
χωρὶς ἑκάτερον ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ τὴν οἰκείαν φυλάττον φύσιν. καὶ
ταῖς μὲν δισυλλάβοις οὐδὲν τὸ διὰ μέσου χωρίον βαρύτητός
τε καὶ ὀξύτητος· ταῖς δὲ πολυσυλλάβοις, ἡλίκαι ποτ’ ἂν
ὦσιν, ἡ τὸν ὀξὺν τόνον ἔχουσα μία ἐν πολλαῖς ταῖς ἄλλαις      15
βαρείαις ἔνεστιν. ἡ δὲ ὀργανική τε καὶ ᾠδικὴ μοῦσα διαστήμασί
τε χρῆται πλείοσιν, οὐ τῷ διὰ πέντε μόνον, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ
τοῦ διὰ πασῶν ἀρξαμένη καὶ τὸ διὰ πέντε μελῳδεῖ καὶ τὸ διὰ
τεττάρων καὶ τὸ διὰ <τριῶν καὶ τὸν> τόνον καὶ τὸ ἡμιτόνιον,
ὡς δέ τινες οἴονται, καὶ τὴν δίεσιν αἰσθητῶς· τάς τε λέξεις      20
τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑποτάττειν ἀξιοῖ καὶ οὐ τὰ μέλη ταῖς λέξεσιν,
ὡς ἐξ ἄλλων τε πολλῶν δῆλον καὶ μάλιστα ἐκ τῶν Εὐριπίδου
μέλων, ἃ πεποίηκεν τὴν Ἠλέκτραν λέγουσαν ἐν Ὀρέστῃ πρὸς
τὸν χορόν·

2 καὶ τὸ EF: καὶ PMV   4 πέρα] παρα F   5 τόνων om. P || ἡμιτόνιον P:
ἡμιτονίων M   7 ἐπὶ om. PMV   10 συνδιεφθαρμένον FE   11 ἐν ἑτέρῳ τε
καὶ ἑτέρῳ MV: ἕτεραί τε καὶ ἕτεραι P   14 ἡλίκαι ποτ’ ἂν Us.: ἡλίκαι ἂν
E: εἰ καί ποτ’ ἂν PM: εἰ καί ποτ’ ἡλικἂν F: οἷαί ποτ’ ἂν V   15 ταῖς
ἄλλαις EFM: om. PV   19 τὸ διὰ <τριῶν καὶ τὸν> τόνον Radermacher: τόνον
F: διάτονον P: διὰ τόνον M: τὸ διάτονον EV   22 ἐκ τῶν EF: τῶν PMV

3. =μετρεῖται=, ‘is measured,’ ‘is confined,’—_terminatur_,
_coërcetur_.—For various points in this chapter see Introduction, pp.
39-43 _supra_. With regard to the late Mr. W. E. Gladstone’s oratorical
delivery, on a special occasion, Sir Walter Parratt obligingly makes
the following communication to the editor: “I heard him make his famous
‘Upas tree’ speech at Wigan, in a wooden erection, and watched with
some care the inflection of his voice. Addressing so large a crowd I
think he put more tone into the voice than usual. Roughly I found that
he began his sentences on [**TN: image of E above middle C] generally
ending on [**TN: image of G-sharp below middle C], but sometimes
falling the full octave to [**TN: image of E below middle C].”

4. =ὡς ἔγγιστα=, ‘as nearly as possible,’ ‘approximately.’

5. “Which measure a Fifth, C to D one Tone, D to E one Tone, E to F
half a Tone, F to G one Tone,—total C to G, or a Fifth, three Tones
and half. In Norwegian the interval is said by Professor Storm to
be usually a Fourth, and in Swedish it is said by Weste to be about
a Third or less,” A. J. Ellis _English, Dionysian, and Hellenic
Pronunciations of Greek_, p. 38. (Under the initial “A. J. E.”
occasional quotations will be made from this pamphlet, to which the
phonetic studies of its author lend special interest, even when his
conclusions cannot be accepted.)

10. “That is, the voice _glides_ from the high to the low pitch, and
does not _jump_ from high to low,” A. J. E.

12. “That is, one pitch does not glide into the other, but each is
distinctly separated, as the notes on a piano.” A. J. E.

20. =δίεσιν=: see Gloss., s.v. δίεσις.

23. Line 140 of the _Orestes_ is assigned to Electra (rather than to
the Chorus) not only by Dionysus but seemingly also by Diogenes Laert.
vii. 5 (Cleanthes). 172 ἐρομένου τινὸς τί ὑποτίθεσθαι δεῖ τῷ υἱῷ, “τὸ
τῆς Ἠλέκτρας, ἔφη: σῖγα σῖγα, λεπτὸν ἴχνος.”—If the reading =λευκὸν=
(rather than λεπτὸν) is right, the word may possibly be understood
(like ἀργός) of swift, glancing feet, though the notion of rest rather
than of movement is prominent here.

24. Reference may be made to Ruelle’s “Note sur la musique d’une
passage d’Euripide” in the _Annuaire de l’Association des Études
grecques_, 1882, pp. 96 ff.

[Page 127]

what is in keeping with the occasion. The distinction between oratory
and music is simply one of degree.

Now, the melody of spoken language is measured by a single interval,
which is approximately that termed a _fifth_. When the voice rises
towards the acute, it does not rise more than three tones and a
semitone; and, when it falls towards the grave, it does not fall more
than this interval. Further, the entire utterance during one word is
not delivered at the same pitch of the voice throughout but one part
of it at the acute pitch, another at the grave, another at both. Of
the words that have both pitches, some have the grave fused with the
acute on one and the same syllable—those which we call circumflexed;
others have both pitches falling on separate syllables, each retaining
its own quality. Now in disyllables there is no space intermediate
between low pitch and high pitch; while in polysyllabic words, whatever
their number of syllables, there is but one syllable that has the acute
accent (high pitch) among the many remaining grave ones. On the other
hand, instrumental and vocal music uses a great number of intervals,
not the fifth only; beginning with the octave, it uses also the fifth,
the fourth, the third, the tone, the semitone, and, as some think,
even the quarter-tone in a distinctly perceptible way. Music, further,
insists that the words should be subordinate to the tune, and not
the tune to the words. Among many examples in proof of this, let me
especially instance those lyrical lines which Euripides has represented
Electra as addressing to the Chorus in the _Orestes_:—

[Page 128]

        σῖγα σῖγα, λευκὸν ἴχνος ἀρβύλης
        τίθετε, μὴ κτυπεῖτ’·
        ἀποπρόβατ’ ἐκεῖσ’, ἀποπρό μοι κοίτας.

ἐν γὰρ δὴ τούτοις τὸ “σῖγα σῖγα λευκὸν” ἐφ’ ἑνὸς φθόγγου
μελῳδεῖται, καίτοι τῶν τριῶν λέξεων ἑκάστη βαρείας τε τάσεις      5
ἔχει καὶ ὀξείας. καὶ τὸ “ἀρβύλης” τῇ μέσῃ συλλαβῇ τὴν
τρίτην ὁμότονον ἔχει, ἀμηχάνου ὄντος ἓν ὄνομα δύο λαβεῖν
ὀξείας. καὶ τοῦ “τίθετε” βαρυτέρα μὲν ἡ πρώτη γίνεται,
δύο δ’ αἱ μετ’ αὐτὴν ὀξύτονοί τε καὶ ὁμόφωνοι. τοῦ τε
“κτυπεῖτε” ὁ περισπασμὸς ἠφάνισται· μιᾷ γὰρ αἱ δύο συλλαβαὶ      10
λέγονται τάσει. καὶ τὸ “ἀποπρόβατε” οὐ λαμβάνει τὴν τῆς
μέσης συλλαβῆς προσῳδίαν ὀξεῖαν, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τὴν τετάρτην
συλλαβὴν μεταβέβηκεν ἡ τάσις ἡ τῆς τρίτης. τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ
γίνεται καὶ περὶ τοὺς ῥυθμούς. ἡ μὲν γὰρ πεζὴ λέξις
οὐδενὸς οὔτε ὀνόματος οὔτε ῥήματος βιάζεται τοὺς χρόνους      15
οὐδὲ μετατίθησιν, ἀλλ’ οἵας παρείληφεν τῇ φύσει τὰς συλλαβὰς
τάς τε μακρὰς καὶ τὰς βραχείας, τοιαύτας φυλάττει· ἡ δὲ
μουσική τε καὶ ῥυθμικὴ μεταβάλλουσιν αὐτὰς μειοῦσαι καὶ
παραύξουσαι, ὥστε πολλάκις εἰς τἀναντία μεταχωρεῖν· οὐ

1 σῖγα σῖγα M^2: σίγα σίγα cett. (necnon codd. Eur.) || λευκὸν codd.
Dionys.: λεπτὸν Eurip.   2 τίθετ(αι) P^1: τιθεῖτ(αι) P^2: τιθεῖτε FEMV
|| κτυπῆτε P^1: κτυπεῖτε cett.   3 ἀποπρόβατ’ V: ἄπο προβᾶτ’ PM: ἄπο
πρόβατ’ FE || ἐκεῖσε libri || ἀποπρόμοι F, EPM: ἀπόπροθι Vs   6 τῆι F,
E: ἐπὶ PMV   8 τίθεται FP: τιθεῖτε EMV   9 δ’ αἱ Us.: δὲ libri   11
ἀποπρόβατ’ V: ἄπο*προβᾶτε P: ἄπο πρόβατε EF: ἄπο προβᾶτ’ ἐκεῖσε M   13
καταβέβηκεν PMV   18 καὶ αὔξουσαι PMV

2. =τίθετε= is clearly right, notwithstanding the strong manuscript
evidence (FEMV) for τιθεῖτε.

4. The general sense is that =σῖγα= is sung upon a monotone, though the
spoken word had two tones or pitches (the acute and the grave, the high
and the low), and, “indeed, both of them combined in the circumflex
accent of its first syllable” (Hadley _Essays_ p. 113).

7. Dionysius clearly means “in speaking,” and “on two successive
syllables.” Without the latter addition, the case of an enclitic
throwing back its accent on a proparoxytone word seems to be left out
of account.

14. D. B. Monro _Modes of Ancient Greek Music_ p. 117 writes: “In
English the time or quantity of syllables is as little attended to as
the pitch. But in Greek the distinction of long and short furnished
a prose rhythm which was a serious element in their rhetoric. In the
rhythm of music, according to Dionysius, the quantity of syllables
could be neglected, just as the accent was neglected in the melody.
This, however, does not mean that the natural time of the syllables
could be treated with the freedom which we see in a modern composition.
The regularity of lyric metres is sufficient to prove that the increase
or diminution of natural quantity referred to by Dionysius was kept
within narrow limits, the nature of which is to be gathered from the
remains of the ancient system of Rhythmic. From these sources we learn
with something like certainty that the rhythm of ordinary speech, as
determined by the succession of long or short syllables, was the basis
of metres not only intended for recitation, such as the hexameter and
the iambic trimeter, but also of lyrical rhythm of every kind.” With
this statement should be compared the extract (given below, l. 17) from
Goodell’s _Greek Metric_.

16. =τῇ φύσει=: cp. Cic. _Orat._ 51. 173 “et tamen omnium longitudinum
et brevitatum in sonis sicut acutarum graviumque vocum iudicium ipsa
natura in auribus nostris collocavit.” And with regard to accentuation
as well as quantities: id. _ib._ 18. 57 “est autem etiam in dicendo
quidam cantus obscurior ... in quo illud etiam notandum mihi videtur
ad studium persequendae suavitatis in vocibus: ipsa enim natura, quasi
modularetur hominum orationem, in omni verbo posuit acutam vocem nec
una plus nec a postrema syllaba citra tertiam; quo magis naturam ducem
ad aurium voluptatem sequatur industria.”

17 ff. Cp. Goodell _Chapters on Greek Metric_ p. 52: “We find ample
recognition [sc. in these two sentences] of the fact that in Greek
lyric metres, so far as they come under what we have seen called μέλη
and ῥυθμοί or ‘rhythmi,’ long and short syllables alike were more or
less variable. In some way the reader knew in what rhythmical scheme or
pattern the poet intended the verses to be rendered. To reproduce the
rhythmical pattern which the poet had in mind, the singer, if not also
the reader, made some long syllables longer and others shorter than two
χρόνοι πρῶτοι, and made some short syllables longer than one χρόνος
πρῶτος. It seemed to Dionysius in those cases that one did not so much
regulate the times by the syllables, but rather regulated the syllables
by the times.”

19. The compound =παραύξουσαι=, as given by EF, may be compared with
παραυξηθεῖσα in =152= 18. Dionysius does not avoid hiatus after καί,
and so he would not prefer παραύξουσαι to αὔξουσαι on this account,
though an early reviser of his text might do so.

=εἰς τἀναντία μεταχωρεῖν=: e.g., a short syllable will sometimes be
treated as if it were long and were circumflexed.

[Page 129]

        Hush ye, O hush ye! light be the tread
        Of the sandal; no jar let there be!
        Afar step ye thitherward, far from his bed.[129]

In these lines the words σῖγα σῖγα λευκόν are sung to one note; and yet
each of the three words has both low pitch and high pitch. And the word
ἀρβύλης has its third syllable sung at the same pitch as its middle
syllable, although it is impossible for a single word to take two acute
accents. The first syllable of τίθετε is sung to a lower note, while
the two that follow it are sung to the same high note. The circumflex
accent of κτυπεῖτε has disappeared, for the two syllables are uttered
at one and the same pitch. And the word ἀποπρόβατε does not receive
the acute accent on the middle syllable; but the pitch of the third
syllable has been transferred to the fourth.

The same thing happens in rhythm. Ordinary prose speech does not
violate or interchange the quantities in any noun or verb. It keeps the
syllables long or short as it has received them by nature. But the arts
of rhythm and music alter them by shortening or lengthening, so that
often they pass into their opposites: the time of production is not
regulated by the

[Page 130]

γὰρ ταῖς συλλαβαῖς ἀπευθύνουσι τοὺς χρόνους, ἀλλὰ τοῖς
χρόνοις τὰς συλλαβάς.

δεδειγμένης δὴ τῆς διαφορᾶς ᾗ διαφέρει μουσικὴ λογικῆς,
λοιπὸν ἂν εἴη κἀκεῖνα λέγειν, ὅτι τὸ μὲν τῆς φωνῆς μέλος,
λέγω δὲ οὐ τῆς ᾠδικῆς ἀλλὰ τῆς ψιλῆς, ἐὰν ἡδέως διατιθῇ      5
τὴν ἀκοήν, εὐμελὲς λέγοιτ’ ἄν, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐμμελές· ἡ δ’ ἐν τοῖς
χρόνοις τῶν μορίων συμμετρία σῴζουσα τὸ μελικὸν σχῆμα
εὔρυθμος, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἔνρυθμος· πῇ δὲ διαφέρει ταῦτα ἀλλήλων,
κατὰ τὸν οἰκεῖον καιρὸν ἐρῶ. νυνὶ δὲ τἀκόλουθ’ ἀποδοῦναι
πειράσομαι, πῶς ἂν γένοιτο λέξις πολιτικὴ παρ’ αὐτὴν τὴν      10
σύνθεσιν ἡδύνουσα τὴν ἀκρόασιν κατά τε τὰ μέλη τῶν
φθόγγων καὶ κατὰ τὰς συμμετρίας τῶν ῥυθμῶν καὶ κατὰ τὰς
ποικιλίας τῶν μεταβολῶν καὶ κατὰ τὸ πρέπον τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις,
ἐπειδὴ ταῦθ’ ὑπεθέμην τὰ κεφάλαια.


οὐχ ἅπαντα πέφυκε τὰ μέρη τῆς λέξεως ὁμοίως διατιθέναι      15
τὴν ἀκοήν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὴν ὁρατικὴν αἴσθησιν τὰ ὁρατὰ
πάντα οὐδὲ τὴν γευστικὴν τὰ γευστὰ οὐδὲ τὰς ἄλλας αἰσθήσεις
τὰ κινοῦντα ἑκάστην· ἀλλὰ καὶ γλυκαίνουσιν αὐτήν τινες
ἦχοι καὶ πικραίνουσι, καὶ τραχύνουσι καὶ λεαίνουσι, καὶ
πολλὰ ἄλλα πάθη ποιοῦσι περὶ αὐτήν. αἰτία δὲ ἥ τε      20
τῶν γραμμάτων φύσις ἐξ ὧν ἡ φωνὴ συνέστηκεν, πολλὰς
καὶ διαφόρους ἔχουσα δυνάμεις, καὶ ἡ τῶν συλλαβῶν πλοκὴ
παντοδαπῶς σχηματιζομένη. τοιαύτην δὴ δύναμιν ἐχόντων
τῶν τῆς λέξεως μορίων ἐπειδὴ μεταθεῖναι τὴν ἑκάστου φύσιν
οὐχ οἷόν τε, λείπεται τὸ τῇ μίξει καὶ κράσει καὶ παραθέσει      25
συγκρύψαι τὴν παρακολουθοῦσαν αὐτῶν τισιν ἀτοπίαν, τραχέσι

3 δὴ τῆς PMV: τῆς F   4 τὸ μὲν] μὲν τὸ F   5 ἐὰν Us.: κἂν PV: ὃ μὲν FM
|| διατίθησι FM   6 εὐμενὲς P   7 συμμετρία σώζουσα FPM: συμμετριάζουσα
V   8 πῆ F: τῆι P || ἀλλήλων om. P   14 ἐπειδὴ δὲ ταῦθ’ F   18 αὐτὴν
τινὲς EF: τινες αὐτὴν PMV   20 ἥ τε] ἡ EF   23 δὴ] ἤδη F: δὲ ἤδη E 25
τὸ τῆι F, E: τῆι P, MV   25 καὶ τῆι κράσει F   26 συγκρύπτειν EF ||
ἀτοπίαν om. F

1. The subject of =ἀπευθύνουσι= is, of course, ἡ μουσική τε καὶ ῥυθμική.

7. =συμμετρία=: cp. l. 12 τὰς συμμετρίας τῶν ῥυθμῶν, and =254= 10
τεταγμένους σῴζουσα ῥυθμούς.

9. =κατὰ τὸν οἰκεῖον καιρόν=: i.e. in cc. 25, 26.

10. =παρ’ αὐτὴν τὴν σύνθεσιν.= With this use of παρά cp. =156= 12
παρ’ οὐδὲν οὕτως ἕτερον ἢ τὰς τῶν συλλαβῶν κατασκευάς, =160= 9 παρὰ
τὰς τῶν γραμμάτων συμπλοκάς κτλ., =202= 11 καὶ παρὰ τί γέγονε τούτων
ἕκαστον;—In αὐτὴν τὴν σύνθεσιν the contrast implied is with ἡ ἐκλογὴ
τῶν ὀνομάτων: cp. =252= 21 κατὰ γοῦν τὴν σύνθεσιν αὐτήν· ἐπεὶ καὶ ἡ
ἐκλογὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων μέγα τι δύναται.

23. If ἤδη be read (with F and E) the meaning will be, “the data being
the letters with their invariable qualities.” Cp. the German _schon_.

25. Quintil. ix. 91 “miscendi ergo sunt, curandumque, ut sint plures,
qui placent, et circumfusi bonis deteriores lateant. nec vero in
litteris syllabisque natura mutatur, sed refert, quae cum quaque optime

[Page 131]

quantity of the syllables, but the quantity of the syllables is
regulated by the time.

The difference between music and speech having thus been shown, some
other points remain to be mentioned. If the melody of the voice—not the
singing voice, I mean, but the ordinary voice—has a pleasant effect
upon the ear, it will be called melodious rather than in melody. So
also symmetry in the quantities of words, when it preserves a lyrical
effect, is rhythmical rather than in rhythm. On the precise bearing of
these distinctions I will speak at the proper time. For the present I
will pass on to the next question, and try to show how a style of civil
oratory can be attained which, simply by means of the composition,
charms the ear with its melody of sound, its symmetry of rhythm, its
elaborate variety, and its appropriateness to the subject. These are
the headings which I have set before myself.



It is not in the nature of all the words in a sentence to affect the
ear in the same way, any more than all visible objects produce the
same impression on the sense of sight, things tasted on that of taste,
or any other set of stimuli upon the sense to which they correspond.
No, different sounds affect the ear with many different sensations of
sweetness, harshness, roughness, smoothness, and so on. The reason is
to be found partly in the many different qualities of the letters which
make up speech, and partly in the extremely various forms in which
syllables are put together. Now since words have these properties, and
since it is impossible to change the fundamental nature of any single
one of them, we can only mask the uncouthness which is inseparable from
some of them, by means of

[Page 132]

λεῖα μίσγοντα καὶ σκληροῖς μαλακὰ καὶ κακοφώνοις εὔφωνα
καὶ δυσεκφόροις εὐπρόφορα καὶ βραχέσι μακρά, καὶ τἆλλα
τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον εὐκαίρως συντιθέντα καὶ μήτ’ ὀλιγοσύλλαβα
πολλὰ ἑξῆς λαμβάνοντα (κόπτεται γὰρ ἡ ἀκρόασις) μήτε
πολυσύλλαβα πλείω τῶν ἱκανῶν, μήδε δὴ ὁμοιότονα παρ’      5
ὁμοιοτόνοις μήδ’ ὁμοιόχρονα παρ’ ὁμοιοχρόνοις. χρὴ δὲ καὶ
τὰς πτώσεις τῶν ὀνοματικῶν ταχὺ μεταλαμβάνειν (μηκυνόμεναι
γὰρ ἔξω τοῦ μετρίου πάνυ προσίστανται ταῖς ἀκοαῖς) καὶ
τὴν ὁμοιότητα διαλύειν συνεχῶς ὀνομάτων τε τῶν ἑξῆς
τιθεμένων πολλῶν καὶ ῥημάτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων μερῶν τὸν      10
κόρον φυλαττομένους, σχήμασί τε μὴ ἐπὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἀεὶ
μένειν ἀλλὰ θαμινὰ μεταβάλλειν καὶ τρόπους μὴ τοὺς αὐτοὺς
ἐπεισφέρειν, ἀλλὰ ποικίλλειν, μηδὲ δὴ ἄρχεσθαι πολλάκις ἀπὸ
τῶν αὐτῶν μηδὲ λήγειν εἰς τὰ αὐτὰ ὑπερτείνοντας τὸν ἑκατέρου
καιρόν.      15

καὶ μηδεὶς οἰηθῇ με καθάπαξ ταῦτα παραγγέλλειν ὡς
ἡδονῆς αἴτια διὰ παντὸς ἐσόμενα ἢ τἀναντία ὀχλήσεως· οὐχ
οὕτως ἀνόητός εἰμι· οἶδα γὰρ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν γινομένην πολλάκις
ἡδονήν, τοτὲ μὲν ἐκ τῶν ὁμοιογενῶν, τοτὲ δὲ ἐκ τῶν ἀνομοιογενῶν·
ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ πάντων οἴομαι δεῖν τὸν καιρὸν ὁρᾶν· οὗτος      20
γὰρ ἡδονῆς καὶ ἀηδίας κράτιστον μέτρον. καιροῦ δὲ οὔτε
ῥήτωρ οὐδεὶς οὔτε φιλόσοφος εἰς τόδε χρόνου τέχνην ὥρισεν,
οὐδ’ ὅσπερ πρῶτος ἐπεχείρησε περὶ αὐτοῦ γράφειν Γοργίας

2 εὐπρόφορα] εὔφορα F   3 συντεθέντα F   4 πολλὰ ... (5) πολυσύλλαβα
om. P.   7 μηκυνόμενά τε γὰρ F: μηκυνόμεναί τε γὰρ M   8 προίστανται
F   9 τε τῶν Us.: τέ τινων F, E: τινῶν PMV   11 φυλασσομένους EF:
φυλαττόμενον s || ἐπὶ FE: om. PMV || ἀεὶ μένειν EF: διαμένειν PMV   14
ὑπερτείνοντας Us.: ὑπερτείνοντα libri   17 τἀναντία FE: τοὐναντίον PMV
  19 ὁμοιογενῶν EM: ὁμοίων γενῶν F: ἀνομοίων PV || ἀνομοιογενῶν EFM:
ὁμογενῶν PV   22 τόδε χρόνου FMV: τὸ λέγειν P   23 πρῶτον P

2. Compare the scholia of Maximus Planudes on the π. ἰδ. of Hermogenes:
τοῦτο γάρ φησι καὶ Διονύσιος, ὅτι δεῖ μιγνύειν βραχέσι μακρὰ καὶ
πολυσυλλάβοις ὀλιγοσύλλαβα, τοῦτο γὰρ ἡδέως διατίθησι τὴν ἀκοήν (Walz
_Rhett. Gr._ v. 520).

12. Cp. Anonymi scholia on Hermog. π. ἰδ. (Walz vii. 1049), διὰ τοῦτο
κάλλους ἴδιον ὁ ῥυθμός, εἴτε βέβηκεν εἴτε μή· ἐπειδὴ κατὰ Διονύσιον
ἡδύνει τὴν ἀκοὴν καὶ ποικίλλει, καὶ μὴ ἄρχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν, μηδὲ
λήγειν εἰς αὐτά, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐξ ἁπάντων καλῶν ῥυθμῶν, τουτέστι ποδῶν,
συγκεῖσθαι τὸν λόγον· ἀνάγκη γὰρ αὐτὸν οὕτω καλὸν εἶναι· τάττει δὲ τὸν
σπονδεῖον μετ’ αὐτῶν.

14. =ὑπερτείνοντας ... καιρόν=: lit. ‘exceeding due measure in either
case.’ On the whole, Usener is perhaps right in reading the plural here
and in l. 11; clearness, and variety of termination, recommend the
change. But (1) all MSS. have ὑπερτείνοντα, (2) the singular has been
used in ll. 1, 3, 4 _supra_, and so might as well be maintained to the
end, while φυλαττομένους (instead of φυλαττόμενον) might arise from the
initial σ of σχήμασι.

20. =τὸν καιρὸν ὁρᾶν=, ‘to have an eye to (or observe) the rules of
good taste,’ is a natural and appropriate expression. The use of
θηρατός in =134= 3 is no argument for reading θηρᾶν here, but rather
tells against the anticipation of so pronounced a metaphor. Moreover,
the _middle_ voice is found in this sense in _de Demosth._ c. 40 τὴν
εὐφωνίαν θηρωμένη καὶ τὴν εὐμέλειαν. With ὁρᾶν cp. _de Demosth._ c.
49 ἄλλως τε καὶ τοῦ καιροῦ τὰ μέτρα ὁρῶν and _de Thucyd._ c. 1 τῆς
προαιρέσεως οὐχ ἅπαντα κατὰ τὸν ἀκριβέστατον λογισμὸν ὁρώσης (where
θηρώσης is given in Usener-Radermacher’s text).

21. Quintil. xi. 1. 1 “parata, sicut superiore libro continetur,
facultate scribendi cogitandique et ex tempore etiam, cum res poscet,
orandi, proxima est cura, ut dicamus apte; quam virtutem quartam
elocutionis Cicero demonstrat, quaeque est meo quidem iudicio maxime
necessaria. nam cum sit ornatus orationis varius et multiplex
conveniatque alius alii: nisi fuerit accommodatus rebus atque personis,
non modo non illustrabit eam sed etiam destruet et vim rerum in
contrarium vertet.”

22. =τόδε χρόνου=: Usener reads τόδε γε (without χρόνου), in view of
P’s τὸ λέγειν. But τόδε γε is unusual in this sense, whereas ἔτι καὶ
εἰς τόδε χρόνου is found in _Antiqq. Rom._ i. 16. Cp. i. 38 _ibid._ καὶ
παρὰ Κελτοῖς εἰς τόδε χρόνου γίνεται: also i. 61, 68, iii. 31, vi. 13.

[Page 133]

mingling and fusion and juxtaposition,—by mingling smooth with rough,
soft with hard, cacophonous with melodious, easy to pronounce with hard
to pronounce, long with short; and generally by happy combinations
of the same kind. Many words of few syllables must not be used in
succession (for this jars upon the ear), nor an excessive number of
polysyllabic words; and we must avoid the monotony of setting side by
side words similarly accented or agreeing in their quantities. We must
quickly vary the cases of substantives (since, if continued unduly,
they greatly offend the ear); and in order to guard against satiety,
we must constantly break up the effect of sameness entailed by placing
many nouns, or verbs, or other parts of speech, in close succession. We
must not always adhere to the same figures, but change them frequently;
we must not re-introduce the same metaphors, but vary them; we must not
exceed due measure by beginning or ending with the same words too often.

Still, let no one think that I am proclaiming these as universal
rules—that I suppose keeping them will always produce pleasure, or
breaking them always produce annoyance. I am not so foolish. I know
that pleasure often arises from both sources—from similarity at one
time, from dissimilarity at another. In every case we must, I think,
keep in view good taste, for this is the best criterion of charm and
its opposite. But about good taste no rhetorician or philosopher has,
so far, produced a definite treatise. The man who first undertook to
write on the subject, Gorgias of Leontini, achieved nothing

[Page 134]

ὁ Λεοντῖνος οὐδὲν ὅ τι καὶ λόγου ἄξιον ἔγραψεν· οὐδ’ ἔχει
φύσιν τὸ πρᾶγμα εἰς καθολικὴν καὶ ἔντεχνόν τινα περίληψιν
πεσεῖν, οὐδ’ ὅλως ἐπιστήμῃ θηρατός ἐστιν ὁ καιρὸς ἀλλὰ
δόξῃ. ταύτην δ’ οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ πολλῶν καὶ πολλάκις γυμνάσαντες
ἄμεινον τῶν ἄλλων εὑρίσκουσιν αὐτόν, οἱ δ’      5
ἀγύμναστον ἀφέντες σπανιώτερον καὶ ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τύχης.

ἵνα δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων εἴπω, ταῦτ’ οἴομαι χρῆναι
φυλάττειν ἐν τῇ συνθέσει τὸν μέλλοντα διαθήσειν τὴν ἀκοὴν
ἡδέως· ἢ τὰ εὐμελῆ καὶ εὔρυθμα καὶ εὔφωνα ὀνόματα, ὑφ’
ὧν γλυκαίνεταί τε καὶ ἐκμαλάττεται καὶ τὸ ὅλον οἰκείως      10
διατίθεται ἡ αἴσθησις, ταῦτα ἀλλήλοις συναρμόττειν, ἢ τὰ
μὴ τοιαύτην ἔχοντα φύσιν ἐγκαταπλέκειν τε καὶ συνυφαίνειν
τοῖς δυναμένοις αὐτὴν γοητεύειν, ὥστε ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκείνων χάριτος
ἐπισκοτεῖσθαι τὴν τούτων ἀηδίαν· οἷόν τι ποιοῦσιν οἱ
φρόνιμοι στρατηλάται κατὰ τὰς συντάξεις τῶν στρατευμάτων·      15
καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι ἐπικρύπτουσι τοῖς ἰσχυροῖς τὰ ἀσθενῆ, καὶ
γίνεται αὐτοῖς οὐδὲν τῆς δυνάμεως ἄχρηστον. διαναπαύειν
δὲ τὴν ταυτότητά φημι δεῖν μεταβολὰς εὐκαίρους εἰσφέροντα·
καὶ γὰρ ἡ μεταβολὴ παντὸς ἔργου χρῆμα ἡδύ. τελευταῖον
δὲ ὃ δὴ καὶ πάντων κράτιστον, οἰκείαν ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς      20
ὑποκειμένοις καὶ πρέπουσαν ἁρμονίαν. δυσωπεῖσθαι δ’ οὐδὲν
οἴομαι δεῖν οὔτε ὄνομα οὔτε ῥῆμα, ὅ τι καὶ τέτριπται, μὴ
σὺν αἰσχύνῃ λέγεσθαι μέλλον· οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτω ταπεινὸν ἢ
ῥυπαρὸν ἢ ἄλλην τινὰ δυσχέρειαν ἔχον ἔσεσθαί φημι λόγου
μόριον, ᾧ σημαίνεταί τι σῶμα ἢ πρᾶγμα, ὃ μηδεμίαν ἕξει      25
χώραν ἐπιτηδείαν ἐν λόγοις. παρακελεύομαι δὲ τῇ συνθέσει

1 οὐδὲν F: οὐδ’ MV: om. P || καὶ F: om. PMV   5 αὐτόν FM: om. PV   6
ἀγύμναστον F, γρ M: ἀνάσκητον PM^{1}V || σπανιωτέρ(αν) P, MV   9 ἢ EFM:
om. PV   10 ἐκμαλάττεται F: μαλάττεται PMV   15 συντάξεις FM: τάξ[ει]ς
cum litura P, V   16 ἐπικρύπτουσι EF: συγκρύπτουσιν P, MV   17 ἄχρηστον
FE: μέρος ἄχρηστον PMV   20 κράτιστον EF: ἐστὶ κράτιστον PMV   21 καὶ
πρέπουσαν om. F   22 δεῖν om. F || ὅτι καὶ τέτριπται EF: ὅτ’ (οὔτ’ V)
ἐπιτέτραπται PMV   23 μέλλον EF: om. PMV   24 ῥυπαρὸν EF: ῥυπαρὸν ἢ
μιαρὸν PV: μιαρὸν M || ἔχον om. F   26 δὲ EF: δὲ ἐν PMV

1. For οὐδ’ ὅτι (as read by Schaefer) Dobree suggested a number of
alternatives,—οἶδ’ (= οἶδα), οὐδὲν, οὐδ’ ὁτιοῦν.

7. The passage that begins here is, itself, a good example of
rhythmical and melodious writing.

10. =τὸ ὅλον=: cp. Long. p. 207, s.v. σύνολον.

15. The description in _Iliad_ iv. 297-300 may be in Dionysius’ mind.
Cp. Cic. _Brut._ 36. 139 “omnia veniebant Antonio in mentem; eaque
suo quaeque loco, ubi plurimum proficere et valere possent, ut ab
imperatore equites pedites levis armatura, sic ab illo in maxime
opportunis orationis partibus collocabantur”; Xen. _Cyrop._ vii. 5. 5
ἀναπτυχθείσης δ’ οὕτω τῆς φάλαγγος ἀνάγκη τοὺς πρώτους ἀρίστους εἶναι
καὶ τοὺς τελευταίους, ἐν μέσῳ δὲ τοὺς κακίστους τετάχθαι.

19. Cp. Dionys. Hal. _Ep. ad Cn. Pompeium_ c. 3 ὡς ἡδὺ χρῆμα ἐν
ἱστορίας γραφῇ μεταβολὴ καὶ ποικίλον: Aristot. _Eth._ vii. 1154 b
μεταβολὴ δὲ πάντων γλυκύ, κατὰ τὸν ποιητήν: Eurip. _Orest._ 234
μεταβολὴ πάντων γλυκύ. Dionysius’ whole-hearted faith in the virtues
of μεταβολή (considered in its widest bearings) rests on a basis of
permanent truth. If we open Shakespeare at random, we can see how the
verbal forms (‘remember,’ ‘bequeathed,’ ‘sayest,’ ‘charged,’ ‘begins’)
are varied in the opening sentence of _As You Like It_; and this though
our language is almost wholly analytical. And the words that fall from
Lear in his madness (_King Lear_ iv. 6) are full of the most moving
μεταβολαί, as well as of the most pathetic variations from τὸ εὐμελὲς
to τὸ ἐμμελές.

[Page 135]

worth mentioning. The nature of the subject, indeed, is not such that
it can fall under any comprehensive and systematic treatment, nor can
good taste in general be apprehended by science, but only by personal
judgment. Those who have continually trained this latter faculty in
many connexions are more successful than others in attaining good
taste, while those who leave it untrained are rarely successful, and
only by a sort of lucky stroke.

To proceed. I think the following rules should be observed in
composition by a writer who looks to please the ear. Either he should
link to one another melodious, rhythmical, euphonious words, by which
the sense of hearing is touched with a feeling of sweetness and
softness,—those which, to put it broadly, come home to it most; or
he should intertwine and interweave those which have no such natural
effect with those that can so bewitch the ear that the unattractiveness
of the one set is overshadowed by the grace of the other. We may
compare the practice of good tacticians when marshalling their armies:
they mask the weak portions by means of the strong, and so no part of
their force proves useless. In the same way I maintain we ought to
relieve monotony by the tasteful introduction of variety, since variety
is an element of pleasure in everything we do. And last, and certainly
most important of all, the setting which is assigned to the subject
matter must be appropriate and becoming to it. And, in my opinion, we
ought not to feel shy of using any noun or verb, however hackneyed,
unless it carries with it some shameful association; for I venture to
assert that no part of speech which signifies a person or a thing will
prove so mean, squalid, or otherwise offensive as to have no fitting
place in discourse. My advice is that, trusting to the

[Page 136]

πιστεύοντας ἀνδρείως πάνυ καὶ τεθαρρηκότως αὐτὰ ἐκφέρειν
Ὁμήρῳ τε παραδείγματι χρωμένους, παρ’ ᾧ καὶ τὰ
εὐτελέστατα κεῖται τῶν ὀνομάτων, καὶ Δημοσθένει καὶ
Ἡροδότῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, ὧν ὀλίγῳ ὕστερον μνησθήσομαι
καθ’ ὅ τι ἂν ἁρμόττῃ περὶ ἑκάστου. ταῦτά μοι περὶ τῆς      5
ἡδείας εἰρήσθω συνθέσεως, ὀλίγα μὲν ὑπὲρ πολλῶν θεωρημάτων,
ἱκανὰ δὲ ὡς κεφάλαια εἶναι.


εἶἑν. καλὴ δ’ ἁρμονία πῶς γένοιτ’ ἂν εἴ τις ἔροιτό με
καὶ ἐκ ποίων θεωρημάτων, οὐκ ἄλλως πως μὰ Δία φαίην ἂν
οὐδ’ ἐξ ἄλλων τινῶν ἢ ἐξ ὧνπερ ἡ ἡδεῖα· τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ      10
ποιητικὰ ἀμφοῖν, μέλος εὐγενές, ῥυθμὸς ἀξιωματικός, μεταβολὴ
μεγαλοπρεπής, τὸ πᾶσι τούτοις παρακολουθοῦν πρέπον.
ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡδεῖά τις γίνεται λέξις, οὕτω καὶ γενναία τις
ἑτέρα, καὶ ῥυθμὸς ὥσπερ γλαφυρός τις, οὕτω καὶ σεμνός τις
ἕτερος, καὶ τὸ μεταβάλλειν ὥσπερ χάριν ἔχει, οὕτω καὶ      15
πίνον· τὸ δὲ δὴ πρέπον εἰ μὴ τοῦ καλοῦ πλεῖστον ἕξει
μέρος, σχολῇ γ’ ἂν ἄλλου τινός. ἐξ ἁπάντων δή φημι
τούτων ἐπιτηδεύεσθαι δεῖν τὸ καλὸν ἐν ἁρμονίᾳ λέξεως ἐξ
ὧνπερ καὶ τὸ ἡδύ. αἰτία δὲ κἀνταῦθα ἥ τε τῶν γραμμάτων
φύσις καὶ ἡ τῶν συλλαβῶν δύναμις, ἐξ ὧν πλέκεται τὰ ὀνόματα·      20
ὑπὲρ ὧν καιρὸς ἂν εἴη λέγειν, ὥσπερ ὑπεσχόμην.


ἀρχαὶ μὲν οὖν εἰσι τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φωνῆς καὶ ἐνάρθρου

2 χρωμένους EFMV: χρ(ω)μεν(ος) P   4 ὀλίγον F: sed cf. =154= 7 7 εἶναι·
εἶἑν sic P, FM: εἶεν V   8 με καὶ F: ἢ PMV   9 μὰ PMV: νὴ F   10 οὐδ’]
οὐκ PV || ἡ F: om. PMV   13 οὕτω καὶ PMV: οὕτω F   14 ἑτέρα PMV: ἄρα F
|| σεμνός τις F: σεμνὸς PMV   15 ἔχει P: ἔχει (ἔχειν V) τινὰ FMV   16
πινόν (θ suprascripto) P: πιθανόν V: τὸ πῖνον M: πόνον F   18 δεῖν] δὴ
F   20 ὀνόματα PE: ὀνόματα ταῦτα FMV   22 φωνῆς καὶ ἐνάρθρου REF: καὶ
ἐνάρθρου φωνῆς αἱ PMVs

6. =ὑπέρ= = περί: l. 21 _infra_, =96= 2, etc. Reiske’s ἀπό is
attractive; but does ὀλίγα really = ὀλίγα θεωρήματα?

8. =εἶἑν= = “So!” The breathing on the last syllable (as given by the
best manuscripts, here and in other authors) helps to distinguish this
word from the third pers. plur. optat. of εἰμί.

9. In a negative sentence, =μὰ Δία= is to be preferred to νὴ Δία.

13. =λέξις=: μέλος (cp. l. 11 _supra_) is here in question. Hence
Usener suggests μέλισις. Perhaps λέξις (‘the words,’ ‘the libretto’) is
here felt to include the music,—‘a passage set to music’: cp. =124= 22
καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταύτῃ καὶ μέλος ἔχουσιν αἱ λέξεις (‘the words’) καὶ ῥυθμὸν
καὶ μεταβολὴν καὶ πρέπον, and contrast =126= 20-1.

16. =πίνον=, ‘mellowness,’ ‘ripeness’ (see Gloss.). The readings of
FPMV seem all to point in this direction. πόνον (F’s reading) might
possibly mean either ‘involve trouble’ (to the author) or ‘suggest
painstaking’ (to the reader). Usener conjectures τόνον.

22. Chapter xiv., which in some respects is the most interesting in
the treatise, might easily be ridiculed by one of those scoffers whom
Dionysius elsewhere (=252= 17) mentions with aversion. In _Le Bourgeois
Gentilhomme_ (ii. 4) there is much that could serve for a parody of the
_C. V._—the Maître de Philosophie with his “Sans la science, la vie
est presque une image de la mort” (_nam sine doctrina vita est quasi
mortis imago_), his “tout ce qui n’est point prose est vers; et tout
ce qui n’est point vers est prose,” and (particularly) his remarks
on _l’orthographie_: “Pour bien suivre votre pensée et traiter cette
matière en philosophe, il faut commencer selon l’ordre des choses, par
une exacte connaissance de la nature des lettres, et de la différente
manière de les prononcer toutes. Et là-dessus j’ai à vous dire que les
lettres sont divisées en voyelles, ainsi dites voyelles parce qu’elles
expriment les voix; et en consonnes, ainsi appelées consonnes parce
qu’elles sonnent avec les voyelles, et ne font que marquer les diverses
articulations des voix.” These remarks include descriptions (many of
which are taken almost verbatim from De Cordemoy’s _Discours physique
de la parole_, published in 1668) of the mode in which various letters
are formed, and (incidentally) M. Jourdain’s exclamation, “A, E, I, I,
I, I. Cela est vrai. Vive la science!”

[Page 137]

effect of the composition, we should bring out such expressions with a
bold and manly confidence, following the example of Homer, in whom the
most commonplace words are found, and of Demosthenes and Herodotus and
others, whom I will mention a little later so far as is suitable in
each case. I think I have now spoken at sufficient length on charm of
style. My treatment has been but a brief survey of a wide field, but
will furnish the main heads of the study.



So far, so good. But, if some one were to ask me in what way, and by
attention to what principles, literary structure can be made beautiful,
I should reply: In no other way, believe me, and by no other means,
than those by which it is made charming, since the same elements
contribute to both, namely noble melody, stately rhythm, imposing
variety, and the appropriateness which all these need. For as there
is a charming diction, so there is another that is noble; as there
is a polished rhythm, so also is there another that is dignified; as
variety in one passage adds grace, so in another it adds mellowness;
and as for appropriateness, it will prove the chief source of beauty,
or else the source of nothing at all. I repeat, the study of beauty in
composition should follow the same lines throughout as the study of
charm. The prime cause, here as before, is to be found in the nature
of the letters and the phonetic effect of the syllables, which are the
raw material out of which the fabric of words is woven. The time may
perhaps now have come for redeeming my promise to discuss these.



There are in human and articulate speech a number of first-beginnings

[Page 138]

μηκέτι δεχόμεναι διαίρεσιν, ἃ καλοῦμεν στοιχεῖα καὶ γράμματα·
γράμματα μὲν ὅτι γραμμαῖς τισι σημαίνεται, στοιχεῖα δὲ ὅτι
πᾶσα φωνὴ τὴν γένεσιν ἐκ τούτων λαμβάνει πρώτων καὶ τὴν
διάλυσιν εἰς ταῦτα ποιεῖται τελευταῖα. τῶν δὴ στοιχείων τε
καὶ γραμμάτων οὐ μία πάντων φύσις, διαφορὰ δὲ αὐτῶν      5
πρώτη μέν, ὡς Ἀριστόξενος ὁ μουσικὸς ἀποφαίνεται, καθ’ ἣν
τὰ μὲν φωνὰς ἀποτελεῖ, τὰ δὲ ψόφους· φωνὰς μὲν τὰ
λεγόμενα φωνήεντα, ψόφους δὲ τὰ λοιπὰ πάντα. δευτέρα δὲ
καθ’ ἣν τῶν μὴ φωνηέντων ἃ μὲν καθ’ ἑαυτὰ ψόφους ὁποίους
δή τινας ἀποτελεῖν πέφυκε, ῥοῖζον ἢ σιγμὸν ἢ μυγμὸν ἢ      10
τοιούτων τινῶν ἄλλων ἤχων δηλωτικούς· ἃ δ’ ἐστὶν ἁπάσης
ἄμοιρα φωνῆς καὶ ψόφου καὶ οὐχ οἷά τε ἠχεῖσθαι καθ’ ἑαυτά·
διὸ δὴ ταῦτα μὲν ἄφωνα τινὲς ἐκάλεσαν, θάτερα δὲ ἡμίφωνα.
οἱ δὲ τριχῇ νείμαντες τὰς πρώτας τε καὶ στοιχειώδεις τῆς
φωνῆς δυνάμεις φωνήεντα μὲν ἐκάλεσαν, ὅσα καὶ καθ’ ἑαυτὰ      15

1 ἃ R: ἃς libri   3 πρώτων F: πρω[**TN: τ written above ω of πρω] P:
πρῶτον RMVs   4 τελευταῖα P: τελευταῖον R: τελευταῖαν FVs: τελευταίαν
M   9 μὴ φωνηέντων REFM: μὲν φωνηέντων PR^b: φωνηέντων Vs   10 σιγμὸν
REF: συριγμὸν PMVs || μυγμὸν RE: μιγμὸν F: ποππυσμὸν P: ἀποπτυσμὸν Vs:
ποππυσμὸν ἢ μυγμὸν M   11 δηλωτικούς RF: δηλωτικά EPMVs   13 διὸ δὴ
REF: om. PMVs || θάτερα] καθάπερ F   14 τῆς φωνῆς RFM: φωνῆς PVs

1. The following note, given in Usener-Radermacher ii. 1, p. 48, is
important for its bearing on the text of the _C. V._: “Scholiasta
Hermogenis Περὶ ἰδεῶν I 6 in Walzii rhet. gr. VII. p. 964, 23
(correctus ex codd. Paris. 1983 = R^a et 2977 = R^b) ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν
στοιχείων ἄριστα παραδίδωσιν ὁ Διονύσιος ἐν τῷ περὶ συνθήκης ὀνομάτων
συγγράμματι· λέγει γὰρ τί συμβέβηκεν ἑκάστῳ τῶν στοιχείων καὶ ποίαν μὲν
δύναμιν ἔχει τὰ φωνήεντα, ποίαν δὲ τὰ σύμφωνα καὶ πάλιν αὖ τὰ ἡμίφωνα·
πλὴν ἵνα τι καὶ θαυμάσωμεν τὸν ἄνδρα τῆς δεξιότητος, αὐτὴν παραθώμεθα
τὴν λέξιν· #Ἀρχαὶ μὲν ... εἶναι ἐκεῖνα# (p. 969. 18 W.). καὶ ταῦτα
μὲν ὁ Διονύσιος· οἷς προσέχων οὐκ ἂν διαμάρτοις τοῦ προσήκοντος. εἰ γὰρ
σεμνὸν ποιεῖν ἐθέλεις (sic b: ἐθέλοις a Walzius) τὸν λόγον, ἐκλεξάμενος
τὰ μακρὰ καὶ ὅσα τεταμένον (τεταγμένον W) λαμβάνει καὶ διηνεκῆ τὸν
αὐλὸν τοῦ πνεύματος λάμβανε· φεῦγε δὲ τὰ βραχέως ἐξ ἀποκοπῆς τε
λεγόμενα καὶ μιᾷ πληγῇ πνεύματος καὶ τῆς ἀρτηρίας ἐπὶ βραχὺ κινηθείσης
ἐκφερόμενα· τὰ γὰρ μακρὰ τῶν φωνηέντων τῷ σεμνῷ μᾶλλον ἁρμόττει ἅτε (εἴ
τε b) μηκυνόμενα κατὰ τὴν ἐκφορὰν καὶ πολὺν ἠχοῦντα χρόνον· ἀνοίκεια
(Walzius: ἀνοίκειον a b) δὲ τὰ βραχέως λεγόμενα καὶ σπαδονίζοντα
(σπαδωνίζοντα b σπανίζοντα Walzius) τὸν ἦχον. ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἁπλῶς οὐδὲ (οὔτε
libri) τὰ μακρὰ δεῖ λαμβάνειν, ἀλλὰ τὰ κατὰ τὴν ἐκφορὰν διογκοῦντα
τὸ στόμα καὶ ὅσα λέγεται τοῦ στόματος ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀνοιγομένου καὶ
τοῦ πνεύματος ἄνω φερομένου (ἀναφερομένου b) πρὸς τὸν οὐρανόν, ἢ ὅσα
περιστέλλει τὰ χείλη καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ποιεῖ περὶ τὸ ἀκροστόμιον. ὥστε δεῖ
μάλιστα χρῆσθαι ταῖς λέξεσιν ὅσαι πλεονάζουσι τῷ τε ᾱ καὶ τῷ ω̄.”

2. Dionysius Thrax _Ars Gramm._ § 6 (Uhlig p. 9) γράμματα δὲ λέγεται
διὰ τὸ γραμμαῖς καὶ ξυσμαῖς τυποῦσθαι· γράψαι γὰρ τὸ ξῦσαι παρὰ τοῖς

3. With this passage generally cp. Aristot. _Poet._ c. 20 στοιχεῖον
μὲν οὖν ἐστιν φωνὴ ἀδιαίρετος, οὐ πᾶσα δὲ ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἧς πέφυκε συνετὴ
γίγνεσθαι φωνή· καὶ γὰρ τῶν θηρίων εἰσὶν ἀδιαίρετοι φωναί, ὧν οὐδεμίαν
λέγω στοιχεῖον· ταύτης δὲ μέρη τό τε φωνῆεν καὶ τὸ ἡμίφωνον καὶ ἄφωνον.
ἔστιν δὲ φωνῆεν μὲν <τὸ> ἄνευ προσβολῆς ἔχον φωνὴν ἀκουστήν, οἷον τὸ
Σ καὶ τὸ Ρ, ἄφωνον δὲ τὸ μετὰ προσβολῆς καθ’ αὑτὸ μὲν οὐδεμίαν ἔχον
φωνήν, μετὰ δὲ τῶν ἐχόντων τινὰ φωνὴν γιγνόμενον ἀκουστόν, οἷον τὸ Γ
καὶ τὸ Δ. ταῦτα δὲ διαφέρει σχήμασίν τε τοῦ στόματος καὶ τόποις καὶ
δασύτητι καὶ ψιλότητι καὶ μήκει καὶ βραχύτητι, ἔτι δὲ ὀξύτητι καὶ
βαρύτητι καὶ τῷ μέσῳ· περὶ ὧν καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐν τοῖς μετρικοῖς προσήκει

6. =Aristoxenus=, of Tarentum, the great musical theorist of Greece,
lived during the times of Alexander the Great. Dionysius refers to him
also in _de Demosth._ c. 48.

9. Cp. Sext. Empir. _adv. Math._ i. 102 καὶ ἡμίφωνα μὲν ὅσα δι’ αὑτῶν
ῥοῖζον ἢ σιγμὸν ἢ μυγμὸν ἤ τινα παραπλήσιον ἦχον κατὰ τὴν ἐκφώνησιν
ἀποτελεῖν πεφυκότα, κτλ.

10. ποππυσμόν, the reading of P, might mean ‘a popping sound.’

13. The division into vowels, consonants, and mutes appears in Plato
_Cratyl._ 424 C ἆρ’ οὖν καὶ ἡμᾶς οὕτω δεῖ πρῶτον μὲν τὰ φωνήεντα
(‘vowels’) διελέσθαι, ἔπειτα τῶν ἑτέρων κατὰ εἴδη τά τε ἄφωνα
(‘consonants’) καὶ ἄφθογγα (‘mutes’); ἄφωνα seems in this passage to
mean ‘consonants’; in later times σύμφωνα was often so used. In the
_Philebus_ 18 D the originator of an ‘art of grammar’ is attributed to
the Egyptian Theuth.

[Page 139]

admitting no further division which we call elements and letters:
“letters” (γράμματα) because they are denoted by certain lines
(γραμμαί), and “elements” (στοιχεῖα) because every sound made by the
voice originates in these, and is ultimately resolvable into them. The
elements and letters are not all of the same nature. Of the differences
between them, the first is, as Aristoxenus the musician makes clear,
that some represent vocal sounds, while others represent noises: the
former being represented by the so-called “vowels,” the latter by all
the other letters. A second difference is that some of the non-vowels
by their nature give rise to some noise or other,—a whizzing, a
hissing, a murmur, or suggestions of some such sounds, whereas others
are devoid of all voice or noise and cannot be sounded by themselves.
Hence some writers have called the latter “voiceless” (“mutes”),
the others “semi-voiced” (“semi-vowels”). Those writers who make a
threefold division of the first or elemental powers of the voice give
the name of _voiced_ (_vowels_) to all letters which can be uttered,
either by themselves or

[Page 140]

φωνεῖται καὶ μεθ’ ἑτέρων καὶ ἔστιν αὐτοτελῆ· ἡμίφωνα δ’ ὅσα
μετὰ μὲν φωνηέντων αὐτὰ ἑαυτῶν κρεῖττον ἐκφέρεται, καθ’
ἑαυτὰ δὲ χεῖρον καὶ οὐκ αὐτοτελῶς· ἄφωνα δ’ ὅσα οὔτε τὰς
τελείας οὔτε τὰς ἡμιτελεῖς φωνὰς ἔχει καθ’ ἑαυτά, μεθ’
ἑτέρων δ’ ἐκφωνεῖται.      5

ἀριθμὸς δὲ αὐτῶν ὅστις ἐστίν, οὐ ῥᾴδιον εἰπεῖν ἀκριβῶς,
ἐπεὶ πολλὴν παρέσχε καὶ τοῖς πρὸ ἡμῶν ἀπορίαν τὸ πρᾶγμα·
οἱ μὲν γὰρ ᾠήθησαν εἶναι τριακαίδεκα τὰ πάντα τῆς φωνῆς
στοιχεῖα, κατεσκευάσθαι δὲ τὰ λοιπὰ ἐκ τούτων· οἱ δὲ καὶ
τῶν εἰκοσιτεσσάρων οἷς χρώμεθα νῦν πλείω. ἡ μὲν οὖν ὑπὲρ      10
τούτων θεωρία γραμματικῆς τε καὶ μετρικῆς, εἰ δὲ βούλεταί
τις, καὶ φιλοσοφίας οἰκειοτέρα· ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπόχρη μήτ’ ἐλάττους
τῶν κ̅δ̅ μήτε πλείους ὑποθεμένοις εἶναι τὰς τῆς φωνῆς ἀρχὰς
τὰ συμβεβηκότα αὐτοῖς λέγειν, τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπὸ τῶν φωνηέντων
ποιησαμένοις.      15

ἔστι δὴ ταῦτα τὸν ἀριθμὸν ζ̄, δύο μὲν βραχέα τό τε ε̄
καὶ τὸ ο̄, δύο δὲ μακρὰ τό τε η̄ καὶ τὸ ω̄, τρία δὲ δίχρονα
τό τε ᾱ καὶ τὸ ῑ καὶ τὸ ῡ, καὶ γὰρ ἐκτείνεται ταῦτα καὶ
συστέλλεται· καὶ αὐτὰ οἱ μὲν δίχρονα, ὥσπερ ἔφην, οἱ δὲ
μεταπτωτικὰ καλοῦσιν. φωνεῖται δὲ ταῦτα πάντα παρὰ τῆς      20
ἀρτηρίας συνηχούσης τῷ πνεύματι καὶ τοῦ στόματος ἁπλῶς
σχηματισθέντος τῆς τε γλώττης οὐδὲν πραγματευομένης ἀλλ’

2 αὐτὰ ἑαυτῶν REF: om. PMVs   4 ἡμιτελεῖς REF: ἡμιτελείας PMVs   5 δὲ
ἐκφωνεῖται REFMVs: δὲ καὶ φωνεῖται P   6 ἀριθμὸς RFM: ὁ ἀριθμὸς PVs 11
εἰ δὲ RF: εἰ PMVs   14 τὰ RF: καὶ τὰ PMVs || αὐτοῖς RF: αὐτὴι P, MVs
  16 μὲν βραχέα τότε (τὸ R) έ καὶ τὸ ό, δύο δὲ μακρὰ F, ER: μὲν μακρὰ
PMVs   18 καὶ γὰρ ἐκτείνεται ταῦτα RFE: ἃ καὶ ἐκτείνεται PMVs   19 καὶ
αὐτὰ RF: ἃ PMVs || μὲν] μὲν ἤδη R   20 φωνεῖται RF: ἐκφωνεῖται EPMVs ||
παρὰ τῆς EF: ἀπὸ τῆς M: τῆς RPVs   21 συνηχούσης R: συνεχούσης libri ||
τῶι πνεύματι R: τὸ π̅ν̅ι̅ F: τὸ πνεῦμα EPMVs || στόματος] σώματος R

5. “On referring to the treatise of Aristotle περὶ ἀκουστῶν, the notion
which underlies all Greek phonetics will be seen to be as follows.
Breath is expelled by the lungs through the windpipe into the mouth,
whence it passes out. The chief differences of speech-sounds are
effected by ‘the strokes of the air’ (αἱ τοῦ ἀέρος πληγαί) and the
configurations of the mouth (οἱ τοῦ στόματος σχηματισμοί). On the
state of the lungs, their hardness, dryness, thickness, or softness,
moistness, freedom, much stress is laid; and also on the amount and
strength of the ‘stroke,’ which drives out the air forcibly (ἐκθλίβῃ
τὸν ἀέρα βιαίως). Much is said of a long and short windpipe. ‘All that
have long necks speak forcibly, as geese, cranes, and cocks. When the
windpipe is short, the breath necessarily falls out quickly, and the
stroke of the air becomes stronger, and all such persons must speak
sharper (ὀξύτερον) because of the rapidity with which the breath is
borne on.’ But there is not the least reference to the larynx or vocal
chords, to the real organ by which voice proper is formed. No doubt
Dionysius was not wiser than Aristotle in these matters. This must be
well borne in mind for the full appreciation of what follows,” A. J. E.
[But for λάρυγξ cp. the note on l. 21 _infra_.]

14. =αὐτοῖς=: στοιχεῖα (cp. ll. 9 and 10), rather than αἱ τῆς φωνῆς
ἀρχαί, seems to determine the grammar here. The reference of αὐτά,
αὐτό, τοῦτο, etc., is often very general; e.g. Aristoph. _Ran._ 1025
ἀλλ’ ὑμῖν αὔτ’ [sc. τὰ πολεμικά, to be supplied from τὸν πόλεμον in
the previous line] ἐξῆν ἀσκεῖν, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐπὶ τοῦτ’ [sc. τὸ ἀσκεῖν]
ἐτράπεσθε, and 1464 εὖ, πλήν γ’ ὁ δικαστὴς αὐτὰ [sc. τὰ χρήματα,
implied in πόρος] καταπίνει μόνος; Thucyd. vii. 55 2 τὰ πρὸ αὐτῶν
(‘before the late events’). Cp. also note on =198= 18 _infra_.

Dionysius makes no specific reference, here or elsewhere in his
treatise, to the diphthongs. The probable inference is that he
regarded them as true diphthongs, formed from the simple vowels whose
pronunciation is separately described by him.

16. See Introduction, p. 46 _supra_, as to Sir Thomas Smith on this
passage.—It is interesting also to notice the praise which Smith,
in the same treatise on Greek pronunciation (Havercamp ii. p. 537),
lavishes on Dionysius’ description of various vowels: “Quis Apelles
aut Parrhasius faciem hominis penicillo vel coloribus exprimere potuit
felicius, differentiamque constituere inter diversos vultus, quam hic
verbis vocalium naturam distinxit ac separavit?”

21. With συνεχούσης τὸ πνεῦμα the meaning would be ‘while the windpipe
constricts the breath.’ But the reading given by R represents the facts
with a fair degree of accuracy, and it may be compared with Aristot.
_Hist. An._ ix. 4 τὰ μὲν οὖν φωνήεντα ἡ φωνὴ καὶ ὁ λάρυγξ ἀφίησιν, τὰ
δ’ ἄφωνα ἡ γλῶττα καὶ τὰ χείλη.

=ἁπλῶς σχηματισθέντος=: “meaning perhaps that the mouth is not
continually varied in shape,” A. J. E.

22. =οὐδὲν πραγματευομένης=: “that is, it does not move about, though
it directs the breath,” A. J. E.

=ἀλλ’ ἠρεμούσης=: “meaning that it does not vibrate as for λ and ρ,” A.
J. E.

[Page 141]

together with others, and are self-sufficing; _semi-vowels_ to all
which are pronounced better in combination with vowels, worse and
imperfectly when taken singly; _mutes_ to all which by themselves admit
of neither perfect nor half-perfect utterance, but are pronounced only
in combination with others.

It is not easy to say exactly what the number of these elements is,
and our predecessors also have felt much doubt upon the question. Some
have held that there are only thirteen elements of speech all told,
and that the rest are but combinations of these; others that there are
more than even the twenty-four which we now recognize. The discussion
of this point belongs more properly to grammar and prosody, or even,
perhaps, to philosophy. It is enough for us to assume the elements of
speech to be neither more nor less than twenty-four, and to specify the
properties of each, beginning with the vowels.

These are seven in number: two short, viz. ε and ο; two long, viz. η
and ω; and three common, viz. α, ι and υ. These last can be either long
or short, and some call them “common,” as I have just done, others
“variable.” All these sounds are produced from the windpipe, which
resounds to the breath, while the mouth assumes a simple shape; the
tongue takes no part

[Page 142]

ἠρεμούσης. πλὴν τὰ μὲν μακρὰ καὶ τῶν διχρόνων ἃ μακρῶς
λέγεται τεταμένον λαμβάνει καὶ διηνεκῆ τὸν αὐλὸν τοῦ πνεύματος,
τὰ δὲ βραχέα ἢ βραχέως λεγόμενα ἐξ ἀποκοπῆς τε καὶ
μιᾷ πληγῇ πνεύματος καὶ τῆς ἀρτηρίας ἐπὶ βραχὺ κινηθείσης
ἐκφέρεται. τούτων δὴ κράτιστα μέν ἐστι καὶ φωνὴν ἡδίστην      5
ἀποτελεῖ τά τε μακρὰ καὶ τῶν διχρόνων ὅσα μηκύνεται κατὰ
τὴν ἐκφοράν, ὅτι πολὺν ἠχεῖται χρόνον καὶ τὸν τοῦ πνεύματος
οὐκ ἀποκόπτει τόνον· χείρω δὲ τὰ βραχέα ἢ βραχέως λεγόμενα,
ὅτι μικρόφωνά τ’ ἐστὶ καὶ σπαδονίζει τὸν ἦχον. αὐτῶν
δὲ τῶν μακρῶν πάλιν εὐφωνότατον μὲν τὸ ᾱ, ὅταν ἐκτείνηται·      10
λέγεται γὰρ ἀνοιγομένου τε τοῦ στόματος ἐπὶ πλεῖστον καὶ
τοῦ πνεύματος ἄνω φερομένου πρὸς τὸν οὐρανόν. δεύτερον δὲ
τὸ η̄, διότι κάτω τε περὶ τὴν βάσιν τῆς γλώττης ἐρείδει τὸν
ἦχον ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἄνω, καὶ μετρίως ἀνοιγομένου τοῦ στόματος.
τρίτον δὲ τὸ ω̄· στρογγυλίζεται γὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ στόμα καὶ      15
περιστέλλεται τὰ χείλη τήν τε πληγὴν τὸ πνεῦμα περὶ τὸ
ἀκροστόμιον ποιεῖται. ἔτι δ’ ἧττον τούτου τὸ ῡ· περὶ γὰρ
αὐτὰ τὰ χείλη συστολῆς γινομένης ἀξιολόγου πνίγεται καὶ
στενὸς ἐκπίπτει ὁ ἦχος. ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων τὸ ῑ· περὶ τοὺς

7 ἠχεῖ R (ut videtur)   8 οὐκ ἀποκόπτει τόνον RF: οὐκ ἀποκόπτει
χρόνον E: οὐ κατακόπτει τὸν τόνον PMVs   9 σπαδονίζει PMVs: σπανίζει
R (sed vid. n. =138= 1) EF   10 πάλιν REF: om. PMs   12 ἄνω φερομένου
R^{a}PMVs: ἀναφερομένου R^{b}EF   13 διότι REF: ὅτι PMVs || κάτω τε F:
τε κάτω R: κάτω EPMVs   14 ἀλλ’ οὐκ REF: ἀκόλουθον ἀλλ’ οὐκ PMVs || τοῦ
στόματος REFM: om. PVs   16 περιστέλλεται REF: περιστέλλει PMVs   17
ἔτι RF: ἔστι EPMVs   18 γινομένης REF: γενομένης PMVs

5. With regard to the euphoniousness of the _Egyptian_ vowels there
is an interesting passage in Demetr. _de Eloc._ § 71: “In Egypt the
priests, when singing hymns in praise of the gods, employ the seven
vowels, which they utter in due succession; and the sound of these
letters is so euphonious that men listen to it in preference to flute
and lyre.”

9. =σπαδονίζει=: see Gloss., s.v.

10. For the effect of the _a_ sound in Latin cp. Cic. _Tusc. Disp._
ii. 9. 22 “haec dextra Lernam taetram, mactata excetra, | placavit:
haec bicorporem afflixit manum: | Erymanthiam haec vastificam abiecit
beluam: | haec e Tartarea tenebrica abstractum plaga | tricipitem
eduxit Hydra generatum canem” (a translation of Soph. _Trach._ 1094-99).

11. Cp. _Le Bourg. Gent._ ii. 4 “la voix A se forme en ouvrant fort
la bouche”; and the rest of Molière’s comic phonetics furnish similar
points of coincidence with this chapter of Dionysius.

12. “The position of the tongue has to be inferred from the presumed
direction of the breath, on which many other writers besides Dionysius
have laid stress; for A probably the tongue was depressed, so as to
allow the breath to enter the mouth freely, and the sound was either
_a_ in ‘father,’ or, with a still more depressed tongue, the French _a_
in ‘passer,’ which is a common Scotch pronunciation of the vowel _a_,”
A. J. E.

13. “The description which Dionysius gives of the production of η and
of ε is unfortunately not of such a kind that we can with any certainty
infer the distinction of an open or closed sound,” Blass _Pronunciation
of Ancient Greek_ p. 36 (Purton’s translation).

14. The =καί= introduces a specification which is parallel to those
which follow κάτω.

15. For the effect of the _o_ sound (notwithstanding any differences in
the two languages) cp. Cic. _Cat._ iv. init. “video, patres conscripti,
in me omnium vestra ora atque oculos conversos. video, vos non solum de
vestro ac reipublicae, verum etiam, si id depulsum sit, de meo periculo
esse sollicitos.” And in Greek, the Homeric lines quoted on =154=
23, =156= 4 _infra_.—The question whether ω = ‘open’ or ‘closed’ _o_
depends upon what position of the lips Dionysius’ description is taken
to indicate.

17. =ἧττον=, ‘less,’ might mean inferior either in quality of tone or
in the degree of opening of the mouth (A. J. E.).

=τὸ ῡ=: this vowel can, as in Aristoph. _Plut._ 895, be so pronounced
as to convey the sensations of a sycophant in the presence of roasted

    ἀρνεῖσθον; ἔνδον ἐστίν, ὦ μιαρωτάτω,
    πολὺ χρῆμα τεμαχῶν καὶ κρεῶν ὠπτημένων.
    ὒ  ὗ  ὒ  ὗ  ὒ  ὗ  ὒ  ὗ  ὒ  ὗ  ὒ  ὗ,

where B. B. Rogers remarks: “This line [ὒ ὗ etc.], as Bentley pointed
out, is _naso, non ore, efferendus_. It represents a succession of
sniffings, produced by the nose; and not words or inarticulate sounds
spoken with the mouth.”

18. Cp. scholium on Dionysius Thrax p. 691. 27 B: τὸ ῡ τὰ χείλη
συστέλλει κατὰ τὴν ἐκφώνησιν. φησὶ γὰρ Διονύσιος ὁ Ἁλικαρνασσεὺς ἐν
τῷ περὶ στοιχείων καὶ συλλαβῶν λόγῳ ὅτι περὶ αὐτὰ τὰ χείλη συστολῆς
γινομένης ἀξιολόγου πνίγεται καὶ στενὸς ἐκπίπτει ὁ ἦχος.

19. “So far as the lips are concerned, this description would suit
either the French _u_ or the English _oo_, but the latter part of the
description is better suited to French _u_, and from the Latins having
at this time represented this sound by their new sign Y (the usual form
of Greek Υ in inscriptions) in place of their own V (which was our
_oo_), we may feel sure that the sound was not English _oo_, and, if
not, that it was most probably French _u_, as we know that it was so
subsequently,” A. J. E.

=τοὺς ὀδόντας=: “as the lips are not closed, there are only the teeth
to limit the aperture,” A. J. E.—The position (=ἔσχατον πάντων=)
assigned to iota is to be noticed: cp. Hermog. π. ἰδ. p. 225 (Walz
_Rhett. Gr._ vol. iii.) τὸ ῑ ... ἥκιστα σεμνὴν ποιεῖ τὴν λέξιν

[Page 143]

in the process but remains at rest. But the long vowels, and those
common vowels that are pronounced long, have an extended and continuous
passage of breath, while those that are short or pronounced as short
are uttered abruptly, with one burst of breath, the movement of the
windpipe being but brief. Of these the strongest, which also produce
the most pleasing sound, are the long ones and those common ones which
are lengthened in utterance, the reason being that they are sounded
for a long time, and do not cut short the tension of the breath. The
short ones, or those pronounced short, are inferior, because they
lack sonorousness and curtail the sound. Again, of the long vowels
themselves the most euphonious is α, when prolonged; for it is
pronounced with the mouth open to the fullest extent, and with the
breath forced upwards to the palate. η holds the second place, inasmuch
as it drives the sound down against the base of the tongue and not
upwards, and the mouth is fairly open. Third comes ω: in pronouncing
this the mouth is rounded, the lips are contracted, and the impact of
the breath is on the edge of the mouth. Still inferior to this is υ;
for, through a marked contraction taking place right round the lips,
the sound is strangled and comes out thin. Last of

[Page 144]

ὀδόντας τε γὰρ ἡ κροῦσις τοῦ πνεύματος γίνεται μικρὸν
ἀνοιγομένου τοῦ στόματος καὶ οὐκ ἐπιλαμπρυνόντων τῶν
χειλῶν τὸν ἦχον. τῶν δὲ βραχέων οὐδέτερον μὲν εὔμορφον,
ἧττον δὲ δυσειδὲς τοῦ ε̄ τὸ ο̄· διίστησι γὰρ τὸ στόμα κρεῖττον
θατέρου καὶ τὴν πληγὴν λαμβάνει περὶ τὴν ἀρτηρίαν      5

φωνηέντων μὲν οὖν γραμμάτων αὕτη φύσις· ἡμιφώνων δὲ
τοιάδε· ὀκτὼ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὄντων αὐτῶν πέντε μέν ἐστιν ἁπλᾶ
τό τε λ̄ καὶ τὸ μ̄ καὶ τὸ ν̄ καὶ τὸ ρ̄ καὶ τὸ σ̄· διπλᾶ δὲ
τρία τό τε ζ̄ καὶ τὸ ξ̄ καὶ τὸ ψ̄. διπλᾶ δὲ λέγουσιν αὐτὰ      10
ἤτοι διὰ τὸ σύνθετα εἶναι, τὸ μὲν ζ̄ διὰ τοῦ σ̄ καὶ δ̄, τὸ δὲ
ξ̄ διὰ τοῦ κ̄ καὶ σ̄, τὸ δὲ ψ̄ διὰ τοῦ π̄ καὶ σ̄ συνεφθαρμένων
ἀλλήλοις ἰδίαν φωνὴν λαμβάνοντα, ἢ διὰ τὸ χώραν ἐπέχειν
δυεῖν γραμμάτων ἐν ταῖς συλλαβαῖς παραλαμβανόμενον ἕκαστον.
τούτων δὴ κρείττω μέν ἐστι τὰ διπλᾶ τῶν ἁπλῶν,      15
ἐπειδὴ μείζονά ἐστι τῶν ἑτέρων καὶ μᾶλλον ἐγγίζειν δοκεῖ
τοῖς τελείοις· ἥττω δὲ τὰ ἁπλᾶ διὰ τὸ εἰς βραχυτέρους
τόπους συνάγεσθαι τὸν ἦχον. φωνεῖται δ’ αὐτῶν ἕκαστον
τοιόνδε τινὰ τρόπον· τὸ μὲν λ̄ τῆς γλώττης πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν
ἱσταμένης καὶ τῆς ἀρτηρίας συνηχούσης· τὸ δὲ μ̄ τοῦ μὲν      20
στόματος τοῖς χείλεσι πιεσθέντος, τοῦ δὲ πνεύματος διὰ τῶν
ῥωθώνων μεριζομένου· τὸ δὲ ν̄ τῆς γλώττης τὴν φορὰν τοῦ
πνεύματος ἀποκλειούσης καὶ μεταφερούσης ἐπὶ τοὺς ῥώθωνας
τὸν ἦχον· τὸ δὲ ρ̄ τῆς γλώττης ἄκρας ἀπορριπιζούσης τὸ
πνεῦμα καὶ πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐγγὺς τῶν ὀδόντων ἀνισταμένης·      25

1 κροῦσις R: κρίσις EF: κρότησις PVs   2 οὐκ ἐπιλαμπρυνόντων] οὐκέτι
λαμπρυνόντων P   3 εὔμορφον REF: εὔηχον PMVs   4 δυσειδὲς REF: δυσηχὲς
PMVs || τοῦ ε̄ τὸ ο̄ Us.: τὸ ε̄ REFMV, τὸ ο̄ Ps   5 καὶ τὴν REF: τὴν
δὲ PMVs   8 ὀκτὼ RF: ὀκτὼ γὰρ EPMVs || πέντε] ε̄ PVs   9 διπλὰ δὲ τρία
F, R^bE: διπλᾶ δὲ καὶ τρία R^a: τρία (γ̄ P) δὲ διπλᾶ PMVs   11 τοῦ
δ̄ καὶ τοῦ σ̄ R^a: τοῦ δ̄ καὶ σ̄ R^b   13 ἰδίαν RF: καὶ ἰδίαν PMVs
  14 παραλαμβανόμενον ἕκαστον RF: παραλαμβανόμενα. ἑκάστου PMVs   17
βραχυτέρους F: βαρυτέρους R: βραχυτέρους αὐτῶν E, PM   18 τόπους RFM^2:
τόνους EPM^1Vs   20 ἱσταμένης REF: ἀνισταμένης PMVs || συνηχούσης REF:
συνηχούσης τὸ πνεῦμα M: συνεχούσης τὸ πνεῦμα PVs   21 διὰ τῶν ... (23)
πνεύματος REFM: om. P   22 ν̄] π̄ R   23 τοὺς ῥώθωνας RPMs: τὸν ῥώθωνα
FE   24 ἀπορριπιζούσης RF: ἀπορραπιζούσης EVs: ἀποραπιζούσης (ρ alt.
suprascr.) P, M

1. =μικρὸν ἀνοιγομένου=: “no limitation is necessary, the lips may be
as open for our _ee_ as for our _ah_, but they may also be slightly
open from the centre to the corners, no part being in contact,” A. J. E.

2. “There can be no doubt that our _ee_ is meant, and, although this
is usually considered to be a ‘bright’ sound, it will be found that
if, while singing it, and without moving the tongue, the lips be as
much closed as for _oo_, the result, which will be French _u_, is much
more musical. Whatever doubt may remain from this description of the
precise shades of sound, _there can be none that η, υ, ι had different
sounds_, as indeed transcripts of Greek into Latin letters and Latin
into Greek letters shew that they had, partially at least, down to the
12th century A.D., although the confusion was complete in the 15th, as
it has since remained. Dionysius does not describe the diphthongs ΑΥ,
ΕΥ, or the digraphs ΑΙ, ΕΙ, ΟΙ, ΟΥ,” A. J. E.

5. “This would best suit our _aw_ in _awn_ shortened, that is, very
nearly our _o_ in _on_. Short ε is not referred to, nor the short
sounds of α, ι, υ,” A. J. E.

11. For the pronunciation of =ζ= see Introduction, p. 44, and cp.
Dionysius Thrax _Ars Gramm._ § 7 (Uhlig p. 14): ἔτι δὲ τῶν συμφώνων
διπλᾶ μέν ἐστι τρία· ζ̄, ξ̄, ψ̄. διπλᾶ δὲ εἴρηται, ὅτι ἓν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν
ἐκ δύο συμφώνων σύγκειται, τὸ μὲν ζ̄ ἐκ τοῦ σ̄ καὶ δ̄, τὸ δὲ ξ̄ ἐκ
τοῦ κ̄ καὶ σ̄, τὸ δὲ ψ̄ ἐκ τοῦ π̄ καὶ σ̄.—For the late use of =διά=
(with the genitive) of the means or material by or of which a thing is
composed cp. =154= 10 and =180= 6; also _Antiqq. Rom._ i. ἐν ὄρεσι τὰ
πολλὰ πηξαμένοις διὰ ξύλων καὶ καλάμων σκηνὰς αὐτορόφους.

17. =ἥττω ... ἦχον=: a true phonetic explanation.

20. For _m_ and _n_ in Greek and Latin (especially at the end of
clauses) cp. Quintil. xii. 10. 31 “Quid? quod pleraque nos illa quasi
mugiente littera cludimus =M=, in quam nullum Graece verbum cadit: at
illi ny iucundam et in fine praecipue quasi tinnientem illius loco
ponunt, quae est apud nos rarissima in clausulis.”

25. =οὐρανὸν ... ὀδόντων.= Demosthenes’ difficulty in pronouncing this
letter (the trilled palato-dental _r_) is well known: e.g. Quintil. i.
11. 5 “(rho littera), qua Demosthenes quoque laboravit.”

[Page 145]

all stands ι: for the impact of the breath is on the teeth as the mouth
is slightly open and the lips do not clarify the sound. Of the short
vowels none has beauty, but ο is less ugly than ε: for the former parts
the lips better than the latter, and receives the impact more in the
region of the windpipe.

So much for the nature of the vowels. The semi-vowels are as follows.
They are eight in number, and five of them are simple, viz. λ, μ,
ν, ρ, and σ, while three are double, viz. ζ, ξ, ψ. They are called
double either because they are composite, receiving a distinctive
sound through the coalescence respectively of σ and δ into ζ, of κ
and σ into ξ, and of π and σ into ψ; or because they each occupy the
room of two letters in the syllables where they are found. Of these
semi-vowels, the double are superior to the single, since they are
ampler than the others and seem to approximate more to perfect letters.
The simple ones are inferior because their sounds are confined within
smaller spaces. They are severally pronounced somewhat as follows: λ
by the tongue rising to the palate, and by the windpipe helping the
sound; μ by the mouth being closed tight by means of the lips, while
the breath is divided and passes through the nostrils; ν by the tongue
intercepting the current of the breath, and diverting the sound towards
the nostrils; ρ by the tip of the tongue sending forth the breath in
puffs and rising to the palate

[Page 146]

τὸ δὲ σ̄ τῆς μὲν γλώττης προσαγομένης ἄνω πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν
ὅλης, τοῦ δὲ πνεύματος διὰ μέσων αὐτῶν φερομένου καὶ περὶ
τοὺς ὀδόντας λεπτὸν καὶ στενὸν ἐξωθοῦντος τὸ σύριγμα. τρία
δὲ τὰ λοιπὰ ἡμίφωνα μικτὸν λαμβάνει τὸν ψόφον ἐξ ἑνὸς μὲν
τῶν ἡμιφώνων τοῦ σ̄, τριῶν δὲ ἀφώνων τοῦ τε δ̄ καὶ τοῦ κ̄      5
καὶ τοῦ π̄.

οὗτοι σχηματισμοὶ γραμμάτων ἡμιφώνων. δύναται δ’
οὐχ ὁμοίως κινεῖν τὴν ἀκοὴν ἅπαντα· ἡδύνει μὲν γὰρ αὐτὴν
τὸ λ̄, καὶ ἔστι τὼν ἡμιφώνων γλυκύτατον· τραχύνει δὲ τὸ ρ̄
καὶ ἔστι τῶν ὁμογενῶν γενναιότατον· μέσως δέ πως διατίθησι      10
τὰ διὰ τῶν ῥωθώνων συνηχούμενα τό τε μ̄ καὶ τὸ ν̄
κερατοειδεῖς ἀποτελοῦντα τοὺς ἤχους. ἄχαρι δὲ καὶ ἀηδὲς
τὸ σ̄ καὶ πλεονάσαν σφόδρα λυπεῖ· θηριώδους γὰρ καὶ
ἀλόγου μᾶλλον ἢ λογικῆς ἐφάπτεσθαι δοκεῖ φωνῆς ὁ συριγμός·
τῶν γοῦν παλαιῶν τινες σπανίως ἐχρῶντο αὐτῷ καὶ      15

1 προσαγομένης R: προαγομένης EF: προσἀναγομένης P, Vs: προανοιγομένης
M   2 ὅλης REF: ὅλως δὲ M: om. PVs || μέσων αὐτῶν R: μέσον αὐτῶν F:
μέσουν αὐτοῦ M: μέσου αὐτοῦ EPVs   5 δ̄ καὶ τοῦ κ̄ REF: κ̄ καὶ τοῦ δ̄
PMVs   13 καὶ πλεονάσαν REF: καὶ εἰ πλεονάσαι PM: καὶ εἰ πλεονάσειε Vs
  14 ἀλόγου RPMVs: ἀλάλου EF

2. Perhaps the variations in the readings here (cp. also =148= 16)
indicate that one or two of the words originally stood in the dual
number.—διὰ μέσου αὐτοῦ (EPV) would mean ‘through the middle of the

9. As in Virgil (_Aen._ viii. 140: cp. v. 217), “at Maiam, auditis
si quicquam credimus, Atlas, | idem Atlas generat caeli qui sidera
tollit.”—The same view of _l_ is expressed in Demetr. _de Eloc._ § 174
πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἀκοὴν (sc. ἡδέα ἐστι) “Καλλίστρατος, Ἀννοῶν.” ἥ τε γὰρ
τῶν λάμβδα σύγκρουσις ἠχῶδές τι ἔχει, καὶ ἡ τῶν νῦ γραμμάτων (for the
effect of the double _l_ and _n_ cp. such words as ‘bella’ and ‘donna’
in Italian).

12. It is well known that the Comic Poets make fun of Euripides’ line
ἔσωσά σ’, ὡς ἴσασιν Ἑλλήνων ὅσοι (_Med._ 476: with Porson’s note).
Pericles is said to have led the way in substituting ττ for the less
pleasing σσ (see Lucian’s _Iudicium Vocalium_ for the substitution
itself). On the other hand, it has been observed (with reference to
_de Corona_ § 208 ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἡμάρτετε, ἄνδρες
Ἀθηναῖοι, τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁπάντων ἐλευθερίας καὶ σωτηρίας κίνδυνον
ἀράμενοι, μὰ τοὺς Μαραθῶνι προκινδυνεύσαντας τῶν προγόνων καὶ τοὺς
ἐν Πλαταιαῖς παραταξαμένους καὶ τοὺς ἐν Σαλαμῖνι ναυμαχήσαντας καὶ
τοὺς ἐπ’ Ἀρτεμισίῳ καὶ πολλοὺς ἑτέρους τοὺς ἐν τοῖς δημοσίοις μνήμασι
κειμένους, ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας, οὓς ἅπαντας ὁμοίως ἡ πόλις τῆς αὐτῆς
ἀξιώσασα τιμῆς ἔθαψεν, Αἰσχίνη, οὐχὶ τοὺς κατορθώσαντας αὐτῶν οὐδὲ
τοὺς κρατήσαντας μόνους): “in defence of English we may note that
this renowned passage, perhaps the most effective ever spoken by an
orator, has no less than fifty sigmas in sixty-seven words” (Goodwin’s
edition of Demosth. _de Cor._ p. 148). There is also an interesting
article on “Sigmatism in Greek Dramatic Poetry” in the _American
Journal of Philology_ xxix. 1 (cp. xxxi. 1). Mr. J. A. Scott there
proves by means of examples that Homer, Pindar, Aeschylus, Sophocles,
Euripides, Aristophanes and the Comic Poets, do not avoid recurrent
sigmas; and he adds that “the phrases ὁ φιλοσίγματος and ‘Euripidean
sigmatism,’ which rest on the assumption that Euripides in a peculiar
way marred his style by an excessive use of sigma, have no basis of
truth to support them.” He further remarks, “It is Lasus of Hermione
[Athen. 455 C], the so-called teacher of Pindar, who won a certain
kind of fame by producing asigmatic verses; but it was evidently a
species of poetic gymnastics such as was later achieved by the poets
of the Ἰλιὰς λειπογράμματος and the Ὀδύσσεια λειπογράμματος, where
the trick was to write the first book of each poem without α, the
second without β, and so on.” In Sappho’s _Hymn to Aphrodite_ (_C. V._
c. 23) there is no lack of sigmas. But we may be sure that neither
Demosthenes, nor any good reader of Sappho, would be guilty of undue
sibilation in the actual delivery of the speech or of the lines: it is
the continual hissing that, as in English, has to be avoided. (For the
pronunciation of σ, σβ, σγ, σμ, σσ see _Report of Classical Association
on Greek Pronunciation_, p. 349 _infra_, and Giles’ _Comparative
Philology_ p. 115).—Instances of not unpleasant accumulations of the _s_
sound in Latin are to be found in Virg. _Aen._ v. 46 “annuus exactis
completur mensibus orbis”; Virg. _Georg._ i. 389 “et sola in sicca
secum spatiatur harena”; Cic. _Topic._ i. 1 “maiores nos res scribere
ingressos, C. Trebati, et iis libris, quos brevi tempore satis multos
edidimus, digniores e cursu ipso revocavit voluntas tua.” Cp. Quintil.
ix. 4. 37 “ceterum consonantes quoque, earumque praecipue quae sunt
asperiores, in commissura verborum rixantur, ut si _s_ ultima cum
_x_ proxima confligat; quarum tristior etiam, si binae collidantur,
stridor est, ut _ars studiorum_. quae fuit causa et Servio, ut dixi,
subtrahendae _s_ litterae, quotiens ultima esset aliaque consonante
susciperetur; quod reprehendit Luranius, Messala defendit.” An example
of the recurrence of the _s_ sound in English poetry is:—

    O the golden _sh_eaf, the ne_s_tling trea_s_ure-armful!
      O the nutbrown tre_ss_es nodding interla_c_ed!

                              George Meredith,
                              _Love in the Valley_;

or Shakespeare’s

    “Thi_s_ pre_c_iou_s_ _s_tone _s_et in the _s_ilver _s_ea;”

or many of the lines in Marlowe’s ‘smooth song’ “Come live with me, and
be my love.” Of its deliberate elimination an instance is furnished by
John Thelwall’s _English Song without a Sibilant_, entitled “The Empire
of the Mind,” in which the last of the four stanzas runs:—

    But when to radiant form and feature,
      Internal worth and feeling join
    With temper mild and gay goodnature,—
      Around the willing heart, they twine
            The empire of the mind.

[Page 147]

near the teeth; and σ by the entire tongue being carried up to the
palate and by the breath passing between tongue and palate, and
emitting, round about the teeth, a light, thin hissing. The sound of
the three remaining semi-voiced letters is of a mixed character, being
formed of one of the semi-voiced letters (σ) and three of the voiceless
letters (δ, κ and π).

Such are the formations of the semi-vowels. They cannot all affect the
sense of hearing in the same way. λ falls pleasurably on it, and is the
sweetest of the semi-vowels; while ρ has a rough quality, and is the
noblest of its class. The ear is affected in a sort of intermediate
way by μ and ν, which are pronounced with nasal resonance, and produce
sounds similar to those of a horn. σ is an unattractive, disagreeable
letter, positively offensive when used to excess. A hiss seems a sound
more suited to a brute beast than to a rational being. At all events,
some of the ancients used it sparingly and guardedly.

[Page 148]

πεφυλαγμένως, εἰσὶ δ’ οἳ καὶ ἀσίγμους ὅλας ᾠδὰς ἐποίουν·
δηλοῖ δὲ τοῦτο καὶ Πίνδαρος ἐν οἷς φησι·

        πρὶν μὲν εἷρπε σχοινότενειά τ’ ἀοιδὰ διθυράμβω
        καὶ τὸ σὰν κίβδηλον ἀνθρώποις.

τριῶν δὲ τῶν ἄλλων γραμμάτων ἃ δὴ διπλᾶ καλεῖται τὸ ζ̄      5
μᾶλλον ἡδύνει τὴν ἀκοὴν τῶν ἑτέρων· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ξ̄ διὰ τοῦ
κ̄ καὶ τὸ ψ̄ διὰ τοῦ π̄ τὸν συριγμὸν ἀποδίδωσι ψιλῶν ὄντων
ἀμφοτέρων, τοῦτο δ’ ἡσυχῇ τῷ πνεύματι δασύνεται καὶ ἔστι
τῶν ὁμογενῶν γενναιότατον. καὶ περὶ μὲν τῶν ἡμιφώνων
τοσαῦτα.      10

τῶν δὲ καλουμένων ἀφώνων ἐννέα ὄντων τρία μέν ἐστι
ψιλά, τρία δὲ δασέα, τρία δὲ μεταξὺ τούτων· ψιλὰ μὲν τὸ
κ̄ καὶ τὸ π̄ καὶ τὸ τ̄, δασέα δὲ τὸ θ̄ καὶ τὸ φ̄ καὶ τὸ χ̄,
κοινὰ δὲ ἀμφοῖν τὸ β̄ καὶ τὸ γ̄ καὶ τὸ δ̄. φωνεῖται δὲ
αὐτῶν ἕκαστον τρόπον τόνδε· τρία μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν χειλῶν      15
ἄκρων, ὅταν τοῦ στόματος πιεσθέντος τὸ προβαλλόμενον
ἐκ τῆς ἀρτηρίας πνεῦμα λύσῃ τὸν δεσμὸν αὐτοῦ. καὶ
ψιλὸν μέν ἐστιν αὐτῶν τὸ π̄, δασὺ δὲ τὸ φ̄, μέσον δὲ ἀμφοῖν
τὸ β̄· τοῦ μὲν γὰρ ψιλότερόν ἐστι, τοῦ δὲ δασύτερον. μία
μὲν αὕτη συζυγία τριῶν γραμμάτων ἀφώνων ὁμοίῳ σχήματι      20
λεγομένων, ψιλότητι δὲ καὶ δασύτητι διαφερόντων. τρία δὲ
ἄλλα λέγεται τῆς γλώττης ἄκρῳ τῷ στόματι προσερειδομένης
κατὰ τοὺς μετεώρους ὀδόντας, ἔπειθ’ ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος

1 καὶ REF: om. PMVs || ὅλας [ὠιδὰ]ς cum litura F, E: ὅλας αὐδὰς R:
ὠιδὰς ὅλας P, MVs   2 δηλοῖ ... (4) ἀνθρώποις om. R || τοῦτο καὶ EF:
τοῦτο PVs   3 ἧρπε F: ἦρχε MV: ἤριπε EPs || σχοινοτενεῖ[ατα] οἶδα cum
rasura F: σχοινοτονει [-τενὴς ἀδα M] φωνήεντα P, V: σχοινοτενῆ φωνήεντα
Es || διθυράμβου F: διθυράμβων EPMVs: om. Athenaeus   4 κίβδηλον EF
Athenaeus: κίβδαλον PMVs || ἀνθρώποις EFM: ἄνθρωποι PVs   7 καὶ τὸ
ψ̄ RE: τὸ δὲ ψ̄ FPMVs   11 καλουμένων RPMVs: om. EF   14 ἐκφωνεῖται
MVs   16 ἄκρων RFM: ἄκρων τὸ π̄ καὶ τὸ φ̄ καὶ τὸ β̄ EPVs || τό τε P
  17 τὸ πνεῦμα P || θεσμὸν R   18 αὐτῶν] αὐτοῦ P   23 μετεώρους REF:
μετεωροτέρους PMVs

1. Athenaeus quotes the lines of Pindar (ll. 3, 4 _infra_) in x. 455
C and in xi. 467 B. The former passage closely illustrates Dionysius’
remarks: Πίνδαρος δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἀσιγμοποιηθεῖσαν ᾠδήν, ὡς ὁ αὐτός φησι
Κλέαρχος, οἱονεὶ γρίφου τινὸς ἐν μελοποιίᾳ προβληθέντος, ὡς πολλῶν
τούτῳ προσκρουόντων διὰ τὸ ἀδύνατον εἶναι ἀποσχέσθαι τοῦ σίγμα καὶ διὰ
τὸ μὴ δοκιμάζειν, ἐποίησε·

        πρὶν μὲν εἷρπε σχοινοτένειά τ’ ἀοιδὰ
        καὶ τὸ σὰν κίβδηλον ἀνθρώποις.

ταῦτα σημειώσαιτ’ ἄν τις πρὸς τοὺς νοθεύοντας Λάσου τοῦ Ἑρμιονέως τὴν
ἄσιγμον ᾠδήν, ἥτις ἐπιγράφεται Κένταυροι, καὶ ὁ εἰς τὴν Δήμητρα δὲ τὴν
ἐν Ἑρμιόνῃ ποιηθεὶς τῷ Λάσῳ ὕμνος ἄσιγμός ἐστιν, ὥς φησιν Ἡρακλείδης ὁ
Ποντικὸς ἐν τρίτῳ περὶ μουσικῆς, οὗ ἐστιν ἀρχή·

        Δάματρα μέλπω Κόραν τε Κλυμένοι’ ἄλοχον.

In Pindar’s own text the right reading possibly is:—

        πρὶν μὲν ἕρπε σχοινοτένειά τ’ ἀοιδὰ
        διθυράμβων καὶ τὸ σὰν κίβδηλον ἀνθρώποισιν ἀπὸ στομάτων.

Mr. P. N. Ure suggests that Pindar’s real reference was not to
the sound of san but to its form, and that κίβδηλον means either
‘misleading’ with reference to the similarity in form of san to mu, or
‘spurious,’ as not being the form for the sibilant employed at Thebes,
where letters were introduced into Greece.

3. =σχοινοτένεια=: unusual feminine of σχοινοτενής, ‘stretched out like
a measuring line.’

5. “That the σ in σδ meant _z_ appears from what Dionysius presently
says, that ζ is ‘quietly roughened by the breath,’ implying that it was
voiced,” A. J. E. p. 44. The statement (p. 43 _ibid._) that _dz_ was
probably an impossible initial combination to a Greek may be compared
with _Classical Review_ xix. 441 as well as with more ancient evidence.

13. Dionysius’ various statements as to the aspirates are discussed in
E. A. Dawes’ _Pronunciation of the Greek Aspirates_ pp. 29 ff. (as well
as in Blass’s _Ancient Greek Pronunciation_).

15. Dionysius does not actually use Greek equivalents for the
adjectives _labial_, _dental_, and _guttural_; but he clearly knows the
physiological facts in which those terms have their origin.

18. As illustrating Dionysius’ own love of variety, compare =μέσον
ἀμφοῖν= here with κοινὰ ἀμφοῖν (l. 14), μεταξὺ τούτων (l. 12), μετρίως
καὶ μεταξὺ ἀμφοῖν (=150= 9), μέσον δὲ καὶ ἐπίκοινον (=150= 4).

23. =κατὰ τοὺς μετεώρους ὀδόντας.= “The pronunciation of the Greek and
Roman _t_ by placing the tongue against the roots of the gums in lieu
of the upper teeth is not one of the more serious errors [in the modern
pronunciation of Greek and Latin], at least it does not strike our ears
as such. But it has always seemed to me that the taunting verses of

    O _T_i_t_e _t_u_t_e _T_a_t_i _t_ibi _t_an_t_a _t_yranne _t_ulis_t_i,

as of Sophocles,

    =τ=υφλὸς =τ=ά =τ=’ ὦ=τ=α =τ=όν =τ=ε νοῦν =τ=ά =τ=’ ὄμμα=τ=’ εἶ,

lose a good deal of their effect if the _t_’s are muffled behind the
gums instead of being hurled out from the rampart of the teeth,” J. P.
Postgate _How to pronounce Latin_ p. 11.

[Page 149]

There are writers who used actually to compose entire odes without a
sigma. Pindar shows the same feeling when he writes:—

        Ere then crept in the long-drawn dithyrambic song,
        And _san_ that rang false on the speaker’s tongue.[130]

Of the three other letters which are called “double,” ζ falls more
pleasurably on the ear than the others. For ξ and ψ give the hiss
in combination with κ and π respectively, both of which letters are
smooth, whereas ζ is softly rippled by the breath and is the noblest of
its class. So much with regard to the semi-vowels.

Of the so-called “voiceless letters,” which are nine in number, three
are smooth, three rough, and three between these. The smooth are κ, π,
τ; the rough θ, φ, χ; the intermediate, β, γ, δ. They are severally
pronounced as follows: three of them (π, θ, β) from the edge of the
lips, when the mouth is compressed and the breath, being driven forward
from the windpipe, breaks through the obstruction. Among these π is
smooth, φ rough, and β comes between the two, being smoother than the
latter and rougher than the former. This is one set of three mutes, all
three spoken with a like configuration of our organs, but differing in
smoothness and roughness. The next three are pronounced by the tongue
being pressed hard against the extremity of the mouth near the upper
teeth, then being blown

[Page 150]

ἀπορριπιζομένης καὶ τὴν διέξοδον αὐτῷ κάτω περὶ τοὺς
ὀδόντας ἀποδιδούσης· διαλλάττει δὲ ταῦτα δασύτητι καὶ
ψιλότητι· ψιλὸν μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐστι τὸ τ̄, δασὺ δὲ τὸ θ̄,
μέσον δὲ καὶ ἐπίκοινον τὸ δ̄. αὕτη δευτέρα συζυγία τριῶν
γραμμάτων ἀφώνων. τρία δὲ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ἀφώνων λέγεται      5
μὲν τῆς γλώττης ἀνισταμένης πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐγγὺς τοῦ
φάρυγγος καὶ τῆς ἀρτηρίας ὑπηχούσης τῷ πνεύματι, οὐδὲν
οὐδὲ ταῦτα διαφέροντα τῷ σχήματι ἀλλήλων, πλὴν ὅτι τὸ
μὲν κ̄ ψιλῶς λέγεται, τὸ δὲ χ̄ δασέως, τὸ δὲ γ̄ μετρίως καὶ
μεταξὺ ἀμφοῖν. τούτων κράτιστα μέν ἐστιν ὅσα τῷ πνεύματι      10
πολλῷ λέγεται, δεύτερα δὲ ὅσα μέσῳ, κάκιστα δὲ ὅσα ψιλῷ·
ταῦτα μὲν γὰρ τὴν αὑτῶν δύναμιν ἔχει μόνην, τὰ δὲ δασέα
καὶ τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος προσθήκην, ὥστ’ ἐγγύς που τελειότερα
εἶναι ἐκείνων.


ἐκ δὴ τῶν γραμμάτων τοσούτων τε ὄντων καὶ δυνάμεις      15
τοιαύτας ἐχόντων αἱ καλούμεναι γίνονται συλλαβαί. τούτων
δὲ εἰσὶ μακραὶ μὲν ὅσαι συνεστήκασιν ἐκ τῶν φωνηέντων
τῶν μακρῶν ἢ τῶν διχρόνων ὅταν μακρῶς ἐκφέρηται, καὶ
ὅσαι λήγουσιν εἰς μακρὸν ἢ μακρῶς λεγόμενον γράμμα ἢ εἴς
τι τῶν ἡμιφώνων τε καὶ ἀφώνων· βραχεῖαι δὲ ὅσαι συνεστήκασιν      20
ἐκ βραχέος φωνήεντος ἢ βραχέως λαμβανομένου,
καὶ ὅσαι λήγουσιν εἰς ταῦτα. μήκους δὲ καὶ βραχύτητος

1 ἀποῤῥιπιζομένης RF: ἀπορραπιζομένης E: ἀποραπιζομένης P:
ὑποραπιζομένης M: ὑπορραπιζομένης Vs || αὐτῶν κάτω E: κάτω RF: αὐτῶν
PM: αὐτῷ Vs   2 ἀποδιδούσης RF: ἀποδιδούσης τὸ τ̄ καὶ τὸ θ̄ καὶ τὸ δ̄
PMVs   4 τριῶν RFM: om. PVs   6 πρὸς REF: κατὰ PMVs || τοῦ φάρυγγος
REF: τῆς φάρυγγος PMVs   7 πνεύματι RF: πνεύματι τὸ κ̄ καὶ τὸ χ̄ καὶ τὸ
γ̄ EPMVs || οὐδὲν οὐδὲ Us.: οὐδὲν δὲ οὐδὲ R: οὐδὲν δὲ οὐ F: οὐδενὶ PMVs
  10 ἀμφοῖν. τούτων κράτιστα μέν ἐστιν F [E]: ἀμφοῖν τούτοιν (τούτων
b)· κράτιστα μὲν οὖν ἐστιν R: τούτων. κράτιστα μὲν οὖν ἐστιν PMVs   11
δὲ REPMVs: δ’ F || μέσω EPMV,s: μ[έσωι] cum rasura F: μέσα R || κάκιστα
REF: κακίω PMVs || ψιλῷ] ψιλῶι P, EMVs: ψιλῶ F: ψιλῶς R^a: ψιλά R^b
  13 ἐγγύς που R: ἐγγὺς τοῦ libri || τελειότερα REF: τελειότερον P:
τελειότατα MVs   14 ἐκείνων P: ἐκεῖνα RFMs, V: om. E   19 ἢ εἴς τι] εἴς
τι F: ἤ τι EP: ἤτοι MV   20 τε καὶ EF: ἢ PMV   21 ἢ βραχέος V

11. Usener seems to carry his faith in F to excess when, in one and
the same line, he prints δ’ ὅσα and δὲ ὅσα. Dionysius can hardly have
extended his love for μεταβολή so far as that.

20. Batteaux (p. 208), when comparing French with the ancient languages
in relations to long and short syllables, has the following interesting
remarks: “Il n’est pas question de prouver ici que nous avons des
syllabes brèves: nous sommes presque persuadés que toutes nos syllabes
le sont, tant nous sommes pressés quand nous parlons. Nous traitons
de même les syllabes latines; nous les faisons presque toutes brèves,
quand nous lisons: il n’y a guère que le ω et les η grecs que nous
allongions en lisant. Selon toute apparence, les Grecs and les Italiens
anciens, qui, à en juger par les modernes, n’étaient pas moins vifs
que nous, ne devaient guère se donner plus de temps pour peser sur
leurs syllabes longues. Aussi n’était-ce pas dans la conversation
qu’ils mesuraient leurs syllabes; c’était dans les discours oratoires,
et encore plus dans leurs vers; c’était là qu’on pouvait observer les
longues et les brèves, et c’est là aussi que nous les devons observer
dans notre langue.”

[Page 151]

back by the breath, and affording it an outlet downwards round the
teeth. These differ in roughness and smoothness, τ being the smoothest
of them, θ the roughest, and δ medial or common. This is the second set
of three mutes. The three remaining mutes are spoken with the tongue
rising to the palate near the throat, and the windpipe echoing to the
breath. These, again, differ in no way from one another as regards
formation; but κ is pronounced smoothly, χ roughly, γ moderately and
between the two. Of these the best are those which are uttered with
a full breath; next those with moderate breath; worst those with
smooth breath, since they have their own force alone, while the rough
letters have the breath also added, so that they are somewhere nearer
perfection than the others.



Such is the number of the letters, and such are their properties. From
them are formed the so-called _syllables_. Of these syllables, those
are long which contain long vowels or variable vowels when pronounced
long, and those which end in a long letter or a letter pronounced long,
or in one of the semi-vowels and one of the mutes. Those are short
which contain a short vowel or one taken as short, and those which end
in such vowels. There is

[Page 152]

συλλαβῶν οὐ μία φύσις, ἀλλὰ καὶ μακρότεραί τινές εἰσι τῶν
μακρῶν καὶ βραχύτεραι τῶν βραχειῶν. ἔσται δὲ τοῦτο
φανερὸν ἐπὶ τῶν παραδειγμάτων.

ὁμολογεῖται δὴ βραχεῖα εἶναι συλλαβή, ἣν ποιεῖ φωνῆεν
γράμμα βραχὺ τὸ ο̄, ὡς λέγεται #ὁδός#. ταύτῃ προστεθήτω      5
γράμμα ἓν τῶν ἡμιφώνων τὸ ρ̄ καὶ γενέσθω #Ῥόδος#· μένει
μὲν ἔτι βραχεῖα ἡ συλλαβή, πλὴν οὐχ ὁμοίως, ἀλλ’ ἕξει τινὰ
παραλλαγὴν ἀκαρῆ παρὰ τὴν προτέραν. ἔτι προστεθήτω
ταύτῃ τῶν ἀφώνων γραμμάτων ἓν τὸ τ̄ καὶ γενέσθω #τρόπος#·
μείζων αὕτη τῶν προτέρων ἔσται συλλαβῶν καὶ ἔτι βραχεῖα      10
μένει. τρίτον ἔτι γράμμα τῇ αὐτῇ συλλαβῇ προστεθήτω τὸ
σ̄ καὶ γενέσθω #στρόφος#· τρισὶν αὕτη προσθήκαις ἀκουσταῖς
μακροτέρα γενήσεται τῆς βραχυτάτης μένουσα ἔτι βραχεῖα.
οὐκοῦν τέτταρες αὗται βραχείας συλλαβῆς διαφοραὶ τὴν
ἄλογον αἴσθησιν ἔχουσαι τῆς παραλλαγῆς μέτρον. ὁ δ’ αὐτὸς      15
λόγος καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς μακρᾶς. ἡ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ η̄ γινομένη συλλαβὴ
μακρὰ τὴν φύσιν οὖσα τεττάρων γραμμάτων προσθήκαις
παραυξηθεῖσα τριῶν μὲν προταττομένων, ἑνὸς δὲ ὑποταττομένου,
καθ’ ἣν λέγεται #σπλήν#, μείζων ἂν δήπου λέγοιτο εἶναι
τῆς προτέρας ἐκείνης τῆς μονογραμμάτου· μειουμένη γοῦν      20
αὖθις καθ’ ἓν ἕκαστον τῶν προστεθέντων γραμμάτων τὰς
ἐπὶ τοὔλαττον παραλλαγὰς αἰσθητὰς ἂν ἔχοι. αἰτία δὲ τίς
ἐστι τοῦ μήτε τὰς μακρὰς ἐκβαίνειν τὴν αὑτῶν φύσιν μέχρι
γραμμάτων πέντε μηκυνομένας μήτε τὰς βραχείας εἰς ἓν ἀπὸ
πολλῶν γραμμάτων συστελλομένας ἐκπίπτειν τῆς βραχύτητος,      25
ἀλλὰ κἀκείνας ἐν διπλασίῳ λόγῳ θεωρεῖσθαι τῶν βραχειῶν
καὶ ταύτας ἐν ἡμίσει τῶν μακρῶν, οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἐν τῷ
παρόντι σκοπεῖν. ἀρκεῖ γὰρ ὅσον εἰς τὴν παροῦσαν ὑπόθεσιν
ἥρμοττεν εἰρῆσθαι, ὅτι διαλλάττει καὶ βραχεῖα συλλαβὴ

4 δὴ] δεῖ P || βραχεῖα EM: βραχέα F: βραχεῖαν PV || συλλαβὴν PV   5
γράμμα βραχὺ EF: βραχὺ γράμμα V: γράμμα P || προστεθήτω EPV: προστιθέτω
M: τίς προσθέτω F   8 ἀκαρὴ P: ἀκαρεὶ MV: om. EF || προστεθήτω EPMV:
προσθέτω F   9 ἓν EF: om. PMV   15 ἄλογον EFV: ἀνάλογον PM   19 μείζονα
ἂν F   20 μειουμένη] μειουμένης P: μειουμένων M || γ’ οὖν αὖθις P, M:
τε οὖν αὖθις F: τε αὖ πάλιν E: δ’ αὖ πάλιν V   21 ἓν PMV: om. EF   22
τοὔλαττον] τὸ λεῖπον PM || τίς ex τί corr. F: ἣ τίς PM, V   23 αὐτῶν
F: ἑαυτῶν PMV   24 ε̄ μηκυνομένας ... (25) γραμμάτων om. F || πέντε
Uptonus, ε̄ Us.: ἑπτὰ PM: δ̄ V

2. Cp. Quintil. ix. 4. 84 “sit in hoc quoque aliquid fortasse momenti,
quod et longis longiores et brevibus sunt breviores syllabae; ut,
quamvis neque plus duobus temporibus neque uno minus habere videantur,
ideoque in metris omnes breves longaeque inter sese sint pares, lateat
tamen nescio quid, quod supersit aut desit. nam versuum propria
condicio est, ideoque in his quaedam etiam communes.”

8. =ἀκαρῆ=: cp. _de Isocr._ c. 20 ἀκαρῆ δέ τινα ... ἐνθυμήματα.

12. =τρισὶν ... προσθήκαις=: the meaning apparently is that the first
prefix increases the length by one augmentation; the second, by two;
the third, by three. αὕτη = ἡ συλλαβή =στρόφ-=.

22. =ἐπὶ τοὔλαττον=: cp. Aristot. _Eth. Nic._ ii. 7. 12 ἡ δὲ
προσποίησις ἡ μὲν ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον ἀλαζονεία καὶ ὁ ἔχων αὐτὴν ἀλαζών, ἡ
δ’ ἐπὶ τὸ ἔλαττον εἰρωνεία καὶ εἴρων [ὁ ἔχων], iv. 7. 14 οἱ δ’ εἴρωνες
ἐπὶ τὸ ἔλαττον λέγοντες χαριέστεροι μὲν τὰ ἤθη φαίνονται; and Long. _de
Sublim._ c. 38 αἱ δ’ ὑπερβολαὶ καθάπερ ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον, οὕτως καὶ ἐπὶ

26. =θεωρεῖσθαι= here (and in =204= 3, =210= 9) may perhaps supply a
parallel (though not a complete one) of the kind desired in _Classical
Quarterly_ i. 41 n. 1.

[Page 153]

more than one kind of length and shortness of syllables: some are
longer than the long and some shorter than the short. And this will be
made clear by consideration of the examples which I am about to adduce.

It will be admitted that a syllable is short which is formed by the
short vowel ο, as, for example, in the word ὁδός. To this let the
semi-vowel ρ be prefixed and Ῥόδος be formed. The syllable still
remains short; but not equally so, for it will show some slight
difference when compared with the former. Further, let one of the
mutes, τ, be prefixed and τρόπος be formed. This again will be longer
than the former syllables; yet it still remains short. Let still a
third letter, σ, be prefixed to the same syllable and στρόφος be
formed. This will have become longer than the shortest syllable by
three audible prefixes; and yet it still remains short. So, then,
here are four grades of short syllables, with only our instinctive
feeling for quantity as a measure of the difference. The same principle
applies to the long syllable. The syllable formed from η, though long
by nature, yet when augmented by the addition of four letters, three
prefixed and one suffixed, as in the word σπλήν, would surely be said
to be ampler than that syllable, in its original form, that consisted
of a single letter. At all events, if it were in turn deprived, one by
one, of the added letters, it would show perceptible changes in the way
of diminution. As to the reason why long syllables do not transcend
their natural quality when lengthened to five letters, nor short
syllables drop from their shortness when reduced from many letters to
one, the former being still regarded as double the shorts, and the
latter as half the longs,—this does not at present demand examination.
It is sufficient to say what is really germane to the present subject,
namely, that one short syllable

[Page 154]

βραχείας καὶ μακρὰ μακρᾶς καὶ οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει δύναμιν
οὔτ’ ἐν λόγοις ψιλοῖς οὔτ’ ἐν ποιήμασιν ἢ μέλεσιν διὰ μέτρων
ἢ ῥυθμῶν κατασκευαζομένοις πᾶσα βραχεῖα καὶ πᾶσα μακρά.

πρῶτον μὲν δὴ θεώρημα τοῦτο τῶν ἐν ταῖς συλλαβαῖς
παθῶν· ἕτερον δὲ τοιόνδε· τῶν γραμμάτων πολλὰς ἐχόντων      5
διαφορὰς οὐ μόνον περὶ τὰ μήκη καὶ τὰς βραχύτητας ἀλλὰ
καὶ περὶ τοὺς ἤχους, ὑπὲρ ὧν ὀλίγῳ πρότερον εἴρηκα, πᾶσα
ἀνάγκη καὶ τὰς ἐκ τούτων συνισταμένας συλλαβὰς ἢ διὰ
τούτων πλεκομένας ἅμα τήν τε ἰδίαν ἑκάστου σῴζειν δύναμιν
καὶ τὴν κοινὴν ἁπάντων, ἣ γίνεται διὰ τῆς κράσεώς τε καὶ      10
παραθέσεως αὐτῶν· ἐξ ὧν μαλακαί τε φωναὶ γίνονται καὶ
σκληραὶ καὶ λεῖαι καὶ τραχεῖαι, γλυκαίνουσαί τε τὴν ἀκοὴν
καὶ πικραίνουσαι, καὶ στύφουσαι καὶ διαχέουσαι, καὶ πᾶσαν
ἄλλην κατασκευάζουσαι διάθεσιν φυσικήν· αὗται δ’ εἰσὶ μυρίαι
τὸ πλῆθος ὅσαι.      15

ταῦτα δὴ καταμαθόντες οἱ χαριέστατοι ποιητῶν τε καὶ
συγγραφέων τὰ μὲν αὐτοὶ κατασκευάζουσιν ὀνόματα συμπλέκοντες
ἐπιτηδείως ἀλλήλοις, τὰ δὲ γράμματα καὶ τὰς συλλαβὰς
οἰκείας οἷς ἂν βούλωνται παραστῆσαι πάθεσιν ποικίλως
φιλοτεχνοῦσιν, ὡς ποιεῖ πολλάκις Ὅμηρος, ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν      20
προσηνέμων αἰγιαλῶν τῇ παρεκτάσει τῶν συλλαβῶν τὸν
ἄπαυστον ἐκφαίνειν βουλόμενος ἦχον

        ἠϊόνες βοόωσιν ἐρευγομένης ἁλὸς ἔξω·

1 οὐ F: οὔτε PMV   2 μέτρων ἢ ῥυθμῶν F: ῥυθμῶν ἢ μέτρων PMV   8 καὶ EF:
om. PMV   10 καὶ (posterius) EF: καὶ τῆς PMV   13 πᾶσαν EFM: πᾶσαν τὴν
PV   16 δὴ PMV: ἤδη EF   17 αὐτοὶ EF: αὐτοί τε PMV   18 τὰ δὲ FM: τὰ
EPV   19 οἰκείας F: δὲ οἰκείας E: οἰκείως PM: δὲ οἰκείως V   20 τῶν EF:
om. PMV   21 τὸν om. P   22 ἐκφαίνειν EF: ἐμφαίνειν PMV

1. H. Richards (_Classical Review_ xix. 252) suggests οὔτι, in place of
the οὔτε of PMV and the οὐ of F.

3. If this passage (from =152= 4 up to this point) be taken in
connexion with one from the scholia to Hephaestion and another from
Marius Victorinus (see Goodell’s _Greek Metric_ pp. 6, 7), we find the
following difference indicated as between the school of the _metrici_
and that of the _rhythmici_: “The metrici considered the long syllable
as always twice the length of the short; whatever variation from this
ratio the varying constitution of syllables produced was treated as
too slight to affect the general flow of verse. The rhythmici, on the
other hand, held that long syllables differed greatly from each other
in quantity, and that short syllables differed from each other in
some degree, apart from variations in tempo. The doctrine of ἀλογία
or irrationality, whereby some syllables were longer or shorter by a
small undefined amount than the complete long, was associated by some
with this theory, as in a passage of Dionysius Halic. (_C. V._ c. 17
οἱ δ’ ἀπὸ τῆς μακρᾶς ... τῶν πάνυ καλῶν οἱ ῥυθμοί: cp. c. 20 _ibid._).
Some, at least, affirmed also that a single consonant required half the
time of a short vowel, and that two consonants or a double consonant
required the same time as a short vowel; those writers accordingly set
up a scale of measurement for syllables, simply counting the number
of time-units required, on this theory, by the constituent vowels and
consonants,” Goodell _Greek Metric_ pp. 8, 9.

20. Cp. the use of the long _o_ in such passages as Virg. _Aen._ iii.
670 ff. “verum ubi nulla datur dextra adfectare potestas | nec potis
Ionios fluctus aequare sequendo, | clamorem immensum tollit, quo
pontus et omnes | contremuere undae”; v. 244 ff. “tum satus Anchisa
cunctis ex more vocatis | victorem magna praeconis voce Cloanthum |
declarat viridique advelat tempora lauro, | muneraque in navis ternos
optare iuvencos | vinaque et argenti magnum dat ferre talentum.” See
also Demetr. p. 42 for A. C. Bradley’s comments on Virgil’s line
“tendebantque manus ripae ulterioris amore.”

23. Aristotle (_Poetics_ c. 22) points out that it would be disastrous
to substitute the trivial κράζουσιν for =βοόωσιν= in this passage.—With
regard to the sound of the line cp. schol. on _Il._ xvii. 265 καὶ
ἔστιν ἰδεῖν κῦμα μέγα θαλάσσης ἐπιφερόμενον ποταμοῦ ῥεύματι καὶ τῷ
ἀνακόπτεσθαι βρυχώμενον, καὶ τὰς ἑκατέρωθεν τοῦ ποταμοῦ θαλασσίας
ἠϊόνας ἠχούσας, ὃ ἐμιμήσατο διὰ τῆς ἐπεκτάσεως τοῦ #βοόωσιν#. αὕτη
ἡ εἰκὼν Πλάτωνος ἔκαυσε τὰ ποιήματα· οὕτως ἐναργέστερον τοῦ ὁρωμένου τὸ
ἀκουόμενον παρέστησεν ... τῆς γὰρ ἐπαλλήλου τῶν ὑδάτων ἐκβολῆς ἡ τοῦ
“βοόωσιν” ἀναδίπλωσις ὁμοίαν ἀπετέλεσε συνῳδίαν.

[Page 155]

may differ from another short, and one long from another long, and that
every short and every long syllable has not the same quality either
in prose, or in poems, or in songs, whether these be metrically or
rhythmically constructed.

The foregoing is the first aspect under which we view the different
qualities of syllables. The next is as follows. As letters have
many points of difference, not only in length and shortness, but
also in sound—points of which I have spoken a little while ago—it
must necessarily follow that the syllables, which are combinations
or interweavings of letters, preserve at once both the individual
properties of each component, and the joint properties of all, which
spring from their fusion and juxtaposition. The sounds thus formed are
soft or hard, smooth or rough, sweet to the ear or harsh to it; they
make us pull a wry face, or cause our mouths to water, or bring about
any of the countless other physical conditions that are possible.

These facts the greatest poets and prose-writers have carefully noted,
and not only do they deliberately arrange their words and weave them
into appropriate patterns, but often, with curious and loving skill,
they adapt the very syllables and letters to the emotions which
they wish to represent. This is Homer’s way when he is describing a
wind-swept beach and wishes to express the ceaseless reverberation by
the prolongation of syllables:—

    Echo the cliffs, as bursteth the sea-surge down on the strand.[131]

[Page 156]

ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ τετυφλωμένου Κύκλωπος τό τε τῆς ἀλγηδόνος
μέγεθος καὶ τὴν διὰ τῶν χειρῶν βραδεῖαν ἔρευναν τῆς τοῦ
σπηλαίου θύρας

        Κύκλωψ δὲ στενάχων τε καὶ ὠδίνων ὀδύνῃσιν,
        χερσὶ ψηλαφόων·      5

καὶ ἄλλοθί που δέησιν ἐνδείξασθαι βουλόμενος πολλὴν καὶ

        οὐδ’ εἴ κεν μάλα πολλὰ πάθῃ ἑκάεργος Ἀπόλλων,
        προπροκυλινδόμενος πατρὸς Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο.

μυρία ἔστιν εὑρεῖν παρ’ αὐτῷ τοιαῦτα, χρόνου μῆκος ἢ      10
σώματος μέγεθος ἢ πάθους ὑπερβολὴν ἢ στάσεως ἠρεμίαν ἢ
τῶν παραπλησίων τι δηλοῦντα παρ’ οὐδὲν οὕτως ἕτερον ἢ τὰς
τῶν συλλαβῶν κατασκευάς· καὶ ἄλλα τούτοις ἐναντίως εἰργασμένα
εἰς βραχύτητα καὶ τάχος καὶ σπουδὴν καὶ τὰ τούτοις
ὁμοιογενῆ, ὡς ἔχει ταυτί      15

        ἀμβλήδην γοόωσα μετὰ δμωῇσιν ἔειπεν


        ἡνίοχοι δ’ ἔκπληγεν, ἐπεὶ ἴδον ἀκάματον πῦρ.

ἐφ’ ἧς μὲν γὰρ ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος δηλοῦται συγκοπὴ καὶ τὸ
τῆς φωνῆς ἄτακτον, ἐφ’ ὧν δ’ ἡ τῆς διανοίας ἔκστασις καὶ τὸ      20
τοῦ δείματος ἀπροσδόκητον· ποιεῖ δὲ τούτων ἑκάτερον ἡ τῶν
συλλαβῶν τε καὶ γραμμάτων ἐλάττωσις.

1 τετυφλωμένου E: τετυφωμένου F: τυφλουμένου PMV   2 τὴν διὰ EMV: διὰ
τὴν FP   8 πάθῃ EF: πάθοι PMV Hom.   10 εὑρεῖν om. F   11 ἠρεμίαν]
ὁμιλίαν FM   15 ὁμοιογενῆ F: ὁμο*γενῆ P: ὁμογενῆ MV   16 δμωιῆισιν P:
Τρῴῃσιν Hom.   18 ἔκπληγον PMV   19 ἧς F: ὧν PMV   20 ἔκστασις FM:
ἔκτασις PV   21 δείγματος PV

1. =ἀλγηδών=: a somewhat poetical word, though used by Herodotus and
Plato. Its use in a highly figurative passage of Herodotus (v. 18) is
censured in the _de Sublim._ iv. 7 καὶ τὸ Ἡροδότειον οὐ πόρρω, τὸ φάναι
τὰς καλὰς γυναῖκας “ἀλγηδόνας ὀφθαλμῶν.”

4. In these lines, and in =154= 23, the reiteration of the long ω, and
of the long η, is particularly to be noted.

9. =προπροκυλινδόμενος=: imitated by Ap. Rhod. _Argon._ i. 386
προπροβιαζόμενοι, and ii. 595 προπροκαταΐγδην. Cp. _Odyss._ xvii. 524
ἔνθεν δὴ νῦν δεῦρο τόδ’ ἵκετο πήματα πάσχων, | προπροκυλινδόμενος.

10. =χρόνου μῆκος=: cp. Virg. _Aen._ i. 272 “hic iam ter centum totos
regnabitur annos,” and iii. 284 “interea magnum sol circumvolvitur

11. =σώματος μέγεθος=: cp. Virg. _Aen._ vii. 783 “ipse inter primos
praestanti corpore Turnus.”—=πάθους ὑπερβολήν=: cp. Virg. _Aen._ ix.
475 “at subitus miserae calor ossa reliquit, | excussi manibus radii
revolutaque pensa.”

12. A blending of (1) παρ’ οὐδὲν οὕτως ὡς, (2) παρ’ οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἤ.

16. Cp. Virg. _Aen._ ix. 477 “evolat infelix et femineo ululatu |
scissa comam muros amens atque agmina cursu | prima petit,” etc.

18. Batteux (_Réflexions_ pp. 219-21) quotes and analyzes the
well-known passage of Racine’s _Phèdre_ (v. 6) which begins: “Un
effroyable cri, sorti du fond des flots, | Des airs en ce moment a
troublé le repos.” He says: “Dans le dernier morceau de Racine qui
peint l’objet terrible, il n’y a pas un vers qui n’ait le caractère
de la chose exprimée. Ce sont des sons aigus et perçans, des syllabes
chargée de consonnes, et de consonnes épaisses: _sorti du fond des
flots; notre sang s’est glacé; L’onde approche, se brise; Son front
large est armé_. Des mots qui se heurtent: _effroyable cri; cri
redoutable; le crin s’est hérissé_. D’autres mots larges et spacieux:
_Cependant, sur le dos de la plaine liquide, S’élève à gros bouillons_
(_S’élève_ rejeté à l’autre vers comme celui-ci de Despréaux, _S’élève
un lit de plume_) _une montaigne humide; cornes menaçantes; écailles
jaunissantes; Indomptable taureau, dragon impétueux_. Des syllabes qui
se renversent les unes sur le autres: _Sa croupe se recourbe en replis
tortueux_. Ce vers, dans un poëme ancient, eût été célébré de siècle en

[Page 157]

Or again when, after the Cyclops has been blinded, Homer desires to
express the greatness of his anguish, and his hands’ slow search for
the door of the cavern:—

    The Cyclops, with groan on groan and throes of anguish sore,
    With hands slow-groping.[132]

And when in another place he wishes to indicate a long impassioned

    Not though in an agony Phoebus the Smiter from Far should entreat
    Low-grovelling at Father Zeus the Aegis-bearer’s feet.[133]

Such lines are to be found without number in Homer, representing length
of time, hugeness of body, stress of emotion, immobility of position,
or similar effects, simply by the manipulation of the syllables.
Conversely, others are framed to give the impression of abruptness,
speed, hurry, and the like. For instance,

    Wailing with broken sobs amidst of her handmaids she cried,[134]


    And scared were the charioteers, that tireless flame to behold.[135]

In the first passage the stoppage of Andromache’s breath is indicated,
and the tremor of her voice; in the second, the startled dismay of the
charioteers, and the unexpectedness of the terror. The effect in both
cases is due to the docking of syllables and letters.

[Page 158]


καὶ αὐτοὶ μὲν δὴ κατασκευάζουσιν οἱ ποιηταὶ καὶ λογογράφοι
πρὸς χρῆμα ὁρῶντες οἰκεῖα καὶ δηλωτικὰ τῶν ὑποκειμένων
τὰ ὀνόματα, ὥσπερ ἔφην· πολλὰ δὲ καὶ παρὰ τῶν
ἔμπροσθεν λαμβάνουσιν ὡς ἐκεῖνοι κατεσκεύασαν, ὅσα μιμητικὰ
τῶν πραγμάτων ἐστίν· ὡς ἔχει ταυτί      5

        ῥόχθει γὰρ μέγα κῦμα ποτὶ ξερὸν ἠπείροιο.

        αὐτὸς δὲ κλάγξας πέτετο πνοιῇς ἀνέμοιο.

        αἰγιαλῷ μεγάλῳ βρέμεται, σμαραγεῖ δέ τε πόντος.

        σκέπτετ’ ὀιστῶν τε ῥοῖζον καὶ δοῦπον ἀκόντων.

μεγάλη δὲ τούτων ἀρχὴ καὶ διδάσκαλος ἡ φύσις ἡ ποιοῦσα      10
μιμητικοὺς καὶ θετικοὺς ἡμᾶς τῶν ὀνομάτων, οἷς δηλοῦται τὰ
πράγματα κατά τινας εὐλόγους καὶ κινητικὰς τῆς διανοίας
ὁμοιότητας· ὑφ’ ἧς ἐδιδάχθημεν ταύρων τε μυκήματα λέγειν
καὶ χρεμετισμοὺς ἵππων καὶ φριμαγμοὺς τράγων πυρός τε

1 μὲν F: τε PMV   2 πρὸς χρῆμα PV: πρόσχημα PM   4 μιμητικὰ EF:
μιμητικώτατα PMV   5 πραγμάτων] γραμμάτων PM   6 ῥόγχθει F: ῥοχθεῖ PMV
  8 μεγάλωι P, EM Hom.: μεγάλα F   11 καὶ θετικοὺς ἡμᾶς EF: ἡμᾶς καὶ
θετικοὺς V: καὶ θετικοὺς M: ἡμᾶς P   12 τῆς EF: om. PMV   13 ἧς P:
ὧν EFMV   14 φριμαγμοὺς EF: φριγμοὺς P: φρυαγμοὺς V: φρυμαγμοὺς M ||
τράγων] ταύρων F

2. =πρὸς χρῆμα ὁρῶντες=: for χρῆμα cp. =160= 4. The writer must,
in Matthew Arnold’s phrase, have his “eye on the object.” Cp.
Aristot. _Poet._ c. xvii. δεῖ δὲ τοὺς μύθους συνιστάναι καὶ τῇ
λέξει συναπεργάζεσθαι ὅτι μάλιστα πρὸ ὀμμάτων τιθέμενον· οὕτω γὰρ
ἂν ἐναργέστατα ὁρῶν ὥσπερ παρ’ αὐτοῖς γιγνόμενος τοῖς πραττομένοις
εὑρίσκοι τὸ πρέπον καὶ ἥκιστα ἂν λανθάνοι τὰ ὑπεναντία: and Long.
_de Sublim._ c. xv. ἆρ’ οὐκ ἂν εἴποις, ὅτι ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ γράφοντος
συνεπιβαίνει τοῦ ἅρματος, καὶ συγκινδυνεύουσα τοῖς ἵπποις συνεπτέρωται;
οὐ γὰρ ἄν, εἰ μὴ τοῖς οὐρανίοις ἐκείνοις ἔργοις ἰσοδρομοῦσα ἐφέρετο,
τοιαῦτ’ ἄν ποτε ἐφαντάσθη.

4. =μιμητικά=: cp. Aristot. _Poet._ c. iv. τό τε γὰρ μιμεῖσθαι σύμφυτον
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐκ παίδων ἐστί (καὶ τούτῳ διαφέρουσι τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ὅτι
μιμητικώτατόν ἐστι καὶ τὰς μαθήσεις ποιεῖται διὰ μιμήσεως τὰς πρώτας),
καὶ τὸ χαίρειν τοῖς μιμήμασι πάντας.

6. For the repeated _r_ sound cp. the passage of the _Aeneid_ (i. 108)
which begins “talia iactanti stridens Aquilone procella,” and schol. on
_Odyss._ v. 402 τῶν δὲ πεποιημένων ἡ λέξις (sc. ῥόχθει)· τραχὺ γὰρ τὸ
ρ, τὸ θ, τὸ χ.

8. Cp. schol. ad _Il._ ii. 210 συμφυῶς τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ τετράχυνται τὸ
ἔπος ταῖς ὀνοματοποιΐαις.—In this line F’s reading μεγάλα accords with
a conjecture of Bentley’s.

9. Cp. Virg. _Aen._ v. 437 “stat gravis Entellus nisuque immotus eodem
| corpore tela modo atque oculis vigilantibus exit.”

11. Not all languages, however, have the same powers in this direction:
cp. Quintil. i. 5. 72 “sed minime nobis concessa est ὀνοματοποιΐα;
quis enim ferat, si quid simile illis merito laudatis λίγξε βιός et
σίζε ὀφθαλμός fingere audeamus? Iam ne _balare_ quidem aut _hinnire_
fortiter diceremus, nisi iudicio vetustatis niterentur” (Quintilian has
just before, §§ 67 and 70, referred to Pacuvius’ _repandirostrum_ and
_incurvicervicum_: which may be compared with Ἑρμοκαϊκόξανθος, Aristot.
_Poet._ c. 21); and viii. 6. 31 “ὀνοματοποιΐα quidem, id est fictio
nominis, Graecis inter maxima habita virtutes, nobis vix permittitur
... vix illa, quae πεποιημένα vocant, quae ex vocibus in usum receptis
quocunque modo declinantur, nobis permittimus, qualia sunt _Sullaturit_
et _proscripturit_.” Greek, English and German admit onomatopoeia more
readily than Latin and French. Any undue restriction (such as that
indicated by Quintilian when defining πεποιημένα) hampers the life of a
language. Words should serve their apprenticeship, no doubt; but there
should be no lack of probationers. We feel that the language itself
is growing when Cicero uses ‘dulcescit’ of the growing and ripening
grape, or when Erasmus uses the same word to indicate that England
‘grew’ upon him the more he knew it.—For the general question of the
right of coining new words or reviving disused words see Demetr. pp.
255, 297, 298 (and cp. §§ 94, 220 _ibid._). Many of Dionysius’ remarks,
here and elsewhere, seem to concern the choice or the manufacture of
words rather than their arrangement; but, from the nature of the case,
he clearly finds it hard to draw a strict dividing-line either in this
direction or in regard to the entire λεκτικὸς τόπος as distinguished
from the πραγματικὸς τόπος.

13. In giving the singular, P seems clearly right here, and as clearly
wrong when giving the plural in =156= 19.

[Page 159]



The poets and prose-writers themselves, then, with their eye on each
object in turn, frame—as I said—words which seem made for, and are
pictures of, the things they connote. But they also borrow many words
from earlier writers, in the very form in which those writers fashioned
them—when such words are imitative of things, as in the following

    For the vast sea-swell on the beach crashed down with a thunder-shock.[136]

    And adown the blasts of the wind he darted with one wild scream.[137]

    Even as when the surge of the seething sea falls dashing
    (On a league-long strand, with the roar of the rollers

    And his eyes for the hiss of the arrows, the hurtling of lances, were

The great originator and teacher in these matters is Nature, who
prompts us to imitate and to assign words by which things are pictured,
in virtue of certain resemblances which are founded in reason and
appeal to our intelligence. It is by her that we have been taught to
speak of the bellowing of bulls, the whinnying of horses, the snorting
of goats, the roar of fire, the

[Page 160]

βρόμον καὶ πάταγον ἀνέμων καὶ συριγμὸν κάλων καὶ ἄλλα
τούτοις ὅμοια παμπληθῆ τὰ μὲν φωνῆς μιμήματα, τὰ δὲ
μορφῆς, τὰ δὲ ἔργου, τὰ δὲ πάθους, τὰ δὲ κινήσεως, τὰ δ’
ἠρεμίας, τὰ δ’ ἄλλου χρήματος ὅτου δήποτε· περὶ ὧν εἴρηται
πολλὰ τοῖς πρὸ ἡμῶν, τὰ κράτιστα δ’ ὡς πρώτῳ τὸν ὑπὲρ      5
ἐτυμολογίας εἰσαγαγόντι λόγον, Πλάτωνι τῷ Σωκρατικῷ, πολλαχῇ
μὲν καὶ ἄλλῃ μάλιστα δ’ ἐν τῷ Κρατύλῳ.

τί δὴ τὸ κεφάλαιόν ἐστί μοι τούτου τοῦ λόγου; ὅτι
παρὰ μὲν τὰς τῶν γραμμάτων συμπλοκὰς ἡ τῶν συλλαβῶν
γίνεται δύναμις ποικίλη, παρὰ δὲ τὴν τῶν συλλαβῶν σύνθεσιν      10
ἡ τῶν ὀνομάτων φύσις παντοδαπή, παρὰ δὲ τὰς τῶν ὀνομάτων
ἁρμονίας πολύμορφος ὁ λόγος· ὥστε πολλὴ ἀνάγκη καλὴν
μὲν εἶναι λέξιν ἐν ᾗ καλά ἐστιν ὀνόματα, κάλλους δὲ ὀνομάτων
συλλαβάς τε καὶ γράμματα καλὰ αἴτια εἶναι, ἡδεῖαν δὲ διάλεκτον
ἐκ τῶν ἡδυνόντων τὴν ἀκοὴν γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὸ παραπλήσιον      15
ὀνομάτων τε καὶ συλλαβῶν καὶ γραμμάτων, τάς τε
κατὰ μέρος ἐν τούτοις διαφοράς, καθ’ ἃς δηλοῦται τά τε ἤθη
καὶ τὰ πάθη καὶ αἱ διαθέσεις καὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν προσώπων
καὶ τὰ συνεδρεύοντα τούτοις, ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης κατασκευῆς τῶν
γραμμάτων γίνεσθαι τοιαύτας.      20

χρήσομαι δ’ ὀλίγοις παραδείγμασι τοῦ λόγου τοῦδε τῆς
σαφηνείας ἕνεκα· τὰ γὰρ ἄλλα πολλὰ ὄντα ἐπὶ σαυτοῦ συμβαλλόμενος
εὑρήσεις. ὁ δὴ πολυφωνότατος ἁπάντων τῶν

2 μιμήματα EPM: μιμητικὰ V: μηνύματα F   3 ἔργων E: ἔργα M   4 ἐρημίας
F || δήποτε FMV: δὴ P   5 δ’ ὡς F: δε νέμω (νέμων M) ὡς PMV   9, 10,
11 παρὰ] περὶ R || γραμμάτων] πραγμάτων F: cf. =158= 5   10 δύναμις
RF: σύνθεσις EPV || σύνθεσιν EF: συνθέσεις PMV: θέσεις R   12 λόγος
REF: λόγος [γ]ίνεται cum litura P, MV   13 κάλλους REF: καλῶν PV   14
αἴτια RMV: αἰτίαν F: αἴτιον EP   15 κατὰ F: καὶ PMV   20 τοιαύτας Us.:
τοιαύτα F, PMV   21 παραδείγμασι F: δείγμασιν P, MV   23 ἁπάντων τῶν
MV: ἁπάντων FP

1. Cp. Virg. _Aen._ i. 87 “insequitur clamorque virum stridorque
rudentum”; Ap. Rhod. _Argon._ i. 725 ὑπὸ πνοιῇ δὲ κάλωες | ὅπλα τε νήια
πάντα τινάσσετο νισσομένοισιν.

5. So Diog. Laert. (auctore Favorino in octavo libro Omnigenae
historiae): καὶ πρῶτος ἐθεώρησε τῆς γραμματικῆς τὴν δύναμιν (_Vit.
Plat._ 25).

8. The following passage (from =ὅτι= to =καλὰ αἴτια=) is quoted in
schol. anon. in Hermog. (Walz _Rhett. Gr._ vii. 1049), with the
prefatory words ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ περὶ συνθέσεως ὀνομάτων περὶ λέξεως
διαλαμβάνων λέγει ὅτι κτλ.

10. The endless possibilities of these syllabic, verbal, and other
permutations had evidently impressed the imagination of Dionysius:
together with their climax in literature itself, and in all the great
types of literature.

12. “This sentence (=ὥστε πολλὴ ἀνάγκη ... γράμματα καλὰ αἴτια εἶναι=)
puts boldly the truth which Aristotle had evaded or pooh-poohed in
his excessive devotion to the philosophy of literature rather than to
literature itself” (Saintsbury _History of Criticism_ i. 130).

21. =παραδείγμασι= is perhaps to be preferred to δείγμασι here: cp.
=164= 16.

22. =ἐπὶ σαυτοῦ= = _per te ipsum_, _tuopte Marte_: cp. =96= 21 ἐσκόπουν
δ’ αὐτὸς ἐπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ γενόμενος.

23. =πολυφωνότατος= In this respect Homer’s great compeer is
Shakespeare, in whose dramas “few things are more remarkable than
the infinite range of style, speech, dialect they unfold before us”
(Vaughan _Types of Tragic Drama_ p. 165).—The passage of Dionysius
which follows might be endlessly illustrated from Shakespeare;
e.g. from Sonnet civ., _Romeo and Juliet_ ii. 2 and v. 3, _Antony
and Cleopatra_ ii. 2 (speeches of Enobarbus), _Tempest_ iii. 1. In
the scene of the _Tempest_, correspondence and variety are alike
conspicuous. Ferdinand’s address (beginning “Admired Miranda!”)
tallies—to the line and even to the half-line—with Miranda’s reply, and
the concluding lines are, in the one case,

                          But you, O you,
    So _p_erfect and so _p_eerless, are created
    Of every creature’s best;

and, in the other,

                              But I _p_rattle
    Something too wildly, and my father’s _p_recepts
    I therein do forget.

In the same scene the lines—

                                  O, she is
    Ten times more gentle than her father’s crabbed,
    And he’s composed of harshness,

would have a very different effect (cp. quotation from Aristotle’s
_Poetics_ on =78= 9 _supra_) if written as follows:—

                                  O, she is
    Ten times more _gracious_ than her _sire_ is _stern_,
    And he is _merely cruel_

(‘merely’ being understood, of course, in the Shakespearian sense of

[Page 161]

rushing of winds, the creaking of hawsers, and numerous other similar
imitations of sound, form, action, emotion, movement, stillness, and
anything else whatsoever. On these points much has been said by our
predecessors, the most important contributions being by the first of
them to introduce the subject of etymology, Plato the disciple of
Socrates, in his _Cratylus_ especially, but in many other places as

What is the sum and substance of my argument? It is that it is due
to the interweaving of letters that the quality of syllables is so
multifarious; to the combination of syllables that the nature of words
has such wide diversity; to the arrangement of words that discourse
takes on so many forms. The conclusion is inevitable—that style is
beautiful when it contains beautiful words,—that beauty of words is
due to beautiful syllables and letters,—that language is rendered
charming by the things that charm the ear in virtue of affinities in
words, syllables, and letters; and that the differences in detail
between these, through which are indicated the characters, emotions,
dispositions, actions and so forth of the persons described, are made
what they are through the original grouping of the letters.

To set the matter in a clearer light, I will illustrate my argument by
a few examples. Other instances—and there are plenty of them—you will
find for yourself in the course of your own investigations. When Homer,
the poet above all others

[Page 162]

ποιητῶν Ὅμηρος, ὅταν μὲν ὥραν ὄψεως εὐμόρφου καὶ κάλλος
ἡδονῆς ἐπαγωγὸν ἐπιδείξασθαι βούληται, τῶν τε φωνηέντων
τοῖς κρατίστοις χρήσεται καὶ τῶν ἡμιφώνων τοῖς μαλακωτάτοις,
καὶ οὐ καταπυκνώσει τοῖς ἀφώνοις τὰς συλλαβὰς οὐδὲ συγκόψει
τοὺς ἤχους παρατιθεὶς ἀλλήλοις τὰ δυσέκφορα, πραεῖαν δέ      5
τινα ποιήσει τὴν ἁρμονίαν τῶν γραμμάτων καὶ ῥέουσαν ἀλύπως
διὰ τῆς ἀκοῆς, ὡς ἔχει ταυτί

        ἡ δ’ ἴεν ἐκ θαλάμοιο περίφρων Πηνελόπεια
        Ἀρτέμιδι ἰκέλη ἠὲ χρυσῇ Ἀφροδίτῃ.

        Δήλῳ δήποτε τοῖον Ἀπόλλωνος παρὰ βωμῷ      10
        φοίνικος νέον ἔρνος ἀνερχόμενον ἐνόησα.

        καὶ Χλῶριν εἶδον περικαλλέα, τήν ποτε Νηλεὺς
        γῆμεν ἑὸν μετὰ κάλλος, ἐπεὶ πόρε μυρία ἕδνα.

ὅταν δ’ οἰκτρὰν ἢ φοβερὰν ἢ ἀγέρωχον ὄψιν εἰσάγῃ, τῶν τε
φωνηέντων οὐ τὰ κράτιστα θήσει ἀλλὰ τῶν ψοφοειδῶν ἢ      15
ἀφώνων τὰ δυσεκφορώτατα λήψεται καὶ καταπυκνώσει τούτοις
τὰς συλλαβάς, οἷά ἐστι ταυτί

        σμερδαλέος δ’ αὐτῇσι φάνη κεκακωμένος ἅλμῃ.

        τῇ δ’ ἐπὶ μὲν Γοργὼ βλοσυρῶπις ἐστεφάνωτο
        δεινὸν δερκομένη, περὶ δὲ Δεῖμός τε Φόβος τε.      20

ποταμῶν δέ γε σύρρυσιν εἰς χωρίον ἓν καὶ πάταγον ὑδάτων
ἀναμισγομένων ἐκμιμήσασθαι τῇ λέξει βουλόμενος οὐκ ἐργάσεται
λείας συλλαβὰς ἀλλ’ ἰσχυρὰς καὶ ἀντιτύπους

2 ἐπαγαγὼν F   3 χρήσεται ... μαλακωτάτοις om. F   4 συγκόπτει P   6
ποιεῖ P   12 χλωρὴν F || ἴδον PMV || ἥν F   13 γῆμεν ἑὸν] τημέναιον
F || μετα P, M: κατα F: διὰ EV   19 γοργῶι sic F: γοργὼ ceteri ||
βλοσυρώπις F (metri, ut videtur, gratia)   22 ἐργάσεται Us.: ἐργάζεται
F: ἔτι EPMV   23 ἀντιτύπους F: ἀντιτύπους θήσει EPMV

1. =κάλλος=: cp. scholium in P, ση(μείωσαι) πῶς κάλλος ἡδο(νῆς)
ἐπαγωγὸν δείκνυ(σιν) Ὅμ(η)ρ(ος).

3. =χρήσεται ... καταπυκνώσει ... συγκόψει ... ποιήσει=: general truths
expressed by means of the future tense.

8. Cp. Virg. _Aen._ i. 496 “regina ad templum, forma pulcherrima Dido,
| incessit magna iuvenum stipante caterva. | qualis in Eurotae ripis
aut per iuga Cynthi | exercet Diana choros,” etc.; and _Aen._ xii. 67
“Indum sanguineo veluti violaverit ostro | si quis ebur, aut mixta
rubent ubi lilia multa | alba rosa: tales virgo dabat ore colores.”

13. In _Odyss._ xi. 282 the textual evidence is reported as follows:
“διὰ FHJK, ss. XTU^2, Dion. Hal. comp. verb. 16; δια P; μετὰ XDSTUW,
An. Ox. iv. 310. 5, Bekker An. 1158, Eust.; μετα G” (Ludwich _ad
loc._).—In the present passage of Dionysius the reading μετά gives
an additional =μ= in the line: γῆ=μ=εν ἑὸν =μ=ετὰ κάλλος, ἐπεὶ πόρε
=μ=υρία ἕδνα. For some instances in which the authorities vary between
μετά and κατά see Ebeling’s _Lexicon Homericum_, s.v. μετά.

14. In his selection of tragic qualities Dionysius seems perhaps to
have in view, once more, the Aristotelian doctrine of two extremes and
a mean.—As the epithet =ἀγέρωχος= so closely follows the quotations
from Homer, it is natural to suppose that Dionysius uses the word in
the Homeric sense of _lordly, august_, rather than in the later (bad)
sense of _haughty, insolent_.

15. Sauppe would insert τὰ δυσηχέστατα καὶ between ἀλλὰ and τῶν

[Page 163]

many-voiced, wishes to depict the young bloom of a lovely countenance
and a beauty that brings delight, he will use the finest of the vowels
and the softest of the semi-vowels; he will not pack his syllables with
mute letters, nor impede the utterance by putting next to one another
words hard to pronounce. He will make the harmony of the letters strike
softly and pleasingly upon the ear, as in the following lines:—

    Now forth of her bower hath gone Penelope passing-wise
    Lovely as Artemis, or as Aphrodite the Golden.[140]

    Only once by the Sun-god’s altar in Delos I chanced to espy
    So stately a shaft of a palm that gracefully grew thereby.[141]

    Rose Chloris, fair beyond word, whom Nereus wedded of old,
    For her beauty his heart had stirred, and he wooed her with gifts

But when he introduces a sight that is pitiable, or terrifying, or
august, he will not employ the finest of the vowels. He will take the
hardest to utter of the fricatives or of the mutes, and will pack his
syllables with these. For instance:—

    But dreadful he burst on their sight, with the sea-scum all fouled

    And thereon was embossed the Gorgon-demon, with stony gaze
    Grim-glaring, and Terror and Panic encompassed the Fearful Face.[144]

When he wishes to reproduce in his language the rush of meeting
torrents and the roar of confluent waters, he will not employ smooth
syllables, but strong and resounding ones:—

[Page 164]

        ὡς δ’ ὅτε χείμαρροι ποταμοὶ κατ’ ὄρεσφι ῥέοντες
        ἐς μισγάγκειαν συμβάλλετον ὄβριμον ὕδωρ.

βιαζόμενον δέ τινα πρὸς ἐναντίον ῥεῦμα ποταμοῦ μετὰ τῶν
ὅπλων καὶ τὰ μὲν ἀντέχοντα, τὰ δ’ ὑποφερόμενον εἰσάγων
ἀνακοπάς τε ποιήσει συλλαβῶν καὶ ἀναβολὰς χρόνων καὶ      5
ἀντιστηριγμοὺς γραμμάτων

        δεινὸν δ’ ἀμφ’ Ἀχιλῆα κυκώμενον ἵστατο κῦμα,
        ὤθει δ’ ἐν σάκεϊ πίπτων ῥόος, οὐδὲ πόδεσσιν
        εἶχε στηρίξασθαι.

ἀραττομένων δὲ περὶ πέτρας ἀνθρώπων ψόφον τε καὶ μόρον      10
οἰκτρὸν ἐπιδεικνύμενος, ἐπὶ τῶν ἀηδεστάτων τε καὶ κακοφωνοτάτων
χρονιεῖ γραμμάτων, οὐδαμῇ λεαίνων τὴν κατασκευὴν
οὐδὲ ἡδύνων·

        σύν τε δύω μάρψας ὥστε σκύλακας ποτὶ γαίῃ
        κόπτ’· ἐκ δ’ ἐγκέφαλος χαμάδις ῥέε, δεῦε δὲ γαῖαν.      15

πολὺ ἂν ἔργον εἴη λέγειν, εἰ πάντων παραδείγματα βουλοίμην
φέρειν ὧν ἄν τις ἀπαιτήσειε κατὰ τὸν τόπον τόνδε· ὥστε ἀρκεσθεὶς
τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐπὶ τὰ ἑξῆς μεταβήσομαι. φημὶ δὴ τὸν
βουλόμενον ἐργάσασθαι λέξιν καλὴν ἐν τῷ συντιθέναι τὰς
φωνάς, ὅσα καλλιλογίαν ἢ μεγαλοπρέπειαν ἢ σεμνότητα περιείληφεν      20
ὀνόματα, εἰς ταὐτὸ συνάγειν. εἴρηται δέ τινα περὶ
τούτων καὶ Θεοφράστῳ τῷ φιλοσόφῳ κοινότερον ἐν τοῖς περὶ

2 ὄβριμον FP: ὄμβριμον EM^2V   9 στηρίξασθαι F Hom.: στηρίζεσθαι PMV
  10 δραττομένων F || περι F, V: παρα P, M   11 ἐπιδεικνύμενος F:
ἐνδεικνύμενος PMV   14 ποτι F, MV: προτὶ P: cf. =202= 6 infra.   17 κατὰ
τὸν τόπον τόνδε ὧν ἄν τις ἀπαιτήσειε (hoc verborum ordine) PV || κατὰ
F: καὶ κατὰ PV   20 καλλιλογίαν ἢ F: καλλιλογίαν καὶ PMV   21 τὸ αὐτὸ
F: τοῦτο PMV

1. Cp. Virg. _Aen._ ii. 496 “non sic, aggeribus ruptis cum spumeus
amnis | exiit oppositasque evicit gurgite moles, | fertur in arva
furens cumulo camposque per omnes | cum stabulis armenta trahit.”

7. Cp. Virg. _Aen._ x. 305 “solvitur (sc. puppis Tarchontis) atque
viros mediis exponit in undis, | fragmina remorum quos et fluitantia
transtra | impediunt retrahitque pedes simul unda relabens.”

14. Cp. Virg. _Aen._ v. 478, “durosque reducta | libravit dextra
media inter cornua caestus | arduus, effractoque illisit in ossa
cerebro.”—Demetr. (_de Eloc._ § 219), in quoting this passage of Homer,
couples with it _Il._ xxiii. 116 πολλὰ δ’ ἄναντα κάταντα πάραντά
τε δόχμιά τ’ ἦλθον (Virgil’s “quadripedante putrem sonitu quatit
ungula campum,” _Aen._ viii. 596).—Another good Virgilian instance of
adaptation of sound to sense is _Georg._ iv. 174 “illi inter sese magna
vi bracchia tollunt | in numerum, versantque tenaci forcipe ferrum.”

18. =φημί= seems (cp. the legal use of _aio_) to approximate to the
sense of κελεύω (as in Pind. _Nem._ iii. 28, Soph. _Aj._ 1108). Either
so, or (as Upton suggested) we may insert δεῖν, or the sense may simply
be, “I say that the man who aims ... _does_ combine, etc. (i.e. when he
knows his own business).”

19. For the construction =λέξιν καλὴν ἐν τῷ συντιθέναι τὰς φωνάς= cp.
_Fragm._ of Duris of Samos, Ἔφορος δὲ καὶ Θεόπομπος τῶν γενομένων
πλεῖστον ἀπελείφθησαν, οὔτε γὰρ μιμήσεως μετέλαβον οὐδεμίας οὔτε
#ἡδονῆς ἐν τῷ φράσαι#, αὐτοῦ δὲ τοῦ γράφειν μόνον ἐπεμελήθησαν.

20. Here, again, the Aristotelian ‘mean’ may possibly be intended.

22. =Theophrastus=: for other references to Theophrastus in the
_Scripta Rhetorica_ of Dionysius see _de Lysia_ cc. 6, 14; _de Isocr._
c. 3; _de Din._ c. 2; _de Demosth._ c. 3. The passage of Theophrastus
which Dionysius has in mind here is no doubt that mentioned by Demetr.
_de Eloc._ § 173 ποιεῖ δὲ εὔχαριν τὴν ἑρμηνείαν καὶ τὰ λεγόμενα καλὰ
ὀνόματα. ὡρίσατο δ’ αὐτὰ Θεόφραστος οὕτως· κάλλος ὀνόματός ἐστι τὸ πρὸς
τὴν ἀκοὴν ἢ πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν ἡδύ, ἢ τὸ τῇ διανοίᾳ ἔντιμον.

[Page 165]

    And even as Wintertide torrents down-rushing from steep hill-sides
    Hurl their wild waters in one where a cleft of the mountain divides.[145]

When he depicts a hero, though heavy with his harness, putting forth
all his energies against an opposing stream, and now holding his own,
now being carried off his feet, he will contrive counter-buffetings of
syllables, arresting pauses, and letters that block the way:—

    Round Achilles the terrible surge towered seething on every side,
    And a cataract dashed and crashed on his shield: all vainly he sought
    Firm ground for his feet.[146]

When men are being dashed against rocks, and he is portraying the
noise and their pitiable fate, he will linger on the harshest and most
ill-sounding letters, altogether avoiding smoothness or prettiness in
the structure:—

    And together laid hold on twain, and dashed them against the ground
    Like whelps: down gushed the brain, and bespattered the rock-floor

It would be a long task to attempt to adduce specimens of all the
artistic touches of which examples might be demanded in this one field.
So, contenting myself with what has been said, I will pass to the next

I hold that those who wish to fashion a style which is beautiful in
the collocation of sounds must combine in it words which all carry the
impression of elegance, grandeur, or dignity. Something has been said
about these matters, in a general way, by the philosopher Theophrastus
in his work on _Style_, where he

[Page 166]

λέξεως, ἔνθα ὁρίζει, τίνα ὀνόματα φύσει καλά· παραδείγματος
ἕνεκα, ὧν συντιθεμένων καλὴν οἴεται καὶ μεγαλοπρεπῆ γενήσεσθαι
τὴν φράσιν, καὶ αὖθις ἕτερα μικρὰ καὶ ταπεινά, ἐξ ὧν
οὔτε ποίημα χρηστὸν ἔσεσθαί φησιν οὔτε λόγον. καὶ μὰ
Δία οὐκ ἀπὸ σκοποῦ ταῦτα εἴρηται τῷ ἀνδρί. εἰ μὲν οὖν      5
ἐγχωροίη πάντ’ εἶναι τὰ μόρια τῆς λέξεως ὑφ’ ὧν μέλλει
δηλοῦσθαι τὸ πρᾶγμα εὔφωνά τε καὶ καλλιρήμονα, μανίας
ἔργον ζητεῖν τὰ χείρω· εἰ δὲ ἀδύνατον εἴη τοῦτο, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ
πολλῶν ἔχει, τῇ πλοκῇ καὶ μίξει καὶ παραθέσει πειρατέον
ἀφανίζειν τὴν τῶν χειρόνων φύσιν, ὅπερ Ὅμηρος εἴωθεν ἐπὶ      10
πολλῶν ποιεῖν. εἰ γάρ τις ἔροιτο ὅντιν’ οὖν ἢ ποιητῶν ἢ
ῥητόρων, τίνα σεμνότητα ἢ καλλιλογίαν ταῦτ’ ἔχει τὰ ὀνόματα
ἃ ταῖς Βοιωτίαις κεῖται πόλεσιν Ὑρία καὶ Μυκαλησσὸς καὶ
Γραῖα καὶ Ἐτεωνὸς καὶ Σκῶλος καὶ Θίσβη καὶ Ὀγχηστὸς
καὶ Εὔτρησις καὶ τἆλλ’ ἐφεξῆς ὧν ὁ ποιητὴς μέμνηται, οὐδεὶς      15
ἂν εἰπεῖν οὐδ’ ἥντιν’ οὖν ἔχοι· ἀλλ’ οὕτως αὐτὰ καλῶς
ἐκεῖνος συνύφαγκεν καὶ παραπληρώμασιν εὐφώνοις διείληφεν
ὥστε μεγαλοπρεπέστατα φαίνεσθαι πάντων ὀνόματα·

        Βοιωτῶν μὲν Πηνέλεως καὶ Λήϊτος ἦρχον
        Ἀρκεσίλαός τε Προθοήνωρ τε Κλονίος τε,      20
        οἵ θ’ Ὑρίην ἐνέμοντο καὶ Αὐλίδα πετρήεσσαν
        Σχοῖνόν τε Σκῶλόν τε πολύκνημόν τ’ Ἐτεωνόν,
        Θέσπειαν Γραῖάν τε καὶ εὐρύχορον Μυκαλησσόν,
        οἵ τ’ ἀμφ’ Ἅρμ’ ἐνέμοντο καὶ Εἰλέσιον καὶ Ἐρυθράς,
        οἵ τ’ Ἐλεῶν’ εἶχον ἠδ’ Ὕλην καὶ Πετεῶνα,      25
        Ὠκαλέην Μεδεῶνά τ’ ἐυκτίμενον πτολίεθρον.

ἐν εἰδόσι λέγων οὐκ οἴομαι πλειόνων δεῖν παραδειγμάτων.

1 ἔνθα] καθ’ ὃ F   2 γενήσεσθαι] γίνεσθαι F   3 αὖθις om. F   4
χρηστὸν ἔσεσθαι] χρήσιμον F   5 ἄπο FPMV || εἴρηται τῷ ἀνδρὶ F: τῷ
ἀνδρὶ εἴρηται PMV   7 καλλιρρήμονα s   11 ἢ ποιητῶν P: ποιητῶν FM 13
βοιωτίαις PV: βοιωτικαῖς F: βοιωτίας M   15 τᾶλλ’ ἐφεξῆς F: τἄλλα
ἑξῆς PM, V   17 συνὕφαγκεν F, EP: συνύφαγγε M: συνύφανεν V   18
μεγαλοπρεπέστερα E || πάντων] τούτων V || ὀνόματα PMV: ὀνομάτων EF   25
ἥδ’ F: οἵδ’ M: ἰδ’ V

1. =παραδείγματος ἕνεκα= looks like an adscript (possibly on ὁρίζει:
to indicate that there were many other topics in Theophrastus’ book),
which has found its way into the text.

4. For the distinction between poetry and prose cp. Aristot. _Rhet._
iii. 3 (1406 a) ἐν μὲν γὰρ ποιήσει πρέπει γάλα λευκὸν εἰπεῖν, ἐν δὲ
λόγῳ τὰ μὲν ἀπρεπέστερα, τὰ δέ, ἂν ᾖ κατακορῆ, ἐξελέγχει καὶ ποιεῖ
φανερὸν ὅτι ποίησίς ἐστιν, ἐπεὶ δεῖ γε χρῆσθαι αὐτοῖς, and iii. 4 (1406
b) χρήσιμον δὲ ἡ εἰκὼν καὶ ἐν λόγῳ, ὀλιγάκις δέ· ποιητικὸν γάρ.

5. =οὐκ ἀπὸ σκοποῦ= = ‘haud ab re.’

The minute variations in word-order between F and P are not usually
given in the critical footnotes. But the fact that P places (here and
in =164= 17) the verb at the end of the sentence is noteworthy.

18. Cp. Virg. _Georg._ iv. 334-44; _Aen._ vii. 710-21; Milton _Par.
Lost_ i. 351-5. 396-414, 464-9, 576-87 (especially 583-7); and see
Matthew Arnold (_On translating Homer: Last Words_ p. 29) as to Hom.
_Il._ xvii. 216 ff.

26. Dionysius (here as elsewhere) doubtless intended his remarks to
apply to the lines that follow his quotation, as well as to those
actually quoted.

27. =ἐν εἰδόσι=: this expressive phrase is as old as Homer himself
(_Il._ x. 250 εἰδόσι γάρ τοι ταῦτα μετ’ Ἀργείοις ἀγορεύεις). It occurs
also in Thucyd. (ii. 36. 4 μακρηγορεῖν ἐν εἰδόσιν οὐ βουλόμενος ἐάσω).

[Page 167]

distinguishes two classes of words—those which are naturally beautiful
(whose collocation, for example, in composition will, he thinks, make
the phrasing beautiful and grand), and those, again, which are paltry
and ignoble, of which he says neither good poetry can be constructed
nor good prose. And, really and truly, our author is not far from
the mark in saying this. If, then, it were possible that all the
parts of speech by which a given subject is to be expressed should be
euphonious and elegant, it would be madness to seek out the inferior
ones. But if this be out of the question, as in many cases it is,
then we must endeavour to mask the natural defects of the inferior
letters by interweaving and mingling and juxtaposition, and this is
just what Homer is accustomed to do in many passages. For instance, if
any poet or rhetorician whatsoever were to be asked what grandeur or
elegance there is in the names which have been given to the Boeotian
towns,—Hyria, Mycalessus, Graia, Eteonus, Scolus, Thisbe, Onchestus,
Eutresis, and the rest of the series which the poet enumerates,—no one
would be able to point to any trace of such qualities. But Homer has
interwoven and interspersed them with pleasant-sounding supplementary
words into so beautiful a texture that they appear the most magnificent
of all names:—

    Lords of Boeotia’s host came Leitus, Peneleos,
    Prothoenor and Arcesilaus and Clonius for battle uprose,
    With the folk that in Hyrie dwelt, and by Aulis’s crag-fringed steep,
    And in Schoinus and Scolus, and midst Eteonus’ hill-clefts deep,
    In Thespeia and Graia, and green Mycalessus the land broad-meadowed,
    And in Harma and Eilesius, and Erythrae the mountain-shadowed,
    And they that in Eleon abode, and in Hyle and Peteon withal,
    And in Ocalee and in Medeon, burg of the stately wall.[148]

As I am addressing men who know their Homer, I do not

[Page 168]

ἅπας γάρ ἐστιν ὁ κατάλογος αὐτῷ τοιοῦτος καὶ πολλὰ ἄλλα, ἐν οἷς
ἀναγκασθεὶς ὀνόματα λαμβάνειν οὐ καλὰ τὴν φύσιν ἑτέροις αὐτὰ κοσμεῖ
καλοῖς καὶ λύει τὴν ἐκείνων δυσχέρειαν τῇ τούτων εὐμορφίᾳ. καὶ περὶ μὲν
τούτων ἅλις.


ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τοὺς ῥυθμοὺς ἔφην οὐ μικρὰν μοῖραν ἔχειν      5
τῆς ἀξιωματικῆς καὶ μεγαλοπρεποῦς συνθέσεως, ἵνα μηδεὶς
εἰκῇ με δόξῃ λέγειν ῥυθμοὺς καὶ μέτρα μουσικῆς οἰκεῖα θεωρίας
εἰς οὐ ῥυθμικὴν οὐδ’ ἔμμετρον εἰσάγοντα διάλεκτον, ἀποδώσω
καὶ τὸν ὑπὲρ τούτων λόγον. ἔχει δ’ οὕτως·

πᾶν ὄνομα καὶ ῥῆμα καὶ ἄλλο μόριον λέξεως, ὅ τι μὴ      10
μονοσύλλαβόν ἐστιν, ἐν ῥυθμῷ τινι λέγεται· τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καλῶ
πόδα καὶ ῥυθμόν. δισυλλάβου μὲν οὖν λέξεως διαφοραὶ τρεῖς.
ἢ γὰρ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων ἔσται βραχειῶν ἢ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων μακρῶν
ἢ τῆς μὲν βραχείας, τῆς δὲ μακρᾶς. τοῦ δὲ τρίτου τούτου
ῥυθμοῦ διττὸς ὁ τρόπος· ὁ μέν τις ἀπὸ βραχείας ἀρχόμενος      15
καὶ λήγων εἰς μακράν, ὁ δ’ ἀπὸ μακρᾶς καὶ λήγων εἰς βραχεῖαν.
ὁ μὲν οὖν βραχυσύλλαβος ἡγεμών τε καὶ πυρρίχιος
καλεῖται, καὶ οὔτε μεγαλοπρεπής ἐστιν οὔτε σεμνός· σχῆμα
δ’ αὐτοῦ τοιόνδε

        λέγε δὲ σὺ κατὰ πόδα νεόχυτα μέλεα.      20

1 αὐτῷ Toupius: αὐτῶν libri   6 μηδεὶς EF: μή κέ (καὶ M^2) τις PM:
μή μέ τις V   7 με om. PMV   10 καὶ ῥῆμα om. P   12 τέσσαρες E   13
βραχέων FM   20 νεόχυτα EF: νεόλυτα PMV

1. Usener’s =αὐτῷ= (“all his Catalogue is on the same high level”) is
perhaps preferable to the manuscript reading αὐτῶν, which, however, may
be taken to refer to πόλεσιν (=166= 13). Usener’s suggestion has, it
should be pointed out, been anticipated by Toup (ad Longin. p. 296).

5. In this chapter Dionysius seems to have specially in view
Aristotle’s _Rhetoric_ iii. 8 (cp. note on =255= 25 _infra_) and the
Ῥυθμικὰ στοιχεῖα of Aristoxenus. But his general standpoint probably
comes nearer to that of Aristophanes of Byzantium and Dionysius Thrax:
he is, that is to say, primarily a metrist and a grammarian, and at
times looks upon the rhythmists and musicians with some distrust.

11, 12. Dionysius agrees here with Aristoxenus, Ῥυθμικὰ στοιχεῖα ii.
16 ᾧ δὲ σημαινόμεθα τὸν ῥυθμὸν καὶ γνώριμον ποιοῦμεν τῇ αἰσθήσει, πούς
ἐστιν εἷς ἢ πλείους ἑνός: and § 18 _ibid._ ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἐξ ἑνὸς χρόνου
ποὺς οὐκ ἂν εἴη φανερόν, κτλ.

17. See Introduction (p. 6 _supra_) for a classified list of the
metrical feet mentioned in this chapter. Voss says as to the πυρρίχιος,
“nullum ex eo alicuius momenti constitui potest carmen, cum numero et
pondere paene careat. aptus dumtaxat ad celeres motus exprimendos,
cuius modi erant armati saltus Corybantum apud Graecos, et Saliorum
apud Romanos”; see also Hermog. II. ἰδ. i. (Walz iii. p. 293, lines
1-11). Some sensible remarks on the whole question are made by Quintil.
ix. 4. 87: “miror autem in hac opinione doctissimos homines fuisse, ut
alios pedes ita eligerent aliosque damnarent, quasi ullus esset, quem
non sit necesse in oratione deprehendi. licet igitur paeona sequatur
Ephorus, inventum a Thrasymacho, probatum ab Aristotele, dactylumque,
ut temperatos brevibus ac longis; fugiat molossum et trochaeum,
alterius tarditate alterius celeritate damnata; herous, qui est idem
dactylus, Aristoteli amplior, iambus humanior videatur; trochaeum ut
nimis currentem damnet eique cordacis nomen imponat; eademque dicant
Theodectes ac Theophrastus, similia post eos Halicarnasseus Dionysius:
irrumpent etiam ad invitos, nec semper illis heroo aut paeone suo,
quem, quia versum raro facit, maxime laudant, uti licebit. ut sint
tamen aliis alii crebriores, non verba facient, quae neque augeri
nec minui nec sicuti modulatione produci aut corripi possint, sed
transmutatio et collocatio.”

20. =λέγε δὲ σύ= κτλ.: source unknown; perhaps the reference is to the
tearing of Pentheus limb from limb.—A similar line in Latin would be:
“id agite peragite celeriter,” Marius Victorinus _Ars Gramm._ iii. 1.

[Page 169]

think there is need to multiply examples. All his Catalogue of the
towns is on the same high level, and so are many other passages in
which, being compelled to take words not naturally beautiful, he
places them in a setting of beautiful ones, and neutralizes their
offensiveness by the shapeliness of the others. On this branch of my
subject I have now said enough.



I have mentioned that rhythm contributes in no small degree to
dignified and impressive composition; and I will treat of this point
also. Let no one suppose that rhythm and metre belong to the science of
song only; that ordinary speech is neither rhythmical nor metrical; and
that I am going astray in introducing those subjects here.

In point of fact, every noun, verb, or other part of speech, which
does not consist of a single syllable only, is uttered in some sort of
rhythm. (I am here using “rhythm” and “foot” as convertible terms.)
A disyllabic word may take three different forms. It may have both
syllables short, or both long, or one short and the other long. Of this
third rhythm there are two forms: one beginning in a short and ending
in a long, the other beginning in a long and ending in a short. The one
which consists of two shorts is called _hegemon_ or _pyrrhich_, and is
neither impressive nor solemn. Its character is as follows:—

        Pick up the limbs at thy feet newly-scattered.[149]

[Page 170]

ὁ δ’ ἀμφοτέρας τὰς συλλαβὰς μακρὰς ἔχων κέκληται μὲν
σπονδεῖος, ἀξίωμα δ’ ἔχει μέγα καὶ σεμνότητα πολλήν·
παράδειγμα δ’ αὐτοῦ τόδε

        ποίαν δῆθ’ ὁρμάσω, ταύταν
        ἢ κείναν, κείναν ἢ ταύταν;      5

ὁ δ’ ἐκ βραχείας τε καὶ μακρᾶς συγκείμενος ἐὰν μὲν τὴν
ἡγουμένην λάβῃ βραχεῖαν, ἴαμβος καλεῖται, καὶ ἔστιν οὐκ
ἀγεννής· ἐὰν δ’ ἀπὸ τῆς μακρᾶς ἄρχηται, τροχαῖος, καὶ ἔστι
μαλακώτερος θατέρου καὶ ἀγεννέστερος· παράδειγμα δὲ τοῦ
μὲν προτέρου τοιόνδε      10

        ἐπεὶ σχολὴ πάρεστι, παῖ Μενοιτίου.

τοῦ δ’ ἑτέρου

        θυμέ, θύμ’ ἀμηχάνοισι κήδεσιν κυκώμενε.

δισυλλάβων μὲν δὴ μορίων λέξεως διαφοραί τε καὶ ῥυθμοὶ
καὶ σχήματα τοσαῦτα· τρισυλλάβων δ’ ἕτερα πλείω τῶν      15
εἰρημένων καὶ ποικιλωτέραν ἔχοντα θεωρίαν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ
ἁπασῶν βραχείων συνεστώς, καλούμενος δὲ ὑπό τινων χορεῖος
[τρίβραχυς πούς], οὗ παράδειγμα τοιόνδε

        Βρόμιε, δορατοφόρ’, ἐνυάλιε, πολεμοκέλαδε,

ταπεινός τε καὶ ἄσεμνός ἐστι καὶ ἀγεννής, καὶ οὐδὲν ἂν ἐξ      20

5 ἢ κείναν κείναν ἢ ταύταν PMV: ἢ κείναν ἢ ταύταν E, F   10 μὲν om. PMV
  11 ἐπεὶ σχολὴ EMV: ἐπὶ σχολῆι FP   13 κήδεσι κεκυκώμενε sic F   14 μὲν
EPMV: om. F   17 χορεῖος MV: om. FP   18 τρίβραχυς] τροχαῖος F. uncinis
includendum vel τρίβραχυς πούς vel χορεῖος tamquam glossema quod,
margini olim adscriptum, in textum postea irrepserit   20 καὶ ἀγεννής
om. P

2. The high rank assigned to the spondee is noted in schol. anon. ad
Hermog. II. ἰδ. (Walz _Rhett. Gr._ vii. 1049): τάττει (sc. Διονύσιος)
δὲ τὸν σπονδεῖον μετ’ αὐτῶν (sc. μετὰ τῶν καλῶν ῥυθμῶν).—For Dionysius’
view of the spondee and other feet see also Walz viii. 980 Διονύσιος
μὲν ἐν τῷ περὶ συνθέσεως ὀνομάτων φησὶν ὅτι ὁ δάκτυλος κτλ.

4. Euripides’ _Hec._ 162-4 runs thus in G. G. A. Murray’s text:—

        ποίαν ἢ ταύταν ἢ κείναν
          στείχω; †ποῖ δ’ ἥσω; †ποῦ τις θεῶν
             †ἢ δαιμόνων †ἐπαρωγός;

As the editor remarks later, “metrum nec in se perfectum,” etc. See
also Porson’s note on the same passage of the _Hecuba_.—For a Latin
spondaic line cp. Ennius “olli respondit rex Albai longai” (_Annal.
Reliq._ i. 31 Vahlen).

7. The iambus and the trochee abound in ordinary speech, and must
therefore be used in oratory with moderation: cp. Cic. _de Oratore_
iii. 47 “nam cum sint numeri plures, iambum et trochaeum frequentem
segregat ab oratore Aristoteles, Catule, vester, qui natura tamen
incurrunt ipsi in orationem sermonemque nostrum; sed sunt insignes
percussiones eorum numerorum et minuti pedes”; _Orator_ 56. 189 “versus
saepe in oratione per imprudentiam dicimus; quod vehementer est
vitiosum, sed non attendimus neque exaudimus nosmet ipsos; senarios
vero et Hipponacteos effugere vix possumus; magnam enim partem ex
iambis nostra constat oratio”; Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 8. 4 ὁ δ’ ἴαμβος
αὐτή ἐστιν ἡ λέξις ἡ τῶν πολλῶν· διὸ μάλιστα πάντων τῶν μέτρων ἰαμβεῖα
φθέγγονται λέγοντες: _Poet._ iv. 14 μάλιστα γὰρ λεκτικὸν τῶν μέτρων τὸ
ἰαμβεῖόν ἐστιν· σημεῖον δὲ τούτου· πλεῖστα γὰρ ἰαμβεῖα λέγομεν ἐν τῇ
διαλέκτῳ τῇ πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ἑξάμετρα δὲ ὀλιγάκις καὶ ἐκβαίνοντες τῆς
λεκτικῆς ἁρμονίας: Demetr. _de Eloc._ § 43 ὁ δὲ ἴαμβος εὐτελὴς καὶ τῇ
τῶν πολλῶν λέξει ὅμοιος. πολλοὶ γοῦν μέτρα ἰαμβικὰ λαλοῦσιν οὐκ εἰδότες.

9. Cp. Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 8 ὁ δὲ τροχαῖος κορδακικώτερος· δηλοῖ δὲ
τὰ τετράμετρα· ἔστι γὰρ ῥυθμὸς τροχαῖος τὰ τετράμετρα.

11. As in Hor. _Epod._ ii. 1 “Beatus ille, qui procul negotiis.”

13. This line of Archilochus is preserved (together with the six that
follow it) in Stobaeus _Florileg._ i. 207 (Meineke). For a similar
Latin trochaic verse see Marius Victorinus i. 12 “Roma, Roma cerne,
quanta sit Deum benignitas.”

18. For the effect of tribrachs in Latin cp. Marius Victorinus i. 12
“nemus ave reticuit, ager homine sonat.”

20. =καὶ ἀγεννής=: these words are absent from P; perhaps rightly. They
do not sort well with καὶ οὐδὲν ... γενναῖον.

[Page 171]

That which has both its syllables long is called a _spondee_, and
possesses great dignity and much stateliness. Here is an example of it:—

    Ah, which way must I haste?—had I best flee
    By this path? or by that path shall it be?[150]

That which is composed of a short and a long is called _iambus_ if it
has the first syllable short; it is not ignoble. If it begins with the
long syllable, it is called a _trochee_, and is less manly than the
other and more ignoble. The following is an example of the former:—

    My leisure serves me now, Menoetius’ son.[151]

Of the other:—

    Heart of mine, O heart in turmoil with a throng of crushing cares![152]

These are all the varieties, rhythms, and forms of disyllabic words.
Those of the trisyllabic are distinct; they are more numerous than
those mentioned, and the study of them is more complicated. First comes
that which consists entirely of short syllables, and is called by some
_choree_ (or _tribrach_), of which the following is an example:—

    Bromius, wielder of spears,
    Lord of war and the onset-cheers.[153]

This foot is mean and wanting in dignity and nobility, and

[Page 172]

αὐτοῦ γένοιτο γενναῖον. ὁ δ’ ἐξ ἁπασῶν μακρῶν, μολοττὸν δ’
αὐτὸν οἱ μετρικοὶ καλοῦσιν, ὑψηλός τε καὶ ἀξιωματικός ἐστι
καὶ διαβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ πολύ· παράδειγμα δὲ αὐτοῦ τοιόνδε

        ὦ Ζηνὸς καὶ Λήδας κάλλιστοι σωτῆρες.

ὁ δ’ ἐκ μακρᾶς καὶ δυεῖν βραχειῶν μέσην μὲν λαβὼν τὴν      5
μακρὰν ἀμφίβραχυς ὠνόμασται, καὶ οὐ σφόδρα τῶν εὐσχήμων
ἐστὶ ῥυθμῶν ἀλλὰ διακέκλασταί τε καὶ πολὺ τὸ θῆλυ καὶ
ἀγεννὲς ἔχει, οἷά ἐστι ταυτί

        Ἴακχε θρίαμβε, σὺ τῶνδε χοραγέ.

ὁ δὲ προλαμβάνων τὰς δύο βραχείας ἀνάπαιστος μὲν καλεῖται, 10 σεμνότητα
δ’ ἔχει πολλήν· καὶ ἔνθα δεῖ μέγεθός τι περιτιθέναι τοῖς πράγμασιν ἢ
πάθος, ἐπιτήδειός ἐστι παραλαμβάνεσθαι· τούτου τὸ σχῆμα τοιόνδε

        βαρύ μοι κεφαλᾶς ἐ πίκρανον ἔχειν.

ὁ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς μακρᾶς ἀρχόμενος, λήγων δὲ εἰς τὰς βραχείας      15
δάκτυλος μὲν καλεῖται, πάνυ δ’ ἐστὶ σεμνὸς καὶ εἰς τὸ κάλλος
τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἀξιολογώτατος, καὶ τό γε ἡρωϊκὸν μέτρον ἀπὸ
τούτου κοσμεῖται ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ· παράδειγμα δὲ αὐτοῦ τόδε

        Ἰλιόθεν με φέρων ἄνεμος Κικόνεσσι πέλασσεν.

οἱ μέντοι ῥυθμικοὶ τούτου τοῦ ποδὸς τὴν μακρὰν βραχυτέραν      20

3 διαβεβηκῶς (ῶ suprascripto) P: διαβέβηκεν ὡς M^1: διαβεβηκὼς ὡς
M^{2}V: διαβέβηκεν F || τοιόνδε F: τόδε PMV   5 δυεῖν P: δυοῖν MV:
β F   6 μακρὰν F: μακρὰν ἑκατέρας τῶν βραχειῶν PMV || εὐσχήμων EF:
εὐσχημόνων PMV   7 διακεκόλασται F: κέκλασται E   8 ἀγεννες P, M:
ἀγενὲς V: ἀηδὲς F   9 θρίαμβε L. Dindorfius: διθύραμβε libri   11
μέγεθός τι F: μέγεθος PV: μεγέθη M || περιτιθέναι F: περιθεῖναι PMV   12
περιλαμβάνεσθαι F   14 κεφαλᾶς E: κεφαλὰς F: κεφαλῆς PMV || ἔχειν P:
ἔχει EFMV   16 δάκτυλος EFM: δακτ̑ P: δακτυλικὸς V || τὸ κάλλος τῆς
ἑρμηνείας EF: κάλλος ἁρμονίας PMV   17 ὑπὸ R

2. =ἀξιωματικός=: various modern examples of the rhythmical effect of
long and short syllables will be found in Demetr., e.g. p. 219. Here
may be added, from George Meredith’s _Love in the Valley_—

    Thicker crowd the shades as the _grave East_ deepens
      Glowing, and with crimson a _long cloud_ swells.
    Maiden still the morn is; and strange she is, and secret;
      _Strange her eyes_; her cheeks are cold as _cold sea-shells_.

Here the long syllables in italics may be contrasted with:

    Deals she an unkindness, ’tis but her rapid measure,
    – ᴗ  ᴗ  ᴗ  ᴗ
    Even as in a dance; and her smile can heal no less.

9. Virg. _Ecl._ viii. 68 might be fancifully divided in such a way as
to present several feet of this kind:

              ᴗ  –  ᴗ    ᴗ –   ᴗ ᴗ  –  ᴗ  ᴗ   – ᴗ  ᴗ  –   ᴗ
    “[ducite] ab urbe | domum me|a carmin|a, ducit|e Daphnim.”

16. Cp. Long. _de Sublim._ xxxix. 4 ὅλον τε γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν δακτυλικῶν
εἴρηται ῥυθμῶν· εὐγενέστατοι δ’ οὗτοι καὶ μεγεθοποιοί, διὸ καὶ τὸ
ἡρῷον, ὧν ἴσμεν κάλλιστον, μέτρον συνιστᾶσιν.

19. This is of course the very start of Odysseus’ adventures as
recounted by himself. He sails away from Ilium on as many dactyls as
possible.—For dactyls freely used in the Virgilian hexameter cp. _Aen._
ix. 503 “at tuba terribilem sonitum procul aere canoro [increpuit,
etc.]”; _Georg._ iii. 284 “sed fugit interea, fugit irreparabile

20. =τούτου τοῦ ποδός.= “Unless a lacuna be assumed, a rather violent
assumption, the phrase [i.e. τούτου τοῦ ποδός] must simply resume the
αὐτοῦ just before the hexameter, the τούτου just before that, and the
δάκτυλος two lines earlier, which immediately follows the phrase of
description,” Goodell _Greek Metric_ p. 172.

[Page 173]

nothing noble can be made out of it. But that which consists entirely
of long syllables—_molossus_, as the metrists call it—is elevated and
dignified, and has a mighty stride. The following is an example of it:—

    O glorious saviours, Zeus’ and Leda’s sons.[154]

That which consists of a long and two shorts, with the long in the
middle, bears the name of _amphibrachys_, and has no strong claim to
rank with the graceful rhythms, but is enervated and has about it much
that is feminine and ignoble, e.g.—

    Triumphant Iacchus that leadest this chorus.[155]

That which commences with two shorts is called an _anapaest_, and
possesses much dignity. Where it is necessary to invest a subject with
grandeur or pathos, this foot may be appropriately used. Its form may
be illustrated by—

    Ah, the coif on mine head all too heavily weighs.[156]

That which begins with the long and ends with the shorts is called a
_dactyl_; it is decidedly impressive, and remarkable for its power to
produce beauty of style. It is to this that the heroic line is mainly
indebted for its grace. Here is an example:—

    Sped me from Ilium the breeze, and anigh the Ciconians brought me.[157]

The rhythmists, however, say that the long syllable in this foot

[Page 174]

εἶναί φασι τῆς τελείας, οὐκ ἔχοντες δ’ εἰπεῖν ὅσῳ, καλοῦσιν
αὐτὴν ἄλογον. ἕτερός ἐστιν ἀντίστροφον ἔχων τούτῳ ῥυθμόν,
ὃς ἀπὸ τῶν βραχειῶν ἀρξάμενος ἐπὶ τὴν ἄλογον τελευτᾷ·
τοῦτον χωρίσαντες ἀπὸ τῶν ἀναπαίστων κυκλικὸν καλοῦσι
παράδειγμα αὐτοῦ φέροντες τοιόνδε      5

        κέχυται πόλις ὑψίπυλος κατὰ γᾶν.

περὶ ὧν ἂν ἕτερος εἴη λόγος· πλὴν ἀμφότεροί γε τῶν πάνυ
καλῶν οἱ ῥυθμοί. ἓν ἔτι λείπεται τρισυλλάβων ῥυθμῶν γένος,
ὃ συνέστηκεν ἐκ δύο μακρῶν καὶ βραχείας, τρία δὲ ποιεῖ
σχήματα· μέσης μὲν γὰρ γινομένης τῆς βραχείας, ἄκρων δὲ      10
τῶν μακρῶν κρητικός τε λέγεται καὶ ἔστιν οὐκ ἀγεννής.
ὑπόδειγμα δὲ αὐτοῦ τοιοῦτον

        οἱ δ’ ἐπείγοντο πλωταῖς ἀπήναισι χαλκεμβόλοις.

ἂν δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν αἱ δύο μακραὶ κατάσχωσιν, τὴν δὲ τελευτὴν
ἡ βραχεῖα, οἷά ἐστι ταυτί      15

        σοὶ Φοῖβε Μοῦσαί τε σύμβωμοι,

ἀνδρῶδες πάνυ ἐστὶ τὸ σχῆμα καὶ εἰς σεμνολογίαν ἐπιτήδειον.
τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ συμβήσεται κἂν ἡ βραχεῖα πρώτη τεθῇ τῶν
μακρῶν· καὶ γὰρ οὗτος ὁ ῥυθμὸς ἀξίωμα ἔχει καὶ μέγεθος·
παράδειγμα δὲ αὐτοῦ τόδε      20

        τίν’ ἀκτάν, τίν’ ὕλαν δράμω; ποῖ πορευθῶ;

τούτοις ἀμφοτέροις ὀνόματα κεῖται τοῖς ποσὶν ὑπὸ τῶν μετρικῶν
βακχεῖος μὲν τῷ προτέρῳ, θατέρῳ δὲ ὑποβάκχειος. οὗτοι
δώδεκα ῥυθμοί τε καὶ πόδες εἰσὶν οἱ πρῶτοι καταμετροῦντες

1 ὅσω F: πόσω PMV   2 ἕτερός ἐστιν F: ἕτερον δὲ PMV || ἔχων F: τινα
PMV   3 ἐπὶ τὴν ἄλογον FP^{1}V: ἐπί τιν’ ἄλογον P^2: ἐπί τινα λόγον M
|| τελευτᾶι τοῦτον FM: τοῦτον τελευτᾷ V: τελευτᾶι P   4 κυκλικὸν FM^2:
κύκλον PM^{1}V   6 ὑψί*πολος cum rasura F: ὑψίπυλον PMV   8 τρισύλλαβον
F   9 συνέστηκεν F: συνέστηκε μὲν PMV || δὲ ποιεῖ F: δὲ ἔχει PV   12
τοιοῦτον PM: τοιόνδε FV   13 πρώταις FM^2 || ἀπήναισι EP: ἀπήνεσι
MV: ἀπήνεσσι F || χαλκεμβόλοις EF: χαλκεμβόλοισιν PMV   14 ἂν F: ἐὰν
PMV   15 ἡ F: om. PMV   16 σοὶ EPMV: σὺ F || σύμβωμοι EFMV: συμβῶμεν
Ps   17 πάνυ ἐστὶ τὸ EF: δὲ πάνυ τοῦτο PMV || εἰσ σεμνότητα (σ pr.
suprascripto) λογίαν P   18 πρώτη τεθῆι P, MV: συντεθῆι F   21 τίν’
ἀκτάν, τίν’ ὕλαν] τίνα γᾶν τινυδἂν F   22 τοῖς ποσὶν FPM: ῥυθμοῖς V   23
παλιμβάκχειος E

1. =ὅσῳ=: cp. =190= 9, where there is the same divergence between F and

2, 4. See Glossary under =ἄλογος= and =κυκλικός=.

13. Usener suggests that this line may possibly come from the _Persae_
of Timotheus, some newly-discovered fragments of which were issued by
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff in 1903.—Similarly, in Latin, cretics may be
found in such lines of Terence as “tum coacti necessario se aperiunt”
(_Andr._ iv. 1).


  –    – ᴗ    –  – ᴗ     –  –   ᴗ
 “O Phoebus | O Muses | co-worshipped”

might give the metrical effect, in a rough and uncouth way. In
Latin cp. “baccare, laetare praesente Frontone” (Rufinus _de Metris

18. =πρώτη τεθῇ τῶν μακρῶν=, ‘at the head of’; cp. note on =98= 7

21. After πορευθῶ P has a gap which would contain a dozen letters,
and in the middle of the gap the original copyist has written οὐδ(ὲν)

[Page 175]

is shorter than the perfect long. Not being able to say by how much,
they call it “irrational.” There is another foot having a rhythm
corresponding to this, which starts with the short syllables and ends
with the “irrational” one. This they distinguish from the anapaest and
call it “cyclic,” adducing the following line as an example of it:—

    On the earth is the high-gated city laid low.[158]

This question cannot be discussed here; but both rhythms are of the
distinctly beautiful sort. One class of trisyllabic rhythms still
remains, which is composed of two longs and a short. It takes three
shapes. When the short is in the middle and the longs at the ends, it
is called a _cretic_ and has no lack of nobility. A sample of it is:—

    On they sped, borne on sea-wains with prows brazen-beaked.[159]

But if the two long syllables occupy the beginning, and the short one
the end, as in the line

    Phoebus, to thee and the Muses worshipped with thee,[160]

the structure is exceptionally virile, and is appropriate for solemn
language. The effect will be the same if the short be placed before the
longs; for this foot also has dignity and grandeur. Here is an example
of it:—

    To what shore, to what grove shall I flee for refuge?[161]

To the former of these two feet the name of _bacchius_ is assigned by
the metrists, to the other that of _hypobacchius_. These are the twelve
fundamental rhythms and feet which measure all

[Page 176]

ἅπασαν ἔμμετρόν τε καὶ ἄμετρον λέξιν, ἐξ ὧν γίνονται στίχοι
τε καὶ κῶλα· οἱ γὰρ ἄλλοι πόδες καὶ ῥυθμοὶ πάντες ἐκ
τούτων εἰσὶ σύνθετοι. ἁπλοῦς δὲ ῥυθμὸς ἢ ποὺς οὔτ’ ἐλάττων
ἔσται δύο συλλαβῶν οὔτε μείζων τριῶν. καὶ περὶ μὲν τούτων
οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅτι δεῖ τὰ πλείω λέγειν.      5


ὧν δ’ ἕνεκα νῦν ὑπήχθην ταῦτα προειπεῖν (οὐ γὰρ δὴ τὴν
ἄλλως γέ μοι προὔκειτο μετρικῶν καὶ ῥυθμικῶν ἅπτεσθαι
θεωρημάτων, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἀναγκαίου ἕνεκα), ταῦτ’ ἐστίν, ὅτι διὰ
μὲν τῶν γενναίων καὶ ἀξιωματικῶν καὶ μέγεθος ἐχόντων
ῥυθμῶν ἀξιωματικὴ γίνεται σύνθεσις καὶ γενναία καὶ μεγαλοπρεπής,      10
διὰ δὲ τῶν ἀγεννῶν τε καὶ ταπεινῶν ἀμεγέθης τις
καὶ ἄσεμνος, ἐάν τε καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἕκαστοι τούτων λαμβάνωνται
τῶν ῥυθμῶν, ἐάν τε ἀλλήλοις κατὰ τὰς ὁμοζυγίας
συμπλέκωνται. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἔσται δύναμις ἐξ ἁπάντων τῶν
κρατίστων ῥυθμῶν συνθεῖναι τὴν λέξιν, ἔχοι ἂν ἡμῖν κατ’      15
εὐχήν· εἰ δ’ ἀναγκαῖον εἴη μίσγειν τοῖς κρείττοσι τοὺς
χείρονας, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν γίνεται (τὰ γὰρ ὀνόματα κεῖται τοῖς
πράγμασιν ὡς ἔτυχεν), οἰκονομεῖν αὐτὰ χρὴ φιλοτέχνως καὶ
διακλέπτειν τῇ χάριτι τῆς συνθέσεως τὴν ἀνάγκην ἄλλως τε
καὶ πολλὴν τὴν ἄδειαν ἔχοντας· οὐ γὰρ ἀπελαύνεται ῥυθμὸς      20
οὐδεὶς ἐκ τῆς ἀμέτρου λέξεως, ὥσπερ ἐκ τῆς ἐμμέτρου.

μαρτύρια δὲ ὧν εἴρηκα παραθεῖναι λοιπόν, ἵνα μοι καὶ
πίστιν ὁ λόγος λάβῃ. ἔσται δ’ ὀλίγα περὶ πολλῶν. φέρε
δή, τίς οὐκ ἂν ὁμολογήσειεν ἀξιωματικῶς τε συγκεῖσθαι καὶ

4 ἔσται EF: ἐστὶ PMV || δύο EF: δυεῖν P: δυοῖν MV   5 τὰ πλείω FM:
πλείω PV   7 μετρικῶν καὶ ῥυθμικῶν F: ῥυθμικῶν (ῥυθμῶν MV) τε καὶ
μετρικῶν PMV   10 γενναία F: βεβαία PMV   14 δῆλον post συμπλέκωνται
praestant FMV: om. P || ἁπάντων τῶν PMV: ἁπάντων F   17 κεῖται F:
ἔκκειται PM: ἔγκειται V   20 οὐ FP: οὐδὲ MV   23 ἔσται FPM: ἔστι V

3. =ἁπλοῦς δὲ ... μείζων τριῶν.= A. J. Ellis (p. 48) says, “This
gives a simple and convenient rule for practising the quantitative
pronunciation of words of more than three syllables.... The effect
of quantity in prose is the most difficult thing for moderns to
appreciate. Hence the only easy pronunciation of Greek is the modern,
where quantity is entirely neglected, and a force-accent used precisely
as in English.”

5. On the subject of metrical feet Aristotle (_Rhet._ iii. 8) is brief;
Cicero (_Orator_ cc. 63, 64) is fuller; while Dionysius in this chapter
enters into still further details. Reference may also be made to
Quintil. ix. 4. 45 ff. and to Demetr. _de Eloc._ §§ 38 ff.

6. This passage (down to l. 21) brings out clearly the importance of
rhythm in prose-writing.

16. =εἴη=: the less agreeable alternative is pleasantly treated as
though it were the more remote. Cp. εἴη on =166= 8 (though there
ἐγχωροίη stands in the earlier clause, =166= 6).

17. H. Richards (_Classical Review_ xix. 252) suggests ἐπίκειται (or
σύγκειται), in order to account for the ἔκκειται of PM and the ἔγκειται
of V.

21. Would not ὥσπερ =οὐδὲ= ἐκ τῆς ἐμμέτρου (or the like: cp. =100= 18)
be required if the meaning were “any more than from the metrical”?
The author’s point is brought out more clearly in =192= 21, =196= 8,
etc. Cp. Quintil. ix. 4. 87, “miror autem in hac opinione doctissimos
homines fuisse, ut alios pedes ita eligerent aliosque damnarent, quasi
ullus esset, quem non sit necesse in oratione deprehendi” (the passage
is more fully quoted on p. 169 _supra_).

23. =περί=: no change in the reading is necessary; cp. =200= 4 ὀλίγα
περὶ πολλῶν, and =136= 6 ὀλίγα ὑπὲρ πολλῶν θεωρημάτων.

[Page 177]

language, metrical or unmetrical, and from them are formed lines and
clauses. All other feet and rhythms are but combinations of these. A
simple rhythm, or foot, will not be less than two syllables, nor will
it exceed three. I do not know that more need be said on this subject.



The reason why I have been led to make these preliminary remarks (for
certainly it was no part of my design to touch without due cause on
metrical and rhythmical questions, but only so far as it was really
necessary) is this, that it is through rhythms which are noble and
dignified, and contain an element of greatness, that composition
becomes dignified, noble, and splendid, while it is made a paltry and
unimpressive sort of thing by the use of those rhythms that are ignoble
and mean, whether they are taken severally by themselves, or are woven
together according to their mutual affinities. If, then, it is within
human capacity to frame the style entirely from the finest rhythms,
our aspirations will be realized; but if it should prove necessary to
blend the worse with the better, as happens in many cases (for names
have been attached to things in a haphazard way), we must manage
our material artistically. We must disguise our compulsion by the
gracefulness of the composition: the more so that we have full liberty
of action, since no rhythm is banished from non-metrical language, as
some are from metrical.

It remains for me to produce proofs of my statements, in order that my
argument may carry conviction. Wide as the field is, a few proofs will
suffice. Thus it is surely beyond dispute

[Page 178]

μεγαλοπρεπῶς τὴν Θουκυδίδου λέξιν τὴν ἐν τῷ ἐπιταφίῳ
ταύτην· “Οἱ μὲν πολλοὶ τῶν ἐνθάδε ἤδη εἰρηκότων ἐπαινοῦσι
τὸν προσθέντα τῷ νόμῳ τὸν λόγον τόνδε, ὡς καλὸν ἐπὶ τοῖς
ἐκ τῶν πολέμων θαπτομένοις ἀγορεύεσθαι αὐτόν.” τί οὖν
ἐστιν ὃ πεποίηκε ταύτην μεγαλοπρεπῆ τὴν σύνθεσιν; τὸ ἐκ      5
τοιούτων συγκεῖσθαι ῥυθμῶν τὰ κῶλα. τρεῖς μὲν γὰρ οἱ τοῦ
πρώτου προηγούμενοι κώλου σπονδεῖοι πόδες εἰσίν, ὁ δὲ
τέταρτος ἀνάπαιστος, ὁ δὲ μετὰ τοῦτον αὖθις σπονδεῖος, ἔπειτα
κρητικός, ἅπαντες ἀξιωματικοί. καὶ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον κῶλον
διὰ ταῦτ’ ἐστὶ σεμνόν· τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς τουτί “#ἐπαινοῦσι τὸν      10
προσθέντα τῷ νόμῳ τὸν λόγον τόνδε#” δύο μὲν ὑποβακχείους
ἔχει τοὺς πρώτους πόδας, κρητικὸν δὲ τὸν τρίτον, εἶτ’
αὖθις ὑποβακχείους δύο καὶ συλλαβὴν ὑφ’ ἧς τελειοῦται τὸ
κῶλον· ὥστ’ εἰκότως σεμνόν ἐστι καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ τῶν εὐγενεστάτων
τε καὶ καλλίστων ῥυθμῶν συγκείμενον. τὸ δὲ δὴ      15
τρίτον κῶλον “#ὡς καλὸν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐκ τῶν πολέμων θαπτομένοις
ἀγορεύεσθαι αὐτόν#” ἄρχεται μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ κρητικοῦ
ποδός, δεύτερον δὲ λαμβάνει τὸν ἀνάπαιστον καὶ τρίτον
σπονδεῖον καὶ τέταρτον αὖθις ἀνάπαιστον, εἶτα δύο τοὺς ἑξῆς
δακτύλους, καὶ σπονδείους δύο τοὺς τελευταίους, εἶτα κατάληξιν.      20
εὐγενὲς δὴ καὶ τοῦτο διὰ τοὺς πόδας γέγονεν. τὰ

2 ἤδη εἰρηκότων EP: ἤδη om. MV: εἰρηκότων ἤδη F (perperam: cf. vv. 6,
7)   3 τὸν (ante λόγον) om. F   9 κριτικός PM || πρῶτον FM: πρῶτον αὐτῶ
PV   10 τοῦτο PMV   11 ὑποβακχείους ... αὖθις om. P   14 συγγενεστάτων
P   21 δὴ PV: δὲ FM

3. =τὸν προσθέντα= κτλ.: viz. τὸν νομοθέτην, δηλονότι τὸν Σόλωνα
(schol. ad Thucyd. ii. 35). Dionysius has this passage of Thucydides
in view when he writes (_Antiqq. Rom._ v. 17) ὀψὲ γάρ ποτ’ Ἀθηναῖοι
προσέθεσαν τὸν ἐπιτάφιον ἔπαινον τῷ νόμῳ, εἴτ’ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπ’ Ἀρτεμισίῳ
καὶ περὶ Σαλαμῖνα καὶ ἐν Πλαταιαῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος ἀποθανόντων
ἀρξάμενοι, εἴτ’ ἀπὸ τῶν περὶ Μαραθῶνα ἔργων.—Bircovius illustrates the
rhythmical effect of the Greek by a similar analysis of the exordium
of Livy’s _History_, “facturusne operae pretium sim, si a primordio
urbis res populi Romani perscripserim, nec satis scio nec, si sciam,
dicere ausim, quippe qui cum veterem tum vulgatam esse rem videam, dum
novi semper scriptores aut in rebus certius aliquid allaturos se aut
scribendi arte rudem vetustatem superaturos credunt.”

6. The first clause is clearly meant to be divided as follows:

     –  –     –   –    –  –   ᴗ ᴗ –  –  –  – ᴗ –
    οἱ μὲν | πολλοὶ | τῶν ἐν|θάδε ἤ|δη εἰ|ρηκότων.

The formation of the anapaest is noticeable, and in other ways the
metrical division seems rather arbitrary. For ἐνθάδε ἤδη (without
elision of the final ε) cp. n. on =180= 8. [Here and elsewhere, no
attempt has been made to secure metrical equivalence between the Greek
original and the English version.]

Goodell (_Chapters on Greek Metric_ p. 42) says of the analysis
which begins here: “It is incredible that the rhetor supposed he was
describing the actual spoken rhythm, in the sense of Aristoxenus; he
was giving the quantities of the syllables in the conventional way, and
his readers so understood him.”

9. Cp. the metrical effect of

     – ᴗ    –      ᴗ   – ᴗ       ᴗ  – ᴗ     ᴗ    –    –             ᴗ   –  –
  “Who is this | that cometh | from Edom | with dyed garm(ents) | from Bozrah?”

10. Second clause:

  ᴗ  –  –  ᴗ  –    –   –  ᴗ  –    ᴗ –  –     ᴗ –   –
  ἐπαινοῦ|σι τὸν προσ|θέντα τῷ | νόμῳ τὸν | λόγον τόν|δε.

16. Third clause:

  –   ᴗ –    ᴗ ᴗ   –    –   –     ᴗ ᴗ –     –  ᴗ ᴗ   –  ᴗ ᴗ   ––    –  –
  ὡς καλὸν | ἐπὶ τοῖς | ἐκ τῶν | πολέμων | θαπτομέ|νοις ἀγο|ρεύε|σθαι αὐ|τόν.

It is to be noticed that Dionysius treats the final syllable of
ἀγορεύεσθαι as long before αὐτόν, and (more unaccountably) the final
syllable of καλὸν as long before ἐπί. The length of the diphthong
-αι might, no doubt, be maintained in prose utterance; but it is not
easy to see on what principle -ο̆ν could be pronounced -ο̄ν before
ἐπί. It might indeed be urged that the final syllable of a rhythmical
phrase must (like that of a metrical line) be regarded as indifferent
(long _or_ short): cp. Cic. _Orat._ 63. 214 “persolutas;—dichoreus;
nihil enim ad rem, extrema illa longa sit an brevis.” But this is to
remind us once more that, though there is a sound general basis for
the observations of Dionysius, it is easy for both ancient and modern
theorists to frame rules more definite than the facts warrant.

[Page 179]

that the following passage in the _Funeral Speech_ of Thucydides is
composed with dignity and grandeur: “Former speakers on these occasions
have usually commended the statesman who caused an oration to form
part of this funeral ceremony: they have felt it a fitting tribute to
men who were brought home for burial from the fields of battle where
they fell.”[162] What has made the composition here so impressive?
The fact that the clauses are composed of impressive rhythms. For the
three feet which usher in the first clause are spondees, the fourth is
an anapaest, the next a spondee once more, then a cretic,—all stately
feet. Hence the dignity of the first clause. The next clause, “have
usually commended the statesman who caused an oration to form part of
this funeral ceremony,”[163] has two _hypobacchii_ as its first feet,
a cretic as its third, then again two _hypobacchii_, and a syllable by
which the clause is completed; so that this clause too is naturally
dignified, formed as it is of the noblest and most beautiful rhythms.

The third clause, “they have felt it a fitting tribute to men who were
brought home for burial from the fields of battle where they fell,”
begins with the cretic foot, has an anapaest in the second place, a
spondee in the third, in the fourth an anapaest again, then two dactyls
in succession, closing with two spondees and the terminal syllable. So
this passage also owes its noble ring to its rhythmical structure; and
most of the

[Page 180]

πλεῖστα δ’ ἐστὶ παρὰ Θουκυδίδῃ τοιαῦτα, μᾶλλον δὲ ὀλίγα
τὰ μὴ οὕτως ἔχοντα, ὥστ’ εἰκότως ὑψηλὸς εἶναι δοκεῖ καὶ
καλλιεπὴς ὡς εὐγενεῖς ἐπάγων ῥυθμούς.

τὴν δὲ δὴ Πλατωνικὴν λέξιν ταυτηνὶ τίνι ποτὲ ἄλλῳ
κοσμηθεῖσαν οὕτως ἀξιωματικὴν εἶναι φαίη τις ἂν καὶ καλήν,      5
εἰ μὴ τῷ συγκεῖσθαι διὰ τῶν καλλίστων τε καὶ ἀξιολογωτάτων
ῥυθμῶν; ἔστι γὰρ δὴ τῶν πάνυ φανερῶν καὶ περιβοήτων,
ᾗ κέχρηται ὁ ἀνὴρ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ἐπιταφίου ἀρχήν· “ἔργῳ
μὲν ἡμῖν οἵδε ἔχουσιν τὰ προσήκοντα σφίσιν αὐτοῖς· ὧν
τυχόντες πορεύονται τὴν εἱμαρμένην πορείαν.” ἐν τούτοις δύο      10
μέν ἐστιν ἃ συμπληροῖ τὴν περίοδον κῶλα, ῥυθμοὶ δὲ οἱ
ταῦτα διαλαμβάνοντες οἵδε· βακχεῖος μὲν ὁ πρῶτος· οὐ γὰρ
δή γε ὡς ἰαμβικὸν ἀξιώσαιμ’ ἂν ἔγωγε τὸ κῶλον τουτὶ ῥυθμίζειν
ἐνθυμούμενος ὅτι οὐκ ἐπιτροχάλους καὶ ταχεῖς ἀλλ’
ἀναβεβλημένους καὶ βραδεῖς τοῖς οἰκτιζομένοις προσῆκεν ἀποδίδοσθαι      15
τοὺς χρόνους· σπονδεῖος δ’ ὁ δεύτερος· ὁ δ’ ἑξῆς
δάκτυλος διαιρουμένης τῆς συναλοιφῆς· εἶθ’ ὁ μετὰ τοῦτον
σπονδεῖος· ὁ δ’ ἑξῆς μᾶλλον κρητικὸς ἢ ἀνάπαιστος· ἔπειθ’,
ὡς ἐμὴ δόξα, σπονδεῖος· ὁ δὲ τελευταῖος ὑποβάκχειος, εἰ δὲ
βούλεταί τις, ἀνάπαιστος· εἶτα κατάληξις. τούτων τῶν      20
ῥυθμῶν οὐδεὶς ταπεινὸς οὐδὲ ἀγεννής. τοῦ δὲ ἑξῆς κώλου
τουδί “#ὧν τυχόντες πορεύονται τὴν εἱμαρμένην πορείαν#”
δύο μέν εἰσιν οἱ πρῶτοι πόδες κρητικοί, σπονδεῖοι δὲ
οἱ μετὰ τούτους δύο· μεθ’ οὓς αὖθις κρητικός, ἔπειτα τελευταῖος
ὑποβάκχειος. ἀνάγκη δὴ τὸν ἐξ ἁπάντων συγκείμενον      25

1 ὀλίγα τὰ F: ὀλίγα PMV   3 καλλίστης P || ὡς] καὶ FMV: om. P ||
εὐγενείας P: εὐγενὴς MV || ἐπάγων F: ὡς ἐκλέγων τοὺς PMV   4 ταυτηνὶ
Us.: ταύτην εἰ F: ταύτην PMV   7 φανερὸν καὶ περιβόητον F   9 οἵδ’
ἔχουσιν P: οἵδ’ ἔχουσι FMV   13 ἰαμβικὸν FP: ἴαμβον MV   15 προσήκει F
  16 δ ὁ δεύτερος F: δε ἕτερος P, V: δ’ ἕτερος M   17 εἴθ’ ὁ F: εἶτα
PMV   19 ὡς F: ὡς ἡ PMV   25 δὴ] δεῖ F

4. The passage from the _Menexenus_ is quoted by Dionysius in the _de
Demosth._ c. 24, with the remark ἡ μὲν εἰσβολὴ θαυμαστὴ καὶ πρέπουσα
τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις πράγμασι κάλλους τε ὀνομάτων ἕνεκα καὶ σεμνότητος
καὶ ἁρμονίας, τὰ δ’ ἐπιλεγόμενα οὐκέθ’ ὅμοια τοῖς πρώτοις κτλ. It is
also given, as an illustration of the musical and other effects of
_periphrasis_, in the _de Sublimitate_ c. 28: ἆρα δὴ τούτοις μετρίως
ὤγκωσε τὴν νόησιν, ἢ ψιλὴν λαβὼν τὴν λέξιν ἐμελοποίησε, καθάπερ
ἁρμονίαν τινὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς περιφράσεως περιχεάμενος εὐμέλειαν;—A somewhat
similar period in Latin is that of Sallust (_Bell. Catilin._ i. 1),
“omnes homines, qui sese student praestare ceteris animalibus, summa
ope niti decet, ne vitam silentio transeant veluti pecora, quae natura
prona atque ventri oboedientia finxit.”

8. First clause:

  –  –  ᴗ    – –     – ᴗ ᴗ   – –     ⏓   ᴗ –  –  –     ᴗ ⏓   –
  ἔργῳ μὲν | ἡμῖν | οἵδε ἔ|χουσιν | τὰ προσή|κοντα | σφίσιν αὐ|τοῖς.

Here three points call for comment: (1) οἵδε ἔχουσιν (and not οἵδ’
ἔχουσιν with FPMV) was clearly (cp. l. 16) read by Dionysius: so in
the text of Plato himself; (2) the lengthening of τά before προσήκοντα
(although the usage of Comedy would seem to show that such lengthening
was uncommon in the language of ordinary life) is preferred as giving
a cretic; (3) very strangely, it is thought possible to scan the final
syllable of σφίσιν as long (cp. =178= 17, =184= 2, 8).

13. We have a considerable part of an iambic line if we scan thus:

  –  –    ᴗ  –  –   –     ᴗ  –  ᴗ
  ἔργῳ | μὲν ἡ|μῖν οἵδ’ | ἔχου|σι.

19. For =ὡς ἐμὴ δόξα= cp. _de Demosth._ c. 39.

22. Second clause:

  –   ᴗ –   –   ᴗ  – –   –    –   –  –  ᴗ –     ᴗ  ––
  ὧν τυχόν|τες πορεύ|ονται | τὴν εἱ|μαρμένην | πορείαν.

[Page 181]

passages in Thucydides are of this stamp; indeed, there are few that
are not so framed. So he thoroughly deserves his reputation for
loftiness and beauty of language, since he habitually introduces noble

Again, take the following passage of Plato. What can be the device that
produces its perfect dignity and beauty, if it is not the beautiful
and striking rhythms that compose it? The passage is one of the best
known and most often quoted, and it is found near the beginning of
our author’s _Funeral Speech_: “In very truth these men are receiving
at our hands their fitting tribute: and when they have gained this
guerdon, they journey on, along the path of destiny.”[164] Here there
are two clauses which constitute the period, and the feet into which
the clauses fall are as follows:—The first is a _bacchius_, for
certainly I should not think it correct to scan this clause as an
iambic line, bearing in mind that not swift, tripping movements, but
retarded and slow times are appropriate to those over whom we make
mourning. The second is a spondee; the next is a dactyl, the vowels
which might coalesce being kept distinct; after that, a spondee; next,
what I should call a cretic rather than an anapaest; then, according
to my view, a spondee; in the last place a _hypobacchius_ or, if you
prefer to take it so, an anapaest; then the terminal syllable. Of these
rhythms none is mean nor ignoble. In the next clause, “when they have
gained this guerdon, they journey on, along the path of destiny,” the
two first feet are cretics, and next after them two spondees; after
which once more a cretic, then lastly a _hypobacchius_. Thus the
discourse is composed entirely of beautiful rhythms, and it necessarily
follows that it is itself

[Page 182]

καλῶν ῥυθμῶν καλὸν εἶναι λόγον. μυρία τοιαῦτ’ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν
καὶ παρὰ Πλάτωνι. ὁ γὰρ ἀνὴρ ἐμμέλειάν τε καὶ εὐρυθμίαν
συνιδεῖν δαιμονιώτατος, καὶ εἴ γε δεινὸς ἦν οὕτως ἐκλέξαι τὰ
ὀνόματα ὡς συνθεῖναι περιττός, #καί νύ κεν ἢ παρέλασσεν#
τὸν Δημοσθένη κάλλους ἑρμηνείας ἕνεκεν, #ἢ ἀμφήριστον      5
ἔθηκεν#. νῦν δὲ περὶ μὲν τὴν ἐκλογὴν ἔστιν ὅτε διαμαρτάνει,
καὶ μάλιστα ἐν οἷς ἂν τὴν ὑψηλὴν καὶ περιττὴν καὶ ἐγκατάσκευον
διώκῃ φράσιν, ὑπὲρ ὧν ἑτέρωθί μοι δηλοῦται σαφέστερον.
συντίθησι δὲ τὰ ὀνόματα καὶ ἡδέως καὶ καλῶς νὴ
Δία, καὶ οὐκ ἄν τις αὐτὸν ἔχοι κατὰ τοῦτο μέμψασθαι τὸ      10

ἑνὸς ἔτι παραθήσομαι λέξιν, ᾧ τὰ ἀριστεῖα τῆς ἐν λόγοις
δεινότητος ἀποδίδωμι. ὅρος γὰρ δή τίς ἐστιν ἐκλογῆς τε
ὀνομάτων καὶ κάλλους συνθέσεως ὁ Δημοσθένης. ἐν δὴ τῷ
περὶ τοῦ στεφάνου λόγῳ τρία μέν ἐστιν ἃ τὴν πρώτην      15
περίοδον συμπληροῖ κῶλα, οἱ δὲ ταῦτα καταμετροῦντες οἵδε
εἰσὶν ῥυθμοί· “#πρῶτον μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῖς
θεοῖς εὔχομαι πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις#.” ἄρχει δὲ τοῦδε τοῦ
κώλου βακχεῖος ῥυθμός, ἔπειθ’ ἕπεται σπονδεῖος, εἶτ’ ἀνάπαιστός      20
τε καὶ μετὰ τούτον ἕτερος σπονδεῖος, εἶθ’ ἑξῆς
κρητικοὶ τρεῖς, σπονδεῖος δ’ ὁ τελευταῖος. τοῦ δὲ δευτέρου
κώλου τοῦδε “#ὅσην εὔνοιαν ἔχων ἐγὼ διατελῶ τῇ τε#

1 ἐστιν εὑρεῖν F, E: ἐστι PMV   2 ἐμμέλειαν EFM: εὐμέλειαν PV   3 οὕτως
EF: οὗτος PMV   5 δημοσθένην EPV: δημοσθένεα M || κάλλους FMV: καὶ
ἄλλους P: κάλλος E   6 ὅτε EF: ἃ PV: ἃ καὶ M   9 συντίθησι δὲ EF: δὲ
συντίθησιν P, MV   12 ἑνὸς] ἐν οἷς P   13 ἀποδίδωμι F: καταδίδωμι PMV
  16 ταῦτα] κατὰ ταῦτα PV   17 ῥυθμοί F: οἱ ῥυθμοί PMV   18 δὲ τοῦδε V:
τοῦδε PM: δὲ F

2. =ἐμμέλειαν=: cp. =122= 21, unless =130= 6 should seem to support the
reading εὐμέλειαν in the present passage.

5. For Δημοσθένην (as given by some manuscripts) cp. Demetr. _de Eloc._
§ 175 καὶ ὅλως τὸ νῦ δι’ εὐφωνίαν ἐφέλκονται οἱ Ἀττικοί, “Δημοσθένην”
λέγοντες καὶ “Σωκράτην.”

7. Cp. Long. _de Sublim._ c. iii. ὀλισθαίνουσι δ’ εἰς τοῦτο τὸ γένος
ὀρεγόμενοι μὲν τοῦ περιττοῦ καὶ πεποιημένου καὶ μάλιστα τοῦ ἡδέος,
ἐποκέλλοντες δὲ εἰς τὸ ῥωπικὸν καὶ κακόζηλον.—Dionysius perhaps fails
to see that a high-pitched style may sometimes be used μετ’ εἰρωνείας,
as Aristotle (_Rhet._ iii. 7. 11) says in reference to the _Phaedrus_.

8. =ἑτέρωθι=: cp. _de Demosth._ cc. 6, 7, 24-29, and _Ep. ad Cn. Pomp._
cc. 1, 2.—For the probable order in which the ‘Scripta Rhetorica’
appeared see D.H. pp. 5-7. The _de Comp. Verb._ is referred to twice
in the _de Demosth._ (cc. 49, 50).—With =δηλοῦται= (not δεδήλωται, _de
Din._ c. 13, _de Demosth._ c. 49; nor δηλωθήσεται, _de Lysia_ cc. 12,
14) cp. _de Isaeo_ c. 2, _de Demosth._ c. 57.

9. Dionysius is fond of the asseveration νὴ Δία, ‘mehercule.’

17. First clause:

    – –   ᴗ     – –    ᴗ  ᴗ –   – –      –   ᴗ –     – ᴗ  –    – ᴗ   –    –  –
  πρῶτον μέν, | ὦ ἄνδρ|ες Ἀθη|ναῖοι, | τοῖς θεοῖς | εὔχομαι | πᾶσι καὶ | πάσαις.

—The expression καταμετροῦντες may indicate that Dionysius himself
wrote marks of quantity over the syllables in question: such marks
are given by F in =178= 2-4, 10, 11, 16, 17, and are also found in
the Paris Manuscript (1741) of Demetr. _de Eloc._ §§ 38, 39.—With the
rhythmical effect of this passage of Demosthenes, Bircovius compares
“Si, patres conscripti, pro vestris immortalibus in me fratremque
meum liberosque nostros meritis parum vobis cumulate gratias egero,
quaeso obtestorque, ne meae naturae potius, quam magnitudini vestrorum
beneficiorum, id tribuendum putetis” (Cic. _Post Reditum in Senatu
Oratio_ init.).

22. Second clause:

  ᴗ –   –   –⏓  ᴗ  –  ᴗ –    ᴗᴗ ᴗ –    –  ᴗ  ᴗ  ⏓     –  – ⏓    – –
  ὅσην εὔ|νοιαν ἔ|χων ἐγὼ | διατελῶ | τῇ τε πόλει | καὶ πᾶσιν | ὑμῖν.

—There are fresh difficulties in the “scansion” here. Dionysius speaks
as if the last syllable of εὔνοιαν may (and indeed preferably) be
counted long: this involves the lengthening of a short vowel before a
single consonant, cp. n. on =180= 8.—With regard to the paeons, διατελῶ
will form a “catalectic” paeon (ᴗ ᴗ ᴗ –), but τῇ τε πόλει will not
form a “procatarctic” paeon (– ᴗ ᴗ ᴗ) unless the final syllable of
πόλει is reckoned short.—To extract a _molossus_ from καὶ πᾶσιν, the
last syllable of πᾶσιν must be lengthened. Strange as it appears, the
cumulative evidence seems (if our text is sound) to show that Dionysius
would (at any rate, for the purpose of prose rhythm) lengthen a short
vowel before a single consonant.

[Page 183]

beautiful. Countless instances of this kind are to be found in Plato
as well as in Thucydides. For this author has a perfect genius for
discovering true melody and fine rhythm, and if he had only been as
able in the choice of words as he is unrivalled in the art of combining
them, he “had even outstript” Demosthenes, so far as beauty of style
is concerned, or “had left the issue in doubt.”[165] As it is, he is
sometimes quite at fault in his choice of words; most of all when he is
aiming at a lofty, unusual, elaborate style of expression. With respect
to this I explain myself more explicitly elsewhere. But he does most
assuredly put his words together with beauty as well as charm; and from
this point of view no one could find any fault with him.

I will cite a passage of one other writer,—the one to whom I assign the
palm for oratorical mastery. Demosthenes most certainly forms a sort of
standard alike for choice of words and for beauty in their arrangement.
In the _Speech on the Crown_ there are three clauses which constitute
the first period; and the rhythms by which they are measured are as
follows: “first of all, men of Athens, I pray to all the gods and
goddesses.”[166] A _bacchius_ begins this first clause; then follows a
spondee; next an anapaest, and after this another spondee; then three
cretics in succession, and a spondee as the last foot. In the second
clause, “that all the loyal affection I bear my whole life through to

[Page 184]

#πόλει καὶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν#” πρῶτος μὲν ὑποβάκχειός ἐστι πούς,
εἶτα βακχεῖος, εἰ δὲ βούλεταί τις, δάκτυλος· εἶτα κρητικός·
μεθ’ οὕς εἰσι δύο σύνθετοι πόδες οἱ καλούμενοι παιᾶνες· οἷς
ἕπεται μολοττὸς ἢ βακχεῖος, ἐγχωρεῖ γὰρ ἑκατέρως αὐτὸν
διαιρεῖν· τελευταῖος δὲ ὁ σπονδεῖος. τοῦ δὲ τρίτου κώλου τοῦδε      5
“#τοσαύτην ὑπάρξαι μοι παρ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τουτονὶ τὸν
ἀγῶνα#” ἄρχουσι μὲν ὑποβάκχειοι δύο, ἕπεται δὲ κρητικός,
ᾧ συνῆπται σπονδεῖος· εἶτ’ αὖθις βακχεῖος ἢ κρητικός, καὶ
τελευταῖος πάλιν κρητικός, εἶτα κατάληξις. τί οὖν ἐκώλυε
καλὴν ἁρμονίαν εἶναι λέξεως, ἐν ᾗ μήτε πυρρίχιός ἐστι ποὺς      10
μήτε ἰαμβικὸς μήτε ἀμφίβραχυς μήτε τῶν χορείων ἢ τροχαίων
μηδείς; καὶ οὐ λέγω τοῦτο, ὅτι τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων ἕκαστος
οὐ κέχρηταί ποτε καὶ τοῖς ἀγεννεστέροις ῥυθμοῖς. κέχρηται
γάρ· ἀλλ’ εὖ συγκεκρύφασιν αὐτοὺς καὶ συνυφάγκασι διαλαβόντες
τοῖς κρείττοσι τοὺς χείρονας.      15

οἷς δὲ μὴ ἐγένετο πρόνοια τούτου τοῦ μέρους, οἱ μὲν ταπεινάς,
οἱ δὲ κατακεκλασμένας, οἱ δ’ ἄλλην τινὰ αἰσχύνην καὶ
ἀμορφίαν ἐχούσας ἐξήνεγκαν τὰς γραφάς. ὧν ἐστι πρῶτός τε
καὶ μέσος καὶ τελευταῖος ὁ Μάγνης ὁ σοφιστὴς Ἡγησίας·
ὑπὲρ οὗ μὰ τὸν Δία καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους θεοὺς ἅπαντας οὐκ οἶδα τί      20
χρὴ λέγειν, πότερα τοσαύτη περὶ αὐτὸν ἀναισθησία καὶ παχύτης
ἦν ὥστε μὴ συνορᾶν, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἀγεννεῖς ἢ εὐγενεῖς ῥυθμοί,
ἢ τοσαύτη θεοβλάβεια καὶ διαφθορὰ τῶν φρενῶν ὥστ’ εἰδότα
τοὺς κρείττους ἔπειτα αἱρεῖσθαι τοὺς χείρονας, ὃ καὶ μᾶλλον
πείθομαι· ἀγνοίας μὲν γάρ ἐστι καὶ τὸ κατορθοῦν πολλαχῇ,      25

2 εἶτα κρητικός F: ἔπειτα κρητικός PMV   3 παιᾶνες F: παίωνες PMV   4
ἐκατέρως F: ἑκατέρους PMV || αὐτὸν PV: αὐτῶν FM   5 τοῦδε F: τοῦ PMV
  7 ἔπεται δὲ F: ἔπειτα δε P, M: ἔπειτα V   8 καὶ F: καὶ ὁ PMV   11
ἴαμβος F || τροχαίων F: τῶν τροχαίων PMV   17 κατακεκλεισμένας F || καὶ
F: ἢ PMV   19 μέσος καὶ τελευταῖος F: τελευταῖος καὶ μέσος PMV || ὁ
σοφιστὴς F: σοφιστὴς PMV   20 οἶδα τί F: οἶδ’ ὅ τι PMV   22 ἀγεννεῖς F:
εὐγενεῖς PMV || εὐγενεῖς F: ἀγενεῖς PV^1: ἀγεννεῖς MV^2   25 πολλαχῆι
FP, M: πολλαχοῦ V

4. =ἐγχωρεῖ γὰρ ἑκατέρως αὐτὸν διαιρεῖν=: this statement should
be noted, together with the _a priori_ grounds on which Dionysius
elsewhere (e.g. =180= 12-16) makes his choice between the alternatives
which present themselves.

6. Third clause:

   ᴗ  – –    ᴗ –   –     –  ᴗ   –  –   –      – ᴗ –    ⏓  ᴗ –
  τοσαύτην | ὑπάρξαι | μοι παρ’ ὑ|μῶν εἰς | τουτονὶ | τὸν ἀγῶ|να.

—If τουτονὶ is a bacchius, it must be scanned

    – – ⏓

and if τὸν ἀγῶν(α) is a cretic, it must be scanned

   –  ᴗ –
  τὸν ἀγῶν|α!

There are, no doubt, many cases of abnormal lengthening in Homeric
versification (e.g. φίλε κασίγνητε at the beginning of a line, _Il._
iv. 155), but not to such an extent as would satisfy ‘Eucleides the
elder’: οἷον Εὐκλείδης ὁ ἀρχαῖος, ὡς ῥᾴδιον ποιεῖν, εἴ τις δώσει
ἐκτείνειν ἐφ’ ὁπόσον βούλεται, ἰαμβοποιήσας ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ λέξει,—“Ἐπιχάρην
εἶδον Μαραθῶνάδε βαδίζοντα” (Aristot. _Poet._ c. xxii.).

11. =μήτε ἰαμβικὸς ... τροχαίων μηδείς=: it is obvious that we could
discover some of these feet in the passage if we were to choose our
own way of dividing it. If in Latin, for example, we were to take
such a sentence as quonam igitur pacto probari potest insidias Miloni
fecisse Clodium? (Cic. _pro Milone_ 12. 32), we could extract dactyls,
spondees, trochees, iambi, cretics, anapaests, etc. from the various
section into which we chose to divide it: e.g.

        –    ᴗ ᴗ  –   –   –   ᴗ  – –    ᴗ –     –  ᴗ  ᴗ–     ᴗ –  –  –  –  ᴗ     – ᴗ⏓
  (1) quonam igi|tur pac|to pro|bari | potest | insi|dias | Milo|ni fe|cisse | Clodium?

        –    ᴗ  ᴗ –     –  –     ᴗ –  –  ᴗ  –   –   ᴗ ᴗ–     ᴗ –  –  –  –  ᴗ   –  ᴗ⏓
  (2) quonam i|gitur | pacto | proba|ri po|test in|sidias | Milo|ni fe|cisse Clo|dium?

        –    ᴗ ᴗ  –   –   –   ᴗ –  –  ᴗ –     –  ᴗ ᴗ –   ᴗ –  –  –  –  ᴗ   –  ᴗ⏓
  (3) quonam igi|tur pac|to proba|ri potest | insidi|as Milo|ni fe|cisse Clo|dium?

And so with several other possible scansions (cp. Laurand _Études sur
le style de Cicéron_ p. 138).

19. For =Hegesias= cp. Introduction, pp. 52-5 _supra_.

20. =μὰ τὸν Δία ... λέγειν=: reminiscent of Demosth. _Philipp._ iii.
54, _Fals. Leg._ 220.

[Page 185]

city and all of you,”[167] first comes a _hypobacchius_; then a
_bacchius_ or, if you prefer to take it so, a dactyl; then a cretic;
after which there are two composite feet called _paeons_. Next follows
a _molossus_ or a _bacchius_, for it can be scanned either way. Last
comes the spondee. The third clause, “may as fully be accorded by you
to support me in this trial,”[167] is opened by two _hypobacchii_. A
cretic follows, to which a spondee is attached. Then again a _bacchius_
or a cretic; last a cretic once more; then the terminal syllable. Is
not a beautiful cadence inevitable in a passage which contains neither
a pyrrhic, nor an iamb, nor an amphibrachys, nor a single choree
or trochee? Still, I do not affirm that none of those writers ever
uses the more ignoble rhythms also. They do use them; but they have
artistically masked them, and have only introduced them at intervals,
interweaving the inferior with the superior.

Those authors who have not given heed to this branch of their art have
published writings which are either mean, or flabby, or have some other
blemish or deformity. Among them the first and midmost and the last is
the Magnesian, the sophist Hegesias. Concerning him, I swear by Zeus
and all the other gods, I do not know what to say. Was he so dense, and
so devoid of artistic feeling, as not to see which the ignoble or noble
rhythms are? or was he smitten with such soul-destroying lunacy, that
though he knew the better, he nevertheless invariably chose the worse?
It is to this latter view that I incline. Ignorance often blunders into
the right path: only wilfulness

[Page 186]

προνοίας δὲ τὸ μηδέποτε. ἐν γοῦν ταῖς τοσαύταις γραφαῖς,
αἷς καταλέλοιπεν ὁ ἀνήρ, μίαν οὐκ ἂν εὕροι τις σελίδα
συγκειμένην εὐτυχῶς. ἔοικεν δὴ ταῦτα ὑπολαβεῖν ἐκείνων
κρείττω καὶ μετὰ σπουδῆς αὐτὰ ποιεῖν, εἰς ἃ δι’ ἀνάγκην ἄν
τις ἐμπεσὼν ἐν λόγῳ σχεδίῳ δι’ αἰσχύνης θεῖτο φρόνημα ἔχων      5
ἀνήρ. θήσω δὲ καὶ τούτου λέξιν ἐκ τῆς ἱστορίας, ἵνα σοι
γένηται δῆλον ἐκ τῆς ἀντιπαραθέσεως, ὅσην μὲν ἀξίωσιν ἔχει
τὸ εὐγενὲς ἐν ῥυθμοῖς, ὅσην δ’ αἰσχύνην τὸ ἀγεννές. ἔστιν δ’
ὃ λαμβάνει πρᾶγμα ὁ σοφιστὴς τοιόνδε. Ἀλέξανδρος πολιορκῶν
Γάζαν χωρίον τι τῆς Συρίας πάνυ ἐχυρὸν τραυματίας      10
τε γίνεται κατὰ τὴν προσβολὴν καὶ τὸ χωρίον αἱρεῖ χρόνῳ.
φερόμενος δ’ ὑπ’ ὀργῆς τούς τ’ ἐγκαταληφθέντας ἀποσφάττει
πάντας, ἐπιτρέψας τοῖς Μακεδόσι τὸν ἐντυχόντα κτείνειν, καὶ
τὸν ἡγεμόνα αὐτῶν αἰχμάλωτον λαβών, ἄνδρα ἐν ἀξιώματι
καὶ τύχης καὶ εἴδους, ἐξ ἁρματείου δίφρου δῆσαι κελεύσας      15
ζῶντα καὶ τοὺς ἵππους ἐλαύνειν ἀνὰ κράτος ἐν τῇ πάντων
ὄψει διαφθείρει. τούτων οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι τις εἰπεῖν δεινότερα
πάθη οὐδ’ ὄψει φοβερώτερα. πῶς δὴ ταῦτα ἡρμήνευκεν ὁ
σοφιστής, ἄξιον ἰδεῖν, πότερα σεμνῶς καὶ ὑψηλῶς ἢ ταπεινῶς
καὶ καταγελάστως.      20

“ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἔχων τὸ σύνταγμα προηγεῖτο. καί πως

2 αἷς F: ἃς PMV   3 δὴ F: δε P, MV   4 ἄν τις ἐμπεσὼν PMV: ἐμπεσὼν ἄν
τις F   5 θεῖτο F: ἔθετο PMV   6 ἐκ τῆς F: ἐξ PMV   8 ἔστιν δ’ F: τί δὲ
PMV   10 ἐχυρὸν] εὐχερῶς F   11 χρόνῳ φερόμενος δ’ F: χρόνῳ φερόμενος ὁ
δ’ PMV   12 τε ἐγκαταληφθέντας PMV: τε καταλειφθέντας F   14 αὐτὸν PMV
  16 ἐλαύνων MV   17 τούτων F: τοῦτον PMV   18 οὐδὲ ὄψεις φοβεροτέρας
(-ωτ- M) PMV   19 πότερα F: πότερον PMV   21 καὶ πῶς F

1-3. Cp. Dryden _Mac Flecknoe_ ll. 19, 20, “The rest to some faint
meaning make pretence, | But Shadwell _never deviates_ into sense.” The
_wilfulness_ and _malice prepense_ (πρόνοια) of Hegesias’ stupidity
may be illustrated by Dr. Johnson’s remark about Thomas Sheridan:
“Why, Sir, Sherry is dull, naturally dull; but it must have taken him
a great deal of pains to become what we now see him. Such an access of
stupidity, Sir, is not in nature” (Boswell’s _Life of Johnson_ i. 453).

4. The reading of PMV seems preferable, since ἄν is not infrequently
attached to adverbs or adverbial phrases such as δι’ ἀνάγκην.

5. =θεῖτο=: τίθεμαι used for ἡγοῦμαι, as in =208= 13 and =232=
25.—Contrast the active θήσω in the next line.

9. Arrian (_Exped. Alexandri_ ii. 25. 4) thus describes the
commencement of Alexander’s siege, and Batis’ defence, of Gaza (332
B.C.): Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ἐπ’ Αἰγύπτου ἔγνω ποιεῖσθαι τὸν στόλον. καὶ ἦν
αὐτῷ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα τῆς Παλαιστίνης καλουμένης Συρίας προσκεχωρηκότα
ἤδη· εὐνοῦχος δέ τις, ᾧ ὄνομα ἦν Βάτις, κρατῶν τῆς Γαζαίων πόλεως, οὐ
προσεῖχεν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ, ἀλλὰ Ἄραβάς τε μισθωτοὺς ἐπαγόμενος καὶ σῖτον
ἐκ πολλοῦ παρεσκευακὼς διαρκῆ ἐς χρόνιον πολιορκίαν καὶ τῷ χωρίῳ
πιστεύων, μήποτε ἂν βίᾳ ἁλῶναι, ἔγνω μὴ δέχεσθαι τῇ πόλει Ἀλέξανδρον.
In continuing and completing (cc. 26, 27) his narrative of the siege,
Arrian makes no mention of the fate of Batis. On this point Plutarch,
too, is silent (_Vit. Alex._ c. 25), and so is Diodorus Siculus xvii.
48. 7. The obviously rhetorical cast of Hegesias’ narrative, and
of that of Curtius (_Histor. Alexandri Magni_ iv. 6, 7-30), should
cause it to be accepted with greater reserve than Grote (xi. 469 n.
1) thinks needful to maintain.—For the probable share of Cleitarchus
in propagating this story about Alexander see C. Müller _Scriptores
Rerum Alexandri Magni_ pp. 75, 142; and for his bombast cp. Long. _de
Sublim._ iii. 2 and Demetr. _de Eloc._ § 304.

11. =χρόνῳ=: viz. after a two months’ siege (Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ στρατεύσας
ἐπὶ Γάζαν φρουρουμένην ὑπὸ Περσῶν καὶ δίμηνον προσεδρεύσας εἷλε κατὰ
κράτος τὴν πόλιν, Diod. Sic. xvii. 48. 7).—Batis was supported by only
a small force: “modico praesidio muros ingentis operis tuebatur,”
Curtius iv. 6. 7.

14. =ἡγεμόνα=: Curtius iv. 6. 7 “praeerat ei Betis, eximiae in regem
suum fidei.” Josephus (_Ant. Iud._ xi. 8. 3 Naber) gives the name of
the governor as Βαβημήσης. Arrian gives Batis. ‘Baetis’ seems the right
form in =188= 13, and so perhaps in Curtius.

15. =εἴδους=. It must have been from the point of view of his
countrymen that Batis possessed εἶδος (cp. =188= 16). Usener suggests

=ἐξ ἁρματείου δίφρου=: cp. Xen. _Cyrop._ vi. 4. 9 ταῦτ’ εἰπὼν κατὰ
τὰς θύρας τοῦ ἁρματείου δίφρου ἀνέβαινεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἅρμα, where (as here)
δίφρος = _sella aurigae_.

21. =τὸ σύνταγμα=: no doubt the ὑπασπισταί are meant: Alexander is
represented as advancing at the head of his Guards.—In the English
translation of the passage that follows no attempt has been made to
reproduce all the peculiarities of Hegesias’ style.

[Page 187]

never does. At all events, in the host of writings which the man
has left behind him, you will not find one single page successfully
put together. He seems, indeed, to have regarded his own methods as
better than those of his predecessors, and to have followed them
with enthusiasm; and yet anybody else, if he were to be driven into
such errors in an impromptu speech, would blush for them, were he a
man of any self-respect. Well, I will quote a passage from him also,
taken from his _History_, in order to make clear to you, by means of
a comparison, how splendid noble rhythms are, and how disgraceful are
their opposites. The following is the subject treated by the sophist.
Alexander when besieging Gaza, an unusually strong position in Syria,
is wounded during the assault and takes the position after some delay.
In a transport of anger he massacres all the prisoners, permitting the
Macedonians to slay all who fall in their way. Having captured their
commandant, a man of distinction for his high station and good looks,
he gives orders that he should be bound alive to a war-chariot and
that the horses should be driven at full speed before the eyes of all;
and in this way he kills him. No one could have a story of more awful
suffering to narrate, nor one suggesting a more horrible picture. It
is worth while to observe in what style our sophist has represented
this scene—whether with gravity and elevation or with vulgarity and

“The King advanced, at the head of his division. It seems

[Page 188]

ἐβεβούλευτο τῶν πολεμίων τοῖς ἀρίστοις ἀπαντᾶν ἐπιόντι·
τοῦτο γὰρ ἔγνωστο, κρατήσασιν ἑνὸς συνεκβαλεῖν καὶ τὸ
πλῆθος. ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐλπὶς αὕτη συνέδραμεν εἰς τὸ τολμᾶν,
ὥστ’ Ἀλέξανδρον μηδέποτε κινδυνεῦσαι πρότερον οὕτως. ἀνὴρ
γὰρ τῶν πολεμίων εἰς γόνατα συγκαμφθεὶς ἔδοξε τοῦτ’ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ      5
τῆς ἱκετείας ἕνεκα πρᾶξαι. προσέμενος δ’ ἐγγὺς μικρὸν
ἐκνεύει τὸ ξίφος ἐνέγκαντος ὑπὸ τὰ πτερύγια τοῦ θώρακος,
ὥστε γενέσθαι τὴν πληγὴν οὐ καιριωτάτην. ἀλλὰ τὸν μὲν
αὐτὸς ἀπώλεσεν κατὰ κεφαλῆς τύπτων τῇ μαχαίρᾳ, τοὺς δ’
ἄλλους ὀργὴ πρόσφατος ἐπίμπρα. οὕτως ἄρα ἑκάστου τὸν      10
ἔλεον ἐξέστησεν ἡ τοῦ τολμήματος ἀπόνοια τῶν μὲν ἰδόντων,
τῶν δ’ ἀκουσάντων, ὥσθ’ ἑξακισχιλίους ὑπὸ τὴν σάλπιγγα
ἐκείνην τῶν βαρβάρων κατακοπῆναι. τὸν μέντοι Βαῖτιν αὐτὸν
ἀνήγαγον ζῶντα Λεόνατος καὶ Φιλωτᾶς. ἰδὼν δὲ πολύσαρκον
καὶ μέγαν καὶ βλοσυρώτατον (μέλας γὰρ ἦν καὶ τὸ χρῶμα),      15
μισήσας ἐφ’ οἷς ἐβεβούλευτο καὶ τὸ εἶδος ἐκέλευσεν διὰ τῶν
ποδῶν χαλκοῦν ψάλιον διείραντας ἕλκειν κύκλῳ γυμνόν.
πιλούμενος δὲ κακοῖς περὶ πολλὰς τραχύτητας ἔκραζεν. αὐτὸ
δ’ ἦν, ὃ λέγω, τὸ συνάγον ἀνθρώπους. ἐπέτεινε μὲν γὰρ ὁ

1 ἐβεβούλευτο PMV: ἐβουλεύετο F || ἀπαντᾶν om. F || ἐπιόντι
Radermacher: ἐπιών F: εἰσιῶν P, MV   2 συνεκβαλεῖν FMV: συνεκβάλλειν
Ps   3 εἰς τὸ τολμᾶν PMV: om. F   4 πρότερον ἢ οὕτως F   5 συγκαμφθεὶς
PMV: συγκαθίσας F   6 ἰκετείας F || προσέμενος F: προέμενος PMV   7 ὑπὸ
PMV: ἐπὶ F   8 τὴν F: καὶ τὴν PMV   10 ἐπίμπρα F: ἐπίμπρατο MV: ἐπὶ
παλαιαῖς P || οὕτως ἄρα F: οὕτως γὰρ PMV   11 ἐξέστησεν] ἐξήτασεν F ||
τολμήματος F: τολμήσαντος PMV   12 εξακισχιλίους F, MV: τετρακισχιλίους
P   13 βαῖστ[ϊ]ν cum litura P: βασιλέα FMV || αὐτὸν] Sylburgius: αὐτῶν
FM: αὐτοῦ PV   15 καὶ (ante βλοσυρώτατον) F: ὡς PMV || βροσυρώτατον
P: βδελυρώτατον FMV || καὶ τὸ χρῶμα PMV: τὸ σῶμα F   17 ψαλ(ιον) P:
ψαλλίον V: ψέλιον F: ψέλλιον M   18 ἔκραξεν F

1. Blass (_Rhythm. Asian._ p. 19) would read εἰσιόντι, comparing
_intravit_ in Curtius iv. 6. 23.

3. =συνέδραμεν=: cp. Propert. iii. 9. 17 “est quibus Eleae concurrit
palma quadrigae; | est quibus in celeres gloria nata pedes.”

6. =τῆς ἱκετείας=: Hegesias may have used the article in order to avoid
the hiatus Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ἱκετείας. F omits it (as unnecessary).

7. =τὰ πτερύγια τοῦ θώρακος=: cp. Schol. Venet. B ad Hom. _Il._ iv.
132 ἵνα μὴ χαλεπὴ γένηται ἡ πληγή, εἰς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος ἄγει, καθ’
ὃ ἀλλήλοις ἐπιφερόμενα τὰ πτερύγια τοῦ θώρακος ἐσφίγγετο ὑπὸ τοῦ
ζωστῆρος. See also the references given under πτέρυξ in L. & S., and
in Stephanus.—Perhaps Hegesias has _Il._ iv. 132 directly in mind. The
meaning will then be (with F’s reading ἐπί), “as his assailant had
struck it [the sword] against the skirts of Alexander’s corselet.”
But the account in Curtius iv. 6. 15 seems to confirm ὑπό: “quo
conspecto, Arabs quidam, Darei miles, maius fortuna sua facinus ausus,
_gladium clipeo tegens_, quasi transfuga genibus regis advolvitur.
ille adsurgere supplicem, recipique inter suos iussit. at barbarus
gladio strenue in dextram translato _cervicem adpetiit regis_: qui
exigua corporis declinatione evitato ictu in vanum manum barbari lapsam
amputat gladio.”

10. =ἐπίμπρα=: cp. Curtius iv. 6. 24 “inter primores dimicat; ira
quoque _accensus_, quod duo in obsidione urbis eius vulnera acceperat.”
The reading of P, ἐπὶ παλαιαῖς, apparently means ‘over and above the
ancient ὀργαί,’ and it is possible that Hegesias wrote both this and
ἐπίμπρα: or ἐπὶ παλαιαῖς may gloss πρόσφατος.

12. The number, as given by Curtius (iv. 6. 30), was “circa decem

=ὑπὸ τὴν σάλπιγγα ἐκείνην= = ὑπὸ τὸ σάλπισμα ἐκεῖνο: cp. Aristot.
_Rhet._ iii. 6 οἷον τὸ φάναι τὴν σάλπιγγα εἶναι μέλος ἄλυρον.

15. =βλοσυρώτατον=: cp. Curtius iv. 6. 27 “non interrito modo sed
contumaci quoquo vultu intuens regem.” Usener conjectures βλοσυρωπόν,
with considerable probability: cp. =162= 19 _supra_.

17. =ψάλιον=: cp. Hesych. ψάλια· κρίκοι, δακτύλιοι, and _Antiq. Rom._
ii. 38 καὶ αὐτὴν (Τάρπειαν) ἔρως εἰσέρχεται τῶν ψαλίων, ἃ περὶ τοῖς
ἀριστεροῖς βραχίοσιν ἐφόρουν (οἱ Σαβῖνοι), καὶ τῶν δακτυλίων.—Probably
here a large curb-chain is meant, rather than a cheek-ring, which
would be too small. So Curtius iv. 6. 29 “per talos enim spirantis
lora traiecta sunt [cp. Virg. _Aen._ ii. 273], religatumque ad currum
traxere circa urbem equi gloriante rege, Achillen, a quo genus ipse
deduceret, imitatum se esse poena in hostem capienda.” In Homer ἱμάντες
are employed (=190= 13).

18. =πιλεῖν= (‘to pound,’ ‘to knead’) is one of the many forced
metaphors in this excerpt from Hegesias.

[Page 189]

that the leaders of the enemy had formed the design of meeting him
as he approached. For they had come to the conclusion that, if they
overcame him personally, they would be able to drive out all his host
in a body. Now this hope ran with them on the path of daring, so that
never before had Alexander been in such danger. One of the enemy fell
on his knees, and seemed to Alexander to have done so in order to ask
for mercy. Having allowed him to approach, he eluded (not without
difficulty) the thrust of a sword which he had brought under the skirts
of his corselet, so that the thrust was not mortal. Alexander himself
slew his assailant with a blow of his sabre upon the head, while the
king’s followers were inflamed with a sudden fury. So utterly was pity,
in the breasts of those who saw and those who heard of the attempt,
banished by the desperate daring of the man, that six thousand of the
barbarians were cut down at the trumpet-call which forthwith rang out.
Baetis himself, however, was brought before the king alive by Leonatus
and Philotas. And Alexander seeing that he was corpulent and huge and
most grim (for he was black in colour too), was seized with loathing
for his very looks as well as for his design upon his life, and ordered
that a ring of bronze should be passed through his feet and that he
should be dragged round a circular course, naked. Harrowed by pain, as
his body passed over many a rough piece of ground, he began to scream.
And it was just this detail which I now mention that brought people
together. The torment racked him,

[Page 190]

πόνος, βάρβαρον δ’ ἐβόα, δεσπότην καθικετεύων· γελᾶν δὲ ὁ
σολοικισμὸς ἐποίει. τὸ δὲ στέαρ καὶ τὸ κύτος τῆς σαρκὸς
ἐνέφαινε Βαβυλώνιον ζῷον ἕτερον ἁδρόν. ὁ μὲν οὖν ὄχλος
ἐνέπαιζε, στρατιωτικὴν ὕβριν ὑβρίζων εἰδεχθῆ καὶ τῷ τρόπῳ
σκαιὸν ἐχθρόν.”      5

ἆρά γε ὅμοια ταῦτ’ ἐστὶ τοῖς Ὁμηρικοῖς ἐκείνοις, ἐν οἷς
Ἀχιλλεύς ἐστιν αἰκιζόμενος Ἕκτορα μετὰ τὴν τελευτήν; καίτοι
τό γε πάθος ἐκεῖνο ἔλαττον· εἰς ἀναίσθητον γὰρ σῶμα ἡ
ὕβρις· ἀλλ’ ὅμως ἄξιόν ἐστιν ἰδεῖν, ὅσῳ διενήνοχεν ὁ ποιητὴς
τοῦ σοφιστοῦ·      10

        ἦ ῥα, καὶ Ἕκτορα δῖον ἀεικέα μήδετο ἔργα·
        ἀμφοτέρων μετόπισθε ποδῶν τέτρηνε τένοντε
        ἐς σφυρὸν ἐκ πτέρνης, βοέους δ’ ἐξῆπτεν ἱμάντας,
        ἐκ δίφροιο δ’ ἔδησε· κάρη δ’ ἕλκεσθαι ἔασεν·
        ἐς δίφρον δ’ ἀναβὰς ἀνά τε κλυτὰ τεύχε’ ἀείρας      15
        μάστιξεν δ’ ἐλάαν, τὼ δ’ οὐκ ἀέκοντε πετέσθην.
        τοῦ δ’ ἦν ἑλκομένοιο κονίσαλος· ἀμφὶ δὲ χαῖται
        κυάνεαι πίμπλαντο, κάρη δ’ ἅπαν ἐν κονίῃσι
        κεῖτο πάρος χαρίεν· τότε δὲ Ζεὺς δυσμενέεσσι
        δῶκεν ἀεικίσσασθαι ἑῇ ἐν πατρίδι γαίῃ.      20
        ὣς τοῦ μὲν κεκόνιτο κάρη ἅπαν· ἡ δέ νυ μήτηρ
        τίλλε κόμην, ἀπὸ δὲ λιπαρὴν ἔρριψε καλύπτρην
        τηλόσε, κώκυσεν δὲ μάλα μέγα παῖδ’ ἐσιδοῦσα·
        ᾤμωξεν δ’ ἐλεεινὰ πατὴρ φίλος, ἀμφὶ δὲ λαοὶ

1 καθικετεύων Schaefer: καὶ ἱκετεύων libri   2 κοῖτος F: κῦτος MV ||
σαρκὸς F: γαστρὸς PMV   3 ἐνέφαινε MV^2: ἀνέφαινε F: ἐνεφαίνετο P ||
ἀδρὸν F: ἁδρόν MV: ἀνδρος P   9 ἐστιν om. P || ὅσω F: πόσω PMV   12
τένοντε F: τένοντας PMV   14 ἔασεν] ἔδησεν F   16 μάστιξέν ῥ’ Hom. ||
ἀέκοντε FMV Hom.: ἄκοντε P   18 πίμπλαντο] πίτναντο Hom.   22 τίλλε F
Hom.: τῆλε PM: τεῖλε V

1. It is not clear whether the strict distinction between βαρβαρισμός
(wrong vocabulary, spelling, or pronunciation) and =σολοικισμός=
(wrong syntax) is here maintained. Possibly Batis may have offended
(1) by using a word (δεσπότης) abhorrent to all free men of Greek
blood, or (2) by using it in the wrong case, or (3) by mispronouncing
it: cp. Sandys _History of Classical Scholarship_ i. 148, for the
comprehensiveness of the term σολοικισμός. But if it be held that
σολοικισμός cannot occur in one isolated word (cp. Quintil. i. 5. 36),
then it may be supposed that the reference here is to grammatical
blunders in other words ejaculated by the unhappy Batis.

3. =Βαβυλώνιον ζῷον=: a comparison suggests itself with the Assyrian
bulls represented in reliefs (cp. Tennyson’s _Maud_, “That oil’d and
curl’d Assyrian Bull”).—The reading of P, ἕτερον ἀνδρός, might mean
‘far different from a _man_’ (_viri_: not ἀνθρώπου, _hominis_).

4. Hegesias’ use of =στρατιωτικός= may be compared with _de Lys._ c. 12
(of Iphicrates) ἥ τε λέξις πολὺ τὸ φορτικὸν καὶ στρατιωτικὸν ἔχει καὶ
οὐχ οὕτως ἐμφαίνει ῥητορικὴν ἀγχίνοιαν ὡς στρατιωτικὴν αὐθάδειαν καὶ

7. =ἐστιν αἰκιζόμενος=: not simply a periphrasis for αἰκίζεται.

8. For Hector’s insensibility cp. Murray’s _Rise of the Greek Epic_
pp. 118, 132.—The savagery of Achilles was, nevertheless, generally
felt to need extenuation, as may be seen from the curious explanations
proffered in the scholia: e.g. ὁ δὲ Καλλίμαχός φησιν ὅτι πάτριόν ἐστι
Θεσσαλοῖς τοὺς τῶν φιλτάτων φονέας σύρειν περὶ τοὺς τῶν φονευθέντων
τάφους, κτλ.

11. Cp. Virg. _Aen._ ii. 268 ff. (the vision of the mangled Hector).

[Page 191]

and he kept uttering outlandish yells, asking mercy of Alexander as
‘my lord’; and his jargon made them laugh. His fat and his bulging
corpulence suggested to them another creature, a huge-bodied Babylonian
animal. So the multitude scoffed at him, mocking with the coarse
mockery of the camp an enemy who was so repulsive of feature and so
uncouth in his ways.”[168]

Is this description, I ask, comparable with those lines of Homer in
which Achilles is represented as maltreating Hector after his death?
And yet the suffering in the latter case is less, for it is on a mere
senseless body that the outrage is inflicted. But it is worth while,
nevertheless, to note the vast difference between the poet and the

    He spake, and a shameful mishandling devised he for Hector slain;
    For behind each foot did he sunder therefrom the sinews twain
    From the ankle-joint to the heel: hide-bands through the gashes he thrust;
    To his chariot he bound them, and left the head to trail in the dust.
    He hath mounted his car, and the glorious armour thereon hath he cast,
    And he lashed the horses, and they with eager speed flew fast.
    And a dust from the haling of Hector arose, and tossed wide-spread
    His dark locks: wholly in dust his head lay low—that head
    Once comely: ah then was the hero delivered over of Zeus
    In his very fatherland for his foes to despitefully use.
    So dust-besprent was his head; but his mother was rending her hair
    The while, and she flung therefrom her head-veil glistering-fair
    Afar, and with wild loud shriek as she looked on her son she cried;
    And in piteous wise did his father wail, and on every side

[Page 192]

        κωκυτῷ τ’ εἴχοντο καὶ οἰμωγῇ κατὰ ἄστυ.
        τῷ δὲ μάλιστ’ ἂρ ἔην ἐναλίγκιον, ὡς εἰ ἅπασα
        Ἴλιος ὀφρυόεσσα πυρὶ σμύχοιτο κατ’ ἄκρης.

οὕτως εὐγενὲς σῶμα καὶ δεινὰ πάθη λέγεσθαι προσῆκεν ὑπ’
ἀνδρῶν φρόνημα καὶ νοῦν ἐχόντων. ὡς δὲ ὁ Μάγνης εἴρηκεν,      5
ὑπὸ γυναικῶν ἢ κατεαγότων ἀνθρώπων λέγοιτ’ ἂν καὶ οὐδὲ
τούτων μετὰ σπουδῆς, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ χλευασμῷ καὶ καταγέλωτι.
τί οὖν αἴτιον ἦν ἐκείνων μὲν τῶν ποιημάτων τῆς εὐγενείας,
τούτων δὲ τῶν φλυαρημάτων τῆς ταπεινότητος; ἡ τῶν
ῥυθμῶν διαφορὰ πάντων μάλιστα, καὶ εἰ μὴ μόνη. ἐν      10
ἐκείνοις μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲ εἷς ἄσεμνος στίχος οὐδ’ ἀδόκιμος,
ἐνταῦθα δὲ οὐδεμία περίοδος ἥτις οὐ λυπήσει.

εἰρηκὼς δὴ καὶ περὶ τῶν ῥυθμῶν ὅσην δύναμιν ἔχουσιν,
ἐπὶ τὰ λειπόμενα μεταβήσομαι.


ἦν δέ μοι τρίτον θεώρημα τῶν ποιούντων καλὴν ἁρμονίαν      15
ἡ μεταβολή. λέγω δὲ οὐ τὴν ἐκ τῶν κρειττόνων ἐπὶ τὰ
χείρω (πάνυ γὰρ εὔηθες), οὐδέ γε τὴν ἐκ τῶν χειρόνων ἐπὶ
τὰ κρείττω, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς ὁμοειδέσι ποικιλίαν. κόρον γὰρ
ἔχει καὶ τὰ καλὰ πάντα, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ ἡδέα, μένοντα ἐν τῇ
ταυτότητι· ποικιλλόμενα δὲ ταῖς μεταβολαῖς ἀεὶ καινὰ μένει.      20
τοῖς μὲν οὖν τὰ μέτρα καὶ τὰ μέλη γράφουσιν οὐχ ἅπαντα

2 ἂρ FP: ἄρ’ MV   4 εὐγενὲς σῶμα F: εὐγενῶς ἅμα PMV || δεινὰ FPM:
δεινῶς V   6 ὑπὸ F: ὡς ὑπὸ PMV   8 ἦν F: om. PMV   10 πάντων FM: om. PV
|| καὶ εἰ FPM: εἰ καὶ V || ἐν om. P   11 οὐδὲ εἷς P, MV: οὐδεὶς F ||
οὐδὲ (οὐδ’ V) ἀδόκιμος MV: ἢ ἀδόκιμος F: om. P   12 ἥτις οὐ λυπήσει om.
F   13 δὴ F: δὲ PMV   15 δέ] δή F   19 μένοντα PMV: ὄντα EF   20 δὲ EF:
δ’ ἐν PMV || ἀεὶ EF: ὡς ἀεὶ MV: om. P   21 τοῖς EF: ἐν τοῖς PV: ἐν οἷς M

5. =φρόνημα=, ‘pride,’ ‘spirit,’ ‘mettle,’ ‘feeling,’ ‘self-respect’:
cp. =186= 5.

6. =κατεαγότων=, ‘enervated,’ ‘effeminate’ (Lat. _fractus_): cp.
Philo Jud. i. 262 (Mangey) ἄνανδροι καὶ κατεαγότες καὶ θηλυδρίαι τὰ
φρονήματα, i. 273 πάθεσι τοῖς κατεαγόσι καὶ τεθηλυμμένοις.

8, 9. =ἐκείνων= refers to the passage last quoted, =τούτων= to
that quoted first. The remoteness implied in ἐκείνων is here that
of greatness and antiquity; the nearness in τούτων, that of the
commonplace and recent.

10. The reading εἰ καὶ (‘although’) would perhaps be preferable in
sense, if only it had better manuscript attestation. [In =198= 15 there
is a similar fluctuation between καὶ εἰ and εἰ καί.]

13. For various points of rhythm and metre raised in cc. 18, 19, and
elsewhere, reference may be made to the Introduction, pp. 33-9.

16. For the importance of _variety_ (especially in relation to rhythm)
cp. a well-known fragment of Isocrates’ _Art of Rhetoric_: ὅλως δὲ ὁ
λόγος μὴ λόγος ἔστω, ξηρὸν γάρ· μηδὲ ἔμμετρος, καταφανὲς γάρ. ἀλλὰ
μεμίχθω παντὶ ῥυθμῷ, μάλιστα ἰαμβικῷ ἢ τροχαϊκῷ (“prose must not be
merely prose, or it will be dry; nor metrical, or its art will be
undisguised; but it should be compounded with every sort of rhythm,
particularly iambic or trochaic”). The views of Theophrastus on the
point are reported in Cic. _de Orat._ iii. 48. 184 ff. “namque ego
illud adsentior Theophrasto, qui putat orationem, quae quidem sit
polita atque facta quodam modo, non astricte, sed remissius numerosam
esse oportere,” etc.

18. =κόρον=: cp. _Ep. ad Cn. Pomp._ c. 3 κόρον δ’ ἔχει, φησὶν ὁ
Πίνδαρος [_Nem._ vii. 52], καὶ μέλι καὶ τὰ τέρπν’ ἄνθε’ ἀφροδίσια, and
Hom. _Il._ xiii. 636 πάντων μὲν κόρος ἐστί, κτλ.

19. =μένοντα= avoids the awkward hiatus ἡδέα ὄντα. The fact that μένει
follows shortly is not a conclusive objection, since Dionysius, and
Greek authors generally, were free from the bad taste which avoids, at
all costs, repetitions of this kind: cp. λαμβανόμενα ... λήψεται (=106=

[Page 193]

    Through the city the folk brake forth into shriek and wail at the sight.
    It was like unto this above all things, as though, from her topmost height
    To the ground, all beetling Troy in flame and in smoke were rolled.[169]

That is the way in which a noble corpse and terrible sufferings should
be described by men of feeling and understanding. But after the fashion
of this Magnesian they could be described by women only or effeminate
men, and even by them not in earnest, but in a spirit of derision and
mockery. To what, then, is due the nobility of these lines, as compared
with the miserable absurdities of the other passage? Chiefly, if not
entirely, to the difference in the rhythms. In the quotation from Homer
there is not one unimpressive or unworthy verse, while in that from
Hegesias every single sentence will prove offensive.

Having now discussed the importance of rhythm, I will pass on to the
topics that remain.



The third cause of beautiful arrangement that was to be examined is
variety. I do not mean the change from the better to the worse (that
would be too foolish), nor yet that from the worse to the better, but
variety among things that are similar. For satiety can be caused by all
beautiful things, just as by things sweet to the taste, when there is
an unvarying sameness about them; but if diversified by changes, they
always remain new. Now writers in metre and in lyric measures cannot

[Page 194]

ἔξεστι μεταβάλλειν ἢ οὐχ ἅπασιν οὐδ’ ἐφ’ ὅσον βούλονται.
αὐτίκα τοῖς μὲν ἐποποιοῖς μέτρον οὐκ ἔξεστι μεταβάλλειν,
ἀλλ’ ἀνάγκη πάντας εἶναι τοὺς στίχους ἑξαμέτρους· οὐδέ
γε ῥυθμόν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀπὸ μακρᾶς ἀρχομένοις συλλαβῆς
χρήσονται καὶ οὐδὲ τούτοις ἅπασι. τοῖς δὲ τὰ μέλη γράφουσιν      5
τὸ μὲν τῶν στροφῶν τε καὶ ἀντιστρόφων οὐχ οἷόν τε
ἀλλάξαι μέλος, ἀλλ’ ἐάν τ’ ἐναρμονίους ἐάν τε χρωματικὰς
ἐάν τε διατόνους ὑποθῶνται μελῳδίας, ἐν πάσαις δεῖ ταῖς
στροφαῖς τε καὶ ἀντιστρόφοις τὰς αὐτὰς ἀγωγὰς φυλάττειν·
οὐδέ γε τοὺς περιέχοντας ὅλας τὰς στροφὰς ῥυθμοὺς καὶ      10
τὰς ἀντιστρόφους, ἀλλὰ δεῖ καὶ τούτους τοὺς αὐτοὺς διαμένειν·
περὶ δὲ τὰς καλουμένας ἐπῳδοὺς ἀμφότερα κινεῖν ταῦτα
ἔξεστι τό τε μέλος καὶ τὸν ῥυθμόν. τά τε κῶλα ἐξ ὧν
ἑκάστη συνέστηκε περίοδος ἐπὶ πολλῆς ἐξουσίας δέδοται
αὐτοῖς ποικίλως διαιρεῖν ἄλλοτε ἄλλα μεγέθη καὶ σχήματα      15
αὐταῖς περιτιθέντας, ἕως ἂν ἀπαρτίσωσι τὴν στροφήν· ἔπειτα
πάλιν δεῖ τὰ αὐτὰ μέτρα καὶ κῶλα ποιεῖν. οἱ μὲν οὖν
ἀρχαῖοι μελοποιοί, λέγω δὲ Ἀλκαῖόν τε καὶ Σαπφώ, μικρὰς
ἐποιοῦντο στροφάς, ὥστ’ ἐν ὀλίγοις τοῖς κώλοις οὐ πολλὰς
εἰσῆγον τὰς μεταβολάς, ἐπῳδοῖς τε πάνυ ἐχρῶντο ὀλίγοις· οἱ      20
δὲ περὶ Στησίχορόν τε καὶ Πίνδαρον μείζους ἐργασάμενοι τὰς
περιόδους εἰς πολλὰ μέτρα καὶ κῶλα διένειμαν αὐτὰς οὐκ
ἄλλου τινὸς ἢ τῆς μεταβολῆς ἔρωτι. οἱ δέ γε διθυραμβοποιοὶ

8 ὑποθῶνται FE: ὑπόθωνται PMV   9 τε καὶ PMV (cf. l. 6 supra): καὶ EF
  11 τὰς ἀντιστροφὰς PM: τοὺς ἀντιστρόφους F: ἀντιστροφὰς V   12 ἐπῳδὰς
V || ταῦτά ἐστιν F   14 ἑκάστη συνέστηκεν περίοδος PMV: συνέστηκε
περίοδος ἑκάστη E: συνέστηκε περίοδος F   15 αὐτοῖς secl. Usener   16
αὐταῖς PMV: αὐτοῖς EF || ἂν om. F   18 δὲ om. EF   20 εἰσῆγον τὰς PMV:
εἰσῆγον EF

5. =οὐδὲ τούτοις ἅπασι=: e.g. not the cretic, and (strictly) not the

7. =ἐναρμονίους ... χρωματικὰς ... διατόνους=: the distinction between
these scales is indicated in Macran’s _Harmonics of Aristoxenus_ p.
6: “Was it then possible to determine for practical purposes the
smallest musical interval? To this question the Greek theorists gave
the unanimous reply, supporting it by a direct appeal to facts,
that the voice can sing, and the ear perceive, a quarter-tone; but
that any smaller interval lies beyond the power of ear and voice
alike. Disregarding then the order of the intervals, and considering
only their magnitudes, we can see that one possible division of the
tetrachord was into two quarter-tones and a ditone, or space of two
tones; the employment of these intervals characterized a scale as of
the Enharmonic genus. Or again, employing larger intervals one might
divide the tetrachord into, say, two-thirds of a tone, and the space of
a tone and five-sixths: or into two semitones, and the space of a tone
and a half. The employment of these divisions or any lying between them
marked a scale as Chromatic. Or finally, by the employment of two tones
one might proceed to the familiar Diatonic genus, which divided the
tetrachord into two tones and a semitone. Much wonder and admiration
has been wasted on the Enharmonic scale by persons who have missed
the true reason for the disappearance of the quarter-tone from our
modern musical system. Its disappearance is due not to the dulness or
coarseness of modern ear or voice, but to the fact that the more highly
developed unity of our system demands the accurate determination of all
sound-relations by direct or indirect resolution into concords; and
such a determination of quarter-tones is manifestly impossible.”

18. =ἀρχαῖοι=: as compared, say, with Pindar.

20. =οἱ δὲ περὶ Στησίχορόν τε καὶ Πίνδαρον=: the two possible senses
of this and similar phrases may be illustrated from Plutarch, viz.
(1) the man and his followers, e.g. οἱ περὶ Δημοσθένην (Plutarch _Vit
Demosth._ 28. 2); (2) the man himself, e.g. τοὺς περὶ Αἰσχίνην καὶ
Φιλοκράτην (_ibid._ 16. 2: cp. 30. 2) = ‘Aeschines and Philocrates.’ So
with οἱ ἀμφί and οἱ κατά. But sense (2) needs careful scrutiny wherever
it seems to occur; the meaning may simply be ‘men like Aeschines,’
etc.—For the ‘graves Camenae’ of Stesichorus cp. Hor. _Carm._ iv. 9. 8,
and Quintil. x. 1. 62 “Stesichorus quam sit ingenio validus, materiae
quoque ostendunt, maxima bella et clarissimos canentem duces et epici
carminis onera lyra sustinentem.”

21. Such long periods are particularly effective (cp. =196= 13) when
they include clauses of various lengths and end with an impressive
one: e.g. Cic. _Catil._ ii. 1. 1 “Tandem aliquando, Quirites, L.
Catilinam, | furentem audacia, | scelus anhelantem, | pestem patriae
nefarie molientem, | vobis atque huic urbi ferro flammaque minitantem,
| ex urbe vel eiecimus, | vel emisimus, | vel ipsum egredientem
verbis prosecuti sumus”; and similarly Bossuet _Oraison funèbre de
Henriette-Marie de France_: “Celui qui règne dans les cieux | et de qui
relèvent tous les empires, | à qui seul appartient la gloire, la majesté
et l’indépendance | est aussi le seul qui se glorifie de faire la loi
aux rois, | et de leur donner, quand il lui plaît, de grandes et de
terribles leçons.”

[Page 195]

change everywhere; or rather, I should say, cannot all introduce
change, and none as much as they wish. For instance, epic writers
cannot vary their metre, for all the lines must necessarily be
hexameters; nor yet the rhythm, for they must use those feet that begin
with a long syllable, and not all even of these. The writers of lyric
verse cannot vary the melodies of strophe and antistrophe, but whether
they adopt enharmonic melodies, or chromatic, or diatonic, in all the
strophes and antistrophes the same sequences must be observed. Nor,
again, must the rhythms be changed in which the entire strophes and
antistrophes are written, but these too must remain unaltered. But in
the so-called _epodes_ both the tune and the rhythm may be changed.
Great freedom, too, is allowed to an author in varying and elaborating
the clauses of which each period is composed by giving them different
lengths and forms in different instances, until they complete a
strophe; but after that, similar metres and clauses must be composed
for the antistrophe. Now the ancient writers of lyric poetry—I refer
to Alcaeus and Sappho—made their strophes short, so that they did not
introduce many variations in the clauses, which were few in number,
while the use they made of the epode was very slight. Stesichorus and
Pindar and their schools framed their periods on a larger scale, and
divided them into many measures and clauses, simply from the love of
variety. The dithyrambic poets used to change the _modes_ also,

[Page 196]

καὶ τοὺς τρόπους μετέβαλλον, Δωρίους τε καὶ Φρυγίους καὶ
Λυδίους ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ᾄσματι ποιοῦντες, καὶ τὰς μελῳδίας
ἐξήλλαττον, τοτὲ μὲν ἐναρμονίους ποιοῦντες, τοτὲ δὲ χρωματικάς,
τοτὲ δὲ διατόνους, καὶ τοῖς ῥυθμοῖς κατὰ πολλὴν
ἄδειαν ἐνεξουσιάζοντες διετέλουν, οἵ γε δὴ κατὰ Φιλόξενον καὶ      5
Τιμόθεον καὶ Τελεστήν, ἐπεὶ παρά γε τοῖς ἀρχαίοις τεταγμένος
ἦν καὶ ὁ διθύραμβος.

ἡ δὲ πεζὴ λέξις ἅπασαν ἐλευθερίαν ἔχει καὶ ἄδειαν
ποικίλλειν ταῖς μεταβολαῖς τὴν σύνθεσιν, ὅπως βούλεται.
καὶ ἔστι λέξις κρατίστη πασῶν, ἥτις ἂν ἔχῃ πλείστας      10
ἀναπαύλας τε καὶ μεταβολὰς ἐναρμονίους, ὅταν τουτὶ μὲν ἐν
περιόδῳ λέγηται, τουτὶ δ’ ἔξω περιόδου, καὶ ἥδε μὲν ἡ
περίοδος ἐκ πλειόνων πλέκηται κώλων, ἥδε δ’ ἐξ ἐλαττόνων,
αὐτῶν δὲ τῶν κώλων τὸ μὲν βραχύτερον ᾖ, τὸ δὲ μακρότερον,
καὶ τὸ μὲν αὐτουργότερον, τὸ δὲ ἀκριβέστερον, ῥυθμοί τε      15
ἄλλοτε ἄλλοι καὶ σχήματα παντοῖα καὶ τάσεις φωνῆς αἱ
καλούμεναι προσῳδίαι διάφοροι κλέπτουσαι τῇ ποικιλίᾳ τὸν
κόρον. ἔχει δέ τινα χάριν ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις καὶ τὸ οὕτω
συγκείμενον ὥστε μὴ συγκεῖσθαι δοκεῖν. καὶ οὐ πολλῶν δεῖν
οἶμαι λόγων εἰς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος· ὅτι γὰρ ἥδιστόν τε καὶ      20
κάλλιστον ἐν λόγοις μεταβολή, πάντας εἰδέναι πείθομαι.
παράδειγμα δὲ αὐτῆς ποιοῦμαι πᾶσαν μὲν τὴν Ἡροδότου
λέξιν, πᾶσαν δὲ τὴν Πλάτωνος, πᾶσαν δὲ τὴν Δημοσθένους·
ἀμήχανον γὰρ εὑρεῖν τούτων ἑτέρους ἐπεισοδίοις τε πλείοσι
καὶ ποικιλίαις εὐκαιροτέραις καὶ σχήμασι πολυειδεστέροις      25
χρησαμένους· λέγω δὲ τὸν μὲν ὡς ἐν ἱστορίας σχήματι, τὸν

7 καὶ F: om. PMV   8 ἔχει καὶ ἄδειαν PMV: καὶ ἄδειαν ἔχει F: ἔχει E   10
ἔχη F: ἔχει P: ἔχοι EMV   11 ἐναρμονίους EF: ἁρμονίας PMV   14 ᾖ] τι F
  15 αὐτουργότερον F: αὐτῶν (om. E) γοργότερον τὸ δὲ βραδύτερον EPMV
|| τὸ δὲ ἀκριβέστερον om. EF   18 ἐν P^2MV: ἐτι P^1: om. F   19 καὶ
F: om. PMV || δεῖν οἶμαι F: δὲ οἴομαι δεῖν PMV   20 τοῦτο PMV: τουτὶ
F   21 μεταβολή FP: ἡ μεταβολή MV   24 ἀμήχανον PMV: ἀδύνατον EF   25
ποικίλαις F || εὐκαιροτέροις EF: εὐροωτέραις PMV   26 μὲν ὡς] μὲν P ||
ἱστορίαις PMV || σχήματι EF: σχηματισμὸν PM: σχηματισμῷ V

1. For the characteristics of the various modes cp. (besides the
_Republic_ and the _Politics_) Lucian _Harmonides_ i. 1 καὶ τῆς
ἁρμονίας ἑκάστης διαφυλάττειν τὸ ἴδιον, τῆς Φρυγίου τὸ ἔνθεον, τῆς
Λυδίου τὸ Βακχικόν, τῆς Δωρίου τὸ σεμνόν, τῆς Ἰωνικῆς τὸ γλαφυρόν.

3. =τοτὲ μὲν ... τοτὲ δέ=: cp. =132= 19, where (as here) F and P have

5. =ἐνεξουσιάζοντες=, ‘using full liberty,’ ‘showing their
independence.’ Cp. _de Thucyd._ c. 8 ... οὔτε προστιθεὶς τοῖς πράγμασιν
οὐδὲν ὃ μὴ δίκαιον οὔτε ἀφαιρῶν, οὐδὲ ἐνεξουσιάζων τῇ γραφῇ, ἀνέγκλητον
δὲ καὶ καθαρὰν τὴν προαίρεσιν ἀπὸ παντὸς φθόνου καὶ πάσης κολακείας
φυλάττων, and c. 24 _ibid._ ἐν δὲ τοῖς συνθετικοῖς καὶ τοῖς προθετικοῖς
μορίοις καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς διαρθροῦσι τὰς τῶν ὀνομάτων δυνάμεις
ποιητοῦ τρόπον ἐνεξουσιάζων (translated in D.H. p. 135). So Hor.
_Carm._ iv. 2. 10 “seu per audaces nova dithyrambos | verba devolvit
numerisque fertur | lege solutis.”

=οἱ κατά= may refer simply to the individuals mentioned, or to them and
their contemporaries: cp. note on =194= 20.

For =Philoxenus=, =Timotheus= (including the newly discovered
_Persae_), and =Telestes= see Jebb’s _Bacchylides_ pp. 47-55; Weir
Smyth’s _Greek Melic Poets_ pp. 460-7; W. von Christ _Gesch. der
Griech. Litt._^3 pp. 188, 189.

8. =ἐλευθερίαν ἔχει καὶ ἄδειαν=: it is a mistake to cut out καὶ ἄδειαν
on the authority of E alone. An Epitomizer would naturally omit the
words, while Dionysius’ liking for amplitude and rhythm would as
naturally lead him to use them. Cp. Demosth. _Timocr._ § 205 εἰ δέ τις
εἰσφέρει νόμον ἐξ οὗ τοῖς ὑμᾶς βουλομένοις ἀδικεῖν ἡ πᾶσ’ #ἐξουσία
καὶ ἄδεια# γενήσεται, οὗτος ὅλην ἀδικεῖ τὴν πόλιν καὶ καταισχύνει
πάντας. The word ἄδεια is found also in l. 5 _supra_ and =176= 20. The
repetition within a few sentences is not inconsistent with Dionysius’
practice in such matters: cp. note on =192= 19 _supra_.

[Page 197]

introducing Dorian and Phrygian and Lydian modes in the same song; and
they varied the melodies, making them now enharmonic, now chromatic,
now diatonic; and in the rhythms they continually showed the boldest
independence,—I mean Philoxenus, Timotheus, Telestes, and men of their
stamp,—since among the ancients even the dithyramb had been subject to
strict metrical laws.

Prose-writing has full liberty and permission to diversify composition
by whatever changes it pleases. A style is finest of all when it has
the most frequent rests and changes of harmony; when one thing is
said within a period, another without it; when one period is formed
by the interweaving of a larger number of clauses, another by that of
a smaller; when among the clauses themselves one is short, another
longer, one roughly wrought, another more finished; when the rhythms
take now one form, now another, and the figures are of all kinds, and
the voice-pitches—the so-called “accents”—are various, and skilfully
avoid satiety by their diversity. There is considerable charm, among
efforts of this kind, in what is so composed that it does not seem
to be artificially composed at all. I do not think that many words
are needed on this point. Everybody, I believe, is aware that, in
prose, variety is full of charm and beauty. And as examples of it I
reckon all the writings of Herodotus, all those of Plato, and all
those of Demosthenes. It is impossible to find other writers who have
introduced more episodes than these, or better-timed variations, or
more multiform figures: the first in the narrative form, the second in
graceful dialogue,

[Page 198]

δ’ ὡς ἐν διαλόγων χάριτι, τὸν δ’ ὡς ἐν λόγων ἐναγωνίων
χρείᾳ. ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἥ γε Ἰσοκράτους καὶ τῶν ἐκείνου γνωρίμων
αἵρεσις ὁμοία ταύταις ἦν, ἀλλὰ καίπερ ἡδέως καὶ μεγαλοπρεπῶς
πολλὰ συνθέντες οἱ ἄνδρες οὗτοι περὶ τὰς μεταβολὰς καὶ τὴν
ποικιλίαν οὐ πάνυ εὐτυχοῦσιν· ἀλλ’ ἔστι παρ’ αὐτοῖς εἷς      5
περίοδου κύκλος, ὁμοειδὴς σχημάτων τάξις, φυλακὴ συμπλοκῆς
φωνηέντων ἡ αὐτή, ἄλλα πολλὰ τοιαῦτα κόπτοντα τὴν
ἀκρόασιν. οὐ δὴ ἀποδέχομαι τὴν αἵρεσιν ἐκείνην κατὰ τοῦτο
τὸ μέρος. καὶ αὐτῷ μὲν ἴσως τῷ Ἰσοκράτει πολλαὶ χάριτες
ἐπήνθουν ἄλλαι ταύτην ἐπικρύπτουσαι τὴν ἀμορφίαν, παρὰ      10
δὲ τοῖς μετ’ ἐκεῖνον ἀπ’ ἐλαττόνων τῶν ἄλλων κατορθωμάτων
περιφανέστερον γίνεται τοῦτο τὸ ἁμάρτημα.


εἷς ἔτι καταλείπεταί μοι λόγος ὁ περὶ τοῦ πρέποντος.
καὶ γὰρ τοῖς ἄλλοις χρώμασιν ἅπασι παρεῖναι δεῖ τὸ πρέπον,
καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο ἔργον ἀτυχεῖ τούτου τοῦ μέρους, καὶ εἰ μὴ      15
τοῦ παντός, τοῦ κρατίστου γε ἀτυχεῖ. περὶ μὲν οὖν ὅλης τῆς
ἰδέας ταύτης οὐχ οὗτος ὁ καιρὸς ἀνασκοπεῖν· βαθεῖα γάρ τις
αὐτοῦ καὶ πολλῶν πάνυ δεομένη λόγων ἡ θεωρία. ὅσα δὲ εἰς
τοῦτο συντείνει τὸ μέρος ὑπὲρ οὗ τυγχάνω ποιούμενος τὸν
λόγον, εἰ μὴ καὶ τὰ πάντα, μηδὲ τὰ πλεῖστα, ὅσα γε οὖν      20
ἐγχωρεῖ, λεγέσθω.

ὁμολογουμένου δὴ παρὰ πᾶσιν ὅτι πρέπον ἐστὶ τὸ τοῖς
ὑποκειμένοις ἁρμόττον προσώποις τε καὶ πράγμασιν, ὥσπερ
ἐκλογὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων εἴη τις ἂν ἡ μὲν πρέπουσα τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις
ἡ δὲ ἀπρεπής, οὕτω δήπου καὶ σύνθεσις. παράδειγμα      25
δὲ τούτου χρὴ λαμβάνειν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. ὃ δὲ λέγω, τοιοῦτόν

1 ὡς ἐναγωνίων (om. ἐν λόγων) F   2 οὐχ ἥ γε PMV: οὐχ ἡ E: οὐχὶ ἡ F
|| ἐκείνου EF: ἐκείνω PM: ἐκείνων V   3 ἀλλὰ καὶ περιδεῶσ P   5 εἷς
περιόδου om. FE   6 τις post κύκλος add. E (vocabulis εἷς περιόδου
omissis) || φυλακὴ EF: φυσικὴ M: λέξις P: om. V   7 ἀλλὰ F   8 αἴρεσιν
F: διαίρεσιν P   10 ἄλλαι EF: om. PMV   11 ἀπ’ EPV: οὐκ ἀπ’ F, M ||
τῶν ἄλλων om. F   12 γίνεται om. F   13 εἷς ἔτι PMV: ἔτι τις F: ἔτι E
  14 καὶ Schaefer: ὡς libri || χρώμασι F: σχήμασιν PMV || ἅπασι om. F
  15 ἄλλο om. P || καὶ εἰ F: εἰ καὶ PMV   18 αὐτοῦ P: αὕτη FMV || πάνυ
δεομένη PMV: δεομένη σφόδρα F   20 τὰ πάντα PMV: πάντα F   21 λεγέσθω]
γενέσθω F   23 ἀρμόττον F, E: ἁρμόζον PMV || ὥσπερ F: ὥσπερ ἡ PMV   25
καὶ E: καὶ ἡ FPMV   26 λαμβάνειν F: παραλαμβάνειν PMV

2. The following passage emphasizes in a striking way the supreme
importance of variety as an element in excellence of style.

6. =φυλακή=: P’s reading λέξις may, as Usener suggests, be a relic of

14. The manuscript reading ὡς suggests the possibility that some such
words as εἴρηται πρότερον have been lost after ἀτυχεῖ in l. 16.

18. =αὐτοῦ=, ‘the matter,’ ‘the question.’ Cp. Eurip. _Phoen._ 626 αὐτὸ
σημανεῖ (_res ipsa declarabit_). See also note on =140= 14 _supra_.

[Page 199]

the third in the practical work of forensic oratory. As for the methods
of Isocrates and his followers, they are not to be compared with the
styles of those writers. The Isocratic authors have composed much with
charm and distinction; but in regard to change and diversity they
are anything but happy. We find in them one continually recurring
period, a monotonous order of figures, the invariable observance of
vowel-blending, and many other similar things which fatigue the ear.
I cannot approve that school on this side. In Isocrates himself, it
may be conceded, many charms were displayed which helped to hide this
blemish. But among his successors, by reason of their fewer redeeming
excellences, the fault mentioned stands out more glaringly.



It still remains for me to speak about appropriateness. All the other
ornaments of speech must be associated with what is appropriate;
indeed, if any other quality whatever fails to attain this, it fails to
attain the main essential,—perhaps fails altogether. Into the question
as a whole this is not the right time to go; it is a profound study,
and would need a long treatise. But let me say what bears on the
special department which I am actually discussing; or if not all that
bears on it, nor even the largest part, at all events as much as is

It is admitted among all critics that appropriateness is that treatment
which suits the actors and actions concerned. Just as the choice of
words may be either appropriate or inappropriate to the subject matter,
so also surely must the composition be. This statement I had best
illustrate from actual life. I refer to

[Page 200]

ἐστιν· οὐχ ὁμοίᾳ συνθέσει χρώμεθα ὀργιζόμενοι καὶ χαίροντες,
οὐδὲ ὀλοφυρόμενοι καὶ φοβούμενοι, οὐδ’ ἐν ἄλλῳ τινὶ πάθει ἢ
κακῷ ὄντες, ὥσπερ ὅταν ἐνθυμώμεθα μηδὲν ὅλως ἡμᾶς ταράττειν
μηδὲ παραλυπεῖν. δείγματος ἕνεκα ταῦτ’ εἴρηκα ὀλίγα
περὶ πολλῶν, ἐπεὶ μυρία ὅσα τις ἂν εἰπεῖν ἔχοι τὰς ἰδέας      5
ἁπάσας ἐκλογίζεσθαι βουλόμενος τοῦ πρέποντος· ἓν δὲ ὃ
προχειρότατον ἔχω καὶ κοινότατον εἰπεῖν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ, τοῦτ’
ἐρῶ. οἱ αὐτοὶ ἄνθρωποι ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ καταστάσει τῆς ψυχῆς
ὄντες ὅταν ἀπαγγέλλωσι πράγματα οἷς ἂν παραγενόμενοι
τύχωσιν, οὐχ ὁμοίᾳ χρῶνται συνθέσει περὶ πάντων, ἀλλὰ      10
μιμητικοὶ γίνονται τῶν ἀπαγγελλομένων καὶ ἐν τῷ συντιθέναι
τὰ ὀνόματα, οὐδὲν ἐπιτηδεύοντες ἀλλὰ φυσικῶς ἐπὶ τοῦτο
ἀγόμενοι. ταῦτα δὴ παρατηροῦντα δεῖ τὸν ἀγαθὸν ποιητὴν
καὶ ῥήτορα μιμητικὸν εἶναι τῶν πραγμάτων ὑπὲρ ὧν ἂν τοὺς
λόγους ἐκφέρῃ, μὴ μόνον κατὰ τὴν ἐκλογὴν τῶν ὀνομάτων      15
ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὴν σύνθεσιν. ὃ ποιεῖν εἴωθεν ὁ δαιμονιώτατος
Ὅμηρος καίπερ μέτρον ἔχων ἓν ὡς καὶ ῥυθμοὺς ὀλίγους, ἀλλ’
ὅμως ἀεί τι καινουργῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ φιλοτεχνῶν, ὥστε μηδὲν
ἡμῖν διαφέρειν γινόμενα τὰ πράγματα ἢ λεγόμενα ὁρᾶν. ἐρῶ
δὲ ὀλίγα, οἷς ἄν τις δύναιτο παραδείγμασι χρῆσθαι πολλῶν.      20
ἀπαγγέλλων δὴ πρὸς τοὺς Φαίακας Ὀδυσσεὺς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ
πλάνην καὶ τὴν εἰς ᾅδου κατάβασιν εἰπὼν τὰς ὄψεις τῶν
ἐκεῖ κακῶν ἀποδίδωσιν. ἐν δὴ τούτοις καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν
Σίσυφον διηγεῖται πάθη, ᾧ φασι τοὺς καταχθονίους θεοὺς
ὅρον πεποιῆσθαι τῆς τῶν δεινῶν ἀπαλλαγῆς, ὅταν ὑπὲρ ὄχθου      25
τινὸς ἀνακυλίσῃ πέτρον· τοῦτο δὲ ἀμήχανον εἶναι καταπίπτοντος
ὅταν εἰς ἄκρον ἔλθῃ πάλιν τοῦ πέτρου. πῶς οὖν

3 μηδὲν ὅλως ἡμᾶς F: καὶ μηδὲν ἡμᾶς ὅλως PMV || πράττειν μηδὲ
παραλυπεῖν F: ταράττηι μηδὲ παραλυπηῖ P, MV   4 δείγματος F: δείγματος
ἢ παραδείγματος PMV   5 ἐπεὶ μυρία PMV: μυρία ἄλλα ἐστὶν F || ἂν F:
αἴτια PMV   10 ἀλλὰ PMV: ἀλλὰ καὶ EF   13 δὴ F: δὲ PMV   17 καίπερ EF:
καί τοι P, MV || ἓν ὡς] ἑν(ως) P: ἐν ᾧ M: ἓν V: om. EF   18 αὐτοῖς EF:
τούτοις PV: τούτω M   20 παράδειγμα P: παραδείγματι V || πολλῶν F: ἐπὶ
πολλῶν PMV   21 δὴ FP: οὖν MV   26 πέτρον F: πέτρον τινά PMV   27 τοῦ
πέτρου om. F

1. It is implied that no general rules can be laid down on this point,
but we must trust to nature,—to the aesthetic perceptions of the
individual author,—on the principle that “tristia maestum | vultum
verba decent, iratum plena minarum, | ludentem lasciva, severum seria
dictu,” Hor. _Ars P._ 105-7.

3. An early reading may have been ὥσπερ εὐθυμούμεθα ὅταν μηδὲν ὅλως
ἡμᾶς ταράττῃ μηδὲ παραλυπῇ.

7. =προχειρότατον=: lit. ‘readiest to hand.’—The verb προχειρίζεσθαι is
used often by Dionysius (=76= 2, =236= 21, =250= 13) in the meaning ‘to

13. =ταῦτα δὴ παρατηροῦντα=: Dionysius would (as the trend of his
argument throughout the treatise shows) have an author not only
observe, but _improve upon_, the methods of ordinary people. There
is no real discrepancy between this passage and that quoted (=78= 18
_supra_) from Coleridge’s _Biographia Literaria_.

17. =ῥυθμοὺς ὀλίγους=: the two feet (dactyl and spondee) apparently
are meant. Of course, the hexameter line can be so divided as to yield
longer feet such as the βακχεῖος (see =206= 11) or the molossus; but
such divisions are not natural.

18. =καινουργῶν ... καὶ φιλοτεχνῶν=: see D.H. p. 46.

26. Here, and in =202= 8, =πέτρος= is used to represent Homer’s λᾶας:
in =202= 10, 13, πέτρα. ὄχθος (=202= 9) = Homer’s λόφος.

[Page 201]

the fact that we do not put our words together in the same way when
angry as when glad, nor when mourning as when afraid, nor when under
the influence of any other emotion or calamity as when conscious that
there is nothing at all to agitate or annoy us.

These few words on a wide subject are merely examples of the countless
other things which could be added if one wished to treat fully all
the aspects of appropriateness. But I have one obvious remark to make
of a general nature. When the same men in the same state of mind
report occurrences which they have actually witnessed, they do not
use a similar style in describing all of them, but in their very way
of putting their words together imitate the things they report, not
purposely, but carried away by a natural impulse. Keeping an eye on
this principle, the good poet and orator should be ready to imitate
the things of which he is giving a verbal description, and to imitate
them not only in the choice of words but also in the composition. This
is the practice of Homer, that surpassing genius, although he has but
one metre and few rhythms. Within these limits, nevertheless, he is
continually producing new effects and artistic refinements, so that
actually to see the incidents taking place would give no advantage over
our having them thus described. I will give a few instances, which the
reader may take as representative of many. When Odysseus is telling the
Phaeacians the story of his wanderings and of his descent into Hades,
he brings the miseries of the place before our eyes. Among them, he
describes the torments of Sisyphus, for whom they say that the gods of
the nether world have made it a condition of release from his awful
sufferings to have rolled a stone over a certain hill, and that this is
impossible, as the stone invariably falls down again just as it reaches
the top. Now it is

[Page 202]

δηλώσει ταῦτα μιμητικῶς καὶ κατ’ αὐτὴν τὴν σύνθεσιν τῶν
ὀνομάτων, ἄξιον ἰδεῖν·

        καὶ μὴν Σίσυφον εἰσεῖδον κρατέρ’ ἄλγε’ ἔχοντα,
        λᾶαν βαστάζοντα πελώριον ἀμφοτέρῃσιν·
        ἦ τοι ὁ μὲν σκηριπτόμενος χερσίν τε ποσίν τε      5
        λᾶαν ἄνω ὤθεσκε ποτὶ λόφον·

ἐνταῦθα ἡ σύνθεσίς ἐστιν ἡ δηλοῦσα τῶν γινομένων ἕκαστον,
τὸ βάρος τοῦ πέτρου, τὴν ἐπίπονον ἐκ τῆς γῆς κίνησιν, τὸν
διερειδόμενον τοῖς κώλοις, τὸν ἀναβαίνοντα πρὸς τὸν ὄχθον,
τὴν μόλις ἀνωθουμένην πέτραν· οὐδεὶς ἂν ἄλλως εἴποι. καὶ      10
παρὰ τί γέγονε τούτων ἕκαστον; οὐ μὰ Δί’ εἰκῇ γε οὐδ’
ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου. πρῶτον μὲν ἐν τοῖς δυσὶ στίχοις οἷς
ἀνακυλίει τὴν πέτραν, ἔξω δυεῖν ῥημάτων τὰ λοιπὰ τῆς λέξεως
μόρια πάντ’ ἐστὶν ἤτοι δισύλλαβα ἢ μονοσύλλαβα· ἔπειτα
τῷ ἡμίσει πλείους εἰσὶν αἱ μακραὶ συλλαβαὶ τῶν βραχειῶν      15
ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τῶν στίχων· ἔπειτα πᾶσαι διαβεβήκασιν αἱ τῶν
ὀνομάτων ἁρμονίαι διαβάσεις εὐμεγέθεις καὶ διεστήκασι πάνυ
αἰσθητῶς, ἢ τῶν φωνηέντων γραμμάτων συγκρουομένων ἢ τῶν
ἡμιφώνων τε καὶ ἀφώνων συναπτομένων· ῥυθμοῖς τε δακτύλοις
καὶ σπονδείοις τοῖς μηκίστοις καὶ πλείστην ἔχουσι διάβασιν      20
ἅπαντα σύγκειται. τί δή ποτ’ οὖν τούτων ἕκαστον δύναται;
αἱ μὲν μονοσύλλαβοί τε καὶ δισύλλαβοι λέξεις, πολλοὺς τοὺς
μεταξὺ χρόνους ἀλλήλων ἀπολείπουσαι, τὸ χρόνιον ἐμιμήσαντο
τοῦ ἔργου· αἱ δὲ μακραὶ συλλαβαί, στηριγμούς τινας ἔχουσαι
καὶ ἐγκαθίσματα, τὴν ἀντιτυπίαν καὶ τὸ βαρὺ καὶ τὸ μόλις·      25
τὸ δὲ μεταξὺ τῶν ὀνομάτων ψῦγμα καὶ ἡ τῶν τραχυνόντων

8 μέτρου F   9 ὄχλον F   10 μόλις EF: μόγις PMV || ἄλλος F   11 οὐ μὰ
Δί’ Radermacher: οὐκ ἂν F: οὐ γὰρ PMV   12 μὲν ἐν Schaefer: μὲν FMV: ἐν
P, E   13 ἀνακυλίει EF: ἀνακινεῖ PV   15 μακραὶ om. F   16 ἔπειτα πᾶσαι
F: ἔπειθ’ ἅπασαι PMV || διαβεβλήκασιν F   18 γραμμάτων FP: om. EMV   19
τε (post ῥυθμοῖς) F: τε καὶ EPMV   21 ποτ’ οὖν F: om. PMV   22 τοὺς EF:
om. PMV   25 βαρὺ EFM^2V: βραδὺ PM^1 || μόλις EF: μόγις PMV

6. Cp. Demetr. _de Eloc._ § 72 ἐν δὲ τῷ μεγαλοπρεπεῖ χαρακτῆρι
σύγκρουσις παραλαμβάνοιτ’ ἂν πρέπουσα ἤτοι διὰ μακρῶν, ὡς τὸ “λᾶαν
ἄνω ὤθεσκε.” καὶ γὰρ ὁ στίχος μῆκός τι ἔσχεν ἐκ τῆς συγκρούσεως, καὶ
μεμίμηται τοῦ λίθου τὴν ἀναφορὰν καὶ βίαν. So Eustathius: τὸ δὲ “λᾶαν
ἄνω ὤθεσκε ποτὶ λόφον” ἐπαινεῖται χάριν τῆς συνθήκης. ἐμφαίνει γὰρ
τὴν δυσχέρειαν τοῦ τῆς ὠθήσεως ἔργου τῇ τῶν φωνηέντων ἐπαλληλίᾳ, δι’
ὧν ὀγκούντων τὸ στόμα οὐκ ἐᾶται τρέχειν ὁ λόγος, ἀλλ’ ὀκνηρὰ βαίνει
συνεξομοιούμενος τῇ ἐργωδίᾳ τοῦ ἄνω ὠθεῖν. The Homeric passage is
imitated in Pope’s _Essay on Criticism_, “When Ajax strives some rock’s
vast weight to throw, | The line too labours, and the words move
slow.”—For the effect of the long unblended vowels cp. the first of
Virgil’s two well-known lines, “ter sunt conati imponere Pelio Ossam |
scilicet, atque Ossae frondosum involvere Olympum” (_Georg._ i. 282).

15. It is not easy to see how this result is reached. Perhaps in l.
5 the last syllable of ἤτοι is counted long for the purpose of the
argument. A perception of the difficulty may have led to the omission
of μακραί in F.

18. The meaning is: ‘either by repetition of vowels [ἄλγε’ ἔχοντα,
λᾶαν] or by the juxtaposition of semi-vowels and mutes [with
the semi-vowels _first_: μὴν Σίσυφον, εἰσεῖδον κρατερά, λᾶαν
βαστάζοντα].’—In =204= 15 the words πέδονδε κυλίνδετο may be taken to
express the ‘bumps’ of the stone as it rolls down.

22. Cp. Quintil. ix. 4. 98 “est enim quoddam in ipsa divisione verborum
latens tempus, ut in pentametri medio spondeo, qui nisi alterius verbi
fine alterius initio constat, versum non efficit.”—The effect of the
short syllables in counterfeiting delay may be illustrated by Cic. _pro
Milone_ 11. 28 “paulisper, _dum se uxor, ut fit,_ comparat, commoratus

[Page 203]

worth while to observe how Homer will express this by a mimicry which
the very arrangement of his words produces:—

    There Sisyphus saw I receiving his guerdon of mighty pain:
    A monster rock upheaving with both hands aye did he strain;
    With feet firm-fixed, palms pressed, with gasps, with toil most sore,
    That rock to a high hill’s crest heaved he.[170]

Here it is the composition that brings out each of the details—the
weight of the stone, the laborious movement of it from the ground,
the straining of the man’s limbs, his slow ascent towards the ridge,
the difficulty of thrusting the rock upwards. No one will deny the
effect produced. And on what does the execution of each detail depend?
Certainly the results do not come by chance or of themselves. To begin
with: in the two lines in which Sisyphus rolls up the rock, with the
exception of two verbs all the component words of the passage are
either disyllables or monosyllables. Next, the long syllables are
half as numerous again as the short ones in each of the two lines.
Then, all the words are so arranged as to advance, as it were, with
giant strides, and the gaps between them are distinctly perceptible,
in consequence of the concurrence of vowels or the juxtaposition of
semi-vowels and mutes; and the dactylic and spondaic rhythms of which
the lines are composed are the longest possible and take the longest
possible stride. Now, what is the effect of these several details? The
monosyllabic and disyllabic words, leaving many intervals between each
other, suggest the duration of the action; while the long syllables,
which require a kind of pause and prolongation, reproduce the
resistance, the heaviness, the difficulty. The inhalation between the
words and the juxtaposition

[Page 204]

γραμμάτων παράθεσις τὰ διαλείμματα τῆς ἐνεργείας καὶ τὰς
ἐποχὰς καὶ τὸ τοῦ μόχθου μέγεθος· οἱ ῥυθμοὶ δ’ ἐν μήκει
θεωρούμενοι τὴν ἔκτασιν τῶν μελῶν καὶ τὸν διελκυσμὸν τοῦ
κυλίοντος καὶ τὴν τοῦ πέτρου ἔρεισιν. καὶ ὅτι ταῦτα οὐ
φύσεώς ἐστιν αὐτοματιζούσης ἔργα ἀλλὰ τέχνης μιμήσασθαι      5
πειρωμένης τὰ γινόμενα, τὰ τούτοις ἑξῆς λεγόμενα δηλοῖ. τὴν
γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς κορυφῆς ἐπιστρέφουσαν πάλιν καὶ κατακυλιομένην
πέτραν οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν ἡρμήνευκε τρόπον, ἀλλ’ ἐπιταχύνας τε
καὶ συστρέψας τὴν σύνθεσιν· προειπὼν γὰρ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ
σχήματι      10

                          ἀλλ’ ὅτε μέλλοι
        ἄκρον ὑπερβαλέειν

ἐπιτίθησι τοῦτο

                        τότ’ ἐπιστρέψασκε κραταιίς·
        αὖτις ἔπειτα πέδονδε κυλίνδετο λᾶας ἀναιδής.      15

οὐχὶ συγκατακεκύλισται τῷ βάρει τῆς πέτρας ἡ τῶν ὀνομάτων
σύνθεσις, μᾶλλον δὲ ἔφθακε τὴν τοῦ λίθου φορὰν τὸ
τῆς ἀπαγγελίας τάχος; ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ. καὶ τίς ἐνταῦθα πάλιν
αἰτία; καὶ γὰρ ταύτην ἄξιον ἰδεῖν· ὁ τὴν καταφορὰν δηλῶν
τοῦ πέτρου στίχος μονοσύλλαβον μὲν οὐδεμίαν, δισυλλάβους      20
δὲ δύο μόνας ἔχει λέξεις. τοῦτ’ οὖν καὶ πρῶτον οὐ διίστησι
τοὺς χρόνους ἀλλ’ ἐπιταχύνει· ἔπειθ’ ἑπτακαίδεκα συλλαβῶν
οὐσῶν ἐν τῷ στίχῳ δέκα μέν εἰσι βραχεῖαι συλλαβαί, ἑπτὰ
δὲ μακραί, οὐδ’ αὗται τέλειοι· ἀνάγκη δὴ κατασπᾶσθαι καὶ

1 καὶ τὰς ἐποχὰς EF: ἐποχάς τε PMV   6 τὴν ... ἐπιστρέφουσαν ...
κατακυλιομένην πέτραν EF: τὸν ... ἐπιστρέφοντα ... κατακυλιόμενον
πέτρον PMV   13 τοῦτο EFM^1: τούτω PM^2V   14 ἐπιστρέψασ κε P, E:
ἐπιστέψασ (ρ suprascr.) καὶ F, MV: ἀποστρέψασκε Hom. || κραταὶ· ἲσ P:
κραταις F: κραταιὴ ἴς MV   15 αὖθις PMV   16 συγκατακεκύλισται PMV:
συγκυλίεται EF   18 ἐμοί τε PM: ἐμοὶ F   19 ταύτην PMV: ταύτης F ||
ἄξιον ἰδεῖν PV: ἰδεῖν ἄξιόν ἐστιν F   21 οὖν καὶ F(E): οὐκ ἐᾶι P, MV ||
οὐ διίστησι E: οὐδ’ ἵστησι F: διεστηκέναι PMV   24 δὲ F: δὲ μόναι PMV
|| οὐδ’ F: καὶ οὐδ’ PMV || αὗται F: αὐταὶ PMV || τέλειοι FPV: τέλειαι M
|| δὴ F: οὖν PMV || κατασπᾶσθαι F: κατεσπάσθαι PM: κατεσπᾶσθαι V

15. “Downward anon to the valley rebounded the boulder remorseless”
(Sandys, in Jebb’s _Rhetoric of Aristotle_ p. 172). Voss marks the
contrast between the slow and the rapid line by translating the one by
“Eines Marmors Schwere mit grosser Gewalt fortheben,” and the other by
“Hurtig mit Donnergepolter entrollte der tückische Marmor.”—For similar
adaptations of sound to sense cp. Lucret. iii. 1000 “hoc est adverso
nixantem trudere monte | saxum quod tamen e summo iam vertice rursum
| volvitur et plani raptim petit aequora campi”; Virg. _Aen._ vi. 616
“saxum ingens volvunt alii, radiisque rotarum | districti pendent”; id.
_ib._ viii. 596 “quadripedante putrem sonitu quatit ungula campum” (in
imitation of _Il._ xxiii. 116); id. _ib._ v. 481 “sternitur exanimisque
tremens procumbit humi bos”; id. _ib._ ii. 304-8 “in segetem ... de
vertice pastor”; Racine _Phèdre_ v. 6 “L’essieu crie et se rompt:
l’intrépide Hippolyte | Voit voler en éclats tout son char fracassé;
| Dans les rênes lui-même il tombe embarrassé”; Pope’s “Up a high
hill he heaves a huge round stone” (_Odyss._ xi.) or his “That like
a wounded snake drags its slow length along” (_Essay on Criticism_),
as compared with his “Thunders impetuous down, and smokes along the
ground” (_Odyss._ xi.).—It is an interesting question whether Dionysius
overstates his case when he makes ‘Homer’ as conscious and sedulous
an artist (ἀεί τι καινουργῶν καὶ φιλοτεχνῶν, =200= 18) as any later
imitator. It is, however, unlikely that even the earliest poets who
were late enough to produce consummate music were insensible to the
effect of the music they produced. But great poets in all ages have had
their ear so attuned by long use and practice to the music of sounds as
to choose the right letters, syllables, and words almost unconsciously.

19. =ταύτην=: Usener reads ταῦτ’ ἦν: but (1) ταύτην refers naturally to
αἰτία; (2) with ἄξιον the verb is often omitted, e.g. =186= 19, =202=
2; (3) if there were a verb, ἐστίν would here be more natural than ἦν.

22. The meaning is that the absence of short words implies the absence
of frequent breaks, and this absence contributes to rapid utterance.

24. =τέλειοι=, ‘perfect longs.’ The diphthongs in αὖτις, ἔπειτα, and
ἀναιδής, are simply long by nature; they are not long by position as
well. The ο in πέδονδε, and the ι in κυλίνδετο, are long by position
but not by nature. The ᾶ in λᾶας, and the η in ἀναιδής, are long by
nature but not (in the former case) by position. “Of the seven long
syllables not one—except the last—contains more elements than are
needful to make it pass for long and at the same time avoid hiatus;
that is, no long vowel or diphthong is followed by more than one
consonant; two consonants occur only where required to extend a short
vowel to a long syllable” (Goodell _Greek Metric_ p. 175). Compare
=150= 22-=154= 3, and see also Gloss., s.v. τέλειος.—M here has τέλειαι
(not τέλειοι): cp. τελείας in =174= 1.

[Page 205]

of rough letters indicate the pauses in his efforts, the delays,
the vastness of the toil. The rhythms, when it is observed how
long-drawn-out they are, betoken the straining of his limbs, the
struggle of the man as he rolls his burden, and the upheaving of the
stone. And that this is not the work of Nature improvising, but of art
attempting to reproduce a scene, is proved by the words that follow
these. For the poet has represented the return of the rock from the
summit and its rolling downward in quite another fashion; he quickens
and abbreviates his composition. Having first said, in the same form as
the foregoing,

                            but a little more,
    And atop of the ridge would it rest[171]—

he adds to this,

                        some Power back turned it again:
    Rushing the pitiless boulder went rolling adown to the plain.[172]

Do not the words thus arranged roll downhill together with the impetus
of the rock? Indeed, does not the speed of the narration outstrip the
rush of the stone? I certainly think so. And what is the reason here
again? It is worth noticing. The line which described the downrush of
the stone has no monosyllabic words, and only two disyllabic. Now this,
in the first place, does not break up the phrases but hurries them on.
In the second place, of the seventeen syllables in the line ten are
short, seven long, and not even these seven are perfect. So

[Page 206]

συστέλλεσθαι τὴν φράσιν τῇ βραχύτητι τῶν συλλαβῶν ἐφελκομένην.
ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις οὐδ’ ὄνομα ἀπὸ ὀνόματος ἀξιόλογον
εἴληφεν διάστασιν· οὔτε γὰρ φωνήεντι φωνῆεν οὔτε ἡμιφώνῳ
ἡμίφωνον ἢ ἄφωνον, ἃ δὴ τραχύνειν πέφυκεν καὶ διιστάναι
τὰς ἁρμονίας, οὐδέν ἐστι παρακείμενον. οὐ δὴ γίνεται διάστασις      5
αἰσθητὴ μὴ διηρτημένων τῶν λέξεων, ἀλλὰ συνολισθαίνουσιν
ἀλλήλαις καὶ συγκαταφέρονται καὶ τρόπον τινὰ μία
ἐξ ἁπασῶν γίνεται διὰ τὴν τῶν ἁρμονιῶν ἀκρίβειαν. ὃ δὲ
μάλιστα τῶν ἄλλων θαυμάζειν ἄξιον, ῥυθμὸς οὐδεὶς τῶν
μακρῶν οἳ φύσιν ἔχουσιν πίπτειν εἰς μέτρον ἡρωϊκόν, οὔτε      10
σπονδεῖος οὔτε βακχεῖος ἐγκαταμέμικται τῷ στίχῳ, πλὴν ἐπὶ
τῆς τελευτῆς· οἱ δ’ ἄλλοι πάντες εἰσὶ δάκτυλοι, καὶ οὗτοι
παραδεδιωγμένας ἔχοντες τὰς ἀλόγους, ὥστε μὴ πολὺ διαφέρειν
ἐνίους τῶν τροχαίων. οὐδὲν δὴ τὸ ἀντιπρᾶττον ἐστὶν εὔτροχον
καὶ περιφερῆ καὶ καταρρέουσαν εἶναι τὴν φράσιν ἐκ τοιούτων      15
συγκεκροτημένην ῥυθμῶν. πολλά τις ἂν ἔχοι τοιαῦτα δεῖξαι
παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ λεγόμενα· ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀποχρῆν δοκεῖ καὶ ταῦτα, ἵν’
ἐγγένηταί μοι καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων εἰπεῖν.

ὧν μὲν οὖν δεῖ στοχάζεσθαι τοὺς μέλλοντας ἡδεῖαν καὶ
καλὴν ποιήσειν σύνθεσιν ἔν τε ποιητικῇ καὶ λόγοις ἀμέτροις,      20
ταῦτα κατ’ ἐμὴν δόξαν ἐστὶ τὰ γοῦν κυριώτατα καὶ κράτιστα.
ὅσα δὲ οὐχ οἷά τε ἦν, ἐλάττω τε ὄντα τούτων καὶ ἀμυδρότερα
καὶ διὰ πλῆθος δυσπερίληπτα μιᾷ γραφῇ, ταῦτ’ ἐν ταῖς καθ’
ἡμέραν γυμνασίαις προσυποθήσομαί σοι, καὶ πολλῶν καὶ ἀγαθῶν
ποιητῶν τε καὶ συγγραφέων καὶ ῥητόρων μαρτυρίοις χρήσομαι.      25
νυνὶ δὲ τὰ καταλειπόμενα ὧν ὑπεσχόμην καὶ οὐδενὸς ἧττον
ἀναγκαῖα εἰρῆσθαι, ταῦτ’ ἔτι προσθεὶς τῷ λόγῳ παύσομαι

1 συστέλεσθαι P: συντελεῖσθαι F   4 διιστάναι F: διιστάνειν PMV   5
διάτασις F   6 διηρτημένη F   10 ἡρωϊκὸν F: ἡρῶιον P, MV   12 οὗτοι F:
οὗτοί γε PMV   17 δοκεῖ καὶ FM: ἐδόκει P: εἰδοκεῖ V   19 ἡδεῖαν καὶ
καλὴν F: καλὴν καὶ ἡδεῖαν PMV   23 μιᾶι F: μὴ PM: om. V   24 σοι καὶ
PMV: καὶ F || ἀγαθῶν καὶ ποιητῶν τε (τε om. M) καὶ P, M   25 μαρτυρίοις
F: μαρτυρι(ας) P: μαρτυρίαις MV   26 νυνὶ F: νῦν PMV

1. =τῇ βραχύτητι= κτλ.: i.e. the utterance must necessarily be rapid
when the syllables are short and trip along.

2. “Again, as between words, there is no hiatus, no semi-vowel or mute
meets a semi-vowel, there is no rhetorical pause and no elision, the
words almost run together into one” (Goodell _Greek Metric_ p. 175).

11. =βακχεῖος=: see note on =200= 17 _supra_.

13. =τὰς ἀλόγους= [συλλαβάς]: i.e. the long syllables in πέδονδε and
κυλίνδετο.—With Usener’s conjecture παραμεμιγμένας the meaning will be
“and these too are such as have irrational syllables incorporated with

14. =τροχαίων=: Schaefer suggests τριβραχέων, Sauppe χορείων.

18. =ἐγγένηται=: cp. _Antiqq. Rom._ vi. 9 ὦ μακάριοι μέν, οἷς ἂν
ἐγγένηται τὸν ἐκ τοῦδε τοῦ πολέμου θρίαμβον καταγαγεῖν. In =68= 11
σχολή is added, ἐὰν δ’ ἐγγένηταί μοι σχολή: and in =224= 22 χρόνος is
found in P and V.

23. =ἐν ταῖς καθ’ ἡμέραν γυμνασίαις=: this is one of the incidental
references which show that Dionysius taught rhetoric at Rome.

[Page 207]

the line has to go tumbling down-hill in a heap, dragged forward by
the shortness of the syllables. Moreover, one word is not divided from
another by any appreciable interval, for vowel does not meet vowel,
nor semi-vowel or mute meet semi-vowel—conjunctions the natural effect
of which is to make the connexions harsher and less close-fitting.
There is, in fact, no perceptible division if the words are not forced
asunder, but they slip into one another and are swept along, and a
sort of great single word is formed out of all owing to the closeness
of the junctures. And what is most surprising of all, not one of the
long feet which naturally fit into the heroic metre—whether spondee or
_bacchius_—has been introduced into the line, except at the end. All
the rest are dactyls, and these with their irrational syllables hurried
along, so that some of the feet do not differ much from trochees.
Accordingly nothing hinders the line from being rapid, rounded and
swift-flowing, welded together as it is from such rhythms as this. Many
such passages could be pointed out in Homer. But I think the foregoing
lines amply sufficient, and I must leave myself time to discuss the
remaining points.

The aims, then, which should be steadily kept in view by those who
mean to form a charming and noble style, alike in poetry and in prose,
are in my opinion those already mentioned. These, at all events, are
the most essential and effective. But those which I have been unable
to mention, as being more minute and more obscure than these, and,
owing to their number, hard to embrace in a single treatise, I will
bring before you in our daily lessons, and I will draw illustrations
in support of my views from many good poets, historians, and orators.
But now I will go on to add to this work, before concluding it,
the remainder of the points which I promised to treat of, and the
discussion of which is as indispensable as any: viz. what

[Page 208]

* * *  τίνες εἰσὶ διαφοραὶ τῆς συνθέσεως καὶ τίς ἑκάστης
χαρακτὴρ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ, τῶν τε πρωτευσάντων ἐν αὐταῖς
μνησθῆναι καὶ δείγματα ἑκάστου παρασχεῖν, ὅταν δὲ ταῦτα
λάβῃ μοι τέλος, τότε κἀκεῖνα διευκρινῆσαι τὰ παρὰ τοῖς
πολλοῖς ἀπορούμενα, τί ποτ’ ἐστὶν ὃ ποιεῖ τὴν μὲν πεζὴν      5
λέξιν ὁμοίαν ποιήματι φαίνεσθαι μένουσαν ἐν τῷ τοῦ λόγου
σχήματι, τὴν δὲ ποιητικὴν φράσιν ἐμφερῆ τῷ πεζῷ λόγῳ
φυλάττουσαν τὴν ποιητικὴν σεμνότητα· σχεδὸν γὰρ οἱ
κράτιστα διαλεχθέντες ἢ ποιήσαντες ταῦτ’ ἔχουσιν ἐν τῇ
λέξει τἀγαθά. πειρατέον δὴ καὶ περὶ τούτων, ἃ φρονῶ,      10
λέγειν. ἄρξομαι δ’ ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου.


ἐγὼ τῆς συνθέσεως εἰδικὰς μὲν διαφορὰς πολλὰς σφόδρα
εἶναι τίθεμαι καὶ οὔτ’ εἰς σύνοψιν ἐλθεῖν δυναμένας οὔτ’ εἰς
λογισμὸν ἀκριβῆ, οἴομαί τε ἴδιον ἡμῶν ἑκάστῳ χαρακτῆρα
ὥσπερ ὄψεως, οὕτω καὶ συνθέσεως ὀνομάτων παρακολουθεῖν,      15
οὐ φαύλῳ παραδείγματι χρώμενος ζῳγραφίᾳ· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν
ἐκείνῃ τὰ αὐτὰ φάρμακα λαμβάνοντες ἅπαντες οἱ τὰ ζῷα
γράφοντες οὐδὲν ἐοικότα ποιοῦσιν ἀλλήλοις τὰ μίγματα, τὸν
αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐν ποιητικῇ τε διαλέκτῳ καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ πάσῃ
τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασι χρώμενοι πάντες οὐχ ὁμοίως αὐτὰ συντίθεμεν.      20
τὰς μέντοι γενικὰς αὐτῆς διαφορὰς ταύτας εἶναι
πείθομαι μόνας τὰς τρεῖς, αἷς ὁ βουλόμενος ὀνόματα θήσεται
τὰ οἰκεῖα, ἐπειδὰν τούς τε χαρακτῆρας αὐτῶν καὶ τὰς διαφορὰς
ἀκούσῃ. ἐγὼ μέντοι κυρίοις ὀνόμασιν οὐκ ἔχων αὐτὰς προσαγορεῦσαι
ὡς ἀκατονομάστους μεταφορικοῖς ὀνόμασι καλῶ τὴν
μὲν αὐστηράν, τὴν δὲ γλαφυράν [ἢ ἀνθηράν], τὴν δὲ τρίτην

1 hiatum indicavit Schottius   2 τε om. F   4 κακεῖνα P, MV: καὶ ταῦτα
F || διευκρινήσω V || τοῖς FM: om. PV   5 μὲν F: om. PMV   7 λόγῳ om.
PV   9 ἢ om. P   11 δὲ ἀπὸ MV: δὲ κατὰ P   12 εἰδικὰς F (E): ἰδικὰς PMV
|| διαφορὰς πολλὰς F: πολλὰς διαφορὰς PMV   13 εἰς συλλογισμὸν F   14
ἴδιον ἡμῶν ἑκάστῳ χαρακτῆρα] ἰδιώματα ἑκάστῳ χαρακτῆρι F   16 φαύλω F:
φαύλως PMV || ζωγραφία F: ζωγραφιαίω PM   19 πάσῃ Us.: ἁπάση libri   20
ἅπαντες F   22 μόνας EF: om. PMV   25 ἀκατονομάστοις PV   26 ἢ ἀνθηράν
om. P

3. As the sentence stands, the infinitives μνησθῆναι, παρασχεῖν and
διευκρινῆσαι are without regular government. βουλόμενος may be inserted
after μνησθῆναι, or (as Usener prefers to think) something like
ἀναγκαῖον γὰρ ἡγοῦμαι πρῶτον μὲν παραστῆσαι may be supposed to have
fallen out between παύσομαι and τίνες.

7. Dionysius’ practice of variety in his own style is shown by his use
of ἐμφερῆ here, as compared with ὁμοίαν in l. 6.

12. This and the following chapters should be compared carefully with
_de Demosth._ cc. 36 ff.

21. For Greek views as to types of style in general (not simply
ἁρμονίαι) reference may be made to Demetr. pp. 28 ff.

24. At this point in the Epitome, the Darmstadt codex has (in the
margin) ὁ δὲ Πλούταρχος τὸ μὲν τῆς συνθέσεως ἁδρόν, τὸ δὲ ἰσχνόν, τὸ δὲ
μέσον καλεῖ.

26. =ἢ ἀνθηράν=: cp. =232= 25 (where P again omits the second epithet)
and =248= 9 (with critical note).

[Page 209]

are the different styles of composition and what the usual
distinguishing mark of each is. I will include some mention of those
who have been eminent in them, and will also add examples from each
author. When the treatment of these points is completed, I must proceed
to dispose of certain difficulties very generally felt: what it can be
that makes prose appear like a poem though retaining the form of prose,
and verse like prose though maintaining the loftiness of poetry; for
almost all the best writers of prose or poetry have these excellences
in their style. I must do my best, then, to set forth my views on these
matters also. I will begin with the first.



I assert without any hesitation that there are many specific
differences of composition, and that they cannot be brought into a
comprehensive view or within a precise enumeration; I think too that,
as in personal appearance, so also in literary composition, each of us
has an individual character. I find not a bad illustration in painting.
As in that art all painters from life take the same pigments but mix
them in the most diverse ways, so in poetry and in prose, though we all
use the same words, we do not put them together in the same manner. I
hold, however, that the essentially different varieties of composition
are the three following only, to which any one who likes may assign the
appropriate names, when he has heard their characteristics and their
differences. For my own part, since I cannot find recognized names for
them, inasmuch as none exist, I call them by metaphorical terms—the
first _austere_, the second _smooth_ (or _florid_), the third

[Page 210]

εὔκρατον· ἣν ὅπως ποτὲ γίνεσθαι φαίην ἄν, ἔγωγε ἀπορῶ,
καὶ “δίχα μοι νόος ἀτρέκειαν εἰπεῖν,” εἴτε κατὰ στέρησιν
τῶν ἄκρων ἑκατέρας εἴτε κατὰ μῖξιν· οὐ γὰρ ῥᾴδιον
εἰκάσαι τὸ σαφές. μή ποτ’ οὖν κρεῖττον ᾖ λέγειν, ὅτι κατὰ
τὴν ἄνεσίν τε καὶ τὴν ἐπίτασιν τῶν ἐσχάτων ὅρων οἱ διὰ      5
μέσου γίνονται πολλοὶ πάνυ ὄντες· οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ ἐν μουσικῇ
τὸ ἴσον ἀπέχει τῆς νήτης καὶ τῆς ὑπάτης ἡ μέση, τὸν αὐτὸν
τρόπον καὶ ἐν λόγοις ὁ μέσος χαρακτὴρ ἑκατέρου τῶν ἄκρων
ἴσον ἀφέστηκεν, ἀλλ’ ἔστι τῶν ἐν πλάτει θεωρουμένων ὡς
ἀγέλη τε καὶ σωρὸς καὶ ἄλλα πολλά. ἀλλὰ γὰρ οὐχ οὗτος      10
ὁ καιρὸς ἁρμόττων τῇ θεωρίᾳ ταύτῃ· λεκτέον δ’, ὥσπερ ὑπεθέμην,
καὶ περὶ τῶν χαρακτήρων οὐχ ἅπανθ’ ὅσ’ ἂν εἰπεῖν
ἔχοιμι (μακρῶν γὰρ ἄν μοι πάνυ δεήσειε λόγων), ἀλλ’ αὐτὰ
τὰ φανερώτατα.


τῆς μὲν οὖν αὐστηρᾶς ἁρμονίας τοιόσδε ὁ χαρακτήρ·      15
ἐρείδεσθαι βούλεται τὰ ὀνόματα ἀσφαλῶς καὶ στάσεις λαμβάνειν
ἰσχυράς, ὥστ’ ἐκ περιφανείας ἕκαστον ὄνομα ὁρᾶσθαι,
ἀπέχειν τε ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων τὰ μόρια διαστάσεις ἀξιολόγους
αἰσθητοῖς χρόνοις διειργόμενα· τραχείαις τε χρῆσθαι πολλαχῇ
καὶ ἀντιτύποις ταῖς συμβολαῖς οὐδὲν αὐτῇ διαφέρει, οἷαι      20
γίνονται τῶν λογάδην συντιθεμένων ἐν οἰκοδομίαις λίθων αἱ
μὴ εὐγώνιοι καὶ μὴ συνεξεσμέναι βάσεις, ἀργαὶ δέ τινες καὶ

1 εὔκρατον EF: κοινὴν PMV   2 κατὰ E: κατὰ τὴν FPMV   3 μίξιν F   4
ἦι P: ἦν F || κατὰ τὴν FPMV: κατὰ E   5 τε καὶ τὴν PMV: τε καὶ F: καὶ
E   6 ἐν om. P   7 νήτης F: νεάτης PMV   8 χαρακτὴρ om. PV   9 ἴσως F
  11 ὥσπερ F: ὡς PMV   12 καὶ F: om. PMV || ὅσα εἰπεῖν codd.: ἂν ins.
Schaeferus   13 ἄν μοι F: ἂν οἶμαι PMV || δεήσειε F: δεήσει P: δεήσειν
MV   17 περιφερίας F   18 διατάσεις F   20 οἷαι F: οἳ P: οἷον MV   21
αἱ μη F: αἱ μὴτε P, MV   22 καὶ μὴ F: μὴδε P || ἀργαὶ δὲ] γὰρ αἷδε F

1. Here (and in =246= 11) it is open to question whether κοινήν does
not fit the context better than εὔκρατον.

2. The passage of Pindar is quoted in Cic. _Ep. ad Att._ xiii. 38 “nunc
me iuva, mi Attice, consilio, ‘πότερον δίκᾳ τεῖχος ὕψιον,’ id est utrum
aperte hominem asperner et respuam, ‘ἢ σκολιαῖς ἀπάταις.’ ut enim
Pindaro sic ‘δίχα μοι νόος ἀτρέκειαν εἰπεῖν.’ omnino moribus meis illud
aptius, sed hoc fortasse temporibus.”

3. =κατὰ μῖξιν=: sc. τῶν ἄκρων. —Cp. _de Demosth._ c. 36 οἱ δὲ
συνθέντες ἀφ’ ἑκατέρας τὰ χρησιμώτατα τὴν μικτὴν καὶ μέσην ἐζήλωσαν

4. =μή ποτ’ ... ᾖ=: a favourite Platonic usage, e.g. _Gorgias_ 462 E
μὴ ἀγροικότερον ᾖ τὸ ἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, _Apol._ 39 A ἀλλὰ μὴ οὐ τοῦτ’ ᾖ
χαλεπόν, ὦ ἄνδρες, θάνατον ἐκφυγεῖν, ἀλλὰ πολὺ χαλεπώτερον πονηρίαν.

5. The intermediate, or eclectic, styles are numerous and differ
greatly according as they relax or strain the extreme, or pronounced,
styles: cp. _de Demosth._ c. 37 init.

8. A point worth considering is how far this may seem to make for or
against the view that the Dionysian doctrine of styles is Peripatetic
in origin, being derived from Theophrastus.

10. =σωρός=: cp. σωρείτης (Lat. _acervalis_, Cic. _de Div._ ii. 4.
11), in the sense which it bears in Hor. _Ep._ ii. 1. 45-47 and Cic.
_Academ._ ii. 16. 49.

15. Batteux (p. 249) would illustrate the austere style from Rousseau’s
_Ode_ i. 2 (tirée du Psaume xviii.), “Les cieux instruisent la terre
| À révérer leur auteur; | Tout ce que leur globe enserre | Célèbre
un Dieu créateur,” etc.—With c. 22 of the _C.V._ should be compared,
throughout, cc. 38, 39 of the _de Demosth._

18. =ἀπέχειν τε= κτλ.: i.e. it (the austere style) aims at dividing its
clauses from one another by appreciable pauses.

[Page 211]

_harmoniously blended_. How I am to say the third is formed I am at a
loss to know—“my mind is too divided to utter truth”[173]: I cannot
see whether it is formed by eliminating the two extremes or by fusing
them—it is not easy to hit on any clear answer. Perhaps, then, it is
better to say that it is by relaxation and tension of the extremes
that the means, which are very numerous, arise. The case is not as in
music, where the middle note is equally removed from the lowest and the
highest. The middle style in writing does not in the same way stand
at an equal distance from each of the two extremes; “middle” is here
a vague general term, like “herd,” “heap,” and many others. But the
present is not the right time for the investigation of this particular
point. I must say what I undertook to say with regard to the several
styles—not all that I could (I should need a very long treatise to do
that), but just the most salient points.



The characteristic feature of the austere arrangement is this:—It
requires that the words should be like columns firmly planted and
placed in strong positions, so that each word should be seen on every
side, and that the parts should be at appreciable distances from one
another, being separated by perceptible intervals. It does not in the
least shrink from using frequently harsh sound-clashings which jar on
the ear; like blocks of building stone that are laid together unworked,
blocks that are not square and smooth, but preserve their natural
roughness and irregularity.

[Page 212]

αὐτοσχέδιοι· μεγάλοις τε καὶ διαβεβηκόσιν εἰς πλάτος ὀνόμασιν
ὡς τὰ πολλὰ μηκύνεσθαι φιλεῖ· τὸ γὰρ εἰς βραχείας συλλαβὰς
συνάγεσθαι πολέμιον αὐτῇ, πλὴν εἴ ποτε ἀνάγκη βιάζοιτο.

ἐν μὲν δὴ τοῖς ὀνόμασι ταῦτα πειρᾶται διώκειν καὶ
τούτων γλίχεται· ἐν δὲ τοῖς κώλοις ταῦτά τε ὁμοίως ἐπιτηδεύει      5
καὶ τοὺς ῥυθμοὺς τοὺς ἀξιωματικοὺς καὶ μεγαλοπρεπεῖς,
καὶ οὔτε πάρισα βούλεται τὰ κῶλα ἀλλήλοις εἶναι οὔτε
παρόμοια οὔτε ἀναγκαίᾳ δουλεύοντα ἀκολουθίᾳ, ἀλλ’ εὐγενῆ
καὶ λαμπρὰ καὶ ἐλεύθερα, φύσει τ’ ἐοικέναι μᾶλλον αὐτὰ
βούλεται ἢ τέχνῃ, καὶ κατὰ πάθος λέγεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ κατ’      10
ἦθος. περιόδους δὲ συντιθέναι συναπαρτιζούσας ἑαυταῖς τὸν
νοῦν τὰ πολλὰ μὲν οὐδὲ βούλεται· εἰ δέ ποτ’ αὐτομάτως ἐπὶ
τοῦτο κατενεχθείη, τὸ ἀνεπιτήδευτον ἐμφαίνειν θέλει καὶ
ἀφελές, οὔτε προσθήκαις τισὶν ὀνομάτων, ἵνα ὁ κύκλος
ἐκπληρωθῇ, μηδὲν ὠφελούσαις τὸν νοῦν χρωμένη, οὔτε ὅπως αἱ      15
βάσεις αὐτῶν γένοιντο θεατρικαί τινες ἢ γλαφυραί, σπουδὴν
ἔχουσα, οὐδ’ ἵνα τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ λέγοντος ὦσιν αὐτάρκεις
συμμετρουμένη μὰ Δία, οὐδ’ ἄλλην τινὰ [πραγματείαν] τοιαύτην
ἔχουσα ἐπιτήδευσιν οὐδεμίαν. ἔτι τῆς τοιαύτης ἐστὶν
ἁρμονίας καὶ ταῦτα ἴδια· ἀγχίστροφός ἐστι περὶ τὰς πτώσεις,      20
ποικίλη περὶ τοὺς σχηματισμούς, ὀλιγοσύνδεσμος, ἄναρθρος,
ἐν πολλοῖς ὑπεροπτικὴ τῆς ἀκολουθίας, ἥκιστ’ ἀνθηρά,
μεγαλόφρων, αὐθέκαστος, ἀκόμψευτος, τὸν ἀρχαϊσμὸν καὶ τὸν
πίνον ἔχουσα κάλλος.

ταύτης δὲ τῆς ἁρμονίας πολλοὶ μὲν ἐγένοντο ζηλωταὶ κατά      25

1 εἰς F: ἐκ PMV   2 συλλαβὰς F: συλλαβῆς PMV   3 ποτε καὶ ἡ ἀνάγκη F
  5 ὁμοίως Us.: ὁμοίως ἢ οὐχ ἧττον P: οὐχ ἧττον ὁμοίως F: οὐχ ἧττον
MV   6 καὶ (alt.) EF: καὶ τοὺς PMV   7 καὶ οὔτε EF: ἐκλέγεται καὶ
οὔτε PMV || εἶναι om. P   8 παρ’ ὅμοια F || ἀναγκαίαι P, M: ἀνάγκηι
F, E: ἀναγκαῖα V || ἀκολουθίαι ἀλλ’ P, MV: ἀκόλουθα δὲ καὶ EF   9
λαμπρὰ EF: ἁπλᾶ PMV   10 ἡ τέχνη F || λέγεται EF   11 συναπαρτιζούσας
E: συναπαρτιζούσαις F: συναρτιζούσας PM: συναρμοζούσας V || ἑαυταῖς
EF (coniecerat Uptonus): om. PMV   12 οὐδὲ EF: οὔτε PMV   17 ἔχουσα
Sylburgius: ἔχουσαι libri || τοῦ δέοντος P   18 συμμετρουμένη
Schaeferus: συμμετρούμεναι libri || πραγματείαν secl. Usenerus   19
ἔχουσα P: ἔχουσαν FM: om. V || ἐπίτηδ’ οὐδεμι(αν) P: ἐπιτηδεύει οὐδὲ
FMV || ἔτι Uptonus: ἐπὶ libri || ἐστὶν F: om. PMV   20 καὶ FP: κατὰ MV
|| ἴδια] δὲ MV || ἀγχίστροφός PM: ἀντίρροπός F   21 ἄναρθρος] ἀναίσθιος
F   22 ὑπεροπτικὴ] ὑποδεκτικὴ F   23 ἀκόμψευστον F || τὸν EF: τὸ PMV 24
πῖνον libri || ἔχοντα F || κάλλος om. F   25 δὲ om. EF

8. Perhaps ἀνάγκῃ δουλεύοντα, ἀνακόλουθα δὲ καί: with ἐπὶ (‘in the case
of’) retained in l. 19.

11. The meaning is that the austere style does not seek for periods
containing a complete thought, and that, if accidentally it stumbles
into them, it wishes to emphasize (by means of careful abstention from
all artificial means of rounding off the sentence) the absence of
premeditation.—With regard to Upton’s conjecture ἑαυταῖς it should be
noticed that this is only one of many instances in which his acuteness
has since been confirmed by manuscript authority.

18. =μὰ Δία=: cp. (for the order) νὴ Δία =120= 9. μά is here used
because of the preceding negatives.

22. =ἐν πολλοῖς ὑπεροπτική= κτλ.: in other words, such a style delights
in anacolutha.

19-24. It is to be noticed, in this and other sentences, that Dionysius
often so writes as to reflect the character of the style he is for the
moment describing.—Baudat (p. 58) illustrates the style in question by
quotations from Malherbe and Boileau, and adds: “Chacun connaît ces
vers du _Cor_ d’Alf. de Vigny:

    Roncevaux! Roncevaux! dans ta sombre vallée
    L’ombre du grand Roland n’est donc pas consolée!

Le son _on_ y revient six fois, le son _an_ trois fois, le son _au_
deux fois; ils sont tous trois sourds et la rime en _ée_ seule est
sonore. La succession de ces sons produit une harmonie dure, qui a
quelque chose de voilé et de funèbre; on croit entendre le grondement
de l’orage.”

[Page 213]

It is prone for the most part to expansion by means of great spacious
words. It objects to being confined to short syllables, except under
occasional stress of necessity.

In respect of the words, then, these are the aims which it strives to
attain, and to these it adheres. In its clauses it pursues not only
these objects but also impressive and stately rhythms, and tries to
make its clauses not parallel in structure or sound, nor slaves to a
rigid sequence, but noble, brilliant, free. It wishes them to suggest
nature rather than art, and to stir emotion rather than to reflect
character. And as to periods, it does not, as a rule, even attempt
to compose them in such a way that the sense of each is complete in
itself: if it ever drifts into this accidentally, it seeks to emphasize
its own unstudied and simple character, neither using any supplementary
words which in no way aid the sense, merely in order that the period
may be fully rounded off, nor being anxious that the periods should
move smoothly or showily, nor nicely calculating them so as to be just
sufficient (if you please) for the speaker’s breath, nor taking pains
about any other such trifles. Further, the arrangement in question
is marked by flexibility in its use of the cases, variety in the
employment of figures, few connectives; it lacks articles, it often
disregards natural sequence; it is anything rather than florid, it
is aristocratic, plain-spoken, unvarnished; an old-world mellowness
constitutes its beauty.

This mode of composition was once zealously practised by

[Page 214]

τε ποίησιν καὶ ἱστορίαν καὶ λόγους πολιτικούς, διαφέροντες
δὲ τῶν ἄλλων ἐν μὲν ἐπικῇ ποιήσει ὅ τε Κολοφώνιος Ἀντίμαχος
καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὁ φυσικός, ἐν δὲ μελοποιίᾳ Πίνδαρος,
ἐν τραγῳδίᾳ δ’ Αἰσχύλος, ἐν ἱστορίᾳ δὲ Θουκυδίδης, ἐν δὲ
πολιτικοῖς λόγοις Ἀντιφῶν. ἐνταῦθα ἡ μὲν ὑπόθεσις ἀπῄτει      5
πολλὰ παρασχέσθαι τῶν εἰρημένων ἑκάστου παραδείγματα,
καὶ ἴσως οὐκ ἀηδὴς ἂν ὁ λόγος ἐγένετο πολλοῖς ὥσπερ ἄνθεσι
διαποικιλλόμενος τοῖς ἐαρινοῖς· ἀλλ’ ὑπέρμετρον ἔμελλε φανήσεσθαι
τὸ σύνταγμα καὶ σχολικὸν μᾶλλον ἢ παραγγελματικόν·
οὐ μὲν δὴ οὐδ’ ἀνεξέλεγκτα παραλιπεῖν τὰ ῥηθέντα ἥρμοττεν,      10
ὡς δὴ φανερὰ καὶ οὐ δεόμενα μαρτυρίας· ἔδει δέ πως τὸ
μέτριον ἀμφοῖν λαβεῖν καὶ μήτε πλεονάσαι τοῦ καιροῦ μήτ’
ἐλλιπεῖν τῆς πίστεως. τοῦτο δὴ πειράσομαι ποιῆσαι δείγματα
λαβὼν ὀλίγα παρὰ τῶν ἐπιφανεστάτων ἀνδρῶν. ποιητῶν μὲν
οὖν Πίνδαρος ἀρκέσει παραληφθείς, συγγραφέων δὲ Θουκυδίδης·      15
κράτιστοι γὰρ οὗτοι ποιηταὶ τῆς αὐστηρᾶς ἁρμονίας. ἀρχέτω
δὲ Πίνδαρος, καὶ τούτου διθύραμβός τις οὗ ἐστιν ἡ ἀρχή·

        δεῦτ’ ἐν χορόν, Ὀλύμπιοι,
        ἐπί τε κλυτὰν πέμπετε χάριν, θεοί,
        πολύβατον οἵ τ’ ἄστεος ὀμφαλὸν θυόεντα      20
        ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς Ἀθάναις

1 ποιητικοὺς F   2 ἐπικῇ Sylburgius: ἐπιεικη F: ἐπιεικεῖ PMV: om. E   5
ποιητικοῖς F   8 ἐαρινοῖς] ἀριθμ(οις) P   10 οὐδ’ ἀνεξέλεγκτα P: οὐδ’
ἀνεξέλεκτα M: οὐδ’ ἂν ἐξέλεγκτα F   12 μέτριον PV: μέτρον FM   13 δὴ
F   17 τίς οὖν ἐστιν ἀρχῆι P || ἡ ἀρχὴ E: ἀρχὴ FMV   18 δεῦτ’ EFM^2V:
ΐδετ’ P, M^1 || ἐν χορὸν EFV: ἐν σχορ(ὸν) P   19 πέμπεται P   20 οἵ τ’]
οἳ F || ἄστεως F (ἄστεος praestat idem =222= 14)   21 ἀθήναις libri:
sed cf. n. crit. ad =222= 14

2. For =Antimachus of Colophon= cp. _de Imitat._ ii. 6 Ἀντίμαχος δὲ
εὐτονίας [ἐφρόντισεν] καὶ ἀγωνιστικῆς τραχύτητος καὶ τοῦ συνήθους τῆς
ἐξαλλαγῆς: Catullus xcv. 20 “at populus tumido gaudeat Antimacho”:
Quintil. x. 1. 53 “contra in Antimacho vis et gravitas et minime
vulgare eloquendi genus habet laudem. sed quamvis ei secundas fere
grammaticorum consensus deferat, et affectibus et iucunditate et
dispositione et omnino arte deficitur, ut plane manifesto appareat,
quanto sit aliud proximum esse, aliud parem.” Plato’s admiration for
his poetry is said to have been great.

3. For =Empedocles= as being a physicist rather than a poet see
Aristot. _Poet._ i. 9 καὶ γὰρ ἂν ἰατρικὸν ἢ φυσικόν τι διὰ τῶν μέτρων
ἐκφέρωσιν, οὕτω καλεῖν εἰώθασιν, οὐδὲν δὲ κοινόν ἐστιν Ὁμήρῳ καὶ
Ἐμπεδοκλεῖ πλὴν τὸ μέτρον, διὸ τὸν μὲν ποιητὴν δίκαιον καλεῖν, τὸν δὲ
φυσιολόγον μᾶλλον ἢ ποιητήν. But on the other side cp. Lucret. i. 731
“carmina quin etiam divini pectoris eius | vociferantur et exponunt
praeclara reperta, | ut vix humana videatur stirpe creatus.” The
fragments of Empedocles go far to justify Lucretius’ opinion; and the
true poetic gifts of Empedocles, as of Lucretius himself, may have been
seen in his work as a whole, even more than in its parts.

3, 4. The μεγαλοπρέπεια of =Pindar= is emphasized in the _de Imitat._
B. vi. 2.—Similarly, _ibid._, as to =Aeschylus=: ὁ δ’ οὖν Αἰσχύλος
πρῶτος ὑψηλός τε καὶ τῆς μεγαλοπρεπείας ἐχόμενος, κτλ.

5. For other references to =Antiphon= see _de Isaeo_ c. 20, _de
Thucyd._ c. 51, _de Demosth._ c. 8, _Ep. i. ad Amm._ c. 2, and _C.V._
c. 10. Also Thucyd. viii. 68 Ἀντιφῶν ἀνὴρ Ἀθηναίων τῶν καθ’ ἑαυτὸν
ἀρετῇ τε οὐδενὸς δεύτερος καὶ κράτιστος ἐνθυμηθῆναι γενόμενος καὶ ἃ
γνοίη εἰπεῖν.—For =Thucydides= himself see D.H. _passim_ (especially
pp. 30-34, 104 ff., 130 ff.).

17. G. S. Farnell _Greek Lyric Poetry_ p. 417: “The excited nature of
the rhythm throughout, and the rapturous enthusiasm with which the
approach of spring is described, are eminently characteristic of the
dithyramb at its best; and it is easy to understand how such a style,
in the hands of inferior poets, degenerated into the florid inanity
which characterizes the later dithyrambic poets.”

18. =δεῦτ’ ἐν χορόν=, ‘come ye to the dance.’ “ἐν _cum accus._ (eight
times in Pindar, chiefly in the Aeolic odes) is a relic of the original
stage of the language when this preposition had the functions of the
Latin _in_. It is preserved in Boeotian, Thessalian, North-West Greek,
Eleian, Arcadian, Cyprian, and perhaps even in the Attic ἔμβραχυ. The
accusative use was abandoned on the rise of ἐν-ς (cf. _ab-s_), which,
before a vowel, became εἰς, before a consonant, ἐς” (Weir Smyth _Greek
Melic Poets_ p. 359). P’s curious reading ἐν σχορ(ὸν) is to be noticed.

20. =ὀμφαλόν=: the reference is to the Athenian Acropolis, and the
passage suggested a fitting motto to Otto Jahn for his _Pausaniae
Descriptio Arcis Athenarum_.

[Page 215]

many authors in poetry, history, and civil oratory; pre-eminently
in epic poetry by Antimachus of Colophon and Empedocles the natural
philosopher, in lyric poetry by Pindar, in tragedy by Aeschylus, in
history by Thucydides, and in civil oratory by Antiphon. At this point
the subject would naturally call for the presentation of numerous
examples of each author cited, and possibly the discourse would have
been rendered not unattractive if bedecked with many such flowers of
spring. But then the treatise would probably be felt to be excessively
long—more like a course of lectures than a manual. On the other hand,
it would not be fitting to leave the statements unsubstantiated, as
though they were obvious and not in need of proof. The right thing,
no doubt, is after all to take a sort of middle course, neither to
exceed all measure, nor yet to fall short of carrying conviction.
I will endeavour to do so by selecting a few samples from the most
distinguished authors. Among poets it will be enough to cite Pindar,
among prose-writers Thucydides; for these are the best writers in the
austere style of composition. Let Pindar come first, and from him I
take a dithyramb which begins—

    Shed o’er our choir, Olympian Dominations,
          The glory of your grace,
    O ye who hallow with your visitations
          The curious-carven place,

[Page 216]

        οἰχνεῖτε πανδαίδαλόν τ’ εὐκλέ’ ἀγοράν,
        ἰοδέτων λάχετε στεφάνων τᾶν τ’ ἐαριδρόπων ἀοιδᾶν·
        Διόθεν τέ με σὺν ἀγλαΐᾳ
        ἴδετε πορευθέντ’ ἀοιδᾶν δεύτερον
        ἐπὶ τὸν κισσοδέταν θεόν,      5
        τὸν Βρόμιον ἐριβόαν τε βροτοὶ καλέομεν,
        γόνον ὑπάτων μὲν πατέρων μέλπομεν
        γυναικῶν τε Καδμεϊᾶν [ἔμολον].
        ἐναργέα τελέων σάματ’ οὐ λανθάνει,
        φοινικοεάνων ὁπότ’ οἰχθέντος Ὡρᾶν θαλάμου      10
        εὔοδμον ἐπάγῃσιν ἔαρ φυτὰ νεκτάρεα·
        τότε βάλλεται, τότ’ ἐπ’ ἄμβροτον χέρσον ἐραταὶ
        ἴων φόβαι, ῥόδα τε κόμαισι μίγνυται
        ἀχεῖ τ’ ὀμφαὶ μελέων σὺν αὐλοῖς,
        ἀχεῖ τε Σεμέλαν ἑλικάμπυκα χοροί.      15

ταῦθ’ ὅτι μέν ἐστιν ἰσχυρὰ καὶ στιβαρὰ καὶ ἀξιωματικὰ καὶ
πολὺ τὸ αὐστηρὸν ἔχει τραχύνει τε ἀλύπως καὶ πικραίνει
μετρίως τὰς ἀκοὰς ἀναβέβληταί τε τοῖς χρόνοις καὶ διαβέβηκεν
ἐπὶ πολὺ ταῖς ἁρμονίαις καὶ οὐ τὸ θεατρικὸν δὴ
τοῦτο καὶ γλαφυρὸν ἐπιδείκνυται κάλλος ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀρχαϊκὸν      20
ἐκεῖνο καὶ αὐστηρόν, ἅπαντες ἂν εὖ οἶδ’ ὅτι μαρτυρήσειαν οἱ

2 ιοδέτ(ων) P, MV: ἰαδέτων E: ὅδ’ ἐγὼν F || λαχετε P, EMV: λάχει F (cp.
=224= 4) || τᾶν τ’ ἐαριδρόπων Us.: ἄντε ἀριδρόπων F: τ’ ἀντ’ ἐαριδρέπων
P: τάν τε ἀριδρέπτων E: τ’ ἀντ’ ἐπαριδρέπων M: τῶν ἐαριδρέπτων V ||
ἀοιδάν EFV: λοιβάν PM   3 Διόθεν τέ με] διατεθέντε F   4 πορευθέντα·
οἱ δἂν F: πορευθέντες ἀοιδαὶ (ἀοιδαῖς EV) ceteri   5 κισσοδέταν s:
κισσοδόνταν deleto ν priore P (κισσοδόταν leg. Us.): κισσοδαη F, EMV
  6 τὸν P: ὃν ceteri || βρόμιον ὃν EFMV: βρόμι(ον). τ(ον) P   7 μὲν
P: τε EV: μέν τε FM || μέλπε P: μέλπομεν ceteri   8 ἔμολον P: σεμέλαν
EV: σεμέλην FM   9 ἐναργέα τελέων Us.: ἐναργεα νεμέω P, E: ἐν ἄλγεα
τεμεῶι F: ἐν ἀργέα νεμέα MV || σάματ’ Us.: τεμάντιν F: μάντιν cett.
  10 φοινικοεάνων Kock: φοινικοεάων F: φοίνικος ἐανῶν cett. || οἰχθόντες
F || ὧραν F: ὥραν cett. || θάλαμοι F   11 εὐόαμον F || ἐπάγοισιν
F: ἐπαΐωσιν cett.   12 τότε om. F || ἄμβροτον χέρσον EFV: ἀμβρόταν
(αμσβρόταν P) χθόν’ PM   12-13 ἐραταὶ (ἐρατὰς V) ἴων φόβαι ῥόδατε
EV: ἐρατέων φοβερόδατε F: ἐρατὰν· ΐον φοβεράτε P, M   13 κόμισι F ||
μίγνυται PM: μίγνυνται EFV   14 ἀχεῖ τε F: οἰχνεῖ τ’ EPM: οἰχνεῖτε V:
ὑμνεῖτε s || ὀμφᾶι F: ὀμφᾶ E: ὀμφα V: ὀμφαῖς PM   15 ἀχεῖ τε Hermannus:
οἰχνεῖ τε libri: ὑμνεῖτε s   18 ἀναβέβληται F: ἀνακέκληται PMV   19 ἐπὶ
F: ἐπὶ τὸ PMV || καὶ οὐ τὸ Us.: καὶ οὔτε PMV: οὐ τὸ F   21 καὶ FM: καὶ
τὸ PV || εὖ F: om. PMV

2. λαχεῖν would be infinitive for imperative, or (rather) infinitive of
purpose after a verb of motion (just as Boeckh, in l. 7 _infra_, reads

λοιβᾶν (λοιβάν PM) might be taken to refer to honey, or to
‘drink-offerings of spring-gathered herbs.’

4. =δεύτερον=: “post Iovem patrem _secundo loco_ ad Bacchum filium,”
Boeckh. Or the reference may be to a previous visit of Pindar to Athens.

9. ‘The clear-seen tokens of his rites are not unnoticed.’ In other
words, the return of spring indicates to the god that his festival is
at hand: cp. Aristoph. _Nub._ 311 (Weir Smyth).

12. =βάλλεται ... ἀχεῖ ... ἀχεῖ=: _schema Pindaricum._

15. “Metre: paeonic-logaoedic as _Ol._ 10, _Pyth._ 5. Schmidt
(_Eurythmie_ 428) regards the metre as logaoedic throughout. The
fragment belongs to the ἀπολελυμένα μέλη, that is, it is not divided
into strophes,” Weir Smyth.

21. It is convenient to use ‘readers’ occasionally in the translation.
But ‘hearers’ (οἱ ἀκούοντες) would more naturally be used by a
Greek: just as λόγους (=218= 1) is strictly ‘discourse’ rather than

[Page 217]

    The heart of Athens, steaming with oblations,
        Wide-thronged with many a face.
    Come, take your due of garlands violet-woven,
    Of songs that burst forth when the buds are cloven.

    Look on me—linked with music’s heaven-born glamour
        Again have I drawn nigh
    The Ivy-wreathed, on earth named Lord of Clamour,
        Of the soul-thrilling cry.
    We hymn the Babe that of the Maid Kadmeian
    Sprang to the Sire throned in the empyrean.

    By surest tokens is he manifested:—
        What time the bridal bowers
    Of Earth and Sun are by their crimson-vested
        Warders flung wide, the Hours.
    Then Spring, led on by flowers nectar-breathing,
        O’er Earth the deathless flings
    Violet and rose their love-locks interwreathing:
        The voice of song outrings
    An echo to the flutes; the dance his story
    Echoes, and circlet-crowned Semele’s glory.[174]

That these lines are vigorous, weighty and dignified, and possess much
austerity; that, though rugged, they are not unpleasantly so, and
though harsh to the ear, are but so in due measure; that they are slow
in their time-movement, and present broad effects of harmony; and that
they exhibit not the showy and decorative prettiness of our day, but
the austere beauty of a distant past: this will, I am sure, be attested
by all readers

[Page 218]

μετρίαν ἔχοντες αἴσθησιν περὶ λόγους. τίνι δὲ κατασκευασθέντα
ἐπιτηδεύσει τοιαῦτα γέγονεν (οὐ γὰρ ἄνευ γε τέχνης
καὶ λόγου τινός, αὐτοματισμῷ δὲ καὶ τύχῃ χρησάμενα τοῦτον
εἴληφε τὸν χαρακτῆρα), ἐγὼ πειράσομαι δεικνύναι.

τὸ πρῶτον αὐτῷ κῶλον ἐκ τεττάρων σύγκειται λέξεως      5
μορίων, ῥήματος καὶ συνδέσμου καὶ δυεῖν προσηγορικῶν· τὸ
μὲν οὖν ῥῆμα καὶ ὁ σύνδεσμος συναλοιφῇ κερασθέντα οὐκ
ἀηδῆ πεποίηκε τὴν ἁρμονίαν· τὸ δὲ προσηγορικὸν τῷ συνδέσμῳ
συντιθέμενον ἀποτετράχυκεν ἀξιολόγως τὴν ἁρμογήν· τὸ γὰρ
#ἐν χορὸν# καὶ ἀντίτυπον καὶ οὐκ εὐεπές, τοῦ μὲν συνδέσμου      10
λήγοντος εἰς ἡμίφωνον στοιχεῖον τὸ ν̄, τοῦ δὲ προσηγορικοῦ
τὴν ἀρχὴν λαμβάνοντος ἀφ’ ἑνὸς τῶν ἀφώνων τοῦ χ̄· ἀσύμμικτα
δὲ τῇ φύσει ταῦτα τὰ στοιχεῖα καὶ ἀκόλλητα· οὐ γὰρ
πέφυκε κατὰ μίαν συλλαβὴν τοῦ χ̄ προτάττεσθαι τὸ ν̄,
ὥστε οὐδὲ συλλαβῶν ὅρια γινόμενα συνάπτει τὸν ἦχον, ἀλλ’      15
ἀνάγκη σιωπήν τινα γενέσθαι μέσην ἀμφοῖν τὴν διορίζουσαν
ἑκατέρου τῶν γραμμάτων τὰς δυνάμεις. τὸ μὲν δὴ πρῶτον
κῶλον οὕτω τραχύνεται τῇ συνθέσει. κῶλα δέ με δέξαι
λέγειν οὐχ οἷς Ἀριστοφάνης ἢ τῶν ἄλλων τις μετρικῶν
διεκόσμησε τὰς ᾠδάς, ἀλλ’ οἷς ἡ φύσις ἀξιοῖ διαιρεῖν τὸν      20
λόγον καὶ ῥητόρων παῖδες τὰς περιόδους διαιροῦσι.

τὸ δὲ τούτῳ παρακείμενον κῶλον τὸ “#ἐπί τε κλυτὰν
πέμπετε χάριν θεοί#” διαβέβηκεν ἀπὸ τοῦ προτέρου διάβασιν
ἀξιόλογον καὶ περιείληφεν ἐν αὑτῷ πολλὰς ἁρμονίας ἀντιτύπους.
ἄρχει μὲν γὰρ αὐτοῦ στοιχεῖον ἓν τῶν φωνηέντων τὸ      25
ε̄ καὶ παράκειται ἑτέρῳ φωνήεντι τῷ ῑ· εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἔληγε

1 λόγους ... τέχνης καὶ om. F || τινὶ δε P   3 δὲ καὶ F: καὶ PMV ||
χρησάμενον F   4 ἐγὼ PMV: ὃν ἐγὼ F   5 αὐτὸ F   10 καὶ ἀντίτυπον EF:
ἀντίτυπόν τε PMV || εὐεπὲς EF: εὐπετὲς PMV   13 τῆι φύσει P, M in marg.
F: om. F^1: τῆ ῥύσει V   14 προτάττεσθαι F: προτετάχθε P, MV   15 οὐδὲ
PMV: οὔτε F || ὅρια] ὄρια F: δύο (β̄ P) μόρια EPM: δύο τὰ μόρια V ||
συνάπτει] τύπτει F   16 γενέσθαι EF: γίγνεσθαι P: γίνεσθαι MV || μέσοιν
EM   17 ἑκατέρων EF   18 με δέξαι PV: μ’ ἔδοξε FM   19 λέγειν F: νυνὶ
λέγειν PMV   22 δὲ τούτω PV: δ’ επι τούτων F, M   23 θεοὶ FM: om. PV ||
διαβέβηκεν F: βέβηκέ τε PMV   24 αὑτῷ] Sch., αὐτῷ libri   26 ἔληγεν ὁ
F: ἔληξεν τὸ P, MV

5. =αὐτῷ=: sc. in this author, or in this passage. Cp. =168= 1, =230=

13. Dionysius’ general object is to show that there is a kind of
intentional discord or clash in Pindar’s dithyramb.

17. ‘If each of the letters is uttered with its proper quality,’ viz.
if we say ἐν χορόν and not ἐγ χορόν.

19. =Ἀριστοφάνης=: not, of course, the comic poet of Athens, but the
grammarian of Byzantium.—From this passage, and from =278= 5 _infra_,
it would appear that Aristophanes divided the text of Pindar and
other lyric poets into metrical _cola_. Such _cola_ are found in the
recently-discovered Bacchylides papyrus (written probably in Dionysius’
own century—the first century B.C.), which is also the earliest
manuscript in which accents are used.

21. =ῥητόρων παῖδες=: cp. =266= 8 ζωγράφων τε καὶ τορευτῶν παισίν, ‘the
generation of painters and sculptors.’ So ζωγράφων παῖδες Plato _Legg._
769 B, παῖδες ῥητόρων Luc. _Anach._ 19. The term will include pupils or
apprentices, as well as sons: cp. Plato _Rep._ v. 467 A ἢ οὐκ ᾔσθησαι
τὰ περὶ τὰς τέχνας, οἷον τοὺς τῶν κεραμέων παῖδας, ὡς πολὺν χρόνον
διακονοῦντες θεωροῦσι πρὶν ἅπτεσθαι τοῦ κεραμεύειν; Earlier still we
have the schools of the bards—the Ὁμηρίδαι or Ὁμήρου παῖδες, like ‘the
sons of the prophets’ in the Old Testament. As used by later writers,
the periphrasis with παῖδες may be compared with οἱ περί, οἱ ἀμφί (cp.
note on =194= 20 _supra_).

26. “The passages relating to Ὀλύμπιοι ἐπί, and καὶ Ἀθηναίων (Thuc.
i. 1), where the word in each case is said to end in ι, have led
some persons to suppose that Dionysius pronounced οι and αι as real
diphthongs of two vowels ending in ι. We know, however, that at this
time αι was a single vowel ε prolonged, and that it was only called a
diphthong because written with two letters, just as _ea_ in _each_,
_great_ are often spoken of as a diphthong, in place of a digraph.
We know also that ι subscript was not pronounced, and yet Dionysius
speaks of ἀγλαΐᾳ as ending with ι. Consequently there is no need to
suppose that οι was a real diphthong either. The language is merely
orthographical. As to the amount of pause, we find similar combinations
within the same Greek word: οι and ε in οἴεται, ν and δ in ἄνδρα, αι
and α in Αἴας; while ν before τ is quite common as in ὄντων, and ν
before π, κ becomes μ, γ, as in ἔμπορος, ἐγκρατής. Hence much of this
criticism may be fanciful. But it is certain that there is a different
feeling respecting the collision of letters which end and begin a word,
and those which come together in the same word. Thus in French poetry
open vowels are entirely forbidden. It is impossible to say ‘cela ira’
in serious French verse. Yet ‘haïr’ is quite admissible. Hence there
may be some foundation for the preceding observations, which, however,
like many others in the treatise, ride a theory very hard,” A. J. E.
[The observations of the critic, himself, must obviously be accepted
with considerable reserve: see, for example, the note on =230= 19

[Page 219]

whose literary sense has been tolerably developed. I will attempt to
show by what method such results have been achieved, since it is not by
spontaneous accident, but by some kind of artistic design, that this
passage has acquired its characteristic form.

The first clause consists of four words—a verb, a connective, and two
appellatives. Now the mingling and the amalgamation of the verb and the
connective have produced a rhythm which is not without its charm; but
the combination of the connective with the appellative has resulted
in a junction of considerable roughness. For the words ἐν χορόν are
jarring and uneuphonious, since the connective ends with the semivowel
ν, while the appellative begins with one of the mutes, χ. These letters
by their very nature cannot be blended and compacted, since it is
unnatural for the combination νχ to form part of a single syllable; and
so, when ν and χ are the boundaries of adjacent syllables, the voice
cannot be continuous, but there must necessarily be a pause separating
the letters if each of them is uttered with its proper sound. So, then,
the first clause is roughened thus by the arrangement of its words.
(You must understand me to mean by “clauses” not those into which
Aristophanes or any of the other metrists has arranged the odes, but
those into which Nature insists on dividing the discourse and into
which the disciples of the rhetoricians divide their periods.)

The next clause to this—ἐπί τε κλυτὰν πέμπετε χάριν θεοί—is separated
from the former by a considerable interval and includes within itself
many dissonant collocations. It begins with one of the vowels, ε, in
close proximity to which is another vowel, ι—the letter which came at
the end of the preceding

[Page 220]

τὸ πρὸ αὐτοῦ. οὐ συναλείφεται δὲ οὐδὲ ταῦτ’ ἀλλήλοις, οὐδὲ
προτάττεται κατὰ μίαν συλλαβὴν τὸ ῑ τοῦ ε̄· σιωπὴ δέ τις
μεταξὺ ἀμφοῖν γίνεται, διερείδουσα τῶν μορίων ἑκάτερον καὶ
τὴν βάσιν αὐτοῖς ἀποδιδοῦσα ἀσφαλῆ. ἐν δὲ τῇ κατὰ μέρος
συνθέσει τοῦ κώλου τοῖς μὲν #ἐπί τε# συνδέσμοις ἀφ’ ὧν      5
ἄρχεται τὸ κῶλον, εἴτε ἄρα πρόθεσιν αὐτῶν δεῖ τὸ ἡγούμενον
καλεῖν, τὸ προσηγορικὸν ἐπικείμενον μόριον τὸ #κλυτὰν#
ἀντίτυπον πεποίηκε καὶ τραχεῖαν τὴν σύνθεσιν· κατὰ τί
ποτε; ὅτι βούλεται μὲν εἶναι βραχεῖα ἡ πρώτη συλλαβὴ
τοῦ #κλυτάν#, μακροτέρα δ’ ἐστὶ τῆς βραχείας ἐξ ἀφώνου τε      10
καὶ ἡμιφώνου καὶ φωνήεντος συνεστῶσα. τὸ δὲ μὴ εἰλικρινῶς
αὐτῆς βραχὺ καὶ ἅμα τὸ ἐν τῇ κράσει τῶν γραμμάτων
δυσεκφόρητον ἀναβολήν τε ποιεῖ καὶ ἐγκοπὴν τῆς ἁρμονίας.
εἰ γοῦν τὸ κ̄ τις ἀφέλοι τῆς συλλαβῆς καὶ ποιήσειεν #ἐπί
τε λυτάν#, λυθήσεται καὶ τὸ βραδὺ καὶ τὸ τραχὺ τῆς      15
ἁρμονίας. πάλιν τῷ #κλυτὰν# προσηγορικῷ τὸ #πέμπετε#
ῥηματικὸν ἐπικείμενον οὐκ ἔχει συνῳδὸν οὐδ’ εὐκέραστον τὸν
ἦχον, ἀλλ’ ἀνάγκη στηριχθῆναι τὸ ν̄ καὶ πιεσθέντος ἱκανῶς
τοῦ στόματος τότε ἀκουστὸν γενέσθαι τὸ π̄· οὐ γὰρ ὑποτακτικὸν
τῷ ν̄ τὸ π̄. τούτου δ’ αἴτιον ὁ τοῦ στόματος      20
σχηματισμὸς οὔτε κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον οὔτε τῷ αὐτῷ
τρόπῳ τῶν γραμμάτων ἐκφέρων ἑκάτερον· τοῦ μὲν γὰρ ν̄
περὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν γίνεται ὁ ἦχος καὶ τῆς γλώττης ἄκροις
τοῖς ὀδοῦσι προσανισταμένης καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος διὰ τῶν
ῥωθώνων μεριζομένου, τοῦ δὲ π̄ μύσαντός τε τοῦ στόματος      25

2 προτάττεται] παρ’ οἷς τάττεται F || τις FM: τις ἡ PV   4 ἀσφαλῆι· ἐν
δὴ P   5 τοῦ κώλου F: τῶν κώλων PMV || σύνδεσμον F   6 δεῖ] δὴ F   8
κατα τί ποτε· ὅτι F: κατά τι δήποτε PMV   9 μὲν εἶναι] μένειν F   11
καὶ ἡμιφώνου om. P || ἑστῶσα P   13 δυσεκφόρητον F: δυσεκφώνητον E:
δυσέκφορον PMV   14 ποιήσει EF   17 τὸν om. EF   18 ἀνάγκηι P   19 τοῦ
στόματος τότε E: το̈́ῦτοτε et in margine στομ(ατος) F: τοῦ π̄ τότε M:
τότε V: τούτου Ps   20 αἴτιον EF: αἴτιος PMV || στόματος] σχήματος V.
  22 ἐκφέρον F || ἑκάτερον F: ἑκάτερον τὸ π̄ καὶ τὸ ν̄ PMV || νῦ FM:
om. PV   23 γίνεται F: τε γίνεται PMV || γλώττης F: γλώσσης PMV   24
προἀνισταμένης F, M   25 τε τοῦ στόματος om. F

15. =λυτάν=, =λυθήσεται=: possibly an intentional play on words.

18. Clearly Dionysius does not believe that, in this passage, final ν
before initial π was pronounced as μ—κλυτάν as κλυτάμ: though final ν
sometimes appears under this form in inscriptions, as also does medial
ν in such compounds as συμπόσιον. The literal meaning of the passage
seems to be, ‘The ν must be firmly planted [pronounced distinctly,
dwelt upon], and κλυτὰν πέμπετε cannot be run together in one word, as
κλυταμπέμπετε or the like might be.’

[Page 221]

clause. These letters, again, do not coalesce with one another, nor
can ι stand before ε in the same syllable. There is a certain silence
between the two letters, which thrusts apart the two elements and
gives each a firm position. In the detailed arrangement of the clause
the postposition of the appellative part of speech κλυτάν to the
connectives ἐπί τε with which the phrase opens (though perhaps the
first of these connectives should rather be called a _preposition_) has
made the composition dissonant and harsh. For what reason? Because the
first syllable of κλυτάν is ostensibly short, but actually longer than
the ordinary short, since it is composed of a mute, a semi-vowel, and
a vowel. It is the want of unalloyed brevity in it, combined with the
difficulty of pronunciation involved in the combination of the letters,
that causes retardation and interruption in the harmony. At all events,
if you were to remove the κ from the syllable and to make it ἐπί τε
λυτάν, there would be an end to both the slowness and the roughness of
the arrangement. Further: the verbal form πέμπετε, subjoined to the
appellative κλυτάν, does not produce a harmonious or well-tempered
sound. The ν must be firmly planted and the π be heard only when the
lips have been quite pressed together, for the π cannot be tacked on to
the ν. The reason of this is the configuration of the mouth, which does
not produce the two letters either at the same spot or in the same way.
ν is sounded on the arch of the palate, with the tongue rising towards
the edge of the teeth and with the breath passing in separate currents
through the nostrils; π with the lips closed, the tongue

[Page 222]

καὶ οὐδὲν τῆς γλώττης συνεργούσης τοῦ τε πνεύματος κατὰ
τὴν ἄνοιξιν τῶν χειλῶν τὸν ψόφον λαμβάνοντος ἀθροῦν, ὡς
καὶ πρότερον εἴρηταί μοι· ἐν δὲ τῷ μεταλαμβάνειν τὸ στόμα
σχηματισμὸν ἕτερον ἐξ ἑτέρου μήτε συγγενῆ μήτε παρόμοιον
ἐμπεριλαμβάνεταί τις χρόνος, ἐν ᾧ διίσταται τὸ λεῖόν τε      5
καὶ εὐεπὲς τῆς ἁρμονίας. καὶ ἅμα οὐδ’ ἡ προηγουμένη τοῦ
#πέμπετε# συλλαβὴ μαλακὸν ἔχει τὸν ἦχον ἀλλ’ ὑποτραχύνει
τὴν ἀκοὴν ἀρχομένη τε ἐξ ἀφώνου καὶ λήγουσα εἰς ἡμίφωνον.
τῷ τε #χάριν# τὸ #θεοὶ# παρακείμενον ἀνακόπτει τὸν ἦχον καὶ
ποιεῖ διερεισμὸν ἀξιόλογον τῶν μορίων, τοῦ μὲν εἰς ἡμίφωνον      10
λήγοντος τὸ ν̄, τοῦ δὲ ἄφωνον ἔχοντος ἡγούμενον τὸ θ̄·
οὐδενὸς δὲ πέφυκε προτάττεσθαι τῶν ἀφώνων τὰ ἡμίφωνα.

τούτοις ἐπιφέρεται τρίτον κῶλον τουτί “#πολύβατον οἵ
τ’ ἄστεος ὀμφαλὸν θυόεντα ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς Ἀθάναις
οἰχνεῖτε#.” ἐνταῦθα τῷ τε #ὀμφαλὸν# εἰς τὸ ν̄ λήγοντι τὸ      15
#θυόεντα# παρακείμενον ἀπὸ τοῦ θ̄ ἀρχόμενον ὁμοίαν ἀποδίδωσιν
ἀντιτυπίαν τῇ πρότερον, καὶ τῷ #θυόεντα# εἰς φωνῆεν
τὸ ᾱ λήγοντι ζευγνύμενον τὸ “#ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς#” ἀπὸ
φωνήεντος τοῦ ε̄ λαμβάνον τὴν ἀρχὴν διέσπακε τῷ μεταξὺ
χρόνῳ τὸν ἦχον οὐκ ὄντι ὀλίγῳ. τούτοις ἐκεῖνα ἕπεται      20
“#πανδαίδαλόν τ’ εὐκλέ’ ἀγοράν#”· τραχεῖα κἀνταῦθα καὶ
ἀντίτυπος ἡ συζυγία· ἡμιφώνῳ γὰρ ἄφωνον συνάπτεται τῷ
ν̄ τὸ τ̄ καὶ διαβέβηκεν ἀξιόλογον διάβασιν ὁ μεταξὺ τοῦ τε
προσηγορικοῦ τοῦ #πανδαίδαλον# καὶ τῆς συναλοιφῆς τῆς
συναπτομένης αὐτῷ χρόνος· μακραὶ μὲν γὰρ ἀμφότεραι,      25
μείζων δὲ οὐκ ὀλίγῳ τῆς μετρίας ἡ συναλείφουσα τὰ δύο
συλλαβή, ἐξ ἀφώνου τε καὶ δυεῖν συνεστῶσα φωνηέντων· εἰ

1 γλώττης F: γλώσσης PMV || συνεργούσης] μεριζομένη συνεργούσης F:
ἐνεργούσης PV   2 ὡς F: ὡς δὴ PMV   3 δὲ F: δὴ PMV || τὸ στόμα PMV: τὸν
F   5 εν ὧι διίσταται P: δι’ οὗ συνίσταται FMV || λεῖόν τε F: λεῖον
PMV   6 εὐεπὲς F: εὐπετὲς PV: εὐτελὲς M   7 μακρὸν P   8 ἀρχομένη F:
ἄρχουσά PMV   10 ποιεῖ F: ποιεῖ τὸν PMV || διερεισμὸν Us.: ἐρισμὸν
P: διορισμὸν FMV   11 τὸ ν̄ Sylburgius: τοῦ ν̄ (νῦ F) FMV: om. P ||
θῆτα F   14 ἀθάναις F: ἀθήναις PMV   16 θῆτα F   18 ζευγνύμενον F:
ἐπεζευγμένον PMV   19 λαμβάνοντος F   20 ἦχον] χρόνον F   21 τραχεῖα
κἀνταῦθα om. F   22 συνάπτεται F: συνάπτεται γράμμα PMV   23 διάβασιν
FM^1: διάστασιν PVM^2   25 συναπτομένης F: ἐπισυναπτομένης PMV ||
χρόνος F: om. PMV || μακρὰ et ἀμφότερα F || μὲν γὰρ] μὲν P: γὰρ F: γάρ
εἰσιν MV   26 μετρίας F: συμμετρίας PMV || τὰ δύο συλλαβή Us.: τὰς δύο
(β̄ P) συλλαβὰς libri   27 δυεῖν FP: δυοῖν MV

2. =ὡς καὶ πρότερον εἴρηταί μοι=: the passages which seem to be meant
(=144= 22 and =148= 15) do not exactly tally with the present one.

12. We must supply κατὰ μίαν συλλαβήν, which words are found in =218=
14 and =220= 2 (cp. =230= 4): otherwise we are confronted with such
examples to the contrary as ἔνθα and (in this immediate context)
μεταλαμβάνειν, ἀρχόμενον, etc.

21. =τ’ εὐ-= are treated as one syllable. So in =218= 22, Dionysius
probably intends us to divide as follows:

ᴗ ᴗ –


23. In Dionysius’ own words, it might be said that the interval between
the article ὁ and the noun χρόνος with which it agrees is quite an
‘appreciable gap.’ Cp. Introduction, p. 12 _supra_.

24. =τῆς συναλοιφῆς=: the fused or blended syllable—τ’ εὐ-.

[Page 223]

doing none of the work, and the breath forming a concentrated noise
when the lips are opened, as I have said before. While the mouth is
taking one after another shapes that are neither akin nor alike, some
time is consumed, during which the smoothness and euphony of the
arrangement is interrupted. Moreover, the first syllable of πέμπετε has
not a soft sound either, but is rather rough to the ear, as it begins
with a mute and ends with a semi-vowel. θεοί coming next to χάριν pulls
the sound up short and makes an appreciable interval between the words,
the one ending with the semi-vowel ν, the other beginning with the mute
θ. And it is unnatural for a semi-vowel to stand before any mute.

Next follows this third clause, πολύβατον οἵ τ’ ἄστεος ὀμφαλὸν θυόεντα
ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς Ἀθάναις οἰχνεῖτε. Here θυόεντα which begins with θ,
being placed next to ὀμφαλὸν which ends in ν, produces a dissonance
similar to that previously mentioned; and ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς which opens
with the vowel ε, being linked to θυόεντα which ends with the vowel
α, interrupts the voice by the considerable interval of time there is
between them. Following these come the words πανδαίδαλόν τ’ εὐκλέ’
ἀγοράν. Here, too, the combination is rough and dissonant. For the
mute τ is joined to the semi-vowel ν; and the interval between the
appellative πανδαίδαλον and the elided syllable which follows it is
quite an appreciable gap; for both syllables are long, but the syllable
which unites the two letters ε and υ, consisting as it does of a mute
and two vowels, is considerably longer than the average. At any rate,
if the τ in the syllable

[Page 224]

γοῦν τις αὐτῆς ἀφέλοι τὸ τ̄ καὶ ποιήσειε #πανδαίδαλον
εὐκλέ’ ἀγοράν#, εἰς τὸ δίκαιον ἐλθοῦσα μέτρον εὐεπεστέραν
ποιήσει τὴν ἁρμονίαν.

ὅμοια τούτοις ἐστὶ κἀκεῖνα “#ἰοδέτων λάχετε στεφάνων#.”
παράκειται γὰρ ἡμίφωνα δύο ἀλλήλοις τὸ ν̄ καὶ τὸ λ̄, φυσικὴν      5
οὐκ ἔχοντα συζυγίαν τῷ μήτε κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς <τόπους μήτε
καθ’> ὁμοίους σχηματισμοὺς τοῦ στόματος ἐκφέρεσθαι. καὶ τὰ
ἐπὶ τούτοις λεγόμενα μηκύνεταί τε ταῖς συλλαβαῖς καὶ διέστηκε
ταῖς ἁρμονίαις ἐπὶ πολύ “#στεφάνων τᾶν τ’ ἐαριδρόπων#”·
μακραὶ γὰρ καὶ δεῦρο συγκρούονται συλλαβαὶ τὸ δίκαιον      10
ὑπεραίρουσαι μέτρον, ἥ τε λήγουσα τοῦ #στεφάνων# μορίου δυσὶ
περιλαμβάνουσα ἡμιφώνοις φωνῆεν γράμμα φύσει μακρὸν καὶ
ἡ συναπτομένη ταύτῃ τρισὶ μηκυνομένη γράμμασιν ἀφώνῳ καὶ
φωνήεντι μακρῶς λεγομένῳ καὶ ἡμιφώνῳ· διερεισμός τε οὖν
γέγονε τοῖς μήκεσι τῶν συλλαβῶν, καὶ ἀντιτυπία τῇ παραθέσει      15
τῶν γραμμάτων, οὐκ ἔχοντος τοῦ τ̄ συνῳδὸν τῷ ν̄ τὸν ἦχον,
ὃ καὶ πρότερον εἴρηκα. παράκειται δὲ καὶ τῷ #ἀοιδᾶν# εἰς τὸ
ν̄ λήγοντι ἀπὸ τοῦ δ̄ ἀρχόμενον ἀφώνου τὸ #Διόθεν# τε καὶ
τῷ #σὺν ἀγλαΐᾳ# εἰς τὸ ῑ λήγοντι τὸ #ἴδετε πορευθέντ’
ἀοιδᾶν# ἀρχόμενον ἀπὸ τοῦ ῑ. πολλά τις ἂν εὕροι τοιαῦτα      20
ὅλην τὴν ᾠδὴν σκοπῶν.

ἵνα δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν εἰπεῖν ἐγγένηταί μοι,
Πινδάρου μὲν ἅλις ἔστω, Θουκυδίδου δὲ λαμβανέσθω λέξις ἡ
ἐκ τοῦ προοιμίου ἥδε·

    Θουκυδίδης Ἀθηναῖος ξυνέγραψε τὸν πόλεμον τῶν      25

1 ἀφέλοι Us. (coll. =220= 14): ἀφέλοιτο libri   2 εὐπετεστέραν PM^1V:
εὐεπεστέραν M^2: εὐεπεστάτην F   4 ἰωδέτων M: ὃ δ’ ἐγὼν F || λάχετε
στεφάνων PMV: λάχει F   5 γὰρ F: om. PMV   6 αὐτοὺς ὁμοίους F: ὁμοίους
PMV: τόπους μήτε καθ’ ins. Usenerus   9 τᾶν τ’] τ’ αὖτ’ P: τ’ αὖ M: ἄν
τ’ F: τῶν τ’ V || ἐαριδρόπων F: ἔαριδρέπων PM: ἐἀριδρέπτων V   13 ἡ] μὴ
F || μηκυνομένη FM^2: μηκυνθεῖσα PM^1V   14 διερισμός M: διορισμός V
  17 ὃ F: ὡς PMV || δὲ] τε F || ἀοιδὰν codd.: λοιβὰν s   18 ἀφώνου FM:
ἄφωνον PV || διατεθὲν τε F: διόθεν τέ με PMV   19 πορευθέντα· οἱ δε F:
πορευθέντες ἀοιδαν (-δὰν M, -δανὶ V) PMV   20 ἀρχόμενον] ἀρχαῖοι μόνον
F   22 μοι F: μοι χρόνος PV: μοι χρόνων M   25 τῶν] τὸν P

1. =ποιήσειε ... ποιήσει=: cp. =220= 14, =256= 23.

6. If Usener’s supplement be not accepted, we might read τῷ μηδὲ κατὰ
τοὺς ὁμοίους σχηματισμούς, κτλ.

10. =δεῦρο συγκρούονται=, ‘meet here with a clash,’ as it were.

17. =παράκειται= κτλ.: viz. the ν of ἀοιδᾶν comes next to the δ in
διόθεν, and the ι at the end of ἀγλαΐᾳ precedes the ι in ἴδετε.—For
ν and δ in juxtaposition cp. English _and_ (where the _d_ is often
slurred in pronunciation) and, on the other hand, English _sound_
(where the _d_ is not original).

19. The ι at the end of =ἀγλαΐᾳ= seems, therefore, to have been
regarded by Dionysius as a separate letter, and not as an ι
ἀνεκφώνητον. Perhaps it was sounded in music; cp. the final _e_ in
French. In Dionysius’ time it was not uncommon to omit it even in
writing: πολλοὶ γὰρ χωρὶς τοῦ ι γράφουσι τὰς δοτικάς, καὶ ἐκβάλλουσι δὲ
τὸ ἔθος φυσικὴν αἰτίαν οὐκ ἔχον (Strabo xiv. 1. 50).

22. =ἐγγένηταί μοι=: cp. _de Lysia_ c. 16 ἵνα δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν
ἐγγένηταί μοι τὰ προσήκοντα εἰπεῖν, κτλ.

23. Bircovius compares, with the following passage of Thucydides, the
opening of Sallust’s _Bell. Iug._ v. 1: “Bellum scripturus sum, quod
populus Romanus cum Iugurtha rege Numidarum gessit, primum quia magnum
et atrox variaque victoria fuit, dehinc quia tum primum superbiae
nobilitatis obviam itum est; quae contentio divina et humana cuncta
permiscuit eoque vecordiae processit ut studiis civilibus bellum atque
vastitas Italiae finem faceret.”

24. =τοῦ προοιμίου=: probably the first twenty-three chapters are
meant—as far as the word Ἐπίδαμνός ἐστι πόλις κτλ.

25. In the English translation no attempt has been made to reproduce
the style of the original Greek. For this purpose the long sentences
employed in early English prose-writers are most suitable; e.g. Francis
Bacon’s rendering (_Considerations touching a War with Spain_ iii. 516,
in _Harleian Miscellany_ v. 84) of Thucyd. i. 23: “The truest cause
of this war, though least voiced, I conceive to have been this: that
the Athenians being grown great, to the terror of the Lacedemonians,
did impose upon them the necessity of a war; but the causes that went
abroad in speeches were these,” etc. Thomas Hobbes’ translation of the
opening of the History keeps close to the sentence-structure of the
original: “Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the war of the Peloponnesians
and the Athenians as they warred against each other, beginning to write
as soon as the war was on foot; with expectation it should prove a
great one, and most worthy the relation of all that had been before
it: conjecturing so much, both from this, that they flourished on both
sides in all manner of provision; and also because he saw the rest of
Greece siding with the one or the other faction, some then presently
and some intending so to do,” etc. Hobbes’ version is well known; but
the unpublished translation of Francis Hickes [1566-1631], from which
the following extract has been taken by the courtesy of the Librarian
of Christ Church, Oxford, is also of much interest: “Thucydides the
Athenian hath written the warres of the Peloponnesians and Athenians,
with all the manner and fashion of their fight, and tooke in hande
to put the same in writinge, as soone as ever the said warres weare
begone, for a hope he had, that they would be great, and more worthy of
memorie, than all the warres of former tyme have been: conjecturinge so
much, because he sawe them both so richlie abound with all provisions
thereunto belonginge, and all the rest of the Grecian nations, readie
to joyne themselves to the one side or the other; some, presentlie
upon their fallinge out, and the rest intendinge to do the like. This,
no doubt, was the greatest stirre, that ever was amonge the Grecians,
consistinge likewise partly of the Barbarians, and to speake in a word,
of many and sundrie nations. As for the acts achieved by them before
the tyme of this warre, or former matters yet of more antiquitie, it
is impossible to finde out any certaintie, because the tyme is so long
past, since they weare performed: but, by these conjectures, which upon
due examination of former tymes, I believe to be true, I must thinke
they weare of no great moment, either for the course of warre, or any
other respect. Now it is most probable, that the country which we now
call Grece, had not in old tyme any settled inhabitants, but did often
change her dwellers, who weare still easie to be removed from their
possessions if they weare urged by any greater forces, for when there
was as yet no trade of Merchandise amongst men: no free entercourse of
traffique one with another, either by land or sea: none that tilled any
more ground, than what would serve to sustaine their present lives:
none that had any money in this purse nor any that planted the earth
with fruits for they knewe not how soone others would come and bereave
them of it, their cities beinge all unwalled and bearing the mind, that
they should everie where finde enough to serve their turnes for their
dailie sustenance, they weare therefore easie to be driven out of any
place; and for that cause, did nether strengthen themselves with great
cities, nor warlike furniture for defence.”

[Page 225]

be removed and πανδαίδαλον εὐκλέ’ ἀγοράν be read, the syllable, falling
into the normal measure, will make the composition more euphonious.

The words ἰοδέτων λάχετε στεφάνων are open to the same criticism as
those already mentioned. For here two semi-vowels, ν and λ, come
together, although they do not naturally admit of amalgamation owing
to the fact that they are not pronounced 
with the same configurations of the mouth. The words that follow
these have their syllables lengthened and are widely divided from one
another in arrangement: στεφάνων τᾶν τ’ ἐαριδρόπων. For here also
there is a concurrence of long syllables which exceed the normal
measure,—the final syllable of the word στεφάνων which embraces between
two semi-vowels a vowel naturally long, and the syllable linked with
it, which is lengthened by means of three letters, a mute, a vowel
pronounced long, and a semi-vowel. Separation is produced by the
lengths of the syllables, and dissonance by the juxtaposition of the
letters, since the sound of τ does not accord with that of ν, as I have
said before. Next to ἀοιδᾶν, which ends in ν, comes Διόθεν τε, which
begins with the mute δ, and next to σὺν ἀγλαΐᾳ, which ends in ι, comes
ἴδετε πορευθέντ’ ἀοιδᾶν, which begins with ι. Many such features may be
found on a critical examination of the whole ode.

But in order to leave myself time for dealing with what remains,
no more of Pindar. From Thucydides let us take this passage of the

    “Thucydides, an Athenian, composed this history of the war

[Page 226]

    Πελοποννησίων καὶ Ἀθηναίων ὡς ἐπολέμησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους,
    ἀρξάμενος εὐθὺς καθισταμένου καὶ ἐλπίσας μέγαν
    τε ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἀξιολογώτατον τῶν προγεγενημένων,
    τεκμαιρόμενος ὅτι ἀκμάζοντές τε ᾖσαν ἐς αὐτὸν ἀμφότεροι
    παρασκευῇ τῇ πάσῃ, καὶ τὸ ἄλλο Ἑλληνικὸν ὁρῶν      5
    ξυνιστάμενον πρὸς ἑκατέρους, τὸ μὲν εὐθύς, τὸ δὲ καὶ
    διανοούμενον. κίνησις γὰρ αὕτη μεγίστη δὴ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν
    ἐγένετο καὶ μέρει τινὶ τῶν βαρβάρων, ὡς δ’ εἰπεῖν καὶ
    ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀνθρώπων. τὰ γὰρ πρὸ αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ἔτι
    παλαιότερα σαφῶς μὲν εὑρεῖν διὰ χρόνου πλῆθος ἀδύνατα      10
    ἦν· ἐκ δὲ τεκμηρίων, ὧν ἐπὶ μακρότατον σκοποῦντί μοι
    πιστεῦσαι ξυμβαίνει, οὐ μεγάλα νομίζω γενέσθαι οὔτε
    κατὰ τοὺς πολέμους οὔτε ἐς τὰ ἄλλα. φαίνεται γὰρ ἡ
    νῦν Ἑλλὰς καλουμένη οὐ πάλαι βεβαίως οἰκουμένη, ἀλλὰ
    μεταναστάσεις τε οὖσαι τὰ πρότερα καὶ ῥᾳδίως ἕκαστοι      15
    τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀπολείποντες βιαζόμενοι ὑπό τινων ἀεὶ
    πλειόνων. τῆς γὰρ ἐμπορίας οὐκ οὔσης οὐδ’ ἐπιμιγνύντες
    ἀδεῶς ἀλλήλοις οὔτε κατὰ γῆν οὔτε διὰ θαλάσσης,
    νεμόμενοί τε τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστοι ὅσον ἀποζῆν καὶ περιουσίαν
    χρημάτων οὐκ ἔχοντες οὐδὲ γῆν φυτεύοντες, ἄδηλον      20

1 καὶ] τε καὶ P   4 τε om. EF || ἦσαν libri: sed apud Thucydidem lectio
potior ᾖσαν [“ᾖσαν F g Schol. Plat. _Rep._ 449 A Suid. Phot.: ἦσαν
cett.”]   6 πρὸς ... διανοούμενον om. P   9 πλεῖστον EF: πλεῖστων sic
P: πλείστων MV || καὶ τὰ EFs: καὶ PMV   10 ἐρεῖν P   11 μακρότερον F
  13 πολεμίους P || τὰ ἄλλα PMV: τ’ ἄλλα F   16 ἀπολιπόντες F   17
ἐπιμιγνῦντες ἀλλήλοις (om. ἀδεῶς) F   20 οὐδὲ γῆν φυτεύοντες om. F

4. =ᾖσαν=: cp. schol. ad Thucyd. i. 1 ᾖσαν] μετὰ σπουδῆς ἐπορεύοντο.

9. =τά= (before ἔτι) is omitted by the Palatine and the Ambrosian MSS.
in _de Thucyd._ c. 20.

[Page 227]

    which the Peloponnesians and the Athenians waged against one
    another. He began as soon as the war broke out, in the expectation
    that it would be great and memorable above all previous wars. This
    he inferred from the fact that both parties were entering upon it
    at the height of their military power, and from noticing that the
    rest of the Greek races were ranging themselves on this side or on
    that, or were intending to do so before long. No commotion ever
    troubled the Greeks so greatly: it affected also a considerable
    section of the barbarians, and one may even say the greater part
    of mankind. Events previous to this, and events still more remote,
    could not be clearly ascertained owing to lapse of time. But
    from such evidence as I find I can trust however far back I go,
    I conclude that they were not of great importance either from a
    military or from any other point of view. It is clear that the
    country now called Hellas was not securely settled in ancient
    times, but that there were migrations in former days, various
    peoples without hesitation leaving their own land when hard pressed
    by superior numbers of successive invaders. Commerce did not exist,
    nor did men mix freely with one another on land or by sea. Each
    tribe aimed at getting a bare living out of the lands it occupied.
    They had no reserve of capital, nor did they plant the ground with
    fruit-trees, since it was uncertain, especially as they had

[Page 228]

    ὂν ὁπότε τις ἐπελθὼν καὶ ἀτειχίστων ἅμα ὄντων ἄλλος
    ἀφαιρήσεται, τῆς τε καθ’ ἡμέραν ἀναγκαίου τροφῆς πανταχοῦ
    ἂν ἡγούμενοι ἐπικρατεῖν οὐ χαλεπῶς ἀνίσταντο.

αὕτη ἡ λέξις ὅτι μὲν οὐκ ἔχει λείας οὐδὲ συνεξεσμένας
ἀκριβῶς τὰς ἁρμονίας οὐδ’ ἔστιν εὐεπὴς καὶ μαλακὴ καὶ      5
λεληθότως ὀλισθάνουσα διὰ τῆς ἀκοῆς ἀλλὰ πολὺ τὸ ἀντίτυπον
καὶ τραχὺ καὶ στρυφνὸν ἐμφαίνει, καὶ ὅτι πανηγυρικῆς
μὲν ἢ θεατρικῆς οὐδὲ κατὰ μικρὸν ἐφάπτεται χάριτος, ἀρχαϊκὸν
δέ τι καὶ αὔθαδες ἐπιδείκνυται κάλλος, ὡς πρὸς εἰδότας
ὁμοίως τοὺς εὐπαιδεύτους ἅπαντας οὐδὲν δέομαι λέγειν, ἄλλως      10
τε καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦτό γε τοῦ συγγραφέως ὁμολογήσαντος, ὅτι
εἰς μὲν ἀκρόασιν ἧττον ἐπιτερπὴς ἡ γραφή ἐστι, “#κτῆμα δ’
εἰσαεὶ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀγώνισμα εἰς τὸ παραυτίκα ἀκούειν
σύγκειται#.” τίνα δ’ ἐστὶ τὰ θεωρήματα οἷς χρησάμενος ὁ
ἀνὴρ οὕτως ἀπηνῆ καὶ αὐστηρὰν πεποίηκε τὴν ἁρμονίαν, δι’      15
ὀλίγων σοι σημανῶ· ῥᾴδιον γὰρ ἔσται μικρὰ μεγάλων εἶναι
δείγματα τοῖς μὴ χαλεπῶς ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ ὁμοίου τε καὶ ἀκολούθου
μεταβαίνουσιν θεωρίαν.

3 ἀνίστατο F: ἀπανίσταντο Thucyd.   4 αὕτη EF: αὕτη πάλιν PMV ||
συνεζευγμένας EV   5 καὶ μαλακὴ EFM: om. PV   6 ὀλισθάνουσα P:
ὀλισθαίνουσα FMV   7 καὶ τραχὺ om. EF || στριφνὸν F   11 αὐτοῦ τοῦτό γε
PMV: αὐτοῦ τε F: αὐτοῦ E   14 ὁ ἀνὴρ EF: ἀνὴρ PMV   15 ἀπηνῆ M: ἀπεινῆ
F: εὐπινῆ PV || διαλόγων F^1   16 σοι σημανῶ PM: σημανῶ EFV || ῥᾴδιον
Us.: ῥαιδία F: ῥαῖον P, MV || ἐσται F: ἐστι PMV   18 μεταβαίνουσαι F:
μεταβαίνουσι MV

3. For estimates of Thucydides’ style in general cp. not only this
passage of Dionysius but also D.H. pp. 131-59, 175-82 (Text and
Translation of _Ep. ii. ad Amm._, together with notes and some
references to Marcellinus); Croiset _Thucydide: Livres i.-ii._ pp. 102
ff. and _Histoire de la littérature grecque_ iv. pp. 155 ff.; Girard
_Essai sur Thucydide_ pp. 210-19; Blass _Att. Bereds._ i. pp. 203-44;
Norden _Kunstprosa_ i. pp. 96-101; Jebb in _Hellenica_ pp. 306 ff.

4. This long sentence (Il. 4-14) is, itself, a good example of Greek
word-order and the lucidity possible to it.

7. Batteux (pp. 250-3) maintains, in detail, that these comments on the
style of Thucydides would also apply to a passage of Bossuet (in the
_Oraison funèbre de Henriette Anne d’ Angleterre, duchesse d’Orléans_),
which “a tous les caractères d’une composition austère; c’est partout
un style robuste, nerveux, âpre même quelquefois, et presque rustique.”
The passage is that which describes the abasement of all human
grandeur by Death: “La voilà, malgré ce grand cœur, cette princesse
si admirée et si chérie; la voilà, telle que la mort nous l’a faite.
Encore ce reste tel quel va-t-il disparaître; cette ombre de gloire
va s’évanouir, et nous l’allons voir dépouillée même de cette triste
décoration. Elle va descendre à ces sombres lieux, à ces demeures
souterraines, pour y dormir dans la poussière avec les grands de la
terre, comme parle Job; avec ces rois et ces princes anéantis, parmi
lesquels à peine peut-on la placer, tant les rangs y sont pressés,
tant la mort est prompte à remplir ces places,” etc. Batteux begins
his careful and interesting analysis as follows: “Nul choix des sons.
_Malgré ce grand cœur_ est dur. _Cette princesse si_ est sifflant: _si
admirée et si_; choc de voyelles. _La voilà telle que la mort nous l’a
faite_: mots jetés plutôt que placés. _Encore ce reste tel quel va-t-il
dis_: pointes de rochers. _De cette triste décoration_ n’est guère plus
doux. Et ces trois monosyllables brefs et rocailleux, _comme parle
Job_, etc.

9. =αὔθαδες ... κάλλος=: this happy description of Thucydides’ style
shows that Dionysius saw in style a mirror of the man (cp. ἀνδρὸς
χαρακτὴρ ἐκ λόγου γνωρίζεται, Menand. _Fragm._ 72, and Dionys. H.
_Antiqq. Rom._ i. 1 ἐπιεικῶς γὰρ ἅπαντες νομίζουσιν εἰκόνας εἶναι τῆς
ἑκάστου ψυχῆς τοὺς λόγους).—The general drift of Dionysius’ phrase is,
of course, commendatory: he does not (cp. =120= 8, 9) mean ‘but such
beauty as it (Thucydides’ style) displays is archaic and perverse.’

12. These well-known words of Thucydides (i. 22. 4) are quoted also
in _de Thucyd._ c. 7.—A scholium on Thucyd. (_l.c._) runs: κτῆμα]
κέρδος. κτῆμα, τὴν ἀλήθειαν· ἀγώνισμα, τὸν γλυκὺν λόγον. αἰνίττεται
δὲ τὰ μυθικὰ Ἡροδότου. The passage is well elucidated by Lucian, and
by Pliny the Younger: (1) Lucian _de conscribenda historica_ c. 42
ὁ δ’ οὖν Θουκυδίδης εὖ μάλα τοῦτ’ ἐνομοθέτησε, καὶ διέκρινεν ἀρετὴν
καὶ κακίαν συγγραφικήν, ὁρῶν μάλιστα θαυμαζόμενον τὸν Ἡρόδοτον, ἄχρι
τοῦ καὶ Μούσας κληθῆναι αὐτοῦ τὰ βιβλία. κτῆμα γάρ φησι μᾶλλον ἐς ἀεὶ
συγγράφειν ἤπερ ἐς τὸ παρὸν ἀγώνισμα, καὶ μὴ τὸ μυθῶδες ἀσπάζεσθαι,
ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τῶν γεγενημένων ἀπολείπειν τοῖς ὕστερον, (2) Pliny
_Ep._ v. 8 “nam plurimum refert, ut Thucydides ait, κτῆμα sit an
ἀγώνισμα: quorum alterum oratio, alterum historia est.”

13. =εἰσαεί=: Thucydides himself no doubt wrote ἐς αἰεί: see
Marcellinus § 52 for αἰεί (rather than ἀεί) as constituting a mark of ἡ
ἀρχαία Ἀτθίς in Thucydides.

14. =ὁ ἀνὴρ= (_divisim_) should probably be read: cp. =230= 23.

17. The meaning possibly is, “you can easily proceed with the same line
of observation right through work which is consistently of a similar
character to this.”

[Page 229]

    no fortifications, when some invader would come and rob them of
    their property. They also thought that they could command the bare
    necessities of daily life anywhere; and so, for all these reasons,
    they made no difficulty about giving up their land.”[175]

There is no need for me to say, when all educated people know it
as well as I, that this passage is not smooth or nicely finished in
its verbal arrangement, and is not euphonious and soft, and does not
glide imperceptibly through the ear, but shows many features that are
discordant and rough and harsh; that it does not make the slightest
approach to attaining the grace appropriate to an oration delivered
at a public festival or to a speech on the stage, but is marked by a
sort of antique and self-willed beauty. Indeed, the historian himself
admits that his narrative is but little calculated to give pleasure
when heard: “it has been composed as a possession for all time rather
than as an essay to be recited at some particular competition.”[176]
I will briefly point out to you the principles by following which the
author has made the arrangement so rugged and austere. Small things
will readily serve you as samples of great: you can easily go on noting
resemblances and making comparisons for yourself.

[Page 230]

αὐτίκα ἐν ἀρχῇ τῷ #Ἀθηναῖος# προσηγορικῷ τὸ #ξυνέγραψε#
ῥῆμα ἐφαρμοττόμενον διίστησιν ἀξιολόγως τὴν ἁρμονίαν·
οὐ γὰρ προτάττεται τὸ σ̄ τοῦ ξ̄ κατὰ συνεκφορὰν
τὴν ἐν μιᾷ συλλαβῇ γινομένην· δεῖ δὲ τοῦ σ̄ σιωπῇ καταληφθέντος
τότε ἀκουστὸν γενέσθαι τὸ ξ̄. τοῦτο δὲ τραχύτητα      5
ἐργάζεται καὶ ἀντιτυπίαν τὸ πάθος. ἔπειθ’ αἱ μετὰ τοῦτο
γινόμεναι συγκοπαὶ τῶν ἤχων, τοῦ τε ν̄ <καὶ τοῦ π̄> καὶ τοῦ
τ̄ καὶ τοῦ π̄ καὶ τοῦ κ̄ τετράκις ἑξῆς ἀλλήλοις παρακειμένων,
χαράττουσιν εὖ μάλα τὴν ἀκοὴν καὶ διασαλεύουσιν ἀξιολόγως
τὰς ἁρμονίας, ὅταν φῇ “#τὸν πόλεμον τῶν Πελοποννησίων      10
καὶ Ἀθηναίων#”· τούτων γὰρ τῶν μορίων τῆς λέξεως οὐδὲν
ὅ τι οὐ καταληφθῆναί τε δεῖ καὶ πιεσθῆναι πρότερον ὑπὸ
τοῦ στόματος περὶ τὸ τελευταῖον γράμμα, ἵνα τὸ συναπτόμενον
αὐτῷ τρανὴν καὶ καθαρὰν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ λάβῃ δύναμιν.
ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις ἡ τῶν φωνηέντων παράθεσις ἡ κατὰ τὴν      15
τελευταίαν τοῦ κώλου τοῦδε γενομένη ἐν τῷ #καὶ Ἀθηναίων#
διακέκρουκε τὸ συνεχὲς τῆς ἁρμονίας καὶ διέστακεν πάνυ
αἰσθητὸν τὸν μεταξὺ λαβοῦσα χρόνον· ἀκέραστοι γὰρ αἱ
φωναὶ τοῦ τε ῑ καὶ τοῦ ᾱ καὶ ἀποκόπτουσαι τὸν ἦχον· τὸ
δ’ εὐεπὲς οἱ συνεχεῖς τε καὶ οἱ συλλεαινόμενοι ποιοῦσιν ἦχοι.      20

καὶ αὖθις ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ περιόδῳ τὸ προηγούμενον κῶλον
τουτί “#ἀρξάμενος εὐθὺς καθισταμένου#” μετρίως ἁρμόσας
ὁ ἀνὴρ ὡς ἂν εὔφωνόν τε μάλιστα φαίνοιτο καὶ μαλακόν, τὸ
μετὰ τοῦτο πάλιν ἀποτραχύνει καὶ διασπᾷ τοῖς διαχαλάσμασι
τῶν ἁρμονιῶν· “#καὶ ἐλπίσας μέγαν τε ἔσεσθαι καὶ      25
ἀξιολογώτατον τῶν προγεγενημένων#.” τρὶς γὰρ ἀλλήλοις
ἑξῆς οὐ διὰ μακροῦ παράκειται τὰ φωνήεντα συγκρούσεις
ἐργαζόμενα καὶ ἀνακοπὰς καὶ οὐκ ἐῶντα τὴν ἀκρόασιν ἑνὸς
κώλου συνεχοῦς λαβεῖν φαντασίαν· ἥ τε περίοδος αὐτῷ
λήγουσα εἰς τὸ “#τῶν προγεγενημένων#” οὐκ ἔχει τὴν      30
βάσιν εὔγραμμον καὶ περιφερῆ, ἀλλ’ ἀκόρυφός τις φαίνεται

2 ἐφαμαρτόμεν(ον) F: ἐπαγόμενον E   6 μετὰ τούτων F   7 καὶ τοῦ π̄
(post ν̄) ins. Uptonus   8 παρακειμένων Us.: παρακείμεναι libri   11
οὐδὲν PMV: οὐθὲν EF   12 οὖν F: οὐχὶ EPMV: οὐ <σιωπῇ> Us.   13 ὑπὸ] ἐπὶ
P || τελευταῖαν F, MV: om. P   17 διέστακεν P, MV: διέστηκε EF   18
γὰρ EF: τε γὰρ PMV   21 καὶ αὖτις F: αὖθις PMV || τὸ F: om. PMV   24
ἀποτραχύνει PV: ἐπιτραχύνει FM || διαχαλάσμασιν P: ἀπὸχαλασμασι F   26
τρὶς Sauppe: τρία libri   27 ἑξῆς οὐ] ἐξ ἴσου P   29 λαβεῖν φαντασίαν
F: φαντασίαν λαμβάνειν PMV

9. Perhaps an effect analogous to that of syncopation in music is meant.

10, 11. Different words, and a different order, seem hardly possible
here. If πόλεμον were put after Ἀθηναίων, the juxtaposed letters would
be much the same as in the existing arrangement.

16. =τελευταίαν=: it may be that some word like συγκοπήν is to be
supplied. Or τελευτὴν may be read: or τελευταῖα.

19. The present passage (lines 15-19) shows, as Blass (_Ancient Greek
Pronunciation_ p. 66) remarks, that the educated pronunciation of the
Augustan period did not confuse αι with ε.

22-5. Here, again, the author would hardly have much _choice_ in the
arrangement of the words in question.

26. =τρίς=: viz. in the words καὶ ἐλπίσας, τε ἔσεσθαι, καὶ

[Page 231]

At the very beginning the verb ξυνέγραψε, being appended to the
appellative Ἀθηναῖος, makes an appreciable break in the verbal
structure, since σ is never placed before ξ with a view to being
pronounced in the same syllable with it. The sound of σ must be
sharply arrested by an interval of silence before the ξ is heard;
and this circumstance causes roughness and dissonance. Moreover, the
interruptions of the voice in what follows, in consequence of the four
successive juxtapositions νπ, ντ, νπ, νκ, grate violently upon the ear,
and cause a remarkable succession of jolts when he says τὸν πόλεμον τῶν
Πελοποννησίων καὶ Ἀθηναίων. Of these words there is not one that must
not first be checked by the mouth with a stress on the last letter, in
order that the next letter to it may be uttered clearly and purely with
its own proper quality. Furthermore, the juxtaposition of vowels which
is found at the end of this clause in the words καὶ Ἀθηναίων has broken
and made a gap in the continuity of the arrangement, by demanding quite
an appreciable interval, since the sounds of ι and α are unmingled and
there is an interruption of the voice between them: whereas euphony is
caused by sounds which are continuous and smoothly blended.

Again, in the second period the first clause ἀρξάμενος εὐθὺς
καθισταμένου has been pretty successfully arranged by the author in the
way in which it would produce the most smooth and euphonious effect.
But he roughens and dislocates the very next clause by sundering
its joints: καὶ ἐλπίσας μέγαν τε ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἀξιολογώτατον τῶν
προγεγενημένων. For thrice in close succession vowels are juxtaposed
which cause clashings and obstructed utterance, and make it impossible
for the ear to take in the impression of one continuous clause; and
the period which he ends with the words τῶν προγεγενημένων has no
well-defined and rounded close, but seems to be without beginning or

[Page 232]

καὶ ἀκατάστροφος, ὥσπερ μέρος οὖσα τῆς δευτέρας ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ
[τῆς πρώτης] τέλος.

τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ πέπονθε καὶ ἡ τρίτη περίοδος· καὶ γὰρ ἐκείνης
ἀπερίγραφός ἐστι καὶ ἀνέδραστος ἡ βάσις τελευταῖον ἐχούσης
μόριον “#τὸ δὲ καὶ διανοούμενον#”· πολλὰς ἅμα καὶ αὐτὴ      5
περιέχουσα φωνηέντων τε πρὸς φωνήεντα ἀντιτυπίας καὶ
ἡμιφώνων πρὸς ἡμίφωνα καὶ ἄφωνα, ἅσπερ ἐργάζεται τὰ μὴ
συνῳδὰ τῇ φύσει τραχύτητας. ἵνα δὲ συνελὼν εἴπω, δώδεκά
που περιόδων οὐσῶν ἃς παρεθέμην, εἴ τις αὐτὰς συμμέτρως
μερίζοι πρὸς τὸ πνεῦμα, κώλων δὲ περιλαμβανομένων ἐν      10
ταύταις οὐκ ἐλαττόνων ἢ τριάκοντα, τὰ μὲν εὐεπῶς συγκείμενα
καὶ συνεξεσμένα ταῖς ἁρμονίαις οὐκ ἂν εὕροι τις ἓξ ἢ ἑπτὰ
τὰ πάντα κῶλα, φωνηέντων δὲ συμβολὰς ἐν ταῖς δώδεκα
περιόδοις ὀλίγου δεῖν τριάκοντα, ἡμιφώνων τε καὶ ἀφώνων
ἀντιτύπων καὶ πικρῶν καὶ δυσεκφόρων παραβολάς, ἐξ ὧν αἵ      15
τε ἀνακοπαὶ καὶ τὰ πολλὰ ἐγκαθίσματα τῇ λέξει γέγονε,
τοσαύτας τὸ πλῆθος ὥστε ὀλίγου δεῖν καθ’ ἕκαστον αὐτῆς
μόριον εἶναί τι τῶν τοιούτων. πολλὴ δὲ καὶ ἡ τῶν κώλων
ἀσυμμετρία πρὸς ἄλληλα καὶ ἡ τῶν περιόδων ἀνωμαλία καὶ
ἡ τῶν σχημάτων καινότης καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀκολουθίας ὑπεροπτικὸν      20
καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα χαρακτηρικὰ τῆς ἀκομψεύτου τε καὶ
αὐστηρᾶς ἐπελογισάμην ὄντα ἁρμονίας. ἅπαντα γὰρ διεξιέναι
πάλιν ἐπὶ τῶν παραδειγμάτων καὶ καταδαπανᾶν εἰς ταῦτα
τὸν χρόνον οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἡγοῦμαι.


ἡ δὲ γλαφυρὰ [καὶ ἀνθηρὰ] σύνθεσις, ἣν δευτέραν ἐτιθέμην

2 τῆς πρώτης uncis inclusit Usenerus   4 ἐχούσης Us.: ἔχουσα libri 7
καὶ ... ἐργάζεται om. F || καὶ ἄφωνα P: om. FMV || ἅσπερ] ἅπερ PMV
  8 τραχύτητας F: καὶ τραχύτητας PMV   9 εἴ τις] εἴπερ F   10 δὲ F: δὲ
τῶν PMV || περιλαμβανομένων F: ἐμπεριλαμβανομένων PMV   11 ταύταις F:
αὐταῖς PMV   12 τις ἑξῆς ἢ πάντα ταῦτα κῶλα F   13 συλλαβὰς F   14 καὶ
ἀφώνων καὶ ἀντιτύπων P   17 τοσαύτας Uptonus: τοσαῦτα libri (cf. =160=
20)   20 σχημάτων F: σχηματισμῶν PMV   21 τὰ ἄλλα PMV: τἆλλα F ||
χαρακτηρικὰ F: χαρακτηριστικὰ PV: χαρακτηριστικὰ καὶ M || ἀκομψεύστου
FMV   22 αὐστηρᾶς] ἰσχυρᾶς F || ἀπελογησάμην PM^2: ἐπελογησάμην M^1V ||
διεξιέναι F: ἐπεξιέναι PMV   25 καὶ ἀνθηρὰ om. P || ἐτιθέμην F: ἐθέμην

1. Dionysius seems to discern three periods in the first sentence
of Thucydides, viz. (1) Θουκυδίδης ... ἀλλήλους (2) ἀρξάμενος ...
προσγεγενημένων, (3) τεκμαιρόμενος ... διανοούμενον. The general sense
here is: ‘as there is no connexion between ἀρξάμενος and τεκμαιρόμενος,
we must take the latter as beginning a new period, and yet logically
ἀρξάμενος belongs to it.’ If the words τῆς πρώτης are to be retained at
all, they might possibly be transported with τῆς δευτέρας: ‘as though
it were a part of the first period and not the end of the second.’

4. Usener’s =ἐχούσης= seems likely, though the words καὶ γὰρ ... ἡ
βάσις might be regarded as parenthetical and ἔχουσα as in agreement
with περίοδος.

18. =πολλὴ δὲ καί= κτλ.: cp. Cic. _Orat._ ix. 32. 33 “itaque numquam
est (Thucydides) numeratus orator ... sed, cum mutila quaedam et
hiantia locuti sunt, quae vel sine magistro facere potuerunt, germanos
se putant esse Thucydidas.”

25. For =ἀνθηρά= cp. n. on =208= 26 _supra_.—The whole chapter
should be compared with _de Demosth._ c. 40. In c. 49 of that
treatise Dionysius refers expressly to his previously written _de
Compositione_: εἰ δέ τις ἀπαιτήσει καὶ ταῦτ’ ἔτι μαθεῖν ὅπῃ ποτ’ ἔχει,
τοὺς ὑπομνηματισμοὺς ἡμῶν λαβών, οὓς περὶ τῆς συνθέσεως τῶν ὀνομάτων
πεπραγματεύμεθα, πάντα ὅσα ποθεῖ τῶν ἐνθάδε παραλειπομένων εἴσεται (cp.
c. 50 _ibid._).

[Page 233]

conclusion, as if it were part of the second period and not its

The third period has the same characteristics. There is a lack of
roundness and stability in its foundation, since it has for its
concluding portion τὸ δὲ καὶ διανοούμενον. Further, it too contains
many clashings of vowel against vowel and of semi-vowels against
semi-vowels and mutes—discords produced by things in their very nature
inharmonious. To sum up, here are some twelve periods adduced by me—if
the breathing-space be taken as the criterion for the division of
period from period; and they contain no fewer than thirty clauses.
Yet of these not six or seven clauses in all will be found to be
euphoniously composed and finished in their structure; while of hiatus
between vowels in the twelve periods there are almost thirty instances,
together with meetings of semi-vowels and mutes which are dissonant,
harsh, and hard to pronounce. It is to this that the stoppages and the
many retardations in the passage are due; and so numerous are these
concurrences that there is one of the kind in almost every single
section of it. There is a great lack of symmetry in the clauses, great
unevenness in the periods, much innovation in the figures, disregard
of sequence, and all the other marks which I have already noted as
characteristic of the unadorned and austere style. I do not consider it
necessary to waste our time by going over the whole ground once more
with the illustrative passages.



The smooth (or florid) mode of composition, which I regarded

[Page 234]

τῇ τάξει, χαρακτῆρα τοιόνδε ἔχει· οὐ ζητεῖ καθ’ ἓν
ἕκαστον ὄνομα ἐκ περιφανείας ὁρᾶσθαι οὐδὲ ἐν ἕδρᾳ πάντα
βεβηκέναι πλατείᾳ τε καὶ ἀσφαλεῖ οὐδὲ μακροὺς τοὺς μεταξὺ
αὐτῶν εἶναι χρόνους, οὐδ’ ὅλως τὸ βραδὺ καὶ σταθερὸν τοῦτο
φίλον αὐτῇ, ἀλλὰ κεκινῆσθαι βούλεται τὴν ὀνομασίαν καὶ      5
φέρεσθαι θάτερα κατὰ τῶν ἑτέρων ὀνομάτων καὶ ὀχεῖσθαι
τὴν ἀλληλουχίαν λαμβάνοντα βάσιν ὥσπερ τὰ ῥέοντα καὶ
μηδέποτε ἀτρεμοῦντα· συνηλεῖφθαί τε ἀλλήλοις ἀξιοῖ καὶ
συνυφάνθαι τὰ μόρια ὡς μιᾶς λέξεως ὄψιν ἀποτελοῦντα εἰς
δύναμιν. τοῦτο δὲ ποιοῦσιν αἱ τῶν ἁρμονιῶν ἀκρίβειαι,      10
χρόνον αἰσθητὸν οὐδένα τὸν μεταξὺ τῶν ὀνομάτων περιλαμβάνουσαι·
ἔοικέ τε κατὰ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος εὐητρίοις ὕφεσιν ἢ
γραφαῖς συνεφθαρμένα τὰ φωτεινὰ τοῖς σκιεροῖς ἐχούσαις.
εὔφωνά τε εἶναι βούλεται πάντα τὰ ὀνόματα καὶ λεῖα καὶ
μαλακὰ καὶ παρθενωπά, τραχείαις δὲ συλλαβαῖς καὶ ἀντιτύποις      15
ἀπέχθεταί που· τὸ δὲ θρασὺ πᾶν καὶ παρακεκινδυνευμένον
δι’ εὐλαβείας ἔχει.

οὐ μόνον δὲ τὰ ὀνόματα τοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἐπιτηδείως
συνηρμόσθαι βούλεται καὶ συνεξέσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ κῶλα
τοῖς κώλοις εὖ συνυφάνθαι καὶ πάντα εἰς περίοδον τελευτᾶν,      20
ὁρίζουσα κώλου τε μῆκος, ὃ μὴ βραχύτερον ἔσται μηδὲ μεῖζον
τοῦ μετρίου, καὶ περιόδου μέτρον, οὗ πνεῦμα τέλειον ἀνδρὸς
κρατήσει· ἀπερίοδον δὲ λέξιν ἢ περίοδον ἀκώλιστον ἢ κῶλον

1 ἓν EPM: om. FV   5 κεκινῆσθαι EF: κ[αὶ] κινῆσθαι cum rasura P: καὶ
κινεῖσθαι MV   6 φέρεσθαι EFM: φέρεσθαι καὶ PV || τῶν ἑτέρων PMV: τῶν
θατέρων F: θατέρων E || καὶ FMV: om. P || ὀχλεῖσθαι F   7 βάσιν om. F
|| τὰ ῥέοντα EF: τὰ ῥέοντα νάματα PMV   8 συνηλεῖφθαι F: συνειλῆφθ[αι]
cum rasura P, MV   9 ὡς E: om. FPMV || μιᾶς EF: τῆς PMV || ἀποτελοῦντα
PMV: διατελεῖν E: διατελοῦντα F   11 περιλαμβάνουσαι EFM: λαμβάνουσαι
PV   12 τοῦτο τὸ om. EF || εὐκτρίοις PM || ὑφέσιν F: ὑφαίσιν M: ὑφαῖσιν
cum rasura P, V: ὑφαῖς Es   13 τάφω τινα (sed suprascripto ε) P ||
σκιαροις P   14 τὰ EF: om. PMV   16 που ... παρακεκινδυνευμένον om. P
  17 δι’ EF: καὶ δι’ PMV   20 εὖ E: om. FPMV   21 ὁρίζουσα Schaefer:
ὁρίζουσαν EFPM   22 μέτρον EF: χρόνον PMV

1. ‘It does not expect its words to be looked at individually, and from
every side, like statues.’ Cp. =210= 17 _supra_.

7. More literally, ‘finding firmness in mutual support.’

9. Cp. _de Demosth._ c. 40 τὸ γὰρ ὅλον ἐστὶν αὐτῆς βούλημα καὶ ἡ πολλὴ
πραγματεία περὶ τὸ συσπασθῆναί τε καὶ συνυφάνθαι πάντα τὰ μόρια τῆς
περιόδου, μιᾶς λέξεως ἀποτελοῦντα φαντασίαν, καὶ ἔτι πρὸς τούτῳ περὶ τὸ
πᾶσαν εἶναι τὴν λέξιν, ὥσπερ ἐν ταῖς μουσικαῖς συμφωνίαις, ἡδεῖαν καὶ
λιγυράν. τούτων δὲ τὸ μὲν αἱ τῶν ἁρμονιῶν ἀκρίβειαι ποιοῦσι, κτλ.

14, 15. That is to say: the words it uses must be beautiful in sound
and smoothly syllabled.

20. =εὖ=, which Usener adopts from E, helps to balance ἐπιτηδείως
_supra_. At the same time, it could be spared and may have arisen from
a dittography of the first two letters in συνυφάνθαι. Similarly, in
l. 9 _supra_, the ὡς which E gives (together with the _infinitive_
διατελεῖν, as it should be noticed) cannot be regarded as indispensable.

22. =μέτρον=: the reading of PMV (περιόδου χρόνον) may be right, in the
sense of _periodi ambitum_. In the Epitome, μέτρον has possibly been
substituted (as a clearer word) for χρόνον. F’s reading is μέτρον οὐκ
ἂν ὑπομείνειεν ἐργάσασθαι, with all the four last words dotted out as
having been written in error: which suggests that μέτρον may be no more
than the last syllable of ἀσύμμετρον.

=οὗ πνεῦμα τέλειον ἀνδρὸς κρατήσει=: much will, clearly, depend on
the person in question, since some men (as Lord Rosebery once said of
Mr. Gladstone) have lungs which can utter sentences like “Biscayan
rollers.” The Greeks were so rhetorical that they tended to look at a
written passage constantly from the rhetorical point of view, and if a
‘period’ was too long for one breath they would try to analyze it into
two periods if they could: cp. note on =232= 1 _supra_.

[Page 235]

as second in order, has the following features. It does not intend that
each word should be seen on every side, nor that all its parts should
stand on broad, firm bases, nor that the time-intervals between them
should be long; nor in general is this slow and deliberate movement
congenial to it. It demands free movement in its diction; it requires
words to come sweeping along one on top of another, each supported
by that which follows, like the onflow of a never-resting stream. It
tries to combine and interweave its component parts, and thus give, as
far as possible, the effect of one continuous utterance. This result
is produced by so nicely adjusting the junctures that they admit no
appreciable time-interval between the words. From this point of view
the style resembles finely woven stuffs, or pictures in which the
lights melt insensibly into the shadows. It requires that all its words
shall be melodious, smooth, soft as a maiden’s face; and it shrinks
from harsh, clashing syllables, and carefully avoids everything rash
and hazardous.

It requires not only that its words should be properly dove-tailed and
fitted together, but also that the clauses should be carefully inwoven
with one another and all issue in a period. It limits the length of a
clause so that it is neither shorter nor longer than the right mean,
and the compass of the period so that a man’s full breath will be
able to cover it. It could not endure to construct a passage without
periods, nor a period

[Page 236]

ἀσύμμετρον οὐκ ἂν ὑπομείνειεν ἐργάσασθαι. χρῆται δὲ καὶ
ῥυθμοῖς οὐ τοῖς μεγίστοις ἀλλὰ τοῖς μέσοις τε καὶ βραχυτέροις·
καὶ τῶν περιόδων τὰς τελευτὰς εὐρύθμους εἶναι
βούλεται καὶ βεβηκυίας ὡς ἂν ἀπὸ στάθμης, τἀναντία
ποιοῦσα ἐν ταῖς τούτων ἁρμογαῖς ἢ ταῖς τῶν ὀνομάτων·      5
ἐκεῖνα μὲν γὰρ συναλείφει, ταύτας δὲ διίστησι καὶ ὥσπερ ἐκ
περιόπτου βούλεται φανερὰς εἶναι. σχήμασί τε οὐ τοῖς
ἀρχαιοπρεπεστάτοις οὐδ’ ὅσοις σεμνότης τις ἢ βάρος ἢ πίνος
πρόσεστιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς τρυφεροῖς τε καὶ κολακικοῖς ὡς τὰ
πολλὰ χρῆσθαι φιλεῖ, ἐν οἷς πολὺ τὸ ἀπατηλόν ἐστι καὶ      10
θεατρικόν. ἵνα δὲ καὶ κοινότερον εἴπω, τοὐναντίον ἔχει σχῆμα
τῆς προτέρας κατὰ τὰ μέγιστα καὶ κυριώτατα, ὑπὲρ ὧν οὐδὲν
δέομαι πάλιν λέγειν.

ἀκόλουθον δ’ ἂν εἴη καὶ τοὺς ἐν ταύτῃ πρωτεύσαντας
καταριθμήσασθαι. ἐποποιῶν μὲν οὖν ἔμοιγε κάλλιστα τουτονὶ      15
δοκεῖ τὸν χαρακτῆρα ἐξεργάσασθαι Ἡσίοδος, μελοποιῶν δὲ
Σαπφὼ καὶ μετ’ αὐτὴν Ἀνακρέων τε καὶ Σιμωνίδης, τραγῳδοποιῶν
δὲ μόνος Εὐριπίδης, συγγραφέων δὲ ἀκριβῶς μὲν
οὐδείς, μᾶλλον δὲ τῶν πολλῶν Ἔφορός τε καὶ Θεόπομπος,
ῥητόρων δὲ Ἰσοκράτης. θήσω δὲ καὶ ταύτης παραδείγματα      20
τῆς ἁρμονίας, ποιητῶν μὲν προχειρισάμενος Σαπφώ, ῥητόρων
δὲ Ἰσοκράτην. ἄρξομαι δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς μελοποιοῦ.

1 χρήσεται P   2 ῥυθμοῖς EFM: ῥυθμῶν PV || μεγίστοις EF: μηκίστοις PMV
  3 καὶ om. P   4 ἂν EF: om. PMV   6 ταύτας EV: ταῦτα F: τας αυτας P,
M   7 φανεροὺς F   8 ὅσοις F: ὅσοις ἢ PMV || πῖνος PV: τὸ πῖνος M:
τόνος F   9 πρόσεστιν PMV: πάρεστιν F || κολακικοῖς FPM: μαλακοῖς V:
θεατρικοῖς E   11 δὲ καὶ F: δὲ PMV   12 τῆς προτέρας EFM: τῆι προτέρα
P, V || καὶ κυριώτατα FM: om. PV   14 ταύτη F: αυτῆι P, MV   15 ἔμοιγε
EF: ἔγωγε PMV || κάλλιστα EFP: κάλλιστα νομίζω M: μάλιστα νομίζω V   16
δοκεῖ EFP: om. MV   17 μετ’ αὐτὴν EF: μετὰ ταύτην PMV   20 ταύτης EF:
ταῦτα PMV

6. =ἐκ περιόπτου=, ‘ex edito loco,’ ‘undique.’

16-20. The list that follows may seem somewhat ill-assorted if it be
not remembered that the point of contact between the authors mentioned
is simply smoothness of word-arrangement.—For =Hesiod= cp. _de Imitat._
B. vi. 2 Ἡσίοδος μὲν γὰρ ἐφρόντισεν ἡδονῆς δι’ ὀνομάτων λειότητος καὶ
συνθέσεως ἐμμελοῦς: and Quintil. x. 1. 52 “raro assurgit Hesiodus,
magnaque pars eius in nominibus est occupata; tamen utiles circa
praecepta sententiae levitasque verborum et compositionis probabilis,
daturque ei palma in illo medio genere dicendi.”—In _de Demosth._ c. 40
Hesiod, Sappho, Anacreon, and Isocrates are (as here) considered to be
examples of the ἁρμονία γλαφυρά.

17. =Simonides= is thus characterized in _de Imitat._ B. vi. 2:
Σιμωνίδου δὲ παρατήρει τὴν ἐκλογὴν τῶν ὀνομάτων, τῆς συνθέσεως τὴν
ἀκρίβειαν· πρὸς τούτοις, καθ’ ὃ βελτίων εὑρίσκεται καὶ Πινδάρου, τὸ
οἰκτίζεσθαι μὴ μεγαλοπρεπῶς ἀλλὰ παθητικῶς. The _Danaë_ (quoted in c.
26) will illustrate the concluding clause of this estimate.

18. =Euripides:= cp. Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 2 κλέπτεται δ’ εὖ, ἐάν
τις ἐκ τῆς εἰωθυίας διαλέκτου ἐκλέγων συντιθῇ· ὅπερ Εὐριπίδης ποιεῖ
καὶ ὑπέδειξε πρῶτος, and Long. _de Subl._ c. xl. διότι τῆς συνθέσεως
ποιητὴς ὁ Εὐριπίδης μᾶλλόν ἐστιν ἢ τοῦ νοῦ.

19. With respect to =Ephorus= the opinions of Diodorus and of Suidas
are somewhat at variance: (1) Diodorus Sic. v. 1 Ἔφορος δὲ τὰς κοινὰς
πράξεις ἀναγράφων οὐ μόνον κατὰ τὴν λέξιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν
ἐπιτέτευχεν, (2) Suidas ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ἔφορος ἦν τὸ ἦθος ἁπλοῦς, τὴν δὲ
ἑρμηνείαν τῆς ἱστορίας ὕπτιος καὶ νωθρὸς καὶ μηδεμίαν ἔχων ἐπίτασιν.

=Theopompus:= cp. an article, by the present writer, in the _Classical
Review_ xxii. 118 ff. on “Theopompus in the Greek Literary Critics:
with special reference to the newly discovered Greek historian
(Grenfell & Hunt _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ part v. pp. 110-242).” Reference
may also be made to D.H. pp. 18, 96, 120-6, etc. Gibbon (_Decline
and Fall_ c. 53) classes Theopompus in high company: “we must envy
the generation that could still peruse the history of Theopompus,
the orations of Hyperides, the comedies of Menander, and the odes of
Alcaeus and Sappho.”

20. =Isokrates=: see D.H. pp. 18, 20-22, 41, etc., and Demetr. pp.
8-11, 47, etc.

[Page 237]

without clauses, nor a clause without symmetry. The rhythms it uses
are not the longest, but the intermediate, or shorter than these. It
requires its periods to march as with steps regulated by line and rule,
and to close with a rhythmical fall. Thus, in fitting together its
periods and its words respectively, it employs two different methods.
The latter it runs together; the former it keeps apart, wishing that
they may be seen as it were from every side. As for figures, it is
wont to employ not the most time-honoured sort, nor those marked by
stateliness, gravity, or mellowness, but rather for the most part those
which are dainty and alluring, and contain much that is seductive and
fanciful. To speak generally: its attitude is directly opposed to that
of the former variety in the principal and most essential points. I
need not go over these points again.

Our next step will be to enumerate those who have attained eminence in
this style. Well, among epic poets Hesiod, I think, has best developed
the type; among lyric poets, Sappho, and, after her, Anacreon and
Simonides; of tragedians, Euripides alone; of historians, none exactly,
but Ephorus and Theopompus more than most; of orators, Isocrates. I
will quote examples of this style also, selecting among poets Sappho,
and among orators Isocrates. And I will begin with the lyric poetess:—

[Page 238]

        Ποικιλόθρον’, ἀθάνατ’ Ἀφροδίτα,
        παῖ Δίος, δολόπλοκε, λίσσομαί σε,
        μή μ’ ἄσαισι μηδ’ ὀνίαισι δάμνα,
                            πότνια, θῦμον·

        ἀλλὰ τυῖδ’ ἔλθ’, αἴ ποτα κἀτέρωτα      5
        τᾶς ἔμας αὔδως ἀίοισα πήλυι
        ἔκλυες, πάτρος δὲ δόμον λίποισα
                            χρύσιον ἦλθες

        ἄρμ’ ὐπασδεύξαισα. κάλοι δέ σ’ ἆγον
        ὠκέες στροῦθοι περὶ γᾶς μελαίνας      10
        πύκνα διννῆντες πτέρ’ ἀπ’ ὠράνω αἴθε-
                            ρος διὰ μέσσω.

        αἶψα δ’ ἐξίκοντο· τὺ δ’, ὦ μάκαιρα,
        μειδιάσαισ’ ἀθανάτῳ προσώπῳ,
        ἤρε’, ὄττι δηὖτε πέπονθα κὤττι      15
                            δηὖτε κάλημι·

        κὤττι ἔμῳ μάλιστα θέλω γένεσθαι
        μαινόλᾳ θύμῳ· τίνα δηὖτε πείθω
        μαῖς ἄγην ἐς σὰν φιλότατα, τίς σ’, ὦ
                            Ψάπφ’, ἀδικήει;      20

        καὶ γὰρ αἰ φεύγει, ταχέως διώξει,
        αἰ δὲ δῶρα μὴ δέκετ’, ἀλλὰ δώσει,
        αἰ δὲ μὴ φίλει, ταχέως φιλήσει
                           κωὐκ ἐθέλοισα.

2 διὸς δολοπλόκε FP   4 θυμὸν FP   5 τυδ’ ἐλθε ποκα κατ ἔρωτα P: τὺ δ’
ὲ|||λ’|||θε||| ποτὲ κατ’ έρωτα F   6 ἀΐοισ ἀπόλυ P   8 χρύσειον FP   9
ἀρμύ πᾶσδευξαισα F: ἁρμα ὑποζεύξασα P   10 γ(ας) P: τὰς F   11 διννῆν
τεσ F: δινῆντες P || πτερα· πτωρανω θερος F: πτὲρ’ ἀπ’ ὠρανὼ· θέρο σ
P   12 διαμέσω F: δ’ άμεσ πω P   13 αἶψαδ’ F: ἀῖψ’ ἄλλ’ P || τὺ δ’ ὦ
μάκαιρα P: συ δῶμα καιρα F   14 ἀθανάτω προσώπω FP sine iota (item
vv. 17, 18 F)   15 ἤρε’ ὅττι δ ῆυ (ἦν E) τὸ P, E   16 δ’ ηυτε καλημμι
P: δευρο καλλημμι F   17 κωττε μω F: κ’ όττ’ ἐμῶι P   18 μαινολαθυμῶι
P: λαιθυμω F || δηϋτε πειθω F: δ’ ἐυτεπεί θω P   19 μαι (βαι corr.)
σαγηνεσσαν P: καὶ σαγήνεσσαν FE: μαῖς Bergkius   20 ἀδικήει Gaisfordius
ex Etym. Magn. 485. 41: τισ σωψαπφα δίκη· P: τισ ω ψαπφα δίκησ· F   24
κωϋ κεθέλουσα F: κ’ ώυ κ’ ἐθέλοισ, P

1. To Dionysius here, and to the _de Sublimitate_ c. x., we owe
the preservation of the two most considerable extant fragments of
=Sappho’s= poetry. The _Ode to Anactoria_ is quoted by ‘Longinus’ as a
picture of παθῶν σύνοδος: it is imitated in Catullus li. _Ad Lesbiam_
(“Ille mi par esse deo videtur”). The _Hymn to Aphrodite_ has been
rendered repeatedly into English: some eight versions are printed in H.
T. Wharton’s _Sappho_ pp. 51-64. Two recent English translations are
of special interest: (1) that of the late Dr. Walter Headlam—immatura
eheu morte praerepti—in his _Book of Greek Verse_ pp. 6-9; (2) that of
Dr. Arthur Way, which is printed in the present volume. Dr. Way has, it
will be observed, succeeded in maintaining a double rhyme throughout.

24. “Bloomfeld’s ἐθέλοισαν was strenuously defended by Welcker _RM_
11. 266, who held that the subject of φιλήσει was a man. No MS. whose
readings were known before 1892 settled the dispute. Now Piccolomini’s
_VL_ show ἐθέλουσα (_Hermes_ 27),” Weir Smyth _Greek Lyric Poets_ p.
233. Notes on the entire ode will be found in Weir Smyth _op. cit._ pp.
230-3, and in G. S. Farnell’s _Greek Lyric Poetry_ pp. 327-9, and a few
also in W. G. Headlam’s _Book of Greek Verse_ pp. 265-7.

[Page 239]

    Rainbow-throned immortal one, Aphrodite,
    Child of Zeus, spell-weaver, I bow before thee—
    Harrow not my spirit with anguish, mighty
          Queen, I implore thee!

    Nay, come hither, even as once thou, bending
    Down from far to hearken my cry, didst hear me,
    From thy Father’s palace of gold descending
          Drewest anear me

    Chariot-wafted: far over midnight-sleeping
    Earth, thy fair fleet sparrows, through cloudland riven
    Wide by multitudinous wings, came sweeping
          Down from thine heaven,

    Swiftly came: thou, smiling with those undying
    Lips and star-eyes, Blessed One, smiling me-ward,
    Said’st, “What ails thee?—wherefore uprose thy crying
          Calling me thee-ward?

    Say for what boon most with a frenzied longing
    Yearns thy soul—say whom shall my glamour chaining
    Hale thy love’s thrall, Sappho—and who is wronging
          Thee with disdaining?

    Who avoids thee soon shall be thy pursuer:
    Aye, the gift-rejecter the giver shall now be:
    Aye, the loveless now shall become the wooer,
          Scornful shalt thou be!”

[Page 240]

        ἔλθε μοι καὶ νῦν, χαλεπᾶν δὲ λῦσον
        ἐκ μεριμνᾶν, ὄσσα δέ μοι τέλεσσαι
        θῦμος ἰμμέρρει, τέλεσον· σὺ δ’ αὔτα
                            σύμμαχος ἔσσο.

ταύτης τῆς λέξεως ἡ εὐέπεια καὶ ἡ χάρις ἐν τῇ συνεχείᾳ καὶ      5
λειότητι γέγονε τῶν ἁρμονιῶν· παράκειται γὰρ ἀλλήλοις τὰ
ὀνόματα καὶ συνύφανται κατὰ τινας οἰκειότητας καὶ συζυγίας
φυσικὰς τῶν γραμμάτων· τὰ γὰρ φωνήεντα τοῖς ἀφώνοις τε
καὶ ἡμιφώνοις συνάπτεται μικροῦ διὰ πάσης τῆς ᾠδῆς, ὅσα
προτάττεσθαί τε καὶ ὑποτάττεσθαι πέφυκεν ἀλλήλοις κατὰ      10
μίαν συλλαβὴν συνεκφερόμενα· ἡμιφώνων δὲ πρὸς ἡμίφωνα ἢ
ἄφωνα <καὶ ἀφώνων> καὶ φωνηέντων πρὸς ἄλληλα συμπτώσεις
αἱ διασαλεύουσαι τοὺς ἤχους ὀλίγαι πάνυ ἔνεισιν· ἐγὼ
γοῦν ὅλην τὴν ᾠδὴν ἀνασκοπούμενος πέντε ἢ ἓξ ἴσως ἐν τοῖς
τοσούτοις ὀνόμασι καὶ ῥήμασι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις μορίοις ἡμιφώνων      15
τε καὶ ἀφώνων γραμμάτων συμπλοκὰς τῶν μὴ πεφυκότων
ἀλλήλοις κεράννυσθαι καὶ οὐδὲ ταύτας ἐπὶ πολὺ τραχυνούσας
τὴν εὐέπειαν εὑρίσκω, φωνηέντων δὲ παραθέσεις τὰς μὲν ἐν
τοῖς κώλοις αὐτοῖς γινομένας ἔτι ἐλάττους ἢ τοσαύτας, τὰς δὲ
συναπτούσας ἀλλήλοις τὰ κῶλα ὀλίγῳ τινὶ τούτων πλείονας.      20
εἰκότως δὴ γέγονεν εὔρους τις ἡ λέξις καὶ μαλακή, τῆς ἁρμονίας
τῶν ὀνομάτων μηδὲν ἀποκυματιζούσης τὸν ἦχον.

ἔλεγον δ’ ἂν καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῆς συνθέσεως ταύτης ἰδιώματα,
καὶ ἀπεδείκνυον ἐπὶ τῶν παραδειγμάτων τοιαῦτα ὄντα οἷα
ἐγώ φημι, εἰ μὴ μακρὸς ἔμελλεν ὁ λόγος γενήσεσθαι καὶ      25
ταυτολογίας τινὰ παρέξειν δόξαν. ἐξέσται γὰρ σοὶ καὶ παντὶ

3 ϊμαρερερει F: ϊμέρει P   4 ἔσο F: ἔστω compendio F   5 συνεχεία EF:
συνεπεία PMV   8 τε καὶ ἡμιφώνους om. EF   9 διὰ πάσης EF: δεῖν δι’
ὅλης PMV   10 πέφυκεν ... συνεκφερόμενα EF: om. PMV   11 συνεκφερόμενα
E: συνεκφέρεσθαι F || ἢ ἄφωνα PM: καὶ ἀφώνων FE   13 ἔνεισιν EF: εἰσίν
PMV   14 ἐν F: εὗρον ἐν PMV   15 τοσούτοις Sylburgius: τοιούτοις PMV 16
καὶ ἀφώνων F: om. PMV   18 εὑρίσκω MV: εὑρίσκων F: om. P   19 ἔτι] ὅτι
F   21 εὔνους τις F   23 δὲ ἂν F   24 ἀπεδείκνυ F   25 ἐιμιμακρ(ῶς) P
  26 παρέξειν δόξαν F: δόξαν παρέχειν PMV

5. W. G. Headlam (_Book of Greek Verse_ p. 265) well says that
Dionysius’ comments on the smooth style (especially in relation to
Sappho) are worth the attention of those who would gather the effect
which Sappho’s language made upon a Greek ear practised in the minute
study of expression; and he proceeds: “There is always in the verse of
Sappho a directness and unlaboured ease of language, as if every lovely
sentence came by nature from the mouth at once; as though she spoke in
song, and what she sang were the expression of her very soul, the voice
of languorous enjoyment and desire of beauty:

        My blood was hot wan wine of love,
        And my song’s sound the sound thereof,
            The sound of the delight of it.”

22. Dionysius shows good judgement in not subjecting Sappho’s _Hymn_ to
a detailed analysis, letter by letter.

24. =ἐπὶ τῶν παραδειγμάτων=, ‘in the light of the appropriate
examples.’ Cp. =152= 3, =232= 23. The phrase sometimes indicates
‘familiar,’ ‘stock,’ or ‘previous’ examples; cp. _de Demosth._ c. 40
ἵνα δὲ μὴ δόξωμεν διαρτᾶν τὰς ἀκολουθίας, τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας ἐπὶ τὰ
ἐν ἀρχαῖς ῥηθέντα παραδείγματα κελεύοντες ἀναστρέφειν, κτλ.—In =242= 2
_infra_, ‘with illustrations’ (no article in PMV, though F has τῶν).

[Page 241]

    Once again come! Come, and my chains dissever,
    Chains of heart-ache! Passionate longings rend me—
    Oh fulfil them! Thou in the strife be ever
          Near, to defend me.[177]

Here the euphonious effect and the grace of the language arise from
the coherence and smoothness of the junctures. The words nestle close
to one another and are woven together according to certain affinities
and natural attractions of the letters. Almost throughout the entire
ode vowels are joined to mutes and semi-vowels, all those in fact
which are naturally prefixed or affixed to one another when pronounced
together in one syllable. There are very few clashings of semi-vowels
with semi-vowels or mutes, and of mutes and vowels with one another,
such as cause the sound to oscillate. When I review the entire ode, I
find, in all those nouns and verbs and other kinds of words, only five
or perhaps six unions of semi-vowels and mutes which do not naturally
blend with one another, and even they do not disturb the smoothness of
the language to any great extent. As for juxtaposition of vowels, I
find that those which occur in the clauses themselves are still fewer,
while those which join the clauses to one another are only a little
more numerous. As a natural consequence the language has a certain easy
flow and softness; the arrangement of the words in no way ruffles the
smooth waves of sound.

I would go on to mention the remaining characteristics of this kind
of composition, and would show as before by means of appropriate
illustrations that they are such as I say, were it not that my treatise
would become too long and would create an impression of needless
repetition. It will be open to you, as to

[Page 242]

ἄλλῳ καθ’ ἓν ἕκαστον τῶν ἐξηριθμημένων ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ κατὰ τὴν
προέκθεσιν τοῦ χαρακτῆρος ἐπιλέγεσθαί τε καὶ σκοπεῖν ἐπὶ
παραδειγμάτων κατὰ πολλὴν εὐκαιρίαν καὶ σχολήν· ἐμοὶ δ’
οὐκ ἐγχωρεῖ τοῦτο ποιεῖν, ἀλλ’ ἀπόχρη παραδεῖξαι μόνον
ἀρκούντως ἃ βούλομαι τοῖς δυνησομένοις παρακολουθῆσαι.      5

ἑνὸς ἔτι παραθήσομαι λέξιν ἀνδρὸς εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν κατεσκευασμένου
χαρακτῆρα, Ἰσοκράτους τοῦ ῥήτορος, ὃν ἐγὼ
μάλιστα πάντων οἴομαι τῶν πεζῇ λέξει χρησαμένων ταύτην
ἀκριβοῦν τὴν ἁρμονίαν. ἔστι δὲ ἡ λέξις ἐκ τοῦ Ἀρεοπαγιτικοῦ
ἥδε·      10

        πολλοὺς ὑμῶν οἴομαι θαυμάζειν, ἥντινά ποτε γνώμην
        ἔχων περὶ σωτηρίας τὴν πρόσοδον ἐποιησάμην, ὥσπερ
        τῆς πόλεως ἐν κινδύνοις οὔσης ἢ σφαλερῶς αὐτῇ τῶν
        πραγμάτων καθεστώτων, ἀλλ’ οὐ πλείους μὲν τριήρεις ἢ
        διακοσίας κεκτημένης, εἰρήνην δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν χώραν      15
        ἀγούσης καὶ τῶν κατὰ θάλατταν ἀρχούσης, ἔτι δὲ συμμάχους
        ἐχούσης πολλοὺς μὲν τοὺς ἑτοίμους ἡμῖν ἤν τι
        δέῃ βοηθήσοντας, πολὺ δὲ πλείους τοὺς τὰς συντάξεις
        ὑποτελοῦντας καὶ τὸ προσταττόμενον ποιοῦντας. ὧν
        ὑπαρχόντων ἡμᾶς μὲν ἄν τις φήσειεν εἰκὸς εἶναι θαρρεῖν      20
        ὡς πόρρω τῶν κινδύνων ὄντας, τοῖς δ’ ἐχθροῖς τοῖς ἡμετέροις
        προσήκειν δεδιέναι καὶ βουλεύεσθαι περὶ σωτηρίας.
        ὑμεῖς μὲν οὖν οἶδ’ ὅτι τούτῳ χρώμενοι τῷ λογισμῷ καὶ

1 τὴν] τ(ων) P   2 πρόθεσιν F   3 παραδειγμάτων PMV: τῶν παραδειγμάτων
F || δὲ F   4 ποιεῖ P || παραδεῖξαι Us.: πᾶσι δεῖξαι FM: δεῖξαι PV
  5 ἀρκοῦντος F   6 παραθήσομαι F: παραθήσω PMV || αὐτὸν om. F ||
κατεσκευασμένου P: κατεσκευασμένον FV: κατεσκευασμένην M   7 ὃν] ἡ F
  8 πεζῆ F: πεζῆι τῆι P, MV   9 ἀρεοπαγητικου ἡδε F   11 ὑμῶν] τούτων F
|| οἴομαι] οἶμαι Isocratis libri   12 ὥσπερ EPMV Isocr.: ὡς περὶ εἰ F
  14 καθεστηκότων Isocr.   15 εἰρήνης F || καὶ τὰ PMV Isocr.: τὰ EF   16
[ἐ]χούσης cum litura P, MV || ἔτι ... ἐχούσης om. F   17 τοὺς om. E 18
τοὺς om. PM   19 ὑποτελοῦντας PMV Isocr.: ἐπιτελοῦντας EF   20 ἡμᾶς PMV
Isocr.: ὑμᾶς EF   21 ὑμετέροις F   23 ἡμεῖς PV || οἶδ’] οἵ δ’ F

6. =παραθήσομαι=: the Middle, as given by F, is to be preferred (cp.
=182= 12). In =122= 14, on the other hand, F gives παρέξω, where the
other MSS. supply the right reading παρέξομαι.

11. In the English translation of this passage of Isocrates no attempt
has been made to reproduce the effects to which Dionysius calls
attention: to do so would involve sacrificing equivalence of meaning to
equivalence of letter-combinations.—Bircovius compares, in Latin, the
opening passage of Cic. _pro Caecina_: “si, quantum in agro locisque
desertis audacia potest, tantum in foro atque in iudiciis impudentia
valeret, non minus nunc in caussa cederet A. Caecina Sex. Aebutii
impudentiae, quam tum in vi facienda cessit audaciae. verum et illud
considerati hominis esse putavit, qua de re iure decertare oporteret,
armis non contendere: et hoc constantis, quicum vi et armis certare
noluisset, eum iure iudicioque superare.” Batteux (p. 253) quotes from
Fléchier’s oratorical picture of M. de Turenne: “Soit qu’il fallût
préparer les affaires ou les décider; chercher la victoire avec ardeur,
ou l’attendre avec patience; soit qu’il fallût prévenir les desseins
des ennemis par la hardiesse, ou dissiper les craintes et les jalousies
des alliés par la prudence; soit qu’il fallût se modérer dans les
prospérités, ou se soutenir dans les malheurs de la guerre, son âme
fut toujours égale. Il ne fit que changer vertus, quand la fortune
changeait de face; heureux sans orgueil, malheureux avec dignité...
Si la licence fut réprimée; si les haines publiques et particulières
furent assoupies; si les lois reprirent leur ancienne vigueur; si
l’ordre et le repos furent rétablis dans les villes et dans les
provinces; si les membres furent heureusement réunis à leur chef; c’est
à lui, France, que tu le dois.” Batteux maintains that this passage
shows the same qualities of style as Dionysius’ extract from Isocrates.

13. =ἢ σφαλερῶς=: Koraes would read καὶ σφαλερῶς. His note (_Isocr._
ii. 102) runs: “οὐκ ἀλόγως ὑπενόησεν ὁ Λάγγιος γραπτέον εἶναι,
Καὶ σφαλερῶς· ἔοικε δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἰταλὸς μεταφραστής, συμπλεκτικῶς, οὐ
διαζευκτικῶς, ἀνεγνωκέναι, ἢ ἀναγνωστέον εἶναι κεκρικέναι, Quasi che
la città in alcun pericolo si trovasse, et le cose sue in pessima
conditione fossero.”

18. =συντάξεις=: Koraes _l.c._ κακῶς τὸ ἐμὸν ἀντίγραφον, Συνάξεις.
Συντάξεις δὲ λέγει, κατ’ εὐφημισμὸν Ἀττικόν, τοὺς φόρους, ἐπειδή, ὥς
φησιν Ἁρποκρατίων (λέξ. Σύνταξις), χαλεπῶς ἔφερον οἱ Ἕλληνες τὸ τῶν
φόρων ὄνομα. ὡσαύτως ἡ τῶν Γαλλῶν φωνή, τὴν πρόθεσιν παραλιποῦσα,
_Taxe_ ὠνόμασε τὴν σύνταξιν, τὴν τοῖς Ἰταλοῖς καλουμένην _Tassa_, καὶ
ῥῆμα ἐποίησε _Taxer_ (Ἰταλ. _Tassare_), ἐπὶ τοῦ τάσσειν καὶ ἐπιβάλλειν
τοὺς φόρους· ὅθεν ἡ τῶν Γραικῶν φωνή, τὰ ἴδια παρὰ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων
λαμβάνουσα, ἐσχημάτισε τὰ χυδαῖα, #Τάσσα# καὶ #Τασσάρω#.

[Page 243]

any one else, at your full leisure and convenience, to take each single
point enumerated by me in describing the type, and to examine and
review them with illustrations. But I really have no time to do this.
It is quite enough simply to give an adequate indication of my views to
all who will be able to follow in my steps.

I will quote a passage of one more writer who has fashioned himself
into the same mould—Isocrates the orator. Of all prose-writers he is,
I think, the most finished master of this style of composition. The
passage is from the _Areopagiticus_, as follows:—

    “Many of you, I imagine, are wondering what can be my view in
    coming before you to speak on the question of the public safety,
    as though the State were actually in danger, or its interests
    imperilled, and as though it did not as a matter of fact possess
    more than two hundred warships, and were not at peace throughout
    its borders and supreme at sea, and had not many allies ready
    to help us in case of need, and many more who regularly pay
    their contributions and perform their obligation. Under these
    circumstances it might be said that we have every reason for
    confidence on the ground that all danger is remote; and that it
    is our enemies who have reason to be afraid and to form plans for
    self-preservation. Now you, I know, are inclined on this account

[Page 244]

        τῆς ἐμῆς προσόδου καταφρονεῖτε καὶ πᾶσαν ἐλπίζετε τὴν
        Ἑλλάδα ταύτῃ τῇ δυνάμει κατασχήσειν· ἐγὼ δὲ δι’
        αὐτὰ ταῦτα τυγχάνω δεδιώς. ὁρῶ γὰρ τῶν πόλεων τὰς
        ἄριστα πράττειν οἰομένας κάκιστα βουλευομένας, καὶ τὰς
        μάλιστα θαρρούσας εἰς πλείστους κινδύνους καθισταμένας.      5
        αἴτιον δὲ τούτων ἐστίν, ὅτι τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ τῶν κακῶν
        οὐδὲν αὐτὸ καθ’ αὑτὸ παραγίνεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἀλλὰ
        συντέτακται καὶ συνακολουθεῖ τοῖς μὲν πλούτοις καὶ ταῖς
        δυναστείαις ἄνοια καὶ μετὰ ταύτης ἀκολασία, ταῖς δὲ
        ἐνδείαις καὶ ταῖς ταπεινότησιν σωφροσύνη καὶ πολλὴ      10
        μετριότης. ὥστε χαλεπὸν εἶναι διαγνῶναι, ποτέραν ἄν
        τις δέξαιτο τῶν μερίδων τούτων τοῖς παισὶ τοῖς αὑτοῦ
        καταλιπεῖν· ἴδοιμεν γὰρ ἂν ἐκ μὲν τῆς φαυλοτέρας εἶναι
        δοκούσης ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ τὰς πράξεις
        ἐπιδιδούσας, ἐκ δὲ τῆς κρείττονος φαινομένης ἐπὶ τὸ      15
        χεῖρον εἰθισμένας μεταπίπτειν.

ταῦθ’ ὅτι συνήλειπταί τε καὶ συγκέχρωσται, καὶ οὐ καθ’
ἓν ἕκαστον ὄνομα ἐν ἕδρᾳ περιφανεῖ καὶ πλατείᾳ βέβηκεν
οὐδὲ μακροῖς τοῖς μεταξὺ χρόνοις διείργεται καὶ διαβέβηκεν
ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων, ἀλλ’ ἐν κινήσει τε ὄντα φαίνεται καὶ φορᾷ καὶ      20
ῥύσει συνεχεῖ, πραεῖαί τε αὐτῶν εἰσι καὶ μαλακαὶ καὶ
προπετεῖς αἱ συνάπτουσαι τὴν λέξιν ἁρμονίαι, τὸ ἄλογον
ἐπιμαρτυρεῖ τῆς ἀκοῆς πάθος. ὅτι δ’ οὐκ ἄλλα τινὰ τούτων
ἐστὶν αἴτια ἢ τὰ προειρημένα ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ περὶ τῆς ἀγωγῆς
ταύτης τῶν λόγων, ῥᾴδιον ἰδεῖν. φωνηέντων μὲν γὰρ ἀντιτυπίαν      25
οὐκ ἂν εὕροι τις οὐδεμίαν ἐν γοῦν οἷς παρεθέμην
ἀριθμοῖς, οἴομαι δ’ οὐδ’ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ λόγῳ, πλὴν εἴ τί με
διαλέληθεν· ἡμιφώνων δὲ καὶ ἀφώνων ὀλίγας καὶ οὐ πάνυ

2 ταύτηι (ταύτην M) τῆι δυνάμει P, MV Isocr.: τῆι δυνάμει ταύτη F,
E   5 πλείστους κινδύνους PM Isocr.: πλείους κινδύνους V: πλεῖστον
κίνδυνον EF   8 πλουσίοις F (cum Isocratis codd. quibusdam)   9 ἄνοια
... ἐνδείαις om. F || ἀκολασίαι PMV   10 σωφροσύνη EPMV Isocr.: καὶ
σωφροσύνη F   12 δέξαιτο PMV Isocr.: εὔξαιτο EF || τῶν μερίδων τούτων
PMV Isocr.: τούτων τῶν μερίδων EF || αὐτοῦ libri   13 καταλιπεῖν PMV
Isocr.: om. EF || ἴδοιμεν PV Isocr.: ἴδοι μὲν M: ἴδοι EF || ἂν om. F:
ἄν τις E || εἶναι δοκούσης PMV Isocr.: om. EF   17 συνείληπταί τε EPMV:
συνήλειπτέται F || οὐ καθ’ ἓν PMV: οὐδὲν EF   18 ἕδρα ... πλατεία (sine
iota) P   19 οὐδὲ EF: οὐδ’ ἐν PMV   20 φορᾶι P   21 τε ... μαλακαὶ om.
F   22 προπετεῖς PV: προσφυεῖς FM γρ V   25 ῥαίδιον P   26 εὕροι F: om.
PM, post οὐδεμίαν ponit V   27 οὐθ F || ὅλωι τωῖ λόγωι P   28 πάνυ PMV:
σφόδρα F

17 ff. When expressing admiration, Dionysius often tends (as here) to
reproduce the style admired.—For further estimates of Isokrates’s style
reference may be made to Dionysius’ separate essay on Isokrates (in his
_de Antiq. Or._); Jebb _Att. Or._ ii. 54 ff.; Blass _Att. Bereds._ ii.
131 ff.

19. The reading οὐδ’ ἐν is possibly right, viz. ‘at long
time-intervals’; cp. =222= 5.

[Page 245]

    to make light of my appeal; you expect to maintain supremacy over
    the whole of Greece by means of your existing forces. But it is
    precisely on these grounds that I really am alarmed. I observe
    that it is those States which think they are at the height of
    prosperity that adopt the worst policy, and that it is the most
    confident that incur the greatest danger. The reason is that no
    good or evil fortune comes to men entirely by itself: folly and its
    mate intemperance have been appointed to wait on wealth and power,
    self-restraint and great moderation to attend on poverty and low
    estate. So that it is hard to decide which of these two lots a man
    would desire to bequeath to his children, since we can see that
    from what is popularly regarded as the inferior condition men’s
    fortunes commonly improve, while from that which is apparently the
    better they usually decline and fall.”[178]

The instinctive perception of the ear testifies that these words are
run and blended together; that they do not individually stand on a
broad foundation which gives an all-round view of each; and that they
are not separated by long time-intervals and planted far apart from one
another, but are plainly in a state of motion, being borne onwards in
an unbroken stream, while the links which bind the passage together are
gentle and soft and flowing. And it is easy to see that the sole cause
lies in the character of this style as I have previously described
it. For no dissonance of vowels will be found, at any rate in the
harmonious clauses which I have quoted, nor any, I think, in the entire
speech, unless some instance has escaped my notice. There are also few
dissonances of semi-vowels and mutes, and those not very glaring or

[Page 246]

ἐκφανεῖς οὐδὲ συνεχεῖς. ταῦτα δὲ τῆς εὐεπείας αἴτια τῇ λέξει
γέγονε καὶ ἡ τῶν κώλων συμμετρία πρὸς ἄλληλα, τῶν τε
περιόδων ὁ κύκλος ἔχων τι περιφερὲς καὶ εὔγραμμον καὶ
τεταμιευμένον ἄκρως ταῖς συμμετρίαις. ὑπὲρ ἅπαντα δὲ
ταῦτα οἱ σχηματισμοὶ πολὺ τὸ νεαρὸν ἔχοντες· εἰσὶ γὰρ      5
ἀντίθετοι καὶ παρόμοιοι καὶ πάρισοι καὶ οἱ παραπλήσιοι
τούτοις, ἐξ ὧν ἡ πανηγυρικὴ διάλεκτος ἀποτελεῖται. οὐκ
ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι δοκῶ μηκύνειν καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ διεξιών· ἱκανῶς
γὰρ εἴρηται καὶ περὶ ταύτης τῆς συνθέσεως ὅσα γε ἥρμοττεν.


ἡ δὲ τρίτη καὶ μέση τῶν εἰρημένων δυεῖν ἁρμονιῶν, ἣν      10
εὔκρατον καλῶ σπάνει κυρίου τε καὶ κρείττονος ὀνόματος,
σχῆμα μὲν ἴδιον οὐδὲν ἔχει, κεκέρασται δέ πως ἐξ ἐκείνων
μετρίως καὶ ἔστιν ἐκλογή τις τῶν ἐν ἑκατέρᾳ κρατίστων.
αὕτη δοκεῖ μοι τὰ πρωτεῖα ἐπιτηδεία εἶναι φέρεσθαι, ἐπειδὴ
μεσότης μέν τίς ἐστι (μεσότης δὲ ἡ ἀρετὴ καὶ βίων καὶ      15
ἔργων [καὶ τεχνῶν], ὡς Ἀριστοτέλει τε δοκεῖ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις
ὅσοι κατ’ ἐκείνην τὴν αἵρεσιν φιλοσοφοῦσιν), ὁρᾶται δ’,
ὥσπερ ἔφην καὶ πρότερον, οὐ κατὰ ἀπαρτισμὸν ἀλλ’ ἐν
πλάτει, καὶ τὰς εἰδικὰς ἔχει διαφορὰς πολλάς· οἵ τε χρησάμενοι

1 δὲ PMV: δὴ F || εὐπρεπείας P   2 τε om. P   3 ἔχων τι] ἔχοντι P ||
περιφερὲς F: περιφανὲς PMV || καὶ εὐθύγραμμον F   4 ἄκρως F: ἄκραις PMV
  5 πολὺ F: οἱ πολὺ PM: οἱ πολλοὶ V   7 συντελεῖται cum rasura P   8
δοκῶ FP: μοι δοκῶ MV   9 συνθέσεως FP: θέσεως MV   10 τρίτη EF: τρίτη
τε PMV || δυεῖν FPM: δυοῖν V   11 εὔκρατον F: κοινὴν PMV || σπάνει τε
PMV: ἐγὼ ἀντὶ F: τε delevit Usenerus || τε F: om. PMV   12 δή P ||
πως PMV: ὡς EF || ἐκείνων] ἐκείνου F   13 ἑκατέραι P || κρατίστων]
κρατίστη· ὧν F: κρατίστων· ὧν E   14 αὐτὴ PV   15 τις ἐστὶ E: τις F:
ἐστι PMV   16 καὶ τεχνῶν om. FE   17 ὅσοι] οἳ F || αἴρεσιν FP || δὲ
PMVE   19 εἰδικὰς EF: ἰδίας PMV

8. =καὶ=: i.e. ‘by going through details as well (as by taking this
general view).’

9. This chapter (c. 23) should be compared throughout with chapter
40 of the _de Demosth._, which begins ἡ δὲ μετὰ ταύτην ἡ γλαφυρὰ καὶ
θεατρικὴ καὶ τὸ κομψὸν αἱρουμένη πρὸ τοῦ σεμνοῦ τοιαύτη, κτλ.

10. The treatment of the _third harmony_ in this chapter seems somewhat
curt and vague.

12. The third style (Dionysius means) has no special character of its
own: it is a combination of the best things in the two others: this,
in fact, constitutes its superiority, since, according to Aristotle,
virtue is a mean (Aristot. _Eth. Nic._ ii. 5, 1106 b 27 μεσότης τις ἄρα
ἐστὶν ἡ ἀρετή, στοχαστική γε οὖσα τοῦ μέσου).

13. =ἐκλογή τις τῶν ἐν ἑκατέρᾳ κρατίστων=: it is interesting to find
Homer represented (=248= 8-10) as a kind of _eclectic_ in style. There
are many indications that Dionysius regards him as a diligent literary
craftsman. See generally _de Demosth._ c. 41 init. τῆς δὲ τρίτης
ἁρμονίας ... ῥήτορες.

16. =καὶ τεχνῶν=: it may possibly be better to bracket these words,
as they are omitted by F as well as by E. But their retention would
not be inconsistent with Aristotelian doctrine. Cp. _Eth. Nic._ ii.
5, 1106 b 8 εἰ δὴ πᾶσα ἐπιστήμη οὕτω τὸ ἔργον εὖ ἐπιτελεῖ, πρὸς τὸ
μέσον βλέπουσα καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἄγουσα τὰ ἔργα (ὅθεν εἰώθασιν ἐπιλέγειν
τοῖς εὖ ἔχουσιν ἔργοις ὅτι οὔτ’ ἀφελεῖν ἔστιν οὔτε προσθεῖναι, ὡς τῆς
μὲν ὑπερβολῆς καὶ τῆς ἐλλείψεως φθειρούσης τὸ εὖ, τῆς δὲ μεσότητος
σῳζούσης, οἱ δ’ ἀγαθοὶ τεχνῖται, ὡς λέγομεν, πρὸς τοῦτο βλέποντες
ἐργάζονται), ἡ δ’ ἀρετὴ πάσης τέχνης ἀκριβεστέρα καὶ ἀμείνων ἐστίν,
ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ φύσις, τοῦ μέσου ἂν εἴη στοχαστική. Reference may also be
made to _Politics_ iii. 13, 1284 b 7-13, and to _Eth. Eud._ ii. 1220 b
21 ἐν ἅπαντι συνεχεῖ καὶ διαιρετῷ ἐστιν ὑπεροχὴ καὶ ἔλλειψις καὶ μέσον,
καὶ ταῦτα ἢ πρὸς ἄλληλα ἢ πρὸς ἡμᾶς, οἷον ἐν γυμναστικῇ, ἐν ἰατρικῇ, ἐν
οἰκοδομικῇ, ἐν κυβερνητικῇ, καὶ ἐν ὁποιᾳοῦν πράξει, καὶ ἐπιστημονικῇ
καὶ ἀνεπιστημονικῇ, καὶ τεχνικῇ καὶ ἀτέχνῳ, κτλ.

18. =πρότερον=: cp. =210= 6-10.

19. Batteux (p. 257) well explains Dionysius’ meaning, and suggests
the names of certain French authors who may be held to exemplify and
adorn the ‘mean’ (‘middle’) style: “Denys d’Halicarnasse observe
avec justesse que le mélange des deux extrêmes dans la composition
mixte ne se fait pas dans un milieu précis, mais avec une certaine
latitude; qu’on ne pouvait être plus près et plus loin de l’un des deux
extrêmes; que le même auteur pouvait l’être plus dans une partie de
son ouvrage, et l’être moins dans une autre partie. C’est ce que nous
venons d’observer dans l’oraison funèbre de M. de Turenne, et qu’ainsi
il n’est pas aisé de fixer avec précision la place des auteurs qui
tiennent le milieu entre les deux compositions. Avec cette restriction,
nous pouvons placer dans le milieu Fénelon, Racine, Despréaux, Molière,
La Fontaine, Voltaire, qui ont les deux mérites de la force et de
l’élégance, qui ont les nerfs et la grâce, les fruits et les fleurs.”

[Page 247]

continuous. The euphonious flow of the passage is due to these
circumstances, combined with the balance of the clauses and the cycle
of the periods which has about it something rounded and well-defined
and perfectly regulated in respect of symmetrical adjustment. Above
all there are the rhetorical figures, full of youthful exuberance:
_antithesis_, _parallelism in sound_, _parallelism in structure_, and
others like these, by which the language of panegyric is brought to
its highest perfection. I do not think it necessary to lengthen the
book by dealing with the points that are still untouched. This kind
of composition also has now received adequate treatment on all points
where it was appropriate.



The third kind of composition is the mean between the two already
mentioned. I call it _harmoniously blended_ for lack of a proper
and better name. It has no form peculiar to itself, but is a sort
of judicious blend of the two others and a selection from the most
effective features of each. This kind, it seems to me, deserves to win
the first prize; for it is a sort of mean, and excellence in life and
conduct [and the arts] is a mean, according to Aristotle and the other
philosophers of his school. As I said before, it is to be viewed not
narrowly but broadly. It has many specific varieties. Those who have
adopted it have not all had the same

[Page 248]

αὐτῇ οὐ τὰ αὐτὰ πάντες οὐδ’ ὁμοίως ἐπετήδευσαν, ἀλλ’
οἱ μὲν ταῦτα μᾶλλον, οἱ δ’ ἐκεῖνα, ἐπέτεινάν τε καὶ ἀνῆκαν
ἄλλως ἄλλοι τὰ αὐτά, καὶ πάντες ἐγένοντο λόγου ἄξιοι κατὰ
πάσας τὰς ἰδέας τῶν λόγων. κορυφὴ μὲν οὖν ἁπάντων καὶ
σκοπός,      5

        ἐξ οὗ περ πάντες ποταμοὶ καὶ πᾶσα θάλασσα
        καὶ πᾶσαι κρῆναι,

δικαίως ἂν Ὅμηρος λέγοιτο. πᾶς γὰρ αὐτῷ τόπος, ὅτου τις
ἂν ἅψηται, ταῖς τε αὐστηραῖς καὶ ταῖς γλαφυραῖς ἁρμονίαις
εἰς ἄκρον διαπεποίκιλται. τῶν δ’ ἄλλων ὅσοι τὴν αὐτὴν      10
μεσότητα ἐπετήδευσαν, ὕστεροι μὲν Ὁμήρου μακρῷ παρ’
ἐκεῖνον ἐξεταζόμενοι φαίνοιντ’ ἄν, καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς δὲ εἰ θεωροίη
τις αὐτούς, ἀξιοθέατοι, μελοποιῶν μὲν Στησίχορός τε καὶ
Ἀλκαῖος, τραγῳδοποιῶν δὲ Σοφοκλῆς, συγγραφέων δὲ Ἡρόδοτος,
ῥητόρων δὲ Δημοσθένης, φιλοσόφων δὲ κατ’ ἐμὴν δόξαν Δημόκριτός      15
τε καὶ Πλάτων καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης· τούτων γὰρ
ἑτέρους εὑρεῖν ἀμήχανον ἄμεινον κεράσαντας τοὺς λόγους. καὶ
περὶ μὲν τῶν χαρακτήρων ταῦθ’ ἱκανά. παραδείγματα γὰρ
τούτων οὐκ οἴομαι δεῖν φέρειν, φανερῶν πάνυ ὄντων καὶ οὐδὲν
δεομένων λόγου.      20

εἰ δέ τινι δοκεῖ καὶ πόνου πολλοῦ ταῦτα καὶ πραγματείας

8 ἂν om. F || ὅτου EF: ὅπου M: τὸ οὗ P   9 ἅψοιτο EF || ταῖς γλαφυραῖς]
ἀνθηραῖς EF   10 αὐτὴν EF: αὐτὴν ἐκείνωι P, MV   11 μὲν] μέντοι EF   13
Στησίχορος ... τραγῳδοποιῶν δὲ om. F   16 γὰρ F: δὲ PMV   19 φέρειν om.
F   21 τινι MV (τῳ Demosth.): τι μοι F: τις P

5. Homer is a beacon (a watchtower) set upon a hill.—The close
correspondence between Dionysius and Quintilian has often been
illustrated in these notes; and with the present page should be
compared Quintil. x. 1. 46 “igitur, ut Aratus _ab Iove incipiendum_
putat, ita nos rite coepturi ab Homero videmur. hic enim, quemadmodum
_ex Oceano_ dicit ipse _amnium fontiumque cursus initium capere_,
omnibus eloquentiae partibus exemplum et ortum dedit.”

10. Neither here nor elsewhere does Dionysius say anything about the
poets of the Epic Cycle. Attention is called to his silence by T. W.
Allen in the _Classical Quarterly_ ii. 87.

13. =Stesichorus=: cp. _de Imitat._ B. vi. 2 ὅρα δὲ καὶ Στησίχορον
ἔν τε τοῖς ἑκατέρων τῶν προειρημένων πλεονεκτήμασι κατορθοῦντα,
κτλ.; Long. _de Sublim._ xiii. 3 (as to Stesichorus, Herodotus and
Plato, in relation to Homer) μόνος Ἡρόδοτος Ὁμηρικώτατος ἐγένετο;
Στησίχορος ἔτι πρότερον ὅ τε Ἀρχίλοχος, πάντων τε τούτων μάλιστα ὁ
Πλάτων ἀπὸ τοῦ Ὁμηρικοῦ κείνου νάματος εἰς αὑτὸν μυρίας ὅσας παρατροπὰς

14. =Alcaeus=: _de Imitat._ B. vi. 2 Ἀλκαίου δὲ σκόπει τὸ μεγαλοφυὲς
καὶ βραχὺ καὶ ἡδὺ μετὰ δεινότητος κτλ.; Quintil. x. 1. 63 “Alcaeus in
parte operis _aureo plectro_ merito donatur, qua tyrannos insectatus
multum etiam moribus confert; in eloquendo quoque brevis et magnificus
et diligens et plerumque oratori similis: sed et lusit et in amores
descendit, maioribus tamen aptior.”

=Sophocles=: Σοφοκλῆς δὲ ἔν τε τοῖς ἤθεσι καὶ τοῖς πάθεσι κτλ. (_de
Imitat._, _ut supra_).

=Herodotus=: cp. D.H. pp. 10, 11, 12, etc.

15. =Demosthenes=: cp. D.H. pp. 13, 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, etc., and
Demetr. pp. 11, 12, etc.

=Democritus=: cp. Cic. _Orat._ 20, 67 “itaque video visum esse
nonnullis, Platonis et Democriti locutionem, etsi absit a versu, tamen,
quod incitatius feratur et clarissimis verborum luminibus utatur,
potius poëma putandum quam comicorum poëtarum”; id. _de Orat._ i. 49
“quam ob rem, si ornate locutus est, sicut et fertur et mihi videtur,
physicus ille Demokritus, materies illa fuit physici, de qua dixit,
ornatus vero ipse verborum oratoris putandus est”; id. _ib._ i. 42
“Democritii ... ornati homines in dicendo et graves.”

16. =Plato=: cp. D.H. pp. 16, 19, 27-30, 36, etc. and Demetr. pp. 12,
13, 14, etc.

=Aristotle=: cp. _de Imitat._ B. vi. 4 παραληπτέον δὲ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλην
εἰς μίμησιν τῆς τε περὶ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν δεινότητος καὶ τῆς σαφηνείας, καὶ
τοῦ ἡδέος καὶ πολυμαθοῦς· τοῦτο γὰρ ἔστι μάλιστα παρὰ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τούτου

[Page 249]

aims nor the same methods; some have made more use of this method,
others of that; while the same methods have been pursued with less or
greater vigour by different writers, who have yet all achieved eminence
in the various walks of literature. Now he who towers conspicuous above
them all,

    Out of whose fulness all rivers, and every sea, have birth,
    And all upleaping fountains,[179]

is, we must admit, Homer. For whatever passage you like to take in him
has had its manifold charms brought to perfection by a union of the
severe and the polished forms of arrangement. Of the other writers
who have cultivated the same golden mean, all will be found to be far
inferior to Homer when measured by his standard, but still men of
eminence when regarded in themselves: among lyric poets Stesichorus and
Alcaeus, among tragedians Sophocles, among historians Herodotus, among
orators Demosthenes, and among philosophers (in my opinion) Democritus,
Plato, and Aristotle. It is impossible to find authors who have
succeeded better in blending their writings into harmonious wholes. As
regards types of composition the foregoing remarks will suffice. I do
not think it necessary to quote specimen passages from the authors just
mentioned, since they are known to all and need no illustration.

Now if any one thinks that these things are worth much toil

[Page 250]

μεγάλης ἄξια εἶναι, καὶ μάλα ὀρθῶς δοκεῖ κατὰ τὸν
Δημοσθένην· ἀλλ’ ἐὰν λογίσηται τοὺς ἐξακολουθοῦντας αὐτοῖς
κατορθουμένοις ἐπαίνους καὶ τὸν καρπὸν τὸν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν ὡς
γλυκύς, εὐπαθείας ἡγήσεται τοὺς πόνους. Ἐπικουρείων δὲ
χορόν, οἷς οὐδὲν μέλει τούτων, παραιτοῦμαι· τὸ γὰρ “οὐκ      5
ἐπιπόνου τοῦ γράφειν ὄντος,” ὡς αὐτὸς Ἐπίκουρος λέγει, “τοῖς
μὴ στοχαζομένοις τοῦ πυκνὰ μεταπίπτοντος κριτηρίου” πολλῆς
ἀργίας ἦν καὶ σκαιότητος ἀλεξιφάρμακον.


τούτων δή μοι τέλος ἐχόντων, ἐκεῖνά σε οἴομαι ποθεῖν ἔτι
ἀκοῦσαι, πῶς γίνεται λέξις ἄμετρος ὁμοία καλῷ ποιήματι ἢ      10
μέλει, καὶ πῶς ποίημά γε ἢ μέλος πεζῇ λέξει καλῇ παραπλήσιον.
ἄρξομαι δὲ πρῶτον ἀπὸ τῆς ψιλῆς λέξεως, ἕνα
τῶν ἀνδρῶν προχειρισάμενος ὃν ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα οἶμαι τὴν
ποιητικὴν ἐκμεμάχθαι φράσιν, βουλόμενος μὲν καὶ πλείους,
οὐκ ἔχων δὲ χρόνον ἱκανὸν ἅπασι. φέρε δὴ τίς οὐκ ἂν      15
ὁμολογήσειεν τοῖς κρατίστοις ἐοικέναι ποιήμασί τε καὶ μέλεσι

3 τὸν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν F: τῶν ἁπάντων PMV   5 οὐκἐπὶ πόνου P, MV   6 ἐπίπονον
F   10 λέξις ἄμετρος] πεζὴ λέξις F || ἄμετρος ... πεζῇ om. F   13 ὃν
... βουλόμενος om. P

1. =κατὰ τὸν Δημοσθένην=: cp. _de Demosth._ c. 52 εἰ δὲ τῷ δοκεῖ ταῦτα
καὶ πόνου πολλοῦ καὶ πραγματείας μεγάλης εἶναι, καὶ μάλα ὀρθῶς δοκεῖ
κατὰ τὸν Δημοσθένην· οὐδὲν γὰρ τῶν μεγάλων μικρῶν ἐστι πόνων ὤνιον.
ἀλλ’ ἐὰν ἐπιλογίσηται τοὺς ἀκολουθοῦντας αὐτοῖς καρπούς, μᾶλλον δ’ ἐὰν
ἕνα μόνον τὸν ἔπαινον, ὃν ἀποδίδωσιν ὁ χρόνος καὶ ζῶσι καὶ μετὰ τὴν
τελευτήν, πᾶσαν ἡγήσεται τήν [τε] πραγματείαν ἐλάττω τῆς προσηκούσης.
The reference in both cases is to Demosth. _Chers._ § 48 εἰ δέ τῳ δοκεῖ
ταῦτα καὶ δαπάνης μεγάλης καὶ πόνων πολλῶν καὶ πραγματείας εἶναι, καὶ
μάλ’ ὀρθῶς δοκεῖ· ἀλλ’ ἐὰν λογίσηται τὰ τῇ πόλει μετὰ ταῦτα γενησόμενα,
ἂν ταῦτα μὴ ’θέλῃ, εὑρήσει λυσιτελοῦν τὸ ἑκόντας ποιεῖν τὰ δέοντα.

4. For the general attitude of =Epicurus= cp. Quintil. ii. 17. 15
“nam de Epicuro, qui disciplinas omnes fugit, nihil miror,” and _ib._
xii. 2. 24 “nam in primis nos Epicurus a se ipse dimittit, qui fugere
omnem disciplinam navigatione quam velocissima iubet [Diog. Laert.
_Vit. Epic._ 6 παιδείαν δὲ πᾶσαν (i.e. τὴν ἐγκύκλιον παιδείαν),
μακάριε, φεῦγε τὸ ἀκάτιον ἀράμενος]”; Cic. _de Finibus_ i. 5. 14 “sed
existimo te minus ab eo [sc. Epicuro] delectari, quod ista Platonis,
Aristotelis, Theophrasti orationis ornamenta neglexerit.”—Probably the
Epicurean philosopher Philodemus is among those who are criticized in
the πραγματεία ἣν συνεταξάμην ὑπὲρ τῆς πολιτικῆς φιλοσοφίας πρὸς τοὺς
κατατρέχοντας αὐτῆς ἀδίκως (_de Thucyd._ c. 2).

5-8. Usener (_Epicurea_, fragm. 230) gave this passage as follows:
τὸ γὰρ ἐπίπονον τοῦ γράφειν ὄντως, ὡς αὐτὸς Ἐπίκουρος λέγει, τοῖς μὴ
στοχαζομένοις τοῦ πυκνὰ μεταπίπτοντος κριτηρίου πολλῆς ἀργίας ἦν καὶ
σκαιότητος ἀλεξιφάρμακον.

5. =οὐκ ἐπιπόνου=: cp. Sheridan _Clio’s Protest_: “You write with
ease, to shew your breeding; | But easy writing’s vile hard reading”;
Quintil. x. 3. 10 “summa haec est rei: cito scribendo non fit, ut bene
scribatur; bene scribendo fit, ut cito.”

7. =κριτηρίου=: for κριτήριον as an Epicurean term cp. Diog. Laert.
_Vit. Epic._ 147 ὥστε τὸ κριτήριον ἅπαν ἐκβαλεῖς. The ‘variable
criterion’ or ‘shifting standard,’ in Dionysius’ quotation, is either
the _judgment of the ear_ (regarded as a part of _sensation_ generally)
or the _literary fashion of the day_.

8. Chapter 24 may be compared throughout with _de Demosth._ c. 41.

9. For the relations of Prose to Verse see Introduction, pp. 33-9.

16. The metrical lines which Dionysius thinks he detects in Demosthenes
are not more (nor less) convincing than the rude hexameters which have
been pointed out in Cicero: _latent_ lines cannot be expected to be
obvious. _Ad Quirites post reditum_ 16 “sed etiam rerum mearum gestarum
_auctores, testes, laudatoresque fuere_” [but the better reading here
is _laudatores fuerunt_]. _Pro Archia Poëta_ i. 1 “si quid est in me
ingenii, iudices, quod sentio quam sit exiguum, aut si qua exercitatio
dicendi, _in qua me non infiteor mediocriter esse_ versatum,” etc.
_Tusc. Disp._ iv. 14. 31 “illud animorum corporumque dissimile, quod
animi valentes _morbo temptari possunt, ut corpora possunt_.” _Pro
Roscio Amer._ i. 1 “credo ego vos, iudices, mirari quid _sit quod, cum
tot summi oratores hominesque_ nobilissimi sedeant, ego potissimum
surrexerim.” Cp. Livy xxi. 9 “nec tuto eos adituros inter tot tam
effrenatarum gentium _arma, nec Hannibali in tanto discrimine rerum_
operae esse legationes audire,” and Tacitus _Ann._ i. 1 “_urbem Romam a
principio reges habuere_.” In most of these passages except the last,
the natural pauses in delivery would destroy any real hexameter effect.
See further in Quintil. ix. 4. 72 ff.—Among later Greek writers, St.
John Chrysostom, in his _de Sacerdotio_ iii. 14 and 16, is supposed
to yield one entire hexameter and part of another: [ἀπ’ ἐκείνου] τοῦ
καπνοῦ προέφλεξε καὶ ἠμαύρωσεν ἅπασαν, and βιάζωνται διὰ τὴν τῆς
γαστρὸς ἀνάγκην.

[Page 251]

and great effort, he is, according to Demosthenes, decidedly in the
right.[180] Nay, if he considers the credit which attends success in
them and the sweetness of the fruit they yield, he will count the
toil a pleasure. I beg pardon of the Epicurean choir who care nothing
for these things. The doctrine that “writing,” as Epicurus himself
says, “is no trouble to those who do not aim at the ever-varying
standard”[181] was meant to forestall the charge of gross laziness and



Now that I have finished this part of the subject, I think you must
be eager for information on the next point—how unmetrical language is
made to resemble a beautiful poem or lyric, and how a poem or lyric is
brought into close likeness to beautiful prose. I will begin with the
language of prose, choosing by preference an author who has, I think,
in a pre-eminent degree taken the impress of poetical style. I could
wish to mention a larger number, but have not time for all. Who, then,
will not admit that the speeches of Demosthenes

[Page 252]

τοὺς Δημοσθένους λόγους, καὶ μάλιστα τάς τε κατὰ Φιλίππου
δημηγορίας καὶ τοὺς δικανικοὺς ἀγῶνας τοὺς δημοσίους; ὧν
ἐξ ἑνὸς ἀρκέσει λαβεῖν τὸ προοίμιον τουτί·

    “Μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ με μήτ’
    ἰδίας ἔχθρας μηδεμιᾶς ἕνεχ’ ἥκειν Ἀριστοκράτους κατηγορήσοντα      5
    τουτουί, μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον
    ἁμάρτημα ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς
    ἀπέχθειαν· ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἆρ’ ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ λογίζομαι καὶ
    σκοπῶ, περὶ τοῦ Χερόνησον ἔχειν ἀσφαλῶς ὑμᾶς καὶ
    μὴ παρακρουσθέντας ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς, περὶ      10
    τούτου ἐστί μοι ἅπασα ἡ σπουδή.”

πειρατέον δὴ καὶ περὶ τούτων λέγειν ἃ φρονῶ. μυστηρίοις
μὲν οὖν ἔοικεν ἤδη ταῦτα καὶ οὐκ εἰς πολλοὺς οἷά τε ἐστὶν
ἐκφέρεσθαι, ὥστ’ οὐκ ἂν εἴην φορτικός, εἰ παρακαλοίην “#οἷς
θέμις ἐστὶν#” ἥκειν ἐπὶ τὰς τελετὰς τοῦ λόγου, “#θύρας δ’      15
ἐπιθέσθαι#” λέγοιμι ταῖς ἀκοαῖς τοὺς “#βεβήλους#.” εἰς γέλωτα
γὰρ ἔνιοι λαμβάνουσι τὰ σπουδαιότατα δι’ ἀπειρίαν, καὶ ἴσως
οὐδὲν ἄτοπον πάσχουσιν. ἃ δ’ οὖν βούλομαι λέγειν, τοιάδε

πᾶσα λέξις ἡ δίχα μέτρου συγκειμένη ποιητικὴν μοῦσαν      20
ἢ μελικὴν χάριν οὐ δύναται προσλαβεῖν κατὰ γοῦν τὴν σύνθεσιν
αὐτήν· ἐπεὶ καὶ ἡ ἐκλογὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων μέγα τι
δύναται, καὶ ἔστι τις ὀνομασία ποιητικὴ γλωττηματικῶν τε
καὶ ξένων καὶ τροπικῶν καὶ πεποιημένων, οἷς ἡδύνεται ποίησις,
εἰς κόρον ἐγκαταμιγέντων τῇ ἀμέτρῳ λέξει, ὃ ποιοῦσιν ἄλλοι      25
τε πολλοὶ καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα Πλάτων· οὐ δὴ λέγω περὶ τῆς
ἐκλογῆς, ἀλλ’ ἀφείσθω κατὰ τὸ παρὸν ἡ περὶ ταῦτα σκέψις.
περὶ τῆς συνθέσεως αὐτῆς ἔστω ἡ θεωρία τῆς ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς
ὀνόμασι καὶ τετριμμένοις καὶ ἥκιστα ποιητικοῖς τὰς ποιητικὰς

3 ἀρκέσει] ἀρμόσει F   4 με om. P, Demosth. || μήτε F   5 ἔχθρας ἐμὲ
Demosth. || μηδεμιᾶς om. F || ἕνεκα PMV   7 ἐπὶ τούτῳ om. EF   8 ἆρ’
E: ἆρα P: ἄρα M: οὖν V: om. F || ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ EFM: ἐγὼ ὀρθῶς PV   9 περὶ]
ὑπὲρ Demosth. || τοῦ EFPM: τοῦ τὴν V || χερόνησον PV^1: χερρόνησον
FMV^2 || ἀσφαλῶς ὑμᾶς PMV: ὑμᾶς ἀσφαλῶς EF, D   11 τούτου] τούτων EF
|| ἔστι μοι M: νῦν ἐστί μοι P: τοίνυν ἔστι μοι V: ἔστι μοι νῦν E:
ἐστὶν F: μοί ἐστιν D || ἡ EPM D.: ἡ ἐμὴ F: om. V   12 cum φρονῶ voce
deficit codex Florentinus (F)   16 ἐπίθεσθε PM: ἐπίθεσθαι V || μέλωτ(α)
P: γελοῖα MV   18 οὐδὲν] οὐδ’ P   20 συγκειμένη EP: ἐγκειμένη MV ||
μοῦσαν MV: οὖσαν P: om. E   23 τις ὀνομασίας P: τὴν ὀνομασίαν MV   25
ἐγκατατεταγμένους EPM: ἐγκαταμεμιγμένους V

4-11. In Butcher’s and in Weil’s texts (which are here identical)
the opening of the _Aristocrates_ runs as follows: μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ
ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ μήτ’ ἰδίας ἔχθρας ἐμὲ μηδεμιᾶς ἕνεχ’ ἥκειν
Ἀριστοκράτους κατηγορήσοντα τουτουί, μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον
ἁμάρτημ’ ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειαν, ἀλλ’
εἴπερ ἄρ’ ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ λογίζομαι καὶ σκοπῶ, ὑπὲρ τοῦ Χερρόνησον ἔχειν ὑμᾶς
ἀσφαλῶς καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθέντας ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς, περὶ τούτου
μοί ἐστιν ἅπασ’ ἡ σπουδή. The minute differences between this text and
that presented with metrical comments by Dionysius deserve careful
notice.—The collocation τῆς ἰδίας ἕνεκ’ ἔχθρας is found in _de Cor._ §

12. Here, with the word φρονῶ, the codex Florentinus Laurentianus (F)
unfortunately ends.

24. It is hardly necessary to insert ὀνομάτων before οἷς, since the
word may be supplied from l. 22 _supra_.

[Page 253]

are like the finest poems and lyrics: particularly his harangues
against Philip and his pleadings in public law-suits? It will be enough
to take the following exordium from one of these:—

    “Let none of you, O ye Athenians, think that I have come forward to
    accuse the defendant Aristocrates with intent to indulge personal
    hate of my own, or that it is because I have got my eye on some
    small and petty error that I am thrusting myself with a light heart
    in the path of his enmity. No, if my calculations and point of view
    be right, my one aim and object is that you should securely hold
    the Chersonese, and should not again be deprived of it by political

I must endeavour, here again, to state my views. But the subject we
have now reached is like the Mysteries: it cannot be divulged to people
in masses. I shall not, therefore, be discourteous in inviting those
only “for whom it is lawful” to approach the rites of style, while
bidding the “profane” to “close the gates of their ears.”[183] There
are some who, through ignorance, turn the most serious things into
ridicule, and no doubt their attitude is natural enough. Well, my views
are in effect as follows:—

No passage which is composed absolutely without metre can be invested
with the melody of poetry or lyric grace, at any rate from the point of
view of the word-arrangement considered in itself. No doubt, the choice
of words goes a long way, and there is a poetical vocabulary consisting
of rare, foreign, figurative and coined words in which poetry takes
delight. These are sometimes mingled with prose-writing to excess: many
writers do so, Plato particularly. But I am not speaking of the choice
of words: let the consideration of that subject be set aside for the
present. Let our inquiry deal exclusively with word-arrangement, which
can reveal possibilities of poetic grace in common everyday

[Page 254]

χάριτας ἐπιδεικνυμένης. ὅπερ οὖν ἔφην, οὐ δύναται ψιλὴ
λέξις ὁμοία γενέσθαι τῇ ἐμμέτρῳ καὶ ἐμμελεῖ, ἐὰν μὴ περιέχῃ
μέτρα καὶ ῥυθμούς τινας ἐγκατατεταγμένους ἀδήλως. οὐ μέντοι
προσήκει γε ἔμμετρον οὐδ’ ἔρρυθμον αὐτὴν εἶναι δοκεῖν (ποίημα
γὰρ οὕτως ἔσται καὶ μέλος ἐκβήσεταί τε ἁπλῶς τὸν αὑτῆς      5
χαρακτῆρα), ἀλλ’ εὔρυθμον αὐτὴν ἀπόχρη καὶ εὔμετρον φαίνεσθαι
μόνον· οὕτως γὰρ ἂν εἴη ποιητικὴ μέν, οὐ μὴν ποίημά
γε, καὶ ἐμμελὴς μέν, οὐ μέλος δέ.

τίς δ’ ἐστὶν ἡ τούτων διαφορά, πάνυ ῥᾴδιον ἰδεῖν. ἡ μὲν
ὅμοια περιλαμβάνουσα μέτρα καὶ τεταγμένους σῴζουσα ῥυθμοὺς      10
καὶ κατὰ στίχον ἢ περίοδον ἢ στροφὴν διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν σχημάτων
περαινομένη κἄπειτα πάλιν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ῥυθμοῖς καὶ μέτροις
ἐπὶ τῶν ἑξῆς στίχων ἢ περιόδων ἢ στροφῶν χρωμένη καὶ
τοῦτο μέχρι πολλοῦ ποιοῦσα ἔρρυθμός ἐστι καὶ ἔμμετρος, καὶ
ὀνόματα κεῖται τῇ τοιαύτῃ λέξει μέτρον καὶ μέλος· ἡ δὲ      15
πεπλανημένα μέτρα καὶ ἀτάκτους ῥυθμοὺς ἐμπεριλαμβάνουσα
καὶ μήτε ἀκολουθίαν ἐμφαίνουσα αὐτῶν μήτε ὁμοζυγίαν μήτε
ἀντιστροφὴν εὔρυθμος μέν ἐστιν, ἐπειδὴ διαπεποίκιλταί τισιν
ῥυθμοῖς, οὐκ ἔρρυθμος δέ, ἐπειδὴ οὐχὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς οὐδὲ κατὰ
τὸ αὐτό. τοιαύτην δή φημι πᾶσαν εἶναι λέξιν ἄμετρον, ἥτις      20
ἐμφαίνει τὸ ποιητικὸν καὶ μελικόν· ᾗ δὴ καὶ τὸν Δημοσθένη
κεχρῆσθαί φημι. καὶ ὅτι ἀληθῆ ταῦτ’ ἐστὶ καὶ οὐδὲν ἐγὼ
καινοτομῶ, λάβοι μὲν ἄν τις καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ἀριστοτέλους μαρτυρίας
τὴν πίστιν· εἴρηται γὰρ τῷ φιλοσόφῳ τά τε ἄλλα
περὶ τῆς λέξεως τῆς πολιτικῆς ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ βίβλῳ τῶν ῥητορικῶν      25
τεχνῶν οἵαν αὐτὴν εἶναι προσῆκεν, καὶ δὴ καὶ περὶ τῆς
εὐρυθμίας ἐξ ὧν ἂν τοιαύτη γένοιτο· ἐν ᾗ τοὺς ἐπιτηδειοτάτους

3 ἀδήλως MV: ἀδήλους EP   5 αὐτῆς PV   6 ἔμμετρον E   9 ῥάιδιον P   10
σωίζουσα P   20 ἄμετρον EPM: ἔμμετρον V   21 μελιχρὸν M || δημοσθένην
EM   25 τρίτω P   26 προσηκ(εν) P: προσήκει MV   27 ἂν MV: τίσ P

1. Cp. Coleridge _Biogr. Lit._ c. 18: “Whatever is combined with metre
must, though it be not itself essentially poetic, have nevertheless
some property in common with poetry.”

3. So _de Demosth._ c. 50 οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἄλλως γένοιτο πολιτικὴ λέξις παρ’
αὐτὴν τὴν σύνθεσιν ἐμφερὴς ποιήμασιν, ἂν μὴ περιέχῃ μέτρα καὶ ῥυθμούς
τινας ἐγκατακεχωρισμένους ἀδήλως. οὐ μέντοι γε προσήκει αὐτὴν ἔμμετρον
οὐδ’ ἔρρυθμον εἶναι δοκεῖν, ἵνα μὴ γένηται ποίημα ἢ μέλος, ἐκβᾶσα τὸν
αὑτῆς χαρακτῆρα, ἀλλ’ εὔρυθμον αὐτὴν ἀπόχρη φαίνεσθαι καὶ εὔμετρον.
οὕτω γὰρ ἂν εἴη ποιητικὴ μέν, οὐ μὴν ποίημά γε, καὶ μελίζουσα μέν, οὐ
μὴν μέλος.

4. Cp. Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 8 τὸ δὲ σχῆμα τῆς λέξεως δεῖ μήτε ἔμμετρον
εἶναι μήτε ἄρρυθμον ... διὸ ῥυθμὸν δεῖ ἔχειν τὸν λόγον, μέτρον δὲ μή·
ποίημα γὰρ ἔσται: and Cic. _Orat._ 56. 187 “perspicuum est igitur
numeris astrictam orationem esse debere, carere versibus,” and 57.
195 _ibid._ “quia nec numerosa esse, ut poëma, neque extra numerum,
ut sermo vulgi, esse debet oratio.” So Isocr. (fragm. of his τέχνη
preserved by Joannes Siceliotes, Walz _Rhett. Gr._ vi. 156) ὅλως δὲ
ὁ λόγος μὴ λόγος ἔστω· ξηρὸν γάρ· μηδὲ ἔμμετρος· καταφανὲς γάρ. ἀλλὰ
μεμίχθω παντὶ ῥυθμῷ, μάλιστα ἰαμβικῷ καὶ τροχαϊκῷ (Isocr. _Tech._ fr. 6

5. =ἐκβήσεται ... τὸν αὑτῆς χαρακτῆρα=: cp. the construction of
_excedere_ and _egredi_ with the accusative.

6. ἔμμετρον is given not only by E but by Joannes Sicel. (Walz _Rhett.
Gr._ vi. 165. 28) and by Maximus Planudes (_ibid._ v. 473. 4) καὶ
Διονύσιος δέ φησιν, ἀπόχρη τὴν πολιτικὴν λέξιν εὔρυθμον εἶναι καὶ

17. Cp. Cic. _de Orat._ iii. 44. 176 “nam cum [orator] vinxit
[sententiam] forma et modis, relaxat et liberat immutatione ordinis,
ut verba neque alligata sint quasi certa aliqua lege versus neque ita
soluta, ut vagentur.”

25. The reference is to Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 8 (the passage of which
part is quoted in the note on l. 4 _supra_).

27. =τοιαύτη=: i.e. εὔρυθμος, the subject to γένοιτο being ἡ πολιτικὴ
λέξις. The τίσ of P may be due to a dittography of the first syllable
of τοιαύτη: or it may originally have stood with τοιαύτη (τοιαύτη τις =
_talis fere_).

[Page 255]

words that are by no means reserved for the poets’ vocabulary. Well, as
I said, simple prose cannot become like metrical and lyrical writing,
unless it contains metres and rhythms unobtrusively introduced into
it. It does not, however, do for it to be manifestly _in_ metre or
_in_ rhythm (for in that case it will be a poem or a lyric piece, and
will absolutely desert its own specific character); it is enough that
it should simply appear rhythmical and metrical. In this way it may be
poetical, although not a poem; lyrical, although not a lyric.

The difference between the two things is easy enough to see. That which
embraces within its compass similar metres and preserves definite
rhythms, and is produced by a repetition of the same forms, line
for line, period for period, or strophe for strophe, and then again
employs the same rhythms and metres for the succeeding lines, periods
or strophes, and does this at any considerable length, is _in_ rhythm
and _in_ metre, and the names of “verse” and “song” are applied to
such writing. On the other hand, that which contains casual metres and
irregular rhythms, and in these shows neither sequence nor connexion
nor correspondence of stanza with stanza, is rhythmical, since it is
diversified by rhythms of a sort, but not in rhythm, since they are
not the same nor in corresponding positions. This is the character
I attribute to all language which, though destitute of metre, yet
shows markedly the poetical or lyrical element; and this is what I
mean that Demosthenes among others has adopted. That this is true,
that I am advancing no new theory, any one can convince himself from
the testimony of Aristotle; for in the third book of his _Rhetoric_
the philosopher, speaking of the various requisites of style in civil
oratory, has described the good rhythm which should contribute to
it.[184] He

[Page 256]

ὀνομάζει ῥυθμοὺς καὶ πῇ χρήσιμος ἕκαστος αὐτῶν καταφαίνεται,
καὶ λέξεις παρατίθησί τινας αἷς πειρᾶται βεβαιοῦν
τὸν λόγον. χωρὶς δὲ τῆς Ἀριστοτέλους μαρτυρίας, ὅτι ἀναγκαῖόν
ἐστιν ἐμπεριλαμβάνεσθαί τινας τῇ πεζῇ λέξει ῥυθμούς,
εἰ μέλλοι τὸ ποιητικὸν ἐπανθήσειν αὐτῇ κάλλος, ἐκ τῆς πείρας      5
τις αὐτῆς γνώσεται.

αὐτίκα ὁ κατὰ Ἀριστοκράτους λόγος οὗ καὶ μικρῷ πρότερον
ἐμνήσθην ἄρχεται μὲν ἀπὸ κωμικοῦ στίχου τετραμέτρου δι’
ἀναπαίστων τῶν ῥυθμῶν ἐγκειμένου, λείπεται δὲ ποδὶ τοῦ
τελείου, παρ’ ὃ καὶ λέληθεν· “#μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες      10
Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ με#”· τοῦτο γὰρ εἰ προσλάβοι τὸ μέτρον
πόδα ἤτοι κατ’ ἀρχὰς ἢ διὰ μέσου ἢ ἐπὶ τελευτῆς, τέλειον
ἔσται τετράμετρον ἀναπαιστικόν, ὃ καλοῦσίν τινες Ἀριστοφάνειον·

        μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ με παρεῖναι,      15

ἴσον δὲ τῷ

        λέξω τοίνυν τὴν ἀρχαίαν παιδείαν ὡς διέκειτο.

τάχα τις ἐρεῖ πρὸς ταῦτα, ὅτι οὐκ ἐξ ἐπιτηδεύσεως τοῦτο
ἀλλ’ ἐκ ταὐτομάτου ἐγένετο· πολλὰ γὰρ αὐτοσχεδιάζει μέτρα
ἡ φύσις. ἔστω τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἶναι. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ συναπτόμενον      20
τούτῳ κῶλον, εἰ διαλύσειέ τις αὐτοῦ τὴν δευτέραν
συναλοιφὴν ἣ πεποίηκεν αὐτὸ ἄσημον ἐπισυνάπτουσα τῷ
τρίτῳ κώλῳ, πεντάμετρον ἐλεγειακὸν ἔσται συντετελεσμένον

        μήτ’ ἰδίας ἔχθρας μηδεμιᾶς ἕνεκα

ὅμοιον τούτοις

        κοῦραι ἐλαφρὰ ποδῶν ἴχνι’ ἀειράμεναι.

3 ἀναγκαῖον V γρ M: ἂν δίκαιον PM^1   6 τ(ις) P, V: τῆς M   8 δι’
MV: δι^ς sic P   11 με παρεῖναι M   15 μηδεὶς] μηδε P   18 τουτω M,
E: τοῦτο PV   24 τουτί EP: ἀκριβῶς τουτί MV   27 ἐλαφροποδῶν sic P:
ἐλαφροπόδων MV || ἴχνι’ PM: ἴχνεα V

7. =πρότερον=: viz. =252= 3 _supra._

9. ἀναπαιστικῶν has been suggested here and in =260= 2; but cp.
δάκτυλον πόδα =84= 21 and ῥυθμοῖς δακτύλοις =202= 19.

10. =παρ’ ὅ=: cp. note on =80= 4 _supra._

11. =νομίσῃ με=: this (together with the other remarks that follow)
confirms the reading adopted in =252= 4 _supra._—Dionysius’ metrical
arrangement of the clauses may be indicated thus:—

    μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ με
    μήτ’ ἰδίας ἔχθρας μηδεμιᾶς ἕνεχ’
    [ἥκειν Ἀριστοκράτους κατηγορήσοντα τουτουΐ,]
    μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον ἁμάρτημα ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ
    προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειαν·
    ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἆρ’ ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ λογίζομαι [καὶ σκοπῶ,]
    περὶ τοῦ Χερόνησον ἔχειν ἀσφαλῶς ὑμᾶς
         καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθέντας
             ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς,
    [περὶ τούτου ἐστί μοι ἅπασα ἡ σπουδή.]

Lines, or truncated lines, of verse are thus interspersed with pieces
of pure prose,—those here inclosed in brackets. In constituting the
verse-lines Dionysius has damaged a rather strong case by overstating

21. =διαλύσειε=: from this it is clear that ἕνεχ’ (rather than ἕνεκα)
should be read in =252= 5. The verse-arrangement in line 25 _infra_
shows the same thing and also that we must not follow F in reading μήτε
(without elision) in =252= 4.

27. For this line cp. Schneider’s _Callimachea_ pp. 789, 790, where it
is classed among the _Fragmenta Anonyma_.

[Page 257]

names the most suitable rhythms, shows where each of them is clearly
serviceable, and adduces some passages by which he endeavours to
establish his statement. But apart from the testimony of Aristotle,
experience itself will show that some rhythms must be included in
prose-writing if there is to be upon it the bloom of poetical beauty.

For example, the speech against Aristocrates which I mentioned a moment
ago begins with a comic tetrameter line (set there with its anapaestic
rhythms), but it is a foot short of completion and in consequence
escapes detection: μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ με. If this
line had an additional foot either at the beginning, in the middle, or
at the end, it would be a perfect anapaestic tetrameter, to which some
give the name “Aristophanic.”

    Let none of you, O ye Athenians, think that I am standing before you,

corresponds to the line

    Now then shall be told what in days of old was the fashion of boys’

It will perhaps be said in reply that this has happened not from
design, but accidentally, since a natural tendency in us often
improvises metrical fragments. Let the truth of this be granted. Yet
the next clause as well, if you resolve the second elision, which has
obscured its true character by linking it on to the third clause, will
be a complete elegiac pentameter as follows:—

    Come with intent to indulge personal hate of my own,

similar to these words:—

    Maidens whose feet in the dance lightly were lifted on high.[186]

[Page 258]

καὶ τοῦτ’ ἔτι κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν ὑπολάβωμεν αὐτοματισμὸν ἄνευ
γνώμης γεγονέναι. ἀλλ’ ἑνὸς τοῦ μεταξὺ κώλου συγκειμένου
λεκτικῶς τοῦ “#ἥκειν Ἀριστοκράτους κατηγορήσοντα
τουτουί#” τὸ συμπλεκόμενον τούτῳ πάλιν κῶλον ἐκ δυεῖν συνέστηκεν
μέτρων· “#μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον      5
ἁμάρτημα, ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ#”· εἰ γὰρ τὸ
Σαπφικόν τις ἐπιθαλάμιον τουτί

        οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἀτέρα πάϊς, ὦ γαμβρέ, τοιαύτα <ποτα>

καὶ τοῦ κωμικοῦ τετραμέτρου, λεγομένου δὲ Ἀριστοφανείου
τουδί      10

        ὅτ’ ἐγὼ τὰ δίκαια λέγων ἦνθουν καὶ σωφροσύνη ’νενόμιστο

τοὺς τελευταίους πόδας τρεῖς καὶ τὴν κατάληξιν ἐκλαβὼν
συνάψειε τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον

        οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἀτέρα πάϊς, ὦ γαμβρέ, τοιαύτα <ποτα> καὶ      15
                σωφροσύνη ’νενόμιστο·

οὐδὲν διοίσει τοῦ “#μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον
ἁμάρτημα, ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ#.” τὸ δ’ ἀκόλουθον
ἴσον ἐστὶν ἰαμβικῷ τριμέτρῳ τὸν ἔσχατον ἀφῃρημένῳ πόδα
“#προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειαν#”· τέλειον γὰρ ἔσται      20
πόδα προσλαβὸν καὶ γενόμενον τοιοῦτο

        προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειάν τινα.

παρίδωμεν ἔτι καὶ ταῦτα ὡς οὐκ ἐξ ἐπιτηδεύσεως ἀλλ’
αὐτοματισμῷ γενόμενα; τί οὖν βούλεται πάλιν τὸ προσεχὲς
τούτῳ κῶλον; ἰαμβεῖον γάρ ἐστι καὶ τοῦτο τρίμετρον ὀρθόν      25

        ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἆρ’ ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ λογίζομαι,

τοῦ #ἄρα# συνδέσμου μακρὰν λαμβάνοντος τὴν πρότεραν συλλαβήν,
καὶ ἔτι γε, νὴ Δία, μέσου παρεμπεσόντος τοῦ “#καὶ#

1 καὶ P: εἰ δὲ καὶ M: ἐὰν καὶ V   4 δυεῖν P: δυοῖν MV   5 μέτρων V et
suprascr. ῥυθμῶν M: μερῶν P   6 εἰ γὰρ τὸ Sauppius: εἰ γέ τοι P: καὶ τὸ
M: γάρ τοι V   7 τις PV: om. M   8 ἦν ἀτέρα] ἑτέρα νῦν PM: ἑτέραν ὗν V:
correxit Blomfieldius: ἀτέρα Seidlerus || ποτα add. Usenerus   10-11
τοῦδε τοτ’ P, i.e. τουδεί ὅτ’: τοῦδε ὅτ’ MV   13 τοὺς PM: τούς τε V ||
ἐκλαβὼν Sauppius: ἐκβαλῶν P: ἐμβαλὼν MV   15 ἑτέρα νῦν PM: ἑτέραν ϋν V:
cf. adnot. ad l. 8 supra   21 πόδα προσλαβὸν PM: προσλαβὸν πόδα V ||
τοιοῦτο P: τοιοῦτον MV   22 τινά PM: τινι V   24 γενόμεν(ον); P   25
ἰάμβιων P: ἰάμβειον MV   26 ἄρ’ P, V: ἄρα M   27 ἄρα compendio P

8. ‘For no other girl, O bridegroom, was like unto her.’—Usener’s
insertion of =ποτα=, here and in l. 15 _infra_, will secure metrical
correspondence between this passage and that of Demosthenes. Blass
would attain the same result by reading ἁμάρτημ’ ἰταμῶς in the passage
of Demosthenes. If ἁμάρτημ’ ἑτοίμως be read (as in the best texts of
Demosthenes), then the choice will be to suppose either (1) that the
first syllable of ἑτοίμως is to be suppressed in the ‘scansion’, or
(2) that Dionysius has pressed his case too far and that it is just
by means of this extra syllable that Demosthenes escapes any unduly
poetical rhythm.

26. The scansion here supports those manuscripts which give ἆρ’ in
=252= 8.

For =ἆρα= as being “in Poets sometimes much like ἄρα” see L. & S. s.v.
(with the examples there quoted).

28. =νὴ Δία=: cp. μὰ Δία in =260= 25. The general sense of the passage
is well brought out in the Epitome: καὶ ἔτι τὸ “καὶ σκοπῶ” παρεμπεσὸν
ἐπισκοτούμενον τὸ μέτρον ἠφάνισε.

[Page 259]

Let us suppose that this, too, has happened once more in the same
spontaneous way without design. Still, after one intermediate clause
arranged in a prose order, viz. ἥκειν Ἀριστοκράτους κατηγορήσοντα
τουτουί, the clause which is joined to this consists of two metrical
lines, viz. μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον ἁμάρτημα ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ
τούτῳ. For if we were to take this line from Sappho’s Bridal Song—

    For never another maiden there was, O son-in-law, like unto
            this one,[187]

and were also to take the last three feet and the termination of the
following comic tetrameter, the so-called “Aristophanic”

    When of righteousness I was the popular preacher, and temperance
            was in fashion,[188]

and then were to unite them thus—

    οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἀτέρα πάις, ὦ γαμβρέ, τοιαύτα <ποτα> καὶ σωφροσύνη

it will precisely correspond to μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον
ἁμάρτημα, ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ. What follows is like an iambic
trimeter docked of its final foot, προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειαν. It
will be complete if a foot is added and it takes this shape:—

    προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειάν τινα.

Are we once more to neglect these facts as if they were brought about
not on purpose but by accident? What, then, is the significance of the
next clause to this? For this too is a correct iambic trimeter line—

    ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἆρ’ ὀρθῶς ἐγὸ λογίζομαι,

if the connective ἄρα has its first syllable made long, and if
further—by your leave!—the words καὶ σκοπῶ are regarded as

[Page 260]

#σκοπῶ#,” ὑφ’ οὗ δὴ τὸ μέτρον ἐπισκοτούμενον ἠφάνισται. τὸ
δ’ ἐπὶ τούτῳ παραλαμβανόμενον κῶλον ἐξ ἀναπαίστων σύγκειται
ῥυθμῶν καὶ προάγει μέχρι ποδῶν ὀκτὼ τὸ αὐτὸ σχῆμα

    περὶ τοῦ Χερόνησον ἔχειν ἀσφαλῶς ὑμᾶς καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθέντας,      5

ὁμοίον τῷ παρ’ Εὐριπίδῃ τῷδε

        βασιλεῦ χώρας τῆς πολυβώλου
        Κισσεῦ, πεδίον πυρὶ μαρμαίρει.

καὶ τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο πάλιν κείμενον τοῦ αὐτοῦ κώλου μέρος      10
τουτί “#ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς#” ἰαμβικὸν τρίμετρόν
ἐστι ποδὶ καὶ ἡμίσει λειπόμενον· ἐγένετο δ’ ἂν τέλειον οὕτως

        ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς ἐν μέρει.

ταῦτ’ ἔτι φῶμεν αὐτοσχέδια εἶναι καὶ ἀνεπιτήδευτα, οὕτω
ποικίλα καὶ πολλὰ ὄντα; ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ ἀξιῶ· καὶ γὰρ τὰ      15
ἑξῆς τούτοις ὅμοια εὑρεῖν ἔστι, πολλῶν καὶ παντοδαπῶν
ἀνάμεστα μέτρων τε καὶ ῥυθμῶν.

ἀλλ’ ἵνα μὴ τοῦτον ὑπολάβῃ τις μόνον οὕτως αὐτῷ
κατεσκευάσθαι τὸν λόγον, ἑτέρου πάλιν ἅψομαι τοῦ πάνυ
ἡρμηνεῦσθαι δαιμονίως δοκοῦντος, τοῦ ὑπὲρ Κτησιφῶντος, ὃν      20
ἐγὼ κράτιστον ἀποφαίνομαι πάντων λόγων· ὁρῶ δὴ κἀν
τούτῳ μετὰ τὴν προσαγόρευσιν τῶν Ἀθηναίων εὐθέως τὸν
κρητικὸν ῥυθμόν, εἴτε ἄρα παιᾶνά τις αὐτὸν βούλεται καλεῖν
(διοίσει γὰρ οὐδέν), τὸν ἐκ πέντε συγκείμενον χρόνων, οὐκ
αὐτοσχεδίως μὰ Δία ἀλλ’ ὡς οἷόν τε μάλιστα ἐπιτετηδευμένως      25
δι’ ὅλου τοῦ κώλου πλεκόμενον τούτου

        #τοῖς θεοῖς εὔχομαι πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις.#

οὐ τοιοῦτος μέντοι κἀκεῖνός ἐστιν ὁ ῥυθμός

4 διασωῖζον P   5 χερόνησον P: χερρόνησον MV   7 τῷδε Us.: τῶι P, M: ὦ
V   8 βασιλεῦ MV: βασιλεῖ P   9 πεδίον MV: παιδι(ον) P   10 μέρος om.
P   11 τρίμετρον MV: μέτρον P   12 λειπόμενον Us.: λεῖπον libri   14
ταῦτ’ ἔτι Us.: ταῦτα τί PMV: ταυτὶ s   15 καὶ πολλὰ om. P   17 ἀνάμεστα
MV: ἀναλύεσθαι P   18 οὕτως αὐτῷ Us.: οὕτω MV: αὐτ(ω) P   23 βούλεται
αὐτὸν PV   26 τούτου Us.: τοῦτον libri

5. Here, again, is a serious metrical difficulty. We can hardly
believe that Dionysius scanned ἀσφαλῶς (or βεβαίως) as an anapaest:
it is more likely that he regarded the middle syllable of ἀσφαλῶς as
slurred (compare note on =258= 8 _supra_, and also the reading λιποῦσ’
ἀνδρότητα καὶ ἥβην in _Il._ xvi. 857).—If (against the manuscripts) we
should omit ἀσφαλῶς and read περὶ τοῦ τὴν Χερρόννησον ἔχειν ὑμᾶς καὶ μὴ
παρακρουσθέντας, the metre would be comparatively normal.

12. A comparison of this line with =256= 9 seems to confirm the
conjecture =λειπόμενον=, though λείπω is sometimes intransitive.

13. A rude iambic trimeter of the colloquial kind: cp. =258= 26 _supra_.

26. The metrical analysis of the following passage of Demosthenes
should be compared and contrasted with its previous division into
feet—on =182= 17 ff.

27. A rough metrical equivalent in English might be: ‘Hear me, each god
on high, hear me, each goddess.’ Cp. Quintil. ix. 4. 63 (as quoted on
=114= 20 _supra_).—Demosthenes’ much-admired exordium in the _Crown_
may be compared with the Homeric invocation—

        κέκλυτέ μευ πάντες τε θεοί, πᾶσαί τε θέαιναι.

[Page 261]

an intermediate excrescence by means of which the metre is obscured
and vanishes from sight. The clause placed next to this is composed
of anapaestic feet, and extends to eight feet, still keeping the same

        πρὸ τοῦ Χερόνησον ἔχειν ἀσφαλῶς ὑμᾶς καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθέντας,

like to this in Euripides—

        O King of the country with harvests teeming,
        O Cisseus, the plain with a fire is gleaming.[189]

And the part of the same clause which comes next to it—ἀποστερηθῆναι
πάλιν αὐτῆς—is an iambic trimeter short of a foot and a half. It would
have been complete in this form—

        ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς ἐν μέρει.

Are we to say that these effects too are spontaneous and unstudied,
many and various as they are? I cannot think so; for it is easy to see
that the clauses which follow are similarly full of many metres and
rhythms of all kinds.

But lest it be thought that he has constructed this speech alone in
this way, I will touch on another where the style is admitted to show
astonishing genius, that on behalf of Ctesiphon, which I pronounce to
be the finest of all speeches. In this, too, immediately after the
address to the Athenians, I notice that the cretic foot, or the _paeon_
if you like to call it so (for it will make no difference),—the one
which consists of five time-units,—is interwoven, not fortuitously
(save the mark!) but with the utmost deliberation right through the

        τοῖς θεοῖς εὔχομαι πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις.[190]

Is not the following rhythm of the same kind—

[Page 262]

        Κρησίοις ἐν ῥυθμοῖς παῖδα μέλψωμεν;

ἐμοὶ γοῦν δοκεῖ· ἔξω γὰρ τοῦ τελευταίου ποδὸς τά γε ἄλλα
παντάπασιν ἴσα. ἔστω καὶ τοῦτο, εἰ βούλεταί τις, αὐτοσχέδιον·
ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ συναπτόμενον τούτῳ κῶλον ἰαμβεῖόν
ἐστιν ὀρθόν, συλλαβῇ τοῦ τελείου δέον, ἵνα δὴ κἀνταῦθα      5
ἄσημον γένηται τὸ μέτρον, ἐπεὶ μιᾶς γε συλλαβῆς προστεθείσης
τέλειον ἔσται

        “#ὅσην εὔνοιαν ἔχων ἐγὼ διατελῶ.#”

κἄπειτα ὁ παιὰν ἢ ὁ κρητικὸς ἐκεῖνος ὁ πεντάχρονος ἥξει
ῥυθμὸς ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς τούτοις “#τῇ πόλει καὶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν      10
τοσαύτην ὑπάρξαι μοι παρ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τουτονὶ τὸν
ἀγῶνα#.” τοῦτο γοῦν ἔοικεν, ὅ τι μὴ κατακλωμένους ἔχει
δύο πόδας ἐν ἀρχαῖς, κατὰ γοῦν τὰ ἄλλα πάντα τῷ παρὰ

        οὐχ ἕδρας ἔργον οὐδ’ ἀμβολᾶς,      15
          ἀλλὰ χρυσαίγιδος Ἰτωνίας
        χρὴ παρ’ εὐδαίδαλον ναὸν ἐλ-
          θόντας ἁβρόν τι δεῖξαι.

ὑφορῶμαί τινα πρὸς ταῦτα καταδρομὴν ἀνθρώπων τῆς
μὲν ἐγκυκλίου παιδείας ἀπείρων, τὸ δὲ ἀγοραῖον τῆς ῥητορικῆς      20
μέρος ὁδοῦ τε καὶ τέχνης χωρὶς ἐπιτηδευόντων, πρὸς οὓς
ἀναγκαῖον ἀπολογήσασθαι, μὴ δόξωμεν ἔρημον ἀφεικέναι τὸν
ἀγῶνα. ἐροῦσι δὴ ταῦτα· ὁ Δημοσθένης οὖν οὕτως ἄθλιος

3 παντάπασιν Us.: ἐν ἁπάση PM: ἐν πᾶσιν V || ἴσα ἔστω· PM: ἴσα ὥρισται
V   4 ἀλλὰ] μάλα P || ἰαμβι(ον) P: ἰαμβικὸν MV   10 τῇ τε πόλει
Demosth.   11 ὑπάρξαί μοι P   12 κατ(α)κλ(ω)μεν(ως) P: κατακλώμενος M:
κατακεκλωμένους V: κατακεκλασμένους Sylburgius   13 τῷ V: τὸ PM   15
ἀμβολας P: ἀμβολὰς V   22 ἀναγκαίωνον P: ἀναγκαῖόν μοι M || δόξομ(εν) P
|| ἀφεικέναι MV: ἀφηκέναι P

1. =ῥυθμοῖς=: with the first syllable short, as (e.g.) in Aristoph.
Nub. 638. As already pointed out, the _lengthening_ of such syllables
would be abnormal in prose. Cp. _mediocriter_ in the passage of Cicero
on p. 251 _supra_.

7. Dionysius can surely only mean that we have here the _materials_,
so to say, for an iambic line, and that but one additional syllable is
needed (e.g. the substitution of διατελέω for διατελῶ). He can hardly
have intended to retain εὔνοιαν in its present position, but must
have had in mind some such order as ὅσην ἔχων εὔνοιαν. His language,
however, has subjected him to grave suspicion, and Usener reads ἔγωγε
in place of ἐγώ, remarking that “Dionysius numerorum in verbo εὔνοιαν
vitium non sensit.” This particular insensibility of Dionysius does
not seem borne out by =182= 22 _supra_ (see note _ad loc._), where the
last, but not the first, syllable of εὔνοιαν is represented as doubtful.

12. Here, too, there are metrical difficulties. The close
correspondence of which Dionysius speaks is not obvious; and, in
particular, the reference of ἐν ἀρχαῖς is far from clear. According to
Usener, “Dionysius pedes τῇ πόλει καὶ et (τοσαύ)την ὑπάρξαι dicit.”
Perhaps the ἀρχαί rather are: (1) τῇ [τε] πόλει (if the τε be added, in
l. 10, from Demosthenes), and (2) [καὶ] πᾶσιν ὑμ-.

14. See Long. _de Sublim._ xxxiii. 3 for an estimate of =Bacchylides’=
poetry which has been confirmed by the general character of the newly
discovered poems (first published by Kenyon in 1897).

15. The prose translation of this hyporcheme, as given in Jebb’s
edition (p. 416), is: “This is no time for sitting still or tarrying:
we must go to the richly-wrought temple of Itona [viz. Athena Itonia]
with golden aegis, and show forth some choice strain of song”: δεῖξαι
<μέλος>. Jebb’s notes (pp. 415, 416 _ibid._) may be consulted.

19. =καταδρομήν=, ‘vehement attack,’ ‘invective.’ Used in this sense by
Aeschines and Polybius, as well as by Dionysius (e.g. _de Thucyd._ c.
3 ἔστι δὴ τὸ βούλημά μου τῆς πραγματείας οὐ καταδρομὴ τῆς Θουκυδίδου
προαιρέσεώς τε καὶ δυνάμεως). Cp. the verb κατατρέχειν, and D.H. p.
194; and our own use of ‘run down.’

22. =ἔρημον=: cp. _de Antiqq. Rom._ iv. 4 ἐὰν δὲ ἐρήμους ἀφῶσιν (τὰς
κρίσεις), and iv. 11 _ibid._ τάς τε δίκας ἐρήμους ἐκλιπόντας.

23. With this and the following pages should be compared the later
version found in the _de Demosth._ cc. 51, 52. There ἄθλιος (which in
itself as a good prose word, used frequently by Demosthenes himself as
well as by Dionysius =94= 11 _supra_) is represented by κακοδαίμων.
The Philistine critics of Dionysius’ day, and indeed of that of
Demosthenes, regarded the capacity for taking pains as anything but a
necessary adjunct of genius: cp. Plut. _Vit. Demosth._ c. 8 ἐκ τούτου
δόξαν ἔσχεν ὡς οὐκ εὐφυὴς ὤν, ἀλλ’ ἐκ πόνου συγκειμένῃ δεινότητι καὶ
δυνάμει χρώμενος. ἐδόκει δὲ τούτου σημεῖον εἶναι μέγα τὸ μὴ ῥᾳδίως
ἀκοῦσαί τινα Δημοσθένους ἐπὶ καιροῦ λέγοντος, ἀλλὰ καθήμενον ἐν
ἐκκλησίᾳ πολλάκις τοῦ δήμου καλοῦντος ὀνομαστὶ μὴ παρελθεῖν, εἰ μὴ
τύχοι πεφροντικὼς καὶ παρεσκευασμένος. εἰς τοῦτο δ’ ἄλλοι τε πολλοὶ τῶν
δημαγωγῶν ἐχλεύαζον αὐτὸν καὶ Πυθέας ἐπισκώπτων ἐλλυχνίων ἔφησεν ὄζειν
αὐτοῦ τὰ ἐνθυμήματα. The really artistic Athens had, as Dionysius so
forcibly indicates in this passage, always considered as a crime not
preparation, but the want of preparation.

[Page 263]

        Cretan strains practising, Zeus’s son sing we[191]?

In my judgment, at all events, it is; for with the exception of the
final foot there is complete correspondence. But suppose this too, if
you will have it so, to be accidental. Well, the adjacent clause is a
correct iambic line, falling one syllable short of completion, with
the object (here again) of obscuring the metre. With the addition of a
single syllable the line will be complete—

        ὅσην εὔνοιαν ἔχων ἐγὼ διατελῶ.

Further, that paeon or cretic rhythm of five beats will appear in the
words which follow: τῇ πόλει καὶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν τοσαύτην ὑπάρξαι μοι παρ’
ὑμῶν εἰς τουτονὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα. This, except that it has two broken feet at
the beginnings, resembles in all respects the passage in Bacchylides:—

        This is no time to sit still nor wait:
        Unto yon carven shrine let us go,
        Even gold-aegis’d Queen Pallas’ shrine,
        And the rich vesture there show.[192]

I have a presentiment that an onslaught will be made on these
statements by people who are destitute of general culture and practise
the mechanical parts of rhetoric unmethodically and unscientifically.
Against these I am bound to defend my position, lest I should seem to
let the case go by default. Their argument will doubtless be: “Was
Demosthenes, then, so poor a creature

[Page 264]

ἦν, ὥσθ’, ὅτε γράφοι τοὺς λόγους, μέτρα καὶ ῥυθμοὺς ὥσπερ
οἱ πλάσται παρατιθέμενος, ἐναρμόττειν ἐπειρᾶτο τούτοις τοῖς
τύποις τὰ κῶλα, στρέφων ἄνω καὶ κάτω τὰ ὀνόματα, καὶ
παραφυλάττων τὰ μήκη καὶ τοὺς χρόνους, καὶ τὰς πτώσεις
τῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ τὰς ἐγκλίσεις τῶν ῥημάτων καὶ πάντα τὰ      5
συμβεβηκότα τοῖς μορίοις τοῦ λόγου πολυπραγμονῶν; ἠλίθιος
μέντἂν εἴη εἰς τοσαύτην σκευωρίαν καὶ φλυαρίαν ὁ τηλικοῦτος
ἀνὴρ ἑαυτὸν διδούς. ταῦτα δὴ καὶ τὰ τούτοις παραπλήσια
κωμῳδοῦντας αὐτοὺς καὶ καταχλευάζοντας οὐ χαλεπῶς ἄν
τις ἀποκρούσαιτο ταῦτα εἰπών· πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄτοπον      10
ἦν, εἰ <ὁ> τοσαύτης δόξης ἠξιωμένος ἀνὴρ ὅσης οὐδεὶς τῶν
πρότερον ὀνομασθέντων ἐπὶ δεινότητι λόγων, ἔργα συνταττόμενος
αἰώνια καὶ διδοὺς ἑαυτὸν ὑπεύθυνον τῷ πάντα βασανίζοντι
φθόνῳ καὶ χρόνῳ ἐβουλήθη μηδὲν εἰκῇ μήτε πρᾶγμα παραλαμβάνειν
μήτ’ ὄνομα, πολλὴν δ’ ἀμφοῖν ἔχειν τούτων      15
πρόνοιαν τῆς τε ἐν τοῖς νοήμασιν οἰκονομίας καὶ τῆς εὐμορφίας
τῆς περὶ τὰ ὀνόματα, ἄλλως τε καὶ τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων οὐ
γραπτοῖς ἀλλὰ γλυπτοῖς καὶ τορευτοῖς ἐοικότας ἐκφερόντων
λόγους, λέγω δὲ Ἰσοκράτους καὶ Πλάτωνος τῶν σοφιστῶν·
ὁ μὲν γὰρ τὸν πανηγυρικὸν λόγον, ὡς οἱ τὸν ἐλάχιστον      20
χρόνον γράφοντες ἀποφαίνουσιν, ἐν ἔτεσι δέκα συνετάξατο, ὁ
δὲ Πλάτων τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ διαλόγους κτενίζων καὶ βοστρυχίζων
καὶ πάντα τρόπον ἀναπλέκων οὐ διέλειπεν ὀγδοήκοντα
γεγονὼς ἔτη· πᾶσι γὰρ δήπου τοῖς φιλολόγοις γνώριμα τὰ
περὶ τῆς φιλοπονίας τἀνδρὸς ἱστορούμενα τά τε ἄλλα καὶ      25
δὴ καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν δέλτον, ἣν τελευτήσαντος αὐτοῦ λέγουσιν

1 ὥσθ’] ὥστ’ ἔστιν M || ὅτε compendio P: ὅταν MV || γράφη MV   4 τὰ
μήκη ... ὀνομάτων om. P   8 διδουσα· P   10 ᾱ μὲν P   11 ὁ inseruit
Sadaeus (coll. commentario de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 51)   13
διδοῦσ(ιν) P || ἑαυτὸν EM: αὐτὸν PV   14 φθόνω καὶ χρόνω PMV: χρόνῳ
E || ἠβουλήθη E: om. PMV || εἰκῆι P   20 μὲν γὰρ MV: μέν γε EP   21
ἀποφαίνουσιν, ἐν MV: om. EP || συνετάξαντο V   23 διέλειπεν PM:
διέλιπεν EV   24 γνώριμα PV: γνώρισμα E: γνωρίσματα M

4. =τὰ μήκη=: we cannot (for example) imagine Thucydides as anxiously
counting the long syllables that find a place in his striking dictum
οὕτως ἀταλαίπωρος τοῖς πολλοῖς ἡ ζήτησις τῆς ἀληθείας (i. 20). But
they are there, all the same, and add greatly to the dignity of the

6. =ἠλίθιος=: a slight word-play on ἄθλιος in =262= 23 _supra_ may be

14. =φθόνῳ καὶ χρόνῳ=: the word-play might be represented in English
by some such rendering as “submitting himself to the revision of those
scrutineers of all immortality, the tooth of envy and the tooth of
time,” or (simply) “envious tongues and envious time.” To such jingles
Dionysius shows himself partial in the _C.V._ (cp. note on =64= 11
_supra_). It may be that, in his essay on Demosthenes, he omits the
words φθόνῳ καί deliberately and on the grounds of taste; but the later
version differs so greatly from the earlier that not much significance
can be attached to slight variations of this kind.

18. =γραπτοῖς=, ‘mere mechanical writing,’ ‘scratching,’ ‘scribbling.’

21. For this period of ten years cp. Long. _de Sublim._ iv. 2, and also
Quintil. x. 4. 4. Quintilian writes: “temporis quoque esse debet modus.
nam quod Cinnae Smyrnam novem annis accepimus scriptam, et Panegyricum
Isokratis, qui parcissime, decem annis dicunt elaboratum, ad oratorem
nihil pertinet, cuius nullum erit, si tam tardum fuerit, auxilium.” In
using the words “qui parcissime” Quintilian may have had the present
passage of the _C.V._ in mind.

26. =δέλτον=, ‘tablet’: originally so called because of its delta-like,
or triangular, shape.

[Page 265]

that, whenever he was writing his speeches, he would work in metres
and rhythms after the fashion of clay-modellers, and would try to fit
his clauses into these moulds, shifting the words to and fro, keeping
an anxious eye on his longs and shorts, and fretting himself about
cases of nouns, moods of verbs, and all the accidents of the parts of
speech? So great a man would be a fool indeed were he to stoop to all
this niggling and peddling.” If they scoff and jeer in these or similar
terms, they may easily be countered by the following reply: First,
it is not surprising after all that a man who is held to deserve a
greater reputation than any of his predecessors who were distinguished
for eloquence was anxious, when composing eternal works and submitting
himself to the scrutiny of all-testing envy and time, not to admit
either subject or word at random, and to attend carefully to both
arrangement of ideas and beauty of words: particularly as the authors
of that day were producing discourses which suggested not writing but
carving and chasing—those, I mean, of the sophists Isocrates and Plato.
For the former spent ten years over the composition of his _Panegyric_,
according to the lowest recorded estimate of the time; while Plato did
not cease, when eighty years old, to comb and curl his dialogues and
reshape them in every way. Surely every scholar is acquainted with the
stories of Plato’s passion for taking pains, especially that of the
tablet which they say was found after his

[Page 266]

εὑρεθῆναι ποικίλως μετακειμένην τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς Πολιτείας
ἔχουσαν τήνδε “Κατέβην χθὲς εἰς Πειραιᾶ μετὰ Γλαύκωνος
τοῦ Ἀρίστωνος.” τί οὖν ἦν ἄτοπον, εἰ καὶ Δημοσθένει
φροντὶς εὐφωνίας τε καὶ ἐμμελείας ἐγένετο καὶ τοῦ μηδὲν
εἰκῇ καὶ ἀβασανίστως τιθέναι μήτε ὄνομα μήτε νόημα; πολύ      5
τε γὰρ μᾶλλον ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ προσήκειν ἀνδρὶ κατασκευάζοντι
λόγους πολιτικοὺς μνημεῖα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεως αἰώνια μηδενὸς
τῶν ἐλαχίστων ὀλιγωρεῖν, ἢ ζῳγράφων τε καὶ τορευτῶν
παισὶν ἐν ὕλῃ φθαρτῇ χειρῶν εὐστοχίας καὶ πόνους ἀποδεικνυμένοις
περὶ τὰ φλέβια καὶ τὰ πτίλα καὶ τὸν χνοῦν καὶ      10
τὰς τοιαύτας μικρολογίας κατατρίβειν τῆς τέχνης τὴν ἀκρίβειαν.
τούτοις τε δὴ τοῖς λόγοις χρώμενος δοκεῖ μοί τις ἂν οὐδὲν
ἔξω τοῦ εἰκότος ἀξιοῦν καὶ ἔτι ἐκεῖνα εἰπών, ὅτι μειράκιον
μὲν ὄντα καὶ νεωστὶ τοῦ μαθήματος ἁπτόμενον αὐτὸν οὐκ
ἄλογον πάντα περισκοπεῖν, ὅσα δυνατὰ ἦν εἰς ἐπιτήδευσιν      15

3 Ἀρίστωνος] κεφάλου P   4 εὐμελείας M^1   5 εἰκῆι P || νόημα
Schaeferus (dittographiam suspicatus et coll. =264= 16, =66= 5): μήτ’
(μήτε V) ἐννόημα MV: om. P   9 ἀποδεικνομένοις Us.: ὑποδεικνυμένοις
libri   10 φλέβια PMV: φλεβία E   12 τούτοις τε PM: τούτοις V || τις ἂν
PM: τις V

2. Demetrius (_de Eloc._ § 21) calls attention to the studied ease
and intentional laxity of the opening period of the _Republic_: “The
period of dialogue is one which remains lax, and is also simpler than
the historical. It scarcely betrays the fact that it is a period. For
instance: ‘I went down to the Piraeus,’ as far as the words ‘since
they were now celebrating it for the first time.’ Here the clauses are
flung one upon the other as in the disjointed style, and when we reach
the end we hardly realize that the words form a period” (see also §
205 _ibid._). In the passage of Dionysius it may well be meant that
the words whose order was changed by Plato were not merely κατέβην
... Ἀρίστωνος, but the sentence, or sentences, which these introduce.
(Usener suggests that P’s reading Κεφάλου points to a longer quotation
than that actually found in existing manuscripts; and Persius’ _Arma
virum_, and Cicero’s _O Tite_, i.e. the _De Senectute_, may be
recalled.) Quintilian, however, seems to think that the first four
words only, or chiefly, are meant: though the possible permutations of
these are few and would hardly need to be written down. He says (_Inst.
Or._ viii. 6. 64): “nec aliud potest sermonem facere numerosum quam
opportuna ordinis permutatio; neque alio ceris Platonis inventa sunt
quattuor illa verba, quibus in illo pulcherrimo operum in Piraeeum se
descendisse significat, plurimis modis scripta, quam quod eum quoque
maxime facere experiretur.” Diog. Laert. iii. 37 makes a more general
statement: Εὐφορίων δὲ καὶ Παναίτιος εἰρήκασι πολλάκις ἐστραμμένην
εὑρῆσθαι τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς Πολιτείας. But be the words few or many, the
main point is that trouble of this kind was reckoned an artistic (and
even a patriotic) duty. Upton has stated the case well, in reference to
Cicero’s anxiety to express the words ‘to the Piraeus’ in good Latin:
“Quod si Platonis haec industria quibusdam curiosa nimis et sollicita
videtur, ut quae nec aetati tanti viri, nec officio congruat: quid
Cicero itidem fecerit, quantum latinitatis curam gravissimis etiam
reipublicae negotiis districtus habuerit, in memoriam revocent. is
annum iam agens sexagesimum, inter medios civilium bellorum tumultus,
qui a Caesare Pompeioque excitarentur, cum nesciret, quo mittenda
esset uxor, quo liberi; quem ad locum se reciperet, missis ad Atticum
litteris [_ad Att._ vii. 3], ab eo doceri, an esset scribendum,
_ad Piraeea_, _in Piraeea_, an _in Piraeum_, an _Piraeum sine
praepositione_, impensius rogabat. quae res etsi levior, et grammaticis
propria, patrem eloquentiae temporibus etiam periculosissimis adeo
exercuit, ut haec verba, quae amicum exstimularent, addiderit: _Si hoc
mihi ζήτημα persolveris, magna me molestia liberaris._” Nor was Julius
Caesar less scrupulous in such matters than Cicero himself: their
styles, different as they are, agree in exhibiting the fastidiousness
of literary artists. Compare the modern instances mentioned in Long. p.
33, to which may be added that of Luther as described by Spalding: “non
dubito narrare in Bibliotheca nostrae urbis regia servari chirographum
Martini Lutheri, herois nostri, in quo exstat initium versionis
Psalmorum mirifice et ipsum immutatum et subterlitum, ad conciliandos
orationi, quamquam salutae, numeros.” See also Byron’s _Letters_ (ed.
Prothero) Nos. 247-255 and passim, and Antoine Albalat’s _Le Travail du
style enseigné par les corrections manuscrites des grands écrivains_,

8. =τῶν ἐλαχίστων=: an interesting addition is made in the _de
Demosth._ c. 51 πολιτικὸς δ’ ἄρα δημιουργός, πάντας ὑπεράρας τοὺς καθ’
αὑτὸν φύσει τε καὶ πόνῳ, τῶν ἐλαχίστων τινὸς εἰς τὸ εὖ λέγειν, #εἰ δὴ
καὶ ταῦτα ἐλάχιστα#, ὠλιγώρησε.

9. ἐνδεικνυμένοις may perhaps be suggested in place of
=ἀποδεικνυμένοις=: cp. _de Demosth._ c. 51 οὐ γὰρ δή τοι πλάσται μὲν
καὶ γραφεῖς ἐν ὕλῃ φθαρτῇ χειρῶν εὐστοχίας ἐνδεικνύμενοι τοσούτους
εἰσφέρονται πόνους, ὥστε κτλ. If, on the other hand, ὑποδεικνυμένοις
be retained, we may perhaps translate ‘pupils who have exercises in
manual dexterity, and studies of veins, etc., given them to copy (cp.
ὑπόδειγμα).’—With χειρῶν εὐστοχίας cp. χερὸς εὐστοχίαν (‘well-aimed
shafts’) in Eurip. _Troad._ 811.

10. =τὸν χνοῦν=: cp. Hor. _Ars P._ 32 “Aemilium circa ludum faber imus
et ungues | exprimet et molles imitabitur aere capillos, | infelix
operis summa, quia ponere totum | nesciet.” χνοῦς is the ‘lanugo
plumea.’ Cp. _de Demosth._ c. 38 χνοῦς ἀρχαιοπινής.

11. =κατατρίβειν= κτλ. = κατατήκειν εἰς ταῦτα τὰς τέχνας, _de Demosth._
c. 51.

15. After =ἄλογον=, ἦν may be inserted with Sauppe, who compares _de
Demosth._ c. 52 ὅτι μειράκιον μὲν ἔτι ὄντα καὶ νεωστὶ τοῦ μαθήματος
ἁπτόμενον αὐτὸν οὐκ ἄλογον ἦν καὶ ταῦτα καὶ τἆλλα πάντα διὰ πολλῆς
ἐπιμελείας τε καὶ φροντίδος ἔχειν. But the verb may have been omitted
in the _C.V._ in order to avoid its repetition with ὅσα δυνατὰ ἦν.

[Page 267]

death, with the beginning of the _Republic_ (“I went down yesterday to
the Piraeus together with Glaucon the son of Ariston”[193]) arranged
in elaborately varying orders. What wonder, then, if Demosthenes also
was careful to secure euphony and melody and to employ no random or
untested word or thought? For it appears to me far more reasonable for
a man who is composing public speeches, eternal memorials of his own
powers, to attend even to the slightest details, than it is for the
disciples of painters and workers in relief, who display the dexterity
and industry of their hands in a perishable medium, to expend the
finished resources of their art on veins and down and bloom and similar

These arguments seem to me to make no unreasonable claim; and we
may further add that though when Demosthenes was a lad, and had but
recently taken up the study of rhetoric, he naturally had to ask
himself consciously what the effects attainable

[Page 268]

ἀνθρωπίνην πεσεῖν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἡ χρόνιος ἄσκησις ἰσχὺν
πολλὴν λαβοῦσα τύπους τινὰς ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ παντὸς τοῦ
μελετωμένου καὶ σφραγῖδας ἐνεποίησεν, ἐκ τοῦ ῥᾴστου τε
καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἕξεως αὐτὰ ἤδη ποιεῖν. οἷόν τι γίνεται κἀν
ταῖς ἄλλαις τέχναις, ὧν ἐνέργειά τις ἢ ποίησις τὸ τέλος·      5
αὐτίκα οἱ κιθαρίζειν τε καὶ ψάλλειν καὶ αὐλεῖν ἄκρως εἰδότες
ὅταν κρούσεως ἀκούσωσιν ἀσυνήθους, οὐ πολλὰ πραγματευθέντες
ἀπαριθμοῦσιν αὐτὴν εὐθὺς ἐπὶ τῶν ὀργάνων ἅμα
νοήσει· μανθάνοντες δέ γε χρόνῳ τε πολλῷ καὶ πόνῳ τὰς
δυνάμεις τῶν φθόγγων ἀναλαμβάνουσιν, καὶ οὐκ εὐθὺς αἱ      10
χεῖρες αὐτῶν ἐν ἕξει τοῦ δρᾶν τὰ παραγγελλόμενα ἦσαν, ὀψὲ
δέ ποτε καὶ ὅτε ἡ πολλὴ ἄσκησις αὐταῖς εἰς φύσεως ἰσχὺν
κατέστησε τὸ ἔθος, τότε τῶν ἔργων ἐγένοντο ἐπιτυχεῖς. καὶ
τί δεῖ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων λέγειν; ὃ γὰρ ἅπαντες ἴσμεν, ἀπόχρη
καὶ πᾶσαν αὐτῶν διακόψαι τὴν φλυαρίαν. τί δ’ ἐστὶ τοῦτο;      15
τὰ γράμματα ὅταν παιδευώμεθα, πρῶτον μὲν τὰ ὀνόματα
αὐτῶν ἐκμανθάνομεν, ἔπειτα τοὺς τύπους καὶ τὰς δυνάμεις,
εἶθ’ οὕτω τὰς συλλαβὰς καὶ τὰ ἐν ταύταις πάθη, καὶ μετὰ
τοῦτο ἤδη τὰς λέξεις καὶ τὰ συμβεβηκότα αὐταῖς, ἐκτάσεις
τε λέγω καὶ συστολὰς καὶ προσῳδίας καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια      20
τούτοις· ὅταν δὲ τὴν τούτων ἐπιστήμην λάβωμεν, τότε
ἀρχόμεθα γράφειν τε καὶ ἀναγινώσκειν, κατὰ συλλαβὴν
<μὲν> καὶ βραδέως τὸ πρῶτον· ἐπειδὰν δὲ ὁ χρόνος ἀξιόλογος
προσελθὼν τύπους ἰσχυροὺς αὐτῶν ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς
ἡμῶν ἐμποιήσῃ, τότε ἀπὸ τοῦ ῥᾴστου δρῶμεν αὐτὰ καὶ πᾶν      25
ὅ τι ἂν ἐπιδῷ τις βιβλίον ἀπταίστως διερχόμεθα ἕξει τε
καὶ τάχει ἀπίστῳ. τοιοῦτο δὴ καὶ περὶ τὴν σύνθεσιν τῶν
ὀνομάτων καὶ περὶ τὴν εὐέπειαν τῶν κώλων ὑποληπτέον
γίνεσθαι παρὰ τοῖς ἀθληταῖς τοῦ ἔργου. τοὺς δὲ τούτου

1 πεσεῖν EP: ἐλθεῖν MV   3 σφαγίδας P: σφραγίδας V   4 ᾔδει ποιεῖν E 8
ἅμα Us.: ἀλλὰ PMV^1: ἀλλὰ καὶ V^2   21 δὲ EM: τε PV   23 μὲν inseruit
Sadaeus coll. comment. de Demosth. c. 52 || ἐπειδὰν E: ἐπεὶ PV: ἔπειτα
M   25 ποιήση EM^1: ποιήσει PM^2V   27 τοιοῦτο EM: τοιούτω P: τοιοῦτον
V   29 τοὺς ... ἀπείρους E: τοῖς ... ἀπείροις PMV

3. =ἐκ τοῦ ῥᾴστου=: cp. ἀπὸ τοῦ ῥᾴστου l. 25 _infra_.

5. Dionysius is thinking of Aristot. _Eth. Nic._ i. 1 διαφορὰ δέ τις
φαίνεται τῶν τελῶν· τὰ μὲν γάρ εἰσιν ἐνέργειαι, τὰ δὲ παρ’ αὐτὰς ἔργα
τινά. ὧν δ’ εἰσὶ τέλη τινὰ παρὰ τὰς πράξεις, ἐν τούτοις βελτίω πέφυκε
τῶν ἐνεργείων τὰ ἔργα.

8. If ἀλλὰ νοήσει be retained, the meaning will be ‘not with much
trouble, but by means of their acquired skill.’ But =ἅμα νοήσει=
derives support from the parallel passages in _de Demosth._ c. 52 ἅμα
νοήσει [νοήσει Sylburg, for the manuscript reading νοήσεις] and ὥστε
ἅμα νοήσει κεκριμένον τε καὶ ἄπταιστον αὐτῆς εἶναι τὸ ἔργον.

16. Referring to this description in the _Cambridge Companion to
Greek Studies_ p. 507, the late Dr. A. S. Wilkins remarks: “Some have
supposed that Dionysius here describes the method of acquiring the
power of reading, not by learning the names of the letters first, but
by learning their powers, so combining them at once into syllables.
But this is hardly consistent with his language, and is directly
contradicted by a passage in Athenaeus, which tells how there was
a kind of chant used in schools:—βῆτα ἄλφα βα, βῆτα εἶ βε, etc. A
terracotta plate found in Attica, doubtless intended for use in
schools, contains a number of syllables αρ βαρ γαρ δαρ ερ βερ γερ δερ

26. =ἀπταίστως=: Usener reads ἀπταίστῳ. But the adverb goes better with
διερχόμεθα than the adjective would with ἕξει τε καὶ τάχει. Cp. _de
Demosth._ c. 51 (the later version of the present passage) ἀπταίστως τε
καὶ κατὰ πολλὴν εὐπέτειαν, and Plato _Theaet._ 144 B ὁ δὲ οὕτω λείως
τε καὶ ἀπταίστως καὶ ἀνυσίμως ἔρχεται ἐπὶ τὰς μαθήσεις τε καὶ ζητήσεις
μετὰ πολλῆς πρᾳότητος, οἷον ἐλαίου ῥεῦμα ἀψοφητὶ ῥέοντος (these last
words are echoed in the _de Demosth._ c. 20).

29. =ἀθληταῖς=: cp. _de Demosth._ c. 18 καίτοι γε τοῖς ἀθληταῖς τῆς
ἀληθινῆς λέξεως ἰσχυρὰς τὰς ἁφὰς προσεῖναι δεῖ καὶ ἀφύκτους τὰς λαβάς,
and _de Isocr._ c. 11 fin.; also δεινοὺς ἀγωνιστάς =282= 3 _infra_.

[Page 269]

by human skill were, yet when long training had issued in perfect
mastery, and had graven on his mind forms and impressions of all
that he had practised, he henceforth produced his effects with the
utmost ease from sheer force of habit. Something similar occurs in
the other arts whose end is activity or production. For example, when
accomplished players on the lyre, the harp, or the flute hear an
unfamiliar tune, they no sooner grasp it than with little trouble they
run over it on the instrument themselves. They have mastered the values
of the notes after much toiling and moiling, and so can reproduce them.
Their hands were not at the outset in condition to do what was bidden
them; they attained command of this accomplishment only after much
time, when ample training had converted custom into second nature.

Why pursue the subject? A fact familiar to all of us is enough to
silence these quibblers. What may this be? When we are taught to read,
first we learn off the names of the letters, then their forms and their
values, then in due course syllables and their modifications, and
finally words and their properties, viz. lengthenings and shortenings,
accents, and the like. After acquiring the knowledge of these things,
we begin to write and read, syllable by syllable and slowly at first.
And when the lapse of a considerable time has implanted the forms of
words firmly in our minds, then we deal with them without the least
difficulty, and whenever any book is placed in our hands we go through
it without stumbling, and with incredible facility and speed. We must
suppose that something of this kind happens in the case of the trained
exponent of the literary profession as regards the arrangement of words
and the euphony of clauses. And it is not unnatural that those who

[Page 270]

ἀπείρους ἢ ἀτριβεῖς ἔργου ὁτουοῦν θαυμάζειν καὶ ἀπιστεῖν,
εἴ τι κεκρατημένως ὑφ’ ἑτέρου γίνεται διὰ τέχνης, οὐκ ἄλογον.
πρὸς μὲν οὖν τοὺς εἰωθότας χλευάζειν τὰ παραγγέλματα τῶν
τεχνῶν ταῦτα εἰρήσθω.


περὶ δὲ τῆς ἐμμελοῦς τε καὶ ἐμμέτρου συνθέσεως τῆς      5
ἐχούσης πολλὴν ὁμοιότητα πρὸς τὴν πεζὴν λέξιν τοιαῦτά
τινα λέγειν ἔχω, ὡς πρώτη μέν ἐστιν αἰτία κἀνταῦθα τὸν
αὐτὸν τρόπον ὅνπερ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀμέτρου ποιητικῆς ἡ τῶν ὀνομάτων
αὐτῶν ἁρμογή, δευτέρα δὲ ἡ τῶν κώλων σύνθεσις, τρίτη
δὲ ἡ τῶν περιόδων συμμετρία. τὸν δὴ βουλόμενον ἐν τούτῳ      10
τῷ μέρει κατορθοῦν τὰ τῆς λέξεως μόρια δεῖ πολυειδῶς στρέφειν
τε καὶ συναρμόττειν καὶ τὰ κῶλα ἐν διαστήμασι ποιεῖν
συμμέτρως, μὴ συναπαρτίζοντα τοῖς στίχοις ἀλλὰ διατέμνοντα
τὸ μέτρον, ἄνισά τε ποιεῖν αὐτὰ καὶ ἀνόμοια, πολλάκις δὲ
καὶ εἰς κόμματα συνάγειν βραχύτερα κώλων, τάς τε περιόδους      15
μήτε ἰσομεγέθεις μήτε ὁμοιοσχήμονας τὰς γοῦν παρακειμένας
ἀλλήλαις ἐργάζεσθαι· ἔγγιστα γὰρ φαίνεται λόγοις
τὸ περὶ τοὺς ῥυθμοὺς καὶ τὰ μέτρα πεπλανημένον. τοῖς μὲν
οὖν τὰ ἔπη καὶ τοὺς ἰάμβους καὶ τὰ ἄλλα τὰ ὁμοειδῆ μέτρα
κατασκευάζουσιν οὐκ ἔξεστι πολλοῖς διαλαμβάνειν μέτροις ἢ      20
ῥυθμοῖς τὰς ποιήσεις, ἀλλ’ ἀνάγκη μένειν ἀεὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ
σχήματος· τοῖς δὲ μελοποιοῖς ἔξεστι πολλὰ μέτρα καὶ
ῥυθμοὺς εἰς μίαν ἐμβαλεῖν περίοδον· ὥσθ’ οἱ μὲν τὰ μονόμετρα

1 ἀτριβεῖς Reiskius: ἀτριβέσιν libri   2 κεκρατημένως PM: κεκροτημένως
V   5 συνθήκης M   10 συμμετρία M: ἐμμετρία EPV   17 ἀλλήλαις EM:
ἀλλήλοις PV

2. =κεκρατημένως=, ‘vigorously’: cp. Sext. Empir. p. 554 (Bekker)
οὐ κεκρατημένως ὑπέγραψαν οἱ δογματικοὶ τὴν ἐπίνοιαν τοῦ τε ἀγαθοῦ
καὶ κακοῦ. The other reading κεκροτημένως would mean ‘with tumult of
applause’; or perhaps ‘in a welded, well-wrought way.’

5. For the relation of Verse to Prose see Introduction, pp. 33-9.

8. Other references to poetical prose occur in =208= 5, =250= 10, 16

13. =μὴ συναπαρτίζοντα τοῖς στίχοις=, ‘not allowing the sense of
the clauses to be self-contained in separate lines,’ lit. ‘not
completing the clauses together with the lines.’ Dionysius means that
verse-writers must (for the sake of variety) practise _enjambement_,
i.e. the completion of the sense in another line. It is the neglect
of this principle that makes the language of French classical tragedy
[with exceptions, of course; e.g. Racine _Athalie_ i. 1 “Celui qui met
un frein,” etc.] so monotonous when compared with that of the Greek
or Shakespearian tragedy. Besides the examples adduced by Dionysius,
compare that quoted from Callimachus in the note on =272= 4 _infra_
and, in English, Tennyson’s _Dora_ and Wordsworth’s _Michael_. Such
English poems without rhyme might be written out as continuous prose,
and their true character would pass unsuspected by many readers, pauses
at the ends of lines being often studiously avoided; e.g. the opening
of Tennyson’s _Dora_: “With farmer Allen at the farm abode William
and Dora. William was his son, and she his niece. He often look’d at
them, and often thought, ‘I’ll make them man and wife.’ Now Dora felt
her uncle’s will in all, and yearn’d toward William; but the youth,
because he had been always with her in the house, thought not of Dora.”
Similarly Homer’s “ἀλλά μ’ ἀνήρπαξαν Τάφιοι ληίστορες ἄνδρες ἀγρόθεν
ἐρχομένην, περάσαν δέ με δεῦρ’ ἀγαγόντες τοῦδ’ ἀνδρὸς πρὸς δώμαθ’· ὁ
δ’ ἄξιον ὦνον ἔδωκε” (_Odyss._ xv. 427-9) might almost be an extract
from a speech of Lysias. Some remarkable examples of _enjambement_ (or
‘overflow’) might also be quoted from Swinburne’s recent poem, _The
Duke of Gandia_.

17. Cp. Cic. _de Orat._ i. 16. 70 “est enim finitimus oratori poëta,
numeris astrictor paulo, verborum autem licentia liberior, multis vero
ornandi generibus socius, ac paene par.”

[Page 271]

are ignorant of this or unversed in any profession whatsoever should
be surprised and incredulous when they hear that anything is executed
with such mastery by another as a result of artistic training. This
may suffice as a rejoinder to those who are accustomed to scoff at the
rules of the rhetorical manuals.



Concerning melodious metrical composition which bears a close affinity
to prose, my views are of the following kind. The prime factor here
too, just as in the case of poetical prose, is the collocation of the
words themselves; next, the composition of the clauses; third, the
arrangement of the periods. He who wishes to succeed in this department
must change the words about and connect them with each other in
manifold ways, and make the clauses begin and end at various places
within the lines, not allowing their sense to be self-contained in
separate verses, but breaking up the measure. He must make the clauses
vary in length and form, and will often also reduce them to phrases
which are shorter than clauses, and will make the periods—those at
any rate which adjoin one another—neither equal in size nor alike in
construction; for an elastic treatment of rhythms and metres seems to
bring verse quite near to prose. Now those authors who compose in epic
or iambic verse, or use the other regular metres, cannot diversify
their poetical works with many metres or rhythms, but must always
adhere to the same metrical form. But the lyric poets can include many
metres and rhythms in a single period. So that when the writers of
monometers break up

[Page 272]

συντιθέντες ὅταν διαλύσωσι τοὺς στίχους τοῖς κώλοις
διαλαμβάνοντες ἄλλοτε ἄλλως, διαχέουσι καὶ ἀφανίζουσι τὴν
ἀκρίβειαν τοῦ μέτρου, καὶ ὅταν τὰς περιόδους μεγέθει τε καὶ
σχήματι ποικίλας ποιῶσιν, εἰς λήθην ἐμβάλλουσιν ἡμᾶς τοῦ
μέτρου· οἱ δὲ μελοποιοὶ πολυμέτρους τὰς στροφὰς ἐργαζόμενοι      5
καὶ τῶν κώλων ἑκάστοτε πάλιν ἀνίσων τε ὄντων καὶ ἀνομοίων
ἀλλήλοις ἀνομοίους τε καὶ ἀνίσους ποιούμενοι τὰς διαιρέσεις,
δι’ ἄμφω δὲ ταῦτα οὐκ ἐῶντες, ἡμᾶς ὁμοειδοῦς ἀντίληψιν
λαβεῖν ῥυθμοῦ πολλὴν τὴν πρὸς τοὺς λόγους ὁμοιότητα κατασκευάζουσιν
ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν, ἔνεστί τε καὶ τροπικῶν καὶ      10
ξένων καὶ γλωττηματικῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ποιητικῶν ὀνομάτων
μενόντων ἐν τοῖς ποιήμασιν μηδὲν ἧττον αὐτὰ φαίνεσθαι
λόγῳ παραπλήσια.

μηδεὶς δὲ ὑπολαμβανέτω με ἀγνοεῖν ὅτι κακία ποιήματος
ἡ καλουμένη λογοείδεια δοκεῖ τις εἶναι, μηδὲ καταγινωσκέτω      15
μου ταύτην τὴν ἀμαθίαν, ὡς ἄρα ἐγὼ κακίαν τινὰ ἐν ἀρεταῖς
τάττω ποιημάτων ἢ λόγων· ὡς δὲ ἀξιῶ διαιρεῖν κἀν τούτοις
τὰ σπουδαῖα ἀπὸ τῶν μηδενὸς ἀξίων, ἀκούσας μαθέτω. ἐγὼ
τοὺς λόγους τὸν μὲν ἰδιώτην ἐπιστάμενος ὄντα, τὸν ἀδολέσχην
τοῦτον λέγω καὶ φλύαρον, τὸν δὲ πολιτικόν, ἐν ᾧ τὸ πολὺ      20
κατεσκευασμένον ἐστὶ καὶ ἔντεχνον, ὅ τι μὲν ἂν τῶν ποιημάτων
ὅμοιον εὑρίσκω τῷ φλυάρῳ καὶ ἀδολέσχῃ, γέλωτος ἄξιον
τίθεμαι, ὅ τι δ’ ἂν τῷ κατεσκευασμένῳ καὶ ἐντέχνῳ, ζήλου
καὶ σπουδῆς ἐπιτήδειον τυχάνειν οἴομαι. εἰ μὲν οὖν
διαφόρου προσηγορίας τῶν λόγων ἑκάτερος ἐτύγχανεν, ἀκόλουθον      25
ἦν ἂν καὶ τῶν ποιημάτων ἃ τούτοις ἔοικεν διαφόροις
ὀνόμασι καλεῖν ἑκάτερον· ἐπειδὴ δὲ ὅ τε σπουδαῖος καὶ ὁ
τοῦ μηδενὸς ἄξιος ὁμοίως καλεῖται λόγος, οὐκ ἂν ἁμαρτάνοι
τις τὰ μὲν ἐοικότα τῷ καλῷ λόγῳ ποιήματα καλὰ ἡγούμενος,

1 διαλύσωσι P: διαλείπωσι M: διαλίπωσι V   3 μεγέθη P   5 τὰσ τροφὰς
P   6 ἑκάστοτε Us.: ἑκάστου libri || τε ὄντων M: ὄντων PV   8 ἄμφω δὲ
M: ἄμφω PV   11 τῶν ἄλλων Us.: τῶν ἄλλων τῶν libri   15 καλουμένη om.
M || τις] τησ P || καταγινωσκέτω MV: καταγιγνωσκέτω P (sed cf. =278= 7
et alibi)   17 κ’ ἂν P   19 τοὺς λόγους Schaeferus: τοῦ λόγου libri ||
ἁδολέσχην P   20 τὸ πολὺ PM: πολὺ τὸ V   21 ποιημάτων PM: ποιητῶν V   22
ἁδολέσχηι P || ἄξιον P: ἄξιον αὐτὸ MV   28 ὁμοίως compendio P: om. MV

4. =εἰς λήθην ἐμβάλλουσιν=: the following Epigram of Callimachus will
illustrate Dionysius’ meaning:—

        ἠῷοι Μελάνιππον ἐθάπτομεν, ἠελίου δέ
          δυομένου Βασιλὼ κάτθανε παρθενική
        αὐτοχερί· ζώειν γὰρ ἀδελφεὸν ἐν πυρὶ θεῖσα
          οὐκ ἔτλη. δίδυμον δ’ οἶκος ἐσεῖδε κακόν
        πατρὸς Ἀριστίπποιο, κατήφησεν δὲ Κυρήνη
          πᾶσα τὸν εὔτεκνον χῆρον ἰδοῦσα δόμον.

(The text is that of Wilamowitz-Moellendorff _Callimachi Hymni et
Epigrammata_ p. 59. Upton, who quotes the epigram, adds: “En tibi
ea omnia, quae tradit Dionysius, accurate praestita: sententiae
inaequales, disparia membra: ipsi adeo versus dissecti, nec sensu, nec
verborum structura, nisi in sequentem usque progrediatur, absoluta.
quibus factum est, ut prosaicae orationi, salva tamen dignitate, quam
proxime accedatur.” Compare also the first eight lines of Mimnermus
_Eleg._ ii.)

6. =ἑκάστοτε=: Upton here conjectures ἑκάστης, Schaefer ἑκάστων.

15. =τις= to be connected with κακία. In the next line κακίαν τινά come
close together.

19. =μαθέτω=: supply πᾶς τις, or the like, from μηδείς in l. 14. Cp.
Hor. _Serm._ i. 1. 1 “qui fit, Maecenas, ut nemo, quam sibi sortem |
seu ratio dederit seu fors obiecerit, illa | contentus vivat, laudet
diversa sequentes?”

[Page 273]

the lines by distributing them into clauses now one way now another,
they dissolve and efface the regularity of the metre; and when they
diversify the periods in size and form, they make us forget the metre.
On the other hand, the lyric poets compose their strophes in many
metres; and again, from the fact that the clauses vary from time to
time in length and form, they make the divisions unlike in form and
size. From both these causes they hinder our apprehension of any
uniform rhythm, and so they produce, as by design, in lyric poems a
great likeness to prose. It is quite possible, moreover, for the poems
to retain many figurative, unfamiliar, exceptional, and otherwise
poetical words, and none the less to show a close resemblance to prose.

And let no one think me ignorant of the fact that the so-called
“pedestrian character” is commonly regarded as a vice in poetry, or
impute to me, of all persons, the folly of ranking any bad quality
among the virtues of poetry or prose. Let my critic rather pay
attention and learn how here once more I claim to distinguish what
merits serious consideration from what is worthless. I observe that,
among prose styles, there is on the one side the uncultivated style, by
which I mean the prevailing frivolous gabble, and on the other side the
language of public life which is, in the main, studied and artistic;
and so, whenever I find any poetry which resembles the frivolous gabble
I have referred to, I regard it as beneath criticism. I think that
alone to be fit for serious imitation which resembles the studied and
artistic kind. Now, if each sort of prose had a different appellation,
it would have been only consistent to call the corresponding sorts
of poetry also by different names. But since both the good and the
worthless are called “prose,” it may not be wrong to regard as noble
and bad “poetry” that which

[Page 274]

τὰ δὲ τῷ μοχθηρῷ πονηρά, οὐδὲν ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ λόγου ὁμοειδείας
ταραττόμενος. κωλύσει γὰρ οὐδὲν ἡ τῆς ὀνομασίας ὁμοιότης
κατὰ διαφόρων ταττομένης πραγμάτων τὴν ἑκατέρου φύσιν

εἰρηκὼς δὴ καὶ περὶ τούτων, παραδείγματά σοι τῶν      5
εἰρημένων ὀλίγα θεὶς αὐτοῦ κατακλείσω τὸν λόγον. ἐκ μὲν
οὖν τῆς ἐπικῆς ποιήσεως ταῦτα ἀπόχρη·

        αὐτὰρ ὅ γ’ ἐκ λιμένος προσέβη τρηχεῖαν ἀταρπόν·

ἓν μὲν δὴ τοῦτο κῶλον. ἕτερον δὲ

        χῶρον ἀν’ ὑλήεντα      10

ἔλαττόν τε τοῦ προτέρου καὶ δίχα τέμνον τὸν στίχον. τρίτον
δὲ τουτί

        δι’ ἄκριας

ἔλαττον κώλου κομμάτιον. τέταρτον δὲ

                            ᾗ οἱ Ἀθήνη      15
        πέφραδε δῖον ὑφορβόν

ἐξ ἡμιστιχίων δύο συγκείμενον καὶ τοῖς προτέροις οὐδὲν
ἐοικός. ἔπειτα τὸ τελευταῖον

                            ὅ οἱ βιότοιο μάλιστα
        κήδετο οἰκήων οὓς κτήσατο δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς      20

ἀτελῆ μὲν τὸν τρίτον ποιοῦν στίχον, τοῦ δὲ τετάρτου τῇ
προσθήκῃ τὴν ἀκρίβειαν ἀφῃρημένον. ἔπειτ’ αὖθις

        τὸν δ’ ἄρ’ ἐνὶ προδόμῳ εὗρ’ ἥμενον

οὐ συνεκτρέχον οὐδὲ τοῦτο τῷ στίχῳ.

                            ἔνθα οἱ αὐλὴ      25
        ὑψηλὴ δέδμητο

1 οὐδὲν ... ταραττόμενος MV: om. P   3 ταττομένης Sauppius: ταττομένη
libri   5 εἰρηκὼς ... θεὶς Us.: καὶ περὶ τούτων [μὲν add. MV] ἅλις. ὧν
δὲ προυθέμην τὰ παραδείγματα θεὶς PMV   8 ὅ γ’] ὁ Hom.   11 τέμνον EV:
τέμνοντος PM   14 τέταρτον δὲ E: om. PMV   15 ᾗ Hom.: ἧ V: οἷ [fort.
οἷ] PM, E   22 ἔπειτ’ ... ἥμενον om. P   25 ἔνθά οἱ PM

3. =κατὰ ... ταττομένης=: cp. Ven. A Schol. on _Il._ xv. 347 ὅτι
Ζηνόδοτος γράφει #ἐπισσεύεσθον#. συγχεῖται δὲ τὸ δυϊκὸν κατὰ
πλειόνων τασσόμενον.

6. =αὐτοῦ=, ‘here,’ ‘on the spot.’ Cp. Diod. Sic. ii. 60 ἡμεῖς δὲ
τὴν ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς βίβλου γεγενημένην ἐπαγγελίαν τετελεκότες αὐτοῦ
περιγράψομεν τήνδε τὴν βίβλον.—With =κατακλείσω= cp. _Antiq. Rom._
vii. 14 τελευτῶν δ’ ὁ Βροῦτος, εἰς ἀπειλήν τινα τοιάνδε κατέκλεισε τὸν
λόγον, ὡς κτλ.

7. In Latin, Bircovius well compares Virg. _Aen._ i. 180-91.

8. Dionysius’ point will be better appreciated if the passage of the
_Odyssey_ (xiv. 1-7) be given not bit by bit but as a whole:—

        αὐτὰρ ὅ γ’ ἐκ λιμένος προσέβη τρηχεῖαν ἀταρπὸν
        χῶρον ἀν’ ὑλήεντα δι’ ἄκριας, ᾗ οἱ Ἀθήνη
        πέφραδε δῖον ὑφορβόν, ὅ οἱ βιότοιο μάλιστα
        κήδετο οἰκήων, οὓς κτήσατο δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς.
        τὸν δ’ ἄρ’ ἐνὶ προδόμῳ εὗρ’ ἥμενον, ἔνθα οἱ αὐλὴ
        ὑψηλὴ δέδμητο, περισκέπτῳ ἐνὶ χώρῳ,
        καλή τε μεγάλῃ τε, περίδρομος.

15. Compare (in Latin) the opening of Terence’s _Phormio_, if written
continuously: “Amicus summus meus et popularis Geta heri ad me venit.
erat ei de ratiuncula iam pridem apud me relicuom pauxillulum nummorum:
id ut conficerem. confeci: adfero. nam erilem filium eius duxisse audio
uxorem: ei credo munus hoc corraditur. quam inique comparatumst. ei qui
minus habent ut semper aliquid addant ditioribus!”

[Page 275]

resembles noble and contemptible prose respectively, and not to be in
any way disturbed by mere identity of terms. The application of similar
names to different things will not prevent us from discerning the true
nature of the things in either case.

As I have gone so far as to deal with this subject, I will end by
subjoining a few examples of the features in question. From epic poetry
it will be enough to quote the following lines:—

    But he from the haven went where the rugged pathway led.[194]

Here we have one clause. Observe the next—

    Up the wooded land.

It is shorter than the other, and cuts the line in two. The third is—

    through the hills:

a segment still shorter than a clause. The fourth—

                                 unto where Athene had said
    That he should light on the goodly swineherd—

consists of two half-lines and is in no way like the former. Then the

                                             the man who best
    Gave heed to the goods of his lord, of the thralls that Odysseus

which leaves the third line unfinished, while by the addition of the
fourth it loses all undue uniformity. Then again—

    By the house-front sitting he found him,

where once more the words do not run out the full course of the line.

                         there where the courtyard wall
    Was builded tall.

[Page 276]

ἄνισον καὶ τοῦτο τῷ πρότερῳ. κἄπειτα ὁ ἑξῆς νοῦς ἀπερίοδος
ἐν κώλοις τε καὶ κόμμασι λεγόμενος· ἐπιθεὶς γὰρ

        περισκέπτῳ ἐνὶ χώρῳ,

πάλιν ἐποίσει

        καλή τε μεγάλη τε      5

βραχύτερον κώλου κομμάτιον, εἶτα


ὄνομα καθ’ ἑαυτὸ νοῦν τινα ἔχον. εἶθ’ ἑξῆς τὰ ἄλλα τὸν
αὐτὸν κατασκευάσει τρόπον· τί γὰρ δεῖ μηκύνειν;

ἐκ δὲ τῆς ποιήσεως τῆς ἰαμβικῆς τὰ παρ’ Εὐριπίδου      10

        Ὦ γαῖα πατρὶς ἣν Πέλοψ ὁρίζεται,

τὸ πρῶτον ἄχρι τούτου κῶλον.

              ὅς τε πέτραν Ἀρκάδων δυσχείμερον      15
        <Πὰν> ἐμβατεύεις

τὸ δεύτερον μέχρι τοῦδε.

        ἔνθεν εὔχομαι γένος.

τοῦτο τρίτον. τὰ μὲν πρότερα μείζονα στίχου, τοῦτο δὲ
ἔλαττον.      20

        Αὔγη γὰρ Ἀλέου παῖς με τῷ Τιρυνθίῳ
        τίκτει λαθραίως Ἡρακλεῖ·

μετὰ τοῦτο

                             ξύνοιδ’ ὄρος
        Παρθένιον,      25

οὐθέτερον αὐτῶν στίχῳ συμμετρούμενον. εἶτ’ αὖθις ἕτερον
στίχου τε ἔλαττον καὶ στίχου μεῖζον

1 καὶ V: κατὰ PM   4 ἐποίει P   5 καλήν τε μεγάλην τε PM   9 μηκύνειν
P: μηκύνειν τὸν λόγον MV   10 παρ’ εὐριπι [**TN: δ written above final
ι of εὐριπι] sic P: εὐριπίδου MV   15 ὅς τε s: ὥστε PMV || δυσχείμερον
ἀρκάδων PMV: transposuit Sylburgius   16 Πὰν inseruit Musgravius   19
μείζονα om. P || στίχου MV: στι [**TN: χ written above ι of στι] P:
στίχον s   21 αὐγὴ M: αὐτὴ PV   24 ξύνοιδ’ s: ξύνοιδε P: ξυνοὶδὲ MV 26
οὔθ’ ἕτερον PM: οὐδέτερον V

12. =ὁρίζεται=: _sibi vindicat_, ‘annexes.’—The fragment of Euripides,
taken as a whole, runs thus in Nauck’s collection:—

        ὦ γαῖα πατρίς, ἣν Πέλοψ ὁρίζεται,
        χαῖρ’, ὅς τε πέτρον Ἀρκάδων δυσχείμερον
        <Πὰν> ἐμβατεύεις, ἔνθεν εὔχομαι γένος.
        Αὔγη γὰρ Ἀλέου παῖς με τῷ Τιρυνθίῳ
        τίκτει λαθραίως Ἡρακλεῖ· ξύνοιδ’ ὄρος
        Παρθένιον, ἔνθα μητέρ’ ὠδίνων ἐμὴν
        ἔλυσεν Εἰλείθυια.

25. =Παρθένιον=: cp. Callim. _Hymn. in Delum_ 70 φεῦγε μὲν Ἀρκαδίη,
φεῦγεν δ’ ὄρος ἱερὸν Αὔγης | Παρθένιον, together with the scholium ὄρος
Ἀρκαδίας τὸ Παρθένιον, ἔνθα τὴν Αὔγην τὴν Ἀλεοῦ θυγατέρα, ἱέρειαν τῆς
Ἀθηνᾶς, ἔφθειρεν Ἡρακλῆς.

[Page 277]

This, too, does not balance the former. Further, the order of ideas in
the continuation of the passage is unperiodic, though the words are
cast into the form of clauses and sections. For, after adding

        In a place with a clear view round about,

we shall find him subjoining:

        Massy and fair to behold,

which is a segment shorter than a clause. Next we find

        Free on every side,

where the one Greek word (περίδρομος) by itself carries a certain
meaning. And so on: we shall find him elaborating everything that
follows in the same way. Why go into unnecessary detail?

From iambic poetry may be taken these lines of Euripides:—

        Fatherland, ta’en by Pelops in possession,

Thus far the first clause extends.

        And thou, Pan, who haunt’st the stormy steeps
        Of Arcady.[195]

So far the second extends.

        Whereof I boast my birth.[195]

That is the third. The former are longer than a line; the last is

        Me Auge, Aleus’ daughter, not of wedlock
        Bare to Tirynthian Heracles.[195]

And afterwards—

                                  This knows
        Yon hill Parthenian.[195]

Not one of these corresponds exactly to a line. Then once more we find
another clause which is from one point of view less than a line and
from the other longer—

[Page 278]

                    ἔνθα μητέρ’ ὠδίνων ἐμὴν
        ἔλυσεν Εἰλείθυια

καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς τούτοις παραπλήσια.

ἐκ δὲ τῆς μελικῆς τὰ Σιμωνίδεια ταῦτα· γέγραπται δὲ
κατὰ διαστολὰς οὐχ ὧν Ἀριστοφάνης ἢ ἄλλος τις κατεσκεύασε      5
κώλων ἀλλ’ ὧν ὁ πεζὸς λόγος ἀπαιτεῖ. πρόσεχε δὴ τῷ μέλει
καὶ ἀναγίνωσκε κατὰ διαστολάς, καὶ εὖ ἴσθ’ ὅτι λήσεταί σε ὁ
ῥυθμὸς τῆς ᾠδῆς καὶ οὐχ ἕξεις συμβαλεῖν οὔτε στροφὴν οὔτε
ἀντίστροφον οὔτ’ ἐπῳδόν, ἀλλὰ φανήσεταί σοι λόγος εἷς
εἰρόμενος. ἔστι δὲ ἡ διὰ πελάγους φερομένη Δανάη τὰς      10
ἑαυτῆς ἀποδυρομένη τύχας·

            ὅτε λάρνακι ἐν δαιδαλέᾳ
        ἄνεμός τε μιν πνέων <ἐφόρει>
        κινηθεῖσά τε λίμνα,
        δείματι ἤριπεν οὐκ ἀδιάντοισι παρειαῖς      15
        ἀμφί τε Περσέϊ βάλλε φίλαν χέρα

5 ἄλλός τις P || κατεστεύασε P   6 ἀπετεῖ P || δὴ PM: δὲ V   7 κατὰ P:
ταῦτα κατὰ MV   9 ἀντίστροφον PM: ἀντιστροφὴν V || λόγος εἰσειρόμενος
P: λόγος οὑτωσὶ διειρόμενος MV   10 Δανάη] δ’ ἀν ἡ P   13 τέ μιν
Schneidewinus: τε μὴν PM: τ’ ἐμῇ V || ἐφόρει ante μιν Bergkius
inseruit, post πνέων Usenerus   14 τε Brunckius: δὲ PMV   15 ἤριπεν
Brunckius: ἔριπεν P: ἔρειπεν MV || οὐκ Thierschius: οὐτ’ P: οὔτ’ MV

4. Bircovius points out that Hor. _Carm._ iii. 27. 33 ff. might be
printed as continuous prose, thus: “quae simul centum tetigit potentem
oppidis Creten: ‘Pater, o relictae filiae nomen, pietasque’ dixit
‘victa furore! unde quo veni? levis una mors est virginum culpae.
vigilansne ploro turpe commissum, an vitiis carentem ludit imago vana,
quae porta fugiens eburna somnium ducit?’” etc. The short rhymeless
lines of Matthew Arnold’s _Rugby Chapel_ might be run together in
the same way, e.g. “There thou dost lie, in the gloom of the autumn
evening. But ah! that word, _gloom_, to my mind brings thee back, in
the light of thy radiant vigour, again; in the gloom of November we
pass’d days not dark at thy side; seasons impair’d not the ray of thy
buoyant cheerfulness clear. Such thou wast! and I stand in the autumn
evening, and think of by-gone evenings with thee.” The word-arrangement
from line to line is such that this passage might almost be read as
prose, except for a certain rhythm and for an occasional departure from
the word-order of ordinary prose.

5. =Aristophanes=: cp. note on =218= 19 _supra_.

8. Compare, for example, the last two stanzas, printed continuously, of
Tennyson’s _In Memoriam_ cxv.: “Where now the seamew pipes, or dives in
yonder greening gleam, and fly the happy birds, that change their sky
to build and brood, that live their lives from land to land; and in my
breast spring wakens too; and my regret becomes an April violet, and
buds and blossoms like the rest.”

11. =ἀποδυρομένη=: probably the _Danaë_ was a θρῆνος, and in any
case it illustrates, to the full, the “maestius lacrimis Simonideis”
of Catullus (_Carm._ xxxviii. 8), or Wordsworth’s “one precious,
tender-hearted scroll | Of pure =Simonides=.” Cp. also _de Imitat._
ii. 6. 2 καθ’ ὃ βελτίων εὑρίσκεται καὶ Πινδάρου, τὸ οἰκτίζεσθαι μὴ
μεγαλοπρεπῶς ἀλλὰ παθητικῶς: and Quintil. x. 1. 64 “Simonides, tenuis
alioqui, sermone proprio et iucunditate quadam commendari potest;
praecipua tamen eius in commovenda miseratione virtus, ut quidam in hac
eum parte omnibus eius operis auctoribus praeferant.”

12. Verse-translations of the _Danaë_ will be found also in J. A.
Symonds’ _Studies of the Greek Poets_ i. 160, and in Walter Headlam’s
_Book of Greek Verse_ pp. 49-51. Headlam observes that the _Danaë_ is
a passage extracted from a longer poem, and that the best commentary
on it is Lucian’s _Dialogues of the Sea_ 12. Weir Smyth (_Greek Lyric
Poetry_ p. 321) remarks: “It must be confessed that, if we have all
that Dionysius transcribed, he has proved his point [viz. that by an
arrangement into διαστολαί the poetical rhythm can be so obscured that
the reader will be unable to recognize strophe, antistrophe, or epode]
so successfully that no one has been able to demonstrate the existence
of all three parts of the triad. Wilamowitz (_Isyllos_ 144) claims to
have restored strophe (ἄνεμος ... δούρατι), epode (χαλκεογόμφῳ ...
δεινὸν ἦν), and antistrophe (καὶ ἐμῶν ...); ὅτε ... δαιδαλέᾳ belonging
to another triad. To accept this adjustment one must have faith in
the extremely elastic ionics of the German scholar. Nietzsche, _R.
M._ 23. 481, thought that 1-3 formed the end of the strophe, 4-12 the
antistrophe (1-3 = 10-12). In v. 1 he omitted ἐν and read τ’ ἐμάνη
πνείων with ἀλεγίζεις in 10, but even then the dactyls vary with
spondees over frequently. By a series of reckless conjectures Hartung
extricated strophe and antistrophe out of the lines, while Blass’
(_Philol._ 32. 140) similar conclusion is reached by conjectures only
less hazardous than those of Hartung. Schneidewin and Bergk, adopting
the easier course, which refuses all credence to Dionysius, found only
antistrophe and epode; and so, doubtfully, Michelangeli; while Ahrens
(_Jahresber. des Lyceums zu Hannover_, 1853), in despair, classed the
fragment among the ἀπολελυμένα. Since verses 2-3 may = 11-12, I have
followed Nietzsche, though with much hesitation. The last seven verses
suit the character of a concluding epode.”

15. =ἤριπεν= = ἐξεπλάγη (same sense as Usener’s conjecture φρίττεν).

[Page 279]

                             where the Travail-queen
        From birth-pangs set my mother free.[196]

And similarly with the lines which follow these.

From lyric poetry the subjoined lines of Simonides may be taken. They
are written according to divisions: not into those clauses for which
Aristophanes or some other metrist laid down his canons, but into
those which are required by prose. Please read the piece carefully
by divisions: you may rest assured that the rhythmical arrangement
of the ode will escape you, and you will be unable to guess which is
the strophe or which the antistrophe or which the epode, but you will
think it all one continuous piece of prose. The subject is Danaë, borne
across the sea lamenting her fate:—

          And when, in the carved ark lying,
            She felt it through darkness drifting
          Before the drear wind’s sighing
            And the great sea-ridges lifting,
        She shuddered with terror, she brake into weeping,
        And she folded her arms round Perseus sleeping;

[Page 280]

        εἶπέν τ’· ὦ τέκος,
        οἷον ἔχω πόνον, σὺ δ’ ἀωτεῖς·
        γαλαθηνῷ δ’ ἤθεϊ κνοώσσεις
        ἐν ἀτερπέι δούρατι χαλκεογόμφῳ δίχα νυκτὸς ἀλαμπεῖ
        κυανέῳ τε δνόφῳ σταλείς.      5
        ἅλμαν δ’ ὕπερθεν τεᾶν κομᾶν βαθεῖαν
        παριόντος κύματος οὐκ ἀλέγεις
        οὐδ’ ἀνέμου φθόγγον, πορφυρέᾳ
        κείμενος ἐν χλανίδι πρὸς κόλπῳ καλὸν πρόσωπον.
        εἰ δέ τοι δεινὸν τό γε δεινὸν ἦν,      10
        καί κεν ἐμῶν ῥημάτων λεπτὸν ὑπεῖχες οὖας·
        κέλομαι, εὗδε βρέφος,
        εὑδέτω δὲ πόντος, εὑδέτω ἄμετρον κακόν.
        μεταβουλία δέ τις φανείη,
        Ζεῦ πάτερ, ἐκ σέο·      15
        ὅ τι δὴ θαρσαλέον ἔπος εὔχομαι
        νόσφι δίκας, σύγγνωθί μοι.

τοιαῦτά ἐστι τὰ ὅμοια τοῖς καλοῖς λόγοις μέτρα καὶ μέλη,
διὰ ταύτας γινόμενα τὰς αἰτίας ἃς προεῖπόν σοι.

τοῦθ’ ἕξεις δῶρον ἡμέτερον, ὦ Ῥοῦφε, “πολλῶν ἀντάξιον      20
ἄλλων,” εἰ βουληθείης ἐν ταῖς χερσί τε αὐτὸ συνεχῶς ὥσπερ

1 τέκος Athen. ix. 396 E: τέκνον PMV   2 σὺ δ’ ἀωτεῖς Casaubonus: οὐδ’
αυταις P: σὺ δ’ αὖτε εἷς Athen. (l.c.)   3 ἐγαλαθηνωδει θει P, V:
γαλαθηνῷ δ’ ἤτορι Athen.: corr. Bergkius || κνοώσσεισ P, V: κνώσσεις
Athen.   4 δούρατι Guelf.: δούνατι PM: δούναντι V || δίχα νυκτὸς
ἀλαμπεῖ Us.: δενυκτι λαμπεῖ P, MV   5 σταλείς Bergkius: ταδ’ εἰσ P,
MV   6 ἅλμαν δ’ Bergkius: αὐλεαν δ’ P, V: αὐλαίαν δ’ M   9 πρὸς κόλπῳ
κ. πρ. Us.: πρόσωπον καλον πρόσωπον P: πρόσωπον καλὸν MV   10 ἦν
Sylburgius: ἦι P: ἦ M: ἢ V   11 καί M: κἀί V: κε cum litura P || λεπτὸν
s: λεπτῶν PMV   14 μαιτ(α)βουλία (i.e. μεταβουλία: cp. =90= 4 supra)
P: μαιτ(α)βουλίου M: ματαιοβουλία V   17 νόσφι δίκας Victorius: ηνοφι
δικασ P: ἣν ὀφειδίασ MV   19 προεῖπά PMV (cf. εἴπειεν P, Aristot. Rhet.
1408 a 32)   21 αὐτὸ Sylburgius: αὐτὰ PMV

4. =δίχα νυκτός=: cp. δίχα μελέτης τε καὶ γυμνασίας (=282= 4), which
may be an unconscious echo of this passage. “To me the expression seems
to indicate that Simonides took a view of the story different from the
ordinary one, and imagined that the chest was not open or boat-like
but closed over,—a ‘Noah’s ark.’ This would not have suited the
vase-painters, but there is nothing inconsistent with it in the poem.
Danaë does not speak of _seeing_ the waves, nor of the wind ruffling
the child’s hair, but only of ἀνέμου φθόγγον—she _heard_ it. Hence I
think the words imply—‘which, even apart from its being night, would be
gloomy, and thou wert so launched forth in the darksome gloaming.’ She
makes no reference to seeing the stars” (A. S. Way).

5. Schneidewin reads ταθείς.

7. =ἀλέγεις=: rarely constructed with the accusative case.

11. =ἐμῶν ῥημάτων=: _constructio ad sensum_ with ὑπεῖχες οὖας (=

12. =εὗδε βρέφος=: the βαυκάλημα (‘cradle-song, lullaby’) was familiar
to the Greeks, and the mother does not forget it amid the perils of the
sea. Cp. Theocr. xxiv. 7-9—

        εὕδετ’ ἐμὰ βρέφεα γλυκερὸν καὶ ἐγέρσιμον ὕπνον·
        εὕδετ’ ἐμὰ ψυχά, δύ’ ἀδελφεώ, εὔσοα τέκνα·
        ὄλβιοι εὐνάζοισθε καὶ ὄλβιοι ἀῶ ἵκοισθε.

20. From Hom. _Il._ xi. 514, 515—

        ἰητρὸς γὰρ ἀνὴρ πολλῶν ἀντάξιος ἄλλων
        ἰούς τ’ ἐκτάμνειν ἐπί τ’ ἤπια φάρμακα πάσσειν.

        ‘For more than a multitude availeth the leech for our need,
        When the shaft sticketh deep in the flesh, when the healing salve
            must be spread.’

[Page 281]

          And “Oh my baby,” she moaned, “for my lot
          Of anguish!—but thou, thou carest not:
        Adown sleep’s flood is thy child-soul sweeping,
          Though beams brass-welded on every side
          Make a darkness, even had the day not died
          When they launched thee forth at gloaming-tide.
          And the surf-crests fly o’er thy sunny hair
          As the waves roll past—thou dost not care:
          Neither carest thou for the wind’s shrill cry,
          As lapped in my crimson cloak thou dost lie
          On my breast, little face so fair—so fair!
          Ah, were these sights, these sounds of fear
          Fearsome to thee, that dainty ear
          Would hearken my words—nay, nay, my dear,
          Hear them not thou! Sleep, little one, sleep;
          And slumber thou, O unrestful deep!
          Sleep, measureless wrongs; let the past suffice:
          And oh, may a new day’s dawn arise
          On thy counsels, Zeus! O change them now!
          But if aught be presumptuous in this my prayer,
          If aught, O Father, of sin be there,
                                 Forgive it thou.”[197]

Such are the verses and lyrics which resemble beautiful prose; and they
owe this resemblance to the causes which I have already set forth to

Here, then, Rufus, is my gift to you, which you will find “outweigh a
multitude of others,”[198] if only you will keep it in

[Page 282]

τι καὶ ἄλλο τῶν πάνυ χρησίμων ἔχειν καὶ συνασκεῖν αὑτὸν
ταῖς καθ’ ἡμέραν γυμνασίαις. οὐ γὰρ αὐτάρκη τὰ παραγγέλματα
τῶν τεχνῶν ἐστι δεινοὺς ἀγωνιστὰς ποιῆσαι τοὺς βουλομένους
γε δίχα μελέτης τε καὶ γυμνασίας· ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τοῖς
πονεῖν καὶ κακοπαθεῖν βουλομένοις κεῖται σπουδαῖα εἶναι τὰ      5
παραγγέλματα καὶ λόγου ἄξια ἢ φαῦλα καὶ ἄχρηστα.

1 αὑτὸν ταῖς Us.: αὐτὸν ταῖσ P: αὐτὸ ταῖς M: αὐταῖς V   3 ἀγωνιστὰς
Sylburgius: δεινοῦσ αν ταγωνιστασ sic P: ἀνταγωνιστὰς etiam MV   4 γε
Us.: τε P: om. MV   5 βουλομένοις PM: om. V || σπουδαῖαν εἶναι (sic)
P: ἢ σπουδαῖα εἶναι MV   6 Διονυσίου αλικαρνα(σεως) πε(ρὶ) συνθέσεως
ὀνομάτων: ~ litteris maiusculis subscripsit P

2. The training meant would consist chiefly in that general reading
of Greek authors which is indicated in this treatise or in the _de
Imitatione_, and in Quintilian’s Tenth Book: it would carry out the
precept “vos exemplaria Graeca | nocturna versate manu, versate
diurna.” Afterwards would follow the technical and systematic study of
style or eloquence, regarded as a preparation for public life.

3. =ἀγωνιστάς=: cp. note on =268= 29 _supra_ and Plato _Phaedr._ 269 D
τὸ μὲν δύνασθαι, ὦ Φαῖδρε, ὥστε ἀγωνιστὴν τέλεον γενέσθαι, εἰκός—ἴσως
δὲ καὶ ἀναγκαῖον—ἔχειν ὥσπερ τἆλλα· εἰ μέν σοι ὑπάρχει φύσει ῥητορικῷ
εἶναι, ἔσῃ ῥήτωρ ἐλλόγιμος, προσλαβὼν ἐπιστήμην τε καὶ μελέτην, ὅτου δ’
ἂν ἐλλείπῃς τούτων, ταύτῃ ἀτελὴς ἔσῃ.

4. The best Greeks and Romans at all times believed in work, and in
genius as including the capacity for taking pains. Compare (in addition
to the passage of the _Phaedrus_) Soph. _El._ 945 ὅρα· πόνου τοι χωρὶς
οὐδὲν εὐτυχεῖ: Eurip. _Fragm._ 432 τῷ γὰρ πονοῦντι χὠ θεὸς συλλαμβάνει:
Aristoph. _Ran._ 1370 ἐπίπονοί γ’ οἱ δεξιοί: Cic. _de Offic._ i. 18.
60 “nec medici, nec imperatores, nec oratores, quamvis artis praecepta
perceperint, quidquam magna laude dignum sine usu et exercitatione
consequi possunt”: Quintil. _Inst. Or._ Prooem. § 27 “sicut et haec
ipsa (bona ingenii) sine doctore perito, studio pertinaci, scribendi,
legendi, dicendi multa et continua exercitatione per se nihil prosunt.”
See also note on page =264= _supra_.

[Page 283]

your hands constantly like any other really useful thing, and exercise
yourself in its lessons daily. No rules contained in rhetorical manuals
can suffice to make experts of those who are determined to dispense
with study and practice. They who are ready to undergo toil and
hardship can alone decide whether such rules are trivial and useless,
or worthy of serious consideration.

[Page 285]



In the Glossary, as in the Notes, the following abbreviations are used:—

        Long. = ‘Longinus on the Sublime.’
        D.H. = ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus: the Three Literary Letters.’
        Demetr. = ‘Demetrius on Style.’

 =ἀγεννής.= =90= 20, =170= 9, etc. _Ignoble_, _mean_: in reference to
         style. Lat. _ignobilis_, _degener_.

 =ἀγοραῖος.= =262= 20. _Vulgar_, _colloquial_, _mechanical_. Lat.
         _circumforaneus_, _circulatorius_. Cp. Lucian _de conscrib.
         hist._ § 44 μήτε ἀπορρήτοις καὶ ἔξω πάτου ὀνόμασι μήτε τοῖς
         ἀγοραίοις τούτοις καὶ καπηλικοῖς.

 =ἀγχίστροφος.= =212= 20. _Quick-changing_, _flexible_. Lat.
         _mutabilis_. Instances of its rhetorical use are cited in Long.
         p. 194. The word has more warrant as a term of rhetoric than
         ἀντίρροπος, which is given by F.

 =ἀγωγή.= =68= 1, _training_. =194= 9, _sequence_, _movement_. =244= 24,
         _cast_, or _tendency_. Cp. some uses of Lat. _ductus_. Other
         examples in D.H. p. 184: to which may be added _de Isocr._ c.
         12 and _de Thucyd._ c. 27; Macran’s _Harmonics of Aristoxenus_
         pp. 121, 143; Strabo xiv. 1. 41 παραφθείρας τὴν τῶν προτέρων
         μελοποιῶν ἀγωγήν, and (later) ἀπεμιμήσατο τὴν ἀγωγὴν τῶν
         παρὰ τοῖς κιναίδοις διαλέκτων καὶ τῆς ἠθοποιΐας.—In =124=
         10 the adjective =ἀγωγός= is used (as in Eurip. _Hec._ 536,
         _Troad._ 1131) with the genitive in the sense _provocative of_,
         _conducive to_: cp. _de Demosth._ c. 55 ἃ δὴ τῶν τοιούτων ἔσται
         παθῶν ἀγωγά. [In _Troad._ 1131 Dindorf, ed. v., gives ἀρωγός
         without comment, against the MSS.]

 =ἀγών.= =252= 2, =262= 23. _Contest_, _pleading_, _trial_. Lat.
         _certamen_, _actio_. Cp. Long. p. 194, D.H. p. 184, Demetr. p.

 =ἀδολέσχης.= =272= 19, 22. _Garrulous._ Lat. _loquax_. Cp. Demetr. p.

 =ἀηδής.= =100= 7, =124= 19, etc. _Unpleasant_, _disagreeable_. Lat.
         _iniucundus_, _molestus_. Similarly =ἀηδία=, =132= 21, =134= 14.

 =ἀθρόος.= =222= 2. _Compressed_, _concentrated_. Lat. _consertus_,
         _stipatus_. In the passage specified it would seem that
         Dionysius compares the issue of the breath to the exit of
         people through a narrow door, whereby they are _crowded
         together_. The sound of _p_, which is under discussion,
         approaches whistling; and that is the maximum of

[Page 286]

 =αἵρεσις.= =70= 15, =198= 3, 8, =246= 17. _School_, _following_. Lat.

 =αἴσθησις.= =130= 17, =134= 11, =152= 15, =218= 1. _Sense_,
         _perception_. Lat. _sensus_. So =αἰσθητός=, _perceptible_,
         =152= 22, =206= 6, etc.; and =αἰσθητῶς=, _perceptibly_, =126=
         20, =202= 18.

 =ἀκατάστροφος.= =232= 1. _Without rounding or conclusion._ Lat. _idonei
         exitus expers_. Used of a period which does not turn back upon
         itself—which is, in fact, _not_ a περίοδος. Cp. the use of
         εὐκαταστρόφως in Demetr. _de Eloc._ § 10.

 =ἀκατονόμαστος.= =208= 25. _Unnamed_, _nameless_. Lat. _appellationis

 =ἀκέραστος.= =230= 18. _Unmixed_, or _incapable of mixture_. Lat. _non
         permixtus_, _s. qui permisceri non potest_.

 =ἀκοή.= =70= 3, =118= 23, =146= 8, etc. _The sense of hearing_: ‘_the
         ear_.’ Lat. _auditus_. So =ἀκρόασις=, =116= 19, =198= 8, etc.

 =ἀκόλλητος.= =218= 13. _Uncompacted_, or _incapable of being
         compacted_. Lat. _non compactus_, _s. qui compingi non potest_.

 =ἀκολουθία.= =212= 22, =232= 20, =254= 17. _Sequence_, _the orderly
         progression of words_. Lat. _consecutio_, _ordo_, _series_.
         ἐν πολλοῖς ὑπεροπτικὴ τῆς ἀκολουθίας, =212= 22 = _prone to
         anacolouthon_. Cp. Long. p. 102, D.H. p. 184, Demetr. p. 263.
         Similarly =ἀκόλουθος= is used of _what follows naturally_,
         =130= 9, =228= 17, etc.

 =ἀκόμψευτος.= =212= 23, =232= 21. _Unadorned._ Lat. _incomptus_. Used
         of a style which is _sans recherche_, _sans parure_. Cp. Cic.
         _Orat._ 24. 78 “nam ut mulieres esse dicuntur non nullae
         inornatae, quas id ipsum deceat, sic haec subtilis oratio etiam
         incompta delectat.”

 =ἀκόρυφος.= =230= 31. _Without a capital or beginning._ Lat. _sine
         fastigio_, _sine initio_. Used of a period without a proper
         beginning and therefore imperfectly rounded: whereas true
         periods are εὐκόρυφοι καὶ στρογγύλαι ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τόρνου (_de
         Demosth._ c. 43).

 =ἀκρίβεια.= =118= 10, =206= 8, =266= 11, etc. _Exactitude_,
         _precision_, _finish_. Lat. _perfectio_, _absolutio_,
         _subtilitas_. Used of an _ars exquisita_, a _style soigné_.
         So =ἀκριβής= =196= 15, and =ἀκριβοῦν= =94= 14 and =242= 9.
         Cp. D.H. p. 184, and Demetr. p. 264 (where the slightly
         depreciatory sense of ‘correctness,’ ‘nicety,’ is also
         illustrated: cp. _C.V._ =274= 22).

 =ἀκροστόμιον.= =142= 17. _The edge of the mouth or lips._ Lat. _summum
         os_, _labrorum margo_. Cp. =148= 22 τῆς γλώττης ἄκρῳ τῷ στόματι
         προσερειδομένης κατὰ τοὺς μετεώρους ὀδόντας.

 =ἀκώλιστος.= =234= 23. _Without members or clauses._ Lat. _sine
         membris_. Used of a period not divided, or jointed, into

 =ἀλήθεια.= =198= 26. _Human experience._ Lat. _veritas vitae_, _usus
         rerum_, _vita_, _usus_. The actual facts of life are meant, as
         opposed to the theories of the schools. Cp. _de Isaeo_ c. 18
         ὅτι μοι δοκεῖ Λυσίας μὲν τὴν ἀλήθειαν (‘the truth of nature,’
         ‘a natural simplicity’) διώκειν μᾶλλον, Ἰσαῖος δὲ τὴν τέχνην.

[Page 287]

 =ἄλογος.= =66= 18, =146= 14, =152= 15, =174= 2, 3, =206= 13, =244=
         22. _Irrational_; _unguided by reason_; _subconscious_;
         _incalculable_; _instinctive_; _spontaneous_. Lat. _rationis
         expers_. With the use in =146= 14 (where the Epitome has
         ἀλάλου) may be compared the process by which ἄλογον in Modern
         Greek has come to mean ‘horse.’ With ἄλογος αἴσθησις in =152=
         15 and =244= 22 cp. the use of “tacitus sensus” in Cic. _de
         Orat._ iii. 195 “omnes enim tacito quodam sensu sine ulla arte
         aut ratione quae sint in artibus ac rationibus recta ac prava
         diiudicant” and _Orat._ 60. 203 “aures ipsae tacito eum (modum)
         sensu sine arte definiunt”: see also _de Lysia_ c. 11, _de
         Demosth._ c. 24, _de Thucyd._ c. 27. For the doctrine of ἀλογία
         in relation to metre see p. 154 _supra_ and Goodell _Greek
         Metric_ pp. 109 ff. (with references to Aristoxenus, Westphal,
         etc., pp. 150 ff.). The notion of _incommensurability_ is, of
         course, present in the term: cp. Aristox. p. 292 ὥρισται δὲ τῶν
         ποδῶν ἕκαστος ἤτοι λόγῳ τινὶ ἢ ἀλογίᾳ τοιαύτῃ, ἥτις δύο λόγων
         γνωρίμων τῇ αἰσθήσει ἀνὰ μέσον ἔσται, which Goodell (p. 110)
         translates, “each of the feet is determined and defined either
         by a precise ratio or by an incommensurable ratio such that it
         will be between two ratios recognizable by the sense.”

 =ἀμεγέθης.= =176= 11. _Wanting in size or dignity._ Lat. _exilis_. Cp.
         Long. _de Sublim._ xl. 2 οὐκ ὄντες ὑψηλοὶ φύσει, μήποτε δὲ καὶ

 =ἄμετρος.= =74= 4, =176= 1, 21, etc. _Unmetred_, _unmetrical_. Lat.
         (_oratio_) _soluta_. It is interesting to note the variety of
         Dionysius’ expressions for ‘prose’ or ‘in prose’—λέξις ἄμετρος,
         λέξις πεζή, λέξις ψιλή, λόγος ἀποίητος, λόγοι ἄμετροι, λόγοι or
         λόγος simply (=272= 9, 13), δίχα μέτρου (=252= 20), λεκτικῶς
         (=258= 3), etc. Cp. Plato _Rep._ 366 E, 390 A, etc.

 =ἀμορφία.= =184= 18, =198= 10. _Unsightliness._ Lat. _deformitas_. So
         =ἄμορφος= =92= 16.

 =ἄμουσος.= =74= 11, =122= 19. _Rude_, _uncultured_. Lat. _insulsus_,
         _illiteratus_, _infacetus_.

 =ἀμυδρός.= =206= 22. _Faint_, _obscure_. Lat. _subobscurus_.

 =ἀμφίβολος.= =96= 17. _Ambiguous._ Lat. _dubius_, _ambiguus_, _qui in
         duos pluresve sensus verti potest_.

 =ἀμφίβραχυς.= =172= 6, =184= 11. _Amphibrachys._ The metrical foot ᴗ –

 =ἀναβολή.= =164= 5, =220= 13. _Retardation._ Lat. _mora_,
         _intervallum_. So =ἀναβάλλειν= =180= 15, =216= 18: cp. _de
         Demosth._ c. 54 (ταῦτ’ ἐσπευσμένως εἰπέ, ταῦτ’ ἀναβεβλημένως),
         and c. 43.

 =ἀναισθησία.= =184= 21. _Insensibility_, _stupidity_. Lat. _stupor_.
         Compare =ἀναίσθητος= =190= 8, and see the editor’s _Ancient
         Boeotians_ pp. 4-8.

 =ἀνακοπή.= =164= 5, =230= 28, =232= 16. _Stoppage_, _clashing_.
         Lat. _impedimentum_, _offensio_. Fr. _refoulement_. Cp. _de
         Demosth._ c. 38, and also the verb =ἀνακόπτειν= =222= 9.

 =ἀνάπαιστος.= =172= 10, etc. _Anapaest._ The metrical foot ᴗ ᴗ –.

 =ἀνάπαυλα.= =196= 11. _Rest_, _pause_. Lat. _mora_, _intermissio_. The
         ‘reliefs’ afforded by variety of structure, etc., are meant.

 =ἀναπλέκειν.= =264= 23. _To bind up the hair._ Lat. _caesariem reticulo

 =ἄναρθρος.= =212= 21. _Without joints or articles._ Lat. _sine

[Page 288]

 =ἀνδρώδης.= =174= 17. _Manly, virile._ Lat. _virilis._ Cp. _de
         Demosth._ cc. 39, 43, and Quintil. v. 12. 18.

 =ἀνέδραστος.= =232= 4. _Unsteady._ Lat. _instabilis._ Used of a period
         which has no proper base or termination. The opposite of
         ἑδραῖος (Demetr. p. 277).

 =ἀνεπιτήδευτος.= =84= 3, =212= 13, =260= 14. _Unsought, unstudied._
         Lat. _nullo studio delectus, non exquisitus._ So =ἀνέκλεκτος=
         =84= 3: _not picked with care._

 =ἄνεσις.= =210= 5. _Loosening._ Lat. _remissio._ Cp. Plato _Rep._ i.
         349 E ἐν τῇ ἐπιτάσει καὶ ἀνέσει τῶν χορδῶν πλεονεκτεῖν, and
         =ἀνίεται= =126= 5.

 =ἀνθηρός.= =212= 22 (cp. =208= 26, =232= 25). _Florid._ Lat.
         _floridus._ Fr. _fleuri._ Cp. Quintil. xii. 10. 58 “namque unum
         [dicendi genus] subtile, quod ἰσχνόν vocant, alterum grande
         atque robustum, quod ἁδρόν dicunt, constituunt; tertium alii
         medium ex duobus, alii floridum (namque id ἀνθηρόν appellant)
         addiderunt.” ‘Florid’ (like ‘flowery’) has acquired rather a
         bad sense, whereas the Greek word suggests ‘flower-like,’ ‘full
         of colour,’ ‘with delicate touches and associations.’

 =ἀντίθετος.= =246= 6. _Antithetic_ (σχηματισμοὶ ... ἀντίθετοι). Cp.
         Demetr. pp. 266, 267, s.v. ἀντίθεσις.

 =ἀντιστηριγμός.= =164= 6. _Resistance, stumbling-block._ Lat.
         _impedimentum, obstaculum._ Cp. _de Demosth._ c. 38 ἀνακοπὰς
         καὶ ἀντιστηριγμοὺς λαμβάνειν καὶ τραχύτητας ἐν ταῖς συμπλοκαῖς
         τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐπιστυφούσας τὴν ἀκοὴν ἡσυχῇ [ἡ αὐστῆρα ἁρμονία]

 =ἀντίστροφος.= =174= 2, =194= 6, 9, 11, =278= 9. _Corresponding,
         counterpart._ Lat. _respondens._ Frequently used by Dionysius
         of the second stanza (ἀντιστροφή, =254= 18), sung by the Chorus
         in its counter-movement. Cp. schol. ad Aristoph. _Plut._ 253
         μεταξὺ τῆς τε στροφῆς καὶ τῆς ἀντιστρόφου: and _de Demosth._ c.
         50 κἄπειτα πάλιν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ῥυθμοῖς καὶ μέτροις ἐπὶ τῶν αὐτῶν
         στίχων ἢ περίοδων, ἃς ἀντιστρόφους ὀνομάζουσι, χρωμένη.

 =ἀντιτυπία.= =202= 25, =222= 17, =224= 15, =230= 6, 232 6, =244=
         25. _Repulsion, clashing, dissonance._ Lat. _conflictio,
         asperitas._ So the adjective =ἀντίτυπος= in =162= 23, =210= 20,
         etc. Hesychius, ἀντιτύποις· σκληροῖς.

 =ἀντονομασία.= =70= 19, =102= 18. _Pronoun._ Lat. _pronomen._ In =108=
         14 ἀντωνυμία is found; and this (the more usual) form should
         perhaps be read throughout.

 =ἀνωμαλία.= =232= 19. _Unevenness._ Lat. _inaequalitas._ Fr.

 =ἀξίωμα.= =84= 1, =120= 23, =170= 2, =174= 19. _Dignity._ Lat.
         _dignitas._ Fr. _dignité._ In =96= 16 the sense is _a
         proposition (pronuntiatum,_ Cic. _Tusc._ i. 7. 14;
         _enuntiatio,_ Cic. _de Fato_ 10. 20).—The adjective
         =ἀξιωματικός= (‘dignified’) occurs in =136= 11, =168= 6, etc.,
         and the adverb =ἀξιωματικῶς= in =176= 24.—In =88= 13, =186= 7,
         =ἀξίωσις= = _reputation, excellence._

 =ἀπαγγελία.= =204= 18. _Narration._ Lat. _narratio._ Sometimes the word
         is used, like ἑρμηνεία, of style (_elocutio_) in general: cp.
         _de Demosth._ c. 25, and Chrysostom (in a passage which, as
         revealing the pupil of Libanius and as illustrating many things
         in the _C.V._, may be quoted at some length): ἐγὼ δὲ εἰ μὲν τὴν
         λειότητα Ἰσοκράτους ἀπῄτουν, καὶ τὸν Δημοσθένους ὄγκον, καὶ τὴν
         Θουκυδίδου σεμνότητα, καὶ τὸ Πλάτωνος ὕψος, ἔδει φέρειν εἰς
         μέσον ταύτην τοῦ Παύλου τὴν μαρτυρίαν. νῦν δὲ ἐκεῖνα μὲν πάντα
         ἀφίημι, καὶ τὸν περίεργον τῶν ἔξωθεν καλλωπισμόν, καὶ οὐδέν
         μοι φράσεως, οὐδὲ ἀπαγγελίας μέλει· ἀλλ’ ἐξέστω καὶ τῆ λέξει
         πτωχεύειν, καὶ τὴν συνθήκην τῶν ὀνομάτων ἁπλῆν τινα εἶναι καὶ
         ἀσφαλῆ, μόνον μὴ τῇ γνώσει τις καὶ τῇ τῶν δογμάτων ἀκριβείᾳ
         ἰδιώτης ἔστω (_de Sacerdotio_ iv. 6).—The verb =ἀπαγγέλλειν=
         occurs in =200= 9, 11.

[Page 289]

 =ἀπαρέμφατος.= =102= 20. _Infinitive._ Lat. _infinitivus_ (sc.
         _modus_). [The infinitive, unlike the indicative and other
         moods, _does not indicate_ difference of meaning by means of
         inflexions denoting number and person. Whence the Greek name:
         cp. παρεμφατικός, p. 315 _infra._]

 =ἀπαριθμεῖν.= =268= 8. _To recount_, _to run over_. Lat. _percensere_.

 =ἀπαρτίζειν.= =194= 16. _To round off_, _to complete_. Lat.
         _adaequare_, _absolvere_. Cp. _de Demosth._ c. 50 καὶ μέτρα τὰ
         μὲν ἀπηρτισμένα καὶ τέλεια, τὰ δ’ ἀτελῆ: _Ev. Luc._ xiv. 28
         τίς γὰρ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θέλων πύργον οἰκοδομῆσαι, οὐχὶ πρῶτον καθίσας
         ψηφίζει τὴν δαπάνην, εἰ ἔχει τὰ πρὸς ἀπαρτισμόν (_completion_);
         So κατὰ ἀπαρτισμόν, in =246= 18, means _completely,
         absolutely, narrowly_. In _Classical Review_ xxiii. 82, the
         present writer has suggested that κατὰ ἀπαρτισμόν are the words
         missing in _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ vi. 116, where Grenfell and
         Hunt give ἐν πλάτει καὶ οὐ κ[.............]ν. θεωρητέα ἐστίν,
         or the like, may have preceded: cp. =152= 26 _supra_ (and note).

 =ἀπαρχαί.= =76= 2. _Firstfruits._ Lat. _primitiae_. Used here in
         connexion with the verb προχειρισάμενος, _cum delibavero_.

 =ἀπατηλός.= =236= 10. _Seductive._ Lat. _suavis et oblectans_,

 =ἀπερίγραφος.= =232= 4. _Not circumscribed._ Lat. _nullis limitibus

 =ἀπερίοδος.= =234= 23, =276= 1. _Without a period._ Lat. _periodo non

 =ἀπευθύνειν.= =130= 1. _To regulate._ Lat. _tamquam ad regulam

 =ἀπηνής.= =228= 15. _Crabbed_, _rugged_. Lat. _durus_.

 =ἁπλοῦς.= =144= 8, 17, =176= 3. _Simple_, _uncompounded_. Lat.

 =ἀποίητος.= =70= 4. _In plain prose._ Lat. _prosaicus_. Cp. s.v.

 =ἀποκλείειν.= =144= 23. _To shut off_, _to intercept_. Lat.

 =ἀποκόπτειν.= =142= 8, =230= 19. _To cut short._ Lat. _rescindere_. So
         ἐξ =ἀποκοπῆς= (=142= 3) = _with a snap_, _abruptly_. See the
         exx. given, s.v. ἀποκοπή, in Demetr. p. 268.

 =ἀποκυματίζειν.= =240= 22. _To ruffle._ Lat. _reddere inquietum_,
         _fluctibus agitare_.

 =ἀπορριπίζειν.= =144= 24, =150= 1. _To blow away._ Lat. _flatu
         abigere_. In both these passages there is some manuscript
         support for ἀπορραπίζειν. In =144= 24 the sense (with
         ἀπορραπιζούσης) would be ‘to send out the breath in beats,’ ‘to
         cause the breath to vibrate.’

 =ἀποτραχύνειν.= =218= 9, =230= 24. =To roughen.= Lat. _exasperare_.

 =ἀργός.= =210= 22. _Unwrought._ Lat. _rudis_. In =250= 8 =ἀργία= is
         used for ‘idleness,’ with reference to the Epicurean attitude
         towards the refinements of style.

 =ἄρθρον.= =70= 17. _Article._ Lat. _articulus_. See D.H. pp. 185, 186;
         Demetr. p. 269. ἄρθρον (‘joint’) and σύνδεσμος (‘sinew’ or
         ‘ligament’) are terms borrowed from anatomy.

[Page 290]

 =ἀριθμοί.= =244= 27. _Numbers_, _cadences_. Lat. _numeri_, _numeri
         oratorii_. Cp. _de Demosth._ c. 53 φέρε γὰρ ἐπιχειρείτω τις
         προφέρεσθαι τούσδε τοὺς ἀριθμούς· Ὄλυνθον μὲν δὴ καὶ Μεθώνην
         κτλ. As Aristotle (_Rhet._ iii. 8. 2) says, περαίνεται δὲ
         ἀριθμῷ πάντα· ὁ δὲ τοῦ σχήματος τῆς λέξεως ἀριθμὸς ῥυθμός
         ἐστιν, οὗ καὶ τὰ μέτρα τμητά.

 =ἀριστεῖα.= =182= 12. _Lead_, _supremacy_. Lat. _primas_ (_dare_).

 =Ἀριστοφάνειος.= =256= 13, =258= 9. _Aristophanic._ Lat.
         _Aristophaneus_. The reference is to the anapaestic tetrameter
         called ‘Aristophanic.’ Hephaestion (_Ench._ c. 8) explains the
         term thus: κέκληται δὲ Ἀριστοφάνειον, οὐκ Ἀριστοφάνους αὐτὸ
         εὑρόντος πρῶτον, ἐπεὶ καὶ παρὰ Κρατίνῳ ἐστί·

             χαίρετε δαίμονες οἳ Λεβάδειαν Βοιώτιον οὖθαρ ἀρούρης·
         ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ τὸν Ἀριστοφάνην πολλῷ αὐτῷ κεχρῆσθαι.

 =ἁρμογή.= =112= 13, =218= 9, =236= 5, =270= 9. _Junction_,
         _combination_. Lat. _coagmentatio_.

 =ἁρμονία.= =72= 6, 9, =74= 4, 10, 19, =84= 9, 15, =90= 5, =94= 15,
         =104= 19, =114= 14, 17, =116= 15, 20, _passim_. _Adjustment_,
         _arrangement_, _balance_, _harmonious composition_. Lat.
         _apta structura_, _concinna orationis compositio_, _aptus
         ordo partium inter se cohaerentium_. Fr. _enchaînement_. But,
         as distinguished from ἁρμογή or from σύνθεσις, ἁρμονία seems
         usually to connote ‘harmony’ in the more restricted (musical)
         sense of notes in fitting sequence: cp. our ‘arrangement’ of
         a song or piece of music. In fact, Dionysius’ three ἁρμονίαι
         might well be described as three ‘modes of composition,’ and
         ‘tune’ (the meaning which ἁρμονία bears in Aristot. _Rhet._
         iii. 1. 4) might sometimes serve as a suitable rendering even
         in reference to literary composition or oratorical rhythm. The
         original use of the word in Greek carpentry (which employed
         dovetailing in preference to nails) finds an excellent
         illustration in the words of a contemporary of Dionysius,
         Strabo (_Geogr._ iv. 4): διόπερ οὐ συνάγουσι τὰς ἁρμονίας
         τῶν σανίδων, ἀλλ’ ἀραιώματα καταλείπουσιν. We have perhaps
         no single English word which can, like ἁρμονία, incline,
         according to the context, to the literal sense (‘a fitting,’
         ‘a juncture’), or to the metaphorical meaning (‘harmony,’ as
         ‘harmony’ was understood by the Greeks); but see T. Wilson’s
         definition of ‘composition’ under σύνθεσις, p. 326 _infra_, and
         compare one of the definitions of ‘harmony’ in the _New English
         Dictionary_: “pleasing combination or arrangement of sounds, as
         in poetry or in speaking: sweet or melodious sound.”—The verb
         ἁρμόττειν is found in =98= 6, =104= 17, etc.

 =ἀρρενικός.= =106= 21. _Of the masculine gender._ Lat. _masculinus_.

 =ἀρτηρία.= =140= 21, =142= 4, =144= 5, 20, =148= 17. _Windpipe._ Lat.

 =ἀρχαϊσμός.= =212= 23. _A touch of antiquity._ Lat. _sermonis prisci
         imitatio_. Cp. =ἀρχαϊκός=, =216= 20, =228= 8. So =ἀρχαιοπρεπῆ=
         σχήματα (=236= 8) = _figurae orationis quae vetustatem
         redolent_. As Quintilian (viii. 3. 27) says, “quaedam tamen
         adhuc vetera vetustate ipsa gratius nitent.” Cp. D.H. p. 186
         (s.v. ἀρχαιοπρεπής) and Demetr. p. 269 (s.v. ἀρχαιοειδής): also
         _de Demosth._ c. 48.

[Page 291]

 =ἀρχαί.= =136= 22, =140= 13. _First beginnings._ Lat. _principia_.

 =ἄσεμνος.= =110= 20, =170= 20, =176= 12, =192= 11. _Undignified._ Lat.
         _dignitatis expers_, _minime venerandus_. Cp. D.H. p. 269.

 =ἄσημος.= =256= 22, =262= 6. _Unnoticed._ Lat. _obscurus_.

 =ἄσιγμος.= =148= 1. _Without a sigma._ Lat. _carens littera sigma_.

 =ᾆσμα.= =196= 2. _Song_, _lay_. Lat. _carmen_, _canticum_.

 =ἀσύμμετρος.= =124= 8, =236= 1. _Incommensurable_, _disproportionate_,
         _incorrect_. Lat. _incommensurabilis_, _sine iusta
         proportione_, _inconcinnus_. So =ἀσυμμετρία= =232= 19. Some
         good illustrations (drawn from Cicero) of _constructions
         symétriques_ will be found in Laurand’s _Études sur le style
         des discours de Cicéron_ pp. 118-21.

 =ἀσύμμικτος.= =218= 12. _Unblended_, or _incapable of being blended_.
         Lat. _non permixtus_, _s. qui permisceri non potest_.

 =ἀσύμφωνος.= =122= 23. _Out of tune._ Lat. _dissonus_.

 =ἄτακτος.= =156= 20, =254= 16. _Disordered_, _irregular_. Lat.
         _perturbatus_, _nullo ordine compositus_, _incompositus_.

 =ἀτοπία.= =130= 26. _Awkwardness_, _clumsiness_. Lat. _rusticitas_,

 =αὐθάδης.= =228= 9. _Wilful_, _headstrong_, _unbending_. Lat. _ferox_,
         _pertinax_. Cp. Long. _de Subl._ xxxii. 3 ὁ δὲ Δημοσθένης οὐχ
         οὕτως μὲν αὐθάδης ὥσπερ οὗτος (sc. ὁ Θουκυδίδης), κτλ.

 =αὐθέκαστος.= =212= 23. _Outspoken_, _downright_. Lat. _rigidus_. In
         Plutarch’s _Cato_ c. 6 Cato is described as ἀπαραίτητος ὢν ἐν
         τῷ δικαίῳ καὶ τοῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἡγεμονίας προστάγμασιν ὄρθιος καὶ
         αὐθέκαστος (cp. the _rigida innocentia_ attributed to him by
         Livy xxxix. 40. 10). In Aristotle (_Eth. Nic._ iv. 7. 4) the
         αὐθέκαστος hits the mean between the ἀλαζών and the εἴρων.

 =αὐλός.= =142= 2. _Passage_, _channel_. Lat. _meatus_.

 =αὐστηρός.= =208= 26, =210= 15, =216= 17, 21, =228= 15, =232= 22, =248=
         9. _Austere_, _severe_. Lat. _severus_ (cp. Quintil. ix. 4.
         97, 120, 128). Compare the antithetic expressions quoted from
         Dionysius in D.H. p. 186, and add _de Demosth._ c. 38 init.
         Also see s.v. στρυφνός, p. 323 _infra_.

 =αὐτάρκης.= =212= 17, =282= 2. _Sufficient_, _self-sufficing_. Lat.
         _sufficiens_, _per se sufficiens_.

 =αὐτίκα.= =98= 7, =194= 2, =256= 7, =268= 6. _To begin with_, _for
         example_. Lat. _exempli gratia_.

 =αὐτόματος.= =256= 19. _Self-acting_, _spontaneous_. Lat. _spontaneus_,
         _ultroneus_. Cp. =αὐτομάτως= =212= 12; =αὐτοματίζειν= =204=
         5; =αὐτοματισμός= =218= 3, =258= 1, 24. In =256= 19 ἐκ τοῦ
         αὐτομάτου = _sponte sua_, _fortuito_.

 =αὐτοσχέδιος.= =212= 1, =260= 14, =262= 3. _Improvised._ Lat.
         _fortuitus_, _extemporalis_, _inelaboratus_, _tumultuarius_. So
         =αὐτοσχεδίως= =260= 25, and =αὐτοσχεδιάζειν= =256= 19 (πολλὰ
         γὰρ αὐτοσχεδιάζει μέτρα ἡ φύσις = _multos versus sponte solet
         natura effundere_). Cp. Demetr. p. 270 s.v. αὐτοσχεδιάζειν, and
         see σχέδιος p. 327 _infra_.

[Page 292]

 =αὐτοτελής.= =118= 6, =140= 1. _Complete in itself_, _absolute_.
         Lat. _perfectus_, _absolutus_. So =αὐτοτελῶς= =140= 3. The
         meaning of the word is well illustrated by Diodorus Siculus
         xii. 1 init. οὔτε γὰρ τῶν νομιζομένων ἀγαθῶν οὐδὲν ὁλόκληρον
         εὑρίσκεται δεδομένον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις οὔτε τῶν κακῶν αὐτοτελὲς
         ἄνευ εὐχρηστίας.

 =αὐτουργός.= =196= 15. _Self-wrought_, _rudely wrought_. Lat. _rudis_.
         Cp. _de Demosth._ c. 39 (as quoted s.v. συναπαρτίζειν, p.
         325 _infra_).—The _active_ sense of αὐτουργός finds a good
         illustration in Euripides’ well-known line: αὐτουργός, οἵπερ
         καὶ μόνοι σῴζουσι γῆν (_Orest._ 920).

 =ἀφαίρεσις.= =104= 20, =114= 12, =116= 17. _Deduction_, _abridgment_.
         Lat. _detractio_. In =116= 17 τῆς ἀφαιρέσεως δὲ τίς (τρόπος)
         almost = ‘what is the nature of _ellipsis_?’ As line 18 shows,
         something _necessary to the sense_ is supposed to be omitted:
         e.g. the presence of αὐτός in =116= 22 implies a contrast with
         ἕτερος (=118= 1).

 =ἀφανίζειν.= =166= 10, =260= 1, =272= 2. _To put out of sight._ Lat.

 =ἀφελής.= =212= 14. _Simple_, _plain_. Lat. _simplex_, _subtilis_. Cp.
         D.H. p. 187.

 =ἀφορμή.= =96= 23. _Starting-point._ Lat. _initium_, _principium_.
         Cp. Dionys. Hal. _Antiq. Rom._ i. 4 τῆς ἀοιδίμου γενομένης
         καθ’ ἡμᾶς πόλεως, ἀδόξους πάνυ καὶ ταπεινὰς τὰς πρώτας ἀφορμὰς

 =ἀφροδίτη.= =74= 13. _Beauty._ Lat. _venustas_, _venus_. Cp. _de Lysia_
         c. 11 ἐὰν δὲ μηδεμίαν ἡδονὴν μηδὲ ἀφροδίτην ὁ τῆς λέξεως
         χαρακτὴρ ἔχῃ, δυσωπῶ καὶ ὑποπτεύω μήποτ’ οὐ Λυσίου ὁ λόγος, καὶ
         οὐκέτι βιάζομαι τὴν ἄλογον αἴσθησιν: also c. 18 _ibid._

 =ἄφωνος.= =138= 13, =140= 3, =146= 5, =148= 11, 20, =220= 10.
         _Voiceless_, _mute_. Lat. _vocis expers_, _mutus_. From the
         standpoint of the modern science of phonetics, in which
         the term ‘voiceless’ is reserved for sounds that are not
         accompanied by a vibration of the vocal chords, it might
         be well in the translation of this word to substitute
         ‘non-vocalic’ for ‘voiceless,’ and ‘vocalic’ for ‘voiced.’

 =ἄχαρις.= =110= 20, =146= 12. _Graceless._ Lat. _invenustus_.

 =βαίνειν.= =86= 1. _To scan._ Lat. _scandere_. Cp. Aristot. _Metaph._
         xiii. 6, 1093 a 30 βαίνεται δὲ [τὸ ἔπος] ἐν μὲν τῷ δεξιῷ ἐννέα
         συλλαβαῖς, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἀριστερῷ ὀκτώ.—In =236= 4 βεβηκώς is used
         of a firm, regular tread: Lat. _incedere_.

 =βακχεῖος.= =174= 23, =180= 12, =182= 19. _Bacchius._ The metrical foot
         – – ᴗ.

 =βαρύς.= =126= 6, 8, 10, 16, =128= 5, 8. _Grave_ (accent), _low_
         (pitch). Lat. _gravis_. Cp. Monro _Modes of Ancient Greek
         Music_ p. 113: “Our habit of using Latin translations of the
         terms of Greek grammar has tended to obscure the fact that
         they belong in almost every case to the ordinary vocabulary
         of music. The word for ‘accent’ (τόνος) is simply the musical
         term for ‘pitch’ or ‘key.’ The words ‘acute’ (ὀξύς) and ‘grave’
         (βαρύς) mean nothing more than ‘high’ and ‘low’ in pitch. A
         syllable may have two accents, just as in music a syllable may
         be sung with more than one note.” So =βαρύτης= =126= 13 = ‘low
         pitch.’—In =120= 23 and =236= 8 =βάρος= = ‘gravity’ (in the
         sense of ‘dignity’), Fr. _gravité_.

 =βάσις.= =142= 13, =210= 22, =212= 16, =220= 4, =230= 31, =232= 4,
         =234= 7. _Base._ Lat. _basis_, _fundamentum_.—The word is
         specially used of a measured step or metrical movement,—of
         a _rhythmical clause_ in a period and particularly of its
         _rhythmical close_ (Lat. _clausula_). In =230= 30 and =232= 5
         it is the iambic endings προγεγενημένων and διανοούμενον that
         are considered objectionable (ἀνέδραστοι, ἀπερίγραφοι: endings
         such as πορείαν and ἀκουσάντων would be regarded as ἀσφαλεῖς,
         _de Demosth._ cc. 24, 26). Terminations of this kind will be
         avoided in a style (like the γλαφυρὰ σύνθεσις) which desires
         τῶν περιόδων τὰς τελευτὰς εὐρύθμους εἶναι,—desires that the
         _chutes_ of the periods should be _nombreuses_.—Further light
         on the meaning of βάσις will be found in _de Demosth._ cc. 24,
         39, 43, 45.

[Page 293]

 =βοστρυχίζειν.= =264= 22. _To curl_, _to dress the hair_. Lat. _crines
         calamistro convertere_. Cp. the use of _concinni_ in Cic. _de
         Orat._ iii. 25. 100.

 =βούλεσθαι.= =220= 9, =234= 5, 14, 19, =236= 4, 7, etc. _To aim_, _to
         aspire_. Lat. _studere_. Cp. D.H. p. 187, Demetr. p. 271.
         This meaning (‘aims at being,’ ‘tends to be’) is, of course,
         Platonic and Aristotelian.

 =βραχυσύλλαβος.= =168= 17. _Consisting of short syllables._ Lat.
         _brevibus syllabis constans_.

 =βραχύτης.= =150= 22, =154= 6. _Shortness._ Lat. _brevitas_.

 =γένεσις.= =138= 3. _Origin._ τὴν γένεσιν λαμβάνει = Lat. _originem

 =γενικός.= =68= 20, =118= 21, =208= 21. _General_, _generic_. Lat.

 =γενναῖος.= =68= 4, =136= 13, =146= 10, =148= 9, =172= 1, =176= 9, 10.
         _Noble._ Lat. _generosus_. Such English renderings as ‘virile,’
         ‘robust,’ ‘gallant,’ ‘splendid,’ ‘high-spirited’ may also be
         suggested. In Plato _Rep._ ii. 372 B μάζας γενναίας = ‘lordly
         cakes’; in Long. _de Subl._ xv. 7 οἱ γενναῖοι = ‘fine, grand,
         gallant fellows.’ Cp. _C.V._ =170= 9 =μαλακώτερος= θατέρου =καὶ

 =γλαφυρός.= =136= 14, =208= 26, =212= 16, =216= 20, =232= 25, =248= 9.
         _Smooth_, _polished_, _elegant_. Lat. _politus_, _ornatus_,
         _elegans_. Fr. _élégant_, _orné_, _poli_. Cp. Demetr. p. 272,
         and _de Isocr._ c. 2 ὁ γὰρ ἀνὴρ οὕτος τὴν εὐέπειαν ἐκ παντὸς
         διώκει καὶ τοῦ =γλαφυρῶς= λέγειν στοχάζεται μᾶλλον ἢ τοῦ
         =ἀφελῶς=, and _de Demosth._ c. 40 ἡ δὲ μετὰ ταύτην ἡ γλαφυρὰ
         καὶ θεατρικὴ καὶ τὸ κομψὸν αἱρουμένη πρὸ τοῦ σεμνοῦ τοιαύτη.

 =γλυκαίνειν.= =130= 18, =134= 10, =154= 12. _To touch with sweetness._
         Lat. _delenire_, _voluptate perfundere_. Cp. γλυκύτης =120= 21,
         γλυκύς =146= 9.

 =γλυπτός.= =264= 18. _Carven_, _chiselled_. Lat. _caelatus_. So
         =γλυφή=, _carving_, =120= 1.

 =γλῶττα.= =78= 17. _An unfamiliar term._ Lat. _vocabulum inusitatum_.
         So =γλωττηματικός=, =252= 23, =272= 11, and D.H. p. 187, s.v.
         _Obsolete_, or _obsolescent_, words (_mots surannés_) are often
         meant.—In =80= 17 γλῶττα = διάλεκτος (=88= 26).

 =γοητεύειν.= =122= 16, =134= 13. _To entice._ Lat. _pellicere_.

 =γράμμα.= =130= 21, =138= 5, etc. _Letter of the alphabet._ Lat.
         _littera_. =ἡ γραμματική= (=140= 11) = _grammar_; =γραμμαί=
         (=138= 2) = the _lines_, or _strokes_, from which γράμματα are
         formed. In =264= 18 γραπτός = _written_.

 =γραφή.= =68= 12, =184= 18, =186= 1, =206= 23, =228= 12. _Writing_,
         _composition_ (in the wider sense). In =118= 24 and =234= 13
         γραφαί = _pictures_.

[Page 294]

 =γυμνασία.= =206= 24, =282= 2, 4. _Exercise_, _lesson_. Lat.
         _exercitatio_. So =γυμνάζειν= (=134= 4), _to practise_, _to

 =δάκτυλος.= =84= 21, =172= 16, =202= 19. _Dactyl._ The metrical foot –
         ᴗ ᴗ.

 =δασύς.= =148= 12, 13, 18, 19, =150= 3, 12. _Rough_, _aspirated_. Lat.
         _asper_. So =δασύτης= =148= 21, =150= 2 and =δασύνειν= =148=
         8. Cp. Aristot. _Poet._ c. 20 for δασύτης and ψιλότης, and see
         A. J. Ellis _English, Dionysian, and Hellenic Pronunciations
         of Greek_ pp. 45, 46, where δασύς and ψιλός are translated by
         ‘rough’ and ‘smooth,’ which seems the safest course to follow
         when (as here) the terminology of Dionysius’ phonetics is full
         of difficulties. Aristotle (_De audibilibus_ 804 b 8) defines
         thus: δασεῖαι δ’ εἰσὶ τῶν φωνῶν ὅσαις ἔσωθεν τὸ πνεῦμα εὐθέως
         συνεκβάλλομεν μετὰ τῶν φθόγγων, ψιλαὶ δ’ εἰσὶ τοὐναντίον ὅσαι
         γίγνονται χωρὶς τῆς τοῦ πνεύματος ἐκβολῆς.

 =δαψιλής.= =108= 11. _Plentiful._ Lat. _abundans_.

 =δεῖγμα.= =200= 4, =208= 3, =214= 13, =228= 17. _Sample._ Lat.

 =δεινότης.= =182= 13, =264= 12. _Oratorical mastery._ Lat. _facultas
         dicendi_, _eloquentia_. So =δεινός= =282= 3: see also =182= 3.
         Cp. D.H. pp. 187, 188; Demetr. pp. 273, 274.

 =δεξιῶς.= =80= 14, =92= 20. _Deftly._ Lat. _sollerter_, _feliciter_. In
         =80= 14 σφόδρα δεξιῶς = ‘with great dexterity, or adroitness,’
         ‘with great delicacy of touch.’

 =δεσμός.= =148= 17. _Fastening._ Lat. _vinculum_.

 =δηλωτικός.= =158= 2. _Indicative of._ Lat. _significans_.

 =δημηγορία.= =110= 22, =252= 2. _A public discourse_, or _harangue_.
         Lat. _contio_. Cp. D.H. p. 188.

 =δημιούργημα.= =64= 8, =120= 1. _A piece of workmanship._ Lat. _opus_,
         _opificium_. So δημιουργικός (‘industrial’) =104= 23. Cp. D.H.
         p. 274. Quintil. (ii. 15. 4) translates πειθοῦς δημιουργός by
         _persuadendi opifex_.

 =διαβεβηκέναι.= =172= 3, =202= 16, =212= 1, =216= 18, =218= 23, =222=
         23, =244= 19. _To have a mighty stride_, _to be planted
         wide apart_. Lat. _latis passibus incedere_. Fr. _marcher
         à grands pas_. In =202= 17, 20, =218= 23, and =222= 23 the
         noun =διάβασις= is used with reference to the intervals which
         long syllables and clashing consonants make in pronunciation
         by retarding the utterance. The μεγάλα τε καὶ διαβεβηκότα
         εἰς πλάτος ὀνόματα of =212= 1 are _les grands mots à larges

 =διάθεσις.= =154= 14, =160= 18. _Condition_, _arrangement_. Lat.
         _affectus_, _dispositio_.

 =διαιρεῖν.= =180= 17, =184= 5, =194= 15, =218= 20, 21, =272= 17. _To
         divide_, _to resolve_. Lat. _seiungere_, _resolvere_. So
         =διαίρεσις= =122= 8, =138= 1, =272= 7.

 =διακεκλάσθαι.= =172= 7. _To be broken_ or _enervated_. Lat. _frangi_,
         _corrumpi_, _in delicias effundi_. Cp. similar uses of
         διαθρύπτεσθαι. In _de Demosth._ c. 43 ῥυθμοὶ διακλώμενοι are
         opposed to ῥυθμοὶ ἀνδρώδεις.

 =διακλέπτειν.= =176= 19. _To disguise._ Lat. _obscurare_, _occulere_.

 =διακόπτειν.= =268= 15. _To cut short_, _to silence_. Lat. _praecidere_.

 =διακοσμεῖν.= =218= 20. _To arrange._ Lat. _ordinare_.

 =διακρούειν.= =230= 17. _To break into._ Lat. _interrumpere_.

[Page 295]

 =διαλαμβάνειν.= =72= 10, =166= 17, =180= 12, =184= 14, =270= 20, =272=
         2. _To divide_, _to diversify_. Lat. _distinguere_.

 =διαλέγεσθαι.= =208= 9. _To write in prose._ Lat. _soluta oratione uti_.

 =διάλειμμα.= =204= 1. _A pause._ Lat. _intermissio_.

 =διάλεκτος.= =78= 16, =80= 3, 16, =88= 26, =126= 3, =160= 14, =168= 8,
         =208= 19, =246= 7. _Language._ Lat. _sermo_. Sometimes used
         with special reference to a ‘dialect,’ as in =80= 16, =88=
         26 (so τὴν Ἀτθίδα γλῶτταν =80= 17 = τὴν Ἀτθίδα διάλεκτον _de
         Demosth._ c. 41); and in other passages, with much the same
         sense as λέξις (_elocutio_).—In =68= 9, =94= 10, 14, =96= 15,
         =104= 1, the adjective =διαλεκτικός= means ‘pertaining to

 =διαλλαγή.= =126= 1. _Difference._ Lat. _differentia_. So
         =διαλλάττειν=, =92= 19, =150= 2, =152= 29.

 =διάλογος.= =198= 1, =264= 22. _Dialogue._ Lat. _dialogus_. Cp. Demetr.
         p. 274.

 =διαλύειν.= =132= 9, =272= 1. _To break up_, _to resolve_. Lat.
         _dissolvere_. So =διάλυσις= =138= 4.

 =διαναπαύειν.= =134= 17. _To relieve_, _to break up_. Lat. _diluere_.

 =διάνοια.= =74= 7, 16, =112= 21. _Mind_, _thought_. Lat. _mens_,

 =διὰ πέντε.= =126= 4, 17. _The interval of a fifth._ Lat.
         _diapente_, _quinque tonorum intervallum_. So =διὰ πασῶν= =126=
         18, of the _octave_.

 =διαποικίλλειν.= =214= 8, =248= 10, =254= 18. _To variegate._ Lat.
         _depingere_, _distinguere_.

 =διαρτᾶν.= =206= 6. _To separate_, _to break up_. Lat. _seiungere_. Cp.
         _de Demosth._ c. 40 ἵνα δὲ μὴ δόξωμεν διαρτᾶν τὰς ἀκολουθίας.

 =διασαλεύειν.= =102= 21, =230= 9, =240= 13. _To shake_ (as by storm),
         _to disturb_. Lat. _perturbare_, _concutere_. In =230= 9 and
         =240= 13 the reference is to troubling the smooth waters of the
         cadences by sounds that jolt and jar.

 =διασπᾶν.= =222= 19, =230= 24. _To dislocate._ Lat. _divellere_. Cp.
         Demetr. p. 274, s.v. διασπασμός, and Quintil. ix. 4. 33 “tum
         vocalium concursus; qui cum accidit, hiat et intersistit et
         quasi laborat oratio.”

 =διάστασις.= =206= 3, 5, =210= 18. _Distance._ Lat. _distantia_.

 =διάστημα.= =126= 3, 16, =270= 12. _Interval._ Lat. _spatium_,

 =διαστολή.= =278= 5, 7. _Division._ Lat. _divisio_. By διαστολαί (which
         he opposes to metrical cola) Dionysius means the natural
         divisions, or pauses, observed in prose in order to bring out
         the sense and to secure good delivery, in accordance with the
         requirements of grammar and rhetoric. Cp. the later use of
         διαστολή for division by means of a comma—for _punctuation_, as
         we should say.

 =διατέμνειν.= =270= 13. _To cut up._ Lat. _discindere_, _concidere_.

 =διατιθέναι.= =130= 5, 15, =134= 8, 11. _To affect._ Lat. _adficere_.

 =διάτονος.= =194= 8, =196= 4. _Diatonic._ Lat. _diatonicus_. For the
         diatonic scale see n. on =194= 8.

 =διαφορά.= =68= 21, =152= 14, etc. _Difference_, _variety_. Lat.

 =διαχάλασμα.= =230= 24. _Loosening._ Lat. _resolutio_. Cp. Epicrates
         (ap. Athen. xiii. 570 B) on Lais in her old age: ἐπεὶ δὲ
         δολιχὸν τοῖς ἔτεσιν ἤδη τρέχει | τὰς ἁρμονίας τε διαχαλᾷ τοῦ

[Page 296]

 =διελκυσμός.= =204= 3. _Struggle_, _tussle_. Lat. _luctatio_.
         Cp. argum. Aristoph. _Acharn._ εἶτα γενομένου διελκυσμοῦ
         κατενεχθεὶς ὁ χορὸς ἀπολύει τὸν Δικαιόπολιν, i.e. “a tussle
         (wrangle) arises, in which the Chorus is overborne and lets go

 =διέξοδος.= =150= 1. _Outlet_, _egress_. Lat. _exitus_.

 =διερείδειν.= =220= 3. _To thrust apart._ Lat. _disiungere_. The object
         of the thrusting apart (or separation) is to give each word
         a firm position (as with the combination of strut and tie in
         Caesar’s bridge over the Rhine, for which see E. Kitson Clark
         in _Classical Review_ xxii. 144-147). So =διερεισμός= =222= 10,
         =224= 14. In =202= 9 =διερείδεσθαι= = _conniti_.

 =δίεσις.= =126= 20. _A quarter-tone_, or _any interval smaller
         than a semitone_. Lat. _diesis_. As to the reason for the
         disappearance of the quarter-tone from our modern musical
         system see n. on =194= 7 (extract from Macran’s _Harmonics of
         Aristoxenus_). See, further, L. and S., s.v. δίεσις and λεῖμμα.
         The word occurs also in _de Lys._ c. 11 ὥστε μηδὲ τὴν ἐλαχίστην
         ἐν τοῖς διαστήμασι δίεσιν ἀγνοεῖν. Suidas defines δίεσις as τὸ
         ἐλάχιστον μέτρον τῶν ἐναρμονίων διαστημάτων. Cp. Vitruv. _de
         Arch._ v. 3.

 =διευκρινεῖν.= =208= 4. _To determine._ Lat. _diiudicare_.

 =διευστοχεῖν.= =124= 17. _To go straight to the mark._ Lat. _recta ad
         scopum tendere_. For the genitive cp. Polyb. ii. 45 (of Aratus)
         ἄνδρα δυνάμενον πάσης εὐστοχεῖν περιστάσεως.

 =διηνεκής.= =142= 2. _Unbroken_, _uninterrupted_. Lat. _continuus_,

 =διθυραμβοποιός.= =194= 23. _Writer of dithyrambs._ Lat. _dithyrambicus
         poëta_. Cp. D.H. p. 188, s.v. διθύραμβος.

 =διιστάναι.= =144= 4, =202= 17, =204= 21, =206= 4, =222= 5, =224= 8,
         =236= 6. _To keep apart._ Lat. _diducere_. Cp. Diog. Laert. iv.
         6 ἦν δὲ [ὁ Ἀρκεσίλαος] ἐν τῇ λαλιᾷ διαστατικὸς τῶν ὀνομάτων,
         i.e. distinct in his enunciation. In =230= 17 διέστακεν =

 =δίκαιος.= =224= 2, 10. _Legitimate_, _regular_. Lat. _iustus_. The
         normal measure of a long syllable is meant.

 =δικανικός.= =112= 11, =252= 2. _Forensic._ Lat. _iudicialis_,