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
omicron.
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:
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924026465165
Errata:
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
BEING THE GREEK TEXT OF THE
_DE COMPOSITIONE VERBORVM_
EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION, TRANSLATION, NOTES
GLOSSARY, AND APPENDICES
BY
W. RHYS ROBERTS
LITT.D. (CAMBRIDGE), HON. LL.D. (ST. ANDREWS)
PROFESSOR OF CLASSICS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS
FORMERLY FELLOW OF KING’S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
EDITOR OF ‘DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS: THE THREE LITERARY LETTERS,’ ETC.
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN’S STREET, LONDON
1910
EQVITI INSIGNI
=NATHAN BODINGTON=
VNIVERSITATIS LOIDENSIS VICE-CANCELLARIO PRIMO
HVNC LIBRVM DAT DICAT DEDICAT
EDITOR COLLEGA AMICVS
_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]
PREFACE
_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
secure._
_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
treatise._
_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._
_THE UNIVERSITY, LEEDS,
December 6, 1909._
[Page xiii]
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION—
PAGE
I. SUMMARY OF THE ‘DE COMPOSITIONE’ 1
II. THE ORDER OF WORDS IN GREEK—
A. FREEDOM AND ELASTICITY 11
B. NORMAL ORDER 14
C. LUCIDITY 15
D. EMPHASIS 17
E. EUPHONY 27
F. GREEK AND LATIN AND MODERN LANGUAGES 29
G. PROSE AND POETRY: RHYTHM AND METRE 33
III. OTHER MATTERS ARISING IN THE ‘DE COMPOSITIONE’—
A. GREEK MUSIC: IN RELATION TO THE GREEK LANGUAGE 39
B. ACCENT IN ANCIENT GREEK 41
C. PRONUNCIATION OF ANCIENT GREEK 43
D. GREEK GRAMMAR 46
E. SOURCES OF THE TREATISE 47
F. QUOTATIONS AND LITERARY REFERENCES IN IT 49
G. MANUSCRIPTS AND TEXT OF IT 56
H. RECENT WRITINGS CONNECTED WITH IT 59
TEXT, TRANSLATION, AND NOTES (CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY) 64
GLOSSARY 285
APPENDICES—
A. OBSCURITY IN GREEK 335
B. ILLUSTRATIONS OF WORD-ORDER IN GREEK AND MODERN LANGUAGES 342
C. GREEK PRONUNCIATION: SCHEME OF THE CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION 348
INDICES—
A. PASSAGES QUOTED IN THE ‘DE COMPOSITIONE’ 353
B. NAMES AND MATTERS 354
[Page 1]
INTRODUCTION
I
SUMMARY OF THE _DE COMPOSITIONE_
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
Metilius.
=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
periods.
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
language.
=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
conspicuously
[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
style.
=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
top.
=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
(κοινή).
=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.
II. CHAPTERS 6-20. GENERAL THEORY AND TECHNIQUE OF COMPOSITION:—
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.
III. CHAPTERS 21-24. THREE MODES OF COMPOSITION:—
(1) σύνθεσις αὐστηρά, c. 22.
(2) σύνθεσις γλαφυρά, c. 23.
(3) σύνθεσις εὔκρατος (or κοινή), c. 24.
IV. CHAPTERS 25, 26. RELATION OF PROSE TO POETRY, AND OF POETRY TO
PROSE.
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.
II
THE ORDER OF WORDS IN GREEK
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
elucidation.
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
language:—
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
=ἐπηγγείλατο=.
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.
and
=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:
e.g.
=ἑστάναι, εἶπον, καὶ κινεῖσθαι τὸ αὐτὸ ἅμα κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ= ἆρα
δυνατόν;
Plato _Republic_ iv. 436 C.
and
=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.
and
... 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
=Πενθεύς=.[26]
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
=τἄμ’=.[29]
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
πατρίδος=.
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
scribere,
Suam quoíque sponsam, míhi meam; suum quoíque amorem, míhi meum”:
so Dionysius long ago anticipated the saying that the style is the
man.[40]
[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
Word-Order_
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
incalculable.[44]
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
principles.[50]
[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
Prayer:—
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).
III
OTHER MATTERS ARISING IN THE _DE COMPOSITIONE_
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
ear.”[63]
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
results.
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
effect.
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
Aristotle.[73]
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]
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF AUTHORS QUOTED OR MENTIONED IN THE _DE
COMPOSITIONE_
+----------+------------+---------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| | 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
engendereth.’”
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
positions,
[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
Ἀμφικράτους
[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
P.
[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]
ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΟΥ ΑΛΙΚΑΡΝΑΣΕΩΣ
_ΠΕΡΙ ΣΥΝΘΕΣΕΩΣ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΩΝ_
[Page 64]
ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΟΥ ΑΛΙΚΑΡΝΑΣΕΩΣ
_ΠΕΡΙ ΣΥΝΘΕΣΕΩΣ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΩΝ_
I
“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
_infra_.
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
οἰκειοτέρα.
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]
DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS
ON
LITERARY COMPOSITION
CHAPTER I
OCCASION AND PURPOSE OF THE TREATISE
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
F
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.
II
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
‘particles.’
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.