THE MAGICAL EFFECT OF COMPOSITION, OR WORD-ORDER
Every utterance, then, by which we express our thoughts is either in
metre or not in metre. Whichever it be, it can, when aided by beautiful
arrangement, attain beauty whether of verse or prose. But speech, if
flung out carelessly at random, at the same time spoils the value of
the thought. Many poets, and prose-writers (philosophers and orators),
have carefully chosen expressions that are distinctly beautiful and
appropriate to the subject matter, but have reaped no benefit from
their trouble because they have given them a rude and haphazard sort of
arrangement: whereas others have invested their discourse with great
beauty by taking humble, unpretending words, and arranging them with
charm and distinction. It may well be thought that composition is to
selection what words are to ideas. For just as a fine thought is of
no avail unless it be clothed in beautiful language, so here too pure
and elegant expression, is useless unless it be attired in the right
vesture of arrangement.
But to guard myself against the appearance of making an unsupported
assertion, I will try to show by an appeal to facts
[Page 76]
τὴν σύνθεσιν, ἔργῳ πειράσομαι δεικνύναι, ἐμμέτρων τε καὶ
πεζῶν λόγων ἀπαρχὰς ὀλίγας προχειρισάμενος. λαμβανέσθω
δὲ ποιητῶν μὲν Ὅμηρος, συγγραφέων δὲ Ἡρόδοτος· ἀπόχρη
γὰρ ἐκ τούτων καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων εἰκάσαι. ἔστι δὴ παρ’
Ὁμήρῳ μὲν ὁ παρὰ τῷ συβώτῃ καταγόμενος Ὀδυσσεὺς περὶ 5
τὴν ἑωθινὴν ὥραν ἀκρατίζεσθαι μέλλων, ὡς τοῖς παλαιοῖς
ἔθος ἦν· ἔπειτα ὁ Τηλέμαχος αὐτοῖς ἐπιφαινόμενος ἐκ τῆς εἰς
Πελοπόννησον ἀποδημίας· πραγμάτια λιτὰ καὶ βιωτικὰ
ἡρμηνευμένα ὑπέρευ. ποῦ δ’ ἐστὶν ἡ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἀρετή;
τὰ ποιήματα δηλώσει παρατεθέντα αὐτά· 10
τὼ δ’ αὖτ’ ἐν κλισίῃς Ὀδυσεὺς καὶ δῖος ὑφορβὸς
ἐντύνοντ’ ἄριστον ἅμ’ ἠοῖ κειαμένω πῦρ
ἔκπεμψάν τε νομῆας ἅμ’ ἀγρομένοισι σύεσσι.
Τηλέμαχον δὲ περίσσαινον κύνες ὑλακόμωροι
οὐδ’ ὕλαον προσιόντα. νόησε δὲ δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς 15
σαίνοντάς τε κύνας, ὑπὸ δὲ κτύπος ἦλθε ποδοῖιν·
αἶψα δ’ ἄρ’ Εὔμαιον προσεφώνεεν ἐγγὺς ἐόντα·
Εὔμαι’, ἦ μάλα τίς τοι ἐλεύσεται ἐνθάδ’ ἑταῖρος
ἢ καὶ γνώριμος ἄλλος, ἐπεὶ κύνες οὐχ ὑλάουσιν,
ἀλλὰ περισσαίνουσι· ποδῶν δ’ ὑπὸ δοῦπον ἀκούω. 20
οὔπω πᾶν εἴρητο ἔπος, ὅτε οἱ φίλος υἱὸς
ἔστη ἐνὶ προθύροισι. ταφὼν δ’ ἀνόρουσε συβώτης·
1 ἔργω F || δεικνῦναι F || ἐνμέτρων F 4 εἰκᾶσαι F 5 ὁμήρ(ω) P ||
τῳ om. P || σϊβώτηι P: corr. in margine P^2 || ὀδυσεὺς P 8 πραγμάτια
λιτὰ καὶ PV: πραγμάτια ἅττα F: πραγματιάττα λιτὰ καὶ M 9 δ’ ἔστιν F:
δέ (ἐστιν) P 11 κλισίησ’ EFV: κλισίῃ Hom. || ὀδυσσεὺς FP^2M^1V 12
ἐντύνοντ(ες) P,V 13 ἐκπέμψαντε EFPM || ἀγρομένοισ(ιν) P 14 περίσαινον
FEV 15 ὀδυσεὺς P 16 περί τε κτύπος Hom. 17 ἂρ sic FP || ἔπεα
πτερόεντα προσηύδα Hom. 18 ἐῦμαι’ P: εὔμαιε V 20 περισαίνουσι FV
22 ἐπὶ F || προθύροισ(ιν) P
5. The extract from the _Odyssey_ well illustrates that Homeric
nobleness which pervades even the homeliest scenes; and Dionysius
is right in pointing out that this nobleness does not depend on any
striking choice of phrase, since Homer’s language is usually quite
plain and straightforward.
6. On _Odyss._ xvi. 2 (ἄριστον) there is the following scholium, ὅτι
καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἰλιάδι ἅμα τῇ ἀνατολῇ ἐσθίουσιν: and similarly on Theocr.
i. 50, πρωΐας ἔτι οὔσης ὀλίγον τινὰ ἐσθίομεν ἄρτον καὶ ἄκρατον οἶνον
πίνομεν.
9. The charm of a simple scene, simply but beautifully described, is
seen in Virg. _Ecl._ vii. 1-15; _Georg._ ii. 385-9; _Aen._ v. 328-30,
357-60. (The Latin illustrations, here and elsewhere, are for the most
part the _exempla Latina_ suggested by Simon Bircov (Bircovius), a
Polish scholar who lived early in the seventeenth century.)
11. By “Hom.” in the critical notes is meant the best attested reading
in the text of Homer. κλισίῃς, however, has some support among the
manuscripts of Homer; and so has the form ἂρ in =76= 17, and πέσεν in
=78= 1.
14. Monro (_Odyss._ xiv. 29) regards ὑλακόμωρος as a kind of parody of
the heroic epithets ἐγχεσίμωρος and ἰόμωρος, and thinks that we cannot
tell what precise meaning (if any) was conveyed by the latter part of
the compound. See, further, his note on _Iliad_ ii. 692.
20. The construction must be ὑπὸ ποδῶν: cp. _Il._ ii. 465 ὑπὸ χθὼν
σμερδαλέον κονάβιζε ποδῶν. The force of ὑπό is half-way between the
literal sense of ‘under’ and the derived sense of ‘caused by’ (Monro).
[Page 77]
the reasons which have convinced me that composition is a more
important and effective art than mere selection of words. I will first
examine a few specimen passages in prose and verse. Among poets let
Homer be taken, among prose-writers Herodotus: from these may be formed
an adequate notion of the rest.
Well, in Homer we find Odysseus tarrying in the swineherd’s hut and
about to break his fast at dawn, as they used to do in ancient days.
Telemachus then appears in sight, returning from his sojourn in the
Peloponnese. Trifling incidents of everyday life as these are, they are
inimitably portrayed. But wherein lies the excellence of expression? I
shall quote the lines, and they will speak for themselves:—
As anigh came Telemachus’ feet, the king and the swineherd wight
Made ready the morning meat, and by this was the fire alight;—
They had sent the herdmen away with the pasturing swine at the dawning;—
Lo, the dogs have forgotten to bay, and around the prince are they fawning!
And Odysseus the godlike marked the leap and the whine of the hounds
That ever at strangers barked; and his ear caught footfall-sounds.
Straightway he spake, for beside him was sitting the master of swine:
“Of a surety, Eumaeus, hitherward cometh a comrade of thine,
Or some one the bandogs know, and not with barking greet,
But they fawn upon him; moreover I hear the treading of feet.”
Not yet were the words well done, when the porchway darkened: a face
Was there in the door,—his son! and Eumaeus sprang up in amaze.
[Page 78]
ἐκ δ’ ἄρα οἱ χειρῶν πέσεν ἄγγεα, τοῖς ἐπονεῖτο
κιρνὰς αἴθοπα οἶνον. ὁ δ’ ἀντίος ἔδραμ’ ἄνακτος·
κύσσε δέ μιν κεφαλήν τε καὶ ἄμφω φάεα καλὰ
χεῖράς τ’ ἀμφοτέρας· θαλερὸν δέ οἱ ἔκπεσε δάκρυ.
ταῦθ’ ὅτι μὲν ἐπάγεται καὶ κηλεῖ τὰς ἀκοὰς ποιημάτων 5
τε τῶν πάνυ ἡδίστων οὐδενὸς ἥττω μοῖραν ἔχει, πάντες ἂν
οἶδ’ ὅτι μαρτυρήσειαν. ποῦ δὴ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ πειθὼ καὶ
διὰ τί τοιαῦτά ἐστι, πότερον διὰ τὴν ἐκλογὴν τῶν ὀνομάτων
ἢ διὰ τὴν σύνθεσιν; οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴποι διὰ τὴν ἐκλογήν, ὡς
ἐγὼ πείθομαι· διὰ γὰρ τῶν εὐτελεστάτων καὶ ταπεινοτάτων 10
ὀνομάτων πέπλεκται πᾶσα ἡ λέξις, οἷς ἂν καὶ γεωργὸς καὶ
θαλαττουργὸς καὶ χειροτέχνης καὶ πᾶς ὁ μηδεμίαν ὤραν τοῦ
λέγειν εὖ ποιούμενος ἐξ ἑτοίμου λαβὼν ἐχρήσατο. λυθέντος
γοῦν τοῦ μέτρου φαῦλα φανήσεται τὰ αὐτὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἄζηλα·
οὔτε γὰρ μεταφοραί τινες ἐν αὐτοῖς εὐγενεῖς ἔνεισιν οὔτε 15
ὑπαλλαγαὶ οὔτε καταχρήσεις οὔτ’ ἄλλη τροπικὴ διάλεκτος
οὐδεμία, οὐδὲ δὴ γλῶτται πολλαί τινες οὐδὲ ξένα ἢ πεποιημένα
ὀνόματα. τί οὖν λείπεται μὴ οὐχὶ τὴν σύνθεσιν τοῦ
κάλλους τῆς ἑρμηνείας αἰτιᾶσθαι; τοιαῦτα δ’ ἐστὶ παρὰ τῷ
1 πέσον Hom. 2 αἴθωπα PM || ἔδραμ(εν) F: ἔδραμ’ E: ἦλθεν PMV Hom.
3 καὶ φαλήν P 5 ἐπάγεταί τε καὶ F 6 τῶν F: καὶ τῶν PMV || οὐδ’
ἑνὸς F^1 || ἥττων F 7 εὖ ante οἶδ’ habet F 8 τοιαύτη F^1 || πότερα
F 9 ἐκλογ[ὴ]ν cum litura P || ὡς ἐγὼ πείθομαι om. F 10 καὶ FE: τε
καὶ PMV 12 ὤραν Sylburgius: ὥραν PMV: ὧραν F γρ φροντίδα in marg. M
13 λαβῶν P 14 γοὖν F: γ’ οὖν P 15 ἐν αὐτοῖς (αὐταῖς P) εὐγενεῖς
ἔνεισιν PMV: εἰσὶν εὐγενεῖς ἐν αὐτοῖς EF 16 οὔτε ἄλλη PV || οὐδεμία
διάλεκτος F 17 οὐδεδὴ P: οὔτε δὴ FMV || γλῶσσαι F || οὐδὲ Sauppius:
οὔτε PMV: ἢ in rasura F^2 19 τοιαῦτ(α) (εστι) P,MV
7. Perhaps ποῦ δὲ δή: cp. =116= 9.
9. Cp. Hor. _Ars P._ 47 “dixeris egregie notum si callida verbum |
reddiderit iunctura novum.”
On the other hand, the importance of ἐκλογή is illustrated by
Aristotle’s comparison (_Poetics_ xxii. 7) of νῦν δέ μ’ ἐὼν ὀλίγος τε
καὶ οὐτιδανὸς καὶ ἀεικής with νῦν δέ μ’ ἐὼν μικρός τε καὶ ἀσθενικὸς καὶ
ἀειδής.
10. Cp. J. W. Mackail in _Class. Rev._ xxii. 70, “A quality of the
finest Greek poetry, from Homer to the late anthologists, is its power
of taking common language and transforming it into poetry by an all but
imperceptible touch.” The quality is exemplified in Euripides, though
it did not originate with him (κλέπτεται δ’ εὖ, ἐάν τις ἐκ τῆς εἰωθυίας
διαλέκτου ἐκλέγων συντιθῇ· ὅπερ Εὐριπίδης ποιεῖ καὶ ὑπέδειξε πρῶτος,
Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 2, 4: cp. Long. p. 146). So “tantum series
iuncturaque pollet, | tantum _de medio sumptis_ accedit honoris” (Hor.
_Ars P._ 242-3).
13. =λυθέντος γοῦν=, κτλ. Cp. Isocr. _Evag._ 10 οἱ μὲν (sc. ποιηταὶ)
μετὰ μέτρων καὶ ῥυθμῶν ἅπαντα ποιοῦσιν ... ἃ τοσαύτην ἔχει χάριν,
ὥστ’ ἂν καὶ τῇ λέξει καὶ τοῖς ἐνθυμήμασιν ἔχῃ κακῶς, ὅμως αὐταῖς ταῖς
εὐρυθμίαις καὶ ταῖς συμμετρίαις ψυχαγωγοῦσι τοὺς ἀκούοντας. γνοίη
δ’ ἄν τις ἐκεῖθεν τὴν δύναμιν αὐτῶν· ἢν γάρ τις τῶν ποιημάτων τῶν
εὐδοκιμούντων τὰ μὲν ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς διανοίας καταλίπῃ, τὸ δὲ μέτρον
διαλύσῃ, φανήσεται πολὺ καταδεέστερα τῆς δόξης ἧς νῦν ἔχομεν περὶ αὐτῶν.
14. =ἄζηλα=: this adjective occurs also in the _de Demosth._ c. 28, and
more than once in the _Antiqq. Rom._
16. =ὑπαλλαγαί, καταχρήσεις=: see Glossary, s. vv.
17. Usener reads γλῶτται παλαιαί τινες. But (1) γλῶτται are usually
παλαιαί (cp. Galen _Gloss. Hipp._ xix. 63 ὅσα τοίνυν τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐν
μὲν τοῖς πάλαι χρόνοις ἦν συνήθη, νῦν δὲ οὐκέτι ἐστί, τὰ μὲν τοιαῦτα
γλώττας καλοῦσι, κτλ.): (2) the phrase πολλοί τινες is elsewhere
used by Dionysius, e.g. _de Lysia_ c. 1 οὔτε πολλοῖς τισι κατέλιπεν
ὑπερβολήν, κτλ.
18, 19. An interesting modern parallel is that passage in Coleridge’s
_Biographia Literaria_ (c. 18) which touches on the stanza (in
Wordsworth’s _Lyrical Ballads_) beginning “In distant countries I have
been.” Coleridge remarks, “The words here are doubtless such as are
current in all ranks of life; and of course not less so in the hamlet
and cottage than in the shop, manufactory, college, or palace. But
is this the _order_ in which the rustic would have placed the words?
I am grievously deceived, if the following less _compact_ mode of
commencing the same tale be not a far more faithful copy, ‘I have been
in many parts, far and near, and I don’t know that I ever saw before
a man crying by himself in the public road; a grown man I mean that
was neither sick nor hurt,’” etc.—In this connexion see also F. W.
H. Myers’ _Wordsworth_, pp. 106 ff., for the _music_ in Wordsworth’s
_Affliction of Margaret_.
[Page 79]
Dropped from his hands to the floor the bowls, wherein erst he began
The flame-flushed wine to pour, and to meet his lord he ran;
And he kissed that dear-loved head, and both his beautiful eyes;
And he kissed his hands, and he shed warm tears in his glad surprise.[89]
Everybody would, I am sure, testify that these lines cast a spell
of enchantment on the ear, and rank second to no poetry whatsoever,
however exquisite it may be. But what is the secret of their
fascination, and what causes them to be what they are? Is it the
selection of words, or the composition? No one will say “the
selection”: of that I am convinced. For the diction consists, warp and
woof, of the most ordinary, the humblest words, such as might have
been used off-hand by a farmer, a seaman, an artisan, or anybody else
who takes no account of elegant speech. You have only to break up the
metre, and these very same lines will seem commonplace and unworthy of
admiration. For they contain neither noble metaphors nor _hypallages_
nor _catachreses_ nor any other figurative language; nor yet many
unusual terms, nor foreign or new-coined words. What alternative, then,
is left but to attribute the beauty of the style to the composition?
There are countless
[Page 80]
ποιητῇ μυρία, ὡς εὖ οἶδ’ ὅτι πάντες ἴσασιν· ἐμοὶ δ’ ὑπομνήσεως
ἕνεκα λέγοντι ἀρκεῖ ταῦτα μόνα εἰρῆσθαι.
φέρε δὴ μεταβῶμεν καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν πεζὴν διάλεκτον καὶ
σκοπῶμεν, εἰ κἀκείνῃ τοῦτο συμβέβηκε τὸ πάθος, ὥστε περὶ
μικρὰ καὶ φαῦλα πράγματά τε καὶ ὀνόματα συνταχθέντα 5
καλῶς μεγάλας γίνεσθαι τὰς χάριτας. ἔστι δὴ παρὰ τῷ
Ἡροδότῳ βασιλεύς τις Λυδῶν, ὃν ἐκεῖνος Κανδαύλην <καλεῖ,
Μυρσίλον δὲ> καλεῖσθαί φησιν ὑφ’ Ἑλλήνων, τῆς ἑαυτοῦ
γυναικὸς ἐρῶν, ἔπειτα ἀξιῶν τινα τῶν ἑταίρων αὐτοῦ γυμνὴν
τὴν ἄνθρωπον ἰδεῖν, ὁ δὲ ἀπομαχόμενος μὴ ἀναγκασθῆναι, ὡς 10
δὲ οὐκ ἔπειθεν, ὑπομένων τε καὶ θεώμενος αὐτήν—πρᾶγμα
οὐχ ὅτι σεμνὸν ἢ καλλιλογεῖσθαι ἐπιτήδειον, ἀλλὰ καὶ
ταπεινὸν καὶ ἐπικίνδυνον καὶ τοῦ αἰσχροῦ μᾶλλον ἢ τοῦ καλοῦ
ἐγγυτέρω· ἀλλ’ εἴρηται σφόδρα δεξιῶς, καὶ κρεῖττον γέγονεν
ἀκουσθῆναι λεγόμενον ἢ ὀφθῆναι γινόμενον. ἵνα δὲ μή τις 15
ὑπολάβῃ τὴν διάλεκτον εἶναι τῆς ἡδονῆς αἰτίαν τῇ λέξει,
μεταθεὶς αὐτῆς τὸν χαρακτῆρα εἰς τὴν Ἀτθίδα γλῶτταν καὶ
οὐδὲν ἄλλο περιεργασάμενος οὕτως ἐξοίσω τὸν διάλογον.
“Γύνη, οὐ γάρ σε δοκῶ πείθεσθαί μοι λέγοντι περὶ τοῦ
εἴδους τῆς γυναικός· ὦτα γὰρ τυγχάνει ἀνθρώποις ὄντα 20
ἀπιστότερα ὀφθαλμῶν· ποίει ὅπως ἐκείνην θεάσῃ γυμνήν. ὁ
1 δε P,MV 2 εἰρεῖσθαι P 3 μ[ε]ταβῶμεν cum litura P || ἤδη ante
καὶ ἐπὶ add. F || διάλεξιν F 4 καὶ ἐκείνη F || τοῦτο F: τὸ αὐτὸ PV:
τοῦτο αὐτὸ M || τὸ F: om. PMV 6 ἡδονὰς post μεγάλας add. F || τὰς
PMV: καὶ F 7 καλεῖ Μυρσίλον δὲ om. FM: καλεῖ Μυρσίλον δὲ καλεῖσθαι
om. PV: supplevit Sylburgius coll. Herod. i. 7 9 τινα post αὐτοῦ
ponit F 10 ὁ δὲ PMV: ὃσ F 11 δὲ om. F || αὐτὴν· πρᾶγμα F: αὐτὴν τὸ
πρᾶγμα P: αὐτὴν ἦν· τὸ δὲ πρᾶγμα MV 12 ἐπιτήδειον] δυνάμενον E 13
ταπεινὸν EPMV: παιδικὸν F 14 ἀλλὰ PM 16 τηῖ P 17 γλῶσσαν F 18
περιειργασμένος P || τὸν λόγον F 19 περὶ] τ(ους) περι P: τὰ περὶ Va
20 τυγχάνει] ὑπάρχει F
4. Usener’s conjecture παρὰ (for περὶ) may be held to find some support
from =92= 21 and =256= 10, but on the other hand Dionysius’ love of
μεταβολή has always to be remembered.
6. F’s reading ἡδονὰς γίνεσθαι καὶ adds still another καί to the four
already used in this sentence. The two nouns ἡδονὰς ... χάριτας are
superficially attractive, but the plural ἡδοναί is not common in this
sense.
9. =γυμνήν=: some light is thrown on various phases of Greek and
non-Greek feeling with regard to any exposure of the person by such
passages as Thucyd. i. 6, Plato _Menex._ 236 D, Herod. i. 10 (ad f.).
As to the women of Sparta cp. Gardner and Jevons _Greek Antiquities_
pp. 352, 353.
10. For the participles cp. p. 76 ll. 5-7.
12. =οὐχ ὅτι= (in a context which gives it the meaning of _non solum
non_) occurs elsewhere in Dionysius: e.g. _Antiqq. Rom._ ii. c. 18 καὶ
οὐχ ὅτι θεῶν ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἀνθρώπων ἀγαθῶν ἀξίους.
13. =ταπεινόν= (which is weightily supported) seems to correspond
better than παιδικόν to σεμνόν.—F’s reading παιδικὸν might perhaps
be translated ‘sportive’ or ‘freakish’ (with a reference to boyish
pranks); cp. D.H. p. 196 (s.v. μειρακιώδης) and p. 199 (s.v.
παιδιώδης), and Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 11 fin. εἰσὶ δὲ ὑπερβολαὶ
μειρακιώδεις ... διὸ πρεσβυτέρῳ λέγειν ἀπρεπές.
17. So, in _de Demosth._ c. 41, μετακεκόμισται δ’ εἰς τὴν Ἀτθίδα
διάλεκτον ἡ λέξις (the passage in question being Herod. vii. 8). For
the charm of the Ionic dialect cp. Quintil. ix. 4. 18 “in Herodoto vero
cum omnia (ut ego quidem sentio) lenitur fluunt, tum ipsa διάλεκτος
habet eam iucunditatem, ut latentes etiam numeros complexa videatur.”
18. =οὐδὲν ἄλλο περιεργασάμενος=: notwithstanding this undertaking, the
variations from the traditional text of Herodotus are (as will be seen
on reference to the critical footnotes) considerable.
It is no doubt possible that F’s reading τὸν λόγον (‘the story’) is
original, and was changed to τὸν διάλογον (‘the conversation’) because
the whole story is not quoted. But such readings of F as ὑπάρχει
(for τυγχάνει l. 20: against the MSS. of Herodotus) show that its
unsupported testimony must be received with much reserve.
20. This passage of Herodotus may have been before Horace’s mind (_Ars
P._ 180): “segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem | quam quae sunt
oculis subiecta fidelibus et quae | ipse sibi tradit spectator.” Cp.
also Shakespeare _Coriolanus_ iii. 2 “the eyes of the ignorant | (are)
more learned than the ears.” In the Greek the emphatic position of both
ὦτα and ὀφθαλμῶν is to be noticed; cp. Introduction, pp. 19-25, for
emphasis at the end and at the beginning of clauses.
[Page 81]
passages of this kind in Homer, as everybody of course is well aware.
It is enough to quote this single instance by way of reminder.
Let us now pass on to the language of prose and see if the same
principle holds good of it too—that great graces invest trifling and
commonplace acts and words, when they are cast into the mould of
beautiful composition. For instance, there is in Herodotus a certain
Lydian king whom he calls Candaules, adding that he was called Myrsilus
by the Greeks. Candaules is represented as infatuated with admiration
of his wife, and then as insisting on one of his friends seeing the
poor woman naked. The friend struggled hard against the constraint
put upon him; but failing to shake the king’s resolve, he submitted,
and viewed her. The incident, as an incident, is not only lacking in
dignity and, for the purpose of embellishment, intractable, but is
also vulgar and hazardous and more akin to the repulsive than to the
beautiful. But it has been related with great dexterity: it has been
made something far better to hear told than it was to see done. And,
that no one may imagine that it is to the dialect that the charm of
the story is due, I will change its distinctive forms into Attic,
and without any further meddling with the language will give the
conversation as it stands:—
“‘Of a truth, Gyges, I think that thou dost not believe what I say
concerning the beauty of my wife; indeed, men trust their ears less
fully than their eyes. Contrive, therefore, to see her
[Page 82]
δ’ ἀναβοήσας εἶπε· Δέσποτα, τίνα λόγον λέγεις οὐχ ὑγιᾶ,
κελεύων με δέσποιναν τὴν ἐμὴν θεάσασθαι γυμνήν; ἅμα δὲ
χιτῶνι ἐκδυομένῳ συνεκδύεται καὶ τὴν αἰδῶ γυνή. πάλαι
δὲ τὰ καλὰ ἀνθρώποις ἐξεύρηται, ἐξ ὧν μανθάνειν δεῖ· ἐν οἷς
ἓν τόδ’ ἐστίν, ὁρᾶν τινα τὰ ἑαυτοῦ. ἐγὼ δὲ πείθομαι ἐκείνην 5
εἶναι πασῶν γυναικῶν καλλίστην, καὶ σοῦ δέομαι μὴ
δεῖσθαι ἀνόμων. ὁ μὲν δὴ λέγων ταῦτα ἀπεμάχετο, ὁ δ’
ἠμείβετο τοῖσδε· Θάρσει Γύγη, καὶ μὴ φοβοῦ μήτ’ ἐμέ, ὡς
πειρώμενόν σου λέγω λόγον τόνδε, μήτε γυναῖκα τὴν ἐμήν,
μή τί σοι ἐξ αὐτῆς γένηται βλάβος. ἀρχὴν γὰρ ἐγὼ μηχανήσομαι 10
οὕτως, ὥστε μηδὲ μαθεῖν αὐτὴν ὀφθεῖσαν ὑπὸ σοῦ.
ἀγαγὼν γάρ σε εἰς τὸ οἴκημα, ἐν ᾧ κοιμώμεθα, ὄπισθε τῆς
ἀνοιγομένης θύρας στήσω· μετὰ δὲ ἐμὲ εἰσελθόντα παρέσται
καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἐμὴ εἰς κοίτην. κεῖται δ’ ἐγγὺς τῆς εἰσόδου
θρόνος· ἐπὶ τοῦτον τῶν ἱματίων καθ’ ἓν ἕκαστον ἐκδῦσα 15
θήσει, καὶ καθ’ ἡσυχίαν πολλὴν παρέσται σοι θεάσασθαι.
ὅταν δ’ ἀπὸ τοῦ θρόνου πορεύηται ἐπὶ τὴν εὐνὴν κατὰ νώτου
τε αὐτῆς γένῃ, σοὶ μελέτω τὸ ἐντεῦθεν, ὅπως μή σε ὄψεται
ἀπιόντα διὰ θυρῶν. ὁ μὲν δὴ ὡς οὐκ ἐδύνατο διαφυγεῖν,
ἕτοιμος ἦν [ποιεῖν ταῦτα].” 20
1 δ’ F: δὲ PMV: δὲ μέγα Her. (exc. ACP) || λέγεις λόγον Her. 3
ἐκδυομένῳ F, Her.: ἐκδυομένη PMV 5 ἐν τώδε (τῶδε corr.) F, MV: ἐν τωῖ
δε P || ἔνεστιν corr. F^1, M 6 εἶναι post γυναικῶν traiciunt PMV
7 δεῖσθαι F, Her.: χρήιζειν P, MV || ἀνομῶν P || ταῦτα] τοιαῦτα Her.
|| post ἀπεμάχετο haec verba habet Her., ἀρρωδέων μή τί οἱ ἐξ αὐτῶν
γένηται κακόν || δὲ P 8 ὡς σέο πειρώμενον (vel πειρώμενος) Her.
9 λόγον λέγω PMV || τόνδε ... ἐγὼ om. add. in marg. P^2 10 τ[ι] σοι
cum litura F: τισ P 12 ἄγων P: ἐγὼ Her. || ἐσ P,M || ὄπισθεν PMV
13 θυραστήσω P^1 14 καὶ post παρέσται om F || ἐς PMV || δὲ PMV 15
ἐκδῦσα ante καθ’ ponunt PMV || ἐκδύνουσα Her. 16 παρέξει Her. 17 ὅτ’
ἂν FP ut solent: ἐπεὰν Her. || δε P, MV 18 μελέτω σοι F 19 ἰόντα Her.
|| δ[ι]α cum litura P || ἐδύνατο F, Her. (exc. RSVb): ἠδύνατο PMV ||
διαφεύγειν P 20 ἦν ἕτοιμος Her. || ποιεῖν ταῦτα (τά γ’ αὐτά P) om.
Her.
3. Cp. Diog. Laert. _Vit. Pythag._ § 43 τῇ δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον ἄνδρα
μελλούσῃ πορεύεσθαι παρῄνει (sc. Θεανὼ) ἅμα τοῖς ἐνδύμασι καὶ τὴν
αἰσχύνην ἀποτίθεσθαι, ἀνισταμένην τε πάλιν ἅμ’ αὐτοῖσιν ἀναλαμβάνειν.
14. εἰς κοίτην and ἐγγὺς τῆς εἰσόδου are Dionysius’ Attic equivalents
for ἐς κοῖτον and ἀγχοῦ τῆς ἐσόδου.
15. =καθ’ ἓν ἕκαστον=: cp. Herod. viii. 113 ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων συμμάχων
ἐξελέγετο κατ’ ὀλίγους.
20. Perhaps the effect of Herodotus’ style is best conveyed by the
Elizabethan translation (published in 1584) of Barnaby Rich, which
is, however, confined to books i. and ii. In _The Famous History of
Herodotus_, by B. R. (i.e., probably, Barnaby Rich), Dionysius’ extract
from Herod. i. 8 is freely Englished thus: “My faithful servant Gyges,
whereas thou seemest not to credit the large vaunts and often brags
which I make of my lady’s beauty and comeliness (the ears of men
being much more incredulous than their eyes), behold I will so bring
to pass that thou shalt see her naked. Whereat the poor gentleman
greatly abashed, and in no wise willing to assent thereto, made answer
as followeth, My lord (quoth he) what manner of speech is this which
unadvisedly you use in persuading me to behold my lady’s secrets, for
a woman, you know, the more in sight the less in shame: who together
with her garments layeth aside her modesty. Honest precepts have been
devised by our elders which we ought to remember, whereof this is one,
that every man ought to behold his own. For mine own part I easily
believe you that of all women in the world there is none comparable
unto her in beauty. Wherefore I beseech your grace to have me excused,
if in a case so heinous and unlawful I somewhat refuse to obey your
will. Gyges having in this sort acquitted himself, fearing the danger
that might ensue, the king began afresh to reply, saying, My good
Gyges, take heart at grace, and fear not, lest either myself do go
about to examine and feel thy meaning by the coloured glose of feigned
speech, or that the queen my lady take occasion to work thy displeasure
hereby. Pull up thy spirits, and leave all to me: it is I that will
work the means, whereby she shall never know any part of herself to
have been seen by any creature living. Listen then awhile and give ear
to my counsel:—When night is come, the door of the chamber wherein we
lie being wide set open, I will covertly place thee behind the same:
straight at my entrance thereinto, her custom is not to be long
after me, directly at her coming in, there standeth a bench, whereat
unclothing herself, she accustometh to lay her garments upon it,
propounding her divine and angelical body, to be seen and viewed for
a long space. This done, as she turns from the bench to bedward, her
back being toward thee, have care to slip privily out of the doors lest
haply she espy thee.—The gentleman seeing himself taken in a trap, that
in no wise he could escape without performance of his lord’s folly,
gave his assent.” [From the rare copy in the British Museum, with the
spelling modernized.]
If Dionysius does not quote the _sequel_ of the story, the reason may
well be that he expects his readers to find it, or to have found it, in
the pages of Herodotus himself.
[Page 83]
naked.’ But he cried out and said: ‘My lord, what is this foolish word
thou sayest, bidding me look upon my lady naked? for a woman, when she
puts off her dress, puts off her shamefastness also. Men of old time
have found out excellent precepts, which it behoves us to learn and
observe; and among them is this—“Let a man keep his eyes on his own.”
As for me, I am fully persuaded that she is the fairest of all women,
and I beseech thee not to require of me aught that is unlawful.’ Thus
he spoke, and strove with him. But the other answered and said: ‘Be of
good cheer, Gyges, and fear not that I say this to prove thee, or that
harm will come to thee from my wife. For, in the first place, I will
contrive after such a fashion that she shall not even know that she has
been seen by thee. I will bring thee into the room where we sleep, and
set thee behind the door that stands ajar; and after I have entered, my
wife will come to bed. Now, near the entrance there is a seat; and on
this she will place each of her garments as she puts them off, so that
thou wilt have time enough to behold. But when she passes from the seat
to the couch, and thou art behind her back, then take heed that she see
thee not as thou goest away through the door.’ Forasmuch, then, as he
could not escape, he consented to do after this manner.”[90]
[Page 84]
οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι τις οὐδὲ ἐνταῦθα εἰπεῖν, ὅτι τὸ ἀξίωμα καὶ
ἡ σεμνότης τῶν ὀνομάτων εὔμορφον πεποίηκε τὴν φράσιν·
ἀνεπιτήδευτα γάρ ἐστι καὶ ἀνέκλεκτα, οἷα ἡ φύσις τέθεικεν
σύμβολα τοῖς πράγμασιν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἥρμοττεν ἴσως κρείττοσι
χρήσασθαι ἑτέροις. ἀνάγκη δὲ δήπου, ὅταν τοῖς κυριωτάτοις 5
τε καὶ προσεχεστάτοις ὀνόμασιν ἐκφέρηται τὰ νοήματα, μηδὲν
σεμνότερον εἶναι, ἢ οἷά ἐστιν. ὅτι δὲ οὐδὲν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐστι
σεμνὸν οὐδὲ περιττόν, ὁ βουλόμενος εἴσεται μεταθεὶς οὐδὲν
ὅτι μὴ τὴν ἁρμονίαν. πολλὰ δὲ καὶ παρὰ τούτῳ τῷ ἀνδρὶ
τοιαῦτά ἐστιν, ἐξ ὧν ἄν τις τεκμήραιτο, ὅτι οὐκ ἐν τῷ κάλλει 10
τῶν ὀνομάτων ἡ πειθὼ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἦν, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῇ συζυγίᾳ.
καὶ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἱκανὰ ταῦτα.
IV
ἵνα δὲ πολὺ μᾶλλον αἴσθηταί τις, ὅσην ἔχει ῥώμην ἡ
συνθετικὴ δύναμις ἔν τε ποιήμασι καὶ λόγοις, λήψομαί τινας
εὖ ἔχειν δοκούσας λέξεις, ὧν τὰς ἁρμονίας μεταθεὶς ἀλλοῖα 15
φαίνεσθαι ποιήσω καὶ τὰ μέτρα καὶ τοὺς λόγους. λαμβανέσθω
δὲ πρῶτον μὲν ἐκ τῶν Ὁμηρικῶν ταυτί·
ἀλλ’ ἔχεν ὥστε τάλαντα γυνὴ χερνῆτις ἀληθής,
ἥ τε σταθμὸν ἔχουσα καὶ εἴριον ἀμφὶς ἀνέλκει
ἰσάζουσ’, ἵνα παισὶν ἀεικέα μισθὸν ἄροιτο. 20
τοῦτο τὸ μέτρον ἡρωϊκόν ἐστιν ἑξάπουν τέλειον, κατὰ δάκτυλον
1 οὐδὲν F 2 πεποίηκεν P 3 ἡ om. PV || τέθεικεν FP: τέθεικε EMV 4
κρείττοσ(ιν) P 5 δὲ δὴ [που] FM: δε P: δὴ Vs 8 περιττὸν οὐδὲ σεμνὸν
F 9 τοῦτο (-τω corr.) τ(ω) P 11 ἦν * * ἀλλ’ P 12 καὶ] ἦν καὶ M: ἦ
καὶ V 13 τις FM: om. PV 14 ποιήμασιν P 15 ἀλλοίας P 17 μὲν om.
PMV || ταυτί PMV: ταῦτα F 18 ἔχεν FM: ἔχον PV Hom. 19 εἰριον deleto
accentu P 20 ἄρηται Hom. 21 ἡρωϊκόν PMV: ἡρῷόν F
3. P gives ἀφηκέναι in =262= 22, and τέθηκεν may possibly be right
here. The -η- forms are found in some MSS. of Eurip. _Hel._ 1059 and
Demosth. _Chers._ 34. But cp. =108= 13.
9. =καὶ παρὰ τούτῳ=: perhaps ‘in Herodotus _as well as in Homer_.’
Reiske, πολλὰ δὲ καὶ <ἄλλα> παρὰ τούτῳ τῷ ἀνδρὶ τοιαῦτά ἐστιν.
10. Dionysius seems to allow too little for the charming _naïveté_ of
Herodotus’ mental attitude, which is surely characteristic, whether
or no Herodotus was the first to tell the story. Cp. D.H. p. 11 n.
1. The narrative which opens in Livy xxxix. c. 9 may be compared and
contrasted.
18. The verse illustrations used on pp. 84, 86 are similarly treated by
Hermogenes (Walz _Rhett. Gr._ iii. 230, 231; cp. p. 715 _ibid._).
21. It seems better to read =ἡρωϊκόν= here (with PMV) rather than ἡρῷον
(with F), as the form ἡρωϊκός is found consistently elsewhere (=86= 3,
=88= 7, =172= 17, =206= 10).
Dionysius tends to regard the Homeric hexameter as the original
and perfect metre, from which all others are inferior deflexions.
Metres, after all, have their associations; the associations of the
Homeric hexameter were eminently noble; and so even the choral odes
of Aeschylus gain where the heroic line is most employed. So much, at
any rate, may be conceded to Dionysius’ point of view, prone though he
is to the kind of exaggeration which Tennyson (_Life_ i. 469, 470) so
effectively parodies.
[Page 85]
Here again no one can say that the grace of the style is due to the
impressiveness and the dignity of the words. These have not been
picked and chosen with studious care; they are simply the labels
affixed to things by Nature. Indeed, it would perhaps have been
out of place to use other and grander words. I take it, in fact,
to be always necessary, whenever ideas are expressed in proper and
appropriate language, that no word should be more dignified than the
nature of the ideas. That there is no stately or grandiose word in the
present passage, any one who likes may prove by simply changing the
arrangement. There are many similar passages in this author, from which
it can be seen that the fascination of his style does not after all
lie in the beauty of the words but in their combination. We need not
discuss this question further.