EFFECT OF VARIOUS RHYTHMS
The reason why I have been led to make these preliminary remarks (for
certainly it was no part of my design to touch without due cause on
metrical and rhythmical questions, but only so far as it was really
necessary) is this, that it is through rhythms which are noble and
dignified, and contain an element of greatness, that composition
becomes dignified, noble, and splendid, while it is made a paltry and
unimpressive sort of thing by the use of those rhythms that are ignoble
and mean, whether they are taken severally by themselves, or are woven
together according to their mutual affinities. If, then, it is within
human capacity to frame the style entirely from the finest rhythms,
our aspirations will be realized; but if it should prove necessary to
blend the worse with the better, as happens in many cases (for names
have been attached to things in a haphazard way), we must manage
our material artistically. We must disguise our compulsion by the
gracefulness of the composition: the more so that we have full liberty
of action, since no rhythm is banished from non-metrical language, as
some are from metrical.
It remains for me to produce proofs of my statements, in order that my
argument may carry conviction. Wide as the field is, a few proofs will
suffice. Thus it is surely beyond dispute
[Page 178]
μεγαλοπρεπῶς τὴν Θουκυδίδου λέξιν τὴν ἐν τῷ ἐπιταφίῳ
ταύτην· “Οἱ μὲν πολλοὶ τῶν ἐνθάδε ἤδη εἰρηκότων ἐπαινοῦσι
τὸν προσθέντα τῷ νόμῳ τὸν λόγον τόνδε, ὡς καλὸν ἐπὶ τοῖς
ἐκ τῶν πολέμων θαπτομένοις ἀγορεύεσθαι αὐτόν.” τί οὖν
ἐστιν ὃ πεποίηκε ταύτην μεγαλοπρεπῆ τὴν σύνθεσιν; τὸ ἐκ 5
τοιούτων συγκεῖσθαι ῥυθμῶν τὰ κῶλα. τρεῖς μὲν γὰρ οἱ τοῦ
πρώτου προηγούμενοι κώλου σπονδεῖοι πόδες εἰσίν, ὁ δὲ
τέταρτος ἀνάπαιστος, ὁ δὲ μετὰ τοῦτον αὖθις σπονδεῖος, ἔπειτα
κρητικός, ἅπαντες ἀξιωματικοί. καὶ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον κῶλον
διὰ ταῦτ’ ἐστὶ σεμνόν· τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς τουτί “#ἐπαινοῦσι τὸν 10
προσθέντα τῷ νόμῳ τὸν λόγον τόνδε#” δύο μὲν ὑποβακχείους
ἔχει τοὺς πρώτους πόδας, κρητικὸν δὲ τὸν τρίτον, εἶτ’
αὖθις ὑποβακχείους δύο καὶ συλλαβὴν ὑφ’ ἧς τελειοῦται τὸ
κῶλον· ὥστ’ εἰκότως σεμνόν ἐστι καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ τῶν εὐγενεστάτων
τε καὶ καλλίστων ῥυθμῶν συγκείμενον. τὸ δὲ δὴ 15
τρίτον κῶλον “#ὡς καλὸν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐκ τῶν πολέμων θαπτομένοις
ἀγορεύεσθαι αὐτόν#” ἄρχεται μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ κρητικοῦ
ποδός, δεύτερον δὲ λαμβάνει τὸν ἀνάπαιστον καὶ τρίτον
σπονδεῖον καὶ τέταρτον αὖθις ἀνάπαιστον, εἶτα δύο τοὺς ἑξῆς
δακτύλους, καὶ σπονδείους δύο τοὺς τελευταίους, εἶτα κατάληξιν. 20
εὐγενὲς δὴ καὶ τοῦτο διὰ τοὺς πόδας γέγονεν. τὰ
2 ἤδη εἰρηκότων EP: ἤδη om. MV: εἰρηκότων ἤδη F (perperam: cf. vv. 6,
7) 3 τὸν (ante λόγον) om. F 9 κριτικός PM || πρῶτον FM: πρῶτον αὐτῶ
PV 10 τοῦτο PMV 11 ὑποβακχείους ... αὖθις om. P 14 συγγενεστάτων
P 21 δὴ PV: δὲ FM
3. =τὸν προσθέντα= κτλ.: viz. τὸν νομοθέτην, δηλονότι τὸν Σόλωνα
(schol. ad Thucyd. ii. 35). Dionysius has this passage of Thucydides
in view when he writes (_Antiqq. Rom._ v. 17) ὀψὲ γάρ ποτ’ Ἀθηναῖοι
προσέθεσαν τὸν ἐπιτάφιον ἔπαινον τῷ νόμῳ, εἴτ’ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπ’ Ἀρτεμισίῳ
καὶ περὶ Σαλαμῖνα καὶ ἐν Πλαταιαῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος ἀποθανόντων
ἀρξάμενοι, εἴτ’ ἀπὸ τῶν περὶ Μαραθῶνα ἔργων.—Bircovius illustrates the
rhythmical effect of the Greek by a similar analysis of the exordium
of Livy’s _History_, “facturusne operae pretium sim, si a primordio
urbis res populi Romani perscripserim, nec satis scio nec, si sciam,
dicere ausim, quippe qui cum veterem tum vulgatam esse rem videam, dum
novi semper scriptores aut in rebus certius aliquid allaturos se aut
scribendi arte rudem vetustatem superaturos credunt.”
6. The first clause is clearly meant to be divided as follows:
– – – – – – ᴗ ᴗ – – – – ᴗ –
οἱ μὲν | πολλοὶ | τῶν ἐν|θάδε ἤ|δη εἰ|ρηκότων.
The formation of the anapaest is noticeable, and in other ways the
metrical division seems rather arbitrary. For ἐνθάδε ἤδη (without
elision of the final ε) cp. n. on =180= 8. [Here and elsewhere, no
attempt has been made to secure metrical equivalence between the Greek
original and the English version.]
Goodell (_Chapters on Greek Metric_ p. 42) says of the analysis
which begins here: “It is incredible that the rhetor supposed he was
describing the actual spoken rhythm, in the sense of Aristoxenus; he
was giving the quantities of the syllables in the conventional way, and
his readers so understood him.”
9. Cp. the metrical effect of
– ᴗ – ᴗ – ᴗ ᴗ – ᴗ ᴗ – – ᴗ – –
“Who is this | that cometh | from Edom | with dyed garm(ents) | from Bozrah?”
10. Second clause:
ᴗ – – ᴗ – – – ᴗ – ᴗ – – ᴗ – –
ἐπαινοῦ|σι τὸν προσ|θέντα τῷ | νόμῳ τὸν | λόγον τόν|δε.
16. Third clause:
– ᴗ – ᴗ ᴗ – – – ᴗ ᴗ – – ᴗ ᴗ – ᴗ ᴗ –– – –
ὡς καλὸν | ἐπὶ τοῖς | ἐκ τῶν | πολέμων | θαπτομέ|νοις ἀγο|ρεύε|σθαι αὐ|τόν.
It is to be noticed that Dionysius treats the final syllable of
ἀγορεύεσθαι as long before αὐτόν, and (more unaccountably) the final
syllable of καλὸν as long before ἐπί. The length of the diphthong
-αι might, no doubt, be maintained in prose utterance; but it is not
easy to see on what principle -ο̆ν could be pronounced -ο̄ν before
ἐπί. It might indeed be urged that the final syllable of a rhythmical
phrase must (like that of a metrical line) be regarded as indifferent
(long _or_ short): cp. Cic. _Orat._ 63. 214 “persolutas;—dichoreus;
nihil enim ad rem, extrema illa longa sit an brevis.” But this is to
remind us once more that, though there is a sound general basis for
the observations of Dionysius, it is easy for both ancient and modern
theorists to frame rules more definite than the facts warrant.
[Page 179]
that the following passage in the _Funeral Speech_ of Thucydides is
composed with dignity and grandeur: “Former speakers on these occasions
have usually commended the statesman who caused an oration to form
part of this funeral ceremony: they have felt it a fitting tribute to
men who were brought home for burial from the fields of battle where
they fell.”[162] What has made the composition here so impressive?
The fact that the clauses are composed of impressive rhythms. For the
three feet which usher in the first clause are spondees, the fourth is
an anapaest, the next a spondee once more, then a cretic,—all stately
feet. Hence the dignity of the first clause. The next clause, “have
usually commended the statesman who caused an oration to form part of
this funeral ceremony,”[163] has two _hypobacchii_ as its first feet,
a cretic as its third, then again two _hypobacchii_, and a syllable by
which the clause is completed; so that this clause too is naturally
dignified, formed as it is of the noblest and most beautiful rhythms.
The third clause, “they have felt it a fitting tribute to men who were
brought home for burial from the fields of battle where they fell,”
begins with the cretic foot, has an anapaest in the second place, a
spondee in the third, in the fourth an anapaest again, then two dactyls
in succession, closing with two spondees and the terminal syllable. So
this passage also owes its noble ring to its rhythmical structure; and
most of the
[Page 180]
πλεῖστα δ’ ἐστὶ παρὰ Θουκυδίδῃ τοιαῦτα, μᾶλλον δὲ ὀλίγα
τὰ μὴ οὕτως ἔχοντα, ὥστ’ εἰκότως ὑψηλὸς εἶναι δοκεῖ καὶ
καλλιεπὴς ὡς εὐγενεῖς ἐπάγων ῥυθμούς.
τὴν δὲ δὴ Πλατωνικὴν λέξιν ταυτηνὶ τίνι ποτὲ ἄλλῳ
κοσμηθεῖσαν οὕτως ἀξιωματικὴν εἶναι φαίη τις ἂν καὶ καλήν, 5
εἰ μὴ τῷ συγκεῖσθαι διὰ τῶν καλλίστων τε καὶ ἀξιολογωτάτων
ῥυθμῶν; ἔστι γὰρ δὴ τῶν πάνυ φανερῶν καὶ περιβοήτων,
ᾗ κέχρηται ὁ ἀνὴρ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ἐπιταφίου ἀρχήν· “ἔργῳ
μὲν ἡμῖν οἵδε ἔχουσιν τὰ προσήκοντα σφίσιν αὐτοῖς· ὧν
τυχόντες πορεύονται τὴν εἱμαρμένην πορείαν.” ἐν τούτοις δύο 10
μέν ἐστιν ἃ συμπληροῖ τὴν περίοδον κῶλα, ῥυθμοὶ δὲ οἱ
ταῦτα διαλαμβάνοντες οἵδε· βακχεῖος μὲν ὁ πρῶτος· οὐ γὰρ
δή γε ὡς ἰαμβικὸν ἀξιώσαιμ’ ἂν ἔγωγε τὸ κῶλον τουτὶ ῥυθμίζειν
ἐνθυμούμενος ὅτι οὐκ ἐπιτροχάλους καὶ ταχεῖς ἀλλ’
ἀναβεβλημένους καὶ βραδεῖς τοῖς οἰκτιζομένοις προσῆκεν ἀποδίδοσθαι 15
τοὺς χρόνους· σπονδεῖος δ’ ὁ δεύτερος· ὁ δ’ ἑξῆς
δάκτυλος διαιρουμένης τῆς συναλοιφῆς· εἶθ’ ὁ μετὰ τοῦτον
σπονδεῖος· ὁ δ’ ἑξῆς μᾶλλον κρητικὸς ἢ ἀνάπαιστος· ἔπειθ’,
ὡς ἐμὴ δόξα, σπονδεῖος· ὁ δὲ τελευταῖος ὑποβάκχειος, εἰ δὲ
βούλεταί τις, ἀνάπαιστος· εἶτα κατάληξις. τούτων τῶν 20
ῥυθμῶν οὐδεὶς ταπεινὸς οὐδὲ ἀγεννής. τοῦ δὲ ἑξῆς κώλου
τουδί “#ὧν τυχόντες πορεύονται τὴν εἱμαρμένην πορείαν#”
δύο μέν εἰσιν οἱ πρῶτοι πόδες κρητικοί, σπονδεῖοι δὲ
οἱ μετὰ τούτους δύο· μεθ’ οὓς αὖθις κρητικός, ἔπειτα τελευταῖος
ὑποβάκχειος. ἀνάγκη δὴ τὸν ἐξ ἁπάντων συγκείμενον 25
1 ὀλίγα τὰ F: ὀλίγα PMV 3 καλλίστης P || ὡς] καὶ FMV: om. P ||
εὐγενείας P: εὐγενὴς MV || ἐπάγων F: ὡς ἐκλέγων τοὺς PMV 4 ταυτηνὶ
Us.: ταύτην εἰ F: ταύτην PMV 7 φανερὸν καὶ περιβόητον F 9 οἵδ’
ἔχουσιν P: οἵδ’ ἔχουσι FMV 13 ἰαμβικὸν FP: ἴαμβον MV 15 προσήκει F
16 δ ὁ δεύτερος F: δε ἕτερος P, V: δ’ ἕτερος M 17 εἴθ’ ὁ F: εἶτα
PMV 19 ὡς F: ὡς ἡ PMV 25 δὴ] δεῖ F
4. The passage from the _Menexenus_ is quoted by Dionysius in the _de
Demosth._ c. 24, with the remark ἡ μὲν εἰσβολὴ θαυμαστὴ καὶ πρέπουσα
τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις πράγμασι κάλλους τε ὀνομάτων ἕνεκα καὶ σεμνότητος
καὶ ἁρμονίας, τὰ δ’ ἐπιλεγόμενα οὐκέθ’ ὅμοια τοῖς πρώτοις κτλ. It is
also given, as an illustration of the musical and other effects of
_periphrasis_, in the _de Sublimitate_ c. 28: ἆρα δὴ τούτοις μετρίως
ὤγκωσε τὴν νόησιν, ἢ ψιλὴν λαβὼν τὴν λέξιν ἐμελοποίησε, καθάπερ
ἁρμονίαν τινὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς περιφράσεως περιχεάμενος εὐμέλειαν;—A somewhat
similar period in Latin is that of Sallust (_Bell. Catilin._ i. 1),
“omnes homines, qui sese student praestare ceteris animalibus, summa
ope niti decet, ne vitam silentio transeant veluti pecora, quae natura
prona atque ventri oboedientia finxit.”
8. First clause:
– – ᴗ – – – ᴗ ᴗ – – ⏓ ᴗ – – – ᴗ ⏓ –
ἔργῳ μὲν | ἡμῖν | οἵδε ἔ|χουσιν | τὰ προσή|κοντα | σφίσιν αὐ|τοῖς.
Here three points call for comment: (1) οἵδε ἔχουσιν (and not οἵδ’
ἔχουσιν with FPMV) was clearly (cp. l. 16) read by Dionysius: so in
the text of Plato himself; (2) the lengthening of τά before προσήκοντα
(although the usage of Comedy would seem to show that such lengthening
was uncommon in the language of ordinary life) is preferred as giving
a cretic; (3) very strangely, it is thought possible to scan the final
syllable of σφίσιν as long (cp. =178= 17, =184= 2, 8).
13. We have a considerable part of an iambic line if we scan thus:
– – ᴗ – – – ᴗ – ᴗ
ἔργῳ | μὲν ἡ|μῖν οἵδ’ | ἔχου|σι.
19. For =ὡς ἐμὴ δόξα= cp. _de Demosth._ c. 39.
22. Second clause:
– ᴗ – – ᴗ – – – – – – ᴗ – ᴗ ––
ὧν τυχόν|τες πορεύ|ονται | τὴν εἱ|μαρμένην | πορείαν.
[Page 181]
passages in Thucydides are of this stamp; indeed, there are few that
are not so framed. So he thoroughly deserves his reputation for
loftiness and beauty of language, since he habitually introduces noble
rhythms.
Again, take the following passage of Plato. What can be the device that
produces its perfect dignity and beauty, if it is not the beautiful
and striking rhythms that compose it? The passage is one of the best
known and most often quoted, and it is found near the beginning of
our author’s _Funeral Speech_: “In very truth these men are receiving
at our hands their fitting tribute: and when they have gained this
guerdon, they journey on, along the path of destiny.”[164] Here there
are two clauses which constitute the period, and the feet into which
the clauses fall are as follows:—The first is a _bacchius_, for
certainly I should not think it correct to scan this clause as an
iambic line, bearing in mind that not swift, tripping movements, but
retarded and slow times are appropriate to those over whom we make
mourning. The second is a spondee; the next is a dactyl, the vowels
which might coalesce being kept distinct; after that, a spondee; next,
what I should call a cretic rather than an anapaest; then, according
to my view, a spondee; in the last place a _hypobacchius_ or, if you
prefer to take it so, an anapaest; then the terminal syllable. Of these
rhythms none is mean nor ignoble. In the next clause, “when they have
gained this guerdon, they journey on, along the path of destiny,” the
two first feet are cretics, and next after them two spondees; after
which once more a cretic, then lastly a _hypobacchius_. Thus the
discourse is composed entirely of beautiful rhythms, and it necessarily
follows that it is itself
[Page 182]
καλῶν ῥυθμῶν καλὸν εἶναι λόγον. μυρία τοιαῦτ’ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν
καὶ παρὰ Πλάτωνι. ὁ γὰρ ἀνὴρ ἐμμέλειάν τε καὶ εὐρυθμίαν
συνιδεῖν δαιμονιώτατος, καὶ εἴ γε δεινὸς ἦν οὕτως ἐκλέξαι τὰ
ὀνόματα ὡς συνθεῖναι περιττός, #καί νύ κεν ἢ παρέλασσεν#
τὸν Δημοσθένη κάλλους ἑρμηνείας ἕνεκεν, #ἢ ἀμφήριστον 5
ἔθηκεν#. νῦν δὲ περὶ μὲν τὴν ἐκλογὴν ἔστιν ὅτε διαμαρτάνει,
καὶ μάλιστα ἐν οἷς ἂν τὴν ὑψηλὴν καὶ περιττὴν καὶ ἐγκατάσκευον
διώκῃ φράσιν, ὑπὲρ ὧν ἑτέρωθί μοι δηλοῦται σαφέστερον.
συντίθησι δὲ τὰ ὀνόματα καὶ ἡδέως καὶ καλῶς νὴ
Δία, καὶ οὐκ ἄν τις αὐτὸν ἔχοι κατὰ τοῦτο μέμψασθαι τὸ 10
μέρος.
ἑνὸς ἔτι παραθήσομαι λέξιν, ᾧ τὰ ἀριστεῖα τῆς ἐν λόγοις
δεινότητος ἀποδίδωμι. ὅρος γὰρ δή τίς ἐστιν ἐκλογῆς τε
ὀνομάτων καὶ κάλλους συνθέσεως ὁ Δημοσθένης. ἐν δὴ τῷ
περὶ τοῦ στεφάνου λόγῳ τρία μέν ἐστιν ἃ τὴν πρώτην 15
περίοδον συμπληροῖ κῶλα, οἱ δὲ ταῦτα καταμετροῦντες οἵδε
εἰσὶν ῥυθμοί· “#πρῶτον μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῖς
θεοῖς εὔχομαι πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις#.” ἄρχει δὲ τοῦδε τοῦ
κώλου βακχεῖος ῥυθμός, ἔπειθ’ ἕπεται σπονδεῖος, εἶτ’ ἀνάπαιστός 20
τε καὶ μετὰ τούτον ἕτερος σπονδεῖος, εἶθ’ ἑξῆς
κρητικοὶ τρεῖς, σπονδεῖος δ’ ὁ τελευταῖος. τοῦ δὲ δευτέρου
κώλου τοῦδε “#ὅσην εὔνοιαν ἔχων ἐγὼ διατελῶ τῇ τε#
1 ἐστιν εὑρεῖν F, E: ἐστι PMV 2 ἐμμέλειαν EFM: εὐμέλειαν PV 3 οὕτως
EF: οὗτος PMV 5 δημοσθένην EPV: δημοσθένεα M || κάλλους FMV: καὶ
ἄλλους P: κάλλος E 6 ὅτε EF: ἃ PV: ἃ καὶ M 9 συντίθησι δὲ EF: δὲ
συντίθησιν P, MV 12 ἑνὸς] ἐν οἷς P 13 ἀποδίδωμι F: καταδίδωμι PMV
16 ταῦτα] κατὰ ταῦτα PV 17 ῥυθμοί F: οἱ ῥυθμοί PMV 18 δὲ τοῦδε V:
τοῦδε PM: δὲ F
2. =ἐμμέλειαν=: cp. =122= 21, unless =130= 6 should seem to support the
reading εὐμέλειαν in the present passage.
5. For Δημοσθένην (as given by some manuscripts) cp. Demetr. _de Eloc._
§ 175 καὶ ὅλως τὸ νῦ δι’ εὐφωνίαν ἐφέλκονται οἱ Ἀττικοί, “Δημοσθένην”
λέγοντες καὶ “Σωκράτην.”
7. Cp. Long. _de Sublim._ c. iii. ὀλισθαίνουσι δ’ εἰς τοῦτο τὸ γένος
ὀρεγόμενοι μὲν τοῦ περιττοῦ καὶ πεποιημένου καὶ μάλιστα τοῦ ἡδέος,
ἐποκέλλοντες δὲ εἰς τὸ ῥωπικὸν καὶ κακόζηλον.—Dionysius perhaps fails
to see that a high-pitched style may sometimes be used μετ’ εἰρωνείας,
as Aristotle (_Rhet._ iii. 7. 11) says in reference to the _Phaedrus_.
8. =ἑτέρωθι=: cp. _de Demosth._ cc. 6, 7, 24-29, and _Ep. ad Cn. Pomp._
cc. 1, 2.—For the probable order in which the ‘Scripta Rhetorica’
appeared see D.H. pp. 5-7. The _de Comp. Verb._ is referred to twice
in the _de Demosth._ (cc. 49, 50).—With =δηλοῦται= (not δεδήλωται, _de
Din._ c. 13, _de Demosth._ c. 49; nor δηλωθήσεται, _de Lysia_ cc. 12,
14) cp. _de Isaeo_ c. 2, _de Demosth._ c. 57.
9. Dionysius is fond of the asseveration νὴ Δία, ‘mehercule.’
17. First clause:
– – ᴗ – – ᴗ ᴗ – – – – ᴗ – – ᴗ – – ᴗ – – –
πρῶτον μέν, | ὦ ἄνδρ|ες Ἀθη|ναῖοι, | τοῖς θεοῖς | εὔχομαι | πᾶσι καὶ | πάσαις.
—The expression καταμετροῦντες may indicate that Dionysius himself
wrote marks of quantity over the syllables in question: such marks
are given by F in =178= 2-4, 10, 11, 16, 17, and are also found in
the Paris Manuscript (1741) of Demetr. _de Eloc._ §§ 38, 39.—With the
rhythmical effect of this passage of Demosthenes, Bircovius compares
“Si, patres conscripti, pro vestris immortalibus in me fratremque
meum liberosque nostros meritis parum vobis cumulate gratias egero,
quaeso obtestorque, ne meae naturae potius, quam magnitudini vestrorum
beneficiorum, id tribuendum putetis” (Cic. _Post Reditum in Senatu
Oratio_ init.).
22. Second clause:
ᴗ – – –⏓ ᴗ – ᴗ – ᴗᴗ ᴗ – – ᴗ ᴗ ⏓ – – ⏓ – –
ὅσην εὔ|νοιαν ἔ|χων ἐγὼ | διατελῶ | τῇ τε πόλει | καὶ πᾶσιν | ὑμῖν.
—There are fresh difficulties in the “scansion” here. Dionysius speaks
as if the last syllable of εὔνοιαν may (and indeed preferably) be
counted long: this involves the lengthening of a short vowel before a
single consonant, cp. n. on =180= 8.—With regard to the paeons, διατελῶ
will form a “catalectic” paeon (ᴗ ᴗ ᴗ –), but τῇ τε πόλει will not
form a “procatarctic” paeon (– ᴗ ᴗ ᴗ) unless the final syllable of
πόλει is reckoned short.—To extract a _molossus_ from καὶ πᾶσιν, the
last syllable of πᾶσιν must be lengthened. Strange as it appears, the
cumulative evidence seems (if our text is sound) to show that Dionysius
would (at any rate, for the purpose of prose rhythm) lengthen a short
vowel before a single consonant.
[Page 183]
beautiful. Countless instances of this kind are to be found in Plato
as well as in Thucydides. For this author has a perfect genius for
discovering true melody and fine rhythm, and if he had only been as
able in the choice of words as he is unrivalled in the art of combining
them, he “had even outstript” Demosthenes, so far as beauty of style
is concerned, or “had left the issue in doubt.”[165] As it is, he is
sometimes quite at fault in his choice of words; most of all when he is
aiming at a lofty, unusual, elaborate style of expression. With respect
to this I explain myself more explicitly elsewhere. But he does most
assuredly put his words together with beauty as well as charm; and from
this point of view no one could find any fault with him.
I will cite a passage of one other writer,—the one to whom I assign the
palm for oratorical mastery. Demosthenes most certainly forms a sort of
standard alike for choice of words and for beauty in their arrangement.
In the _Speech on the Crown_ there are three clauses which constitute
the first period; and the rhythms by which they are measured are as
follows: “first of all, men of Athens, I pray to all the gods and
goddesses.”[166] A _bacchius_ begins this first clause; then follows a
spondee; next an anapaest, and after this another spondee; then three
cretics in succession, and a spondee as the last foot. In the second
clause, “that all the loyal affection I bear my whole life through to
the
[Page 184]
#πόλει καὶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν#” πρῶτος μὲν ὑποβάκχειός ἐστι πούς,
εἶτα βακχεῖος, εἰ δὲ βούλεταί τις, δάκτυλος· εἶτα κρητικός·
μεθ’ οὕς εἰσι δύο σύνθετοι πόδες οἱ καλούμενοι παιᾶνες· οἷς
ἕπεται μολοττὸς ἢ βακχεῖος, ἐγχωρεῖ γὰρ ἑκατέρως αὐτὸν
διαιρεῖν· τελευταῖος δὲ ὁ σπονδεῖος. τοῦ δὲ τρίτου κώλου τοῦδε 5
“#τοσαύτην ὑπάρξαι μοι παρ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τουτονὶ τὸν
ἀγῶνα#” ἄρχουσι μὲν ὑποβάκχειοι δύο, ἕπεται δὲ κρητικός,
ᾧ συνῆπται σπονδεῖος· εἶτ’ αὖθις βακχεῖος ἢ κρητικός, καὶ
τελευταῖος πάλιν κρητικός, εἶτα κατάληξις. τί οὖν ἐκώλυε
καλὴν ἁρμονίαν εἶναι λέξεως, ἐν ᾗ μήτε πυρρίχιός ἐστι ποὺς 10
μήτε ἰαμβικὸς μήτε ἀμφίβραχυς μήτε τῶν χορείων ἢ τροχαίων
μηδείς; καὶ οὐ λέγω τοῦτο, ὅτι τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων ἕκαστος
οὐ κέχρηταί ποτε καὶ τοῖς ἀγεννεστέροις ῥυθμοῖς. κέχρηται
γάρ· ἀλλ’ εὖ συγκεκρύφασιν αὐτοὺς καὶ συνυφάγκασι διαλαβόντες
τοῖς κρείττοσι τοὺς χείρονας. 15
οἷς δὲ μὴ ἐγένετο πρόνοια τούτου τοῦ μέρους, οἱ μὲν ταπεινάς,
οἱ δὲ κατακεκλασμένας, οἱ δ’ ἄλλην τινὰ αἰσχύνην καὶ
ἀμορφίαν ἐχούσας ἐξήνεγκαν τὰς γραφάς. ὧν ἐστι πρῶτός τε
καὶ μέσος καὶ τελευταῖος ὁ Μάγνης ὁ σοφιστὴς Ἡγησίας·
ὑπὲρ οὗ μὰ τὸν Δία καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους θεοὺς ἅπαντας οὐκ οἶδα τί 20
χρὴ λέγειν, πότερα τοσαύτη περὶ αὐτὸν ἀναισθησία καὶ παχύτης
ἦν ὥστε μὴ συνορᾶν, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἀγεννεῖς ἢ εὐγενεῖς ῥυθμοί,
ἢ τοσαύτη θεοβλάβεια καὶ διαφθορὰ τῶν φρενῶν ὥστ’ εἰδότα
τοὺς κρείττους ἔπειτα αἱρεῖσθαι τοὺς χείρονας, ὃ καὶ μᾶλλον
πείθομαι· ἀγνοίας μὲν γάρ ἐστι καὶ τὸ κατορθοῦν πολλαχῇ, 25
2 εἶτα κρητικός F: ἔπειτα κρητικός PMV 3 παιᾶνες F: παίωνες PMV 4
ἐκατέρως F: ἑκατέρους PMV || αὐτὸν PV: αὐτῶν FM 5 τοῦδε F: τοῦ PMV
7 ἔπεται δὲ F: ἔπειτα δε P, M: ἔπειτα V 8 καὶ F: καὶ ὁ PMV 11
ἴαμβος F || τροχαίων F: τῶν τροχαίων PMV 17 κατακεκλεισμένας F || καὶ
F: ἢ PMV 19 μέσος καὶ τελευταῖος F: τελευταῖος καὶ μέσος PMV || ὁ
σοφιστὴς F: σοφιστὴς PMV 20 οἶδα τί F: οἶδ’ ὅ τι PMV 22 ἀγεννεῖς F:
εὐγενεῖς PMV || εὐγενεῖς F: ἀγενεῖς PV^1: ἀγεννεῖς MV^2 25 πολλαχῆι
FP, M: πολλαχοῦ V
4. =ἐγχωρεῖ γὰρ ἑκατέρως αὐτὸν διαιρεῖν=: this statement should
be noted, together with the _a priori_ grounds on which Dionysius
elsewhere (e.g. =180= 12-16) makes his choice between the alternatives
which present themselves.
6. Third clause:
ᴗ – – ᴗ – – – ᴗ – – – – ᴗ – ⏓ ᴗ –
τοσαύτην | ὑπάρξαι | μοι παρ’ ὑ|μῶν εἰς | τουτονὶ | τὸν ἀγῶ|να.
—If τουτονὶ is a bacchius, it must be scanned
– – ⏓
τουτονὶ:
and if τὸν ἀγῶν(α) is a cretic, it must be scanned
– ᴗ –
τὸν ἀγῶν|α!
There are, no doubt, many cases of abnormal lengthening in Homeric
versification (e.g. φίλε κασίγνητε at the beginning of a line, _Il._
iv. 155), but not to such an extent as would satisfy ‘Eucleides the
elder’: οἷον Εὐκλείδης ὁ ἀρχαῖος, ὡς ῥᾴδιον ποιεῖν, εἴ τις δώσει
ἐκτείνειν ἐφ’ ὁπόσον βούλεται, ἰαμβοποιήσας ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ λέξει,—“Ἐπιχάρην
εἶδον Μαραθῶνάδε βαδίζοντα” (Aristot. _Poet._ c. xxii.).
11. =μήτε ἰαμβικὸς ... τροχαίων μηδείς=: it is obvious that we could
discover some of these feet in the passage if we were to choose our
own way of dividing it. If in Latin, for example, we were to take
such a sentence as quonam igitur pacto probari potest insidias Miloni
fecisse Clodium? (Cic. _pro Milone_ 12. 32), we could extract dactyls,
spondees, trochees, iambi, cretics, anapaests, etc. from the various
section into which we chose to divide it: e.g.
– ᴗ ᴗ – – – ᴗ – – ᴗ – – ᴗ ᴗ– ᴗ – – – – ᴗ – ᴗ⏓
(1) quonam igi|tur pac|to pro|bari | potest | insi|dias | Milo|ni fe|cisse | Clodium?
– ᴗ ᴗ – – – ᴗ – – ᴗ – – ᴗ ᴗ– ᴗ – – – – ᴗ – ᴗ⏓
(2) quonam i|gitur | pacto | proba|ri po|test in|sidias | Milo|ni fe|cisse Clo|dium?
– ᴗ ᴗ – – – ᴗ – – ᴗ – – ᴗ ᴗ – ᴗ – – – – ᴗ – ᴗ⏓
(3) quonam igi|tur pac|to proba|ri potest | insidi|as Milo|ni fe|cisse Clo|dium?
And so with several other possible scansions (cp. Laurand _Études sur
le style de Cicéron_ p. 138).
19. For =Hegesias= cp. Introduction, pp. 52-5 _supra_.
20. =μὰ τὸν Δία ... λέγειν=: reminiscent of Demosth. _Philipp._ iii.
54, _Fals. Leg._ 220.
[Page 185]
city and all of you,”[167] first comes a _hypobacchius_; then a
_bacchius_ or, if you prefer to take it so, a dactyl; then a cretic;
after which there are two composite feet called _paeons_. Next follows
a _molossus_ or a _bacchius_, for it can be scanned either way. Last
comes the spondee. The third clause, “may as fully be accorded by you
to support me in this trial,”[167] is opened by two _hypobacchii_. A
cretic follows, to which a spondee is attached. Then again a _bacchius_
or a cretic; last a cretic once more; then the terminal syllable. Is
not a beautiful cadence inevitable in a passage which contains neither
a pyrrhic, nor an iamb, nor an amphibrachys, nor a single choree
or trochee? Still, I do not affirm that none of those writers ever
uses the more ignoble rhythms also. They do use them; but they have
artistically masked them, and have only introduced them at intervals,
interweaving the inferior with the superior.
Those authors who have not given heed to this branch of their art have
published writings which are either mean, or flabby, or have some other
blemish or deformity. Among them the first and midmost and the last is
the Magnesian, the sophist Hegesias. Concerning him, I swear by Zeus
and all the other gods, I do not know what to say. Was he so dense, and
so devoid of artistic feeling, as not to see which the ignoble or noble
rhythms are? or was he smitten with such soul-destroying lunacy, that
though he knew the better, he nevertheless invariably chose the worse?
It is to this latter view that I incline. Ignorance often blunders into
the right path: only wilfulness
[Page 186]
προνοίας δὲ τὸ μηδέποτε. ἐν γοῦν ταῖς τοσαύταις γραφαῖς,
αἷς καταλέλοιπεν ὁ ἀνήρ, μίαν οὐκ ἂν εὕροι τις σελίδα
συγκειμένην εὐτυχῶς. ἔοικεν δὴ ταῦτα ὑπολαβεῖν ἐκείνων
κρείττω καὶ μετὰ σπουδῆς αὐτὰ ποιεῖν, εἰς ἃ δι’ ἀνάγκην ἄν
τις ἐμπεσὼν ἐν λόγῳ σχεδίῳ δι’ αἰσχύνης θεῖτο φρόνημα ἔχων 5
ἀνήρ. θήσω δὲ καὶ τούτου λέξιν ἐκ τῆς ἱστορίας, ἵνα σοι
γένηται δῆλον ἐκ τῆς ἀντιπαραθέσεως, ὅσην μὲν ἀξίωσιν ἔχει
τὸ εὐγενὲς ἐν ῥυθμοῖς, ὅσην δ’ αἰσχύνην τὸ ἀγεννές. ἔστιν δ’
ὃ λαμβάνει πρᾶγμα ὁ σοφιστὴς τοιόνδε. Ἀλέξανδρος πολιορκῶν
Γάζαν χωρίον τι τῆς Συρίας πάνυ ἐχυρὸν τραυματίας 10
τε γίνεται κατὰ τὴν προσβολὴν καὶ τὸ χωρίον αἱρεῖ χρόνῳ.
φερόμενος δ’ ὑπ’ ὀργῆς τούς τ’ ἐγκαταληφθέντας ἀποσφάττει
πάντας, ἐπιτρέψας τοῖς Μακεδόσι τὸν ἐντυχόντα κτείνειν, καὶ
τὸν ἡγεμόνα αὐτῶν αἰχμάλωτον λαβών, ἄνδρα ἐν ἀξιώματι
καὶ τύχης καὶ εἴδους, ἐξ ἁρματείου δίφρου δῆσαι κελεύσας 15
ζῶντα καὶ τοὺς ἵππους ἐλαύνειν ἀνὰ κράτος ἐν τῇ πάντων
ὄψει διαφθείρει. τούτων οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι τις εἰπεῖν δεινότερα
πάθη οὐδ’ ὄψει φοβερώτερα. πῶς δὴ ταῦτα ἡρμήνευκεν ὁ
σοφιστής, ἄξιον ἰδεῖν, πότερα σεμνῶς καὶ ὑψηλῶς ἢ ταπεινῶς
καὶ καταγελάστως. 20
“ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἔχων τὸ σύνταγμα προηγεῖτο. καί πως
2 αἷς F: ἃς PMV 3 δὴ F: δε P, MV 4 ἄν τις ἐμπεσὼν PMV: ἐμπεσὼν ἄν
τις F 5 θεῖτο F: ἔθετο PMV 6 ἐκ τῆς F: ἐξ PMV 8 ἔστιν δ’ F: τί δὲ
PMV 10 ἐχυρὸν] εὐχερῶς F 11 χρόνῳ φερόμενος δ’ F: χρόνῳ φερόμενος ὁ
δ’ PMV 12 τε ἐγκαταληφθέντας PMV: τε καταλειφθέντας F 14 αὐτὸν PMV
16 ἐλαύνων MV 17 τούτων F: τοῦτον PMV 18 οὐδὲ ὄψεις φοβεροτέρας
(-ωτ- M) PMV 19 πότερα F: πότερον PMV 21 καὶ πῶς F
1-3. Cp. Dryden _Mac Flecknoe_ ll. 19, 20, “The rest to some faint
meaning make pretence, | But Shadwell _never deviates_ into sense.” The
_wilfulness_ and _malice prepense_ (πρόνοια) of Hegesias’ stupidity
may be illustrated by Dr. Johnson’s remark about Thomas Sheridan:
“Why, Sir, Sherry is dull, naturally dull; but it must have taken him
a great deal of pains to become what we now see him. Such an access of
stupidity, Sir, is not in nature” (Boswell’s _Life of Johnson_ i. 453).
4. The reading of PMV seems preferable, since ἄν is not infrequently
attached to adverbs or adverbial phrases such as δι’ ἀνάγκην.
5. =θεῖτο=: τίθεμαι used for ἡγοῦμαι, as in =208= 13 and =232=
25.—Contrast the active θήσω in the next line.
9. Arrian (_Exped. Alexandri_ ii. 25. 4) thus describes the
commencement of Alexander’s siege, and Batis’ defence, of Gaza (332
B.C.): Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ἐπ’ Αἰγύπτου ἔγνω ποιεῖσθαι τὸν στόλον. καὶ ἦν
αὐτῷ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα τῆς Παλαιστίνης καλουμένης Συρίας προσκεχωρηκότα
ἤδη· εὐνοῦχος δέ τις, ᾧ ὄνομα ἦν Βάτις, κρατῶν τῆς Γαζαίων πόλεως, οὐ
προσεῖχεν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ, ἀλλὰ Ἄραβάς τε μισθωτοὺς ἐπαγόμενος καὶ σῖτον
ἐκ πολλοῦ παρεσκευακὼς διαρκῆ ἐς χρόνιον πολιορκίαν καὶ τῷ χωρίῳ
πιστεύων, μήποτε ἂν βίᾳ ἁλῶναι, ἔγνω μὴ δέχεσθαι τῇ πόλει Ἀλέξανδρον.
In continuing and completing (cc. 26, 27) his narrative of the siege,
Arrian makes no mention of the fate of Batis. On this point Plutarch,
too, is silent (_Vit. Alex._ c. 25), and so is Diodorus Siculus xvii.
48. 7. The obviously rhetorical cast of Hegesias’ narrative, and
of that of Curtius (_Histor. Alexandri Magni_ iv. 6, 7-30), should
cause it to be accepted with greater reserve than Grote (xi. 469 n.
1) thinks needful to maintain.—For the probable share of Cleitarchus
in propagating this story about Alexander see C. Müller _Scriptores
Rerum Alexandri Magni_ pp. 75, 142; and for his bombast cp. Long. _de
Sublim._ iii. 2 and Demetr. _de Eloc._ § 304.
11. =χρόνῳ=: viz. after a two months’ siege (Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ στρατεύσας
ἐπὶ Γάζαν φρουρουμένην ὑπὸ Περσῶν καὶ δίμηνον προσεδρεύσας εἷλε κατὰ
κράτος τὴν πόλιν, Diod. Sic. xvii. 48. 7).—Batis was supported by only
a small force: “modico praesidio muros ingentis operis tuebatur,”
Curtius iv. 6. 7.
14. =ἡγεμόνα=: Curtius iv. 6. 7 “praeerat ei Betis, eximiae in regem
suum fidei.” Josephus (_Ant. Iud._ xi. 8. 3 Naber) gives the name of
the governor as Βαβημήσης. Arrian gives Batis. ‘Baetis’ seems the right
form in =188= 13, and so perhaps in Curtius.
15. =εἴδους=. It must have been from the point of view of his
countrymen that Batis possessed εἶδος (cp. =188= 16). Usener suggests
ἤθους.
=ἐξ ἁρματείου δίφρου=: cp. Xen. _Cyrop._ vi. 4. 9 ταῦτ’ εἰπὼν κατὰ
τὰς θύρας τοῦ ἁρματείου δίφρου ἀνέβαινεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἅρμα, where (as here)
δίφρος = _sella aurigae_.
21. =τὸ σύνταγμα=: no doubt the ὑπασπισταί are meant: Alexander is
represented as advancing at the head of his Guards.—In the English
translation of the passage that follows no attempt has been made to
reproduce all the peculiarities of Hegesias’ style.
[Page 187]
never does. At all events, in the host of writings which the man
has left behind him, you will not find one single page successfully
put together. He seems, indeed, to have regarded his own methods as
better than those of his predecessors, and to have followed them
with enthusiasm; and yet anybody else, if he were to be driven into
such errors in an impromptu speech, would blush for them, were he a
man of any self-respect. Well, I will quote a passage from him also,
taken from his _History_, in order to make clear to you, by means of
a comparison, how splendid noble rhythms are, and how disgraceful are
their opposites. The following is the subject treated by the sophist.
Alexander when besieging Gaza, an unusually strong position in Syria,
is wounded during the assault and takes the position after some delay.
In a transport of anger he massacres all the prisoners, permitting the
Macedonians to slay all who fall in their way. Having captured their
commandant, a man of distinction for his high station and good looks,
he gives orders that he should be bound alive to a war-chariot and
that the horses should be driven at full speed before the eyes of all;
and in this way he kills him. No one could have a story of more awful
suffering to narrate, nor one suggesting a more horrible picture. It
is worth while to observe in what style our sophist has represented
this scene—whether with gravity and elevation or with vulgarity and
absurdity:—
“The King advanced, at the head of his division. It seems
[Page 188]
ἐβεβούλευτο τῶν πολεμίων τοῖς ἀρίστοις ἀπαντᾶν ἐπιόντι·
τοῦτο γὰρ ἔγνωστο, κρατήσασιν ἑνὸς συνεκβαλεῖν καὶ τὸ
πλῆθος. ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐλπὶς αὕτη συνέδραμεν εἰς τὸ τολμᾶν,
ὥστ’ Ἀλέξανδρον μηδέποτε κινδυνεῦσαι πρότερον οὕτως. ἀνὴρ
γὰρ τῶν πολεμίων εἰς γόνατα συγκαμφθεὶς ἔδοξε τοῦτ’ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ 5
τῆς ἱκετείας ἕνεκα πρᾶξαι. προσέμενος δ’ ἐγγὺς μικρὸν
ἐκνεύει τὸ ξίφος ἐνέγκαντος ὑπὸ τὰ πτερύγια τοῦ θώρακος,
ὥστε γενέσθαι τὴν πληγὴν οὐ καιριωτάτην. ἀλλὰ τὸν μὲν
αὐτὸς ἀπώλεσεν κατὰ κεφαλῆς τύπτων τῇ μαχαίρᾳ, τοὺς δ’
ἄλλους ὀργὴ πρόσφατος ἐπίμπρα. οὕτως ἄρα ἑκάστου τὸν 10
ἔλεον ἐξέστησεν ἡ τοῦ τολμήματος ἀπόνοια τῶν μὲν ἰδόντων,
τῶν δ’ ἀκουσάντων, ὥσθ’ ἑξακισχιλίους ὑπὸ τὴν σάλπιγγα
ἐκείνην τῶν βαρβάρων κατακοπῆναι. τὸν μέντοι Βαῖτιν αὐτὸν
ἀνήγαγον ζῶντα Λεόνατος καὶ Φιλωτᾶς. ἰδὼν δὲ πολύσαρκον
καὶ μέγαν καὶ βλοσυρώτατον (μέλας γὰρ ἦν καὶ τὸ χρῶμα), 15
μισήσας ἐφ’ οἷς ἐβεβούλευτο καὶ τὸ εἶδος ἐκέλευσεν διὰ τῶν
ποδῶν χαλκοῦν ψάλιον διείραντας ἕλκειν κύκλῳ γυμνόν.
πιλούμενος δὲ κακοῖς περὶ πολλὰς τραχύτητας ἔκραζεν. αὐτὸ
δ’ ἦν, ὃ λέγω, τὸ συνάγον ἀνθρώπους. ἐπέτεινε μὲν γὰρ ὁ
1 ἐβεβούλευτο PMV: ἐβουλεύετο F || ἀπαντᾶν om. F || ἐπιόντι
Radermacher: ἐπιών F: εἰσιῶν P, MV 2 συνεκβαλεῖν FMV: συνεκβάλλειν
Ps 3 εἰς τὸ τολμᾶν PMV: om. F 4 πρότερον ἢ οὕτως F 5 συγκαμφθεὶς
PMV: συγκαθίσας F 6 ἰκετείας F || προσέμενος F: προέμενος PMV 7 ὑπὸ
PMV: ἐπὶ F 8 τὴν F: καὶ τὴν PMV 10 ἐπίμπρα F: ἐπίμπρατο MV: ἐπὶ
παλαιαῖς P || οὕτως ἄρα F: οὕτως γὰρ PMV 11 ἐξέστησεν] ἐξήτασεν F ||
τολμήματος F: τολμήσαντος PMV 12 εξακισχιλίους F, MV: τετρακισχιλίους
P 13 βαῖστ[ϊ]ν cum litura P: βασιλέα FMV || αὐτὸν] Sylburgius: αὐτῶν
FM: αὐτοῦ PV 15 καὶ (ante βλοσυρώτατον) F: ὡς PMV || βροσυρώτατον
P: βδελυρώτατον FMV || καὶ τὸ χρῶμα PMV: τὸ σῶμα F 17 ψαλ(ιον) P:
ψαλλίον V: ψέλιον F: ψέλλιον M 18 ἔκραξεν F
1. Blass (_Rhythm. Asian._ p. 19) would read εἰσιόντι, comparing
_intravit_ in Curtius iv. 6. 23.
3. =συνέδραμεν=: cp. Propert. iii. 9. 17 “est quibus Eleae concurrit
palma quadrigae; | est quibus in celeres gloria nata pedes.”
6. =τῆς ἱκετείας=: Hegesias may have used the article in order to avoid
the hiatus Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ἱκετείας. F omits it (as unnecessary).
7. =τὰ πτερύγια τοῦ θώρακος=: cp. Schol. Venet. B ad Hom. _Il._ iv.
132 ἵνα μὴ χαλεπὴ γένηται ἡ πληγή, εἰς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος ἄγει, καθ’
ὃ ἀλλήλοις ἐπιφερόμενα τὰ πτερύγια τοῦ θώρακος ἐσφίγγετο ὑπὸ τοῦ
ζωστῆρος. See also the references given under πτέρυξ in L. & S., and
in Stephanus.—Perhaps Hegesias has _Il._ iv. 132 directly in mind. The
meaning will then be (with F’s reading ἐπί), “as his assailant had
struck it [the sword] against the skirts of Alexander’s corselet.”
But the account in Curtius iv. 6. 15 seems to confirm ὑπό: “quo
conspecto, Arabs quidam, Darei miles, maius fortuna sua facinus ausus,
_gladium clipeo tegens_, quasi transfuga genibus regis advolvitur.
ille adsurgere supplicem, recipique inter suos iussit. at barbarus
gladio strenue in dextram translato _cervicem adpetiit regis_: qui
exigua corporis declinatione evitato ictu in vanum manum barbari lapsam
amputat gladio.”
10. =ἐπίμπρα=: cp. Curtius iv. 6. 24 “inter primores dimicat; ira
quoque _accensus_, quod duo in obsidione urbis eius vulnera acceperat.”
The reading of P, ἐπὶ παλαιαῖς, apparently means ‘over and above the
ancient ὀργαί,’ and it is possible that Hegesias wrote both this and
ἐπίμπρα: or ἐπὶ παλαιαῖς may gloss πρόσφατος.
12. The number, as given by Curtius (iv. 6. 30), was “circa decem
milia.”
=ὑπὸ τὴν σάλπιγγα ἐκείνην= = ὑπὸ τὸ σάλπισμα ἐκεῖνο: cp. Aristot.
_Rhet._ iii. 6 οἷον τὸ φάναι τὴν σάλπιγγα εἶναι μέλος ἄλυρον.
15. =βλοσυρώτατον=: cp. Curtius iv. 6. 27 “non interrito modo sed
contumaci quoquo vultu intuens regem.” Usener conjectures βλοσυρωπόν,
with considerable probability: cp. =162= 19 _supra_.
17. =ψάλιον=: cp. Hesych. ψάλια· κρίκοι, δακτύλιοι, and _Antiq. Rom._
ii. 38 καὶ αὐτὴν (Τάρπειαν) ἔρως εἰσέρχεται τῶν ψαλίων, ἃ περὶ τοῖς
ἀριστεροῖς βραχίοσιν ἐφόρουν (οἱ Σαβῖνοι), καὶ τῶν δακτυλίων.—Probably
here a large curb-chain is meant, rather than a cheek-ring, which
would be too small. So Curtius iv. 6. 29 “per talos enim spirantis
lora traiecta sunt [cp. Virg. _Aen._ ii. 273], religatumque ad currum
traxere circa urbem equi gloriante rege, Achillen, a quo genus ipse
deduceret, imitatum se esse poena in hostem capienda.” In Homer ἱμάντες
are employed (=190= 13).
18. =πιλεῖν= (‘to pound,’ ‘to knead’) is one of the many forced
metaphors in this excerpt from Hegesias.
[Page 189]
that the leaders of the enemy had formed the design of meeting him
as he approached. For they had come to the conclusion that, if they
overcame him personally, they would be able to drive out all his host
in a body. Now this hope ran with them on the path of daring, so that
never before had Alexander been in such danger. One of the enemy fell
on his knees, and seemed to Alexander to have done so in order to ask
for mercy. Having allowed him to approach, he eluded (not without
difficulty) the thrust of a sword which he had brought under the skirts
of his corselet, so that the thrust was not mortal. Alexander himself
slew his assailant with a blow of his sabre upon the head, while the
king’s followers were inflamed with a sudden fury. So utterly was pity,
in the breasts of those who saw and those who heard of the attempt,
banished by the desperate daring of the man, that six thousand of the
barbarians were cut down at the trumpet-call which forthwith rang out.
Baetis himself, however, was brought before the king alive by Leonatus
and Philotas. And Alexander seeing that he was corpulent and huge and
most grim (for he was black in colour too), was seized with loathing
for his very looks as well as for his design upon his life, and ordered
that a ring of bronze should be passed through his feet and that he
should be dragged round a circular course, naked. Harrowed by pain, as
his body passed over many a rough piece of ground, he began to scream.
And it was just this detail which I now mention that brought people
together. The torment racked him,
[Page 190]
πόνος, βάρβαρον δ’ ἐβόα, δεσπότην καθικετεύων· γελᾶν δὲ ὁ
σολοικισμὸς ἐποίει. τὸ δὲ στέαρ καὶ τὸ κύτος τῆς σαρκὸς
ἐνέφαινε Βαβυλώνιον ζῷον ἕτερον ἁδρόν. ὁ μὲν οὖν ὄχλος
ἐνέπαιζε, στρατιωτικὴν ὕβριν ὑβρίζων εἰδεχθῆ καὶ τῷ τρόπῳ
σκαιὸν ἐχθρόν.” 5
ἆρά γε ὅμοια ταῦτ’ ἐστὶ τοῖς Ὁμηρικοῖς ἐκείνοις, ἐν οἷς
Ἀχιλλεύς ἐστιν αἰκιζόμενος Ἕκτορα μετὰ τὴν τελευτήν; καίτοι
τό γε πάθος ἐκεῖνο ἔλαττον· εἰς ἀναίσθητον γὰρ σῶμα ἡ
ὕβρις· ἀλλ’ ὅμως ἄξιόν ἐστιν ἰδεῖν, ὅσῳ διενήνοχεν ὁ ποιητὴς
τοῦ σοφιστοῦ· 10
ἦ ῥα, καὶ Ἕκτορα δῖον ἀεικέα μήδετο ἔργα·
ἀμφοτέρων μετόπισθε ποδῶν τέτρηνε τένοντε
ἐς σφυρὸν ἐκ πτέρνης, βοέους δ’ ἐξῆπτεν ἱμάντας,
ἐκ δίφροιο δ’ ἔδησε· κάρη δ’ ἕλκεσθαι ἔασεν·
ἐς δίφρον δ’ ἀναβὰς ἀνά τε κλυτὰ τεύχε’ ἀείρας 15
μάστιξεν δ’ ἐλάαν, τὼ δ’ οὐκ ἀέκοντε πετέσθην.
τοῦ δ’ ἦν ἑλκομένοιο κονίσαλος· ἀμφὶ δὲ χαῖται
κυάνεαι πίμπλαντο, κάρη δ’ ἅπαν ἐν κονίῃσι
κεῖτο πάρος χαρίεν· τότε δὲ Ζεὺς δυσμενέεσσι
δῶκεν ἀεικίσσασθαι ἑῇ ἐν πατρίδι γαίῃ. 20
ὣς τοῦ μὲν κεκόνιτο κάρη ἅπαν· ἡ δέ νυ μήτηρ
τίλλε κόμην, ἀπὸ δὲ λιπαρὴν ἔρριψε καλύπτρην
τηλόσε, κώκυσεν δὲ μάλα μέγα παῖδ’ ἐσιδοῦσα·
ᾤμωξεν δ’ ἐλεεινὰ πατὴρ φίλος, ἀμφὶ δὲ λαοὶ
1 καθικετεύων Schaefer: καὶ ἱκετεύων libri 2 κοῖτος F: κῦτος MV ||
σαρκὸς F: γαστρὸς PMV 3 ἐνέφαινε MV^2: ἀνέφαινε F: ἐνεφαίνετο P ||
ἀδρὸν F: ἁδρόν MV: ἀνδρος P 9 ἐστιν om. P || ὅσω F: πόσω PMV 12
τένοντε F: τένοντας PMV 14 ἔασεν] ἔδησεν F 16 μάστιξέν ῥ’ Hom. ||
ἀέκοντε FMV Hom.: ἄκοντε P 18 πίμπλαντο] πίτναντο Hom. 22 τίλλε F
Hom.: τῆλε PM: τεῖλε V
1. It is not clear whether the strict distinction between βαρβαρισμός
(wrong vocabulary, spelling, or pronunciation) and =σολοικισμός=
(wrong syntax) is here maintained. Possibly Batis may have offended
(1) by using a word (δεσπότης) abhorrent to all free men of Greek
blood, or (2) by using it in the wrong case, or (3) by mispronouncing
it: cp. Sandys _History of Classical Scholarship_ i. 148, for the
comprehensiveness of the term σολοικισμός. But if it be held that
σολοικισμός cannot occur in one isolated word (cp. Quintil. i. 5. 36),
then it may be supposed that the reference here is to grammatical
blunders in other words ejaculated by the unhappy Batis.
3. =Βαβυλώνιον ζῷον=: a comparison suggests itself with the Assyrian
bulls represented in reliefs (cp. Tennyson’s _Maud_, “That oil’d and
curl’d Assyrian Bull”).—The reading of P, ἕτερον ἀνδρός, might mean
‘far different from a _man_’ (_viri_: not ἀνθρώπου, _hominis_).
4. Hegesias’ use of =στρατιωτικός= may be compared with _de Lys._ c. 12
(of Iphicrates) ἥ τε λέξις πολὺ τὸ φορτικὸν καὶ στρατιωτικὸν ἔχει καὶ
οὐχ οὕτως ἐμφαίνει ῥητορικὴν ἀγχίνοιαν ὡς στρατιωτικὴν αὐθάδειαν καὶ
ἀλαζονείαν.
7. =ἐστιν αἰκιζόμενος=: not simply a periphrasis for αἰκίζεται.
8. For Hector’s insensibility cp. Murray’s _Rise of the Greek Epic_
pp. 118, 132.—The savagery of Achilles was, nevertheless, generally
felt to need extenuation, as may be seen from the curious explanations
proffered in the scholia: e.g. ὁ δὲ Καλλίμαχός φησιν ὅτι πάτριόν ἐστι
Θεσσαλοῖς τοὺς τῶν φιλτάτων φονέας σύρειν περὶ τοὺς τῶν φονευθέντων
τάφους, κτλ.
11. Cp. Virg. _Aen._ ii. 268 ff. (the vision of the mangled Hector).
[Page 191]
and he kept uttering outlandish yells, asking mercy of Alexander as
‘my lord’; and his jargon made them laugh. His fat and his bulging
corpulence suggested to them another creature, a huge-bodied Babylonian
animal. So the multitude scoffed at him, mocking with the coarse
mockery of the camp an enemy who was so repulsive of feature and so
uncouth in his ways.”[168]
Is this description, I ask, comparable with those lines of Homer in
which Achilles is represented as maltreating Hector after his death?
And yet the suffering in the latter case is less, for it is on a mere
senseless body that the outrage is inflicted. But it is worth while,
nevertheless, to note the vast difference between the poet and the
sophist:—
He spake, and a shameful mishandling devised he for Hector slain;
For behind each foot did he sunder therefrom the sinews twain
From the ankle-joint to the heel: hide-bands through the gashes he thrust;
To his chariot he bound them, and left the head to trail in the dust.
He hath mounted his car, and the glorious armour thereon hath he cast,
And he lashed the horses, and they with eager speed flew fast.
And a dust from the haling of Hector arose, and tossed wide-spread
His dark locks: wholly in dust his head lay low—that head
Once comely: ah then was the hero delivered over of Zeus
In his very fatherland for his foes to despitefully use.
So dust-besprent was his head; but his mother was rending her hair
The while, and she flung therefrom her head-veil glistering-fair
Afar, and with wild loud shriek as she looked on her son she cried;
And in piteous wise did his father wail, and on every side
[Page 192]
κωκυτῷ τ’ εἴχοντο καὶ οἰμωγῇ κατὰ ἄστυ.
τῷ δὲ μάλιστ’ ἂρ ἔην ἐναλίγκιον, ὡς εἰ ἅπασα
Ἴλιος ὀφρυόεσσα πυρὶ σμύχοιτο κατ’ ἄκρης.
οὕτως εὐγενὲς σῶμα καὶ δεινὰ πάθη λέγεσθαι προσῆκεν ὑπ’
ἀνδρῶν φρόνημα καὶ νοῦν ἐχόντων. ὡς δὲ ὁ Μάγνης εἴρηκεν, 5
ὑπὸ γυναικῶν ἢ κατεαγότων ἀνθρώπων λέγοιτ’ ἂν καὶ οὐδὲ
τούτων μετὰ σπουδῆς, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ χλευασμῷ καὶ καταγέλωτι.
τί οὖν αἴτιον ἦν ἐκείνων μὲν τῶν ποιημάτων τῆς εὐγενείας,
τούτων δὲ τῶν φλυαρημάτων τῆς ταπεινότητος; ἡ τῶν
ῥυθμῶν διαφορὰ πάντων μάλιστα, καὶ εἰ μὴ μόνη. ἐν 10
ἐκείνοις μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲ εἷς ἄσεμνος στίχος οὐδ’ ἀδόκιμος,
ἐνταῦθα δὲ οὐδεμία περίοδος ἥτις οὐ λυπήσει.
εἰρηκὼς δὴ καὶ περὶ τῶν ῥυθμῶν ὅσην δύναμιν ἔχουσιν,
ἐπὶ τὰ λειπόμενα μεταβήσομαι.
XIX
ἦν δέ μοι τρίτον θεώρημα τῶν ποιούντων καλὴν ἁρμονίαν 15
ἡ μεταβολή. λέγω δὲ οὐ τὴν ἐκ τῶν κρειττόνων ἐπὶ τὰ
χείρω (πάνυ γὰρ εὔηθες), οὐδέ γε τὴν ἐκ τῶν χειρόνων ἐπὶ
τὰ κρείττω, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς ὁμοειδέσι ποικιλίαν. κόρον γὰρ
ἔχει καὶ τὰ καλὰ πάντα, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ ἡδέα, μένοντα ἐν τῇ
ταυτότητι· ποικιλλόμενα δὲ ταῖς μεταβολαῖς ἀεὶ καινὰ μένει. 20
τοῖς μὲν οὖν τὰ μέτρα καὶ τὰ μέλη γράφουσιν οὐχ ἅπαντα
2 ἂρ FP: ἄρ’ MV 4 εὐγενὲς σῶμα F: εὐγενῶς ἅμα PMV || δεινὰ FPM:
δεινῶς V 6 ὑπὸ F: ὡς ὑπὸ PMV 8 ἦν F: om. PMV 10 πάντων FM: om. PV
|| καὶ εἰ FPM: εἰ καὶ V || ἐν om. P 11 οὐδὲ εἷς P, MV: οὐδεὶς F ||
οὐδὲ (οὐδ’ V) ἀδόκιμος MV: ἢ ἀδόκιμος F: om. P 12 ἥτις οὐ λυπήσει om.
F 13 δὴ F: δὲ PMV 15 δέ] δή F 19 μένοντα PMV: ὄντα EF 20 δὲ EF:
δ’ ἐν PMV || ἀεὶ EF: ὡς ἀεὶ MV: om. P 21 τοῖς EF: ἐν τοῖς PV: ἐν οἷς M
5. =φρόνημα=, ‘pride,’ ‘spirit,’ ‘mettle,’ ‘feeling,’ ‘self-respect’:
cp. =186= 5.
6. =κατεαγότων=, ‘enervated,’ ‘effeminate’ (Lat. _fractus_): cp.
Philo Jud. i. 262 (Mangey) ἄνανδροι καὶ κατεαγότες καὶ θηλυδρίαι τὰ
φρονήματα, i. 273 πάθεσι τοῖς κατεαγόσι καὶ τεθηλυμμένοις.
8, 9. =ἐκείνων= refers to the passage last quoted, =τούτων= to
that quoted first. The remoteness implied in ἐκείνων is here that
of greatness and antiquity; the nearness in τούτων, that of the
commonplace and recent.
10. The reading εἰ καὶ (‘although’) would perhaps be preferable in
sense, if only it had better manuscript attestation. [In =198= 15 there
is a similar fluctuation between καὶ εἰ and εἰ καί.]
13. For various points of rhythm and metre raised in cc. 18, 19, and
elsewhere, reference may be made to the Introduction, pp. 33-9.
16. For the importance of _variety_ (especially in relation to rhythm)
cp. a well-known fragment of Isocrates’ _Art of Rhetoric_: ὅλως δὲ ὁ
λόγος μὴ λόγος ἔστω, ξηρὸν γάρ· μηδὲ ἔμμετρος, καταφανὲς γάρ. ἀλλὰ
μεμίχθω παντὶ ῥυθμῷ, μάλιστα ἰαμβικῷ ἢ τροχαϊκῷ (“prose must not be
merely prose, or it will be dry; nor metrical, or its art will be
undisguised; but it should be compounded with every sort of rhythm,
particularly iambic or trochaic”). The views of Theophrastus on the
point are reported in Cic. _de Orat._ iii. 48. 184 ff. “namque ego
illud adsentior Theophrasto, qui putat orationem, quae quidem sit
polita atque facta quodam modo, non astricte, sed remissius numerosam
esse oportere,” etc.
18. =κόρον=: cp. _Ep. ad Cn. Pomp._ c. 3 κόρον δ’ ἔχει, φησὶν ὁ
Πίνδαρος [_Nem._ vii. 52], καὶ μέλι καὶ τὰ τέρπν’ ἄνθε’ ἀφροδίσια, and
Hom. _Il._ xiii. 636 πάντων μὲν κόρος ἐστί, κτλ.
19. =μένοντα= avoids the awkward hiatus ἡδέα ὄντα. The fact that μένει
follows shortly is not a conclusive objection, since Dionysius, and
Greek authors generally, were free from the bad taste which avoids, at
all costs, repetitions of this kind: cp. λαμβανόμενα ... λήψεται (=106=
18).
[Page 193]
Through the city the folk brake forth into shriek and wail at the sight.
It was like unto this above all things, as though, from her topmost height
To the ground, all beetling Troy in flame and in smoke were rolled.[169]
That is the way in which a noble corpse and terrible sufferings should
be described by men of feeling and understanding. But after the fashion
of this Magnesian they could be described by women only or effeminate
men, and even by them not in earnest, but in a spirit of derision and
mockery. To what, then, is due the nobility of these lines, as compared
with the miserable absurdities of the other passage? Chiefly, if not
entirely, to the difference in the rhythms. In the quotation from Homer
there is not one unimpressive or unworthy verse, while in that from
Hegesias every single sentence will prove offensive.
Having now discussed the importance of rhythm, I will pass on to the
topics that remain.