AUSTERE COMPOSITION
The characteristic feature of the austere arrangement is this:—It
requires that the words should be like columns firmly planted and
placed in strong positions, so that each word should be seen on every
side, and that the parts should be at appreciable distances from one
another, being separated by perceptible intervals. It does not in the
least shrink from using frequently harsh sound-clashings which jar on
the ear; like blocks of building stone that are laid together unworked,
blocks that are not square and smooth, but preserve their natural
roughness and irregularity.
[Page 212]
αὐτοσχέδιοι· μεγάλοις τε καὶ διαβεβηκόσιν εἰς πλάτος ὀνόμασιν
ὡς τὰ πολλὰ μηκύνεσθαι φιλεῖ· τὸ γὰρ εἰς βραχείας συλλαβὰς
συνάγεσθαι πολέμιον αὐτῇ, πλὴν εἴ ποτε ἀνάγκη βιάζοιτο.
ἐν μὲν δὴ τοῖς ὀνόμασι ταῦτα πειρᾶται διώκειν καὶ
τούτων γλίχεται· ἐν δὲ τοῖς κώλοις ταῦτά τε ὁμοίως ἐπιτηδεύει 5
καὶ τοὺς ῥυθμοὺς τοὺς ἀξιωματικοὺς καὶ μεγαλοπρεπεῖς,
καὶ οὔτε πάρισα βούλεται τὰ κῶλα ἀλλήλοις εἶναι οὔτε
παρόμοια οὔτε ἀναγκαίᾳ δουλεύοντα ἀκολουθίᾳ, ἀλλ’ εὐγενῆ
καὶ λαμπρὰ καὶ ἐλεύθερα, φύσει τ’ ἐοικέναι μᾶλλον αὐτὰ
βούλεται ἢ τέχνῃ, καὶ κατὰ πάθος λέγεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ κατ’ 10
ἦθος. περιόδους δὲ συντιθέναι συναπαρτιζούσας ἑαυταῖς τὸν
νοῦν τὰ πολλὰ μὲν οὐδὲ βούλεται· εἰ δέ ποτ’ αὐτομάτως ἐπὶ
τοῦτο κατενεχθείη, τὸ ἀνεπιτήδευτον ἐμφαίνειν θέλει καὶ
ἀφελές, οὔτε προσθήκαις τισὶν ὀνομάτων, ἵνα ὁ κύκλος
ἐκπληρωθῇ, μηδὲν ὠφελούσαις τὸν νοῦν χρωμένη, οὔτε ὅπως αἱ 15
βάσεις αὐτῶν γένοιντο θεατρικαί τινες ἢ γλαφυραί, σπουδὴν
ἔχουσα, οὐδ’ ἵνα τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ λέγοντος ὦσιν αὐτάρκεις
συμμετρουμένη μὰ Δία, οὐδ’ ἄλλην τινὰ [πραγματείαν] τοιαύτην
ἔχουσα ἐπιτήδευσιν οὐδεμίαν. ἔτι τῆς τοιαύτης ἐστὶν
ἁρμονίας καὶ ταῦτα ἴδια· ἀγχίστροφός ἐστι περὶ τὰς πτώσεις, 20
ποικίλη περὶ τοὺς σχηματισμούς, ὀλιγοσύνδεσμος, ἄναρθρος,
ἐν πολλοῖς ὑπεροπτικὴ τῆς ἀκολουθίας, ἥκιστ’ ἀνθηρά,
μεγαλόφρων, αὐθέκαστος, ἀκόμψευτος, τὸν ἀρχαϊσμὸν καὶ τὸν
πίνον ἔχουσα κάλλος.
ταύτης δὲ τῆς ἁρμονίας πολλοὶ μὲν ἐγένοντο ζηλωταὶ κατά 25
1 εἰς F: ἐκ PMV 2 συλλαβὰς F: συλλαβῆς PMV 3 ποτε καὶ ἡ ἀνάγκη F
5 ὁμοίως Us.: ὁμοίως ἢ οὐχ ἧττον P: οὐχ ἧττον ὁμοίως F: οὐχ ἧττον
MV 6 καὶ (alt.) EF: καὶ τοὺς PMV 7 καὶ οὔτε EF: ἐκλέγεται καὶ
οὔτε PMV || εἶναι om. P 8 παρ’ ὅμοια F || ἀναγκαίαι P, M: ἀνάγκηι
F, E: ἀναγκαῖα V || ἀκολουθίαι ἀλλ’ P, MV: ἀκόλουθα δὲ καὶ EF 9
λαμπρὰ EF: ἁπλᾶ PMV 10 ἡ τέχνη F || λέγεται EF 11 συναπαρτιζούσας
E: συναπαρτιζούσαις F: συναρτιζούσας PM: συναρμοζούσας V || ἑαυταῖς
EF (coniecerat Uptonus): om. PMV 12 οὐδὲ EF: οὔτε PMV 17 ἔχουσα
Sylburgius: ἔχουσαι libri || τοῦ δέοντος P 18 συμμετρουμένη
Schaeferus: συμμετρούμεναι libri || πραγματείαν secl. Usenerus 19
ἔχουσα P: ἔχουσαν FM: om. V || ἐπίτηδ’ οὐδεμι(αν) P: ἐπιτηδεύει οὐδὲ
FMV || ἔτι Uptonus: ἐπὶ libri || ἐστὶν F: om. PMV 20 καὶ FP: κατὰ MV
|| ἴδια] δὲ MV || ἀγχίστροφός PM: ἀντίρροπός F 21 ἄναρθρος] ἀναίσθιος
F 22 ὑπεροπτικὴ] ὑποδεκτικὴ F 23 ἀκόμψευστον F || τὸν EF: τὸ PMV 24
πῖνον libri || ἔχοντα F || κάλλος om. F 25 δὲ om. EF
8. Perhaps ἀνάγκῃ δουλεύοντα, ἀνακόλουθα δὲ καί: with ἐπὶ (‘in the case
of’) retained in l. 19.
11. The meaning is that the austere style does not seek for periods
containing a complete thought, and that, if accidentally it stumbles
into them, it wishes to emphasize (by means of careful abstention from
all artificial means of rounding off the sentence) the absence of
premeditation.—With regard to Upton’s conjecture ἑαυταῖς it should be
noticed that this is only one of many instances in which his acuteness
has since been confirmed by manuscript authority.
18. =μὰ Δία=: cp. (for the order) νὴ Δία =120= 9. μά is here used
because of the preceding negatives.
22. =ἐν πολλοῖς ὑπεροπτική= κτλ.: in other words, such a style delights
in anacolutha.
19-24. It is to be noticed, in this and other sentences, that Dionysius
often so writes as to reflect the character of the style he is for the
moment describing.—Baudat (p. 58) illustrates the style in question by
quotations from Malherbe and Boileau, and adds: “Chacun connaît ces
vers du _Cor_ d’Alf. de Vigny:
Roncevaux! Roncevaux! dans ta sombre vallée
L’ombre du grand Roland n’est donc pas consolée!
Le son _on_ y revient six fois, le son _an_ trois fois, le son _au_
deux fois; ils sont tous trois sourds et la rime en _ée_ seule est
sonore. La succession de ces sons produit une harmonie dure, qui a
quelque chose de voilé et de funèbre; on croit entendre le grondement
de l’orage.”
[Page 213]
It is prone for the most part to expansion by means of great spacious
words. It objects to being confined to short syllables, except under
occasional stress of necessity.
In respect of the words, then, these are the aims which it strives to
attain, and to these it adheres. In its clauses it pursues not only
these objects but also impressive and stately rhythms, and tries to
make its clauses not parallel in structure or sound, nor slaves to a
rigid sequence, but noble, brilliant, free. It wishes them to suggest
nature rather than art, and to stir emotion rather than to reflect
character. And as to periods, it does not, as a rule, even attempt
to compose them in such a way that the sense of each is complete in
itself: if it ever drifts into this accidentally, it seeks to emphasize
its own unstudied and simple character, neither using any supplementary
words which in no way aid the sense, merely in order that the period
may be fully rounded off, nor being anxious that the periods should
move smoothly or showily, nor nicely calculating them so as to be just
sufficient (if you please) for the speaker’s breath, nor taking pains
about any other such trifles. Further, the arrangement in question
is marked by flexibility in its use of the cases, variety in the
employment of figures, few connectives; it lacks articles, it often
disregards natural sequence; it is anything rather than florid, it
is aristocratic, plain-spoken, unvarnished; an old-world mellowness
constitutes its beauty.
This mode of composition was once zealously practised by
[Page 214]
τε ποίησιν καὶ ἱστορίαν καὶ λόγους πολιτικούς, διαφέροντες
δὲ τῶν ἄλλων ἐν μὲν ἐπικῇ ποιήσει ὅ τε Κολοφώνιος Ἀντίμαχος
καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὁ φυσικός, ἐν δὲ μελοποιίᾳ Πίνδαρος,
ἐν τραγῳδίᾳ δ’ Αἰσχύλος, ἐν ἱστορίᾳ δὲ Θουκυδίδης, ἐν δὲ
πολιτικοῖς λόγοις Ἀντιφῶν. ἐνταῦθα ἡ μὲν ὑπόθεσις ἀπῄτει 5
πολλὰ παρασχέσθαι τῶν εἰρημένων ἑκάστου παραδείγματα,
καὶ ἴσως οὐκ ἀηδὴς ἂν ὁ λόγος ἐγένετο πολλοῖς ὥσπερ ἄνθεσι
διαποικιλλόμενος τοῖς ἐαρινοῖς· ἀλλ’ ὑπέρμετρον ἔμελλε φανήσεσθαι
τὸ σύνταγμα καὶ σχολικὸν μᾶλλον ἢ παραγγελματικόν·
οὐ μὲν δὴ οὐδ’ ἀνεξέλεγκτα παραλιπεῖν τὰ ῥηθέντα ἥρμοττεν, 10
ὡς δὴ φανερὰ καὶ οὐ δεόμενα μαρτυρίας· ἔδει δέ πως τὸ
μέτριον ἀμφοῖν λαβεῖν καὶ μήτε πλεονάσαι τοῦ καιροῦ μήτ’
ἐλλιπεῖν τῆς πίστεως. τοῦτο δὴ πειράσομαι ποιῆσαι δείγματα
λαβὼν ὀλίγα παρὰ τῶν ἐπιφανεστάτων ἀνδρῶν. ποιητῶν μὲν
οὖν Πίνδαρος ἀρκέσει παραληφθείς, συγγραφέων δὲ Θουκυδίδης· 15
κράτιστοι γὰρ οὗτοι ποιηταὶ τῆς αὐστηρᾶς ἁρμονίας. ἀρχέτω
δὲ Πίνδαρος, καὶ τούτου διθύραμβός τις οὗ ἐστιν ἡ ἀρχή·
δεῦτ’ ἐν χορόν, Ὀλύμπιοι,
ἐπί τε κλυτὰν πέμπετε χάριν, θεοί,
πολύβατον οἵ τ’ ἄστεος ὀμφαλὸν θυόεντα 20
ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς Ἀθάναις
1 ποιητικοὺς F 2 ἐπικῇ Sylburgius: ἐπιεικη F: ἐπιεικεῖ PMV: om. E 5
ποιητικοῖς F 8 ἐαρινοῖς] ἀριθμ(οις) P 10 οὐδ’ ἀνεξέλεγκτα P: οὐδ’
ἀνεξέλεκτα M: οὐδ’ ἂν ἐξέλεγκτα F 12 μέτριον PV: μέτρον FM 13 δὴ
F 17 τίς οὖν ἐστιν ἀρχῆι P || ἡ ἀρχὴ E: ἀρχὴ FMV 18 δεῦτ’ EFM^2V:
ΐδετ’ P, M^1 || ἐν χορὸν EFV: ἐν σχορ(ὸν) P 19 πέμπεται P 20 οἵ τ’]
οἳ F || ἄστεως F (ἄστεος praestat idem =222= 14) 21 ἀθήναις libri:
sed cf. n. crit. ad =222= 14
2. For =Antimachus of Colophon= cp. _de Imitat._ ii. 6 Ἀντίμαχος δὲ
εὐτονίας [ἐφρόντισεν] καὶ ἀγωνιστικῆς τραχύτητος καὶ τοῦ συνήθους τῆς
ἐξαλλαγῆς: Catullus xcv. 20 “at populus tumido gaudeat Antimacho”:
Quintil. x. 1. 53 “contra in Antimacho vis et gravitas et minime
vulgare eloquendi genus habet laudem. sed quamvis ei secundas fere
grammaticorum consensus deferat, et affectibus et iucunditate et
dispositione et omnino arte deficitur, ut plane manifesto appareat,
quanto sit aliud proximum esse, aliud parem.” Plato’s admiration for
his poetry is said to have been great.
3. For =Empedocles= as being a physicist rather than a poet see
Aristot. _Poet._ i. 9 καὶ γὰρ ἂν ἰατρικὸν ἢ φυσικόν τι διὰ τῶν μέτρων
ἐκφέρωσιν, οὕτω καλεῖν εἰώθασιν, οὐδὲν δὲ κοινόν ἐστιν Ὁμήρῳ καὶ
Ἐμπεδοκλεῖ πλὴν τὸ μέτρον, διὸ τὸν μὲν ποιητὴν δίκαιον καλεῖν, τὸν δὲ
φυσιολόγον μᾶλλον ἢ ποιητήν. But on the other side cp. Lucret. i. 731
“carmina quin etiam divini pectoris eius | vociferantur et exponunt
praeclara reperta, | ut vix humana videatur stirpe creatus.” The
fragments of Empedocles go far to justify Lucretius’ opinion; and the
true poetic gifts of Empedocles, as of Lucretius himself, may have been
seen in his work as a whole, even more than in its parts.
3, 4. The μεγαλοπρέπεια of =Pindar= is emphasized in the _de Imitat._
B. vi. 2.—Similarly, _ibid._, as to =Aeschylus=: ὁ δ’ οὖν Αἰσχύλος
πρῶτος ὑψηλός τε καὶ τῆς μεγαλοπρεπείας ἐχόμενος, κτλ.
5. For other references to =Antiphon= see _de Isaeo_ c. 20, _de
Thucyd._ c. 51, _de Demosth._ c. 8, _Ep. i. ad Amm._ c. 2, and _C.V._
c. 10. Also Thucyd. viii. 68 Ἀντιφῶν ἀνὴρ Ἀθηναίων τῶν καθ’ ἑαυτὸν
ἀρετῇ τε οὐδενὸς δεύτερος καὶ κράτιστος ἐνθυμηθῆναι γενόμενος καὶ ἃ
γνοίη εἰπεῖν.—For =Thucydides= himself see D.H. _passim_ (especially
pp. 30-34, 104 ff., 130 ff.).
17. G. S. Farnell _Greek Lyric Poetry_ p. 417: “The excited nature of
the rhythm throughout, and the rapturous enthusiasm with which the
approach of spring is described, are eminently characteristic of the
dithyramb at its best; and it is easy to understand how such a style,
in the hands of inferior poets, degenerated into the florid inanity
which characterizes the later dithyrambic poets.”
18. =δεῦτ’ ἐν χορόν=, ‘come ye to the dance.’ “ἐν _cum accus._ (eight
times in Pindar, chiefly in the Aeolic odes) is a relic of the original
stage of the language when this preposition had the functions of the
Latin _in_. It is preserved in Boeotian, Thessalian, North-West Greek,
Eleian, Arcadian, Cyprian, and perhaps even in the Attic ἔμβραχυ. The
accusative use was abandoned on the rise of ἐν-ς (cf. _ab-s_), which,
before a vowel, became εἰς, before a consonant, ἐς” (Weir Smyth _Greek
Melic Poets_ p. 359). P’s curious reading ἐν σχορ(ὸν) is to be noticed.
20. =ὀμφαλόν=: the reference is to the Athenian Acropolis, and the
passage suggested a fitting motto to Otto Jahn for his _Pausaniae
Descriptio Arcis Athenarum_.
[Page 215]
many authors in poetry, history, and civil oratory; pre-eminently
in epic poetry by Antimachus of Colophon and Empedocles the natural
philosopher, in lyric poetry by Pindar, in tragedy by Aeschylus, in
history by Thucydides, and in civil oratory by Antiphon. At this point
the subject would naturally call for the presentation of numerous
examples of each author cited, and possibly the discourse would have
been rendered not unattractive if bedecked with many such flowers of
spring. But then the treatise would probably be felt to be excessively
long—more like a course of lectures than a manual. On the other hand,
it would not be fitting to leave the statements unsubstantiated, as
though they were obvious and not in need of proof. The right thing,
no doubt, is after all to take a sort of middle course, neither to
exceed all measure, nor yet to fall short of carrying conviction.
I will endeavour to do so by selecting a few samples from the most
distinguished authors. Among poets it will be enough to cite Pindar,
among prose-writers Thucydides; for these are the best writers in the
austere style of composition. Let Pindar come first, and from him I
take a dithyramb which begins—
Shed o’er our choir, Olympian Dominations,
The glory of your grace,
O ye who hallow with your visitations
The curious-carven place,
[Page 216]
οἰχνεῖτε πανδαίδαλόν τ’ εὐκλέ’ ἀγοράν,
ἰοδέτων λάχετε στεφάνων τᾶν τ’ ἐαριδρόπων ἀοιδᾶν·
Διόθεν τέ με σὺν ἀγλαΐᾳ
ἴδετε πορευθέντ’ ἀοιδᾶν δεύτερον
ἐπὶ τὸν κισσοδέταν θεόν, 5
τὸν Βρόμιον ἐριβόαν τε βροτοὶ καλέομεν,
γόνον ὑπάτων μὲν πατέρων μέλπομεν
γυναικῶν τε Καδμεϊᾶν [ἔμολον].
ἐναργέα τελέων σάματ’ οὐ λανθάνει,
φοινικοεάνων ὁπότ’ οἰχθέντος Ὡρᾶν θαλάμου 10
εὔοδμον ἐπάγῃσιν ἔαρ φυτὰ νεκτάρεα·
τότε βάλλεται, τότ’ ἐπ’ ἄμβροτον χέρσον ἐραταὶ
ἴων φόβαι, ῥόδα τε κόμαισι μίγνυται
ἀχεῖ τ’ ὀμφαὶ μελέων σὺν αὐλοῖς,
ἀχεῖ τε Σεμέλαν ἑλικάμπυκα χοροί. 15
ταῦθ’ ὅτι μέν ἐστιν ἰσχυρὰ καὶ στιβαρὰ καὶ ἀξιωματικὰ καὶ
πολὺ τὸ αὐστηρὸν ἔχει τραχύνει τε ἀλύπως καὶ πικραίνει
μετρίως τὰς ἀκοὰς ἀναβέβληταί τε τοῖς χρόνοις καὶ διαβέβηκεν
ἐπὶ πολὺ ταῖς ἁρμονίαις καὶ οὐ τὸ θεατρικὸν δὴ
τοῦτο καὶ γλαφυρὸν ἐπιδείκνυται κάλλος ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀρχαϊκὸν 20
ἐκεῖνο καὶ αὐστηρόν, ἅπαντες ἂν εὖ οἶδ’ ὅτι μαρτυρήσειαν οἱ
2 ιοδέτ(ων) P, MV: ἰαδέτων E: ὅδ’ ἐγὼν F || λαχετε P, EMV: λάχει F (cp.
=224= 4) || τᾶν τ’ ἐαριδρόπων Us.: ἄντε ἀριδρόπων F: τ’ ἀντ’ ἐαριδρέπων
P: τάν τε ἀριδρέπτων E: τ’ ἀντ’ ἐπαριδρέπων M: τῶν ἐαριδρέπτων V ||
ἀοιδάν EFV: λοιβάν PM 3 Διόθεν τέ με] διατεθέντε F 4 πορευθέντα·
οἱ δἂν F: πορευθέντες ἀοιδαὶ (ἀοιδαῖς EV) ceteri 5 κισσοδέταν s:
κισσοδόνταν deleto ν priore P (κισσοδόταν leg. Us.): κισσοδαη F, EMV
6 τὸν P: ὃν ceteri || βρόμιον ὃν EFMV: βρόμι(ον). τ(ον) P 7 μὲν
P: τε EV: μέν τε FM || μέλπε P: μέλπομεν ceteri 8 ἔμολον P: σεμέλαν
EV: σεμέλην FM 9 ἐναργέα τελέων Us.: ἐναργεα νεμέω P, E: ἐν ἄλγεα
τεμεῶι F: ἐν ἀργέα νεμέα MV || σάματ’ Us.: τεμάντιν F: μάντιν cett.
10 φοινικοεάνων Kock: φοινικοεάων F: φοίνικος ἐανῶν cett. || οἰχθόντες
F || ὧραν F: ὥραν cett. || θάλαμοι F 11 εὐόαμον F || ἐπάγοισιν
F: ἐπαΐωσιν cett. 12 τότε om. F || ἄμβροτον χέρσον EFV: ἀμβρόταν
(αμσβρόταν P) χθόν’ PM 12-13 ἐραταὶ (ἐρατὰς V) ἴων φόβαι ῥόδατε
EV: ἐρατέων φοβερόδατε F: ἐρατὰν· ΐον φοβεράτε P, M 13 κόμισι F ||
μίγνυται PM: μίγνυνται EFV 14 ἀχεῖ τε F: οἰχνεῖ τ’ EPM: οἰχνεῖτε V:
ὑμνεῖτε s || ὀμφᾶι F: ὀμφᾶ E: ὀμφα V: ὀμφαῖς PM 15 ἀχεῖ τε Hermannus:
οἰχνεῖ τε libri: ὑμνεῖτε s 18 ἀναβέβληται F: ἀνακέκληται PMV 19 ἐπὶ
F: ἐπὶ τὸ PMV || καὶ οὐ τὸ Us.: καὶ οὔτε PMV: οὐ τὸ F 21 καὶ FM: καὶ
τὸ PV || εὖ F: om. PMV
2. λαχεῖν would be infinitive for imperative, or (rather) infinitive of
purpose after a verb of motion (just as Boeckh, in l. 7 _infra_, reads
μελπέμεν).
λοιβᾶν (λοιβάν PM) might be taken to refer to honey, or to
‘drink-offerings of spring-gathered herbs.’
4. =δεύτερον=: “post Iovem patrem _secundo loco_ ad Bacchum filium,”
Boeckh. Or the reference may be to a previous visit of Pindar to Athens.
9. ‘The clear-seen tokens of his rites are not unnoticed.’ In other
words, the return of spring indicates to the god that his festival is
at hand: cp. Aristoph. _Nub._ 311 (Weir Smyth).
12. =βάλλεται ... ἀχεῖ ... ἀχεῖ=: _schema Pindaricum._
15. “Metre: paeonic-logaoedic as _Ol._ 10, _Pyth._ 5. Schmidt
(_Eurythmie_ 428) regards the metre as logaoedic throughout. The
fragment belongs to the ἀπολελυμένα μέλη, that is, it is not divided
into strophes,” Weir Smyth.
21. It is convenient to use ‘readers’ occasionally in the translation.
But ‘hearers’ (οἱ ἀκούοντες) would more naturally be used by a
Greek: just as λόγους (=218= 1) is strictly ‘discourse’ rather than
‘literature.’
[Page 217]
The heart of Athens, steaming with oblations,
Wide-thronged with many a face.
Come, take your due of garlands violet-woven,
Of songs that burst forth when the buds are cloven.
Look on me—linked with music’s heaven-born glamour
Again have I drawn nigh
The Ivy-wreathed, on earth named Lord of Clamour,
Of the soul-thrilling cry.
We hymn the Babe that of the Maid Kadmeian
Sprang to the Sire throned in the empyrean.
By surest tokens is he manifested:—
What time the bridal bowers
Of Earth and Sun are by their crimson-vested
Warders flung wide, the Hours.
Then Spring, led on by flowers nectar-breathing,
O’er Earth the deathless flings
Violet and rose their love-locks interwreathing:
The voice of song outrings
An echo to the flutes; the dance his story
Echoes, and circlet-crowned Semele’s glory.[174]
That these lines are vigorous, weighty and dignified, and possess much
austerity; that, though rugged, they are not unpleasantly so, and
though harsh to the ear, are but so in due measure; that they are slow
in their time-movement, and present broad effects of harmony; and that
they exhibit not the showy and decorative prettiness of our day, but
the austere beauty of a distant past: this will, I am sure, be attested
by all readers
[Page 218]
μετρίαν ἔχοντες αἴσθησιν περὶ λόγους. τίνι δὲ κατασκευασθέντα
ἐπιτηδεύσει τοιαῦτα γέγονεν (οὐ γὰρ ἄνευ γε τέχνης
καὶ λόγου τινός, αὐτοματισμῷ δὲ καὶ τύχῃ χρησάμενα τοῦτον
εἴληφε τὸν χαρακτῆρα), ἐγὼ πειράσομαι δεικνύναι.
τὸ πρῶτον αὐτῷ κῶλον ἐκ τεττάρων σύγκειται λέξεως 5
μορίων, ῥήματος καὶ συνδέσμου καὶ δυεῖν προσηγορικῶν· τὸ
μὲν οὖν ῥῆμα καὶ ὁ σύνδεσμος συναλοιφῇ κερασθέντα οὐκ
ἀηδῆ πεποίηκε τὴν ἁρμονίαν· τὸ δὲ προσηγορικὸν τῷ συνδέσμῳ
συντιθέμενον ἀποτετράχυκεν ἀξιολόγως τὴν ἁρμογήν· τὸ γὰρ
#ἐν χορὸν# καὶ ἀντίτυπον καὶ οὐκ εὐεπές, τοῦ μὲν συνδέσμου 10
λήγοντος εἰς ἡμίφωνον στοιχεῖον τὸ ν̄, τοῦ δὲ προσηγορικοῦ
τὴν ἀρχὴν λαμβάνοντος ἀφ’ ἑνὸς τῶν ἀφώνων τοῦ χ̄· ἀσύμμικτα
δὲ τῇ φύσει ταῦτα τὰ στοιχεῖα καὶ ἀκόλλητα· οὐ γὰρ
πέφυκε κατὰ μίαν συλλαβὴν τοῦ χ̄ προτάττεσθαι τὸ ν̄,
ὥστε οὐδὲ συλλαβῶν ὅρια γινόμενα συνάπτει τὸν ἦχον, ἀλλ’ 15
ἀνάγκη σιωπήν τινα γενέσθαι μέσην ἀμφοῖν τὴν διορίζουσαν
ἑκατέρου τῶν γραμμάτων τὰς δυνάμεις. τὸ μὲν δὴ πρῶτον
κῶλον οὕτω τραχύνεται τῇ συνθέσει. κῶλα δέ με δέξαι
λέγειν οὐχ οἷς Ἀριστοφάνης ἢ τῶν ἄλλων τις μετρικῶν
διεκόσμησε τὰς ᾠδάς, ἀλλ’ οἷς ἡ φύσις ἀξιοῖ διαιρεῖν τὸν 20
λόγον καὶ ῥητόρων παῖδες τὰς περιόδους διαιροῦσι.
τὸ δὲ τούτῳ παρακείμενον κῶλον τὸ “#ἐπί τε κλυτὰν
πέμπετε χάριν θεοί#” διαβέβηκεν ἀπὸ τοῦ προτέρου διάβασιν
ἀξιόλογον καὶ περιείληφεν ἐν αὑτῷ πολλὰς ἁρμονίας ἀντιτύπους.
ἄρχει μὲν γὰρ αὐτοῦ στοιχεῖον ἓν τῶν φωνηέντων τὸ 25
ε̄ καὶ παράκειται ἑτέρῳ φωνήεντι τῷ ῑ· εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἔληγε
1 λόγους ... τέχνης καὶ om. F || τινὶ δε P 3 δὲ καὶ F: καὶ PMV ||
χρησάμενον F 4 ἐγὼ PMV: ὃν ἐγὼ F 5 αὐτὸ F 10 καὶ ἀντίτυπον EF:
ἀντίτυπόν τε PMV || εὐεπὲς EF: εὐπετὲς PMV 13 τῆι φύσει P, M in marg.
F: om. F^1: τῆ ῥύσει V 14 προτάττεσθαι F: προτετάχθε P, MV 15 οὐδὲ
PMV: οὔτε F || ὅρια] ὄρια F: δύο (β̄ P) μόρια EPM: δύο τὰ μόρια V ||
συνάπτει] τύπτει F 16 γενέσθαι EF: γίγνεσθαι P: γίνεσθαι MV || μέσοιν
EM 17 ἑκατέρων EF 18 με δέξαι PV: μ’ ἔδοξε FM 19 λέγειν F: νυνὶ
λέγειν PMV 22 δὲ τούτω PV: δ’ επι τούτων F, M 23 θεοὶ FM: om. PV ||
διαβέβηκεν F: βέβηκέ τε PMV 24 αὑτῷ] Sch., αὐτῷ libri 26 ἔληγεν ὁ
F: ἔληξεν τὸ P, MV
5. =αὐτῷ=: sc. in this author, or in this passage. Cp. =168= 1, =230=
29.
13. Dionysius’ general object is to show that there is a kind of
intentional discord or clash in Pindar’s dithyramb.
17. ‘If each of the letters is uttered with its proper quality,’ viz.
if we say ἐν χορόν and not ἐγ χορόν.
19. =Ἀριστοφάνης=: not, of course, the comic poet of Athens, but the
grammarian of Byzantium.—From this passage, and from =278= 5 _infra_,
it would appear that Aristophanes divided the text of Pindar and
other lyric poets into metrical _cola_. Such _cola_ are found in the
recently-discovered Bacchylides papyrus (written probably in Dionysius’
own century—the first century B.C.), which is also the earliest
manuscript in which accents are used.
21. =ῥητόρων παῖδες=: cp. =266= 8 ζωγράφων τε καὶ τορευτῶν παισίν, ‘the
generation of painters and sculptors.’ So ζωγράφων παῖδες Plato _Legg._
769 B, παῖδες ῥητόρων Luc. _Anach._ 19. The term will include pupils or
apprentices, as well as sons: cp. Plato _Rep._ v. 467 A ἢ οὐκ ᾔσθησαι
τὰ περὶ τὰς τέχνας, οἷον τοὺς τῶν κεραμέων παῖδας, ὡς πολὺν χρόνον
διακονοῦντες θεωροῦσι πρὶν ἅπτεσθαι τοῦ κεραμεύειν; Earlier still we
have the schools of the bards—the Ὁμηρίδαι or Ὁμήρου παῖδες, like ‘the
sons of the prophets’ in the Old Testament. As used by later writers,
the periphrasis with παῖδες may be compared with οἱ περί, οἱ ἀμφί (cp.
note on =194= 20 _supra_).
26. “The passages relating to Ὀλύμπιοι ἐπί, and καὶ Ἀθηναίων (Thuc.
i. 1), where the word in each case is said to end in ι, have led
some persons to suppose that Dionysius pronounced οι and αι as real
diphthongs of two vowels ending in ι. We know, however, that at this
time αι was a single vowel ε prolonged, and that it was only called a
diphthong because written with two letters, just as _ea_ in _each_,
_great_ are often spoken of as a diphthong, in place of a digraph.
We know also that ι subscript was not pronounced, and yet Dionysius
speaks of ἀγλαΐᾳ as ending with ι. Consequently there is no need to
suppose that οι was a real diphthong either. The language is merely
orthographical. As to the amount of pause, we find similar combinations
within the same Greek word: οι and ε in οἴεται, ν and δ in ἄνδρα, αι
and α in Αἴας; while ν before τ is quite common as in ὄντων, and ν
before π, κ becomes μ, γ, as in ἔμπορος, ἐγκρατής. Hence much of this
criticism may be fanciful. But it is certain that there is a different
feeling respecting the collision of letters which end and begin a word,
and those which come together in the same word. Thus in French poetry
open vowels are entirely forbidden. It is impossible to say ‘cela ira’
in serious French verse. Yet ‘haïr’ is quite admissible. Hence there
may be some foundation for the preceding observations, which, however,
like many others in the treatise, ride a theory very hard,” A. J. E.
[The observations of the critic, himself, must obviously be accepted
with considerable reserve: see, for example, the note on =230= 19
_infra._]
[Page 219]
whose literary sense has been tolerably developed. I will attempt to
show by what method such results have been achieved, since it is not by
spontaneous accident, but by some kind of artistic design, that this
passage has acquired its characteristic form.
The first clause consists of four words—a verb, a connective, and two
appellatives. Now the mingling and the amalgamation of the verb and the
connective have produced a rhythm which is not without its charm; but
the combination of the connective with the appellative has resulted
in a junction of considerable roughness. For the words ἐν χορόν are
jarring and uneuphonious, since the connective ends with the semivowel
ν, while the appellative begins with one of the mutes, χ. These letters
by their very nature cannot be blended and compacted, since it is
unnatural for the combination νχ to form part of a single syllable; and
so, when ν and χ are the boundaries of adjacent syllables, the voice
cannot be continuous, but there must necessarily be a pause separating
the letters if each of them is uttered with its proper sound. So, then,
the first clause is roughened thus by the arrangement of its words.
(You must understand me to mean by “clauses” not those into which
Aristophanes or any of the other metrists has arranged the odes, but
those into which Nature insists on dividing the discourse and into
which the disciples of the rhetoricians divide their periods.)
The next clause to this—ἐπί τε κλυτὰν πέμπετε χάριν θεοί—is separated
from the former by a considerable interval and includes within itself
many dissonant collocations. It begins with one of the vowels, ε, in
close proximity to which is another vowel, ι—the letter which came at
the end of the preceding
[Page 220]
τὸ πρὸ αὐτοῦ. οὐ συναλείφεται δὲ οὐδὲ ταῦτ’ ἀλλήλοις, οὐδὲ
προτάττεται κατὰ μίαν συλλαβὴν τὸ ῑ τοῦ ε̄· σιωπὴ δέ τις
μεταξὺ ἀμφοῖν γίνεται, διερείδουσα τῶν μορίων ἑκάτερον καὶ
τὴν βάσιν αὐτοῖς ἀποδιδοῦσα ἀσφαλῆ. ἐν δὲ τῇ κατὰ μέρος
συνθέσει τοῦ κώλου τοῖς μὲν #ἐπί τε# συνδέσμοις ἀφ’ ὧν 5
ἄρχεται τὸ κῶλον, εἴτε ἄρα πρόθεσιν αὐτῶν δεῖ τὸ ἡγούμενον
καλεῖν, τὸ προσηγορικὸν ἐπικείμενον μόριον τὸ #κλυτὰν#
ἀντίτυπον πεποίηκε καὶ τραχεῖαν τὴν σύνθεσιν· κατὰ τί
ποτε; ὅτι βούλεται μὲν εἶναι βραχεῖα ἡ πρώτη συλλαβὴ
τοῦ #κλυτάν#, μακροτέρα δ’ ἐστὶ τῆς βραχείας ἐξ ἀφώνου τε 10
καὶ ἡμιφώνου καὶ φωνήεντος συνεστῶσα. τὸ δὲ μὴ εἰλικρινῶς
αὐτῆς βραχὺ καὶ ἅμα τὸ ἐν τῇ κράσει τῶν γραμμάτων
δυσεκφόρητον ἀναβολήν τε ποιεῖ καὶ ἐγκοπὴν τῆς ἁρμονίας.
εἰ γοῦν τὸ κ̄ τις ἀφέλοι τῆς συλλαβῆς καὶ ποιήσειεν #ἐπί
τε λυτάν#, λυθήσεται καὶ τὸ βραδὺ καὶ τὸ τραχὺ τῆς 15
ἁρμονίας. πάλιν τῷ #κλυτὰν# προσηγορικῷ τὸ #πέμπετε#
ῥηματικὸν ἐπικείμενον οὐκ ἔχει συνῳδὸν οὐδ’ εὐκέραστον τὸν
ἦχον, ἀλλ’ ἀνάγκη στηριχθῆναι τὸ ν̄ καὶ πιεσθέντος ἱκανῶς
τοῦ στόματος τότε ἀκουστὸν γενέσθαι τὸ π̄· οὐ γὰρ ὑποτακτικὸν
τῷ ν̄ τὸ π̄. τούτου δ’ αἴτιον ὁ τοῦ στόματος 20
σχηματισμὸς οὔτε κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον οὔτε τῷ αὐτῷ
τρόπῳ τῶν γραμμάτων ἐκφέρων ἑκάτερον· τοῦ μὲν γὰρ ν̄
περὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν γίνεται ὁ ἦχος καὶ τῆς γλώττης ἄκροις
τοῖς ὀδοῦσι προσανισταμένης καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος διὰ τῶν
ῥωθώνων μεριζομένου, τοῦ δὲ π̄ μύσαντός τε τοῦ στόματος 25
2 προτάττεται] παρ’ οἷς τάττεται F || τις FM: τις ἡ PV 4 ἀσφαλῆι· ἐν
δὴ P 5 τοῦ κώλου F: τῶν κώλων PMV || σύνδεσμον F 6 δεῖ] δὴ F 8
κατα τί ποτε· ὅτι F: κατά τι δήποτε PMV 9 μὲν εἶναι] μένειν F 11
καὶ ἡμιφώνου om. P || ἑστῶσα P 13 δυσεκφόρητον F: δυσεκφώνητον E:
δυσέκφορον PMV 14 ποιήσει EF 17 τὸν om. EF 18 ἀνάγκηι P 19 τοῦ
στόματος τότε E: το̈́ῦτοτε et in margine στομ(ατος) F: τοῦ π̄ τότε M:
τότε V: τούτου Ps 20 αἴτιον EF: αἴτιος PMV || στόματος] σχήματος V.
22 ἐκφέρον F || ἑκάτερον F: ἑκάτερον τὸ π̄ καὶ τὸ ν̄ PMV || νῦ FM:
om. PV 23 γίνεται F: τε γίνεται PMV || γλώττης F: γλώσσης PMV 24
προἀνισταμένης F, M 25 τε τοῦ στόματος om. F
15. =λυτάν=, =λυθήσεται=: possibly an intentional play on words.
18. Clearly Dionysius does not believe that, in this passage, final ν
before initial π was pronounced as μ—κλυτάν as κλυτάμ: though final ν
sometimes appears under this form in inscriptions, as also does medial
ν in such compounds as συμπόσιον. The literal meaning of the passage
seems to be, ‘The ν must be firmly planted [pronounced distinctly,
dwelt upon], and κλυτὰν πέμπετε cannot be run together in one word, as
κλυταμπέμπετε or the like might be.’
[Page 221]
clause. These letters, again, do not coalesce with one another, nor
can ι stand before ε in the same syllable. There is a certain silence
between the two letters, which thrusts apart the two elements and
gives each a firm position. In the detailed arrangement of the clause
the postposition of the appellative part of speech κλυτάν to the
connectives ἐπί τε with which the phrase opens (though perhaps the
first of these connectives should rather be called a _preposition_) has
made the composition dissonant and harsh. For what reason? Because the
first syllable of κλυτάν is ostensibly short, but actually longer than
the ordinary short, since it is composed of a mute, a semi-vowel, and
a vowel. It is the want of unalloyed brevity in it, combined with the
difficulty of pronunciation involved in the combination of the letters,
that causes retardation and interruption in the harmony. At all events,
if you were to remove the κ from the syllable and to make it ἐπί τε
λυτάν, there would be an end to both the slowness and the roughness of
the arrangement. Further: the verbal form πέμπετε, subjoined to the
appellative κλυτάν, does not produce a harmonious or well-tempered
sound. The ν must be firmly planted and the π be heard only when the
lips have been quite pressed together, for the π cannot be tacked on to
the ν. The reason of this is the configuration of the mouth, which does
not produce the two letters either at the same spot or in the same way.
ν is sounded on the arch of the palate, with the tongue rising towards
the edge of the teeth and with the breath passing in separate currents
through the nostrils; π with the lips closed, the tongue
[Page 222]
καὶ οὐδὲν τῆς γλώττης συνεργούσης τοῦ τε πνεύματος κατὰ
τὴν ἄνοιξιν τῶν χειλῶν τὸν ψόφον λαμβάνοντος ἀθροῦν, ὡς
καὶ πρότερον εἴρηταί μοι· ἐν δὲ τῷ μεταλαμβάνειν τὸ στόμα
σχηματισμὸν ἕτερον ἐξ ἑτέρου μήτε συγγενῆ μήτε παρόμοιον
ἐμπεριλαμβάνεταί τις χρόνος, ἐν ᾧ διίσταται τὸ λεῖόν τε 5
καὶ εὐεπὲς τῆς ἁρμονίας. καὶ ἅμα οὐδ’ ἡ προηγουμένη τοῦ
#πέμπετε# συλλαβὴ μαλακὸν ἔχει τὸν ἦχον ἀλλ’ ὑποτραχύνει
τὴν ἀκοὴν ἀρχομένη τε ἐξ ἀφώνου καὶ λήγουσα εἰς ἡμίφωνον.
τῷ τε #χάριν# τὸ #θεοὶ# παρακείμενον ἀνακόπτει τὸν ἦχον καὶ
ποιεῖ διερεισμὸν ἀξιόλογον τῶν μορίων, τοῦ μὲν εἰς ἡμίφωνον 10
λήγοντος τὸ ν̄, τοῦ δὲ ἄφωνον ἔχοντος ἡγούμενον τὸ θ̄·
οὐδενὸς δὲ πέφυκε προτάττεσθαι τῶν ἀφώνων τὰ ἡμίφωνα.
τούτοις ἐπιφέρεται τρίτον κῶλον τουτί “#πολύβατον οἵ
τ’ ἄστεος ὀμφαλὸν θυόεντα ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς Ἀθάναις
οἰχνεῖτε#.” ἐνταῦθα τῷ τε #ὀμφαλὸν# εἰς τὸ ν̄ λήγοντι τὸ 15
#θυόεντα# παρακείμενον ἀπὸ τοῦ θ̄ ἀρχόμενον ὁμοίαν ἀποδίδωσιν
ἀντιτυπίαν τῇ πρότερον, καὶ τῷ #θυόεντα# εἰς φωνῆεν
τὸ ᾱ λήγοντι ζευγνύμενον τὸ “#ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς#” ἀπὸ
φωνήεντος τοῦ ε̄ λαμβάνον τὴν ἀρχὴν διέσπακε τῷ μεταξὺ
χρόνῳ τὸν ἦχον οὐκ ὄντι ὀλίγῳ. τούτοις ἐκεῖνα ἕπεται 20
“#πανδαίδαλόν τ’ εὐκλέ’ ἀγοράν#”· τραχεῖα κἀνταῦθα καὶ
ἀντίτυπος ἡ συζυγία· ἡμιφώνῳ γὰρ ἄφωνον συνάπτεται τῷ
ν̄ τὸ τ̄ καὶ διαβέβηκεν ἀξιόλογον διάβασιν ὁ μεταξὺ τοῦ τε
προσηγορικοῦ τοῦ #πανδαίδαλον# καὶ τῆς συναλοιφῆς τῆς
συναπτομένης αὐτῷ χρόνος· μακραὶ μὲν γὰρ ἀμφότεραι, 25
μείζων δὲ οὐκ ὀλίγῳ τῆς μετρίας ἡ συναλείφουσα τὰ δύο
συλλαβή, ἐξ ἀφώνου τε καὶ δυεῖν συνεστῶσα φωνηέντων· εἰ
1 γλώττης F: γλώσσης PMV || συνεργούσης] μεριζομένη συνεργούσης F:
ἐνεργούσης PV 2 ὡς F: ὡς δὴ PMV 3 δὲ F: δὴ PMV || τὸ στόμα PMV: τὸν
F 5 εν ὧι διίσταται P: δι’ οὗ συνίσταται FMV || λεῖόν τε F: λεῖον
PMV 6 εὐεπὲς F: εὐπετὲς PV: εὐτελὲς M 7 μακρὸν P 8 ἀρχομένη F:
ἄρχουσά PMV 10 ποιεῖ F: ποιεῖ τὸν PMV || διερεισμὸν Us.: ἐρισμὸν
P: διορισμὸν FMV 11 τὸ ν̄ Sylburgius: τοῦ ν̄ (νῦ F) FMV: om. P ||
θῆτα F 14 ἀθάναις F: ἀθήναις PMV 16 θῆτα F 18 ζευγνύμενον F:
ἐπεζευγμένον PMV 19 λαμβάνοντος F 20 ἦχον] χρόνον F 21 τραχεῖα
κἀνταῦθα om. F 22 συνάπτεται F: συνάπτεται γράμμα PMV 23 διάβασιν
FM^1: διάστασιν PVM^2 25 συναπτομένης F: ἐπισυναπτομένης PMV ||
χρόνος F: om. PMV || μακρὰ et ἀμφότερα F || μὲν γὰρ] μὲν P: γὰρ F: γάρ
εἰσιν MV 26 μετρίας F: συμμετρίας PMV || τὰ δύο συλλαβή Us.: τὰς δύο
(β̄ P) συλλαβὰς libri 27 δυεῖν FP: δυοῖν MV
2. =ὡς καὶ πρότερον εἴρηταί μοι=: the passages which seem to be meant
(=144= 22 and =148= 15) do not exactly tally with the present one.
12. We must supply κατὰ μίαν συλλαβήν, which words are found in =218=
14 and =220= 2 (cp. =230= 4): otherwise we are confronted with such
examples to the contrary as ἔνθα and (in this immediate context)
μεταλαμβάνειν, ἀρχόμενον, etc.
21. =τ’ εὐ-= are treated as one syllable. So in =218= 22, Dionysius
probably intends us to divide as follows:
ᴗ ᴗ –
ἐπιτε|κλυτάν,
etc.
23. In Dionysius’ own words, it might be said that the interval between
the article ὁ and the noun χρόνος with which it agrees is quite an
‘appreciable gap.’ Cp. Introduction, p. 12 _supra_.
24. =τῆς συναλοιφῆς=: the fused or blended syllable—τ’ εὐ-.
[Page 223]
doing none of the work, and the breath forming a concentrated noise
when the lips are opened, as I have said before. While the mouth is
taking one after another shapes that are neither akin nor alike, some
time is consumed, during which the smoothness and euphony of the
arrangement is interrupted. Moreover, the first syllable of πέμπετε has
not a soft sound either, but is rather rough to the ear, as it begins
with a mute and ends with a semi-vowel. θεοί coming next to χάριν pulls
the sound up short and makes an appreciable interval between the words,
the one ending with the semi-vowel ν, the other beginning with the mute
θ. And it is unnatural for a semi-vowel to stand before any mute.
Next follows this third clause, πολύβατον οἵ τ’ ἄστεος ὀμφαλὸν θυόεντα
ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς Ἀθάναις οἰχνεῖτε. Here θυόεντα which begins with θ,
being placed next to ὀμφαλὸν which ends in ν, produces a dissonance
similar to that previously mentioned; and ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς which opens
with the vowel ε, being linked to θυόεντα which ends with the vowel
α, interrupts the voice by the considerable interval of time there is
between them. Following these come the words πανδαίδαλόν τ’ εὐκλέ’
ἀγοράν. Here, too, the combination is rough and dissonant. For the
mute τ is joined to the semi-vowel ν; and the interval between the
appellative πανδαίδαλον and the elided syllable which follows it is
quite an appreciable gap; for both syllables are long, but the syllable
which unites the two letters ε and υ, consisting as it does of a mute
and two vowels, is considerably longer than the average. At any rate,
if the τ in the syllable
[Page 224]
γοῦν τις αὐτῆς ἀφέλοι τὸ τ̄ καὶ ποιήσειε #πανδαίδαλον
εὐκλέ’ ἀγοράν#, εἰς τὸ δίκαιον ἐλθοῦσα μέτρον εὐεπεστέραν
ποιήσει τὴν ἁρμονίαν.
ὅμοια τούτοις ἐστὶ κἀκεῖνα “#ἰοδέτων λάχετε στεφάνων#.”
παράκειται γὰρ ἡμίφωνα δύο ἀλλήλοις τὸ ν̄ καὶ τὸ λ̄, φυσικὴν 5
οὐκ ἔχοντα συζυγίαν τῷ μήτε κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς <τόπους μήτε
καθ’> ὁμοίους σχηματισμοὺς τοῦ στόματος ἐκφέρεσθαι. καὶ τὰ
ἐπὶ τούτοις λεγόμενα μηκύνεταί τε ταῖς συλλαβαῖς καὶ διέστηκε
ταῖς ἁρμονίαις ἐπὶ πολύ “#στεφάνων τᾶν τ’ ἐαριδρόπων#”·
μακραὶ γὰρ καὶ δεῦρο συγκρούονται συλλαβαὶ τὸ δίκαιον 10
ὑπεραίρουσαι μέτρον, ἥ τε λήγουσα τοῦ #στεφάνων# μορίου δυσὶ
περιλαμβάνουσα ἡμιφώνοις φωνῆεν γράμμα φύσει μακρὸν καὶ
ἡ συναπτομένη ταύτῃ τρισὶ μηκυνομένη γράμμασιν ἀφώνῳ καὶ
φωνήεντι μακρῶς λεγομένῳ καὶ ἡμιφώνῳ· διερεισμός τε οὖν
γέγονε τοῖς μήκεσι τῶν συλλαβῶν, καὶ ἀντιτυπία τῇ παραθέσει 15
τῶν γραμμάτων, οὐκ ἔχοντος τοῦ τ̄ συνῳδὸν τῷ ν̄ τὸν ἦχον,
ὃ καὶ πρότερον εἴρηκα. παράκειται δὲ καὶ τῷ #ἀοιδᾶν# εἰς τὸ
ν̄ λήγοντι ἀπὸ τοῦ δ̄ ἀρχόμενον ἀφώνου τὸ #Διόθεν# τε καὶ
τῷ #σὺν ἀγλαΐᾳ# εἰς τὸ ῑ λήγοντι τὸ #ἴδετε πορευθέντ’
ἀοιδᾶν# ἀρχόμενον ἀπὸ τοῦ ῑ. πολλά τις ἂν εὕροι τοιαῦτα 20
ὅλην τὴν ᾠδὴν σκοπῶν.
ἵνα δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν εἰπεῖν ἐγγένηταί μοι,
Πινδάρου μὲν ἅλις ἔστω, Θουκυδίδου δὲ λαμβανέσθω λέξις ἡ
ἐκ τοῦ προοιμίου ἥδε·
Θουκυδίδης Ἀθηναῖος ξυνέγραψε τὸν πόλεμον τῶν 25
1 ἀφέλοι Us. (coll. =220= 14): ἀφέλοιτο libri 2 εὐπετεστέραν PM^1V:
εὐεπεστέραν M^2: εὐεπεστάτην F 4 ἰωδέτων M: ὃ δ’ ἐγὼν F || λάχετε
στεφάνων PMV: λάχει F 5 γὰρ F: om. PMV 6 αὐτοὺς ὁμοίους F: ὁμοίους
PMV: τόπους μήτε καθ’ ins. Usenerus 9 τᾶν τ’] τ’ αὖτ’ P: τ’ αὖ M: ἄν
τ’ F: τῶν τ’ V || ἐαριδρόπων F: ἔαριδρέπων PM: ἐἀριδρέπτων V 13 ἡ] μὴ
F || μηκυνομένη FM^2: μηκυνθεῖσα PM^1V 14 διερισμός M: διορισμός V
17 ὃ F: ὡς PMV || δὲ] τε F || ἀοιδὰν codd.: λοιβὰν s 18 ἀφώνου FM:
ἄφωνον PV || διατεθὲν τε F: διόθεν τέ με PMV 19 πορευθέντα· οἱ δε F:
πορευθέντες ἀοιδαν (-δὰν M, -δανὶ V) PMV 20 ἀρχόμενον] ἀρχαῖοι μόνον
F 22 μοι F: μοι χρόνος PV: μοι χρόνων M 25 τῶν] τὸν P
1. =ποιήσειε ... ποιήσει=: cp. =220= 14, =256= 23.
6. If Usener’s supplement be not accepted, we might read τῷ μηδὲ κατὰ
τοὺς ὁμοίους σχηματισμούς, κτλ.
10. =δεῦρο συγκρούονται=, ‘meet here with a clash,’ as it were.
17. =παράκειται= κτλ.: viz. the ν of ἀοιδᾶν comes next to the δ in
διόθεν, and the ι at the end of ἀγλαΐᾳ precedes the ι in ἴδετε.—For
ν and δ in juxtaposition cp. English _and_ (where the _d_ is often
slurred in pronunciation) and, on the other hand, English _sound_
(where the _d_ is not original).
19. The ι at the end of =ἀγλαΐᾳ= seems, therefore, to have been
regarded by Dionysius as a separate letter, and not as an ι
ἀνεκφώνητον. Perhaps it was sounded in music; cp. the final _e_ in
French. In Dionysius’ time it was not uncommon to omit it even in
writing: πολλοὶ γὰρ χωρὶς τοῦ ι γράφουσι τὰς δοτικάς, καὶ ἐκβάλλουσι δὲ
τὸ ἔθος φυσικὴν αἰτίαν οὐκ ἔχον (Strabo xiv. 1. 50).
22. =ἐγγένηταί μοι=: cp. _de Lysia_ c. 16 ἵνα δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν
ἐγγένηταί μοι τὰ προσήκοντα εἰπεῖν, κτλ.
23. Bircovius compares, with the following passage of Thucydides, the
opening of Sallust’s _Bell. Iug._ v. 1: “Bellum scripturus sum, quod
populus Romanus cum Iugurtha rege Numidarum gessit, primum quia magnum
et atrox variaque victoria fuit, dehinc quia tum primum superbiae
nobilitatis obviam itum est; quae contentio divina et humana cuncta
permiscuit eoque vecordiae processit ut studiis civilibus bellum atque
vastitas Italiae finem faceret.”
24. =τοῦ προοιμίου=: probably the first twenty-three chapters are
meant—as far as the word Ἐπίδαμνός ἐστι πόλις κτλ.
25. In the English translation no attempt has been made to reproduce
the style of the original Greek. For this purpose the long sentences
employed in early English prose-writers are most suitable; e.g. Francis
Bacon’s rendering (_Considerations touching a War with Spain_ iii. 516,
in _Harleian Miscellany_ v. 84) of Thucyd. i. 23: “The truest cause
of this war, though least voiced, I conceive to have been this: that
the Athenians being grown great, to the terror of the Lacedemonians,
did impose upon them the necessity of a war; but the causes that went
abroad in speeches were these,” etc. Thomas Hobbes’ translation of the
opening of the History keeps close to the sentence-structure of the
original: “Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the war of the Peloponnesians
and the Athenians as they warred against each other, beginning to write
as soon as the war was on foot; with expectation it should prove a
great one, and most worthy the relation of all that had been before
it: conjecturing so much, both from this, that they flourished on both
sides in all manner of provision; and also because he saw the rest of
Greece siding with the one or the other faction, some then presently
and some intending so to do,” etc. Hobbes’ version is well known; but
the unpublished translation of Francis Hickes [1566-1631], from which
the following extract has been taken by the courtesy of the Librarian
of Christ Church, Oxford, is also of much interest: “Thucydides the
Athenian hath written the warres of the Peloponnesians and Athenians,
with all the manner and fashion of their fight, and tooke in hande
to put the same in writinge, as soone as ever the said warres weare
begone, for a hope he had, that they would be great, and more worthy of
memorie, than all the warres of former tyme have been: conjecturinge so
much, because he sawe them both so richlie abound with all provisions
thereunto belonginge, and all the rest of the Grecian nations, readie
to joyne themselves to the one side or the other; some, presentlie
upon their fallinge out, and the rest intendinge to do the like. This,
no doubt, was the greatest stirre, that ever was amonge the Grecians,
consistinge likewise partly of the Barbarians, and to speake in a word,
of many and sundrie nations. As for the acts achieved by them before
the tyme of this warre, or former matters yet of more antiquitie, it
is impossible to finde out any certaintie, because the tyme is so long
past, since they weare performed: but, by these conjectures, which upon
due examination of former tymes, I believe to be true, I must thinke
they weare of no great moment, either for the course of warre, or any
other respect. Now it is most probable, that the country which we now
call Grece, had not in old tyme any settled inhabitants, but did often
change her dwellers, who weare still easie to be removed from their
possessions if they weare urged by any greater forces, for when there
was as yet no trade of Merchandise amongst men: no free entercourse of
traffique one with another, either by land or sea: none that tilled any
more ground, than what would serve to sustaine their present lives:
none that had any money in this purse nor any that planted the earth
with fruits for they knewe not how soone others would come and bereave
them of it, their cities beinge all unwalled and bearing the mind, that
they should everie where finde enough to serve their turnes for their
dailie sustenance, they weare therefore easie to be driven out of any
place; and for that cause, did nether strengthen themselves with great
cities, nor warlike furniture for defence.”
[Page 225]
be removed and πανδαίδαλον εὐκλέ’ ἀγοράν be read, the syllable, falling
into the normal measure, will make the composition more euphonious.
The words ἰοδέτων λάχετε στεφάνων are open to the same criticism as
those already mentioned. For here two semi-vowels, ν and λ, come
together, although they do not naturally admit of amalgamation owing
to the fact that they are not pronounced <at the same regions nor>
with the same configurations of the mouth. The words that follow
these have their syllables lengthened and are widely divided from one
another in arrangement: στεφάνων τᾶν τ’ ἐαριδρόπων. For here also
there is a concurrence of long syllables which exceed the normal
measure,—the final syllable of the word στεφάνων which embraces between
two semi-vowels a vowel naturally long, and the syllable linked with
it, which is lengthened by means of three letters, a mute, a vowel
pronounced long, and a semi-vowel. Separation is produced by the
lengths of the syllables, and dissonance by the juxtaposition of the
letters, since the sound of τ does not accord with that of ν, as I have
said before. Next to ἀοιδᾶν, which ends in ν, comes Διόθεν τε, which
begins with the mute δ, and next to σὺν ἀγλαΐᾳ, which ends in ι, comes
ἴδετε πορευθέντ’ ἀοιδᾶν, which begins with ι. Many such features may be
found on a critical examination of the whole ode.
But in order to leave myself time for dealing with what remains,
no more of Pindar. From Thucydides let us take this passage of the
Introduction:—
“Thucydides, an Athenian, composed this history of the war
[Page 226]
Πελοποννησίων καὶ Ἀθηναίων ὡς ἐπολέμησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους,
ἀρξάμενος εὐθὺς καθισταμένου καὶ ἐλπίσας μέγαν
τε ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἀξιολογώτατον τῶν προγεγενημένων,
τεκμαιρόμενος ὅτι ἀκμάζοντές τε ᾖσαν ἐς αὐτὸν ἀμφότεροι
παρασκευῇ τῇ πάσῃ, καὶ τὸ ἄλλο Ἑλληνικὸν ὁρῶν 5
ξυνιστάμενον πρὸς ἑκατέρους, τὸ μὲν εὐθύς, τὸ δὲ καὶ
διανοούμενον. κίνησις γὰρ αὕτη μεγίστη δὴ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν
ἐγένετο καὶ μέρει τινὶ τῶν βαρβάρων, ὡς δ’ εἰπεῖν καὶ
ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀνθρώπων. τὰ γὰρ πρὸ αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ἔτι
παλαιότερα σαφῶς μὲν εὑρεῖν διὰ χρόνου πλῆθος ἀδύνατα 10
ἦν· ἐκ δὲ τεκμηρίων, ὧν ἐπὶ μακρότατον σκοποῦντί μοι
πιστεῦσαι ξυμβαίνει, οὐ μεγάλα νομίζω γενέσθαι οὔτε
κατὰ τοὺς πολέμους οὔτε ἐς τὰ ἄλλα. φαίνεται γὰρ ἡ
νῦν Ἑλλὰς καλουμένη οὐ πάλαι βεβαίως οἰκουμένη, ἀλλὰ
μεταναστάσεις τε οὖσαι τὰ πρότερα καὶ ῥᾳδίως ἕκαστοι 15
τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀπολείποντες βιαζόμενοι ὑπό τινων ἀεὶ
πλειόνων. τῆς γὰρ ἐμπορίας οὐκ οὔσης οὐδ’ ἐπιμιγνύντες
ἀδεῶς ἀλλήλοις οὔτε κατὰ γῆν οὔτε διὰ θαλάσσης,
νεμόμενοί τε τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστοι ὅσον ἀποζῆν καὶ περιουσίαν
χρημάτων οὐκ ἔχοντες οὐδὲ γῆν φυτεύοντες, ἄδηλον 20
1 καὶ] τε καὶ P 4 τε om. EF || ἦσαν libri: sed apud Thucydidem lectio
potior ᾖσαν [“ᾖσαν F g Schol. Plat. _Rep._ 449 A Suid. Phot.: ἦσαν
cett.”] 6 πρὸς ... διανοούμενον om. P 9 πλεῖστον EF: πλεῖστων sic
P: πλείστων MV || καὶ τὰ EFs: καὶ PMV 10 ἐρεῖν P 11 μακρότερον F
13 πολεμίους P || τὰ ἄλλα PMV: τ’ ἄλλα F 16 ἀπολιπόντες F 17
ἐπιμιγνῦντες ἀλλήλοις (om. ἀδεῶς) F 20 οὐδὲ γῆν φυτεύοντες om. F
4. =ᾖσαν=: cp. schol. ad Thucyd. i. 1 ᾖσαν] μετὰ σπουδῆς ἐπορεύοντο.
9. =τά= (before ἔτι) is omitted by the Palatine and the Ambrosian MSS.
in _de Thucyd._ c. 20.
[Page 227]
which the Peloponnesians and the Athenians waged against one
another. He began as soon as the war broke out, in the expectation
that it would be great and memorable above all previous wars. This
he inferred from the fact that both parties were entering upon it
at the height of their military power, and from noticing that the
rest of the Greek races were ranging themselves on this side or on
that, or were intending to do so before long. No commotion ever
troubled the Greeks so greatly: it affected also a considerable
section of the barbarians, and one may even say the greater part
of mankind. Events previous to this, and events still more remote,
could not be clearly ascertained owing to lapse of time. But
from such evidence as I find I can trust however far back I go,
I conclude that they were not of great importance either from a
military or from any other point of view. It is clear that the
country now called Hellas was not securely settled in ancient
times, but that there were migrations in former days, various
peoples without hesitation leaving their own land when hard pressed
by superior numbers of successive invaders. Commerce did not exist,
nor did men mix freely with one another on land or by sea. Each
tribe aimed at getting a bare living out of the lands it occupied.
They had no reserve of capital, nor did they plant the ground with
fruit-trees, since it was uncertain, especially as they had
[Page 228]
ὂν ὁπότε τις ἐπελθὼν καὶ ἀτειχίστων ἅμα ὄντων ἄλλος
ἀφαιρήσεται, τῆς τε καθ’ ἡμέραν ἀναγκαίου τροφῆς πανταχοῦ
ἂν ἡγούμενοι ἐπικρατεῖν οὐ χαλεπῶς ἀνίσταντο.
αὕτη ἡ λέξις ὅτι μὲν οὐκ ἔχει λείας οὐδὲ συνεξεσμένας
ἀκριβῶς τὰς ἁρμονίας οὐδ’ ἔστιν εὐεπὴς καὶ μαλακὴ καὶ 5
λεληθότως ὀλισθάνουσα διὰ τῆς ἀκοῆς ἀλλὰ πολὺ τὸ ἀντίτυπον
καὶ τραχὺ καὶ στρυφνὸν ἐμφαίνει, καὶ ὅτι πανηγυρικῆς
μὲν ἢ θεατρικῆς οὐδὲ κατὰ μικρὸν ἐφάπτεται χάριτος, ἀρχαϊκὸν
δέ τι καὶ αὔθαδες ἐπιδείκνυται κάλλος, ὡς πρὸς εἰδότας
ὁμοίως τοὺς εὐπαιδεύτους ἅπαντας οὐδὲν δέομαι λέγειν, ἄλλως 10
τε καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦτό γε τοῦ συγγραφέως ὁμολογήσαντος, ὅτι
εἰς μὲν ἀκρόασιν ἧττον ἐπιτερπὴς ἡ γραφή ἐστι, “#κτῆμα δ’
εἰσαεὶ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀγώνισμα εἰς τὸ παραυτίκα ἀκούειν
σύγκειται#.” τίνα δ’ ἐστὶ τὰ θεωρήματα οἷς χρησάμενος ὁ
ἀνὴρ οὕτως ἀπηνῆ καὶ αὐστηρὰν πεποίηκε τὴν ἁρμονίαν, δι’ 15
ὀλίγων σοι σημανῶ· ῥᾴδιον γὰρ ἔσται μικρὰ μεγάλων εἶναι
δείγματα τοῖς μὴ χαλεπῶς ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ ὁμοίου τε καὶ ἀκολούθου
μεταβαίνουσιν θεωρίαν.
3 ἀνίστατο F: ἀπανίσταντο Thucyd. 4 αὕτη EF: αὕτη πάλιν PMV ||
συνεζευγμένας EV 5 καὶ μαλακὴ EFM: om. PV 6 ὀλισθάνουσα P:
ὀλισθαίνουσα FMV 7 καὶ τραχὺ om. EF || στριφνὸν F 11 αὐτοῦ τοῦτό γε
PMV: αὐτοῦ τε F: αὐτοῦ E 14 ὁ ἀνὴρ EF: ἀνὴρ PMV 15 ἀπηνῆ M: ἀπεινῆ
F: εὐπινῆ PV || διαλόγων F^1 16 σοι σημανῶ PM: σημανῶ EFV || ῥᾴδιον
Us.: ῥαιδία F: ῥαῖον P, MV || ἐσται F: ἐστι PMV 18 μεταβαίνουσαι F:
μεταβαίνουσι MV
3. For estimates of Thucydides’ style in general cp. not only this
passage of Dionysius but also D.H. pp. 131-59, 175-82 (Text and
Translation of _Ep. ii. ad Amm._, together with notes and some
references to Marcellinus); Croiset _Thucydide: Livres i.-ii._ pp. 102
ff. and _Histoire de la littérature grecque_ iv. pp. 155 ff.; Girard
_Essai sur Thucydide_ pp. 210-19; Blass _Att. Bereds._ i. pp. 203-44;
Norden _Kunstprosa_ i. pp. 96-101; Jebb in _Hellenica_ pp. 306 ff.
4. This long sentence (Il. 4-14) is, itself, a good example of Greek
word-order and the lucidity possible to it.
7. Batteux (pp. 250-3) maintains, in detail, that these comments on the
style of Thucydides would also apply to a passage of Bossuet (in the
_Oraison funèbre de Henriette Anne d’ Angleterre, duchesse d’Orléans_),
which “a tous les caractères d’une composition austère; c’est partout
un style robuste, nerveux, âpre même quelquefois, et presque rustique.”
The passage is that which describes the abasement of all human
grandeur by Death: “La voilà, malgré ce grand cœur, cette princesse
si admirée et si chérie; la voilà, telle que la mort nous l’a faite.
Encore ce reste tel quel va-t-il disparaître; cette ombre de gloire
va s’évanouir, et nous l’allons voir dépouillée même de cette triste
décoration. Elle va descendre à ces sombres lieux, à ces demeures
souterraines, pour y dormir dans la poussière avec les grands de la
terre, comme parle Job; avec ces rois et ces princes anéantis, parmi
lesquels à peine peut-on la placer, tant les rangs y sont pressés,
tant la mort est prompte à remplir ces places,” etc. Batteux begins
his careful and interesting analysis as follows: “Nul choix des sons.
_Malgré ce grand cœur_ est dur. _Cette princesse si_ est sifflant: _si
admirée et si_; choc de voyelles. _La voilà telle que la mort nous l’a
faite_: mots jetés plutôt que placés. _Encore ce reste tel quel va-t-il
dis_: pointes de rochers. _De cette triste décoration_ n’est guère plus
doux. Et ces trois monosyllables brefs et rocailleux, _comme parle
Job_, etc.
9. =αὔθαδες ... κάλλος=: this happy description of Thucydides’ style
shows that Dionysius saw in style a mirror of the man (cp. ἀνδρὸς
χαρακτὴρ ἐκ λόγου γνωρίζεται, Menand. _Fragm._ 72, and Dionys. H.
_Antiqq. Rom._ i. 1 ἐπιεικῶς γὰρ ἅπαντες νομίζουσιν εἰκόνας εἶναι τῆς
ἑκάστου ψυχῆς τοὺς λόγους).—The general drift of Dionysius’ phrase is,
of course, commendatory: he does not (cp. =120= 8, 9) mean ‘but such
beauty as it (Thucydides’ style) displays is archaic and perverse.’
12. These well-known words of Thucydides (i. 22. 4) are quoted also
in _de Thucyd._ c. 7.—A scholium on Thucyd. (_l.c._) runs: κτῆμα]
κέρδος. κτῆμα, τὴν ἀλήθειαν· ἀγώνισμα, τὸν γλυκὺν λόγον. αἰνίττεται
δὲ τὰ μυθικὰ Ἡροδότου. The passage is well elucidated by Lucian, and
by Pliny the Younger: (1) Lucian _de conscribenda historica_ c. 42
ὁ δ’ οὖν Θουκυδίδης εὖ μάλα τοῦτ’ ἐνομοθέτησε, καὶ διέκρινεν ἀρετὴν
καὶ κακίαν συγγραφικήν, ὁρῶν μάλιστα θαυμαζόμενον τὸν Ἡρόδοτον, ἄχρι
τοῦ καὶ Μούσας κληθῆναι αὐτοῦ τὰ βιβλία. κτῆμα γάρ φησι μᾶλλον ἐς ἀεὶ
συγγράφειν ἤπερ ἐς τὸ παρὸν ἀγώνισμα, καὶ μὴ τὸ μυθῶδες ἀσπάζεσθαι,
ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τῶν γεγενημένων ἀπολείπειν τοῖς ὕστερον, (2) Pliny
_Ep._ v. 8 “nam plurimum refert, ut Thucydides ait, κτῆμα sit an
ἀγώνισμα: quorum alterum oratio, alterum historia est.”
13. =εἰσαεί=: Thucydides himself no doubt wrote ἐς αἰεί: see
Marcellinus § 52 for αἰεί (rather than ἀεί) as constituting a mark of ἡ
ἀρχαία Ἀτθίς in Thucydides.
14. =ὁ ἀνὴρ= (_divisim_) should probably be read: cp. =230= 23.
17. The meaning possibly is, “you can easily proceed with the same line
of observation right through work which is consistently of a similar
character to this.”
[Page 229]
no fortifications, when some invader would come and rob them of
their property. They also thought that they could command the bare
necessities of daily life anywhere; and so, for all these reasons,
they made no difficulty about giving up their land.”[175]
There is no need for me to say, when all educated people know it
as well as I, that this passage is not smooth or nicely finished in
its verbal arrangement, and is not euphonious and soft, and does not
glide imperceptibly through the ear, but shows many features that are
discordant and rough and harsh; that it does not make the slightest
approach to attaining the grace appropriate to an oration delivered
at a public festival or to a speech on the stage, but is marked by a
sort of antique and self-willed beauty. Indeed, the historian himself
admits that his narrative is but little calculated to give pleasure
when heard: “it has been composed as a possession for all time rather
than as an essay to be recited at some particular competition.”[176]
I will briefly point out to you the principles by following which the
author has made the arrangement so rugged and austere. Small things
will readily serve you as samples of great: you can easily go on noting
resemblances and making comparisons for yourself.
[Page 230]
αὐτίκα ἐν ἀρχῇ τῷ #Ἀθηναῖος# προσηγορικῷ τὸ #ξυνέγραψε#
ῥῆμα ἐφαρμοττόμενον διίστησιν ἀξιολόγως τὴν ἁρμονίαν·
οὐ γὰρ προτάττεται τὸ σ̄ τοῦ ξ̄ κατὰ συνεκφορὰν
τὴν ἐν μιᾷ συλλαβῇ γινομένην· δεῖ δὲ τοῦ σ̄ σιωπῇ καταληφθέντος
τότε ἀκουστὸν γενέσθαι τὸ ξ̄. τοῦτο δὲ τραχύτητα 5
ἐργάζεται καὶ ἀντιτυπίαν τὸ πάθος. ἔπειθ’ αἱ μετὰ τοῦτο
γινόμεναι συγκοπαὶ τῶν ἤχων, τοῦ τε ν̄ <καὶ τοῦ π̄> καὶ τοῦ
τ̄ καὶ τοῦ π̄ καὶ τοῦ κ̄ τετράκις ἑξῆς ἀλλήλοις παρακειμένων,
χαράττουσιν εὖ μάλα τὴν ἀκοὴν καὶ διασαλεύουσιν ἀξιολόγως
τὰς ἁρμονίας, ὅταν φῇ “#τὸν πόλεμον τῶν Πελοποννησίων 10
καὶ Ἀθηναίων#”· τούτων γὰρ τῶν μορίων τῆς λέξεως οὐδὲν
ὅ τι οὐ καταληφθῆναί τε δεῖ καὶ πιεσθῆναι πρότερον ὑπὸ
τοῦ στόματος περὶ τὸ τελευταῖον γράμμα, ἵνα τὸ συναπτόμενον
αὐτῷ τρανὴν καὶ καθαρὰν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ λάβῃ δύναμιν.
ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις ἡ τῶν φωνηέντων παράθεσις ἡ κατὰ τὴν 15
τελευταίαν τοῦ κώλου τοῦδε γενομένη ἐν τῷ #καὶ Ἀθηναίων#
διακέκρουκε τὸ συνεχὲς τῆς ἁρμονίας καὶ διέστακεν πάνυ
αἰσθητὸν τὸν μεταξὺ λαβοῦσα χρόνον· ἀκέραστοι γὰρ αἱ
φωναὶ τοῦ τε ῑ καὶ τοῦ ᾱ καὶ ἀποκόπτουσαι τὸν ἦχον· τὸ
δ’ εὐεπὲς οἱ συνεχεῖς τε καὶ οἱ συλλεαινόμενοι ποιοῦσιν ἦχοι. 20
καὶ αὖθις ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ περιόδῳ τὸ προηγούμενον κῶλον
τουτί “#ἀρξάμενος εὐθὺς καθισταμένου#” μετρίως ἁρμόσας
ὁ ἀνὴρ ὡς ἂν εὔφωνόν τε μάλιστα φαίνοιτο καὶ μαλακόν, τὸ
μετὰ τοῦτο πάλιν ἀποτραχύνει καὶ διασπᾷ τοῖς διαχαλάσμασι
τῶν ἁρμονιῶν· “#καὶ ἐλπίσας μέγαν τε ἔσεσθαι καὶ 25
ἀξιολογώτατον τῶν προγεγενημένων#.” τρὶς γὰρ ἀλλήλοις
ἑξῆς οὐ διὰ μακροῦ παράκειται τὰ φωνήεντα συγκρούσεις
ἐργαζόμενα καὶ ἀνακοπὰς καὶ οὐκ ἐῶντα τὴν ἀκρόασιν ἑνὸς
κώλου συνεχοῦς λαβεῖν φαντασίαν· ἥ τε περίοδος αὐτῷ
λήγουσα εἰς τὸ “#τῶν προγεγενημένων#” οὐκ ἔχει τὴν 30
βάσιν εὔγραμμον καὶ περιφερῆ, ἀλλ’ ἀκόρυφός τις φαίνεται
2 ἐφαμαρτόμεν(ον) F: ἐπαγόμενον E 6 μετὰ τούτων F 7 καὶ τοῦ π̄
(post ν̄) ins. Uptonus 8 παρακειμένων Us.: παρακείμεναι libri 11
οὐδὲν PMV: οὐθὲν EF 12 οὖν F: οὐχὶ EPMV: οὐ <σιωπῇ> Us. 13 ὑπὸ] ἐπὶ
P || τελευταῖαν F, MV: om. P 17 διέστακεν P, MV: διέστηκε EF 18
γὰρ EF: τε γὰρ PMV 21 καὶ αὖτις F: αὖθις PMV || τὸ F: om. PMV 24
ἀποτραχύνει PV: ἐπιτραχύνει FM || διαχαλάσμασιν P: ἀπὸχαλασμασι F 26
τρὶς Sauppe: τρία libri 27 ἑξῆς οὐ] ἐξ ἴσου P 29 λαβεῖν φαντασίαν
F: φαντασίαν λαμβάνειν PMV
9. Perhaps an effect analogous to that of syncopation in music is meant.
10, 11. Different words, and a different order, seem hardly possible
here. If πόλεμον were put after Ἀθηναίων, the juxtaposed letters would
be much the same as in the existing arrangement.
16. =τελευταίαν=: it may be that some word like συγκοπήν is to be
supplied. Or τελευτὴν may be read: or τελευταῖα.
19. The present passage (lines 15-19) shows, as Blass (_Ancient Greek
Pronunciation_ p. 66) remarks, that the educated pronunciation of the
Augustan period did not confuse αι with ε.
22-5. Here, again, the author would hardly have much _choice_ in the
arrangement of the words in question.
26. =τρίς=: viz. in the words καὶ ἐλπίσας, τε ἔσεσθαι, καὶ
ἀξιολογώτατον.
[Page 231]
At the very beginning the verb ξυνέγραψε, being appended to the
appellative Ἀθηναῖος, makes an appreciable break in the verbal
structure, since σ is never placed before ξ with a view to being
pronounced in the same syllable with it. The sound of σ must be
sharply arrested by an interval of silence before the ξ is heard;
and this circumstance causes roughness and dissonance. Moreover, the
interruptions of the voice in what follows, in consequence of the four
successive juxtapositions νπ, ντ, νπ, νκ, grate violently upon the ear,
and cause a remarkable succession of jolts when he says τὸν πόλεμον τῶν
Πελοποννησίων καὶ Ἀθηναίων. Of these words there is not one that must
not first be checked by the mouth with a stress on the last letter, in
order that the next letter to it may be uttered clearly and purely with
its own proper quality. Furthermore, the juxtaposition of vowels which
is found at the end of this clause in the words καὶ Ἀθηναίων has broken
and made a gap in the continuity of the arrangement, by demanding quite
an appreciable interval, since the sounds of ι and α are unmingled and
there is an interruption of the voice between them: whereas euphony is
caused by sounds which are continuous and smoothly blended.
Again, in the second period the first clause ἀρξάμενος εὐθὺς
καθισταμένου has been pretty successfully arranged by the author in the
way in which it would produce the most smooth and euphonious effect.
But he roughens and dislocates the very next clause by sundering
its joints: καὶ ἐλπίσας μέγαν τε ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἀξιολογώτατον τῶν
προγεγενημένων. For thrice in close succession vowels are juxtaposed
which cause clashings and obstructed utterance, and make it impossible
for the ear to take in the impression of one continuous clause; and
the period which he ends with the words τῶν προγεγενημένων has no
well-defined and rounded close, but seems to be without beginning or
[Page 232]
καὶ ἀκατάστροφος, ὥσπερ μέρος οὖσα τῆς δευτέρας ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ
[τῆς πρώτης] τέλος.
τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ πέπονθε καὶ ἡ τρίτη περίοδος· καὶ γὰρ ἐκείνης
ἀπερίγραφός ἐστι καὶ ἀνέδραστος ἡ βάσις τελευταῖον ἐχούσης
μόριον “#τὸ δὲ καὶ διανοούμενον#”· πολλὰς ἅμα καὶ αὐτὴ 5
περιέχουσα φωνηέντων τε πρὸς φωνήεντα ἀντιτυπίας καὶ
ἡμιφώνων πρὸς ἡμίφωνα καὶ ἄφωνα, ἅσπερ ἐργάζεται τὰ μὴ
συνῳδὰ τῇ φύσει τραχύτητας. ἵνα δὲ συνελὼν εἴπω, δώδεκά
που περιόδων οὐσῶν ἃς παρεθέμην, εἴ τις αὐτὰς συμμέτρως
μερίζοι πρὸς τὸ πνεῦμα, κώλων δὲ περιλαμβανομένων ἐν 10
ταύταις οὐκ ἐλαττόνων ἢ τριάκοντα, τὰ μὲν εὐεπῶς συγκείμενα
καὶ συνεξεσμένα ταῖς ἁρμονίαις οὐκ ἂν εὕροι τις ἓξ ἢ ἑπτὰ
τὰ πάντα κῶλα, φωνηέντων δὲ συμβολὰς ἐν ταῖς δώδεκα
περιόδοις ὀλίγου δεῖν τριάκοντα, ἡμιφώνων τε καὶ ἀφώνων
ἀντιτύπων καὶ πικρῶν καὶ δυσεκφόρων παραβολάς, ἐξ ὧν αἵ 15
τε ἀνακοπαὶ καὶ τὰ πολλὰ ἐγκαθίσματα τῇ λέξει γέγονε,
τοσαύτας τὸ πλῆθος ὥστε ὀλίγου δεῖν καθ’ ἕκαστον αὐτῆς
μόριον εἶναί τι τῶν τοιούτων. πολλὴ δὲ καὶ ἡ τῶν κώλων
ἀσυμμετρία πρὸς ἄλληλα καὶ ἡ τῶν περιόδων ἀνωμαλία καὶ
ἡ τῶν σχημάτων καινότης καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀκολουθίας ὑπεροπτικὸν 20
καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα χαρακτηρικὰ τῆς ἀκομψεύτου τε καὶ
αὐστηρᾶς ἐπελογισάμην ὄντα ἁρμονίας. ἅπαντα γὰρ διεξιέναι
πάλιν ἐπὶ τῶν παραδειγμάτων καὶ καταδαπανᾶν εἰς ταῦτα
τὸν χρόνον οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἡγοῦμαι.
XXIII
ἡ δὲ γλαφυρὰ [καὶ ἀνθηρὰ] σύνθεσις, ἣν δευτέραν ἐτιθέμην
2 τῆς πρώτης uncis inclusit Usenerus 4 ἐχούσης Us.: ἔχουσα libri 7
καὶ ... ἐργάζεται om. F || καὶ ἄφωνα P: om. FMV || ἅσπερ] ἅπερ PMV
8 τραχύτητας F: καὶ τραχύτητας PMV 9 εἴ τις] εἴπερ F 10 δὲ F: δὲ
τῶν PMV || περιλαμβανομένων F: ἐμπεριλαμβανομένων PMV 11 ταύταις F:
αὐταῖς PMV 12 τις ἑξῆς ἢ πάντα ταῦτα κῶλα F 13 συλλαβὰς F 14 καὶ
ἀφώνων καὶ ἀντιτύπων P 17 τοσαύτας Uptonus: τοσαῦτα libri (cf. =160=
20) 20 σχημάτων F: σχηματισμῶν PMV 21 τὰ ἄλλα PMV: τἆλλα F ||
χαρακτηρικὰ F: χαρακτηριστικὰ PV: χαρακτηριστικὰ καὶ M || ἀκομψεύστου
FMV 22 αὐστηρᾶς] ἰσχυρᾶς F || ἀπελογησάμην PM^2: ἐπελογησάμην M^1V ||
διεξιέναι F: ἐπεξιέναι PMV 25 καὶ ἀνθηρὰ om. P || ἐτιθέμην F: ἐθέμην
PMV
1. Dionysius seems to discern three periods in the first sentence
of Thucydides, viz. (1) Θουκυδίδης ... ἀλλήλους (2) ἀρξάμενος ...
προσγεγενημένων, (3) τεκμαιρόμενος ... διανοούμενον. The general sense
here is: ‘as there is no connexion between ἀρξάμενος and τεκμαιρόμενος,
we must take the latter as beginning a new period, and yet logically
ἀρξάμενος belongs to it.’ If the words τῆς πρώτης are to be retained at
all, they might possibly be transported with τῆς δευτέρας: ‘as though
it were a part of the first period and not the end of the second.’
4. Usener’s =ἐχούσης= seems likely, though the words καὶ γὰρ ... ἡ
βάσις might be regarded as parenthetical and ἔχουσα as in agreement
with περίοδος.
18. =πολλὴ δὲ καί= κτλ.: cp. Cic. _Orat._ ix. 32. 33 “itaque numquam
est (Thucydides) numeratus orator ... sed, cum mutila quaedam et
hiantia locuti sunt, quae vel sine magistro facere potuerunt, germanos
se putant esse Thucydidas.”
25. For =ἀνθηρά= cp. n. on =208= 26 _supra_.—The whole chapter
should be compared with _de Demosth._ c. 40. In c. 49 of that
treatise Dionysius refers expressly to his previously written _de
Compositione_: εἰ δέ τις ἀπαιτήσει καὶ ταῦτ’ ἔτι μαθεῖν ὅπῃ ποτ’ ἔχει,
τοὺς ὑπομνηματισμοὺς ἡμῶν λαβών, οὓς περὶ τῆς συνθέσεως τῶν ὀνομάτων
πεπραγματεύμεθα, πάντα ὅσα ποθεῖ τῶν ἐνθάδε παραλειπομένων εἴσεται (cp.
c. 50 _ibid._).
[Page 233]
conclusion, as if it were part of the second period and not its
termination.
The third period has the same characteristics. There is a lack of
roundness and stability in its foundation, since it has for its
concluding portion τὸ δὲ καὶ διανοούμενον. Further, it too contains
many clashings of vowel against vowel and of semi-vowels against
semi-vowels and mutes—discords produced by things in their very nature
inharmonious. To sum up, here are some twelve periods adduced by me—if
the breathing-space be taken as the criterion for the division of
period from period; and they contain no fewer than thirty clauses.
Yet of these not six or seven clauses in all will be found to be
euphoniously composed and finished in their structure; while of hiatus
between vowels in the twelve periods there are almost thirty instances,
together with meetings of semi-vowels and mutes which are dissonant,
harsh, and hard to pronounce. It is to this that the stoppages and the
many retardations in the passage are due; and so numerous are these
concurrences that there is one of the kind in almost every single
section of it. There is a great lack of symmetry in the clauses, great
unevenness in the periods, much innovation in the figures, disregard
of sequence, and all the other marks which I have already noted as
characteristic of the unadorned and austere style. I do not consider it
necessary to waste our time by going over the whole ground once more
with the illustrative passages.