HOW PROSE CAN RESEMBLE VERSE
Now that I have finished this part of the subject, I think you must
be eager for information on the next point—how unmetrical language is
made to resemble a beautiful poem or lyric, and how a poem or lyric is
brought into close likeness to beautiful prose. I will begin with the
language of prose, choosing by preference an author who has, I think,
in a pre-eminent degree taken the impress of poetical style. I could
wish to mention a larger number, but have not time for all. Who, then,
will not admit that the speeches of Demosthenes
[Page 252]
τοὺς Δημοσθένους λόγους, καὶ μάλιστα τάς τε κατὰ Φιλίππου
δημηγορίας καὶ τοὺς δικανικοὺς ἀγῶνας τοὺς δημοσίους; ὧν
ἐξ ἑνὸς ἀρκέσει λαβεῖν τὸ προοίμιον τουτί·
“Μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ με μήτ’
ἰδίας ἔχθρας μηδεμιᾶς ἕνεχ’ ἥκειν Ἀριστοκράτους κατηγορήσοντα 5
τουτουί, μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον
ἁμάρτημα ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς
ἀπέχθειαν· ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἆρ’ ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ λογίζομαι καὶ
σκοπῶ, περὶ τοῦ Χερόνησον ἔχειν ἀσφαλῶς ὑμᾶς καὶ
μὴ παρακρουσθέντας ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς, περὶ 10
τούτου ἐστί μοι ἅπασα ἡ σπουδή.”
πειρατέον δὴ καὶ περὶ τούτων λέγειν ἃ φρονῶ. μυστηρίοις
μὲν οὖν ἔοικεν ἤδη ταῦτα καὶ οὐκ εἰς πολλοὺς οἷά τε ἐστὶν
ἐκφέρεσθαι, ὥστ’ οὐκ ἂν εἴην φορτικός, εἰ παρακαλοίην “#οἷς
θέμις ἐστὶν#” ἥκειν ἐπὶ τὰς τελετὰς τοῦ λόγου, “#θύρας δ’ 15
ἐπιθέσθαι#” λέγοιμι ταῖς ἀκοαῖς τοὺς “#βεβήλους#.” εἰς γέλωτα
γὰρ ἔνιοι λαμβάνουσι τὰ σπουδαιότατα δι’ ἀπειρίαν, καὶ ἴσως
οὐδὲν ἄτοπον πάσχουσιν. ἃ δ’ οὖν βούλομαι λέγειν, τοιάδε
ἐστί.
πᾶσα λέξις ἡ δίχα μέτρου συγκειμένη ποιητικὴν μοῦσαν 20
ἢ μελικὴν χάριν οὐ δύναται προσλαβεῖν κατὰ γοῦν τὴν σύνθεσιν
αὐτήν· ἐπεὶ καὶ ἡ ἐκλογὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων μέγα τι
δύναται, καὶ ἔστι τις ὀνομασία ποιητικὴ γλωττηματικῶν τε
καὶ ξένων καὶ τροπικῶν καὶ πεποιημένων, οἷς ἡδύνεται ποίησις,
εἰς κόρον ἐγκαταμιγέντων τῇ ἀμέτρῳ λέξει, ὃ ποιοῦσιν ἄλλοι 25
τε πολλοὶ καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα Πλάτων· οὐ δὴ λέγω περὶ τῆς
ἐκλογῆς, ἀλλ’ ἀφείσθω κατὰ τὸ παρὸν ἡ περὶ ταῦτα σκέψις.
περὶ τῆς συνθέσεως αὐτῆς ἔστω ἡ θεωρία τῆς ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς
ὀνόμασι καὶ τετριμμένοις καὶ ἥκιστα ποιητικοῖς τὰς ποιητικὰς
3 ἀρκέσει] ἀρμόσει F 4 με om. P, Demosth. || μήτε F 5 ἔχθρας ἐμὲ
Demosth. || μηδεμιᾶς om. F || ἕνεκα PMV 7 ἐπὶ τούτῳ om. EF 8 ἆρ’
E: ἆρα P: ἄρα M: οὖν V: om. F || ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ EFM: ἐγὼ ὀρθῶς PV 9 περὶ]
ὑπὲρ Demosth. || τοῦ EFPM: τοῦ τὴν V || χερόνησον PV^1: χερρόνησον
FMV^2 || ἀσφαλῶς ὑμᾶς PMV: ὑμᾶς ἀσφαλῶς EF, D 11 τούτου] τούτων EF
|| ἔστι μοι M: νῦν ἐστί μοι P: τοίνυν ἔστι μοι V: ἔστι μοι νῦν E:
ἐστὶν F: μοί ἐστιν D || ἡ EPM D.: ἡ ἐμὴ F: om. V 12 cum φρονῶ voce
deficit codex Florentinus (F) 16 ἐπίθεσθε PM: ἐπίθεσθαι V || μέλωτ(α)
P: γελοῖα MV 18 οὐδὲν] οὐδ’ P 20 συγκειμένη EP: ἐγκειμένη MV ||
μοῦσαν MV: οὖσαν P: om. E 23 τις ὀνομασίας P: τὴν ὀνομασίαν MV 25
ἐγκατατεταγμένους EPM: ἐγκαταμεμιγμένους V
4-11. In Butcher’s and in Weil’s texts (which are here identical)
the opening of the _Aristocrates_ runs as follows: μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ
ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ μήτ’ ἰδίας ἔχθρας ἐμὲ μηδεμιᾶς ἕνεχ’ ἥκειν
Ἀριστοκράτους κατηγορήσοντα τουτουί, μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον
ἁμάρτημ’ ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειαν, ἀλλ’
εἴπερ ἄρ’ ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ λογίζομαι καὶ σκοπῶ, ὑπὲρ τοῦ Χερρόνησον ἔχειν ὑμᾶς
ἀσφαλῶς καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθέντας ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς, περὶ τούτου
μοί ἐστιν ἅπασ’ ἡ σπουδή. The minute differences between this text and
that presented with metrical comments by Dionysius deserve careful
notice.—The collocation τῆς ἰδίας ἕνεκ’ ἔχθρας is found in _de Cor._ §
147.
12. Here, with the word φρονῶ, the codex Florentinus Laurentianus (F)
unfortunately ends.
24. It is hardly necessary to insert ὀνομάτων before οἷς, since the
word may be supplied from l. 22 _supra_.
[Page 253]
are like the finest poems and lyrics: particularly his harangues
against Philip and his pleadings in public law-suits? It will be enough
to take the following exordium from one of these:—
“Let none of you, O ye Athenians, think that I have come forward to
accuse the defendant Aristocrates with intent to indulge personal
hate of my own, or that it is because I have got my eye on some
small and petty error that I am thrusting myself with a light heart
in the path of his enmity. No, if my calculations and point of view
be right, my one aim and object is that you should securely hold
the Chersonese, and should not again be deprived of it by political
chicanery.”[182]
I must endeavour, here again, to state my views. But the subject we
have now reached is like the Mysteries: it cannot be divulged to people
in masses. I shall not, therefore, be discourteous in inviting those
only “for whom it is lawful” to approach the rites of style, while
bidding the “profane” to “close the gates of their ears.”[183] There
are some who, through ignorance, turn the most serious things into
ridicule, and no doubt their attitude is natural enough. Well, my views
are in effect as follows:—
No passage which is composed absolutely without metre can be invested
with the melody of poetry or lyric grace, at any rate from the point of
view of the word-arrangement considered in itself. No doubt, the choice
of words goes a long way, and there is a poetical vocabulary consisting
of rare, foreign, figurative and coined words in which poetry takes
delight. These are sometimes mingled with prose-writing to excess: many
writers do so, Plato particularly. But I am not speaking of the choice
of words: let the consideration of that subject be set aside for the
present. Let our inquiry deal exclusively with word-arrangement, which
can reveal possibilities of poetic grace in common everyday
[Page 254]
χάριτας ἐπιδεικνυμένης. ὅπερ οὖν ἔφην, οὐ δύναται ψιλὴ
λέξις ὁμοία γενέσθαι τῇ ἐμμέτρῳ καὶ ἐμμελεῖ, ἐὰν μὴ περιέχῃ
μέτρα καὶ ῥυθμούς τινας ἐγκατατεταγμένους ἀδήλως. οὐ μέντοι
προσήκει γε ἔμμετρον οὐδ’ ἔρρυθμον αὐτὴν εἶναι δοκεῖν (ποίημα
γὰρ οὕτως ἔσται καὶ μέλος ἐκβήσεταί τε ἁπλῶς τὸν αὑτῆς 5
χαρακτῆρα), ἀλλ’ εὔρυθμον αὐτὴν ἀπόχρη καὶ εὔμετρον φαίνεσθαι
μόνον· οὕτως γὰρ ἂν εἴη ποιητικὴ μέν, οὐ μὴν ποίημά
γε, καὶ ἐμμελὴς μέν, οὐ μέλος δέ.
τίς δ’ ἐστὶν ἡ τούτων διαφορά, πάνυ ῥᾴδιον ἰδεῖν. ἡ μὲν
ὅμοια περιλαμβάνουσα μέτρα καὶ τεταγμένους σῴζουσα ῥυθμοὺς 10
καὶ κατὰ στίχον ἢ περίοδον ἢ στροφὴν διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν σχημάτων
περαινομένη κἄπειτα πάλιν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ῥυθμοῖς καὶ μέτροις
ἐπὶ τῶν ἑξῆς στίχων ἢ περιόδων ἢ στροφῶν χρωμένη καὶ
τοῦτο μέχρι πολλοῦ ποιοῦσα ἔρρυθμός ἐστι καὶ ἔμμετρος, καὶ
ὀνόματα κεῖται τῇ τοιαύτῃ λέξει μέτρον καὶ μέλος· ἡ δὲ 15
πεπλανημένα μέτρα καὶ ἀτάκτους ῥυθμοὺς ἐμπεριλαμβάνουσα
καὶ μήτε ἀκολουθίαν ἐμφαίνουσα αὐτῶν μήτε ὁμοζυγίαν μήτε
ἀντιστροφὴν εὔρυθμος μέν ἐστιν, ἐπειδὴ διαπεποίκιλταί τισιν
ῥυθμοῖς, οὐκ ἔρρυθμος δέ, ἐπειδὴ οὐχὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς οὐδὲ κατὰ
τὸ αὐτό. τοιαύτην δή φημι πᾶσαν εἶναι λέξιν ἄμετρον, ἥτις 20
ἐμφαίνει τὸ ποιητικὸν καὶ μελικόν· ᾗ δὴ καὶ τὸν Δημοσθένη
κεχρῆσθαί φημι. καὶ ὅτι ἀληθῆ ταῦτ’ ἐστὶ καὶ οὐδὲν ἐγὼ
καινοτομῶ, λάβοι μὲν ἄν τις καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ἀριστοτέλους μαρτυρίας
τὴν πίστιν· εἴρηται γὰρ τῷ φιλοσόφῳ τά τε ἄλλα
περὶ τῆς λέξεως τῆς πολιτικῆς ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ βίβλῳ τῶν ῥητορικῶν 25
τεχνῶν οἵαν αὐτὴν εἶναι προσῆκεν, καὶ δὴ καὶ περὶ τῆς
εὐρυθμίας ἐξ ὧν ἂν τοιαύτη γένοιτο· ἐν ᾗ τοὺς ἐπιτηδειοτάτους
3 ἀδήλως MV: ἀδήλους EP 5 αὐτῆς PV 6 ἔμμετρον E 9 ῥάιδιον P 10
σωίζουσα P 20 ἄμετρον EPM: ἔμμετρον V 21 μελιχρὸν M || δημοσθένην
EM 25 τρίτω P 26 προσηκ(εν) P: προσήκει MV 27 ἂν MV: τίσ P
1. Cp. Coleridge _Biogr. Lit._ c. 18: “Whatever is combined with metre
must, though it be not itself essentially poetic, have nevertheless
some property in common with poetry.”
3. So _de Demosth._ c. 50 οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἄλλως γένοιτο πολιτικὴ λέξις παρ’
αὐτὴν τὴν σύνθεσιν ἐμφερὴς ποιήμασιν, ἂν μὴ περιέχῃ μέτρα καὶ ῥυθμούς
τινας ἐγκατακεχωρισμένους ἀδήλως. οὐ μέντοι γε προσήκει αὐτὴν ἔμμετρον
οὐδ’ ἔρρυθμον εἶναι δοκεῖν, ἵνα μὴ γένηται ποίημα ἢ μέλος, ἐκβᾶσα τὸν
αὑτῆς χαρακτῆρα, ἀλλ’ εὔρυθμον αὐτὴν ἀπόχρη φαίνεσθαι καὶ εὔμετρον.
οὕτω γὰρ ἂν εἴη ποιητικὴ μέν, οὐ μὴν ποίημά γε, καὶ μελίζουσα μέν, οὐ
μὴν μέλος.
4. Cp. Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 8 τὸ δὲ σχῆμα τῆς λέξεως δεῖ μήτε ἔμμετρον
εἶναι μήτε ἄρρυθμον ... διὸ ῥυθμὸν δεῖ ἔχειν τὸν λόγον, μέτρον δὲ μή·
ποίημα γὰρ ἔσται: and Cic. _Orat._ 56. 187 “perspicuum est igitur
numeris astrictam orationem esse debere, carere versibus,” and 57.
195 _ibid._ “quia nec numerosa esse, ut poëma, neque extra numerum,
ut sermo vulgi, esse debet oratio.” So Isocr. (fragm. of his τέχνη
preserved by Joannes Siceliotes, Walz _Rhett. Gr._ vi. 156) ὅλως δὲ
ὁ λόγος μὴ λόγος ἔστω· ξηρὸν γάρ· μηδὲ ἔμμετρος· καταφανὲς γάρ. ἀλλὰ
μεμίχθω παντὶ ῥυθμῷ, μάλιστα ἰαμβικῷ καὶ τροχαϊκῷ (Isocr. _Tech._ fr. 6
Benseler-Blass).
5. =ἐκβήσεται ... τὸν αὑτῆς χαρακτῆρα=: cp. the construction of
_excedere_ and _egredi_ with the accusative.
6. ἔμμετρον is given not only by E but by Joannes Sicel. (Walz _Rhett.
Gr._ vi. 165. 28) and by Maximus Planudes (_ibid._ v. 473. 4) καὶ
Διονύσιος δέ φησιν, ἀπόχρη τὴν πολιτικὴν λέξιν εὔρυθμον εἶναι καὶ
ἔμμετρον.
17. Cp. Cic. _de Orat._ iii. 44. 176 “nam cum [orator] vinxit
[sententiam] forma et modis, relaxat et liberat immutatione ordinis,
ut verba neque alligata sint quasi certa aliqua lege versus neque ita
soluta, ut vagentur.”
25. The reference is to Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 8 (the passage of which
part is quoted in the note on l. 4 _supra_).
27. =τοιαύτη=: i.e. εὔρυθμος, the subject to γένοιτο being ἡ πολιτικὴ
λέξις. The τίσ of P may be due to a dittography of the first syllable
of τοιαύτη: or it may originally have stood with τοιαύτη (τοιαύτη τις =
_talis fere_).
[Page 255]
words that are by no means reserved for the poets’ vocabulary. Well, as
I said, simple prose cannot become like metrical and lyrical writing,
unless it contains metres and rhythms unobtrusively introduced into
it. It does not, however, do for it to be manifestly _in_ metre or
_in_ rhythm (for in that case it will be a poem or a lyric piece, and
will absolutely desert its own specific character); it is enough that
it should simply appear rhythmical and metrical. In this way it may be
poetical, although not a poem; lyrical, although not a lyric.
The difference between the two things is easy enough to see. That which
embraces within its compass similar metres and preserves definite
rhythms, and is produced by a repetition of the same forms, line
for line, period for period, or strophe for strophe, and then again
employs the same rhythms and metres for the succeeding lines, periods
or strophes, and does this at any considerable length, is _in_ rhythm
and _in_ metre, and the names of “verse” and “song” are applied to
such writing. On the other hand, that which contains casual metres and
irregular rhythms, and in these shows neither sequence nor connexion
nor correspondence of stanza with stanza, is rhythmical, since it is
diversified by rhythms of a sort, but not in rhythm, since they are
not the same nor in corresponding positions. This is the character
I attribute to all language which, though destitute of metre, yet
shows markedly the poetical or lyrical element; and this is what I
mean that Demosthenes among others has adopted. That this is true,
that I am advancing no new theory, any one can convince himself from
the testimony of Aristotle; for in the third book of his _Rhetoric_
the philosopher, speaking of the various requisites of style in civil
oratory, has described the good rhythm which should contribute to
it.[184] He
[Page 256]
ὀνομάζει ῥυθμοὺς καὶ πῇ χρήσιμος ἕκαστος αὐτῶν καταφαίνεται,
καὶ λέξεις παρατίθησί τινας αἷς πειρᾶται βεβαιοῦν
τὸν λόγον. χωρὶς δὲ τῆς Ἀριστοτέλους μαρτυρίας, ὅτι ἀναγκαῖόν
ἐστιν ἐμπεριλαμβάνεσθαί τινας τῇ πεζῇ λέξει ῥυθμούς,
εἰ μέλλοι τὸ ποιητικὸν ἐπανθήσειν αὐτῇ κάλλος, ἐκ τῆς πείρας 5
τις αὐτῆς γνώσεται.
αὐτίκα ὁ κατὰ Ἀριστοκράτους λόγος οὗ καὶ μικρῷ πρότερον
ἐμνήσθην ἄρχεται μὲν ἀπὸ κωμικοῦ στίχου τετραμέτρου δι’
ἀναπαίστων τῶν ῥυθμῶν ἐγκειμένου, λείπεται δὲ ποδὶ τοῦ
τελείου, παρ’ ὃ καὶ λέληθεν· “#μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες 10
Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ με#”· τοῦτο γὰρ εἰ προσλάβοι τὸ μέτρον
πόδα ἤτοι κατ’ ἀρχὰς ἢ διὰ μέσου ἢ ἐπὶ τελευτῆς, τέλειον
ἔσται τετράμετρον ἀναπαιστικόν, ὃ καλοῦσίν τινες Ἀριστοφάνειον·
μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ με παρεῖναι, 15
ἴσον δὲ τῷ
λέξω τοίνυν τὴν ἀρχαίαν παιδείαν ὡς διέκειτο.
τάχα τις ἐρεῖ πρὸς ταῦτα, ὅτι οὐκ ἐξ ἐπιτηδεύσεως τοῦτο
ἀλλ’ ἐκ ταὐτομάτου ἐγένετο· πολλὰ γὰρ αὐτοσχεδιάζει μέτρα
ἡ φύσις. ἔστω τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἶναι. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ συναπτόμενον 20
τούτῳ κῶλον, εἰ διαλύσειέ τις αὐτοῦ τὴν δευτέραν
συναλοιφὴν ἣ πεποίηκεν αὐτὸ ἄσημον ἐπισυνάπτουσα τῷ
τρίτῳ κώλῳ, πεντάμετρον ἐλεγειακὸν ἔσται συντετελεσμένον
τουτί
μήτ’ ἰδίας ἔχθρας μηδεμιᾶς ἕνεκα
ὅμοιον τούτοις
κοῦραι ἐλαφρὰ ποδῶν ἴχνι’ ἀειράμεναι.
3 ἀναγκαῖον V γρ M: ἂν δίκαιον PM^1 6 τ(ις) P, V: τῆς M 8 δι’
MV: δι^ς sic P 11 με παρεῖναι M 15 μηδεὶς] μηδε P 18 τουτω M,
E: τοῦτο PV 24 τουτί EP: ἀκριβῶς τουτί MV 27 ἐλαφροποδῶν sic P:
ἐλαφροπόδων MV || ἴχνι’ PM: ἴχνεα V
7. =πρότερον=: viz. =252= 3 _supra._
9. ἀναπαιστικῶν has been suggested here and in =260= 2; but cp.
δάκτυλον πόδα =84= 21 and ῥυθμοῖς δακτύλοις =202= 19.
10. =παρ’ ὅ=: cp. note on =80= 4 _supra._
11. =νομίσῃ με=: this (together with the other remarks that follow)
confirms the reading adopted in =252= 4 _supra._—Dionysius’ metrical
arrangement of the clauses may be indicated thus:—
μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ με
μήτ’ ἰδίας ἔχθρας μηδεμιᾶς ἕνεχ’
[ἥκειν Ἀριστοκράτους κατηγορήσοντα τουτουΐ,]
μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον ἁμάρτημα ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ
προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειαν·
ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἆρ’ ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ λογίζομαι [καὶ σκοπῶ,]
περὶ τοῦ Χερόνησον ἔχειν ἀσφαλῶς ὑμᾶς
καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθέντας
ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς,
[περὶ τούτου ἐστί μοι ἅπασα ἡ σπουδή.]
Lines, or truncated lines, of verse are thus interspersed with pieces
of pure prose,—those here inclosed in brackets. In constituting the
verse-lines Dionysius has damaged a rather strong case by overstating
it.
21. =διαλύσειε=: from this it is clear that ἕνεχ’ (rather than ἕνεκα)
should be read in =252= 5. The verse-arrangement in line 25 _infra_
shows the same thing and also that we must not follow F in reading μήτε
(without elision) in =252= 4.
27. For this line cp. Schneider’s _Callimachea_ pp. 789, 790, where it
is classed among the _Fragmenta Anonyma_.
[Page 257]
names the most suitable rhythms, shows where each of them is clearly
serviceable, and adduces some passages by which he endeavours to
establish his statement. But apart from the testimony of Aristotle,
experience itself will show that some rhythms must be included in
prose-writing if there is to be upon it the bloom of poetical beauty.
For example, the speech against Aristocrates which I mentioned a moment
ago begins with a comic tetrameter line (set there with its anapaestic
rhythms), but it is a foot short of completion and in consequence
escapes detection: μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ με. If this
line had an additional foot either at the beginning, in the middle, or
at the end, it would be a perfect anapaestic tetrameter, to which some
give the name “Aristophanic.”
Let none of you, O ye Athenians, think that I am standing before you,
corresponds to the line
Now then shall be told what in days of old was the fashion of boys’
education.[185]
It will perhaps be said in reply that this has happened not from
design, but accidentally, since a natural tendency in us often
improvises metrical fragments. Let the truth of this be granted. Yet
the next clause as well, if you resolve the second elision, which has
obscured its true character by linking it on to the third clause, will
be a complete elegiac pentameter as follows:—
Come with intent to indulge personal hate of my own,
similar to these words:—
Maidens whose feet in the dance lightly were lifted on high.[186]
[Page 258]
καὶ τοῦτ’ ἔτι κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν ὑπολάβωμεν αὐτοματισμὸν ἄνευ
γνώμης γεγονέναι. ἀλλ’ ἑνὸς τοῦ μεταξὺ κώλου συγκειμένου
λεκτικῶς τοῦ “#ἥκειν Ἀριστοκράτους κατηγορήσοντα
τουτουί#” τὸ συμπλεκόμενον τούτῳ πάλιν κῶλον ἐκ δυεῖν συνέστηκεν
μέτρων· “#μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον 5
ἁμάρτημα, ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ#”· εἰ γὰρ τὸ
Σαπφικόν τις ἐπιθαλάμιον τουτί
οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἀτέρα πάϊς, ὦ γαμβρέ, τοιαύτα <ποτα>
καὶ τοῦ κωμικοῦ τετραμέτρου, λεγομένου δὲ Ἀριστοφανείου
τουδί 10
ὅτ’ ἐγὼ τὰ δίκαια λέγων ἦνθουν καὶ σωφροσύνη ’νενόμιστο
τοὺς τελευταίους πόδας τρεῖς καὶ τὴν κατάληξιν ἐκλαβὼν
συνάψειε τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον
οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἀτέρα πάϊς, ὦ γαμβρέ, τοιαύτα <ποτα> καὶ 15
σωφροσύνη ’νενόμιστο·
οὐδὲν διοίσει τοῦ “#μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον
ἁμάρτημα, ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ#.” τὸ δ’ ἀκόλουθον
ἴσον ἐστὶν ἰαμβικῷ τριμέτρῳ τὸν ἔσχατον ἀφῃρημένῳ πόδα
“#προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειαν#”· τέλειον γὰρ ἔσται 20
πόδα προσλαβὸν καὶ γενόμενον τοιοῦτο
προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειάν τινα.
παρίδωμεν ἔτι καὶ ταῦτα ὡς οὐκ ἐξ ἐπιτηδεύσεως ἀλλ’
αὐτοματισμῷ γενόμενα; τί οὖν βούλεται πάλιν τὸ προσεχὲς
τούτῳ κῶλον; ἰαμβεῖον γάρ ἐστι καὶ τοῦτο τρίμετρον ὀρθόν 25
ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἆρ’ ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ λογίζομαι,
τοῦ #ἄρα# συνδέσμου μακρὰν λαμβάνοντος τὴν πρότεραν συλλαβήν,
καὶ ἔτι γε, νὴ Δία, μέσου παρεμπεσόντος τοῦ “#καὶ#
1 καὶ P: εἰ δὲ καὶ M: ἐὰν καὶ V 4 δυεῖν P: δυοῖν MV 5 μέτρων V et
suprascr. ῥυθμῶν M: μερῶν P 6 εἰ γὰρ τὸ Sauppius: εἰ γέ τοι P: καὶ τὸ
M: γάρ τοι V 7 τις PV: om. M 8 ἦν ἀτέρα] ἑτέρα νῦν PM: ἑτέραν ὗν V:
correxit Blomfieldius: ἀτέρα Seidlerus || ποτα add. Usenerus 10-11
τοῦδε τοτ’ P, i.e. τουδεί ὅτ’: τοῦδε ὅτ’ MV 13 τοὺς PM: τούς τε V ||
ἐκλαβὼν Sauppius: ἐκβαλῶν P: ἐμβαλὼν MV 15 ἑτέρα νῦν PM: ἑτέραν ϋν V:
cf. adnot. ad l. 8 supra 21 πόδα προσλαβὸν PM: προσλαβὸν πόδα V ||
τοιοῦτο P: τοιοῦτον MV 22 τινά PM: τινι V 24 γενόμεν(ον); P 25
ἰάμβιων P: ἰάμβειον MV 26 ἄρ’ P, V: ἄρα M 27 ἄρα compendio P
8. ‘For no other girl, O bridegroom, was like unto her.’—Usener’s
insertion of =ποτα=, here and in l. 15 _infra_, will secure metrical
correspondence between this passage and that of Demosthenes. Blass
would attain the same result by reading ἁμάρτημ’ ἰταμῶς in the passage
of Demosthenes. If ἁμάρτημ’ ἑτοίμως be read (as in the best texts of
Demosthenes), then the choice will be to suppose either (1) that the
first syllable of ἑτοίμως is to be suppressed in the ‘scansion’, or
(2) that Dionysius has pressed his case too far and that it is just
by means of this extra syllable that Demosthenes escapes any unduly
poetical rhythm.
26. The scansion here supports those manuscripts which give ἆρ’ in
=252= 8.
For =ἆρα= as being “in Poets sometimes much like ἄρα” see L. & S. s.v.
(with the examples there quoted).
28. =νὴ Δία=: cp. μὰ Δία in =260= 25. The general sense of the passage
is well brought out in the Epitome: καὶ ἔτι τὸ “καὶ σκοπῶ” παρεμπεσὸν
ἐπισκοτούμενον τὸ μέτρον ἠφάνισε.
[Page 259]
Let us suppose that this, too, has happened once more in the same
spontaneous way without design. Still, after one intermediate clause
arranged in a prose order, viz. ἥκειν Ἀριστοκράτους κατηγορήσοντα
τουτουί, the clause which is joined to this consists of two metrical
lines, viz. μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον ἁμάρτημα ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ
τούτῳ. For if we were to take this line from Sappho’s Bridal Song—
For never another maiden there was, O son-in-law, like unto
this one,[187]
and were also to take the last three feet and the termination of the
following comic tetrameter, the so-called “Aristophanic”
When of righteousness I was the popular preacher, and temperance
was in fashion,[188]
and then were to unite them thus—
οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἀτέρα πάις, ὦ γαμβρέ, τοιαύτα <ποτα> καὶ σωφροσύνη
’νενόμιστο,
it will precisely correspond to μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον
ἁμάρτημα, ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ. What follows is like an iambic
trimeter docked of its final foot, προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειαν. It
will be complete if a foot is added and it takes this shape:—
προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειάν τινα.
Are we once more to neglect these facts as if they were brought about
not on purpose but by accident? What, then, is the significance of the
next clause to this? For this too is a correct iambic trimeter line—
ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἆρ’ ὀρθῶς ἐγὸ λογίζομαι,
if the connective ἄρα has its first syllable made long, and if
further—by your leave!—the words καὶ σκοπῶ are regarded as
[Page 260]
#σκοπῶ#,” ὑφ’ οὗ δὴ τὸ μέτρον ἐπισκοτούμενον ἠφάνισται. τὸ
δ’ ἐπὶ τούτῳ παραλαμβανόμενον κῶλον ἐξ ἀναπαίστων σύγκειται
ῥυθμῶν καὶ προάγει μέχρι ποδῶν ὀκτὼ τὸ αὐτὸ σχῆμα
διασῷζον
περὶ τοῦ Χερόνησον ἔχειν ἀσφαλῶς ὑμᾶς καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθέντας, 5
ὁμοίον τῷ παρ’ Εὐριπίδῃ τῷδε
βασιλεῦ χώρας τῆς πολυβώλου
Κισσεῦ, πεδίον πυρὶ μαρμαίρει.
καὶ τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο πάλιν κείμενον τοῦ αὐτοῦ κώλου μέρος 10
τουτί “#ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς#” ἰαμβικὸν τρίμετρόν
ἐστι ποδὶ καὶ ἡμίσει λειπόμενον· ἐγένετο δ’ ἂν τέλειον οὕτως
ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς ἐν μέρει.
ταῦτ’ ἔτι φῶμεν αὐτοσχέδια εἶναι καὶ ἀνεπιτήδευτα, οὕτω
ποικίλα καὶ πολλὰ ὄντα; ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ ἀξιῶ· καὶ γὰρ τὰ 15
ἑξῆς τούτοις ὅμοια εὑρεῖν ἔστι, πολλῶν καὶ παντοδαπῶν
ἀνάμεστα μέτρων τε καὶ ῥυθμῶν.
ἀλλ’ ἵνα μὴ τοῦτον ὑπολάβῃ τις μόνον οὕτως αὐτῷ
κατεσκευάσθαι τὸν λόγον, ἑτέρου πάλιν ἅψομαι τοῦ πάνυ
ἡρμηνεῦσθαι δαιμονίως δοκοῦντος, τοῦ ὑπὲρ Κτησιφῶντος, ὃν 20
ἐγὼ κράτιστον ἀποφαίνομαι πάντων λόγων· ὁρῶ δὴ κἀν
τούτῳ μετὰ τὴν προσαγόρευσιν τῶν Ἀθηναίων εὐθέως τὸν
κρητικὸν ῥυθμόν, εἴτε ἄρα παιᾶνά τις αὐτὸν βούλεται καλεῖν
(διοίσει γὰρ οὐδέν), τὸν ἐκ πέντε συγκείμενον χρόνων, οὐκ
αὐτοσχεδίως μὰ Δία ἀλλ’ ὡς οἷόν τε μάλιστα ἐπιτετηδευμένως 25
δι’ ὅλου τοῦ κώλου πλεκόμενον τούτου
#τοῖς θεοῖς εὔχομαι πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις.#
οὐ τοιοῦτος μέντοι κἀκεῖνός ἐστιν ὁ ῥυθμός
4 διασωῖζον P 5 χερόνησον P: χερρόνησον MV 7 τῷδε Us.: τῶι P, M: ὦ
V 8 βασιλεῦ MV: βασιλεῖ P 9 πεδίον MV: παιδι(ον) P 10 μέρος om.
P 11 τρίμετρον MV: μέτρον P 12 λειπόμενον Us.: λεῖπον libri 14
ταῦτ’ ἔτι Us.: ταῦτα τί PMV: ταυτὶ s 15 καὶ πολλὰ om. P 17 ἀνάμεστα
MV: ἀναλύεσθαι P 18 οὕτως αὐτῷ Us.: οὕτω MV: αὐτ(ω) P 23 βούλεται
αὐτὸν PV 26 τούτου Us.: τοῦτον libri
5. Here, again, is a serious metrical difficulty. We can hardly
believe that Dionysius scanned ἀσφαλῶς (or βεβαίως) as an anapaest:
it is more likely that he regarded the middle syllable of ἀσφαλῶς as
slurred (compare note on =258= 8 _supra_, and also the reading λιποῦσ’
ἀνδρότητα καὶ ἥβην in _Il._ xvi. 857).—If (against the manuscripts) we
should omit ἀσφαλῶς and read περὶ τοῦ τὴν Χερρόννησον ἔχειν ὑμᾶς καὶ μὴ
παρακρουσθέντας, the metre would be comparatively normal.
12. A comparison of this line with =256= 9 seems to confirm the
conjecture =λειπόμενον=, though λείπω is sometimes intransitive.
13. A rude iambic trimeter of the colloquial kind: cp. =258= 26 _supra_.
26. The metrical analysis of the following passage of Demosthenes
should be compared and contrasted with its previous division into
feet—on =182= 17 ff.
27. A rough metrical equivalent in English might be: ‘Hear me, each god
on high, hear me, each goddess.’ Cp. Quintil. ix. 4. 63 (as quoted on
=114= 20 _supra_).—Demosthenes’ much-admired exordium in the _Crown_
may be compared with the Homeric invocation—
κέκλυτέ μευ πάντες τε θεοί, πᾶσαί τε θέαιναι.
[Page 261]
an intermediate excrescence by means of which the metre is obscured
and vanishes from sight. The clause placed next to this is composed
of anapaestic feet, and extends to eight feet, still keeping the same
form:—
πρὸ τοῦ Χερόνησον ἔχειν ἀσφαλῶς ὑμᾶς καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθέντας,
like to this in Euripides—
O King of the country with harvests teeming,
O Cisseus, the plain with a fire is gleaming.[189]
And the part of the same clause which comes next to it—ἀποστερηθῆναι
πάλιν αὐτῆς—is an iambic trimeter short of a foot and a half. It would
have been complete in this form—
ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς ἐν μέρει.
Are we to say that these effects too are spontaneous and unstudied,
many and various as they are? I cannot think so; for it is easy to see
that the clauses which follow are similarly full of many metres and
rhythms of all kinds.
But lest it be thought that he has constructed this speech alone in
this way, I will touch on another where the style is admitted to show
astonishing genius, that on behalf of Ctesiphon, which I pronounce to
be the finest of all speeches. In this, too, immediately after the
address to the Athenians, I notice that the cretic foot, or the _paeon_
if you like to call it so (for it will make no difference),—the one
which consists of five time-units,—is interwoven, not fortuitously
(save the mark!) but with the utmost deliberation right through the
clause—
τοῖς θεοῖς εὔχομαι πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις.[190]
Is not the following rhythm of the same kind—
[Page 262]
Κρησίοις ἐν ῥυθμοῖς παῖδα μέλψωμεν;
ἐμοὶ γοῦν δοκεῖ· ἔξω γὰρ τοῦ τελευταίου ποδὸς τά γε ἄλλα
παντάπασιν ἴσα. ἔστω καὶ τοῦτο, εἰ βούλεταί τις, αὐτοσχέδιον·
ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ συναπτόμενον τούτῳ κῶλον ἰαμβεῖόν
ἐστιν ὀρθόν, συλλαβῇ τοῦ τελείου δέον, ἵνα δὴ κἀνταῦθα 5
ἄσημον γένηται τὸ μέτρον, ἐπεὶ μιᾶς γε συλλαβῆς προστεθείσης
τέλειον ἔσται
“#ὅσην εὔνοιαν ἔχων ἐγὼ διατελῶ.#”
κἄπειτα ὁ παιὰν ἢ ὁ κρητικὸς ἐκεῖνος ὁ πεντάχρονος ἥξει
ῥυθμὸς ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς τούτοις “#τῇ πόλει καὶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν 10
τοσαύτην ὑπάρξαι μοι παρ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τουτονὶ τὸν
ἀγῶνα#.” τοῦτο γοῦν ἔοικεν, ὅ τι μὴ κατακλωμένους ἔχει
δύο πόδας ἐν ἀρχαῖς, κατὰ γοῦν τὰ ἄλλα πάντα τῷ παρὰ
Βακχυλίδῃ
οὐχ ἕδρας ἔργον οὐδ’ ἀμβολᾶς, 15
ἀλλὰ χρυσαίγιδος Ἰτωνίας
χρὴ παρ’ εὐδαίδαλον ναὸν ἐλ-
θόντας ἁβρόν τι δεῖξαι.
ὑφορῶμαί τινα πρὸς ταῦτα καταδρομὴν ἀνθρώπων τῆς
μὲν ἐγκυκλίου παιδείας ἀπείρων, τὸ δὲ ἀγοραῖον τῆς ῥητορικῆς 20
μέρος ὁδοῦ τε καὶ τέχνης χωρὶς ἐπιτηδευόντων, πρὸς οὓς
ἀναγκαῖον ἀπολογήσασθαι, μὴ δόξωμεν ἔρημον ἀφεικέναι τὸν
ἀγῶνα. ἐροῦσι δὴ ταῦτα· ὁ Δημοσθένης οὖν οὕτως ἄθλιος
3 παντάπασιν Us.: ἐν ἁπάση PM: ἐν πᾶσιν V || ἴσα ἔστω· PM: ἴσα ὥρισται
V 4 ἀλλὰ] μάλα P || ἰαμβι(ον) P: ἰαμβικὸν MV 10 τῇ τε πόλει
Demosth. 11 ὑπάρξαί μοι P 12 κατ(α)κλ(ω)μεν(ως) P: κατακλώμενος M:
κατακεκλωμένους V: κατακεκλασμένους Sylburgius 13 τῷ V: τὸ PM 15
ἀμβολας P: ἀμβολὰς V 22 ἀναγκαίωνον P: ἀναγκαῖόν μοι M || δόξομ(εν) P
|| ἀφεικέναι MV: ἀφηκέναι P
1. =ῥυθμοῖς=: with the first syllable short, as (e.g.) in Aristoph.
Nub. 638. As already pointed out, the _lengthening_ of such syllables
would be abnormal in prose. Cp. _mediocriter_ in the passage of Cicero
on p. 251 _supra_.
7. Dionysius can surely only mean that we have here the _materials_,
so to say, for an iambic line, and that but one additional syllable is
needed (e.g. the substitution of διατελέω for διατελῶ). He can hardly
have intended to retain εὔνοιαν in its present position, but must
have had in mind some such order as ὅσην ἔχων εὔνοιαν. His language,
however, has subjected him to grave suspicion, and Usener reads ἔγωγε
in place of ἐγώ, remarking that “Dionysius numerorum in verbo εὔνοιαν
vitium non sensit.” This particular insensibility of Dionysius does
not seem borne out by =182= 22 _supra_ (see note _ad loc._), where the
last, but not the first, syllable of εὔνοιαν is represented as doubtful.
12. Here, too, there are metrical difficulties. The close
correspondence of which Dionysius speaks is not obvious; and, in
particular, the reference of ἐν ἀρχαῖς is far from clear. According to
Usener, “Dionysius pedes τῇ πόλει καὶ et (τοσαύ)την ὑπάρξαι dicit.”
Perhaps the ἀρχαί rather are: (1) τῇ [τε] πόλει (if the τε be added, in
l. 10, from Demosthenes), and (2) [καὶ] πᾶσιν ὑμ-.
14. See Long. _de Sublim._ xxxiii. 3 for an estimate of =Bacchylides’=
poetry which has been confirmed by the general character of the newly
discovered poems (first published by Kenyon in 1897).
15. The prose translation of this hyporcheme, as given in Jebb’s
edition (p. 416), is: “This is no time for sitting still or tarrying:
we must go to the richly-wrought temple of Itona [viz. Athena Itonia]
with golden aegis, and show forth some choice strain of song”: δεῖξαι
<μέλος>. Jebb’s notes (pp. 415, 416 _ibid._) may be consulted.
19. =καταδρομήν=, ‘vehement attack,’ ‘invective.’ Used in this sense by
Aeschines and Polybius, as well as by Dionysius (e.g. _de Thucyd._ c.
3 ἔστι δὴ τὸ βούλημά μου τῆς πραγματείας οὐ καταδρομὴ τῆς Θουκυδίδου
προαιρέσεώς τε καὶ δυνάμεως). Cp. the verb κατατρέχειν, and D.H. p.
194; and our own use of ‘run down.’
22. =ἔρημον=: cp. _de Antiqq. Rom._ iv. 4 ἐὰν δὲ ἐρήμους ἀφῶσιν (τὰς
κρίσεις), and iv. 11 _ibid._ τάς τε δίκας ἐρήμους ἐκλιπόντας.
23. With this and the following pages should be compared the later
version found in the _de Demosth._ cc. 51, 52. There ἄθλιος (which in
itself as a good prose word, used frequently by Demosthenes himself as
well as by Dionysius =94= 11 _supra_) is represented by κακοδαίμων.
The Philistine critics of Dionysius’ day, and indeed of that of
Demosthenes, regarded the capacity for taking pains as anything but a
necessary adjunct of genius: cp. Plut. _Vit. Demosth._ c. 8 ἐκ τούτου
δόξαν ἔσχεν ὡς οὐκ εὐφυὴς ὤν, ἀλλ’ ἐκ πόνου συγκειμένῃ δεινότητι καὶ
δυνάμει χρώμενος. ἐδόκει δὲ τούτου σημεῖον εἶναι μέγα τὸ μὴ ῥᾳδίως
ἀκοῦσαί τινα Δημοσθένους ἐπὶ καιροῦ λέγοντος, ἀλλὰ καθήμενον ἐν
ἐκκλησίᾳ πολλάκις τοῦ δήμου καλοῦντος ὀνομαστὶ μὴ παρελθεῖν, εἰ μὴ
τύχοι πεφροντικὼς καὶ παρεσκευασμένος. εἰς τοῦτο δ’ ἄλλοι τε πολλοὶ τῶν
δημαγωγῶν ἐχλεύαζον αὐτὸν καὶ Πυθέας ἐπισκώπτων ἐλλυχνίων ἔφησεν ὄζειν
αὐτοῦ τὰ ἐνθυμήματα. The really artistic Athens had, as Dionysius so
forcibly indicates in this passage, always considered as a crime not
preparation, but the want of preparation.
[Page 263]
Cretan strains practising, Zeus’s son sing we[191]?
In my judgment, at all events, it is; for with the exception of the
final foot there is complete correspondence. But suppose this too, if
you will have it so, to be accidental. Well, the adjacent clause is a
correct iambic line, falling one syllable short of completion, with
the object (here again) of obscuring the metre. With the addition of a
single syllable the line will be complete—
ὅσην εὔνοιαν ἔχων ἐγὼ διατελῶ.
Further, that paeon or cretic rhythm of five beats will appear in the
words which follow: τῇ πόλει καὶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν τοσαύτην ὑπάρξαι μοι παρ’
ὑμῶν εἰς τουτονὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα. This, except that it has two broken feet at
the beginnings, resembles in all respects the passage in Bacchylides:—
This is no time to sit still nor wait:
Unto yon carven shrine let us go,
Even gold-aegis’d Queen Pallas’ shrine,
And the rich vesture there show.[192]
I have a presentiment that an onslaught will be made on these
statements by people who are destitute of general culture and practise
the mechanical parts of rhetoric unmethodically and unscientifically.
Against these I am bound to defend my position, lest I should seem to
let the case go by default. Their argument will doubtless be: “Was
Demosthenes, then, so poor a creature
[Page 264]
ἦν, ὥσθ’, ὅτε γράφοι τοὺς λόγους, μέτρα καὶ ῥυθμοὺς ὥσπερ
οἱ πλάσται παρατιθέμενος, ἐναρμόττειν ἐπειρᾶτο τούτοις τοῖς
τύποις τὰ κῶλα, στρέφων ἄνω καὶ κάτω τὰ ὀνόματα, καὶ
παραφυλάττων τὰ μήκη καὶ τοὺς χρόνους, καὶ τὰς πτώσεις
τῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ τὰς ἐγκλίσεις τῶν ῥημάτων καὶ πάντα τὰ 5
συμβεβηκότα τοῖς μορίοις τοῦ λόγου πολυπραγμονῶν; ἠλίθιος
μέντἂν εἴη εἰς τοσαύτην σκευωρίαν καὶ φλυαρίαν ὁ τηλικοῦτος
ἀνὴρ ἑαυτὸν διδούς. ταῦτα δὴ καὶ τὰ τούτοις παραπλήσια
κωμῳδοῦντας αὐτοὺς καὶ καταχλευάζοντας οὐ χαλεπῶς ἄν
τις ἀποκρούσαιτο ταῦτα εἰπών· πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄτοπον 10
ἦν, εἰ <ὁ> τοσαύτης δόξης ἠξιωμένος ἀνὴρ ὅσης οὐδεὶς τῶν
πρότερον ὀνομασθέντων ἐπὶ δεινότητι λόγων, ἔργα συνταττόμενος
αἰώνια καὶ διδοὺς ἑαυτὸν ὑπεύθυνον τῷ πάντα βασανίζοντι
φθόνῳ καὶ χρόνῳ ἐβουλήθη μηδὲν εἰκῇ μήτε πρᾶγμα παραλαμβάνειν
μήτ’ ὄνομα, πολλὴν δ’ ἀμφοῖν ἔχειν τούτων 15
πρόνοιαν τῆς τε ἐν τοῖς νοήμασιν οἰκονομίας καὶ τῆς εὐμορφίας
τῆς περὶ τὰ ὀνόματα, ἄλλως τε καὶ τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων οὐ
γραπτοῖς ἀλλὰ γλυπτοῖς καὶ τορευτοῖς ἐοικότας ἐκφερόντων
λόγους, λέγω δὲ Ἰσοκράτους καὶ Πλάτωνος τῶν σοφιστῶν·
ὁ μὲν γὰρ τὸν πανηγυρικὸν λόγον, ὡς οἱ τὸν ἐλάχιστον 20
χρόνον γράφοντες ἀποφαίνουσιν, ἐν ἔτεσι δέκα συνετάξατο, ὁ
δὲ Πλάτων τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ διαλόγους κτενίζων καὶ βοστρυχίζων
καὶ πάντα τρόπον ἀναπλέκων οὐ διέλειπεν ὀγδοήκοντα
γεγονὼς ἔτη· πᾶσι γὰρ δήπου τοῖς φιλολόγοις γνώριμα τὰ
περὶ τῆς φιλοπονίας τἀνδρὸς ἱστορούμενα τά τε ἄλλα καὶ 25
δὴ καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν δέλτον, ἣν τελευτήσαντος αὐτοῦ λέγουσιν
1 ὥσθ’] ὥστ’ ἔστιν M || ὅτε compendio P: ὅταν MV || γράφη MV 4 τὰ
μήκη ... ὀνομάτων om. P 8 διδουσα· P 10 ᾱ μὲν P 11 ὁ inseruit
Sadaeus (coll. commentario de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 51) 13
διδοῦσ(ιν) P || ἑαυτὸν EM: αὐτὸν PV 14 φθόνω καὶ χρόνω PMV: χρόνῳ
E || ἠβουλήθη E: om. PMV || εἰκῆι P 20 μὲν γὰρ MV: μέν γε EP 21
ἀποφαίνουσιν, ἐν MV: om. EP || συνετάξαντο V 23 διέλειπεν PM:
διέλιπεν EV 24 γνώριμα PV: γνώρισμα E: γνωρίσματα M
4. =τὰ μήκη=: we cannot (for example) imagine Thucydides as anxiously
counting the long syllables that find a place in his striking dictum
οὕτως ἀταλαίπωρος τοῖς πολλοῖς ἡ ζήτησις τῆς ἀληθείας (i. 20). But
they are there, all the same, and add greatly to the dignity of the
utterance.
6. =ἠλίθιος=: a slight word-play on ἄθλιος in =262= 23 _supra_ may be
intended.
14. =φθόνῳ καὶ χρόνῳ=: the word-play might be represented in English
by some such rendering as “submitting himself to the revision of those
scrutineers of all immortality, the tooth of envy and the tooth of
time,” or (simply) “envious tongues and envious time.” To such jingles
Dionysius shows himself partial in the _C.V._ (cp. note on =64= 11
_supra_). It may be that, in his essay on Demosthenes, he omits the
words φθόνῳ καί deliberately and on the grounds of taste; but the later
version differs so greatly from the earlier that not much significance
can be attached to slight variations of this kind.
18. =γραπτοῖς=, ‘mere mechanical writing,’ ‘scratching,’ ‘scribbling.’
21. For this period of ten years cp. Long. _de Sublim._ iv. 2, and also
Quintil. x. 4. 4. Quintilian writes: “temporis quoque esse debet modus.
nam quod Cinnae Smyrnam novem annis accepimus scriptam, et Panegyricum
Isokratis, qui parcissime, decem annis dicunt elaboratum, ad oratorem
nihil pertinet, cuius nullum erit, si tam tardum fuerit, auxilium.” In
using the words “qui parcissime” Quintilian may have had the present
passage of the _C.V._ in mind.
26. =δέλτον=, ‘tablet’: originally so called because of its delta-like,
or triangular, shape.
[Page 265]
that, whenever he was writing his speeches, he would work in metres
and rhythms after the fashion of clay-modellers, and would try to fit
his clauses into these moulds, shifting the words to and fro, keeping
an anxious eye on his longs and shorts, and fretting himself about
cases of nouns, moods of verbs, and all the accidents of the parts of
speech? So great a man would be a fool indeed were he to stoop to all
this niggling and peddling.” If they scoff and jeer in these or similar
terms, they may easily be countered by the following reply: First,
it is not surprising after all that a man who is held to deserve a
greater reputation than any of his predecessors who were distinguished
for eloquence was anxious, when composing eternal works and submitting
himself to the scrutiny of all-testing envy and time, not to admit
either subject or word at random, and to attend carefully to both
arrangement of ideas and beauty of words: particularly as the authors
of that day were producing discourses which suggested not writing but
carving and chasing—those, I mean, of the sophists Isocrates and Plato.
For the former spent ten years over the composition of his _Panegyric_,
according to the lowest recorded estimate of the time; while Plato did
not cease, when eighty years old, to comb and curl his dialogues and
reshape them in every way. Surely every scholar is acquainted with the
stories of Plato’s passion for taking pains, especially that of the
tablet which they say was found after his
[Page 266]
εὑρεθῆναι ποικίλως μετακειμένην τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς Πολιτείας
ἔχουσαν τήνδε “Κατέβην χθὲς εἰς Πειραιᾶ μετὰ Γλαύκωνος
τοῦ Ἀρίστωνος.” τί οὖν ἦν ἄτοπον, εἰ καὶ Δημοσθένει
φροντὶς εὐφωνίας τε καὶ ἐμμελείας ἐγένετο καὶ τοῦ μηδὲν
εἰκῇ καὶ ἀβασανίστως τιθέναι μήτε ὄνομα μήτε νόημα; πολύ 5
τε γὰρ μᾶλλον ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ προσήκειν ἀνδρὶ κατασκευάζοντι
λόγους πολιτικοὺς μνημεῖα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεως αἰώνια μηδενὸς
τῶν ἐλαχίστων ὀλιγωρεῖν, ἢ ζῳγράφων τε καὶ τορευτῶν
παισὶν ἐν ὕλῃ φθαρτῇ χειρῶν εὐστοχίας καὶ πόνους ἀποδεικνυμένοις
περὶ τὰ φλέβια καὶ τὰ πτίλα καὶ τὸν χνοῦν καὶ 10
τὰς τοιαύτας μικρολογίας κατατρίβειν τῆς τέχνης τὴν ἀκρίβειαν.
τούτοις τε δὴ τοῖς λόγοις χρώμενος δοκεῖ μοί τις ἂν οὐδὲν
ἔξω τοῦ εἰκότος ἀξιοῦν καὶ ἔτι ἐκεῖνα εἰπών, ὅτι μειράκιον
μὲν ὄντα καὶ νεωστὶ τοῦ μαθήματος ἁπτόμενον αὐτὸν οὐκ
ἄλογον πάντα περισκοπεῖν, ὅσα δυνατὰ ἦν εἰς ἐπιτήδευσιν 15
3 Ἀρίστωνος] κεφάλου P 4 εὐμελείας M^1 5 εἰκῆι P || νόημα
Schaeferus (dittographiam suspicatus et coll. =264= 16, =66= 5): μήτ’
(μήτε V) ἐννόημα MV: om. P 9 ἀποδεικνομένοις Us.: ὑποδεικνυμένοις
libri 10 φλέβια PMV: φλεβία E 12 τούτοις τε PM: τούτοις V || τις ἂν
PM: τις V
2. Demetrius (_de Eloc._ § 21) calls attention to the studied ease
and intentional laxity of the opening period of the _Republic_: “The
period of dialogue is one which remains lax, and is also simpler than
the historical. It scarcely betrays the fact that it is a period. For
instance: ‘I went down to the Piraeus,’ as far as the words ‘since
they were now celebrating it for the first time.’ Here the clauses are
flung one upon the other as in the disjointed style, and when we reach
the end we hardly realize that the words form a period” (see also §
205 _ibid._). In the passage of Dionysius it may well be meant that
the words whose order was changed by Plato were not merely κατέβην
... Ἀρίστωνος, but the sentence, or sentences, which these introduce.
(Usener suggests that P’s reading Κεφάλου points to a longer quotation
than that actually found in existing manuscripts; and Persius’ _Arma
virum_, and Cicero’s _O Tite_, i.e. the _De Senectute_, may be
recalled.) Quintilian, however, seems to think that the first four
words only, or chiefly, are meant: though the possible permutations of
these are few and would hardly need to be written down. He says (_Inst.
Or._ viii. 6. 64): “nec aliud potest sermonem facere numerosum quam
opportuna ordinis permutatio; neque alio ceris Platonis inventa sunt
quattuor illa verba, quibus in illo pulcherrimo operum in Piraeeum se
descendisse significat, plurimis modis scripta, quam quod eum quoque
maxime facere experiretur.” Diog. Laert. iii. 37 makes a more general
statement: Εὐφορίων δὲ καὶ Παναίτιος εἰρήκασι πολλάκις ἐστραμμένην
εὑρῆσθαι τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς Πολιτείας. But be the words few or many, the
main point is that trouble of this kind was reckoned an artistic (and
even a patriotic) duty. Upton has stated the case well, in reference to
Cicero’s anxiety to express the words ‘to the Piraeus’ in good Latin:
“Quod si Platonis haec industria quibusdam curiosa nimis et sollicita
videtur, ut quae nec aetati tanti viri, nec officio congruat: quid
Cicero itidem fecerit, quantum latinitatis curam gravissimis etiam
reipublicae negotiis districtus habuerit, in memoriam revocent. is
annum iam agens sexagesimum, inter medios civilium bellorum tumultus,
qui a Caesare Pompeioque excitarentur, cum nesciret, quo mittenda
esset uxor, quo liberi; quem ad locum se reciperet, missis ad Atticum
litteris [_ad Att._ vii. 3], ab eo doceri, an esset scribendum,
_ad Piraeea_, _in Piraeea_, an _in Piraeum_, an _Piraeum sine
praepositione_, impensius rogabat. quae res etsi levior, et grammaticis
propria, patrem eloquentiae temporibus etiam periculosissimis adeo
exercuit, ut haec verba, quae amicum exstimularent, addiderit: _Si hoc
mihi ζήτημα persolveris, magna me molestia liberaris._” Nor was Julius
Caesar less scrupulous in such matters than Cicero himself: their
styles, different as they are, agree in exhibiting the fastidiousness
of literary artists. Compare the modern instances mentioned in Long. p.
33, to which may be added that of Luther as described by Spalding: “non
dubito narrare in Bibliotheca nostrae urbis regia servari chirographum
Martini Lutheri, herois nostri, in quo exstat initium versionis
Psalmorum mirifice et ipsum immutatum et subterlitum, ad conciliandos
orationi, quamquam salutae, numeros.” See also Byron’s _Letters_ (ed.
Prothero) Nos. 247-255 and passim, and Antoine Albalat’s _Le Travail du
style enseigné par les corrections manuscrites des grands écrivains_,
passim.
8. =τῶν ἐλαχίστων=: an interesting addition is made in the _de
Demosth._ c. 51 πολιτικὸς δ’ ἄρα δημιουργός, πάντας ὑπεράρας τοὺς καθ’
αὑτὸν φύσει τε καὶ πόνῳ, τῶν ἐλαχίστων τινὸς εἰς τὸ εὖ λέγειν, #εἰ δὴ
καὶ ταῦτα ἐλάχιστα#, ὠλιγώρησε.
9. ἐνδεικνυμένοις may perhaps be suggested in place of
=ἀποδεικνυμένοις=: cp. _de Demosth._ c. 51 οὐ γὰρ δή τοι πλάσται μὲν
καὶ γραφεῖς ἐν ὕλῃ φθαρτῇ χειρῶν εὐστοχίας ἐνδεικνύμενοι τοσούτους
εἰσφέρονται πόνους, ὥστε κτλ. If, on the other hand, ὑποδεικνυμένοις
be retained, we may perhaps translate ‘pupils who have exercises in
manual dexterity, and studies of veins, etc., given them to copy (cp.
ὑπόδειγμα).’—With χειρῶν εὐστοχίας cp. χερὸς εὐστοχίαν (‘well-aimed
shafts’) in Eurip. _Troad._ 811.
10. =τὸν χνοῦν=: cp. Hor. _Ars P._ 32 “Aemilium circa ludum faber imus
et ungues | exprimet et molles imitabitur aere capillos, | infelix
operis summa, quia ponere totum | nesciet.” χνοῦς is the ‘lanugo
plumea.’ Cp. _de Demosth._ c. 38 χνοῦς ἀρχαιοπινής.
11. =κατατρίβειν= κτλ. = κατατήκειν εἰς ταῦτα τὰς τέχνας, _de Demosth._
c. 51.
15. After =ἄλογον=, ἦν may be inserted with Sauppe, who compares _de
Demosth._ c. 52 ὅτι μειράκιον μὲν ἔτι ὄντα καὶ νεωστὶ τοῦ μαθήματος
ἁπτόμενον αὐτὸν οὐκ ἄλογον ἦν καὶ ταῦτα καὶ τἆλλα πάντα διὰ πολλῆς
ἐπιμελείας τε καὶ φροντίδος ἔχειν. But the verb may have been omitted
in the _C.V._ in order to avoid its repetition with ὅσα δυνατὰ ἦν.
[Page 267]
death, with the beginning of the _Republic_ (“I went down yesterday to
the Piraeus together with Glaucon the son of Ariston”[193]) arranged
in elaborately varying orders. What wonder, then, if Demosthenes also
was careful to secure euphony and melody and to employ no random or
untested word or thought? For it appears to me far more reasonable for
a man who is composing public speeches, eternal memorials of his own
powers, to attend even to the slightest details, than it is for the
disciples of painters and workers in relief, who display the dexterity
and industry of their hands in a perishable medium, to expend the
finished resources of their art on veins and down and bloom and similar
minutiae.
These arguments seem to me to make no unreasonable claim; and we
may further add that though when Demosthenes was a lad, and had but
recently taken up the study of rhetoric, he naturally had to ask
himself consciously what the effects attainable
[Page 268]
ἀνθρωπίνην πεσεῖν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἡ χρόνιος ἄσκησις ἰσχὺν
πολλὴν λαβοῦσα τύπους τινὰς ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ παντὸς τοῦ
μελετωμένου καὶ σφραγῖδας ἐνεποίησεν, ἐκ τοῦ ῥᾴστου τε
καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἕξεως αὐτὰ ἤδη ποιεῖν. οἷόν τι γίνεται κἀν
ταῖς ἄλλαις τέχναις, ὧν ἐνέργειά τις ἢ ποίησις τὸ τέλος· 5
αὐτίκα οἱ κιθαρίζειν τε καὶ ψάλλειν καὶ αὐλεῖν ἄκρως εἰδότες
ὅταν κρούσεως ἀκούσωσιν ἀσυνήθους, οὐ πολλὰ πραγματευθέντες
ἀπαριθμοῦσιν αὐτὴν εὐθὺς ἐπὶ τῶν ὀργάνων ἅμα
νοήσει· μανθάνοντες δέ γε χρόνῳ τε πολλῷ καὶ πόνῳ τὰς
δυνάμεις τῶν φθόγγων ἀναλαμβάνουσιν, καὶ οὐκ εὐθὺς αἱ 10
χεῖρες αὐτῶν ἐν ἕξει τοῦ δρᾶν τὰ παραγγελλόμενα ἦσαν, ὀψὲ
δέ ποτε καὶ ὅτε ἡ πολλὴ ἄσκησις αὐταῖς εἰς φύσεως ἰσχὺν
κατέστησε τὸ ἔθος, τότε τῶν ἔργων ἐγένοντο ἐπιτυχεῖς. καὶ
τί δεῖ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων λέγειν; ὃ γὰρ ἅπαντες ἴσμεν, ἀπόχρη
καὶ πᾶσαν αὐτῶν διακόψαι τὴν φλυαρίαν. τί δ’ ἐστὶ τοῦτο; 15
τὰ γράμματα ὅταν παιδευώμεθα, πρῶτον μὲν τὰ ὀνόματα
αὐτῶν ἐκμανθάνομεν, ἔπειτα τοὺς τύπους καὶ τὰς δυνάμεις,
εἶθ’ οὕτω τὰς συλλαβὰς καὶ τὰ ἐν ταύταις πάθη, καὶ μετὰ
τοῦτο ἤδη τὰς λέξεις καὶ τὰ συμβεβηκότα αὐταῖς, ἐκτάσεις
τε λέγω καὶ συστολὰς καὶ προσῳδίας καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια 20
τούτοις· ὅταν δὲ τὴν τούτων ἐπιστήμην λάβωμεν, τότε
ἀρχόμεθα γράφειν τε καὶ ἀναγινώσκειν, κατὰ συλλαβὴν
<μὲν> καὶ βραδέως τὸ πρῶτον· ἐπειδὰν δὲ ὁ χρόνος ἀξιόλογος
προσελθὼν τύπους ἰσχυροὺς αὐτῶν ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς
ἡμῶν ἐμποιήσῃ, τότε ἀπὸ τοῦ ῥᾴστου δρῶμεν αὐτὰ καὶ πᾶν 25
ὅ τι ἂν ἐπιδῷ τις βιβλίον ἀπταίστως διερχόμεθα ἕξει τε
καὶ τάχει ἀπίστῳ. τοιοῦτο δὴ καὶ περὶ τὴν σύνθεσιν τῶν
ὀνομάτων καὶ περὶ τὴν εὐέπειαν τῶν κώλων ὑποληπτέον
γίνεσθαι παρὰ τοῖς ἀθληταῖς τοῦ ἔργου. τοὺς δὲ τούτου
1 πεσεῖν EP: ἐλθεῖν MV 3 σφαγίδας P: σφραγίδας V 4 ᾔδει ποιεῖν E 8
ἅμα Us.: ἀλλὰ PMV^1: ἀλλὰ καὶ V^2 21 δὲ EM: τε PV 23 μὲν inseruit
Sadaeus coll. comment. de Demosth. c. 52 || ἐπειδὰν E: ἐπεὶ PV: ἔπειτα
M 25 ποιήση EM^1: ποιήσει PM^2V 27 τοιοῦτο EM: τοιούτω P: τοιοῦτον
V 29 τοὺς ... ἀπείρους E: τοῖς ... ἀπείροις PMV
3. =ἐκ τοῦ ῥᾴστου=: cp. ἀπὸ τοῦ ῥᾴστου l. 25 _infra_.
5. Dionysius is thinking of Aristot. _Eth. Nic._ i. 1 διαφορὰ δέ τις
φαίνεται τῶν τελῶν· τὰ μὲν γάρ εἰσιν ἐνέργειαι, τὰ δὲ παρ’ αὐτὰς ἔργα
τινά. ὧν δ’ εἰσὶ τέλη τινὰ παρὰ τὰς πράξεις, ἐν τούτοις βελτίω πέφυκε
τῶν ἐνεργείων τὰ ἔργα.
8. If ἀλλὰ νοήσει be retained, the meaning will be ‘not with much
trouble, but by means of their acquired skill.’ But =ἅμα νοήσει=
derives support from the parallel passages in _de Demosth._ c. 52 ἅμα
νοήσει [νοήσει Sylburg, for the manuscript reading νοήσεις] and ὥστε
ἅμα νοήσει κεκριμένον τε καὶ ἄπταιστον αὐτῆς εἶναι τὸ ἔργον.
16. Referring to this description in the _Cambridge Companion to
Greek Studies_ p. 507, the late Dr. A. S. Wilkins remarks: “Some have
supposed that Dionysius here describes the method of acquiring the
power of reading, not by learning the names of the letters first, but
by learning their powers, so combining them at once into syllables.
But this is hardly consistent with his language, and is directly
contradicted by a passage in Athenaeus, which tells how there was
a kind of chant used in schools:—βῆτα ἄλφα βα, βῆτα εἶ βε, etc. A
terracotta plate found in Attica, doubtless intended for use in
schools, contains a number of syllables αρ βαρ γαρ δαρ ερ βερ γερ δερ
κτλ.”
26. =ἀπταίστως=: Usener reads ἀπταίστῳ. But the adverb goes better with
διερχόμεθα than the adjective would with ἕξει τε καὶ τάχει. Cp. _de
Demosth._ c. 51 (the later version of the present passage) ἀπταίστως τε
καὶ κατὰ πολλὴν εὐπέτειαν, and Plato _Theaet._ 144 B ὁ δὲ οὕτω λείως
τε καὶ ἀπταίστως καὶ ἀνυσίμως ἔρχεται ἐπὶ τὰς μαθήσεις τε καὶ ζητήσεις
μετὰ πολλῆς πρᾳότητος, οἷον ἐλαίου ῥεῦμα ἀψοφητὶ ῥέοντος (these last
words are echoed in the _de Demosth._ c. 20).
29. =ἀθληταῖς=: cp. _de Demosth._ c. 18 καίτοι γε τοῖς ἀθληταῖς τῆς
ἀληθινῆς λέξεως ἰσχυρὰς τὰς ἁφὰς προσεῖναι δεῖ καὶ ἀφύκτους τὰς λαβάς,
and _de Isocr._ c. 11 fin.; also δεινοὺς ἀγωνιστάς =282= 3 _infra_.
[Page 269]
by human skill were, yet when long training had issued in perfect
mastery, and had graven on his mind forms and impressions of all
that he had practised, he henceforth produced his effects with the
utmost ease from sheer force of habit. Something similar occurs in
the other arts whose end is activity or production. For example, when
accomplished players on the lyre, the harp, or the flute hear an
unfamiliar tune, they no sooner grasp it than with little trouble they
run over it on the instrument themselves. They have mastered the values
of the notes after much toiling and moiling, and so can reproduce them.
Their hands were not at the outset in condition to do what was bidden
them; they attained command of this accomplishment only after much
time, when ample training had converted custom into second nature.
Why pursue the subject? A fact familiar to all of us is enough to
silence these quibblers. What may this be? When we are taught to read,
first we learn off the names of the letters, then their forms and their
values, then in due course syllables and their modifications, and
finally words and their properties, viz. lengthenings and shortenings,
accents, and the like. After acquiring the knowledge of these things,
we begin to write and read, syllable by syllable and slowly at first.
And when the lapse of a considerable time has implanted the forms of
words firmly in our minds, then we deal with them without the least
difficulty, and whenever any book is placed in our hands we go through
it without stumbling, and with incredible facility and speed. We must
suppose that something of this kind happens in the case of the trained
exponent of the literary profession as regards the arrangement of words
and the euphony of clauses. And it is not unnatural that those who
[Page 270]
ἀπείρους ἢ ἀτριβεῖς ἔργου ὁτουοῦν θαυμάζειν καὶ ἀπιστεῖν,
εἴ τι κεκρατημένως ὑφ’ ἑτέρου γίνεται διὰ τέχνης, οὐκ ἄλογον.
πρὸς μὲν οὖν τοὺς εἰωθότας χλευάζειν τὰ παραγγέλματα τῶν
τεχνῶν ταῦτα εἰρήσθω.
XXVI
περὶ δὲ τῆς ἐμμελοῦς τε καὶ ἐμμέτρου συνθέσεως τῆς 5
ἐχούσης πολλὴν ὁμοιότητα πρὸς τὴν πεζὴν λέξιν τοιαῦτά
τινα λέγειν ἔχω, ὡς πρώτη μέν ἐστιν αἰτία κἀνταῦθα τὸν
αὐτὸν τρόπον ὅνπερ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀμέτρου ποιητικῆς ἡ τῶν ὀνομάτων
αὐτῶν ἁρμογή, δευτέρα δὲ ἡ τῶν κώλων σύνθεσις, τρίτη
δὲ ἡ τῶν περιόδων συμμετρία. τὸν δὴ βουλόμενον ἐν τούτῳ 10
τῷ μέρει κατορθοῦν τὰ τῆς λέξεως μόρια δεῖ πολυειδῶς στρέφειν
τε καὶ συναρμόττειν καὶ τὰ κῶλα ἐν διαστήμασι ποιεῖν
συμμέτρως, μὴ συναπαρτίζοντα τοῖς στίχοις ἀλλὰ διατέμνοντα
τὸ μέτρον, ἄνισά τε ποιεῖν αὐτὰ καὶ ἀνόμοια, πολλάκις δὲ
καὶ εἰς κόμματα συνάγειν βραχύτερα κώλων, τάς τε περιόδους 15
μήτε ἰσομεγέθεις μήτε ὁμοιοσχήμονας τὰς γοῦν παρακειμένας
ἀλλήλαις ἐργάζεσθαι· ἔγγιστα γὰρ φαίνεται λόγοις
τὸ περὶ τοὺς ῥυθμοὺς καὶ τὰ μέτρα πεπλανημένον. τοῖς μὲν
οὖν τὰ ἔπη καὶ τοὺς ἰάμβους καὶ τὰ ἄλλα τὰ ὁμοειδῆ μέτρα
κατασκευάζουσιν οὐκ ἔξεστι πολλοῖς διαλαμβάνειν μέτροις ἢ 20
ῥυθμοῖς τὰς ποιήσεις, ἀλλ’ ἀνάγκη μένειν ἀεὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ
σχήματος· τοῖς δὲ μελοποιοῖς ἔξεστι πολλὰ μέτρα καὶ
ῥυθμοὺς εἰς μίαν ἐμβαλεῖν περίοδον· ὥσθ’ οἱ μὲν τὰ μονόμετρα
1 ἀτριβεῖς Reiskius: ἀτριβέσιν libri 2 κεκρατημένως PM: κεκροτημένως
V 5 συνθήκης M 10 συμμετρία M: ἐμμετρία EPV 17 ἀλλήλαις EM:
ἀλλήλοις PV
2. =κεκρατημένως=, ‘vigorously’: cp. Sext. Empir. p. 554 (Bekker)
οὐ κεκρατημένως ὑπέγραψαν οἱ δογματικοὶ τὴν ἐπίνοιαν τοῦ τε ἀγαθοῦ
καὶ κακοῦ. The other reading κεκροτημένως would mean ‘with tumult of
applause’; or perhaps ‘in a welded, well-wrought way.’
5. For the relation of Verse to Prose see Introduction, pp. 33-9.
8. Other references to poetical prose occur in =208= 5, =250= 10, 16
_supra_.
13. =μὴ συναπαρτίζοντα τοῖς στίχοις=, ‘not allowing the sense of
the clauses to be self-contained in separate lines,’ lit. ‘not
completing the clauses together with the lines.’ Dionysius means that
verse-writers must (for the sake of variety) practise _enjambement_,
i.e. the completion of the sense in another line. It is the neglect
of this principle that makes the language of French classical tragedy
[with exceptions, of course; e.g. Racine _Athalie_ i. 1 “Celui qui met
un frein,” etc.] so monotonous when compared with that of the Greek
or Shakespearian tragedy. Besides the examples adduced by Dionysius,
compare that quoted from Callimachus in the note on =272= 4 _infra_
and, in English, Tennyson’s _Dora_ and Wordsworth’s _Michael_. Such
English poems without rhyme might be written out as continuous prose,
and their true character would pass unsuspected by many readers, pauses
at the ends of lines being often studiously avoided; e.g. the opening
of Tennyson’s _Dora_: “With farmer Allen at the farm abode William
and Dora. William was his son, and she his niece. He often look’d at
them, and often thought, ‘I’ll make them man and wife.’ Now Dora felt
her uncle’s will in all, and yearn’d toward William; but the youth,
because he had been always with her in the house, thought not of Dora.”
Similarly Homer’s “ἀλλά μ’ ἀνήρπαξαν Τάφιοι ληίστορες ἄνδρες ἀγρόθεν
ἐρχομένην, περάσαν δέ με δεῦρ’ ἀγαγόντες τοῦδ’ ἀνδρὸς πρὸς δώμαθ’· ὁ
δ’ ἄξιον ὦνον ἔδωκε” (_Odyss._ xv. 427-9) might almost be an extract
from a speech of Lysias. Some remarkable examples of _enjambement_ (or
‘overflow’) might also be quoted from Swinburne’s recent poem, _The
Duke of Gandia_.
17. Cp. Cic. _de Orat._ i. 16. 70 “est enim finitimus oratori poëta,
numeris astrictor paulo, verborum autem licentia liberior, multis vero
ornandi generibus socius, ac paene par.”
[Page 271]
are ignorant of this or unversed in any profession whatsoever should
be surprised and incredulous when they hear that anything is executed
with such mastery by another as a result of artistic training. This
may suffice as a rejoinder to those who are accustomed to scoff at the
rules of the rhetorical manuals.