(5) _I went down yesterday to the Piraeus with Glaucon the son of

Ariston, that I might offer up my prayers to the goddess; and also

because I wanted to see in what manner they would celebrate the

festival, which was a new thing. I was delighted with the procession of

the inhabitants; but that of the Thracians was equally, if not more,

beautiful. When we had finished our prayers and viewed the spectacle,

we turned in the direction of the city; and at that instant Polemarchus

the son of Cephalus chanced to catch sight of us from a distance as

we were starting on our way home, and told his servant to run and bid

us wait for him. The servant took hold of me by the cloak behind, and

said: Polemarchus desires you to wait. I turned round, and asked him

where his master was. There he is, said the youth, coming after you, if

you will only wait. Certainly we will, said Glaucon._

B. JOWETT.

(6) _I went down to the Peiraeus yesterday with Glaucon, the son of

Ariston. As this was the first celebration of the festival, I wished to

make my prayers_

[Page 344]

_to the goddess and see the ceremony. I liked the procession of the

residents, but I thought that the Thracian ordered theirs quite as

successfully. We had offered our prayers and finished our sight-seeing,

and were leaving for the city, when from some way off, Polemarchus,

the son of Cephalus, saw that we were starting homewards, and sent his

slave to run after us and bid us wait. The lad caught my cloak from

behind and said: ‘Polemarchus bids you wait.’ I turned round and asked

him where his master was. ‘He is coming behind,’ he said; ‘but will you

please wait?’ ‘Surely we will,’ said Glaucon._

A. D. LINDSAY.

II. OPENING OF DEMOSTHENES’ SPEECH ON THE CROWN

(1) Πρῶτον μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῖς θεοῖς εὔχομαι πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις,

ὅσην εὔνοιαν ἔχων ἐγὼ διατελῶ τῇ τε πόλει καὶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν, τοσαύτην

ὑπάρξαι μοι παρ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τουτονὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα, ἔπειθ’ ὅπερ ἐστὶ μάλισθ’

ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ τῆς ὑμετέρας εὐσεβείας τε καὶ δόξης, τοῦτο παραστῆσαι

τοὺς θεοὺς ὑμῖν, μὴ τὸν ἀντίδικον σύμβουλον ποιήσασθαι περὶ τοῦ πῶς

ἀκούειν ὑμᾶς ἐμοῦ δεῖ (σχέτλιον γὰρ ἂν εἴη τοῦτό γε), ἀλλὰ τοὺς

νόμους καὶ τὸν ὅρκον, ἐν ᾧ πρὸς ἅπασι τοῖς ἄλλοις δικαίοις καὶ τοῦτο

γέγραπται, τὸ ὁμοίως ἀμφοῖν ἀκροάσασθαι. τοῦτο δ’ ἐστὶν οὐ μόνον τὸ μὴ

προκατεγνωκέναι μηδέν, οὐδὲ τὸ τὴν εὔνοιαν ἴσην ἀποδοῦναι, ἀλλὰ τὸ καὶ

τῇ τάξει καὶ τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ, ὡς βεβούληται καὶ προῄρηται τῶν ἀγωνιζομένων

ἕκαστος, οὕτως ἐᾶσαι χρήσασθαι.

(2) _Athéniens, j’adresse d’abord une prière à tous les dieux, à toutes

les déesses. Si j’ai toujours voulu le bien de la république et de vous

tous, fassent ces dieux qu’aujourd’hui, dans cette lutte, je trouve en

vous la même bienveillance! Puissent-ils vous persuader aussi, comme

le veulent votre intérêt, votre religion, votre gloire, que, sur la

manière de m’entendre, ce n’est pas mon adversaire qu’il est juste de

consulter,—ma condition en deviendrait trop dure,—ce sont les lois et

votre serment! Votre serment, où sont écrites ces paroles, pleines

d’équité, comme tout le reste: écouter également les deux parties. Cela

ne veut pas dire seulement: nous n’apporterons aucune prévention, et

nous donnerons à tous deux une faveur égale. Cela veut dire aussi: nous

ne contraindrons personne, ni dans la disposition de ses moyens ni dans

l’ordre de sa défense; quel que soit le plan adopté par celui qui vient

plaider sa cause, nous lui permettrons de le suivre en toute liberté._

RODOLPHE DARESTE.

(3) _Für das Erste, Ihr Männer Athens, flehe ich alle Götter und

Göttinnen an, dass so viel Wohlwollen, als ich jederzeit der Stadt

und Euch allen bewiesen, mir in gleichem Maasse von Euch für den

gegenwärtigen Handel zu Theil werde; dann, dass die Götter Euch das

in den Sinn geben, was Euch und Euerm Gewissen und Ansehn am meisten

ziemt: nicht von dem Gegner Rath zu nehmen, wie Ihr mich anhören

sollt—denn arg wäre das—sondern von den Gesetzen und dem Eide, in

welchem, ausser allen andern Rechten, auch diess verordnet ist: beiden

Parteien auf gleiche Weise Gehör zu geben. Diess heisst aber nicht

bloss, keine Meinung vorher zu fassen; auch nicht, beiden gleiches

Wohlwollen zu schenken; sondern ebenfalls, Jedem der Streitenden_

[Page 345]

_diejenige Anordnung und Vertheidigungsart zu gestatten, die er gut

gefunden und gewählt hat._

FRIEDRICH JACOBS.

(4) _I begin, men of Athens, by praying to every God and Goddess, that

the same goodwill, which I have ever cherished towards the commonwealth

and all of you, may be requited to me on the present trial. I pray

likewise—and this specially concerns yourselves, your religion, and

your honour—that the Gods may put it in your minds, not to take counsel

of my opponent touching the manner in which I am to be heard—that would

indeed be cruel!—but of the laws and of your oath; wherein (besides

the other obligations) it is prescribed that you shall hear both sides

alike. This means, not only that you must pass no pre-condemnation, not

only that you must extend your goodwill equally to both, but also that

you must allow the parties to adopt such order and course of defence as

they severally choose and prefer._

C. R. KENNEDY.

III. CONCLUSION OF DEMOSTHENES’ SPEECH ON THE CROWN

(1) Μὴ δῆτ’, ὦ πάντες θεοί, μηδεὶς ταῦθ’ ὑμῶν ἐπινεύσειεν, ἀλλὰ μάλιστα

μὲν καὶ τούτοις βελτίω τινὰ νοῦν καὶ φρένας ἐνθείητε, εἰ δ’ ἄρ’ ἔχουσιν

ἀνιάτως, τούτους μὲν αὐτοὺς καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἐξώλεις καὶ προώλεις ἐν γῇ

καὶ θαλάττῃ ποιήσατε, ἡμῖν δὲ τοῖς λοιποῖς τὴν ταχίστην ἀπαλλαγὴν τῶν

ἐπηρτημένων φόβων δότε καὶ σωτηρίαν ἀσφαλῆ.

(2) _Dieux puissants! n’écoutez pas ces vœux impies! inspirez plutôt

à ces hommes un autre esprit et des pensées meilleures! Ou, si leur

méchanceté est incurable, frappez-les, exterminez-les sur terre et

sur mer. Pour nous, délivrez-nous au plus tôt des dangers qui nous

menacent, sauvez-nous, protégez-nous à jamais!_

R. DARESTE.

(3) _Möchte doch, o all’ Ihr Götter! keiner von Euch dieses billigen,

sondern Ihr vor allen Dingen auch diesen hier einen bessern Sinn und

besseres Gemüth verleihen; wenn sie aber unheilbar sind, sie allein für

sich dem Verderben überliefern, uns, den Übrigen, aber die schnellste

Befreiung von den obschwebenden Besorgnissen und unerschütterte

Wohlfahrt gewähren._

F. JACOBS.

(4) _Never, Powers of Heaven, may any brow of the Immortals be bent in

approval of that prayer! Rather, if it may be, breathe even into these

men a better mind and heart; but if so it is that to these can come no

healing, then grant that these, and these alone, may perish utterly

and early on land and on the deep: and to us, the remnant, send the

swiftest deliverance from the terrors gathered above our heads, send us

the salvation that stands fast perpetually._

R. C. JEBB.

(5) _Never, ye gods, vouchsafe assent to such a prayer! Rather, if it

may be, inspire even these men with a better mind and heart; but, if

they are indeed past healing, bring them, and them alone, to swift and

utter ruin by_

[Page 346]

_land and sea; and to us who yet remain grant the speediest release

from the terrors that hang over us; grant us a sure salvation!_

S. H. BUTCHER.

IV. NARRATIVE PASSAGE FROM DEMOSTHENES’ SPEECH ON THE CROWN

(§§ 169, 170)

(1) Ἑσπέρα μὲν γὰρ ἦν, ἧκε δ’ ἀγγέλλων τις ὡς τοὺς πρυτάνεις ὡς

Ἐλάτεια κατείληπται. καὶ μετὰ ταῦθ’ οἱ μὲν εὐθὺς ἐξαναστάντες μεταξὺ

δειπνοῦντες τοὺς τ’ ἐκ τῶν σκηνῶν τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν ἐξεῖργον καὶ

τὰ γέρρ’ ἐνεπίμπρασαν, οἱ δὲ τοὺς στρατηγοὺς μετεπέμποντο καὶ τὸν

σαλπιγκτὴν ἐκάλουν· καὶ θορύβου πλήρης ἦν ἡ πόλις. τῇ δ’ ὑστεραίᾳ, ἅμα

τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, οἱ μὲν πρυτάνεις τὴν βουλὴν ἐκάλουν εἰς τὸ βουλευτήριον,

ὑμεῖς δ’ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐπορεύεσθε, καὶ πρὶν ἐκείνην χρηματίσαι καὶ

προβουλεῦσαι πᾶς ὁ δῆμος ἄνω κάθητο. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ὡς ἦλθεν ἡ βουλὴ

καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν οἱ πρυτάνεις τὰ προσηγγελμέν’ ἑαυτοῖς καὶ τὸν ἥκοντα

παρήγαγον κἀκεῖνος εἶπεν, ἠρώτα μὲν ὁ κῆρυξ “τίς ἀγορεύειν βούλεται;”

παρῄει δ’ οὐδείς. πολλάκις δὲ τοῦ κήρυκος ἐρωτῶντος οὐδὲν μᾶλλον

ἀνίστατ’ οὐδείς, ἁπάντων μὲν τῶν στρατηγῶν παρόντων, ἁπάντων δὲ τῶν

ῥητόρων, καλούσης δὲ τῆς κοινῆς τῆς πατρίδος φωνῆς τὸν ἐροῦνθ’ ὑπὲρ

σωτηρίας· ἣν γὰρ ὁ κῆρυξ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους φωνὴν ἀφίησι, ταύτην κοινὴν

τῆς πατρίδος δίκαιον ἡγεῖσθαι.

(2) _C’était le soir. Arrive un homme qui annonce aux prytanes que

l’Élatée est prise. Aussitôt les uns se lèvent de table, chassent les

marchands de la place publique et brûlent leurs tentes; les autres

mandent les stratéges, appellent le trompette; ce n’est que trouble

dans toute la ville. Le lendemain, au point du jour, les prytanes

convoquent le conseil. Vous, de votre côté, vous vous rendez à

l’assemblée, et avant que le conseil eût rien agité, rien résolu, tout

le peuple était rangé à ses places sur la colline. Bientôt après, les

membres du conseil arrivent; les prytanes déclarent la nouvelle, et

font paraître celui qui l’a apportée; cet homme parle lui-même. Le

héraut demande: ‘Qui veut monter à la tribune?’ Personne ne se lève.

Il recommence plusieurs fois. Personne encore. Et tous les stratéges,

tous les orateurs étaient présents; et la patrie, de cette voix qui est

la voix de tous, appelait un citoyen qui parlât pour la sauver; car la

voix du héraut qui se fait entendre, quand les lois l’ordonnent, c’est

la voix de la patrie._

R. DARESTE.

(3) _Es war Abend. Da kam Einer mit der Meldung zu den Prytanen,

dass Elateia eingenommen sey. Hierauf standen diese sogleich von der

Mahlzeit auf, trieben die Leute aus den Buden auf dem Markte fort,

und steckten das Holzwerk davon in Brand; andere schickten nach den

Strategen, und riefen den Trompeter herbei. Die Stadt war in grösster

Bewegung. Am folgenden Morgen, bei Tages Anbruch, riefen die Prytanen

den Senat auf das Stadthaus, Ihr aber begabt Euch in die Versammlung,

und ehe der Senat noch sein Geschäft vollbracht und einen vorläufigen

Beschluss gefasst hatte, sass das ganze Volk schon oben. Und als

hierauf der Senat eintrat, und die Prytanen das, was ihnen gemeldet

worden war, öffentlich bekannt machten, und den_

[Page 347]

_Überbringer der Nachricht vorführten, und auch dieser gesprochen

hatte, fragte der Herold: Wer will sprechen? Niemand aber meldete sich.

Wiewohl nun der Herold seine Frage oft wiederholte, trat darum, doch

Keiner auf, obgleich alle Strategen gegenwärtig waren, und alle Redner

und das Vaterland mit gemeinsamer Stimme einen Sprecher für seine

Rettung aufrief; denn die Stimme, die der Herold dem Gesetze gemäss

ertönen lässt, kann mit allem Rechte für die Stimme des gesammten

Vaterlandes gehalten werden._

F. JACOBS.

(4) _It was evening when a courier came to the presidents of the

assembly with the news that Elateia had been seized. The presidents

instantly rose from table—they were supping at the moment: some of them

hastened to clear the market-place of the shopmen, and to burn the

wickerwork of the booths: others, to send for the generals and order

the sounding of the call to the Assembly. The city was in a tumult. At

dawn next day the presidents convoked the Senate, you hurried to the

Ekklesia, and before the Senate could go through its forms or could

report, the whole people were in assembly on the hill. Then, when the

Senate had come in, when the presidents had reported the news that

they had received, and had introduced the messenger, who told his

tale, the herald repeatedly asked,_ Who wishes to speak? _But no

one came forward. Again and again he put the question—in vain. No one

would rise, though all the generals, though all the public speakers

were present, though our Country was crying aloud, with the voice that

comes home to all, for a champion of the commonwealth—if in the solemn

invitation given by the herald we may truly deem that we hear our

Country’s summons._

R. C. JEBB.

[Page 348]

APPENDIX C

GREEK PRONUNCIATION: SCHEME OF THE CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION

In October 1908 the Classical Association adopted a number of

recommendations made by its Greek Pronunciation Committee, and has

since published them for the use of teachers and others. They are

put forward “not as constituting a complete scientific scheme, but

as approximations which, for teaching purposes, may be regarded as

practicable, and at the same time as a great advance on the present

usage, both for clearness in teaching and for actual likeness to the

ancient sounds.” The period (the early fourth century B.C.) to which

they are intended mainly to apply is one whose literature Dionysius

studied rather than that in which he lived (cp. pages 43-46 above).

But his scattered hints are of great moment in the whole inquiry; and

if they are read with care and with reference to their bearing, not

only on disputed points, but on points which (largely through the

evidence they furnish) are undisputed, it will be seen how much we owe

to them when making any attempt to reconstruct the pronunciation of the

classical period. The principal passages of Dionysius’ text which throw

light upon the question of Greek pronunciation and accentuation will be

found on pages 126-130, 136-150, 218-224, 230 above. The following are

the suggestions made by the Classical Association:—

VOWELS

ᾱ and α, ῑ and ι, ε and ο, η and ω may be pronounced as the

corresponding vowels in Latin, i.e.

ᾱ, as =a= in _f_=a=_ther_,

α, as =a= in =a=_ha_.

ῑ, as =ee= in _f_=ee=_d_.

ι, as =i= in Fr. _p_=i=_quet_, nearly as Eng. =i= in _f_=i=_t_.

ε, as =e= in _fr_=e=_t_.

ο, as =o= in _n_=o=_t_.

η (long _e_), as =e= in Lat. _m_=ē=_ta_, Eng. =a= in _m_=a=_te_.

ω (long _o_), as =o= in Lat. _R_=ō=_ma_, Eng. _h_=o=_me_.

[Page 349]

The pronunciation recommended for η and ω is dictated by practical

considerations. But in any school where the pupils have been accustomed

to distinguish the sounds of French =è= and =é=, the Committee feels

that the open sound (of =è= in _il mène_), which is historically

correct for η, may well be adopted. In the same way there is no doubt

that the pronunciation of ω in the fifth century B.C. was the open

sound of _oa_ in Eng. _broad_, not that of the ordinary English _ō_.

But since the precise degree of openness varied at different epochs,

the Committee, though preferring the open pronunciation, sees no

sufficient reason for excluding the obviously convenient practice of

sounding ω just as Latin _ō_. For both Greek and Latin the diphthongal

character of the English vowels in _m_=a=_te_ and _h_=o=_me_, i.e. the

slight _ĭ_ sound in _mate_ and the slight _ŭ_ sound in _home_, _own_,

is incorrect. But the discrepancy is not one which any but fairly

advanced students need be asked to notice, unless indeed they happen

to be already familiar with the pure vowel sounds of modern Welsh or

Italian.

υ as French =ŭ= in _d_=u= _pain_.

ῡ as French =ū= in _r_=u=_e_ or Germ. =ü= in _gr_=ü=_n_.

In recommending this sound for the Greek υ, the Committee is partly

guided by the fact that its correct production is now widely and

successfully taught in English schools in early stages of instruction

in French and German. But in any school where the sound is strange to

the pupils at the stage at which Greek is begun, if it is felt that

the effort to acquire the sound would involve a serious hindrance to

progress, the Committee can only suggest that, for the time, the υ

should be pronounced as Latin _u_ (short as _oo_ in Eng. _took_, long

as _oo_ in Eng. _loose_), though this obscures the distinction between

words like λύω and λούω.

DIPHTHONGS

αι = α + ι nearly as =ai= in _Is_=ai=_ah_ (broadly pronounced), Fr.

_ém_=ai=_l_.

οι = ο + ι as Eng. =oi= in =oi=_l_.

υι = υ + ι as Fr. =ui= in _l_=ui=.

In ᾳ, ῃ, ῳ the first vowel was long, and the second only faintly heard.

ει. The precise sound of ει is difficult to determine, but in Attic

Greek it was never confused with η till a late period, and to maintain

the distinction clearly it is perhaps best for English students to

pronounce it as Eng. _eye_, though in fact it must have been nearer to

Fr. _ée_ in _passée_, Eng. _ey_ in _grey_. The Greek Ἀλφειός is Latin

_Alphēus_.

αυ = _au_, as Germ. =au= in _H_=au=_s_, nearly as Eng. =ow= in

_g_=ow=_n_.

ευ = _eu_, nearly as Eng. =ew= in _f_=ew=, =u= in _t_=u=_ne_.

ου as Eng. =oo= in _m_=oo=_n_, Fr. =ou= in _r_=ou=_e_.

CONSONANTS

π, β, τ, δ, κ, and γ as _p_, _b_, _t_, _d_, _k_, and _g_ respectively

in Latin; except that γ (before γ, κ, and χ) is used to denote the

nasal sound heard in Eng. _ankle_, _anger_.

ρ, λ, μ, ν as Lat. _r_, _l_, _m_, _n_.

σ, ς always as Lat. =s= (Eng. =s= in _mou_=s=_e_), except before β,

γ and μ, where the sound was as in Eng. _has been_, _has gone_, _has

made_: e.g. ἄσβεστος, φάσγανον, ἑσμός.

ξ as Eng. =x= in _wa_=x=, and ψ as Eng. =ps= in _la_=ps=_e_.

ζ as Eng. =dz= in _a_=dz=_e_, =ds= in _trea_=ds= _on_.

[Page 350]

ASPIRATES

The Committee has carefully considered the pronunciation of the

aspirated consonants in Greek. It is certain that the primitive

pronunciation of χ, θ, φ was as =k.h=, =t.h=, =p.h=, that is as =k=,

=t=, =p= followed by a strong breath, and the Committee is not prepared

to deny that this pronunciation lasted down into the classical period.

Further, there is no doubt that the adoption of this pronunciation

makes much in Greek accidence that is otherwise obscure perfectly

comprehensible. If φαίνω be pronounced π_h_αίνω, it is readily

understood why the reduplicated perfect is πεπ_h_ηνα; but if it be

pronounced _f_αινω, the perfect, pronounced πε_f_ηνα, is anomalous.

The relation of ἀφίστημι and the like to ἵστημι, of φροῦδος to ὁδός,

of θρίξ to τρίχα becomes intelligible when it is seen that θ, φ, and χ

contain a real =h=-sound. This advantage seems to be one of the reasons

why it has been adopted in practice by a certain number of English

teachers.

In the course of time the pronunciation of the aspirates changed by

degrees to that of fricatives, which is now current in most districts

of Greece, φ becoming =f=, θ pronounced as =th=, in English =th=_in_,

and χ acquiring the sound of the German =ch=.[208]

If the later sounds are accepted, no change in the common pronunciation

of θ and φ in England will be required, but it will remain desirable

to distinguish between the sounds of κ and χ, which are at present

confused: ἄκος and ἄχος, καίνω and χαίνω being now pronounced alike.

This may be done by giving χ the sound of =kh=, or of German =ch=, as

in au=ch=. The Committee would, on the whole, recommend the latter

alternative as being more familiar in German, Scotch, and Irish

place-names.[209]

The Committee, though loath to do anything to discourage the primitive

pronunciation of the aspirates, has not been able to satisfy itself

that it would be easy to introduce this pronunciation into schools to

which it is strange; and it is of opinion that it is not advisable

to recommend anything at present that might increase the labour of

the teacher or the student of Greek. It therefore abstains from

recommending any change in the common pronunciation of the aspirates

except in the case of χ.

ACCENTUATION

There is no doubt that in the Classical period of Greek the accented

syllables were marked by a _higher pitch_ or _note_ than the

unaccented, and not by more _stress_, not, that is, with a stronger

current of breath and more muscular effort. Therefore, unless the

student is capable of giving a _musical_ value to the Greek signs of

accent, it is doubtful whether he should

[Page 351]

attempt to represent them in pronunciation; for in many cases we should

make our pronunciation more, not less remote from that of the Greeks

themselves if we gave to their accented syllables the same _stress_ as

we do to the accented syllables in English; for example, in paroxytone

dactyls (κεχρημένος) when the penult is stressed, the quantity of

the long antepenult is apt to be shortened and its metrical value

destroyed.[210] But where there is no conflict between accent and

quantity (ἀγαθός), something may be said for stressing moderately the

accented syllable, and so distinguishing e.g. καλῶς and κάλως, Διός and

δῖος, ταὐτά and ταῦτα.[211]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: _Regarded from this point of view, the Chronological Table

given on page 50 is full of interest._]

[Footnote 2: _Reference may also be made to pages 27-29, 33, 34, 40-55,

74-85, 92-95, 98 ff., 122-127, 134-137, 154-167, 184-193, 200-207,

236-241, 264-281. Especially to be noticed is that warm praise of

simplicity (pp. 76-85, 134-137) which should suffice to prove that

Dionysius is not a ‘rhetorician’ in any invidious sense._]

[Footnote 3: See Glossary, s.v. σύνθεσις.]

[Footnote 4: _de Isocrate_ c. 2, δουλεύει γὰρ ἡ διάνοια πολλάκις τῷ

ῥυθμῷ τῆς λέξεως, καὶ τοῦ κομψοῦ λείπεται τὸ ἀληθινόν ... βούλεται δὲ ἡ

φύσις τοῖς νοήμασιν ἕπεσθαι τὴν λέξιν, οὐ τῇ λέξει τὰ νοήματα.]

[Footnote 5: The Greek word (κεφάλαια, _capita_) corresponding to

‘chapters’ occurs several times in the _C.V._ (see Glossary, s.v.);

and one (περιοχή) of the words corresponding to ‘paragraph’ is found

in the _de Thucyd._ c. 25. The paramount importance and dignity of the

πραγματικὸς τόπος is indicated in the _C.V._ =66= 9-15, and in the _de

Demosth._ c. 58 fin.]

[Footnote 6: Quintilian (_Inst. Or._ ix. 4. 23) applies the term

_naturalis ordo_ to such collocations as _viros ac feminas_, _diem ac

noctem_, _ortum et occasum_. But even here the order, though perhaps

natural, is certainly not necessary.]

[Footnote 7: A good example of the severance of χρόνος from its

_article_ by an adjectival phrase will be found in the _C. V._ itself,

=222= 22: 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=. The convenience of this

articular bracket is obvious.]

[Footnote 8: Cp. ὀρνίθων ... προκαθιζόντων, Hom. _Il._ ii. 459-63.]

[Footnote 9: Attention is called to the elaborate word-order by Mr.

P. N. Ure in his edition of this portion of Thucydides. The extent to

which prepositions can be parted from cases, in post-Homeric as well as

in Homeric Greek, is worth notice as a somewhat different illustration

of the freedom of Greek order. See, for example, the remarks in Liddell

and Scott’s _Lexicon_ on the position of εἰς.]

[Footnote 10: In Caesar _B.G._ ii. 25 more than a hundred words come

between the subject, _Caesar_ and the main verb _processit_.]

[Footnote 11: e.g. ‘A quarrel had arisen between a big and a little boy

about a big and a little coat.’]

[Footnote 12: A good illustration of the freedom of order possible

(at any rate theoretically) in Greek, even within the limits of

verse, is supplied in a letter from Richard Porson to Andrew Dalzel:

“There is a passage of Sophocles three times quoted by Plutarch, and

always in a different order, but so as in the three variations to

remain a senarian. Now the fragment consists of five words, and the

sense is this: ‘(The physicians) wash away bitter bile with bitter

drugs [πικροῖς πικρὰν κλύζουσι φαρμάκοις χολήν].’ The five words,

you know, will admit of one hundred and twenty permutations, and

what is extremely odd, these words will admit twenty transpositions

[which Porson proceeds to indicate], and still constitute a trimeter

iambic.”—Luard’s _Correspondence of Richard Porson_ pp. 91, 92.]

[Footnote 13: Horace _Ars Poetica_ 40,

cui lecta potenter erit res,

nec facundia deseret hunc nec lucidus ordo.

Can the obscure _potenter_ here be a Latin translation of some such

technical term (found by Horace or Neoptolemus in the Greek writers on

literary criticism) as δυνατῶς or δεινῶς or πιθανῶς?]

[Footnote 14: Demetrius, for example, evidently expects to find more

lucidity in the plain style (the ἰσχνὸς χαρακτήρ) of a Lysias than in

the elevated style (μεγαλοπρεπὴς χαρακτήρ) of a Thucydides: see the

summary in _Demetrius on Style_ pp. 33, 34. And a principal reason

for this is that the former keeps more closely than the latter to the

normal order of words in Greek (_de Eloc._ §§ 191 ff.). For Herodotus

as compared with Thucydides cp. _de Imit._ ii. 3. 1 τῆς σαφηνείας δὲ

ἀναμφισβήτως Ἡροδότῳ τὸ κατόρθωμα δέδοται (quoted in the editor’s

_Dionysius of Halicarnassus: the Three Literary Letters_ p. 173).]

[Footnote 15: εὐαρίθμητοι γάρ τινές εἰσιν οἷοι πάντα τὰ Θουκυδίδου

συμβαλεῖν, καὶ οὐδ’ οὗτοι χωρὶς ἐξηγήσεως γραμματικῆς ἔνια, _de

Thucyd._ c. 51.]

[Footnote 16: οὐ γὰρ ἀγοραίοις ἀνθρώποις οὐδ’ ἐπιδιφρίοις ἢ

χειροτέχναις οὐδὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις οἳ μὴ μετέσχον ἀγωγῆς ἐλευθερίου ταύτας

κατασκευάζεσθαι τὰς γραφάς, ἀλλ’ ἀνδράσι διὰ τῶν ἐγκυκλίων μαθημάτων

ἐπὶ ῥητορικήν τε καὶ φιλοσοφίαν ἐληλυθόσιν, οἷς οὐδὲν φανήσεται τούτων

ξένον, _de Thucyd._ c. 50. A comprehensive condemnation of ἀσάφεια is

found in the same essay, c. 52: ἡ πάντα λυμαινομένη τὰ καλὰ καὶ σκότον

παρέχουσα ταῖς ἀρεταῖς ἀσάφεια.]

[Footnote 17: See, further, the Appendix headed “Obscurity in Greek.”]

[Footnote 18: In the same way, Dionysius must surely feel the loss both

of clearness and of emphasis involved in transferring ἡ μόνη ἐλπίς

(=112= 1 and 4) from the middle to the end of the sentence. χάρις and

πάθος may cover these cardinal points: “no clearness no charm,” he

might well say,—“no emphatic order no full expression of feeling.”]

[Footnote 19: Cp. _Demetrius on Style_ p. 278 (Glossary, s.v. ἔμφασις).]

[Footnote 20: Cp. Lewis Campbell in the _Classical Review_ iv. 301, and

Goodell in the paper named on p. 33 _infra_. In the matter of emphasis,

Greek sentences are usually constructed on a diminuendo, English

sentences on a crescendo principle. The English of μὴ ’φευρεθῇς =ἄνους

τε καὶ γέρων= ἅμα (Soph. _Antig._ 281) is, as Jebb gives it, “lest thou

be found at once _an old man and foolish_.” As fuller examples, in

prose and verse, Mr. L. H. G. Greenwood suggests the _Phaedrus_ 230 B,

C (Νὴ τὴν Ἥραν ... Φαῖδρε) and the _Rhesus_ 78-85, 119-130.]

[Footnote 21: The views of Quintilian and Demetrius with regard to

rhythm are applicable also to emphasis: Quintil. ix. 4. 67 “nam ut

initia clausulaeque plurimum momenti habent, quotiens incipit sensus

aut desinit: sic in mediis quoque sunt quidam conatus, iique leviter

insistunt. currentium pes, etiamsi non moratur, tamen vestigium

facit”; Demetrius (_de Eloc._ § 39) πάντες γοῦν ἰδίως τῶν τε πρώτων

μνημονεύομεν καὶ τῶν ὑστάτων, καὶ ὑπὸ τούτων κινούμεθα, ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν

μεταξὺ ἔλαττον ὥσπερ ἐγκρυπτομένων ἢ ἐναφανιζομένων.]

[Footnote 22: The initial emphasis is here reinforced by μέν and δέ:

elsewhere by the chiastic arrangement, as in (10).]

[Footnote 23: Compare the occasional postponement of a relative pronoun

with the same object: e.g. Thucyd. i. 77 =βιάζεσθαι= γὰρ οἷς ἂν ἐξῇ,

δικάζεσθαι οὐδὲν προσδέονται.]

[Footnote 24: Our poets can, and do, imitate the emphatic position

of a word placed at the beginning of a line with a stop immediately

following (as βάλλ’ in Hom. _Il._ i. 52, κόπτ’ in _Odyss._ ix. 290, and

_haesit_ in Virg. _Aen._ xi. 803):—

And over them triumphant Death his dart

Shook, but delayed to strike.

MILTON _Paradise Lost_ xi. 491.

Or (still nearer to the ‘me, me, adsum,’ of Virgil):—

_Me_, though just right, and the fixed laws of Heaven,

Did first create your leader—next, free choice,

With what besides in council or in fight

Hath been achieved of merit—yet this loss,

Thus far at least recovered, hath much more

Established in a safe, unenvied throne,

Yielded with full consent.

MILTON _Paradise Lost_ ii. 18-24.

]

[Footnote 25: Here τούτους is emphasized by καί as well as by its

position well in front of the verb which governs it, while μισθοῦ

depends for its emphasis on its position alone. ‘But even these hidden

piles did divers (entering the water) saw off—for pay.’ Compare the

analysis which Quintilian (ix. 4. 29) gives of Cicero’s “ut tibi

necesse esset in conspectu populi Romani vomere _postridie_.”]

[Footnote 26: For the rhetorical and metrical effect Sandys (_ad loc._)

compares Milton _Paradise Lost_ vi. 912, “Firm they might have stood, |

Yet fell.”]

[Footnote 27: In this sentence the orator would probably pause slightly

before γενναίως, and thus (1) emphasize it; (2) separate it from διδῷ.

Other means (illustrated by various examples in this Introduction)

of throwing a word into relief are: the interposition of a number of

unemphatic words, the use of particles such as μέν and δέ, the placing

of emphatic words in contrasted pairs near together or remote from one

another.]

[Footnote 28: The order here (1) avoids the juxtaposition of too many

accusative-terminations; (2) provides a conclusion which satisfies ear

and mind alike.]

[Footnote 29: The position of τἄμ’ here may be compared with that of

ἐμούς in Eurip. _Med._ 1045 ἄξω παῖδας ἐκ γαίας =ἐμούς= (‘for they

are mine’). In English, too, both the end and the beginning may be

emphatic: e.g. “_silver and gold_ have I _none_.”]

[Footnote 30: Quoted by Dionysius (_C.V._ c. 3), though without any

special reference to the point of _emphasis_.]

[Footnote 31: Quoted by T. D. Goodell _School Grammar of Attic Greek_

p. 296. ἡμεῖς seems to owe some at least of its emphasis to its late

insertion. If placed immediately after ηὐξήσαμεν, it would, surely,

lose a little in weight. Goodell does right to include some treatment

of the question of Greek word-order in a Grammar intended primarily

for use in schools. It should be pointed out even to beginners that

so simple a sentence as οἱ δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι ἐνίκησαν τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους

can be arranged in half-a-dozen ways, each with its own separate shade

of meaning. Compare the remarks of W. H. D. Rouse with regard to the

teaching of Latin: “It is possible by question and answer to make clear

from the first the essential structure of an inflected language, as

depending for emphasis on the order of words; and this lies at the root

of style. Thus a simple sentence may give matter for several questions.

Take _Caesar Labienum laudat_. I may ask, _Quem laudat Caesar?_ Answer:

_Labienum laudat Caesar._ Question: _Quid facit Caesar?_ Answer:

_Laudat Labienum Caesar._ If all the texts read are treated in this

way, the pupils become used to correct accidence, syntax, and order,

and learn the elements of style” (_Classical Review_ xxi. 130; cp. also

W. H. S. Jones _The Teaching of Latin_ p. 33). An instructive contrast

might be drawn, with reference to the context in either case, between

_Romanus sum civis_ in Livy ii. 12, and _Civis Romanus sum_ in Cicero

_Verr._ II. v. 65, 66.]

[Footnote 32: With “verbi transgressio” cp. “verborum concinna

transgressio” in Cic. _de Orat._ iii. 54. 207.]

[Footnote 33: A modern reader might be disposed to see an example of

emphasis in the illustrative passage which “Longinus” here quotes from

Herodotus vi. 11. In _hyperbata_ the _Treatise on the Sublime_ itself

greatly abounds, being much influenced (in this as in other ways) by

Plato. For examples of _hyperbaton_ in Plato see Riddell’s edition of

the _Apology_, pp. 228 ff. Among modern English writers, Matthew Arnold

had a curious and perhaps half-humorous trick of securing emphasis by

a “bold and hazardous” _hyperbaton_ (cp. _de Sublim._ xxii. 4), which

keeps back the verb till the end of the sentence: e.g. “And a good deal

of ignorance about these there certainly, among English public men,

is”; “the grand thing in teaching is to have faith that some aptitudes

for this every one has”; “one thing that Protestants have, and that the

Catholics think they have a right, where they are in great numbers, to

have too, this thing to the Prussian Catholics Prussia has given.” Such

oddities are, in English, usually of a playful and undress character:

e.g. “it was really a party that one might feel proud of having been

asked to; at least I might, and did, very” (_Life and Letters of Sir

Richard Claverhouse Jebb_ p. 93; cp. J. D. Duff’s remarks, on the same

page, with regard to the literary adequacy of the following English

translation of a pathetic sentence in one of Demosthenes’ greatest

speeches: “this woman in the first instance merely quietly to drink and

eat dessert they tried to force, I should suppose”).]

[Footnote 34: The immediately preceding sentence in Quintilian is

“venio nunc ad ornatum, in quo sine dubio plus quam in ceteris dicendi

partibus sibi indulget orator.” This may be compared with Dionysius’

view that it is the accessory arts (such as the _heightening_ of style)

that best reveal the orator’s power: ἐξ ὧν μάλιστα διάδηλος ἡ τοῦ

ῥήτορος γίνεται δύναμις (_de Thucyd._ c. 23). In this attitude there

is always some danger (unless, like Dionysius himself, a writer has a

saving belief in the virtue of simplicity) of falling into that vice of

_écrire trop bien_, which, according to M. Anatole France, is the worst

of all literary vices.]

[Footnote 35: If we were to say that in a Greek sentence there are two

kinds of arrangement, viz. (1) grammatical arrangement which aims at

clearness, and (2) rhetorical arrangement which aims at (α) emphasis,

and (β) euphony; then it must be admitted that Dionysius’ real subject

is (2) (β)]

[Footnote 36: The lines quoted from Homer in c. 16 are particularly

telling.]

[Footnote 37: _C.V._ =244= 23. Perhaps ‘spontaneous’ or ‘subconscious’

would be a better translation than ‘instinctive.’ Dionysius certainly

does not intend to exclude _training_.]

[Footnote 38: The judgment of the ear appears to be indicated by the

words τοῦ πυκνὰ μεταπίπτοντος κριτηρίου at the end of c. 24.]

[Footnote 39: Cp. _C.V._ c. 6.]

[Footnote 40: Cic. _ad Att._ xiv. 20. Dionysius Halic. _Ant. Rom._ i.

1 ἐπιεικῶς γὰρ ἅπαντες νομίζουσιν εἰκόνας εἶναι τῆς ἑκάστου ψυχῆς τοὺς

λόγους. Buffon _Discours de réception à l’Académie_, 1753: “le style

est l’homme même.” Cp. Plato _Rep._ iii. 400 D τί δ’ ὁ τρόπος τῆς

λέξεως, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, καὶ ὁ λόγος; οὐ τῷ τῆς ψυχῆς ἤθει ἕπεται;]

[Footnote 41: Cp. p. 24 _supra_. The desire to avoid monotony of

termination would seem to be the main explanation of such collocations

as οὗ τοῖς ἄλλοις εἴργεσθαι προαγορεύουσι τοῖς τοῦ φόνου φεύγουσι

τὰς δίκας and τῷ αὐτῷ χρῶνται νόμῳ τούτῳ [Antiphon v.]. Additional

emphasis, too, falls on τοῖς ἄλλοις and τῷ αὐτῷ, as on σωτηρίαν ἀσφαλῆ

in Demosthenes’ peroration.]

[Footnote 42: In describing the smooth or elegant style of composition

(as practised by Isocrates and his followers, including Theopompus),

Dionysius notes, as one of its characteristics, the avoidance of

hiatus. This avoidance is to be noticed in the recently discovered

_Hellenica_; and without basing any positive conclusion on the fact,

Grenfell and Hunt point out that the author usually avoids hiatus “even

at the cost of producing an unnatural order of words, e.g. ἐπηρμένοι

μισεῖν ἦσαν τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους and ἴωμεν, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἔφη, πολῖται, ἐπὶ

τοὺς τυράννους” (_Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ v. 124).]

[Footnote 43: e.g. the greater tendency in Latin to place the principal

verb at the end of the sentence. Cp. Quintil. ix. 4. 26 “verbo sensum

cludere, multo, si compositio patiatur, optimum est. in verbis enim

sermonis vis est. si id asperum erit, cedet haec ratio numeris, ut fit

apud summos Graecos Latinosque oratores frequentissime. sine dubio

erit omne quod non cludet, _hyperbaton_, et ipsum hoc inter tropos vel

figuras, quae sunt virtutes, receptum est.” In Latin the words μετὰ δὲ

ταῦτα οὐ πολλῷ ὕστερον Εὔβοια ἀπέστη ἀπ’ Ἀθηναίων would naturally run

“haud multum postea Euboea ab Atheniensibus defecit” (J. P. Postgate

_Sermo Latinus_ p. 7).]

[Footnote 44: On the other side, the classical writers not seldom yield

to the temptation to write long and rambling sentences, whereas the

best English authors are stimulated by the very absence of inflexions

to arrange their thoughts with great care and clearness within the

sentence and the paragraph. By these and other means English prose

becomes, in the hands of a great master, an instrument of surpassing

force and beauty. As there are differences in word-order between

Greek and Latin, so are there among the modern analytical languages,

though (in a comparison) it may be legitimate to group those languages

together. An order regarded as natural (i.e. customary) in one modern

language will not be so regarded in another. Further, a language like

German (though it is often unable to follow the Greek order without

ambiguity: cp. Lessing’s _Laocoon_ c. 18) possesses a greater number of

inflexions than English or French. Welsh, too, has certain syntactical

features which enable it often to reproduce the Greek order more

faithfully than English can do. For example: in St. John’s Gospel xvii.

9 where the Greek has οὐ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου ἐρωτῶ, ἀλλὰ περὶ ὧν δέδωκάς

μοι, ὅτι σοί εἰσιν, the Welsh version gives _Nid dros y byd yr wyf yn

gweddio, ond dros y rhai a roddaist i mi; canys eiddot ti ydynt._ And

Plato _Apol._ c. 33 καὶ ἐὰν ταῦτα ποιῆτε, δίκαια πεπονθὼς ἐγὼ ἔσομαι

ὑφ’ ὑμῶν, αὐτός τε καὶ οἱ υἱεῖς: Welsh, _Ac os hyn a wnewch, yr hyn

sydd gyfiawn fyddaf fi wedi ei dderbyn oddiar eich llaw, myfi a’m

meibion._ [These Welsh instances are given on p. 38 of the present

editor’s chapter on the Teaching of Greek, in F. Spencer’s _Aims and

Practice of Teaching_.] In Appendix II. at the end of this volume will

be found a few idiomatic modern renderings (in English, French, and

German) from Greek prose originals.]

[Footnote 45: Lemaître _Les Contemporains_ i. 205.]

[Footnote 46: Boileau _L’Art poétique_ i. 133.]

[Footnote 47: Edinburgh edition of Stevenson’s works, iii. 236-61

(_Miscellanies_). “It is a singularly suggestive inquiry into a

subject which has always been considered too vague and difficult for

analysis, at any rate since the days of the classical writers on

rhetoric, whom Stevenson had never read” (Graham Balfour’s _Life of

Robert Louis Stevenson_ ii. 11). S. H. Butcher (_Harvard Lectures_

pp. 242, 243) regards the essay as “a pretty precise modern parallel

to the speculations of Dionysius,” and quotes some passages in proof.

The following is an example of such points of contact. Stevenson:

“Each phrase in literature is built of sounds, as each phrase in music

consists of notes. One sound suggests, echoes, demands and harmonizes

with another; and the art of rightly using these concordances is the

final art in literature.” Dionysius (_C.V._ c. 16): ὥστε πολλὴ ἀνάγκη

καλὴν μὲν εἶναι λέξιν ἐν ᾗ καλά ἐστιν ὀνόματα, καλῶν δὲ ὀνομάτων

συλλαβάς τε καὶ γράμματα καλὰ αἴτια εἶναι, ἡδεῖάν τε διάλεκτον ἐκ τῶν

ἡδυνόντων τὴν ἀκοὴν γίνεσθαι. Compare p. 40 _infra_ as to the music of

sounds; and see _Demetrius on Style_ p. 43, as to Stevenson and other

English writers on style.]

[Footnote 48: Compare especially the speeches in _Il._ ix., and the

warm eulogies they have drawn from Quintilian (x. 1. 47; cp. x. 1. 27,

with reference to Theophrastus) and from many others since his time.

Dionysius’ _versification_ of Demosthenes, and _prosification_ of

Simonides, in c. 25 and c. 26, may not seem altogether happy, but one

or two points should be remembered in his favour. He does not recognize

merely mechanical conceptions of literature: such as are implied in the

Latin-derived words _prose_ and _verse_, or in _literature_ itself. He

would probably have agreed with Aristotle that “Homer and Empedocles

have nothing in common but the metre, so that it would be right to call

the one poet, the other physicist rather than poet” (Aristot. _Poet._

i. 9, S. H. Butcher). He might probably have also maintained that, in

essentials, Theognis is less of a poet than Plato. And in modern times,

if he had known them, he might have called attention to the rhymed

rhetoric which often passed as poetry in eighteenth-century England,

and have asked whether the elevation of thought and the measured

cadences of Demosthenes did not entitle him to a higher poetic rank

than that.]

[Footnote 49: Of Thucydides: ποιητοῦ τρόπον ἐνεξουσιάζων (_de Thucyd._

c. 24). Of Plato: ᾔσθετο γὰρ τῆς ἰδίας ἀπειροκαλίας καὶ ὄνομα ἔθετο

αὐτῇ τὸ διθύραμβον, ὃ νῦν ἂν ᾐδέσθην ἐγὼ λέγειν ἀληθὲς ὄν. τοῦτο δὲ

παθεῖν ἔοικεν, ὡς ἐγὼ νομίζω, τραφεὶς μὲν ἐν τοῖς Σωκρατικοῖς διαλόγοις

ἰσχνοτάτοις οὖσι καὶ ἀκριβεστάτοις, οὐ μείνας δ’ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀλλὰ τῆς

Γοργίου καὶ Θουκυδίδου κατασκευῆς ἐρασθείς (_Ep. ad Cn. Pomp._ c. 2;

_de Demosth._ c. 6. See further in _Demetrius on Style_ p. 14, n. 1).]

[Footnote 50: It will be noticed that the only question here is about

differences of form. But it is one of Dionysius’ great merits to have

proclaimed so clearly the leading part which beauty of form (not simply

verse, but expression generally) plays in all high poetry. Aristotle

was by no means insensible to this essential element, but he is apt to

dwell more fully (though we must remember the fragmentary condition of

the _Poetics_) on the associations of ποιητής than on those of ἀοιδός.

It is in connexion with _prose_ rather than with poetry, that it seems

necessary to lay most stress upon the intellectual and logical elements

involved, and to pay heed not only to the nature of the subject matter

itself but to the sustained argument in which it is presented. Reason

in prose and emotion in poetry: these are perhaps the two leading

elements, if any distinction of the kind is to be attempted.]

[Footnote 51: Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 1. 9; 8. 1 and 3; 2. 1. Cp. Cic.

_Orat._ 56. 187 “perspicuum est igitur numeris astrictam orationem

esse debere, carere versibus; sed ei numeri poëticine sint an ex alio

genere quodam deinceps est videndum”; 57. 195 “ego autem sentio omnes

in oratione esse quasi permixtos et confusos pedes; nec enim effugere

possemus animadversionem, si semper eisdem uteremur, quia nec numerosa

esse, ut poëma, neque extra numerum, ut sermo vulgi, esse debet oratio:

alterum nimis est vinctum, ut de industria factum appareat, alterum

nimis dissolutum, ut pervagatum ac vulgare videatur.” Also _ibid._ 51.

172; 57. 194-196; 58. 198; 68. 227. Cicero’s correct attitude is the

more noticeable that he is commonly supposed to have been swayed by

Asiatic rather than by Attic influences.]

[Footnote 52: _C.V._ c. 25 χωρὶς δὲ τῆς Ἀριστοτέλους μαρτυρίας, ὅτι

ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν ἐμπεριλαμβάνεσθαί τινας τῇ πεζῇ λέξει ῥυθμούς, εἰ

μέλλοι τὸ ποιητικὸν ἐπανθήσειν αὐτῇ κάλλος, ἐκ τῆς πείρας τις αὐτῆς

γνώσεται.]

[Footnote 53: The modern custom is to view with some suspicion these

inversions when found in prose composition, though in German prose they

are common enough. It would be interesting to take two such sentences

of the New Testament as μεγάλη ἡ Ἄρτεμις Ἐφεσίων (Acts xix. 28, 34) and

ἔπεσεν, ἔπεσεν Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη (Apoc. xiv. 8), and see how they have

been rendered into various modern languages by translators generally

(both in authorised and unauthorised versions). It would probably be

found that the French language here has been true to what Dionysius

would call its λογοείδεια, or essentially prose character. In English

the justification of the inversion would be the emotional nature of the

original passages, which may be held to raise them to the same plane as

poetry. [It would, on the other hand, be not good but bad journalism

to write, “Uproarious were the proceedings at yesterday’s meeting of

the Grand Committee.”] For the effect of word-order in English verse

see an extract from Coleridge’s _Biographia Literaria_ in the notes, p.

79 _infra_. Coleridge was fond of offering, as a rough definition of

poetry, “the best words in the best order.”]

[Footnote 54: See the notes on c. 25; particularly that on =256= 11.]

[Footnote 55: The words “How art thou” are, it will be noticed,

differently divided in these two lines with a kind of Dionysian

freedom.]

[Footnote 56: Ruskin continually, and Carlyle often (e.g. _Sartor

Resartus_ bk. iii. c. 8), provides examples of iambic rhythm. So

George Eliot _Mill on the Floss_ bk. vii.: “living through again, in

one supreme moment, the days when they had clasped their little hands

in love, and roamed the daisied fields together.” And Blackmore, in

_Lorna Doone_ c. 3: “The sullen hills were flanked with light, and the

valleys chined with shadow, and all the sombrous moors between awoke

in furrowed anger.” [Blackmore sometimes falls also into the hexameter

rhythm, as in the same chapter: “And suddenly a strong red light, cast

by the cloud-weight | downwards, | spread like | fingers | over the |

moorland, || opened the | alleys of | darkness, and | hung on the |

steel of the | riders.”]]

[Footnote 57: Cicero’s conception of the requirements of rhythmical

prose (as compared with those of verbal fidelity) is curiously

illustrated by the way in which he is supposed to have recast the

letter sent by Lentulus to Catiline. Sallust _Cat._ 44 “quis sim ex

eo quem ad te misi cognosces: fac cogites in quanta calamitate sis

et memineris te virum esse: consideres quid tuae rationes postulent:

auxilium petas ab omnibus etiam ab infimis.” Cicero _Cat._ iii. 12

“quis sim scies ex eo quem ad te misi: cura ut vir sis et cogita quem

in locum sis progressus: vide ecquid tibi iam sit necesse et cura

ut omnium tibi auxilia adiungas, etiam infimorum.” Cp. A. C. Clark

(reviewing Zieliňski) _Classical Review_ xix. 172.]

[Footnote 58: Cp. _C.V._ =176= 20 οὐ γὰρ ἀπελαύνεται ῥυθμὸς οὐδεὶς

ἐκ τῆς ἀμέτρου λέξεως, ὥσπερ ἐκ τῆς ἐμμέτρου. With regard to the

occasional presence in prose of metrical or quasi-metrical lines, the

likely explanation seems often to be one which Dionysius does not

favour (πολλὰ γὰρ αὐτοσχεδιάζει μέτρα ἡ φύσις, =256= 19), rather than

one which recognizes μέτρα καὶ ῥυθμούς τινας =ἐγκατατεταγμένους ἀδήλως=

(=254= 3).]

[Footnote 59: D. B. Monro _Modes of Ancient Greek Music_ p. 118.]

[Footnote 60: From the essay (already mentioned) on _Style in

Literature_.]

[Footnote 61: _de Demosth._ c. 22.]

[Footnote 62: So that, in =126= 15, τὸν ὀξὺν τόνον = ‘the high pitch’ =

‘the acute accent.’]

[Footnote 63: W. H. D. Rouse’s edition of _Matthew Arnold on

translating Homer_ Introd. p. 7.]

[Footnote 64: A. J. Ellis and F. Blass (in the publications mentioned

later).]

[Footnote 65: Arnold and Conway _Restored Pronunciation of Greek and

Latin_ pp. iv. 3, 7, 20-26. Cp. also the pamphlet on the _Pronunciation

of Greek_ issued by the Classical Association in 1908 (pp. 348-51

_infra_). In the _Contemporary Review_ of March 1897 the history of

Greek pronunciation in England is ably sketched by J. Gennadius.]

[Footnote 66: Even the pronunciation of the poet’s name has changed

with the lapse of centuries; and the spelling _Shakspere_ is preferred

by some authorities not only because it has excellent manuscript

authority, but because it may serve to remind us that “he and his

fellows pronounced his name _Shahk-spare_, with the _a_ of father in

_Shahk_, and with the French _e_ (our _a_) in _spare_” (Furnivall).]

[Footnote 67: Quintil. i. 10. 17 “siquidem Archytas atque Aristoxenus

etiam subiectam grammaticen musicae putaverunt,” etc.]

[Footnote 68: _C.V._ =68= 7-11, ... τὴν περὶ τῆς συνθέσεως τῶν

ὀνομάτων πραγματείαν ὀλίγοις μὲν ἐπὶ νοῦν ἐλθοῦσαν, ὅσοι τῶν ἀρχαίων

ῥητορικὰς ἢ διαλεκτικὰς συνέγραψαν τέχνας, οὐδενὶ δ’ ἀκριβῶς οὐδ’

ἀποχρώντως μέχρι τοῦ παρόντος ἐξειργασμένην, ὡς ἐγὼ πείθομαι.]

[Footnote 69: Some reference to Quintilian’s own apparent indebtedness

to the _de Imitatione_ of Dionysius will be found in _Demetrius on

Style_ p. 25.]

[Footnote 70: _de Sublim._ xxxix. 1. In the editor’s article on the

“Literary Circle of Dionysius of Halicarnassus” (_Classical Review_

xiv. 439-42), an endeavour is made to view the literary life of

Dionysius in relation to its Roman surroundings.]

[Footnote 71: The more recent writers on rhetoric (οἱ νέοι τεχνογράφοι,

_de Isaeo_ c. 14) would not greatly appeal to Dionysius.]

[Footnote 72: Cp. =254= 23, =256= 3, =164= 22, =138= 6.]

[Footnote 73: The quotations from Aristotle and other writers in the

Notes will serve to indicate roughly the obligations of Dionysius to

his predecessors.]

[Footnote 74: Among the shorter fragments preserved by him are one of

Bacchylides (in c. 25), and another from the _Telephus_ of Euripides

(in c. 26). Two lines of the _Danaë_ are, it should in strict accuracy

be stated, quoted as follows by Athenaeus ix. 396 E:—

ὦ τέκος, οἷον ἔχω πόνον·

σὺ δ’ ἀωτεῖς, γαλαθηνῷ δ’ ἤτορι κνώσσεις.

]

[Footnote 75: _de C.V._ =214= 7. There is, perhaps, room for a book

or dissertation on _Quotation in Classical Antiquity_: with reference

to such points as the citation or non-citation of authorities, the

employment of literary illustrations, the poetical quotations in the

Orators or in the Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία or in the Poets themselves; and

so forth. On the question of verbal fidelity, something is said in

the present editor’s brief article on ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus as

an authority for the Text of Thucydides’ (_Classical Review_ xiv.

244-246); and such quotations as that from _Odyss._ xvi. 1-16 in c.

3 of the present treatise might be critically examined from the same

point of view. A similar study of _Translation in Classical Antiquity_

would also be a useful piece of work.]

[Footnote 76: _de C.V._ =94= 4. Of Phylarchus as a historian Polybius

himself gives an unflattering account.]

[Footnote 77: S. H. Butcher _Harvard Lectures on Greek Subjects_ p.

114. Cp. J. L. Strachan Davidson in _Hellenica_ pp. 414, 416: “The

Nemesis of his contempt for the form and style of his writing has come

on Polybius in the neglect which he has experienced at the hands of the

modern world.... He has not the genius, and will not take the trouble

to acquire the trained sensitiveness of art which might have supplied

its place; and thus his writing has no distinction and no charm, and we

miss in reading him what gives half their value to great writers—the

consciousness that we are in the hands of a master.” But, on the other

hand, see J. B. Bury’s _Ancient Greek Historians_, e.g. pp. 196, 218,

220.]

[Footnote 78: Cicero (_Or._ 63. 212) says, with reference to the

various ways of ending the period, “e quibus unum est secuta Asia

maxime, qui dichoreus vocatur, cum duo extremi chorei sunt.” And

Quintilian (ix. 4. 103) “claudet et dichoreus, id est idem pes sibi

ipse iungetur, quo Asiani usi plurimum; cuius exemplum Cicero ponit:

_Patris dictum sapiens temeritas fili comprobavit_.” The dichoree

is condemned also in the _de Sublim._ c. 41 μικροποιοῦν δ’ οὐδὲν

οὕτως ἐν τοῖς ὑψηλοῖς, ὡς ῥυθμὸς κεκλασμένος λόγων καὶ σεσοβημένος,

οἷον δὴ πυρρίχιοι καὶ τροχαῖοι καὶ διχόρειοι, τέλεον εἰς ὀρχηστικὸν

συνεκπίπτοντες ... ὡς ἐνίοτε προειδότας τὰς ὀφειλομένας καταλήξεις

αὐτοὺς ὑποκρούειν τοῖς λέγουσι καὶ φθάνοντας ὡς ἐν χορῷ τινι

προαποδιδόναι τὴν βάσιν. It is the _constant recurrence_ of the same

feet that is to be deprecated (cp. Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 8. 1, and

Theon. _Progymn._ in Walz _Rhet. Gr._ i. 169); a single dichoree would

not be avoided even by Dionysius himself, e.g. νοῦν ἐχόντων (=192= 5).

Cicero’s appreciation of Carbo’s _patris dictum sapiens temeritas fili

comprobavit_ may be instructively compared with Dionysius’ attitude

towards the general question of good and bad rhythms. They both seem

to allow too little for other considerations; one of them approves,

and the other disapproves, the final dichoree; and both agree in the

main point, that there should be plenty of variety: “hoc dichoreo (sc.

_comprobavit_) tantus clamor contionis excitatus est, ut admirabile

esset. quaero nonne id numerus effecerit? verborum ordinem immuta, fac

sic: ‘comprobavit fili temeritas,’ iam nihil erit, etsi ‘temeritas’

ex tribus brevibus et longa est, quam Aristoteles ut optimum probat,

a quo dissentio. ‘at eadem verba, eadem sententia.’ animo istuc satis

est, auribus non satis. sed id crebrius fieri non oportet; primum

enim numerus agnoscitur, deinde satiat, postea cognita facilitate

contemnitur” (Cic. _Orat._ 63. 214). Hegesias’ lack of ear seems,

further, to be shown in the awkward accumulation of disyllables; e.g.

διὰ τῶν =ποδῶν χαλκοῦν= ψάλιον διείραντας =ἕλκειν κύκλῳ γυμνόν= (=188=

17), and =τρόπῳ σκαιὸν ἐχθρόν= (=190= 5). Cp. =132= 3 μήτ’ ὀλιγοσύλλαβα

πολλὰ ἑξῆς λαμβάνοντα.]

[Footnote 79: Modern parallels are dangerous, but the detractors of

Macaulay might be disposed to compare his short detached sentences

(so different from the elaborate periods of some earlier English

prose-writers) with those of Hegesias.]

[Footnote 80: In this last extract, all the sentences end in dichorees.

The fragments of Hegesias have been collected by C. Müller _Scriptores

Rerum Alexandri Magni_ pp. 138-144.]

[Footnote 81: With παραφθείρας cp. Cic. _Brut._ 83. 286 “atque Charisi

[an imitator of Lysias] vult Hegesias esse similis, isque se ita putat

Atticum, ut veros illos prae se paene agrestes putet. at quid est tam

fractum, tam minutum, tam in ipsa, quam tamen consequitur, concinnitate

puerile?” For the influence which Hegesias had on style as late as the

time of Pausanias cp. J. G. Frazer’s _Pausanias_ i. lxix. lxx., and

Blass _Die Rhythmen der asianischen und römischen Kunstprosa_ pp. 91

ff.]

[Footnote 82: e.g. καθάπερ =138= 13; ἀναίσθιος, ὑποδεκτική,

ἀκόμψευστον, ἔχοντα =212= 21-24; see also =196= 24, 25. The issue is

often so perplexing that no editor can feel certain whether F’s reading

or P’s should be placed in his text: he only knows that _both_ readings

must be recorded _either_ in the text or in the critical footnotes. For

the _strong points_ of F see such passages as pp. 182, 184 in c. 18.]

[Footnote 83: Other examples of these _variae lectiones_, pointing

perhaps sometimes to a sort of double recension, are such as οὐδέτερον

μὲν εὔμορφον, ἧττον δὲ δυσειδὲς τὸ ε̄ (=144= 4: REF), compared with

οὐδέτερον μὲν εὔηχον, ἧττον δὲ δυσηχὲς τὸ ο̄ (=144= 4: PMV), =66= 2

νεωστὶ PMV, ἄρτι F; =100= 23 ἐνταῦθα PMV, ἐνθάδε F; =198= 18 and =244=

28 πάνυ PMV, σφόδρα F. Continually F’s readings differ from P’s in such

a way that either alternative is quite satisfactory and neither could

well have originated in any manuscript corruption of the other. Under

the same head will come minute variations (not always recorded in this

edition) of word-order in the traditions represented by F and P. So,

too, with such minutiae as the elision or non-elision of final vowels,

and the insertion or non-insertion of ν ἐφελκυστικόν.]

[Footnote 84: F’s πλεῖστον κίνδυνον for πλείστους κινδύνους in =244= 5

seems due to a desire to diminish the number of sigmas in the sentence,

while some minute changes in word-order look like deliberate attempts

to improve the flow and sound of the passage. Such discrepancies in the

word-order of F and P occur in other parts of the treatise, and not

simply in the quotations.]

[Footnote 85: Homer _Odyssey_ xv. 125.]

[Footnote 86: Homer _Odyssey_ xv. 126, 127.]

[Footnote 87: Bergk _Poetae Lyrici Graeci_, _Fragm. Adesp._ 85.]

[Footnote 88: Bergk _ibid._; Philoxenus _Fragm._ 6.]

[Footnote 89: Homer _Odyssey_ xvi. 1-16. The verse-translations, here

and throughout, are from the hand of Mr. A. S. Way.]

[Footnote 90: Herodotus i. 8-10.]

[Footnote 91: Homer _Iliad_ xii. 433-5.]

[Footnote 92: Euphorio Chersonesita; cp. Hephaest. c. 16.]

[Footnote 93: Homer _Iliad_ xiii. 392, 393.]

[Footnote 94: Sotades _Fragm._]

[Footnote 95: Euripides _Fragm._ 924 (Nauck).]

[Footnote 96: Herodotus i. 6.]

[Footnote 97: Thucydides i. 24.]

[Footnote 98: Hegesias _Fragm._; cp. C. Müller _Scriptores Rerum

Alexandri Magni_ p. 138.]

[Footnote 99: Homer _Odyssey_ xvi. 273, xvii. 202, xxiv. 157.]

[Footnote 100: Cp. Homer _Odyssey_ vi. 230, 231; viii. 20; xxiii. 157,

158; xxiv. 369.]

[Footnote 101: Cp. Demosthenes _de Corona_ 296.]

[Footnote 102: Homer _Odyssey_ i. 1.]

[Footnote 103: Homer _Iliad_ i. 1.]

[Footnote 104: Homer _Odyssey_ iii. 1.]

[Footnote 105: Homer _Iliad_ v. 115; _Odyssey_ iv. 762, vi. 324.]

[Footnote 106: Homer _Iliad_ ii. 484.]

[Footnote 107: Homer _Iliad_ xxiv. 486.]

[Footnote 108: Homer _Iliad_ xxi. 20.]

[Footnote 109: Homer _Iliad_ xxii. 467.]

[Footnote 110: Homer _Odyssey_ xxii. 17.]

[Footnote 111: Homer _Iliad_ ii. 89.]

[Footnote 112: Homer _Iliad_ xix. 103-4.]

[Footnote 113: Homer _Iliad_ i. 459, ii. 422 etc.]

[Footnote 114: Homer _Iliad_ iv. 125.]

[Footnote 115: Homer _Odyssey_ vi. 115-6.]

[Footnote 116: Homer _Odyssey_ xiv. 425.]

[Footnote 117: Homer _Odyssey_ iii. 449-50.]

[Footnote 118: Demosthenes _de Corona_, init.]

[Footnote 119: Demosthenes _de Pace_ 6.]

[Footnote 120: Demosthenes _Aristocr._ 1.]

[Footnote 121: Thucydides iii. 57.]

[Footnote 122: Demosthenes _de Corona_ 119.]

[Footnote 123: Demosthenes _de Corona_ 179.]

[Footnote 124: Demosthenes _Philipp._ iii. 17.]

[Footnote 125: Plato _Menex._ 236 E.]

[Footnote 126: Aeschines _c. Ctes._ 202.]

[Footnote 127: Sophocles _Fragm._ 706 (Nauck).]

[Footnote 128: Demosthenes _Lept._ 2.]

[Footnote 129: Euripides _Orestes_ 140-2.]

[Footnote 130: Pindar _Fragm._ 79 (Schroeder).]

[Footnote 131: Homer _Iliad_ xvii. 265.]

[Footnote 132: Homer _Odyssey_ ix. 415-16.]

[Footnote 133: Homer _Iliad_ xxii. 220-1.]

[Footnote 134: Homer _Iliad_ xxii. 476.]

[Footnote 135: Homer _Iliad_ xviii. 225.]

[Footnote 136: Homer _Odyssey_ v. 402.]

[Footnote 137: Homer _Iliad_ xii. 207.]

[Footnote 138: Homer _Iliad_ ii. 209 (and 210).]

[Footnote 139: Homer _Iliad_ xvi. 361.]

[Footnote 140: Homer _Odyssey_ xvii. 36-7; xix. 53-4.]

[Footnote 141: Homer _Odyssey_ vi. 162-3.]

[Footnote 142: Homer _Odyssey_ xi. 281-2.]

[Footnote 143: Homer _Odyssey_ vi. 137.]

[Footnote 144: Homer _Odyssey_ xi. 36-7.]

[Footnote 145: Homer _Iliad_ iv. 452-3.]

[Footnote 146: Homer _Iliad_ xxi. 240-2.]

[Footnote 147: Homer _Odyssey_ ix. 289-90.]

[Footnote 148: Homer _Iliad_ ii. 494-501.]

[Footnote 149: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 112; Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm.

Adesp._ 136.]

[Footnote 150: Cp. Euripides _Hecuba_ 163-4.]

[Footnote 151: Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm. Adesp._ 138.]

[Footnote 152: Archilochus _Fragm._ 66 (Bergk _P.L.G._).]

[Footnote 153: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 108.]

[Footnote 154: Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm. Adesp._ 139.]

[Footnote 155: Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm. Adesp._ 140.]

[Footnote 156: Euripides _Hippolytus_ 201.]

[Footnote 157: Homer _Odyssey_ ix. 39.]

[Footnote 158: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 111; Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm.

Adesp._ 141.]

[Footnote 159: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 117; Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm.

Adesp._ 142.]

[Footnote 160: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 110; Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm.

Adesp._ 143.]

[Footnote 161: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 116; Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm.

Adesp._ 144.]

[Footnote 162: Thucydides ii. 35.]

[Footnote 163: Here and elsewhere, no attempt has been made to secure

metrical equivalence between the Greek original and the English

version. A metrical analysis, or “scansion,” of the original Greek is

given in the notes.]

[Footnote 164: Plato _Menexenus_ 236 D.]

[Footnote 165: Homer _Iliad_ xxiii. 382.]

[Footnote 166: Demosthenes _de Corona_ init.]

[Footnote 167: Demosthenes _de Corona_ init.]

[Footnote 168: C. Müller _Scriptores Rerum Alexandri Magni_ p. 141

(_Hegesiae Fragmenta_).]

[Footnote 169: Homer _Iliad_ xxii. 395-411.]

[Footnote 170: Homer _Odyssey_ xi. 593-6.]

[Footnote 171: Homer _Odyssey_ xi. 596-7.]

[Footnote 172: Homer _Odyssey_ xi. 597-8.]

[Footnote 173: Pindar _Fragm._ 213 (Schroeder).]

[Footnote 174: Pindar _Fragm._ 75 (Schroeder).]

[Footnote 175: Thucydides i. 1.]

[Footnote 176: Thucydides i. 22.]

[Footnote 177: Sappho _Fragm._ i. (Bergk): translated by A. S. Way.]

[Footnote 178: Isocrates _Areopagiticus_ §§ 1-5.]

[Footnote 179: Homer _Iliad_ xxi. 196-7.]

[Footnote 180: cp. Demosthenes _Chers._ 48.]

[Footnote 181: Epicurus _Fragm._ 230 (Usener).]

[Footnote 182: Demosthenes _Aristocr._ 1.]

[Footnote 183: _Fragm. Orphica_, Mullach i. 166.]

[Footnote 184: Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 8.]

[Footnote 185: Aristophanes _Nubes_ 961.]

[Footnote 186: Callimachus _Fragm._ 391 (Schneider).]

[Footnote 187: Sappho _Fragm._ 106 (Bergk).]

[Footnote 188: Aristophanes _Nubes_ 962.]

[Footnote 189: Euripides _Archelaus_; Nauck _T.G.F._, _Eurip. Fragm._

229.]

[Footnote 190: Demosthenes _de Corona_ § 1.]

[Footnote 191: Bergk _P.L.G._, _Fragm. Adesp._ 118.]

[Footnote 192: Bacchylides _Fragm._ 11 (Jebb).]

[Footnote 193: Plato _Republic_ i. 1.]

[Footnote 194: Homer _Odyssey_ xiv. 1-7.]

[Footnote 195: Euripides _Telephus_; Nauck _T.G.F., Eurip. Fragm._ 696.]

[Footnote 196: Euripides _Telephus_; Nauck _T.G.F., Eurip. Fragm._ 696.]

[Footnote 197: Simonides _Fragm._ 37 (Bergk): translated by A. S. Way.]

[Footnote 198: Homer _Iliad_ xi. 514.]

[Footnote 199: ὁ σκοτεινός: cp. Dionys. Hal. _de Thucyd._ c. 46,

Demetr. _de Eloc._ § 192, Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 5. 6.]

[Footnote 200: A good practical recipe for brevity combined with

clearness is given in the _Rhet. ad Alex._ c. 30: συντόμως δὲ

[δηλώσομεν], ἐὰν ἀπὸ τῶν πραγμάτων καὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων περιαιρῶμεν τὰ μὴ

ἀναγκαῖα ῥηθῆναι, ταῦτα μόνα καταλείποντες, ὧν ἀφαιρεθέντων ἀσαφὴς

ἔσται ὁ λόγος.]

[Footnote 201: He illustrates from the Introduction (προοίμιον) of

Thucydides—the passage quoted in _C.V._ c. 22. A good example of the

εἰρομένη λέξις in Thucydides (who is an acknowledged master of the

κατεστραμμένη λέξις) is furnished by Thucyd. i. 9. 2: cp. p. 119

_supra_.]

[Footnote 202: Earlier (vii. 9. 6) in his treatise, Quintilian has

quoted ‘Aio te, Aeacida, Romanos vincere posse’; and these oracular

ambiguities had been glanced at previously by Aristotle (_Rhet._ iii.

5. 4).]

[Footnote 203: In a passage of Aristotle (_Eth. Nic._ vi. 1142 b ἀλλ’

ὀρθότης τίς ἐστιν ἡ εὐβουλία βουλῆς) βουλῆς seems to be emphatic

because so far separated from ὀρθότης. Cp. L. H. G. Greenwood in

the _Classical Review_ xix. 18, and the same writer’s translation

(_Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics Book Six_ p. 111), “But deliberative

excellence is rightness in deliberation.”]

[Footnote 204: Short and simple as it is, this last sentence is a good

example of effective word-order. τριήρης is put early, to contrast it

with φρούριον in the previous sentence. Then the time is indicated.

Next τῶν Ἀθηναίων (removed from Thucydides’ usual position for a

dependent genitive) is put in expressive juxtaposition to ὑπὸ τῶν

Συρακοσιών. Lastly, the reason or circumstance is given: ἐφορμοῦσα τῷ

λιμένι. And the rhythm of the sentence is not unpleasant.]

[Footnote 205: Aristotle (_Rhet._ i. 15), in quoting the first line

only, gives ταῦτ’ οὖν ἐγὼ κτλ.]

[Footnote 206: In English it would be interesting to test, by these

criteria, such usages (for usages they may be called in so far as they

rest on the authority of many good writers) as the ‘split infinitive,’

or the preposition coming at the end of a sentence.]

[Footnote 207: The authenticity of these portions of the _Odyssey_ was

suspected in antiquity. But compare _Iliad_ xviii. 587-8 (quoted in

Introduction p. 13 _supra_) or _Odyss._ xi. 160-1.]

[Footnote 208: The dates and stages of these changes cannot as yet be

settled with precision. But the practical choice seems to be between

the earliest and the latest values, though there is no doubt whatever

that a distinct =h= was heard in all these sounds long after the fourth

century B.C.]

[Footnote 209: It is not easy to determine precisely the sound of

χθ, φθ (χθών, φθόνος) at the beginning of words, and the Committee

therefore thinks it best to leave the option of (1) sounding the

first consonants as κ and π respectively, and the θ as it is in other

positions (this applies both to students who adopt the fricative and to

those who adopt the primitive aspirate pronunciation of the letters in

other positions), or (2) where the fricative pronunciation is adopted,

of sounding χ and φ, in this position also, respectively as Scotch _ch_

and English _f_.]

[Footnote 210: This had actually happened in spoken Greek by the second

century A.D.]

[Footnote 211: This paragraph is taken from _The Restored Pronunciation

of Greek and Latin_, 4th edition, Cambridge, 1908.]

[Page 353]

_A._ INDEX OF PASSAGES QUOTED IN THE _DE COMPOSITIONE_

The thick numerals indicate the pages on which the quotations are found.

=Aeschines= _Ctes._ 202, =116=

=Archilochus= _Fragm._ 66, =170=

=Aristophanes= _Nubes_ 961, =256=; _ib._ 962, =258=

=Aristotle= _Rhet._ iii. 8, =254=

=Bacchylides= _Fragm._ 11, =262=

=Callimachus= _Fragm._ 391, =256=

=Demosthenes= _Aristocr._ 1, =108=, =252=. _Chers._ 48, =250=. _De

Cor._ 1, =108=, =182=, =184=, =260=; 119, =112=; 179, =114=.

_Lept._ 2, =118=. _De Pace_ 6, =108=. _Philipp._ iii. 17, =114=

=Epicurus= _Fragm._ 230, =250=.

=Euphorio Chersonesita= _Fragm._, =86=

=Euripides= _Hecuba_ 163-4, =170=. _Hippolytus_ 201, =172=. _Orestes_

140-2, =128=. _Fragm._ 229 (_Archelaus_), =260=; 696 (_Telephus_),

=276-8=; 924, =88=

=Hegesias= _Fragm._, =92=; =186-90=

=Herodotus= i. 6, =90=; i. 8-10, =80-82=.

=Homer= _Iliad_ i. 1, =98=; i. 459, =102=; ii. 89, =100=; ii. 209,

=158=; ii. 422, =102=; ii. 484, =100=; ii. 494-501, =166=; iv. 125,

=102=; iv. 452-3, =164=; v. 115, =100=; xi. 514, =280=; xii. 207,

=158=; xii. 433-5, =84=; xiii. 392-3, =86=; xvi. 361, =158=; xvii.

265, =154=; xviii. 225, =156=; xix. 103-4, =100=; xxi. 20, =100=;

xxi. 196-7, =248=; xxi. 240-2, =164=; xxii. 220-1, =156=; xxii.

395-411, =190-2=; xxii. 467, =100=; xxii. 476, =156=; xxiii. 382,

=182=; xxiv. 486, =100=. _Odyssey_ i. 1, =98=; iii. 1, =98=; iii.

449-50, =102=; v. 402, =158=; vi. 115-6, =102=; vi. 137, =162=; vi.

162-3, =162=; vi. 230-1, =92=; ix. 39, =172=; ix. 289-90, =164=;

ix. 415-6, =156=; xi. 36-7, =162=; xi. 281-2, =162=; xi. 593-8,

=202-4=; xiv. 1-8, =274-6=; xiv. 425, =102=; xv. 125-7, =64=; xvi.

1-16, =76-78=; xvi. 273, =92=; xvii. 36, 37, =162=; xix. 53, 54,

=162=; xxii. 17, =100=

=Isocrates= _Areop._ 1-5, =242-4=

=Orphica= _Fragm._, =252=

=Philoxenus= _Fragm._ 6, =68=

=Pindar= _Fragm._ 75, =214-6=; 79, =148=; 213, =210=

=Plato= _Menex._ 236 D, =180=; 236 E, =116=; _Rep._ i. 1, =266=

=Sappho= _Fragm._ 1 (_Hymn to Aphrodite_), =238-40=; 106, =258=

=Simonides= _Fragm._ 37 (_Danaë_), =278-80=

=Sophocles= _Fragm._ 706, =116=

=Sotades= _Fragm._, =88=

=Thucydides= i. 1, =224-28=; i. 22, =228=; i. 24, =90=; ii. 35, =178=;

iii. 57, =110=

=Anonymous Fragments= (=chiefly Lyrical=) on pages =68= (Bergk 85),

=168= (Bergk 112, Nauck 136), =170= (N. 138; B. 108); =172= (N.

139, 140); =174= (B. 110, N. 143; B. 111, N. 141; B. 116, N. 144;

B. 117, N. 142); =262= (B. 118)

[Page 354]

_B._ INDEX OF NAMES AND MATTERS

The numerals indicate the pages to which reference is made. As the

contents of the Greek text are fully summarized on pp. 1-9 _supra_,

and as many of the more characteristic Greek words find a place in the

Glossary, the brief entries in Index B will be found to refer mainly to

the Introduction and the Notes.

=Accent= 41-43, 126 ff., 196, 292, 320, 328, 329

=Adjective= 102, 103, 299

=Adverb= 70, 100, 299

=Aeschines= 116

=Aeschylus= 12, 20, 214, 215

=Agathon= 304

=Alcaeus= 194, 248, 249

=Alexander of Macedon= 186, 187

=Amphibrachys= 172, 184, 287

=Anacreon= 236

=Anagnostes= 338

=Anapaest= 172, 287

=Anaximenes= xi (Preface). See also under ‘Rhetorica ad Alexandrum,’ p.

357 _infra_

=Anthology=, epigrams from 66, 335

=Antigonus= 94

=Antimachus= 214

=Antiphon= 29, 120, 332

=Antithesis= 247, 288

=Aphrodite, Sappho’s Hymn to= 238-41

=Apollonius Rhodius= 156

=Appellative= 71, 319

=Archaism= 212, 290

=Archilochus= 171

=Architecture in relation to literary composition= 28, 106

=Aristophanes= 12, 22, 123, 143, 290, 304, 311, 314, 335

=Aristophanes of Byzantium= 218, 278, 320

=Aristotle= x-xii (Preface), 15, 34, 35, 39, 40, 48, 71, 75, 139, 153,

155, 163, 165, 166, 168, 171, 176, 189, 214, 246, 247, 248, 249,

254, 255, 268, 290, 291, 292, 301, 308, 309, 310, 312, 313, 315,

316, 318, 319, 320, 325, 329, 334, 336, 337, 340, _passim_

=Aristoxenus= 42, 43, 48, 125, 138, 168, 287, 318

=Arnold, Matthew= 26, 158, 167, 278

=Arrian= 186, 187

=Article= 70, 289

=Aspirates= 149, 294, 350

=Athenaeus= 148, etc.

=Auctor ad Herennium= 316

=Audiences=, their sensitiveness to the music of sounds 40, 120 ff.

=Austere composition or harmony= 210 ff.

=Bacchius= 174, 292

=Bacchylides= 49, 219, 262, 263

=Bacon, Francis= 225

=Beauty of style.= See under ‘nobility’

=Biblical illustrations= 24, 31, 36, 37, 113, 178, 289, 297, 298, 303,

332, etc.

=Blackmore, R. D.= 37

=Boeotian towns= 166-68

=Boileau= 31

=Bossuet= 195, 228

=Buchanan, George= 46

=Buffon= 29

=Caesar, Julius= 13, 267, 296

=Callimachus= 87, 256 (attribution doubtful), 272, 277

=Candaules=, story of 81

=Carlyle= 37

=Case= 320, with references there given

=Catullus= 239, 278

=Chapters=, division into 9, 11

=Charm of style= 120 ff., 130 ff.

=Cheke, Sir John= 45, 46

=Chiastic arrangement= 14, 19

=Choice, or selection, of words= 69, 73, 79, etc.

=Choree= 170, 333

=Chromatic scale= 194

=Chronological table= of authors quoted or mentioned in the _C.V._ 50

=Chrysippus= 94, 95, 96, 97

=Chrysostom= 67, 251, 288

=Cicero= 15, 18, 25, 26, 28, 35, 37, 38, 48, 53, 54, 55, 72, 73, 89,

114, 124, 159, 203, 266, 271, 286, 301, 305, 306, 315, 316, 319,

330, 331, 334, 335, _passim_

[Page 355]

=Circumflex accent= 126 ff.

=Clearness in Greek word-order= 12-13, 15-17. See also under

‘Obscurity,’ p. 356 _infra_

=Cleitarchus= 187

=Climax= 114

=Coleridge, S. T.= 36, 38, 79, 254

=Colon.= See under ‘Member’

‘=Comma=’ 306, with references there given

=Common vowels.= See under ‘Doubtful’

=Comparative Method= (in relation to literary study) 48

=Composition= 10, 71 ff., 208 ff., 326, _passim_

=Conjunctions or connectives= 71, 325

=Coray= 243

=Cousin, Victor= 343

‘=Cratylus=’ of Plato 160

=Cretic= 174, 307

=Ctesias= 120

=Curtius= 187, 188, 189

‘=Cyclic=’ 174, 307

=Dactyl= 172, 173

‘=Danaë=’ of Simonides 278-81

=Dareste, Rodolphe= 344, 345, 346

=Date of the= ‘=de Compositione=’ 1, 60

=Delphi=, hymns found at 43

=Demetrius= of Callatis 94

=Demetrius=, the supposed author of the _De Elocutione_ 16, 18, 19, 90,

91, 286, 305, 308, _passim_

=Democritus= 248, 249

=Demosthenes= 13, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 25, 29, 33, 34, 39, 41, 146, 182,

196, 248, 249, 339, 340, _passim_. See also Index A

=Dentals= 149

=Dependent genitive=, order of 337

=Dialectic= 69, 94, 104

=Diatonic scale= 194

=Diodorus Siculus= 187, 237, 274

=Diogenes Laertius= 82, 97, 251

=Dionysius of Halicarnassus= 1, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 29, 48, 207, 229,

_passim_

=Dionysius Thrax= 47, 71, 139, 145, 319, 332

=Diphthongs= 219

=Dithyramb= 214

=Dorian mode= 196

=Doubtful vowels= 296, with references there given (s.v. δίχρονος)

=Dryden= 186

=Duris= 94

=Eliot, George= 37

=Empedocles= 34, 214, 332

=Emphasis= 17-26

=English language= 31, 35, 36, 342 ff., _passim_

=Enharmonic scale= 194

‘=Enjambement=’ 270-73, 275, 278, 325

=Ennius= 170, 314

=Ephorus= 236, 237

=Epic Cycle=, poets of the 248

=Epic poetry= 214, 274, _passim_. See also under ‘Homer,’ p. 356 _infra_

=Epicurus= 250, 251

=Epitome=: Greek Epitome of _C.V._ 10, 57, 65, 89, 116, 197, 209

=Epode= 300, with references there given

=Erasmus= 45, 159

=Etymology= 160, 300

=Euphony= 27-29, 338, etc.

=Euphorio Chersonesita= 87

=Euripides= 22, 23, 24, 146, 236, 237. See also Index A

=Eustathius= 202

=Fifth=, the musical interval so called 126

=Flaubert, Gustav= 28

=Fléchier= 243

=Fletcher= 46 (‘Elder Brother’)

=Florentine manuscript of the C.V.= 56-58

=Foot=, metrical 168

=France, Anatole= 27

=Freedom of Greek word-order= 11-14

=French language= 31, 36, 270, 342 ff., _passim_

=Galen= 331

=Gardiner, Stephen= 46

=Gellius, Aulus= 28

=Gender= 106, 107

=German language= 33, 36, 342 ff., _passim_

=Gibbon, Edward= 46, 86, 237

=Gladstone, William Ewart= 126, 235

=Glossary= 285-334 (cp. Preface ix, x)

=Goethe= 36

=Gorgias= 132

=Grammar= 46, 47

=Grave accent= 126 ff.

=Gutturals= 149

‘=Harmony=’ 290, with references there given

=Havercamp= 45

=Hector and Achilles= 190, 191

=Hegemon= 168

=Hegesianax= 94, 95

=Hegesias= 52-55, 90, 184-92

=Heracleides= 94, 95

=Heracleitus= 335, 340

=Hermogenes= 26, 85, 87, 90

=Herodotus= 16, 24, 26, 30, 80 ff., 90, 120, 196, 248, 249

=Hesiod= 236, 237

=Hesychius=, 69, 189, 288, 322, 332

=Hexameter= 85, 87

=Hiatus= 39, 323

=Hibeh Papyri= xi (Preface), 41

[Page 356]

=Hickes, Francis= 226

=Hieronymus= 94

=Hobbes, Thomas= 226

=Holland, Philemon= 328

=Homer= vii-ix (Preface), 13, 14, 19, 33, 34, 76 ff., 136, 248, 274,

337, _passim_. See also Index A

=Horace= ix (Preface), 15, 48, 78, 81, 113, 195, 197, 200, 267, 273,

278, 322, 323, 336, _passim_

=Hypallage= 78, 330

=Hyperbaton= 26, 340

=Hypobacchius= 174

=Hysteron proteron= 102

=Iambus= 170

=Intermediate or harmoniously blended composition= 246 ff., 301

=Invention= (of subject matter) 1, 67, 318, etc.

=Ionic tetrameter= 86, 304

‘=Irrational=’ 154, 174, 207, 286, 287

=Isocrates= 11, 29, 78, 92, 192, 198, 236, 237, 242 ff., 264

=Ithyphallic poem= 86, 303

=Jacobs, Friedrich= 345, 346

=James I., King= 46

=Johnson, Samuel= 186

=Josephus= 187, 308

=Labials= 149

=Latin= (especially Latin word-order, as compared with that of Greek

and the modern languages) 13, 21, 25, 29-33, 48, etc.

=Lemaître, Jules= 31

=Lessing= 31

=Letters= 138 ff.

‘=Literature=’ 34, 217, 309

=Livy= 178

‘=Longinus=’ =de Sublimitate= 14, 26, 48, 74, 239, _passim_

=Lucian= 68, 196, 229, 279, 327, 333

=Lucidity.= See under ‘Clearness’

=Lucretius= 204, 214

=Luther= 267

=Lydian mode= 196

=Lysias= 16, 55

=Malherbe= 31

=Manuscripts of the C.V.= x (Preface), 56-59

=Marcellinus= 228, 229, 335

=Marlowe= 35, 147

=Maximus Planudes= 86

=Melic poetry= 309, with references there given

=Member= (=clause=, ‘=colon=’) 73, 110 ff., 307

=Menander= 229

=Meredith, George= 147, 172

=Metaphor= 54, 310

=Metre= 33-39, 310

=Metrici= 154, 172, 174, 218, 310

=Milton= 22, 23, 36, 167

=Mimnermus= 273

=Modern languages= (especially in relation to word-order) 12, 29-33,

103, etc.; 342-47

=Modes=, musical 196

=Molière= 91, 138

=Molossus= 172

=Music= 39-41, 124 ff.

=Mute letters= 138 ff., 292

=Natural order of words= 98 ff.

=Neoptolemus= 15

=Nobility of style= 120 ff., 136

=Normal word-order in Greek= 14, 15

=Noun= 71, 98-100, 313

=Number=, grammatical 106, 107

=Obscurity= 16, 17, 335-41. See also under ‘Clearness,’ p. 355 _supra_

=Onomatopoeia= 158, 159, 316

=Order of words in Greek and other languages= 11-39, 98 ff., _passim_

=Orphic fragments= 252

=Ovid= 33, 124

=Oxyrhynchus Papyri= 29, 237, 289

=Paeon= 314, with references there given

=Painting in relation to literary composition= 208

=Paris Manuscript of the C.V.= x (Preface), 56-58

=Participle= 72, 310

=Parts of speech= 71 ff.

=Passion= 314, with references there given

=Pentameter= 256, 315

=Period= 13, 73, 118

=Peripatetics= 48. See also under ‘Aristotle’ (p. 354 _supra_), and

‘Theophrastus’ (p. 357 _infra_)

=Philo Judaeus= 192

‘=Philosophy=’ 331

=Philoxenus= 196, 197

=Phonetics= 43, 44, 140 ff.

=Photius= 333

‘=Phrase=’ 306, with references there given

=Phrygian mode= 196

=Phylarchus= 94

=Pindar= 49, 194, 214 ff. See also under Index A

=Plato= 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 29, 31, 33, 34, 139, 180, 182, 196,

248, 249, 264 ff., _passim_. See also under Index A

=Pliny the Younger= 229

=Plural= 106, 107

=Plutarch= 67, 187, 264, 299, 326, 330, 332

[Page 357]

=Poetry= (in relation to prose) 33-39, 250 ff., etc.

=Polybius= 51, 52, 94, 296

=Pope, Alexander= vii (Preface), 202, 205, 324

=Porson, Richard= 14, 146

=Preposition= 71, 319

=Pronoun= 70, 102, 288

=Pronunciation= 43-46, 140 ff., 348-51, _passim_

=Propertius= 188

‘=Propriety=’ 39, 198 ff., 318, 319, _passim_

=Prose= (in relation to poetry) 33-39, 250 ff., 287 (ἄμετρος), 309

(λόγος), etc.

=Prosodiacs= 86

=Psaon= 94

=Punctuation= 306, 340

=Puttenham= 299

=Pyrrhic= 168

=Quantity=, effect of syllabic quantity in prose 29

=Quintilian= 11, 15, 18, 19, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 38, 46, 47, 53,

70, 71, 81, 89, 93, 98, 145, 152, 168, 195, 203, 248, 250, 265,

266, 300, 301, 305, 306, 315-21, 325, 328, 330, 332, 336, _passim_

=Quotations in the C.V.= 49-56. See also Index A

=Racine= 118, 157, 205, 270

=Reading= (learning to read) 268, 269

=Renan, Ernest= 31

‘=Rhetor Graecus=’ 57, 138

=Rhetorica ad Alexandrum= xi (Preface), 26, 75, 313, 336

=Rhetorical Handbooks= 270, 282, 329

=Rhyme or jingle= 64, 65, 315

=Rhythm= 33-39, 168 ff., 176 ff., 320

=Rhythmici= 154, 172

=Rich, Barnaby= 82

=Rousseau= 211

=Rufus Metilius= xii (Preface), 1, 66

=Ruskin= 37

=Sallust= 38, 180, 225

=San= 148, 149

=Sappho= vii-viii (Preface), 49, 194, 236 ff., 258. See also Index A

=Scales=, musical 194

=Schema Pindaricum= 217

=Schleiermacher, Friedrich= 343

=Scholia= (to Homer and other authors) 76, 132, 155, 158, 170, 188,

191, 229, 274, 277, 288, 333, etc.

=Semivowels= 138 ff., 302

=Sextus Empiricus= 139

=Shakespeare= 44, 81, 112, 135, 147, 161, 321

=Sheridan= 250

=Sigmatism= 146, 147

=Simonides= vii-viii (Preface), 49, 236, 278 ff.

=Simplicity of diction illustrated and commended= 75-85, 134-37

=Smith, Sir Thomas= 45, 46, 141

=Smooth composition or harmony= 232 ff., 293

=Socrates= 120, 160

=Solecism= 190

=Sophist= 184, 264, 321

=Sophocles= 248, 249, 337. See also Index A

=Sotades= 88, 328

=Sound an echo to the sense= 156 ff., 200 ff.

=Sources of the C.V.= 47-49

=Spondee= 170, 322

=Stesichorus= 194, 195, 248

=Stevenson, Robert Louis= 32, 40

=Stoics= 48, 71, 94-97, 104

=Strabo= 55, 285, 290

=Strophe= 194 etc., 323

=Styles of composition= 208 ff.

=Substance and Form= viii (Preface); cp. Demetr. pp. 34 ff.

=Suidas= 237, 296

=Summary of the C.V.= 1-9

‘=Suspense=’ 13

=Swinburne, Algernon Charles= 271, 325

=Syllables= 150 ff., 324

=Synaloepha= 108 etc., 325

=Tacitus= 316

=Taste= 132, 134, 304

‘=Tautology=’ 240, 328

=Taylor, Jeremy= 303

=Telestes= 196, 197

=Tennyson= 86, 190, 271, 278

=Tense= 108, 333

=Terence= 101, 275

=Tetrameters= 87, 329

=Text of the C.V.= x (Preface), 56-59, _passim_

=Thelwall, John= 147

=Theocritus= 281

=Theodectes= 47, 71

=Theophrastus= 34, 37, 48, 164, 165, 193, 305, etc.

=Theopompus= 29, 236, 237

=Thucydides= 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 33, 34, 120, 178, 214, 224

ff., 335-7, _passim_. See also Index A

=Timotheus= 175, 196, 197

=Title of the C.V.= 10, 326

=Tragic poets= 236, 248, 329

=Tribrach= 170. See also under ‘Choree,’ p. 354 _supra_

=Trimeter= 258, 329

=Trisyllable= 170, 329

=Trochee= 170, 330

=Types of style= 208 ff.

[Page 358]

=Usage as the sovereign arbiter= 102

=Variety= 29, 39, 192 ff., 310

=Vedic Sanskrit= 42

=Verbs= 71, 98-100, 108, 320

=Vigny, Alfred de= 213

=Virgil= 19, 21, 156, 157, 164, 173, 204, 327, etc.

=Vowels= 138 ff., 332

=Welsh language= 31

=Wilson, Thomas= [of Eton and King’s College, Cambridge; earliest

translator of any part of Demosthenes into English] 326

=Wordsworth= viii (Preface), 79, 271

=Xenophon= 14, 19, 23, 120

=Zeta=, pronunciation of 44, 45

THE END

_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.

[Page 359]

Cambridge University Press.

BY PROFESSOR W. RHYS ROBERTS.

The following contributions made to Greek literary and

literary-historical study by Dr. Roberts are published at the Cambridge

University Press. The volumes are arranged in the order of their

original appearance.

=THE ANCIENT BOEOTIANS=: their Character and Culture, and their

Reputation. With a Map, a Table of Dates, and a List of

Authorities. Demy 8vo. 5s.

=STUDY OF GREEK.= A Chapter in Frederic Spencer’s _Chapters on the

Aims and Practice of Teaching_. Third Impression, 1903. Crown

8vo. 6s.

=LONGINUS ON THE SUBLIME.= The Greek Text edited after the Paris

Manuscript, with Translation, Facsimiles, and Appendices

(Textual, Linguistic, Literary, and Bibliographical). Second

Edition, 1907. Demy 8vo. 9s.

=DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS: The Three Literary Letters.= The Greek

Text edited with Translation, Facsimile, Notes, Glossary of

Rhetorical Terms, Bibliography, and Introductory Essay on

Dionysius as a Literary Critic. Demy 8vo. 9s.

=DEMETRIUS ON STYLE.= The Greek Text of Demetrius _de Elocutione_.

Edited after the Paris Manuscript, with Translation,

Facsimiles, Glossary, etc., and Introductory Essay on the Greek

Study of Prose Style. Demy 8vo. 9s. net.

EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS OF _DEMETRIUS ON STYLE_.

Professor B. L. GILDERSLEEVE in the _AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

PHILOLOGY_.—“It is to me a welcome sign of the times that Mr. Roberts

has attracted so much attention and gained so much reputation by his

admirable editions of _Longinus on the Sublime_ and of _The Three

Literary Letters of Dionysius of Halicarnassus_, to which he has now

added _Demetrius on Style_.... As for Demetrius, nothing could be more

timely than the revival of his admirable manual.... No wonder that

one hails with satisfaction the prospect of a new edition of the _De

Compositione_ by so competent a hand as Mr. Roberts, if indeed we may

construe his suggestion as a promise.”

_ATHENÆUM._—“We have to congratulate Professor Roberts on the

completion of another preliminary study for his projected work on

‘Ancient Literary Criticism,’ which is a worthy companion to his

_Longinus_ and _The Three Literary Letters of Dionysius_.... These

three books are indispensable to the student of Greek literature....

In the translation Professor Roberts seems to have improved on his

former versions; this is more easy and effective.”

_TIMES._—“Dr. Roberts has introduced to English readers some choice

literary morsels. His _Longinus on the Sublime_, the first of the

ancient works on literary criticism which he edited—we might almost

say, to our shame, rescued from oblivion—is a most able and inspiring

book.... _Demetrius on Style_ is edited equally well. The translation,

indeed, is even better; idiomatic and pleasant to read, it is often

most happy, and there are very few passages where we should differ in

our rendering of the Greek.”

[Page 360]

_SPECTATOR._—“Dr. Roberts is to be congratulated upon the

accomplishment of a worthy task. His edition of the famous treatise

known as _Demetrius on Style_ is a credit to our English learning.

The editor is not merely a scholar, he is a man of letters as well;

and in his notes he has applied the maxims of the ancient Greek to

the literature of to-day with the utmost skill. Indeed, though Greek

lies at this moment under a cloud of suspicion, we can none the less

recommend this work without diffidence or fear, since no English

writer can study Dr. Roberts’s translation and notes without purging

his own composition of faults innumerable.”

_GUARDIAN._—“Dr. Rhys Roberts here gives us a third instalment of

his work on the Greek literary critics, and the further he proceeds

the greater becomes the benefit that he is conferring on classical

scholars. It is much to have made the masterpieces of the later

Greek criticism generally accessible, and especially to have rescued

Dionysius of Halicarnassus from a neglect and contempt that were

wholly undeserved, to have given him new utterance, to have shown that

even for moderns his precepts are not obsolete. Nor is the chorus of

approval with which Dr. Roberts’s work has been received, both at home

and abroad, any louder than is warranted. His own style and taste are

above reproach, and his learning is abundant.”

_WESTMINSTER REVIEW._—“Dr. W. Rhys Roberts has taken for his

province the whole subject of Greek literary criticism. In 1899

appeared his scholarly and exhaustive edition of _Longinus on the

Sublime_, which was followed, two years later, by an admirable edition

of _The Three Literary Letters of Dionysius of Halicarnassus_. He has

now laid English scholarship under a further obligation by his even

more admirable edition of _Demetrius on Style_. Each of these three

texts is accompanied by a translation at once accurate, terse, lucid,

and idiomatic.”

_JOURNAL OF EDUCATION._—“We make no doubt that Professor Roberts’s

earlier books—_Longinus on the Sublime_ and _The Three Literary

Letters of Dionysius_—are known to those of our readers who are

serious students of Greek. We believe they have done a good deal

already to restore ancient criticism to the place which it used to

hold. The present volume is a worthy companion to the other two.”

Professor R. Y. TYRRELL in _HERMATHENA_.—“This edition is of wide

scope and excellent design. It includes an Essay on Greek Prose Style,

a full summary of the treatise itself, and a careful treatment of the

difficult questions concerning its date and authorship. The fact that

this is the first English text and the first English translation of

a very valuable and interesting work gives it an added importance,

and opens up what will be a new field for many scholars.... The

translation, which is exceedingly vigorous, elegant and ingenious,

has one other signal merit: it never ‘hedges’: the translator never

hides a doubt about the meaning under ambiguous language; he leaves

no uncertainty about the meaning which he attaches to the text; and

in the few places where we may venture to take a different view we

feel that there is always something to be said for the version which

we reject.... Dr. Roberts has a very keen eye and ear for literary

beauty; and the treatise affords ample scope for the employment of

his wide and various knowledge of modern literature.... The _De

Elocutione_ is a treatise full of interesting and suggestive comment;

and all lovers of literature owe their best thanks to Professor

Roberts for the edition of it which he has put in their hands.”

The volume has also been favourably reviewed by the following

Continental scholars: Dr. PH. WEBER (_Neue Philologische Rundschau_),

M. THÉODORE REINACH (_Revue des Études Grecques_), Professor AMÉDÉE

HAUVETTE (_Revue Critique d’histoire et de littérature_), Professor CH.

MICHEL (_Revue de l’Instruction publique en Belgique_), and Professor

GIOVANNI SETTI (_La Cultura_).