1 de P,MV 2 e??e?s?a? P 3 [e]ta?e? cum litura P "" ?d? ante ?a? ?p? add. F "" d???e??? F 4 ?a? ??e??? F "" t??t? F: t? a?t? PV: t??t? a?t? M "" t? F: om. PMV 6 ?d???? post e???a? add. F "" t?? PMV: ?a? F 7 ?a?e? ???s???? d? om. FM: ?a?e? ???s???? d? ?a?e?s?a? om. PV: supplevit Sylburgius coll. Herod. i. 7 9 t??a post a?t?? ponit F 10 ? d? PMV: ?s F 11 d? om. F "" a?t??? p???a F: a?t?? t? p???a P: a?t?? ??? t? d? p???a MV 12 ?p?t?de???] d???e??? E 13 tape???? EPMV: pa?d???? F 14 ???? PM 16 t?? P 17 ???ssa? F 18 pe??e???as???? P "" t?? ????? F 19 pe??] t(???) pe?? P: t? pe?? Va 20 t?????e?] ?p???e? F

4. Usener’s conjecture pa?? (for pe??) may be held to find some support from 92 21 and 256 10, but on the other hand Dionysius’ love of eta??? has always to be remembered.

6. F’s reading ?d???? ???es?a? ?a? adds still another ?a? to the four already used in this sentence. The two nouns ?d???? ... ????ta? are superficially attractive, but the plural ?d??a? is not common in this sense.

9. ?????: some light is thrown on various phases of Greek and non-Greek feeling with regard to any exposure of the person by such passages as Thucyd. i. 6, Plato Menex. 236 D, Herod. i. 10 (ad f.). As to the women of Sparta cp. Gardner and Jevons Greek Antiquities pp. 352, 353.

10. For the participles cp. p. 76 ll. 5-7.

12. ??? ?t? (in a context which gives it the meaning of non solum non) occurs elsewhere in Dionysius: e.g. Antiqq. Rom. ii. c. 18 ?a? ??? ?t? ?e?? ???’ ??d’ ?????p?? ??a??? ??????.

13. tape???? (which is weightily supported) seems to correspond better than pa?d???? to se???.—F’s reading pa?d???? might perhaps be translated ‘sportive’ or ‘freakish’ (with a reference to boyish pranks); cp. D.H. p. 196 (s.v. e??a???d??) and p. 199 (s.v. pa?d??d??), and Aristot. Rhet. iii. 11 fin. e?s? d? ?pe???a? e??a???de?? ... d?? p?es?t??? ???e?? ?p?ep??.

17. So, in de Demosth. c. 41, eta?e???sta? d’ e?? t?? ?t??da d???e?t?? ? ????? (the passage in question being Herod. vii. 8). For the charm of the Ionic dialect cp. Quintil. ix. 4. 18 “in Herodoto vero cum omnia (ut ego quidem sentio) lenitur fluunt, tum ipsa d???e?t?? habet eam iucunditatem, ut latentes etiam numeros complexa videatur.”

18. ??d?? ???? pe??e??as?e???: notwithstanding this undertaking, the variations from the traditional text of Herodotus are (as will be seen on reference to the critical footnotes) considerable.

It is no doubt possible that F’s reading t?? ????? (‘the story’) is original, and was changed to t?? d??????? (‘the conversation’) because the whole story is not quoted. But such readings of F as ?p???e? (for t?????e? l. 20: against the MSS. of Herodotus) show that its unsupported testimony must be received with much reserve.

20. This passage of Herodotus may have been before Horace’s mind (Ars P. 180): “segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem " quam quae sunt oculis subiecta fidelibus et quae " ipse sibi tradit spectator.” Cp. also Shakespeare Coriolanus iii. 2 “the eyes of the ignorant " (are) more learned than the ears.” In the Greek the emphatic position of both ?ta and ?f?a??? is to be noticed; cp. Introduction, pp. 19-25, for emphasis at the end and at the beginning of clauses.

1 d’ F: d? PMV: d? ??a Her. (exc. ACP) "" ???e?? ????? Her. 3 ??d????? F, Her.: ??d????? PMV 5 ?? t?de (t?de corr.) F, MV: ?? t?? de P "" ??est?? corr. F¹, M 6 e??a? post ???a???? traiciunt PMV 7 de?s?a? F, Her.: ?????e?? P, MV "" ????? P "" ta?ta] t??a?ta Her. "" post ?pe??et? haec verba habet Her., ????d??? ? t? ?? ?? a?t?? ????ta? ?a??? "" d? P 8 ?? s?? pe???e??? (vel pe???e???) Her. 9 ????? ???? PMV "" t??de ... ??? om. add. in marg. P² 10 t[?] s?? cum litura F: t?s P 12 ???? P: ??? Her. "" ?s P,M "" ?p?s?e? PMV 13 ???ast?s? P¹ 14 ?a? post pa??sta? om F "" ?? PMV "" d? PMV 15 ??d?sa ante ?a?’ ponunt PMV "" ??d????sa Her. 16 pa???e? Her. 17 ?t’ ?? FP ut solent: ?pe?? Her. "" de P, MV 18 e??t? s?? F 19 ???ta Her. "" d[?]a cum litura P "" ?d??at? F, Her. (exc. RSVb): ?d??at? PMV "" d?afe??e?? P 20 ?? ?t???? Her. "" p??e?? ta?ta (t? ?’ a?t? P) om. Her.

3. Cp. Diog. Laert. Vit. Pythag. § 43 t? d? p??? t?? ?d??? ??d?a e????s? p??e?es?a? pa???e? (sc. Tea??) ?a t??? ??d?as? ?a? t?? a?s????? ?p?t??es?a?, ???sta???? te p???? ?’ a?t??s?? ??a?a??e??.

14. e?? ???t?? and ????? t?? e?s?d?? are Dionysius’ Attic equivalents for ?? ???t?? and ????? t?? ?s?d??.

15. ?a?’ ?? ??ast??: cp. Herod. viii. 113 ?? d? t?? ????? s????? ??e???et? ?at’ ???????.

20. Perhaps the effect of Herodotus’ style is best conveyed by the Elizabethan translation (published in 1584) of Barnaby Rich, which is, however, confined to books i. and ii. In The Famous History of Herodotus, by B. R. (i.e., probably, Barnaby Rich), Dionysius’ extract from Herod. i. 8 is freely Englished thus: “My faithful servant Gyges, whereas thou seemest not to credit the large vaunts and often brags which I make of my lady’s beauty and comeliness (the ears of men being much more incredulous than their eyes), behold I will so bring to pass that thou shalt see her naked. Whereat the poor gentleman greatly abashed, and in no wise willing to assent thereto, made answer as followeth, My lord (quoth he) what manner of speech is this which unadvisedly you use in persuading me to behold my lady’s secrets, for a woman, you know, the more in sight the less in shame: who together with her garments layeth aside her modesty. Honest precepts have been devised by our elders which we ought to remember, whereof this is one, that every man ought to behold his own. For mine own part I easily believe you that of all women in the world there is none comparable unto her in beauty. Wherefore I beseech your grace to have me excused, if in a case so heinous and unlawful I somewhat refuse to obey your will. Gyges having in this sort acquitted himself, fearing the danger that might ensue, the king began afresh to reply, saying, My good Gyges, take heart at grace, and fear not, lest either myself do go about to examine and feel thy meaning by the coloured glose of feigned speech, or that the queen my lady take occasion to work thy displeasure hereby. Pull up thy spirits, and leave all to me: it is I that will work the means, whereby she shall never know any part of herself to have been seen by any creature living. Listen then awhile and give ear to my counsel:—When night is come, the door of the chamber wherein we lie being wide set open, I will covertly place thee behind the same: straight at my entrance thereinto, her custom is not to be long after me, directly at her coming in, there standeth a bench, whereat unclothing herself, she accustometh to lay her garments upon it, propounding her divine and angelical body, to be seen and viewed for a long space. This done, as she turns from the bench to bedward, her back being toward thee, have care to slip privily out of the doors lest haply she espy thee.—The gentleman seeing himself taken in a trap, that in no wise he could escape without performance of his lord’s folly, gave his assent.” [From the rare copy in the British Museum, with the spelling modernized.]

If Dionysius does not quote the sequel of the story, the reason may well be that he expects his readers to find it, or to have found it, in the pages of Herodotus himself.

1 ??d?? F 2 pep????e? P 3 ? om. PV "" t??e??e? FP: t??e??e EMV 4 ??e?tt?s(??) P 5 d? d? [p??] FM: de P: d? Vs 8 pe??tt?? ??d? se??? F 9 t??t? (-t? corr.) t(?) P 11 ?? * * ???’ P 12 ?a?] ?? ?a? M: ? ?a? V 13 t?? FM: om. PV 14 p???as?? P 15 ?????a? P 17 ?? om. PMV "" ta?t? PMV: ta?ta F 18 ??e? FM: ???? PV Hom. 19 e????? deleto accentu P 20 ???ta? Hom. 21 ??????? PMV: ????? F

3. P gives ?f????a? in 262 22, and t????e? may possibly be right here. The -?- forms are found in some MSS. of Eurip. Hel. 1059 and Demosth. Chers. 34. But cp. 108 13.

9. ?a? pa?? t??t?: perhaps ‘in Herodotus as well as in Homer.’ Reiske, p???? d? ?a? ???a pa?? t??t? t? ??d?? t??a?t? ?st??.

10. Dionysius seems to allow too little for the charming naÏvetÉ of Herodotus’ mental attitude, which is surely characteristic, whether or no Herodotus was the first to tell the story. Cp. D.H. p. 11 n. 1. The narrative which opens in Livy xxxix. c. 9 may be compared and contrasted.

18. The verse illustrations used on pp. 84, 86 are similarly treated by Hermogenes (Walz Rhett. Gr. iii. 230, 231; cp. p. 715 ibid.).

21. It seems better to read ??????? here (with PMV) rather than ????? (with F), as the form ??????? is found consistently elsewhere (86 3, 88 7, 172 17, 206 10).

Dionysius tends to regard the Homeric hexameter as the original and perfect metre, from which all others are inferior deflexions. Metres, after all, have their associations; the associations of the Homeric hexameter were eminently noble; and so even the choral odes of Aeschylus gain where the heroic line is most employed. So much, at any rate, may be conceded to Dionysius’ point of view, prone though he is to the kind of exaggeration which Tennyson (Life i. 469, 470) so effectively parodies.

1 p?da d??t???? PMV "" t??] t?? a?t?? PV 3 p??s??d?a???? FP: p??s?d????? MV 5 ??e? FMV: ???? P scholl. Hermogenis "" t??a?t’ F: t??a?ta PMV 6 ? t’ FM: ? PV "" ??(??)??s’ P: ????sa F "" ??e??e? P: ???e? F 8 [?]p? t???? d? ???f????a cum litura F, MV: d?f???a P 10 s?????? F "" te?eta? (sic) P: ???eta? FMV "" d????s?? P 11 e?e??es??? P: ???as??? MV: ???as?a? F "" ????as???? F: ????a*s???? P 13 ??d?? a?t??? PV 14 ????? t? F: ???? PMV "" t? ante ?a???e??? dant PMV 16, 17 om. F 16 a?at?s?s(?)? P: a?at??s?? V

3. Maximus Planudes (Walz Rhett. Gr. v. 491), referring to this passage, says: ? p?? ?? e?e? p??s?d??? (v. p??s?d?a??) ?a? p??s???a t??? p??ape????, ? p???? p?? ta?ta p???pe?a, ??da?? ??? s??????. For the prosodia (p??s?d?a, sc. ?sata: also called p??s?d?a???), or processional songs, see Weir Smyth’s Greek Melic Poets p. xxxiii.; and for the various metres employed see pp. xxxiv., xxxv. ibid. It is clear that Dionysius is not here thinking specially of the so-called p??s?d?a??? p??? (– – ?). Cp. Bacchyl. Fragm. 19 (Bergk: 7, Jebb).—Reading p??s?d????? (with the inferior MSS.), and translating by ‘accentual,’ A. J. Ellis (English, Dionysian, and Hellenic Pronunciation of Greek p. 37) thinks that Dionysius means “verses in which the effect of high pitch was increased by superadding stress, so as to give it preponderance over mere quantity”; and he points out that E. M. Geldart shows (Journal of Philology 1869, vol. ii. p. 160) that these transformed lines of Homer, if read as modern Greek, would give rather rough st???? p???t????, or the usual modern accentual verse [the ‘city verses’ referred to by Gibbon, c. 53]. Though it is perhaps unlikely that Dionysius makes any direct reference to such a change, a stress-accent may, even in his day, have gradually been triumphing over that pitch-accent which was consistent with the observance of metrical quantity. Cp. F. Spencer French Verse p. 70.

5. The metrical difficulties presented by these sections of the C. V. are discussed in Amsel’s de Vi atque Indole Rhythmorum quid Veteres Iudicaverint pp. 32 ff. The unprofitably ingenious efforts of some ancient writers to derive every kind of metre from the heroic hexameter and the iambic trimeter might be capped, and parodied, by an attempt to turn such a line as Il. xxiii. 644 (????? t????t??. ?? d? ??? ???a? ?????) into an iambic trimeter: the only thing needed being that the ? of ???a? should be not adscript but subscript. So Schol. Ven. A (ad loc.) ?t? ? st???? ??t?? ?a? ???et??? ???eta? ?a? t??et??? pa?? t?? ?????? t?? p??f????, and Schol. Townl. ?p?t?te??ta? ? st???? ta?? ????a??, ?st’ ?? ????e? ?a? ?a?? ?sta?, ?? t? “s????? ????t?? ?a? ??d??? ???e? ?ap??” (for the doubtful ascription of this last line to Callimachus see Schneider’s Callimachea ii. 777).

10. For the author of these Priapean verses—Euphorion (or Euphronius) ‘of the Chersonese’—see the long discussion in Susemihl’s Gesch. d. griech. Litt. in der Alexandrinerzeit i. 281, 283. It is Hephaestion (de Metris Enchiridion c. 16, ed. Westphal) who attributes the lines ??f?????? t? ?e?????s??t?.

15. The commentators on Hermogenes secure trochees by changing the order of the words in this line—??e?t? ?a? d?f??? ta??s?e??, or ta??s?e?? ?e?t? ?a? d?f???.

1 t??a?ta PMV "" S?t?de?a Planudes: s?t?d?a libri 2 ???a?s? FM: ???a?? PV "" ???e??t? F 5 ??, suprascr. ? P¹ "" ??at?? Hermannus: ??ast?? F: ??ate???? PMV 6 d??a??? PV: ?d????? FM 7 d? PMV "" ?a? P: ??? F: ??? MV 8 te om. F 9 ??t??, suprascr. ?? P¹ 10 etap?pt??s?? (pes??s?? in marg.) F: etapes??s?? M: ???sta pes??s?? PV 12 t? p??? om. P 13 ???’ ??a??as??s?a?] ??a??as??s?a? d? F: ???’ ??(a?)?as??s?a? P "" ?ptes?a? P 14 ?????sa F¹ 15 d? PMV "" ?a? om. P 19 ?????? F 21 ??? F 22 ??t?? ??t?? PMV 23 t?? F: t?? a?t?? E: om. PMV "" ???as????? P: ???ass????? MV 24 t? ??????(?) P "" d? PMV et 90 1 25 ?pe?d? F: ?pe? PMV

1. These lines of Sotades are quoted by two of the commentators on Hermogenes—by John of Sicily (Walz vi. 243) and by an anonymous scholiast (Walz vii. 985). See further in Glossary, s.v. S?t?de???.

7. Palaeographically ??? (MV) is tempting, since the other readings (??? and ?a?) could easily be derived from it. But the difficulty is that Dionysius seems elsewhere to use the simple dative with s?a???, and would probably have expressed the meaning ‘in the case of’ by ?p? with the genitive. ?a? ?? ?e t? ???a?? t? ?et??? f??? a?t? s?a??e? t? ???a (Plato Crat. 398 B) is not parallel.

12. Quintil. Inst. Or. ix. 4. 14, 15 “nam quaedam et sententiis parva et elocutione modica virtus haec sola commendat. denique quod cuique visum erit vehementer, dulciter, speciose dictum, solvat et turbet: aberit omnis vis, iucunditas, decor ... illud notasse satis habeo, quo pulchriora et sensu et elocutione dissolveris, hoc orationem magis deformem fore, quia neglegentia collocationis ipsa verborum luce deprehenditur.”

21. ??se?? ?? d??? = omittere mihi placet; cp. Aristoph. Plut. 1186, Aves 671, Vespae 177.

22. Compare the interesting passage in Cic. Orat. 70. 232 “Quantum autem sit apte dicere, experire licet, si aut compositi oratoris bene structam collocationem dissolvas permutatione verborum; corrumpatur enim tota res ... perierit tota res ... videsne, ut ordine verborum paululum commutato, eisdem tamen verbis stante sententia, ad nihilum omnia recidant, cum sint ex aptis dissoluta?” [Various examples are given in the course of the section.]

23. The Epitome here has e???t?? ??? t?? a?t?? ????t??, ???att????? d? t?? s????se??, ?atafa??? t? ?? a?t? ???s?? te ?a? ??a???p?st??.

1 ????ss?? P "" ????tte? E 2 ????? FMV ut 8, 16 infra FPMV 3 ????s?? P 4 a?tat???? P: ??t??a t???? M 5 ?e??set??? suprascr. a? P¹ "" ?pa??????? F: ?pa?(?)????? suprascr. ? P: ?pa??????? MV 6 ??de P,MV 7 ?? ????tt?? ?? pa?? E "" ???*?tt?? P 9 paf?a????? ?a? s???? F 10 ? suprascr. P¹ 11 d??e?e F 12 (est?) * * P "" p?(?s)?????s?? P 13 d? PV 14 d? ?????a? F: d?a????a? PMV "" a?t?? add. in margine F¹: a?t?? PM 16 d’ om. PV 18 ????s?? FM: ??e?s?? PV "" ?? F: e?? PMV ut supra 20 ??e??e? P,V: ??e??? FMa

3. Hude (following Dionysius) conjecturally restores te in the text of Herodotus. Usener, on the other hand, thinks that Dionysius has deliberately inserted te here and in l. 17 while omitting it in l. 9.

10. This rugged re-writing of Herodotus shows a real appreciation of style and should be compared with the remarks which Demetrius (de Eloc. § 48) makes on Thucydides’ avoidance of smoothness and evenness of composition, and on his liking for jolting rhythms (e.g. “from other maladies this year, by common consent, was free,” rather than “by common consent, this year was free from other maladies”): ?a? ? T????d?d?? d? pa?ta??? s?ed?? fe??e? t? ?e??? ?a? ?a??? t?? s????se??, ?a? ?e? ????? t? p??s??????t? ????e?, ?spe? ?? t?? t?a?e?a? ?d??? p??e??e???, ?p?? ???? ?t? “t? ?? d? ?t??, ?? ??????t?, ???s?? ?? t?? ???a? ?s?e?e?a? ?t???a?e? ??.” ???? ?? ??? ?a? ?d??? ?d’ ?? t?? e?pe?, ?t? “???s?? ?? t?? ???a? ?s?e?e?a? ?? ?t???a?e?,” ?f???t? d’ a?t?? t?? e?a??p??pe?a?.—Hermogenes (Walz Rhett. Gr. iii. 206) shows how the passage would be changed for the worse by such a p?a??as?? as the use of a genitive absolute at the start: e.g. ????s?? ??t?? ?t?.

11. From this point onwards, the less important of the manuscript variants are not recorded in the critical apparatus, except in the case of P which the editor has examined personally.

12. Demetrius (de Eloc. § 199), in quoting this passage, reads ?sp????t? e??: and this may be correct reading in Thucyd. i. 24.

19. Hegesias, in the eyes of Dionysius, was a writer whose originality displayed itself in unnatural contortions of language; cp. Introduction, pp. 52-55 supra. The merits of a natural, untutored prose-order have been indicated once for all by MoliÈre (Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme ii. 4): “Monsieur Jourdan. Je voudrais donc lui mettre dans un billet: Belle Marquise, vos beaux yeux me font mourir d’amour; mais je voudrais que cela fÛt mis d’une maniÈre galante, que cela fÛt tournÉ gentiment ... Non, vous dis-je, je ne veux que ces seules paroles-lÀ dans le billet; mais tournÉes À la mode, bien arrangÉes comme il faut. Je vous prie de me dire un peu, pour voir, les diverses maniÈres dont on les peut mettre.—MaÎtre de Philosophie. On les peut mettre premiÈrement comme vous avez dit: Belle Marquise, vos beaux yeux me font mourir d’amour. Ou bien: D’amour mourir me font, belle Marquise, vos beaux yeux. Ou bien: Vos yeux beaux d’amour me font, belle Marquise, mourir. Ou bien: Mourir vos beaux yeux, belle Marquise, d'amour me font. Ou bien: Me font vos yeux beaux mourir, belle Marquise, d’amour. [This is, apparently the crowning absurdity.]—M. Jourdain. Mais de toutes ces faÇons-lÀ, laquelle est la meilleure?—MaÎtre de Philosophie. Celle que vous avez dite: Belle Marquise, vos beaux yeux me font mourir d’amour.—M. Jourdain. Cependant je n’ai point ÉtudiÉ, et j’ai fait cela tout du premier coup.”

20. The phrase is perhaps suggested by Aristoph. Nub. 359 s? te, ?ept?t?t?? ????? ?e?e?, f???e p??? ??? ? t? ????e??. Cp. Cic. pro Sestio 17. 39 “stuprorum sacerdos,” and also D.H. p. 169 (note on ?a? p???? ? te??t?? ?st?? ?? t??? t????t??? pa?’ a?t?). ‘Hierophant,’ ‘adept,’ ‘past master,’ will give something of the idea.

1 ???? libri: cf. D.H. p. 169 5 ???? F: ?? P "" ?st? F: ?st? t?? PMV "" ??a?(??) P¹ 7 d??e? t?? ??? ?? PV: ?? d??e? t?? EFM "" ?a?t??e?? PMV 10 ?? ????? ?a? ??s?? EF: ?? ??s?? ?a? ????? PMV 11 ?d?] ?d? ?a? F "" ?????ta P 12 ??d? P 15 ?a??????(?) P 16 a?t? Sylburgius: a?t? libri 17 pt??? ?a? tape??? PMV: tape??? ?a? pt??? EF "" d? PMV 18 ?a? ?d?? delevit Sadaeus "" t??t’ ?? s?ed?? ?? PE: t??t’ ?? ? (? M) FM: t??t? V 19 d?a??tte? P 20 t? EFP: t? MV 21 p?s?? P "" ?p?t?de?s?? Sylburgius: ?p?d?s?? libri 22 te om. PV 23 ??? ?st? P "" ????(?) P

2. Possibly Hegesias began one of his books in this grandiloquent fashion, referring to his birth in Magnesia at the foot of Mount Sipylus.

3. ?????: understand ?a??da or ???da. Casaubon conjectured ?a???: Reiske, ????? ?????.

4. ?d??: sc. ? p?ta??. An easy course would be to change ?d?? to ?d? with Reiske; but there is no manuscript variant, and the ambiguity and awkward ellipse may be part of Hegesias’ offence.

13. Vettori suggested the omission here of ???e? ?d?s?a?.

16. Cp. Isocr. Paneg. § 8 ?pe?d? d’ ?? ????? t??a?t?? ????s? t?? f?s??, ?s?’ ???? t’ e??a? pe?? t?? a?t?? p???a??? ?????sas?a?, ?a? t? te e???a tape??? p???sa? ?a? t??? ?????? pe???e??a?, ?t?.

17. The antitheses are ?????)(tape???, p???s?a)(pt???, ?a??)(???fa. The order pt??? ?a? tape??? in PMV gives a chiasmus. ?d?? is the gloss of some rhetorician on ????? (cp. de Demosth. c. 34, where this gloss actually occurs in one of the manuscripts). The word ?d??? does not belong to Dionysius’ rhetorical terminology; cp. Long. p. 194.

18. ??, ‘was all the time,’ ‘is after all’ (cp. 192 8, etc.).

20. Quintil. ix. 4. 16 “itaque ut confiteor, paene ultimam oratoribus artem compositionis, quae quidem perfecta sit, contigisse: ita illis quoque priscis habitam inter curas, in quantum adhuc profecerant, puto. neque enim mihi quamlibet magnus auctor Cicero persuaserit, Lysian, Herodotum, Thucydiden parum studiosos eius fuisse”; Dionys. Hal. de Demosth. c. 36 p???? t?? ????et? ?? t??? ???a???? ?p????a ?a? p?????a t?? ?a??? ???tte?? t? ???ata ?? te ?t???? ?a? d??a ?t???, ?a? p??te?, ?s?? sp??da?a? ???????sa? ??e?e??e?? ??af??, ?? ???? ???t?sa? ????sa? t? ???ata ?a???, ???? ?a? a?t? t? ???ata e???s? s????se? pe???ae??.

21. The conjecture ?p?t?de?s?? may be illustrated by 70 6, 212 19, 256 18, and also by de Demosth. c. 36 (the sentence preceding that just quoted).—The manuscript reading ?p?d?s?? might possibly be retained and translated “made numerous contributions to it.” Disselbeck suggests d?s??, and compares de Demosth. cc. 18, 48, 51.

1 ??de?s P 2 t? om. P "" t(?) P 3 ?at??e?p?? P 4 f?ta???? PM 5 s???a PMV: sftat??a F "" ?a?at?a??? P: ?a?a?t?a??? MV: ?a?a?d?a??? F 6 ??t?????? F: ??t?????? PMV "" ???s?(a)?a?ta P,F: ???s???a?ta M: ???s?a? ????ta V 7 e? post ???ata ponunt PMV 9 ?? F²P: om. F¹: ?? t?? MV 12 t?? ????? ???s?pp?? t?? st????? PMV 13 t??t? F 14 ??te (ante ?e????) PMV 15 ?e????? ante ?????? habent PMV "" ?’ ??? F,M: om. PV 16 sp??d??e?? PMV: sp??d??es?a? F

1. ?et? de?? ??a??a??? a?t? e??a?: pleonasm. Perhaps ?et’ ?s?e?? ??a??a??? a?t? e??a?, or the like.

4. Phylarchus: a native of Athens, or (acc. to some ancient authorities) of Naucratis in Egypt. He flourished under Ptolemy Euergetes (247-222 B.C.), and continued (in 28 books) the historical works of Hieronymus and Duris. The period covered was that from Pyrrhus’ invasion of the Peloponnese to the death of Cleomenes (272-220 B.C.). Remains in C. MÜller Fragm. Hist. Gr. i. 334-58.

Duris of Samos: a pupil of Theophrastus. Flourished under Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.); wrote a history which extended from the battle of Leuctra to the year 281 or later. Among his other writings was a Life of Agathocles. Fragments in C. MÜller ii. 466-88. He is mentioned in Cic. ad Att. vi. 1. 18: “num idcirco Duris Samius, homo in historia diligens, quod cum multis erravit, irridetur?”

5. Polybius: see Introduction, pp. 51, 52 supra.

Psaon, of Plataea: a third-century historian, who wrote in thirty books. Cp. C. MÜller iii. 198 (and ii. 360).

Demetrius (of Callatis, Calatis, Callatia, or Callantia: the town appears under all these names): wrote thirty books of history in the third century. Cp. C. MÜller iv. 380, 381.

6. Hieronymus, of Cardia: wrote, in the third century, a history of the Diadochi and the Epigoni. Fragments in C. MÜller ii. 450-61.

Antigonus: of uncertain date (probably second century) and country, but apparently identical with the Antigonus mentioned, among writers who had touched on early Roman history, in Antiqq. Rom. i. 6 p??t?? ??, ?sa ??? e?d??a?, t?? ??a???? ???a??????a? ?p?d?a??t?? ?e?????? t?? ?a?d?a??? s????af???, ?? t? pe?? t?? ?p?????? p?a?ate??? ?pe?ta ??a??? t?? S??e???t??, t? ?? ???a?a t?? ?st????? ?? ta?? ????a?? ?st???a?? ?f???sa????, t??? d? p??? ?????? t?? ?pe???t?? p?????? e?? ?d?a? ?ata????sa?t?? p?a?ate?a?? ?a d? t??t??? ??t?????? te ?a? ???????, ?a? S??????, ?a? ????? ????? t??? a?t??? p???as?? ??? ????? ?p?a???t??? ?? ??ast?? ????a, ?a? ??d? a?t? d?esp??das???? ??d? ??????, ???’ ?? t?? ?p?t????t?? ????s?t?? s???e??, ?????a?e?.—In the present passage ??t??????, ??t??????, ??t?????, and ?f?????? are also read or conjectured.

Heracleides: a historian who probably flourished during the reign of Ptolemy Philometor (181-146 B.C.).

Hegesianax: a second-century historian, who seems to have written on the history and legends of Troy (??????). Cp. C. MÜller iii. 68-70.

8. Cp. Demosth. de Cor. § 296 ?p??e??e? e ?????ta ? ???a t? t?? p??d?t?? ???ata, and Epist. ad. Hebr. xi. 32 ?a? t? ?t? ????; ?p??e??e? e ??? d?????e??? ? ?????? pe?? Gede??, ?t?. So Cic. Rosc. Am. 32. 89 “tempus, hercule, te citius quam oratio deficeret,” and Verr. ii. 2, 21, 52 “nam me dies, vox, latera deficiant, si hoc nunc vociferari velim, quam miserum indignumque sit,” etc.

9. ?p?? ?e: cp. Long. de Subl. iv. 4 t? de? pe?? ??a??? ???e??, ?p?? ?e ?a? ?? ???e? ??e????, ?e??f??ta ???? ?a? ???t??a, ?a?t???e ?? t?? S????t??? ??te? pa?a?st?a?, ??? d?? t? ??t?? ?????a?? p?te ?a?t?? ?p??a??????ta?;

12. The reading t? ???? ???s?pp?? t?? St????? (PMV) would mean “to point, in proof, to the style (t? ???? = ‘discourse,’ ‘writing,’ ‘style’; cp. 96 2) of Chrysippus.” With the general estimate compare Cic. de Fin. iv. 3. 7 “quamquam scripsit artem rhetoricam Cleanthes, Chrysippus etiam, sed sic, ut, si quis obmutescere concupierit, nihil aliud legere debeat.”

13. The manuscript reading p??a??? should be retained, as against Usener’s conjecture p??a?e?, which perhaps could hardly mean ‘none could sink to greater depths than he,’—if that is the sense intended by Usener. Cp. Aesch. Prom. V. 247 ? p?? t? p????? t??de ?a? pe?a?t???—words which Dionysius may have had in mind; and Plato Phaedr. 239 D ? d??a ?a? ??? ????? pe?a?t??? p??a??e??.

16. sp??d??e??: Usener adopts F’s reading sp??d??es?a?, with the remark “medii rari vestigium servandum erat.” But he quotes no examples; and Dionysius elsewhere uses the active (e.g. sp??da???t??, 66 8 supra). The verb is so frequently found in a passive form and signification, that it seems unlikely that forms common to passive and middle would be used in the middle when the active was available. A middle future, sp??d?s?a?, occurs in Plato Euthyphro 3 B and in Demosth. Mid. 213; but the future middle in many verbs stands quite by itself, and in the passage of Demosthenes we have sp??d?seta? ... sp??d?sate, while in the passage of Plato there is an important variation in the reading.

1 a?t?? F,M 2 ?? F: om. P "" t(?) ???(?) P "" ?e om. PMV "" ???a?a? PM: ???a?e? F: ?p???a?a? V "" ?pe? * * P 4 ?pep?a????sa? PMV "" ??de P, MV 5 ??? ?’ ??? F: ????’ ??? PMV "" ?te d?????? PMV: ?t’ ????? F 9 t?p??] ????? F "" te p???????? P 10 ??dae? (suprascr. ??) P¹ "" d’ om. P "" e??????? om. PMV "" ???? om. PV 13 pe??] ?? pe?? PM 14 ??] ?a? P 16 te] d? PMV 17 ?f????? P 18 ??t’ ?f??e?a? om. P 19 s?a??????? PMV 20 ?a? F: ? PMV 22 d? PMV 24 d??e?] d??e? ?a? P 25 ?? FP: t??? MV "" t? p???ata p?????e?? F 26 ?? om. F "" p??????? PMV: p?[??]???? ‘p??e????? cum litura F

4. ??d’ ??a? e?d?? = ‘ne somnio quidem viderunt,’ ‘ne per somnia quidem viderunt.’

6. For ????? (as a v.l. for d??????) s??t?ttes?a? cp. Antiqq. Rom. i. 1 ... ??te d?a???? ?a?’ ?t???? ??????? p??e?s?a? s????af???. The passage which begins here and ends with the words p?a?ate?a? ?p?st?? is quoted under the head Dialectica in von Arnim’s Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta ii. 67.

9 ff. Cic. Brut. 31. 118 “Tum Brutus: Quam hoc idem in nostris contingere intellego quod in Graecis, ut omnes fere Stoici prudentissimi in disserendo sint et id arte faciant sintque architecti paene verborum, idem traducti a disputando ad dicendum inopes reperiantur.”

13. Diogenes Laertius (vii. 192. 3), in enumerating Chrysippus’ logical works, writes: s??ta??? de?t??a? pe?? t?? st???e??? t?? ????? ?a? t?? ?e?????? e', pe?? t?? s??t??e?? t?? ?e?????? d', pe?? t?? s??t??e?? ?a? st???e??? t?? ?e?????? p??? F???pp?? ?', pe?? t?? st???e??? t?? ????? p??? ????a? a', pe?? t?? p??? ?te?a ?e?????? a'.

23. f?s???? ?f????: this suggests the Stoic point of view.

26. The reading of F looks like an attempt to gloss p???????.

1 d? PV 3 ?????a F 6 ??e???? e????ta? P 7 p??ta post ???ata om. PMV "" ?????? PMV: ?????? F "" p?? ante t?? add. PMV 8 ??s?a? FV: a?t?a? PM "" d???? F 9 de P, V "" t? f?se? om. F 10 ta?t? om. PMV 18 pa??s???t’ ?? t?? PMV: pa??s??? t?? ?? F 19 t(?) a?t(?) P 20 d? Sauppius: te libri

5. There seems to be a touch of quiet humour in Dionysius’ retrospection (during this causerie of his) on the simplicity which had led him to think that he could frame a priori rules as to Nature’s Order. Cp. 102 15 in particular.

7. F’s reading, p??ta t?? ???t??, receives some support from 174 18 infra. But cp. Steph. s.v. p??t??.—F’s reading ?????? is probably due to some corrector who was unaware that there is good classical authority for ????a? = ????a? de??.

The following passage of Quintilian (ix. 4. 23-27) illustrates this chapter in many ways: “est et alius naturalis ordo, ut viros ac feminas, diem ac noctem, ortum et occasum dicas potius quam retrorsum. quaedam ordine permutato fiunt supervacua, ut fratres gemini; nam si gemini praecesserint, fratres addere non est necesse. illa nimia quorundam fuit observatio, ut vocabula verbis, verba rursus adverbiis, nomina appositis et pronominibus essent priora. nam fit contra quoque frequenter non indecore. nec non et illud nimiae superstitionis, uti quaeque sint tempore, ita facere etiam ordine priora; non quin frequenter sit hoc melius, sed quia interim plus valent ante gesta ideoque levioribus superponenda sunt. 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. non enim ad pedes verba dimensa sunt, ideoque ex loco transferuntur in locum, ut iungantur, quo congruunt maxime. sicut in structura saxorum rudium etiam ipsa enormitas invenit, cui applicari et in quo possit insistere. felicissimus tamen sermo est, cui et rectus ordo et apta iunctura et cum his numerus opportune cadens contigit.”

8. p??te???: probably adverbial; cp. Hom. Il. vii. 424 and ix. 551.

15. The completed line (Odyss. iii. 1) is: ?????? d’ ??????se, ??p?? pe???a???a ????? ?t?.

18. pa??s???t’ ?? t??: for the middle voice cp. 214 6 and 122 14.

20. Usener’s ??? t??a seems a needless and somewhat violent change for the manuscript reading t??a ???. No doubt ??? ?st? ta?ta is found in 100 27; but (1) Dionysius’ love of eta??? in style should be remembered, (2) ??? t??a is not a usual phrase, (3) the lively rhetorical question is characteristic.

3 ?spete F "" ????sa?. ?a? M 4 s??? Hom. 5 t? prius om. PMV 6 a?t?? PMV: ta?t?? F 8 p??te?a t?tte?? PMV: p??t?tte?? F 9 ?st? p??te??? F 10 p?s?e?? F¹ 12 pa?ade??as?? P 13 ????t’ PMV 16 ??? d? F: ??? PMV "" ?a t?? FPM: ?a? t?? V¹: t?? V² 18 ??d? PMV "" t?de ??? d? F: ?a? ??? d? ?a? ta?ta PMV "" a?t?? F: om. PMV 19 ? ??e??a PMV: ??e????? F 21 f??? d? F: f??sde P "" e??????a PM 23 ?e??? t? PMV "" ?????e? P "" ??ta??a PMV: ????de F 24 ??de?? ?? e?p?? F: om. PMV 25 t?de Sylburgius: t?de libri "" ???? F, M: ????? P, V 26 t?? t??e? ?a? t??? ??????? F 27 ta?t? PMV: ta?ta F

8. p??te?a t?tte?? ... ?pe?d? p??te??? ?st?: probably this pointed repetition is intentional on the part of Dionysius. p??te?a t?tte?? might afterwards be changed to p??t?tte?? for the sake of brevity.

18. ta?ta (PMV) may be right, as ta?ta in Dionysius can be used of what follows as well as of what precedes; cp. n. on 106 5. So in Plato Rep. vi. 510 ???? ??? t??t?? p??e??????? a??se?, and Xen. Anab. iii. 1. 41 ?? ? t??t? ???? ??????ta? t? pe?s??ta? ???? ?a? t? p???s??s?. For Thucydides’ usage cp. Shilleto’s note on Thucyd. i. 31 § 4. In 100 16-102 25 (and further) there are several instances in which F’s readings (though given in the text) may emanate from some early Greek editor rather than from Dionysius himself: cp. 100 24 with 112 5.

26. Cp. Ter. Andr. i. 1. 100 “funus interim " procedit: sequimur; ad sepulcrum venimus; " in ignem impositast; fletur.”

8 s????afe?s?? et ??t??s?? P "" f???s?f??? te] ?a? f???s?f??? F 10 e???? sic FP 12 ??? pe???s?a? FM: pe???s?a? PV 13 ??e??e?? P 16 et? t???? P "" ???tt?e??? PMV: ?????e??? EF 19 fa??es?a? p???se?e? P, V "" e? t? P: d? t? EFMV "" ?atas?e?(??) P 20 ?fa???s(??) P "" ???? ... ??????se?? om. P "" p??s??se?? EF: p??s????? PMV 21 te F: te p?? PMV 22 ?t? F: t? PMV 23 d???????? PM¹V

3. ???e??e??: cp. Eur. Hippol. 957 ???e???s? ??? " se???? ?????s?? a?s??? ??a??e???, and Xen. Cyrop. viii. 2. 2 t??t??? ?pe???t? t?? f???a? ???e?e??.

4. ?p???afa??: cp. the excerpt from Diog. Laert., 96 13 supra, and Cic. de Or. ii. 14. 61 “in philosophos vestros si quando incidi, deceptus indicibus librorum, qui sunt fere inscripti de rebus notis et illustribus, de virtute, de iustitia, de honestate, de voluptate, verbum prorsus nullum intellego; ita sunt angustiis et concisis disputationibus illigati.”

5. t?? s??ta?a???? a?t??: Zeno and Chrysippus in particular.

6. The statement in 92 21 is here resumed.

13. s??e?e??e??: perhaps, ‘to investigate together,’ i.e. by a comparative method.

14. a?t? t? ??a??a??tata: as in Demosthenes, e.g. de Cor. §§ 126, 168.

16. Probably ???tt?e??? (rather than ?????e???) should be preferred here, as ???ttes?a? is used in the next line but one. It seems likely that Dionysius would use the Attic form ???tt? with aorist ???sa, ???s???, etc.; cp. 98 6, 106 6, 7, 110 6, 13, 112 2, 4, 124 19, 198 23, 230 22. Perhaps 106 7 should be changed accordingly.

17. ???es?a? after p?f??e = ???e?.—s?????a?: Dionysius rightly recognizes that a word-order, already settled in the writer’s mind, may influence both his choice of language and grammatical forms he adopts.

20. p??s??se?? (cp. 116 16) seems right. But p??s????, though generally used of the part added (114 11, 150 13, 152 12), may (in 212 14, 274 22) refer to the process: cp. N.T. use of ?pt?sa.

1 ?a?t???? P, MV 3 ?????? F 5 de? EV: ex d?? P: d? FM "" ???(?) et p????(?) P 8 ?a(ta)????sa? P¹ "" ?a? t? a?t? EF 9 ?d?a??? P 10 t? d?] t? F: d? PMV ""p??e?? om. F 12 p??(?) P 14 eta p?t? sic P 16 ?d????seta? P: ?d?????seta? F, EMV 18 p?????t????] p suprascripto ?? P "" ??e?t? P: ??e?tt??a E: ??e?tt? F 19 p?te?a FE 20 ?a? t??a F 21 ???e??(???) P, M: ??’ ?????? V: ???e??? F, E: ??se????? s

2. For comparisons between literary composition and civil or marine architecture cp. C.V. c. 22, Quintil. Inst. Or. vii. 1 (proem.), Cic. de Or. iii. 171. A metaphor from building underlies the rhetorical use in all or most of such words as: ?a???, ??f??, p??????, ??te?e?de??, st??????, ??t?st??????, ?d?a, t??t??, ???, ?atas?e???e??, ???at?s?e???.

5. ta?ta refers forward here, cp. 112 8 with 112 4. In 110 9 ?de refers backward—‘the foregoing.’

7. ?p? p??a? p?e????, ‘on what side,’ i.e. ‘with what attention to stratification or grain.’ A builder likes to place stone in courses as it lay in the quarry: he knows that, if what lay horizontally is set perpendicularly, it will not last so well. Or the reference here may be simply to the difference in general appearance made by laying a stone in one of several possible ways.

10. If p??e?? be omitted with F, it must be mentally supplied from the general sense of the verbs that follow. Cp. Plato Gorg. 491 D ? t??t? ?? ??d?? de?, a?t?? ?a?t?? ???e??, t?? d? ?????; Demosth. de Cor. § 139 ?a?t?? d???? a?t?? ?????? ??te???, ? ?d?? ???a?e?? ?t?., Soph. Philoct. 310 ??e??? d’ ??de??, ????’ ?? ??s??, ???e? " s?sa? ’ ?? ??????, id. Antig. 497 ???e?? t? e???? ? ?ata?te??a? ’ ????;

13. For ??? ?e???? Usener substitutes e? ? ?e????. The corruption of e? ? to ??? might easily happen in uncial writing, and the reading ??? is as old as the Epitome. But the e? comes unexpectedly after ?p?t?de???, and the emendation is not convincing. The manuscript reading has, therefore, been kept, though ??? ?e???? is a difficult litotes.

15. s??at?s???: grammatical form, or construction, is clearly meant here.

16. From here to the end of the chapter the general sense is: We must, in the interests of harmonious composition, make the fullest possible use of alternative forms—now a noun, now a verb; now a singular, now a plural; now a nominative, now an oblique case; now a masculine, and then a feminine or neuter; and so with voices, moods, and tenses—with forms such as t??t??? and t??t??, ?d?? and ?at?d??, ????f???sa? and f???????sa?, ?e??seta? and ????seta?,—and with elision, hiatus, and the employment of ?? ?fe???st????. Many of these points will be found illustrated in Ep. ad Amm. II., where the subject of some of the characters is as follows: c. 5 use of noun for verb, c. 6 use of verb for noun, c. 7 substitution of passive for active voice, c. 9 interchange of singular and plural number, c. 10 interchange of the three genders, c. 11 use of cases, c. 12 use of tenses. See D.H. pp. 138-49, together with the notes added on pp. 178-81. As Ep. ad Amm. II. shows, Dionysius is fully alive to the dangers of this continual straining of language. Absolutely interchangeable expressions are not common.

18. p?????t????: cp. the use of the plural in Virg. Aen. 155 “vos arae ensesque nefandi, " quos fugi.”

21. ?? ??????? ???e????: cf. Quintil. Inst. Or. ix. 3. 6 “fiunt ergo et circa genus figurae in nominibus, nam et oculis capti talpae [Virg. Georg. i. 183] et timidi damae [Virg. Ecl. viii. 28, Georg. iii. 539] dicuntur a Vergilio; sed subest ratio, quia sexus uterque altero significatur, tamque mares esse talpas damasque quam feminas, certum est.” Besides the reason given by Quintilian, the desire to avoid monotony of termination (excessive ????t??e?t??) also counts.—The present passage may further be illustrated by Dionysius’ own words in Ep. ad Amm. II. c. 10: “Examples of the interchange of masculines, feminines and neuters, in contravention of the ordinary rules of language, are such as the following. He [Thucydides] uses t??a??? in the masculine for ta?a?? in the feminine, and similarly ????? for ????s??. In place of t?? ????s?? and t?? d??a?? he uses t? ????e??? and t? d???e???.”

2 te EFMV¹ "" ??e?tt? EF: ??e?tt??a PMV "" ?a?e?a ?sta? F: ?sta? ?aa??e?a EPMV 4 ?a???s?? P 6 p?f??e? P "" d? PMV 8 ?? om. F 9 de?ta? F: de? PMV "" et? ?a(ta)s?e?(??) P, M "" p?? Usener: ?? libri 12 p??? EF: om. PMV "" te PV: om. F¹EM "" ?s?*? F, E: ?p?s?? PMV 14 ??t(?)???a P 17 ?p???? ?a? ? F: ?p?????e? ? te P 18 ????a?] ????a? ?? Demosth. "" ??e?’ F: ??e?’ PV "" e??e?? P¹, V "" s??a?e?fa?? F: s??a??fa?? P

8. Cp. Batteux RÉflexions p. 181: “Cette opÉration [sc. etas?e??] ne peut pas avoir lieu en franÇais, parce que nos mots sont faits et consacrÉs dans leur forme par un usage que les Écrivains ne peuvent ni changer ni altÉrer: la poÉsie n’a pas sur ce point plus de privilÉge que la prose; mais cela n’empÊche pas que nous ne fassions dans notre langue une grande partie des opÉrations qu’indique Denys d’Halicarnasse dans le chapitre vi. Nous mettons dans nos verbes un temps pour un autre, l’actif pour le passif, le passif pour l’actif; nous prenons les substantifs adjectivement, les adjectifs substantivement, quelquefois adverbialement, les singuliers pour les pluriels, les pluriels pour les singuliers; nous changeons les personnes; nous varions les finales, tantÔt masculines, tantÔt fÉminines; nous renversons les constructions, nous faisons des ellipses hardies, etc. etc. Tous ceux qui font des vers savent de combien de maniÈres on tourne et retourne les expressions d’une pensÉe qui rÉsiste; ceux qui travaillent leur prose le savent de mÊme que les poËtes.”

9. For Usener’s correction p?? cp. 106 15, 108 1; and for F’s de?ta? cp. 104 19.

11. Examples in Latin poetry would be ‘gnatus’ for ‘natus,’ or ‘amarunt’ and ‘amavere’ for ‘amaverunt.’

13. We have an English parallel in the dialect form ‘thik’ and ‘thikky,’ both of which stand for this; or ‘the forthcoming’ and ‘the coming’ might be employed in the translation, and ‘syllable’ be substituted for ‘letter.’

14. ??t???: for the meaning cp. ?p???? 108 17. The implication is that t??t??? (as compared with t??t??) is pe??ss??.

16. Demosth. pe?? t?? ??????? § 6, p???? t?????, ? ??d?e? ????a???, ?at?d?? ?e?pt??e?? t?? ?p????t?? t? ?? t?? t????? p??s??at? t???????t’ ?de?a?, ?a?? d’ ???a??e??? t? ???sta t?? p???? ?a? t? pa?’ ??? d???????ta F???pp? ?a? p??ta?e???ta, pa?e???? e?p?? e?? ???, ??de??? ?d?a? ??t’ ????a? ??te s???fa?t?a? ??e?e?, ?? ?? t?? et? ta?t’ ????? ?????e d????. If ?at?d?? here means little or nothing more than ?d??, we might compare ‘entreat’ in the sense of ‘treat’, or Chaucer’s use of ‘apperceive’ for ‘perceive.’ Dionysius’ meaning, however, probably is not that t??t??? and t??t??, ?at?d?? and ?d??, are actual synonyms, but rather that the shorter form would have sufficed.

17. Demosth. ?at? ???st????t??? § 1, ?de?? ???, ? ??d?e? ????a???, ???s? ?t’ ?d?a? ????a? ?? ?de??? ??e?’ ??e?? ???st????t??? ?at?????s??ta t??t???, ?te ????? ????t? t? ?a? fa???? ???t?’ ?t???? ??t?? ?p? t??t? p????e?? ?a?t?? e?? ?p???e?a?, ???’ e?pe? ??’ ????? ??? ??????a? ?a? s??p?, ?p?? t?? ?e?????s?? ??e?? ??? ?sfa??? ?a? ? pa?a????s???ta? ?p?ste?????a? p???? a?t??, pe?? t??t?? ?? ?st?? ?pas’ ? sp??d?. The passage is fully discussed (from the rhythmical, or metrical, point of view) in C.V. c. 25.

1 ??p????????? Us.: ?a? p(e??)????(??)?? P,EFM: ?a? pa?a???????e V "" ? ??t? t?? ?p???se? ?p???se F: ? ?p???se ??t? t?? ?p???se? P: ? (t? V) ?p???se? ??t? t?? ?p???se M, V 2 ???a?e ??t? t?? ???a?e? ????? ?a? om. EF 4 ?????f???se E: ????f???se F: ????f???sa? PMV 5 f???????sa? PMV "" t? F: ????? t? PMV 6 ??a P, MV "" ???s?e?sa? PMV "" ?a?????e? EF 8 s???et????] s????se?? F 9 p??ta om. F "" ?a?] ?a? t? EF "" ?de EFM: om. PV 10 d? om. P "" ?pe? P "" ?a? ?at’] ?at’ F "" ?f?? F: ?fae? PMV 13 ?st’ P: ?ste F: ?? MV 14 p???atas?e??sa? E 16 etas?e??? Schaefer: ?atas?e??? libri 17 ??asta EF 23 ?e?? EF

2. ????? t?? ?: Dionysius implies that, in his opinion, the so-called ?? ?fe???st???? is, or has become, an integral part of the verbal termination and is not reserved for use before vowels only. His view has some support in the usage of the best manuscripts.

Usener brackets the words ???a?e ... ?a?. But p??ta t? t??a?ta suggests their retention, and their omission in an epitome (E) is natural. Dionysius wishes to indicate that his statement is general and does not apply simply to the particular verb ?p???se.

4. f??????e?? and ????f??e??: see Glossary, under f??????e??.

5. Cp. Demosth. pe?? t?? S?????? § 2, p?? ? pa??? f??? ?e??seta?.

9. ?de = ‘the foregoing,’ cp. n. on ta?ta p. 106 supra.

10. ?spe? ?a? ?at’ ????? ?f??: 72 9, 104 9. The reading ?f?? (rather than ?fae?) accords best with Dionysius’ usage.

23. Cp. Cic. Orat. cc. 63, 66 for similar Latin instances of the effect of a change in word-order.—The complete sentence in Thucyd. iii. 57 runs: ?a? ??te t?? t?te ?????? ?fe?e? ??de??, ?e?? te, ? ?a?eda??????, ? ??? ??p??, d?d?e? ? ?? ?a??? ?te.

1 ? ??? ??p?? add. in marg. F "" ? ???] ??? ? EF¹M¹ "" f??e ... (4) ?te add. in marg. F 6 d’ F: d? M: da? PV 8 pa?a???? P: pa?????? F "" ???f??? F: ???f??? e? P, MV " t??t?? PMV 10 pa?????? FP: pa?a??? V "" ?p?d?d??a? P 14 p?tap? PMV 15 t?? om. P "" ?p??t?? EF: om. PMV: t?? om. F "" ????t?? PMV

2. It is impossible to give real English equivalents in cases like this,—partly because of the fundamental differences between the two languages, and partly because we do not know Dionysius’ own estimate of the exact effect which the changes he introduces have upon the rhythm, emphasis, and clearness of the sentence. The same considerations apply in lines 6-10, where the English principle of emphasis makes it necessary to depart widely from the Greek order in both the original and the re-written form. See Introduction, pp. 17 ff. supra (under Emphasis). A striking instance of effective emphasis in English is Macduff’s passionate out-burst:—

Not in the legions
Of horrid hell can come a devil more damn’d
In ills to top Macbeth.

“If you dispose the words in the usual manner, and say, ‘A more damned devil in the legions of horrid hell cannot come to top Macbeth in ills,’ we shall scarcely be persuaded that the thought is the same,” Campbell Philosophy of Rhetoric p. 496. Biblical instances are: (1) “Nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin” (Nehem. xiii. 26); (2) “Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, do they live for ever?” (Zech. i. 5).

8. Sometimes the manuscript testimony is quite clear as between such forms as t??t??? and t??t??: cp. 116 9 n. In doubtful cases the -? form might be adopted—in 64 6 and 84 17 as well as in 112 8 and 178 10.

14. Cp. Quintil. vi. 3. 70 “figuras quoque montis, quae s??ata d?a???a? dicuntur, res eadem recipit omnes, in quas nonnulli diviserunt species dictorum. nam et interrogamus et dubitamus et affirmamus et minamur et optamus, quaedam ut miserantes, quaedam ut irascentes dicimus,” and Hor. Ars. P. 108 “format enim natura prius nos intus ad omnem " fortunarum habitum; iuvat aut impellit ad iram " aut ad humum maerore gravi deducit et angit; " post effert animi motus interprete lingua.”

1 ?e????ta? PMV "" ?a???ste?a F 6 ??ta???? ... ????s??t?? F, E: om. PMV 7 t? ante t??? om. EF 11 ?pa????????? F 15 ?de?a? F, M 16 ?a? ... ???? secl. Us.: p??s?t? F, M: p??sest? PV 19 p???? P, M: p??e? EFV: p??e?? coni. Reiskius 20 ?????a? F: ????e?a? P, MV "" ??a F: ???p?? PMV "" ?? F: om. PMV 21 ?a? ????staa? P 22 p???? ... (24) ??e?e??e?sa om. P

2. ? ???? is used by Dionysius with various shades of meaning,—‘the author,’ ‘the Master,’ ‘the worthy,’ etc. Cp. 96 8, 182 2, 184 12, 186 2, 198 4, 228 15, 264 25.

5. In the actual text of Menex. 236 E there is a slight difference of order, viz. t??? p???as? ????eta? instead of ???eta? t??? p???as? (as Dionysius gives it).

6. The Epitome makes the meaning quite plain by inserting pa?ap????a t?? ???e?? between ????s??t?? and p??? ??d??.

9. Here all MSS. agree in giving the form t??t?. The same agreement will be found in 86 9, 110 17, 116 20, 120 24, 156 15, 158 5, etc.

10. Demetrius, de Eloc. § 268, regards this sentence as an example of three ‘figures,’—anaphora, asyndeton, and homoeoteleuton. He adds, “Were we to write ‘you summon him against yourself and the laws and the democracy,’ the force would vanish together with the figures.”—Similarly, “Appius eos [servos] postulavit et produxit” would be less telling than “Quis eos postulavit? Appius. Quis produxit? Appius. Unde? ab Appio” (Cic. pro Milone 22. 59).

11. t?? a?t?? ?d?a?, ‘the same form of expression,’ i.e. the effectively pleonastic.

16. If the words ?a? p??s?t? p???? t? ???? are retained, p???sa? (in a slightly different sense) must be repeated in order to govern p????: unless some such word as ????eta? can be supplied.

21. The context of these lines of Sophocles is not known, but the idea may well be that of ‘uneasy lies the head’ or ?? ??? pa??????? e?de?? ????f???? ??d?a (Il. ii. 24). The ‘elliptical’ effect (an ellipse being implied by ?fa??es??, cp. 116 17) is produced by the presence of a?t??, which suggests that ?t????? and ?f’ ?t???? are to be mentally supplied.—Cp. Cic. in Q. Caec. Divin. 18. 58 “hic tu, si laesum te a Verre esse dices, patiar et concedam: si iniuriam tibi factam quereris, defendam et negabo”; and Racine Andromaque iv. 5 “Je t’aimais inconstant; qu’aurais-je fait fidÈle?”

2 ???? ????? ??e? EPMV: ??? ??e? ????? F 4 ?t??e?a?] d??e??? Demosth. 6 ?te?? d? F 12 t? d’ a?t? F: ta?ta d? MV: ta?(ta) d?’ P 13 ta?ta? E: ta?ta F: ta?ta?? PMV "" ta?? te p????????a?? ?a? ta?? ta?ta?? (ta?ta?? om. E) ?p???a?? EPMV 14 ?? FE: ?? ta?? PMV 17 pe???d?? P 18 ???s???? P "" t? ???e?? PMV: ???e?? F 21 t? add. Sauppius "" ?e????tata F, M: te???(?)tata P, M¹V 22 ?t?a FP: e? ?t?a MV

4. Dionysius does not appear to feel that t?? ?d???? is in any way ambiguous,—that it might, at first sight, seem to depend on t?? ?t??e?a?. In Greek a dependent genitive usually (at any rate in Thucydides; see p. 337 infra) precedes the noun on which it depends; and, in any case, the speaker would here pause slightly between t?? ?t??e?a? and t?? ?d????.

15. ?? ??? d? pa?ta?? ?e t? ?pe???d?? ???s???. For an instance of the ‘running’ style, interspersed with the periodic, see Thucyd. i. 9. 2, where Shilleto remarks: “This paragraph seems to me to convey far more than any other which I have read an exemplification of the e?????? ????? of Aristot. Rhet. iii. 9. 2 (???? d? e???????, ? ??d?? ??e? t???? ?a?’ a?t??, ?? ? t? p???a ?e??e??? te?e????). How Thukydides, so great a master of the ?atest?a???, ?? pe???d???, ?????, should have written it, is to me a marvel.”

1 ?st?? F: e?s?? M: om. PV 2 ???? ?? a?t??? F: ???? a?t??? PMV 8 ?a? ? PMV: ?a? EF 9 ?a? ??? ... t??t? F: om. PMV 14 ?pe? ???e????? P "" ?a? posterius] ?? ?a? EF: ?? M 17 ?e??s?a? FE 18 ???t?sta PMV: t? ???t?sta F 20 t?? te EFM: t?? PV 23 t?? p????] t?p?(?a)?(??) P, EFM¹V: p???? suprascr. M 26 ?t??? ? ???? P, MV: ???? ? ?t??? F

2. t? ?a???: see Glossary, s.v. ?a???.

11. For Ctesias cp. Demetr. de Eloc. §§ 213-16, where a fine passage is quoted from him; also p. 247 ibid. Photius (Bibl. Cod. 72) says of Ctesias: ?st? d? ??t?? ? s????afe?? saf?? te ?a? ?fe??? ??a?? d?? ?a? ?d??? a?t? s????at?? ?st?? ? ?????.

12. ?e??f??t??: cp. Diog. Laert. ii. 6. 57 ??a?e?t? d? ?a? ?tt??? ???sa ?????t?t? t?? ????e?a?, and Cic. Orat. 19. 63 “et Xenophontis voce Musas quasi locutas ferunt.”—For t?? S???at???? cp. Quintil. x. 1. 75 “Xenophon non excidit mihi sed inter philosophos reddendus est.”

14. ?a??pa?, ‘absolutely,’ ‘universally,’ ‘exclusively.’ So in 132 16.

18. Cp de Demosth. c. 47 e???s?e d? t? ?? a?t? ?f?t???? ??ta a?t?a, t? ??? ?a? t??? ?????? ?a? t?? eta???? ?a? t? pa?a????????? ?pas?? a?t??? p??p??, ?? ?? ?at? t?? a?t?? t??p?? ???te?a s??at???e?a.

25. ???te??? means (here and in 122 1) ? te ?d??? ?a? t? ?a???.

1 te om. M "" t??t?? om. PV 3 a?t?? FM: a?t?? P "" ???st?? FM: ?a?’ ??ast?? PV "" ?? t? pa???t? om. P 4 e? t? V: e? t??a F: ?a? e? t? P: ?a? e? t??a M 6 ?p?t?de??? F 7 ???? F 9 ?a? ?a?’ ?d??] ?a? om. PMV 11 d? F: d? PMV 12 ?? F: ?p? PMV 14 pa???? F 18 t??t?? d? EF 20 ?st?? ?p??t?? PMV 24 ?p? F: ?a(t?) P, MV 25 t? a?t? F: ?a? a?t? PV: ?a? a?t?? M "" s?f?? F ?? M: ?s?f??(??) P, M¹V

9. ?a?’ ?d??, ?? fas?, ???? ? ?????. The metaphor here may be rendered ‘keep to the track’ or ‘keep to the path prescribed.’ But possibly it is not felt much more strongly than in Cicero’s “non quo ignorare vos arbitrer, sed ut ratione et via procedat oratio” (de Finibus i. 9. 29). Ratione et via (‘rationally and methodically,’ ‘on scientific principles’) often corresponds to e??d? in Greek. In 96 25 ?d? ???e?? is found, and ?d?? te ?a? t????? ????? in 262 21.

13. A clearer rendering might be “the appropriateness which these three require.”

19. pa?t?dap??: cp. Hor. Ars P. 212 “indoctus quid enim saperet liberque laborum " rusticus urbano confusus, turpis honesto?”

20. Probably Dionysius has in mind a Greek theatre. But Roman theatres also contained sensitive hearers: cp. Cic. de Orat. iii. 196 “quotus enim quisque est qui teneat artem numerorum ac modorum? at in eis si paulum modo offensum est, ut aut contractione brevius fieret aut productione longius, theatra tota reclamant. quid, hoc non idem fit in vocibus, ut a multitudine et populo non modo catervae atque concentus, sed etiam ipsi sibi singuli discrepantes eiciantur? mirabile est, cum plurimum in faciendo intersit inter doctum et rudem, quam non multum differat in iudicando”; id. ibid. iii. 98 “quanto molliores sunt et delicatiores in cantu flexiones et falsae voculae quam certae et severae! quibus tamen non modo austeri, sed, si saepius fiunt, multitudo ipsa reclamat”; id. Parad. iii. 26 “histrio si paulum se movit extra numerum aut si versus pronuntiatus est syllaba una brevior aut longior, exsibilatur, exploditur.” In modern Italy (so it is sometimes stated) the least slip on the part of a singer excites the audience to howls of derision and execration. At Athens, an actor’s false articulation was as fatal as a singer’s false note: cp. the case of Hegelochus (Aristoph. Ran. 303, 304).

25. ?s?f???? (found in P and in other MSS.) is probably an echo from line 23.

3 ???a?e? F 5 p????? PMV: p???? F 8 f???? PMV: ??f?? F 10 e?e?? PMV "" ????? F, suprascr. M: est? PM¹V 13 d?a?????ta? V: d???????ta? FPM 14 ?a?ta??e?a PMV 16 ??d?? F, E: ??da?? ???te?a? P, MV 17 ?? ins. Us. ex E 19 fa??eta? EF: ?f??? PMV 21 d?a???tt??s? t??? F 22 ??d?? F: ??da?? EPMV Syrianus 23 ????? PMV Syrianus: ?????? EF

3. It would weaken the argument to add (as has been suggested) ????? or ?e????. The critic may be right, even if he cannot play at all; and the player may retort, ‘Play it yourself, then,’ without adding ‘right’ or ‘better.’

5. ?p?st???: cp. Ov. ex Ponto iii. 9. 15 “non eadem ratio est sentire et demere morbos: " sensus inest cunctis, tollitur arte malum,” and Cic. de Orat. iii. 195 “omnes enim tacito quodam sensu sine ulla arte aut ratione quae sint in artibus ac rationibus recta ac prava diiudicant; idque cum faciunt in picturis et in signis et in aliis operibus, ad quorum intellegentiam a natura minus habent instrumenti, tum multo ostendunt magis in verborum, numerorum vocumque iudicio; quod ea sunt in communibus infixa sensibus nec earum rerum quemquam funditus natura esse voluit expertem. itaque non solum verbis arte positis moventur omnes, verum etiam numeris ac vocibus.”

If p???? be read, the meaning will be ‘the other is an instinct imparted to all by nature.’

8. With ??f?? the translation will run: ‘when a note on an instrument, a step in dancing, or a gesture (pose, attitude) in dancing, is rendered by a performer out of time, and so the rhythm is lost.’

14. d?aa?ta??e?a, manquÉ: cp. ?a?t???a? p???te?a?, and the like, in Plato.

16. ????t?? depends on d?e?st????s?? (the same construction as with the uncompounded verb e?st??e??).

20. This passage (??s??? ??? ... ???e???) is quoted (after Syrianus) in Walz Rhett. Gr. v. 474.

21. ??, ‘was all along,’ ‘is after all’: cp. 92 18.

22. For the passage that follows cp. Aristoxenus Harmonics i. 3 p??t?? ?? ??? ?p??t?? t?? t?? f???? ????s?? d????st??? t? ?????t? p?a?ate?es?a? pe?? ????? a?t?? t?? ?at? t?p??. ?? ??? e?? t??p?? a?t?? ?? t?????e?? ???e?ta? ?? ??? ?a? d?a?e?????? ??? ?a? e??d???t?? t?? e??????? ????s??, ??? ??? ?a? a?? d???? ?? ?? ?f?t????? t??t??? ??est??—a?t? d’ ?st?? ? ?at? t?p?? ?a?’ ?? ??? te ?a? a?? ????eta?—???’ ?? ta?t?? e?d?? t?? ????se?? ??at??a? ?st??.

1 s??a s??a M²: s??a s??a cett. (necnon codd. Eur.) "" ?e???? codd. Dionys.: ?ept?? Eurip. 2 t??et(a?) P¹: t??e?t(a?) P²: t??e?te FEMV "" ?t?p?te P¹: ?t?pe?te cett. 3 ?p?p??at’ V: ?p? p???t’ PM: ?p? p??at’ FE "" ??e?se libri "" ?p?p???? F, EPM: ?p?p???? Vs 6 t?? F, E: ?p? PMV 8 t??eta? FP: t??e?te EMV 9 d’ a? Us.: d? libri 11 ?p?p??at’ V: ?p?*p???te P: ?p? p??ate EF: ?p? p???t’ ??e?se M 13 ?ata???e? PMV 18 ?a? a????sa? PMV

2. t??ete is clearly right, notwithstanding the strong manuscript evidence (FEMV) for t??e?te.

4. The general sense is that s??a is sung upon a monotone, though the spoken word had two tones or pitches (the acute and the grave, the high and the low), and, “indeed, both of them combined in the circumflex accent of its first syllable” (Hadley Essays p. 113).

7. Dionysius clearly means “in speaking,” and “on two successive syllables.” Without the latter addition, the case of an enclitic throwing back its accent on a proparoxytone word seems to be left out of account.

14. D. B. Monro Modes of Ancient Greek Music p. 117 writes: “In English the time or quantity of syllables is as little attended to as the pitch. But in Greek the distinction of long and short furnished a prose rhythm which was a serious element in their rhetoric. In the rhythm of music, according to Dionysius, the quantity of syllables could be neglected, just as the accent was neglected in the melody. This, however, does not mean that the natural time of the syllables could be treated with the freedom which we see in a modern composition. The regularity of lyric metres is sufficient to prove that the increase or diminution of natural quantity referred to by Dionysius was kept within narrow limits, the nature of which is to be gathered from the remains of the ancient system of Rhythmic. From these sources we learn with something like certainty that the rhythm of ordinary speech, as determined by the succession of long or short syllables, was the basis of metres not only intended for recitation, such as the hexameter and the iambic trimeter, but also of lyrical rhythm of every kind.” With this statement should be compared the extract (given below, l. 17) from Goodell’s Greek Metric.

16. t? f?se?: cp. Cic. Orat. 51. 173 “et tamen omnium longitudinum et brevitatum in sonis sicut acutarum graviumque vocum iudicium ipsa natura in auribus nostris collocavit.” And with regard to accentuation as well as quantities: id. ib. 18. 57 “est autem etiam in dicendo quidam cantus obscurior ... in quo illud etiam notandum mihi videtur ad studium persequendae suavitatis in vocibus: ipsa enim natura, quasi modularetur hominum orationem, in omni verbo posuit acutam vocem nec una plus nec a postrema syllaba citra tertiam; quo magis naturam ducem ad aurium voluptatem sequatur industria.”

17 ff. Cp. Goodell Chapters on Greek Metric p. 52: “We find ample recognition [sc. in these two sentences] of the fact that in Greek lyric metres, so far as they come under what we have seen called ??? and ????? or ‘rhythmi,’ long and short syllables alike were more or less variable. In some way the reader knew in what rhythmical scheme or pattern the poet intended the verses to be rendered. To reproduce the rhythmical pattern which the poet had in mind, the singer, if not also the reader, made some long syllables longer and others shorter than two ?????? p??t??, and made some short syllables longer than one ?????? p??t??. It seemed to Dionysius in those cases that one did not so much regulate the times by the syllables, but rather regulated the syllables by the times.”

19. The compound pa?a????sa?, as given by EF, may be compared with pa?a????e?sa in 152 18. Dionysius does not avoid hiatus after ?a?, and so he would not prefer pa?a????sa? to a????sa? on this account, though an early reviser of his text might do so.

e?? t??a?t?a eta???e??: e.g., a short syllable will sometimes be treated as if it were long and were circumflexed.

3 d? t?? PMV: t?? F 4 t? ??] ?? t? F 5 ??? Us.: ??? PV: ? ?? FM "" d?at???s? FM 6 e?e??? P 7 s?et??a s????sa FPM: s?et??????sa V 8 p? F: t?? P "" ??????? om. P 14 ?pe?d? d? ta??’ F 18 a?t?? t???? EF: t??e? a?t?? PMV 20 ? te] ? EF 23 d?] ?d? F: d? ?d? E 25 t? t?? F, E: t?? P, MV 25 ?a? t?? ???se? F 26 s?????pte?? EF "" ?t?p?a? om. F

1. The subject of ?pe??????s? is, of course, ? ??s??? te ?a? ??????.

7. s?et??a: cp. l. 12 t?? s?et??a? t?? ?????, and 254 10 teta?????? s????sa ??????.

9. ?at? t?? ???e??? ?a????: i.e. in cc. 25, 26.

10. pa?’ a?t?? t?? s???es??. With this use of pa?? cp. 156 12 pa?’ ??d?? ??t?? ?te??? ? t?? t?? s???a?? ?atas?e???, 160 9 pa?? t?? t?? ??a?t?? s?p????? ?t?., 202 11 ?a? pa?? t? ?????e t??t?? ??ast??;—In a?t?? t?? s???es?? the contrast implied is with ? ?????? t?? ????t??: cp. 252 21 ?at? ???? t?? s???es?? a?t??? ?pe? ?a? ? ?????? t?? ????t?? ??a t? d??ata?.

23. If ?d? be read (with F and E) the meaning will be, “the data being the letters with their invariable qualities.” Cp. the German schon.

25. Quintil. ix. 91 “miscendi ergo sunt, curandumque, ut sint plures, qui placent, et circumfusi bonis deteriores lateant. nec vero in litteris syllabisque natura mutatur, sed refert, quae cum quaque optime coeat.”

2 e?p??f??a] e?f??a F 3 s??te???ta F 4 p???? ... (5) p???s???aa om. P. 7 ?????e?? te ??? F: ?????e?a? te ??? M 8 p???sta?ta? F 9 te t?? Us.: t? t???? F, E: t???? PMV 11 f??ass?????? EF: f??att?e??? s "" ?p? FE: om. PMV "" ?e? ??e?? EF: d?a??e?? PMV 14 ?pe?te????ta? Us.: ?pe?te????ta libri 17 t??a?t?a FE: t???a?t??? PMV 19 ?????e??? EM: ????? ?e??? F: ??????? PV "" ???????e??? EFM: ???e??? PV 22 t?de ?????? FMV: t? ???e?? P 23 p??t?? P

2. Compare the scholia of Maximus Planudes on the p. ?d. of Hermogenes: t??t? ??? f?s? ?a? ?????s???, ?t? de? ????e?? ?a??s? a??? ?a? p???s??????? ?????s???aa, t??t? ??? ?d??? d?at???s? t?? ????? (Walz Rhett. Gr. v. 520).

12. Cp. Anonymi scholia on Hermog. p. ?d. (Walz vii. 1049), d?? t??t? ??????? ?d??? ? ?????, e?te ???e? e?te ?? ?pe?d? ?at? ?????s??? ?d??e? t?? ????? ?a? p??????e?, ?a? ? ???es?a? ?p? t?? a?t??, ?d? ???e?? e?? a?t?, ???? t? ?? ?p??t?? ?a??? ?????, t??t?st? p?d??, s???e?s?a? t?? ?????? ?????? ??? a?t?? ??t? ?a??? e??a?? t?tte? d? t?? sp??de??? et’ a?t??.

14. ?pe?te????ta? ... ?a????: lit. ‘exceeding due measure in either case.’ On the whole, Usener is perhaps right in reading the plural here and in l. 11; clearness, and variety of termination, recommend the change. But (1) all MSS. have ?pe?te????ta, (2) the singular has been used in ll. 1, 3, 4 supra, and so might as well be maintained to the end, while f??att?????? (instead of f??att?e???) might arise from the initial s of s??as?.

20. t?? ?a???? ????, ‘to have an eye to (or observe) the rules of good taste,’ is a natural and appropriate expression. The use of ???at?? in 134 3 is no argument for reading ????? here, but rather tells against the anticipation of so pronounced a metaphor. Moreover, the middle voice is found in this sense in de Demosth. c. 40 t?? e?f???a? ??????? ?a? t?? e???e?a?. With ???? cp. de Demosth. c. 49 ????? te ?a? t?? ?a???? t? ?t?a ???? and de Thucyd. c. 1 t?? p??a???se?? ??? ?pa?ta ?at? t?? ?????stat?? ????s?? ???s?? (where ????s?? is given in Usener-Radermacher’s text).

21. Quintil. xi. 1. 1 “parata, sicut superiore libro continetur, facultate scribendi cogitandique et ex tempore etiam, cum res poscet, orandi, proxima est cura, ut dicamus apte; quam virtutem quartam elocutionis Cicero demonstrat, quaeque est meo quidem iudicio maxime necessaria. nam cum sit ornatus orationis varius et multiplex conveniatque alius alii: nisi fuerit accommodatus rebus atque personis, non modo non illustrabit eam sed etiam destruet et vim rerum in contrarium vertet.”

22. t?de ??????: Usener reads t?de ?e (without ??????), in view of P’s t? ???e??. But t?de ?e is unusual in this sense, whereas ?t? ?a? e?? t?de ?????? is found in Antiqq. Rom. i. 16. Cp. i. 38 ibid. ?a? pa?? ?e?t??? e?? t?de ?????? ???eta?: also i. 61, 68, iii. 31, vi. 13.

1 ??d?? F: ??d’ MV: om. P "" ?a? F: om. PMV 5 a?t?? FM: om. PV 6 ????ast?? F, ?? M: ???s??t?? PM¹V "" spa???t??(a?) P, MV 9 ? EFM: om. PV 10 ??a??tteta? F: a??tteta? PMV 15 s??t??e?? FM: t??[e?]? cum litura P, V 16 ?p????pt??s? EF: s?????pt??s?? P, MV 17 ????st?? FE: ???? ????st?? PMV 20 ???t?st?? EF: ?st? ???t?st?? PMV 21 ?a? p??p??sa? om. F 22 de?? om. F "" ?t? ?a? t?t??pta? EF: ?t’ (??t’ V) ?p?t?t?apta? PMV 23 ????? EF: om. PMV 24 ??pa??? EF: ??pa??? ? ?a??? PV: ?a??? M "" ???? om. F 26 d? EF: d? ?? PMV

1. For ??d’ ?t? (as read by Schaefer) Dobree suggested a number of alternatives,—??d’ (= ??da), ??d??, ??d’ ?t????.

7. The passage that begins here is, itself, a good example of rhythmical and melodious writing.

10. t? ????: cp. Long. p. 207, s.v. s??????.

15. The description in Iliad iv. 297-300 may be in Dionysius’ mind. Cp. Cic. Brut. 36. 139 “omnia veniebant Antonio in mentem; eaque suo quaeque loco, ubi plurimum proficere et valere possent, ut ab imperatore equites pedites levis armatura, sic ab illo in maxime opportunis orationis partibus collocabantur”; Xen. Cyrop. vii. 5. 5 ??apt???e?s?? d’ ??t? t?? f??a???? ?????? t??? p??t??? ???st??? e??a? ?a? t??? te?e?ta????, ?? ?s? d? t??? ?a??st??? tet???a?.

19. Cp. Dionys. Hal. Ep. ad Cn. Pompeium c. 3 ?? ?d? ???a ?? ?st???a? ??af? eta??? ?a? p???????: Aristot. Eth. vii. 1154 b eta??? d? p??t?? ?????, ?at? t?? p???t??: Eurip. Orest. 234 eta??? p??t?? ?????. Dionysius’ whole-hearted faith in the virtues of eta??? (considered in its widest bearings) rests on a basis of permanent truth. If we open Shakespeare at random, we can see how the verbal forms (‘remember,’ ‘bequeathed,’ ‘sayest,’ ‘charged,’ ‘begins’) are varied in the opening sentence of As You Like It; and this though our language is almost wholly analytical. And the words that fall from Lear in his madness (King Lear iv. 6) are full of the most moving eta??a?, as well as of the most pathetic variations from t? e?e??? to t? ?e???.

2 ???????? EFMV: ??(?)e?(??) P 4 ?????? F: sed cf. 154 7 7 e??a?? e??? sic P, FM: e?e? V 8 e ?a? F: ? PMV 9 ? PMV: ?? F 10 ??d’] ??? PV "" ? F: om. PMV 13 ??t? ?a? PMV: ??t? F 14 ?t??a PMV: ??a F "" se??? t?? F: se??? PMV 15 ??e? P: ??e? (??e?? V) t??? FMV 16 p???? (? suprascripto) P: p??a??? V: t? p???? M: p???? F 18 de??] d? F 20 ???ata PE: ???ata ta?ta FMV 22 f???? ?a? ???????? REF: ?a? ???????? f???? a? PMVs

6. ?p?? = pe??: l. 21 infra, 96 2, etc. Reiske’s ?p? is attractive; but does ????a really = ????a ?e???ata?

8. e??? = “So!” The breathing on the last syllable (as given by the best manuscripts, here and in other authors) helps to distinguish this word from the third pers. plur. optat. of e??.

9. In a negative sentence, ? ??a is to be preferred to ?? ??a.

13. ?????: ???? (cp. l. 11 supra) is here in question. Hence Usener suggests ???s??. Perhaps ????? (‘the words,’ ‘the libretto’) is here felt to include the music,—‘a passage set to music’: cp. 124 22 ?a? ??? ?? ta?t? ?a? ???? ????s?? a? ???e?? (‘the words’) ?a? ????? ?a? eta???? ?a? p??p??, and contrast 126 20-1.

16. p????, ‘mellowness,’ ‘ripeness’ (see Gloss.). The readings of FPMV seem all to point in this direction. p???? (F’s reading) might possibly mean either ‘involve trouble’ (to the author) or ‘suggest painstaking’ (to the reader). Usener conjectures t????.

22. Chapter xiv., which in some respects is the most interesting in the treatise, might easily be ridiculed by one of those scoffers whom Dionysius elsewhere (252 17) mentions with aversion. In Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme (ii. 4) there is much that could serve for a parody of the C. V.—the MaÎtre de Philosophie with his “Sans la science, la vie est presque une image de la mort” (nam sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago), his “tout ce qui n’est point prose est vers; et tout ce qui n’est point vers est prose,” and (particularly) his remarks on l’orthographie: “Pour bien suivre votre pensÉe et traiter cette matiÈre en philosophe, il faut commencer selon l’ordre des choses, par une exacte connaissance de la nature des lettres, et de la diffÉrente maniÈre de les prononcer toutes. Et lÀ-dessus j’ai À vous dire que les lettres sont divisÉes en voyelles, ainsi dites voyelles parce qu’elles expriment les voix; et en consonnes, ainsi appelÉes consonnes parce qu’elles sonnent avec les voyelles, et ne font que marquer les diverses articulations des voix.” These remarks include descriptions (many of which are taken almost verbatim from De Cordemoy’s Discours physique de la parole, published in 1668) of the mode in which various letters are formed, and (incidentally) M. Jourdain’s exclamation, “A, E, I, I, I, I. Cela est vrai. Vive la science!”

1 ? R: ?? libri 3 p??t?? F: p?t? P: p??t?? RMVs 4 te?e?ta?a P: te?e?ta??? R: te?e?ta?a? FVs: te?e?ta?a? M 9 ? f?????t?? REFM: ?? f?????t?? PR^b: f?????t?? Vs 10 s???? REF: s?????? PMVs "" ???? RE: ???? F: p?pp?s?? P: ?p?pt?s?? Vs: p?pp?s?? ? ???? M 11 d???t????? RF: d???t??? EPMVs 13 d?? d? REF: om. PMVs "" ??te?a] ?a??pe? F 14 t?? f???? RFM: f???? PVs

1. The following note, given in Usener-Radermacher ii. 1, p. 48, is important for its bearing on the text of the C. V.: “Scholiasta Hermogenis ?e?? ?de?? I 6 in Walzii rhet. gr. VII. p. 964, 23 (correctus ex codd. Paris. 1983 = R^a et 2977 = R^b) ???? pe?? ?? st???e??? ???sta pa?ad?d?s?? ? ?????s??? ?? t? pe?? s??????? ????t?? s?????at?? ???e? ??? t? s????e? ???st? t?? st???e??? ?a? p??a? ?? d??a?? ??e? t? f???e?ta, p??a? d? t? s?f??a ?a? p???? a? t? ??f??a? p??? ??a t? ?a? ?a??s?e? t?? ??d?a t?? de???t?t??, a?t?? pa?a??e?a t?? ?????? ???a? ?? ... e??a? ??e??a (p. 969. 18 W.). ?a? ta?ta ?? ? ?????s???? ??? p??s???? ??? ?? d?a??t??? t?? p??s????t??. e? ??? se??? p??e?? ????e?? (sic b: ??????? a Walzius) t?? ?????, ???e??e??? t? a??? ?a? ?sa teta???? (teta????? W) ?a??e? ?a? d???e?? t?? a???? t?? p?e?at?? ??a?e? fe??e d? t? ?a???? ?? ?p???p?? te ?e??e?a ?a? ?? p???? p?e?at?? ?a? t?? ??t???a? ?p? ?a?? ?????e?s?? ??fe??e?a? t? ??? a??? t?? f?????t?? t? se?? ????? ???tte? ?te (e? te b) ?????e?a ?at? t?? ??f???? ?a? p???? ?????ta ??????? ?????e?a (Walzius: ?????e??? a b) d? t? ?a???? ?e??e?a ?a? spad??????ta (spad??????ta b spa?????ta Walzius) t?? ????. ???’ ??? ?p??? ??d? (??te libri) t? a??? de? ?a??e??, ???? t? ?at? t?? ??f???? d???????ta t? st?a ?a? ?sa ???eta? t?? st?at?? ?p? p?e?st?? ?????????? ?a? t?? p?e?at?? ??? fe?????? (??afe?????? b) p??? t?? ???a???, ? ?sa pe??st???e? t? ?e??? ?a? t? p?e?a p??e? pe?? t? ????st????. ?ste de? ???sta ???s?a? ta?? ???es?? ?sa? p?e??????s? t? te a ?a? t? ?.”

2. Dionysius Thrax Ars Gramm. § 6 (Uhlig p. 9) ???ata d? ???eta? d?? t? ??aa?? ?a? ??sa?? t?p??s?a?? ????a? ??? t? ??sa? pa?? t??? pa?a????.

3. With this passage generally cp. Aristot. Poet. c. 20 st???e??? ?? ??? ?st?? f??? ?d?a??et??, ?? p?sa d? ???’ ?? ?? p?f??e s??et? ????es?a? f???? ?a? ??? t?? ?????? e?s?? ?d?a??et?? f??a?, ?? ??de?a? ???? st???e???? ta?t?? d? ??? t? te f???e? ?a? t? ??f???? ?a? ?f????. ?st?? d? f???e? ?? t? ??e? p??s???? ???? f???? ????st??, ???? t? S ?a? t? ?, ?f???? d? t? et? p??s???? ?a?’ a?t? ?? ??de?a? ???? f????, et? d? t?? ????t?? t??? f???? ?????e??? ????st??, ???? t? G ?a? t? ?. ta?ta d? d?af??e? s??as?? te t?? st?at?? ?a? t?p??? ?a? das?t?t? ?a? ????t?t? ?a? ??e? ?a? ?a??t?t?, ?t? d? ???t?t? ?a? a??t?t? ?a? t? ?s?? pe?? ?? ?a?’ ??ast?? ?? t??? et?????? p??s??e? ?e??e??.

6. Aristoxenus, of Tarentum, the great musical theorist of Greece, lived during the times of Alexander the Great. Dionysius refers to him also in de Demosth. c. 48.

9. Cp. Sext. Empir. adv. Math. i. 102 ?a? ??f??a ?? ?sa d?’ a?t?? ?????? ? s???? ? ???? ? t??a pa?ap??s??? ???? ?at? t?? ??f???s?? ?p?te?e?? pef???ta, ?t?.

10. p?pp?s??, the reading of P, might mean ‘a popping sound.’

13. The division into vowels, consonants, and mutes appears in Plato Cratyl. 424 C ??’ ??? ?a? ??? ??t? de? p??t?? ?? t? f???e?ta (‘vowels’) d?e??s?a?, ?pe?ta t?? ?t???? ?at? e?d? t? te ?f??a (‘consonants’) ?a? ?f????a (‘mutes’); ?f??a seems in this passage to mean ‘consonants’; in later times s?f??a was often so used. In the Philebus 18 D the originator of an ‘art of grammar’ is attributed to the Egyptian

2 a?t? ?a?t?? REF: om. PMVs 4 ??te?e?? REF: ??te?e?a? PMVs 5 d? ??f??e?ta? REFMVs: d? ?a? f??e?ta? P 6 ?????? RFM: ? ?????? PVs 11 e? d? RF: e? PMVs 14 t? RF: ?a? t? PMVs "" a?t??? RF: a?t?? P, MVs 16 ?? ?a??a t?te (t? R) ? ?a? t? ?, d?? d? a??? F, ER: ?? a??? PMVs 18 ?a? ??? ??te??eta? ta?ta RFE: ? ?a? ??te??eta? PMVs 19 ?a? a?t? RF: ? PMVs "" ??] ?? ?d? R 20 f??e?ta? RF: ??f??e?ta? EPMVs "" pa?? t?? EF: ?p? t?? M: t?? RPVs 21 s??????s?? R: s??e???s?? libri "" t?? p?e?at? R: t? p?? F: t? p?e?a EPMVs "" st?at??] s?at?? R

5. “On referring to the treatise of Aristotle pe?? ????st??, the notion which underlies all Greek phonetics will be seen to be as follows. Breath is expelled by the lungs through the windpipe into the mouth, whence it passes out. The chief differences of speech-sounds are effected by ‘the strokes of the air’ (a? t?? ????? p???a?) and the configurations of the mouth (?? t?? st?at?? s??at?s??). On the state of the lungs, their hardness, dryness, thickness, or softness, moistness, freedom, much stress is laid; and also on the amount and strength of the ‘stroke,’ which drives out the air forcibly (?????? t?? ???a ?a???). Much is said of a long and short windpipe. ‘All that have long necks speak forcibly, as geese, cranes, and cocks. When the windpipe is short, the breath necessarily falls out quickly, and the stroke of the air becomes stronger, and all such persons must speak sharper (???te???) because of the rapidity with which the breath is borne on.’ But there is not the least reference to the larynx or vocal chords, to the real organ by which voice proper is formed. No doubt Dionysius was not wiser than Aristotle in these matters. This must be well borne in mind for the full appreciation of what follows,” A. J. E. [But for ?????? cp. the note on l. 21 infra.]

14. a?t???: st???e?a (cp. ll. 9 and 10), rather than a? t?? f???? ???a?, seems to determine the grammar here. The reference of a?t?, a?t?, t??t?, etc., is often very general; e.g. Aristoph. Ran. 1025 ???’ ??? a?t’ [sc. t? p??e???, to be supplied from t?? p??e?? in the previous line] ???? ?s?e??, ???’ ??? ?p? t??t’ [sc. t? ?s?e??] ?t??pes?e, and 1464 e?, p??? ?’ ? d??ast?? a?t? [sc. t? ???ata, implied in p????] ?atap??e? ????; Thucyd. vii. 55 2 t? p?? a?t?? (‘before the late events’). Cp. also note on 198 18 infra.

Dionysius makes no specific reference, here or elsewhere in his treatise, to the diphthongs. The probable inference is that he regarded them as true diphthongs, formed from the simple vowels whose pronunciation is separately described by him.

16. See Introduction, p. 46 supra, as to Sir Thomas Smith on this passage.—It is interesting also to notice the praise which Smith, in the same treatise on Greek pronunciation (Havercamp ii. p. 537), lavishes on Dionysius’ description of various vowels: “Quis Apelles aut Parrhasius faciem hominis penicillo vel coloribus exprimere potuit felicius, differentiamque constituere inter diversos vultus, quam hic verbis vocalium naturam distinxit ac separavit?”

21. With s??e???s?? t? p?e?a the meaning would be ‘while the windpipe constricts the breath.’ But the reading given by R represents the facts with a fair degree of accuracy, and it may be compared with Aristot. Hist. An. ix. 4 t? ?? ??? f???e?ta ? f??? ?a? ? ?????? ?f??s??, t? d’ ?f??a ? ???tta ?a? t? ?e???.

?p??? s??at?s???t??: “meaning perhaps that the mouth is not continually varied in shape,” A. J. E.

22. ??d?? p?a?ate??????: “that is, it does not move about, though it directs the breath,” A. J. E.

???’ ??e??s??: “meaning that it does not vibrate as for ? and ?,” A. J. E.

7 ??e? R (ut videtur) 8 ??? ?p???pte? t???? RF: ??? ?p???pte? ?????? E: ?? ?ata??pte? t?? t???? PMVs 9 spad????e? PMVs: spa???e? R (sed vid. n. 138 1) EF 10 p???? REF: om. PMs 12 ??? fe?????? R^aPMVs: ??afe?????? R^bEF 13 d??t? REF: ?t? PMVs "" ??t? te F: te ??t? R: ??t? EPMVs 14 ???’ ??? REF: ????????? ???’ ??? PMVs "" t?? st?at?? REFM: om. PVs 16 pe??st???eta? REF: pe??st???e? PMVs 17 ?t? RF: ?st? EPMVs 18 ???????? REF: ?e?????? PMVs

5. With regard to the euphoniousness of the Egyptian vowels there is an interesting passage in Demetr. de Eloc. § 71: “In Egypt the priests, when singing hymns in praise of the gods, employ the seven vowels, which they utter in due succession; and the sound of these letters is so euphonious that men listen to it in preference to flute and lyre.”

9. spad????e?: see Gloss., s.v.

10. For the effect of the a sound in Latin cp. Cic. Tusc. Disp. ii. 9. 22 “haec dextra Lernam taetram, mactata excetra, " placavit: haec bicorporem afflixit manum: " Erymanthiam haec vastificam abiecit beluam: " haec e Tartarea tenebrica abstractum plaga " tricipitem eduxit Hydra generatum canem” (a translation of Soph. Trach. 1094-99).

11. Cp. Le Bourg. Gent. ii. 4 “la voix A se forme en ouvrant fort la bouche”; and the rest of MoliÈre’s comic phonetics furnish similar points of coincidence with this chapter of Dionysius.

12. “The position of the tongue has to be inferred from the presumed direction of the breath, on which many other writers besides Dionysius have laid stress; for A probably the tongue was depressed, so as to allow the breath to enter the mouth freely, and the sound was either a in ‘father,’ or, with a still more depressed tongue, the French a in ‘passer,’ which is a common Scotch pronunciation of the vowel a,” A. J. E.

13. “The description which Dionysius gives of the production of ? and of e is unfortunately not of such a kind that we can with any certainty infer the distinction of an open or closed sound,” Blass Pronunciation of Ancient Greek p. 36 (Purton’s translation).

14. The ?a? introduces a specification which is parallel to those which follow ??t?.

15. For the effect of the o sound (notwithstanding any differences in the two languages) cp. Cic. Cat. iv. init. “video, patres conscripti, in me omnium vestra ora atque oculos conversos. video, vos non solum de vestro ac reipublicae, verum etiam, si id depulsum sit, de meo periculo esse sollicitos.” And in Greek, the Homeric lines quoted on 154 23, 156 4 infra.—The question whether ? = ‘open’ or ‘closed’ o depends upon what position of the lips Dionysius’ description is taken to indicate.

17. ?tt??, ‘less,’ might mean inferior either in quality of tone or in the degree of opening of the mouth (A. J. E.).

t? ?: this vowel can, as in Aristoph. Plut. 895, be so pronounced as to convey the sensations of a sycophant in the presence of roasted meats:—

???e?s???; ??d?? ?st??, ? ?a??t?t?,
p??? ???a tea??? ?a? ??e?? ?pt?????.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?,

where B. B. Rogers remarks: “This line [? ? etc.], as Bentley pointed out, is naso, non ore, efferendus. It represents a succession of sniffings, produced by the nose; and not words or inarticulate sounds spoken with the mouth.”

18. Cp. scholium on Dionysius Thrax p. 691. 27 B: t? ? t? ?e??? s?st???e? ?at? t?? ??f???s??. f?s? ??? ?????s??? ? ????a??asse?? ?? t? pe?? st???e??? ?a? s???a?? ???? ?t? pe?? a?t? t? ?e??? s?st???? ???????? ????????? p???eta? ?a? ste??? ??p?pte? ? ????.

19. “So far as the lips are concerned, this description would suit either the French u or the English oo, but the latter part of the description is better suited to French u, and from the Latins having at this time represented this sound by their new sign Y (the usual form of Greek ? in inscriptions) in place of their own V (which was our oo), we may feel sure that the sound was not English oo, and, if not, that it was most probably French u, as we know that it was so subsequently,” A. J. E.

t??? ?d??ta?: “as the lips are not closed, there are only the teeth to limit the aperture,” A. J. E.—The position (?s?at?? p??t??) assigned to iota is to be noticed: cp. Hermog. p. ?d. p. 225 (Walz Rhett. Gr. vol. iii.) t? ? ... ???sta se??? p??e? t?? ????? p?e???sa?.

1 ????s?? R: ???s?? EF: ???t?s?? PVs 2 ??? ?p??ap?????t??] ????t? ?ap?????t?? P 3 e???f?? REF: e????? PMVs 4 d?se?d?? REF: d?s???? PMVs "" t?? e t? ? Us.: t? e REFMV, t? ? Ps 5 ?a? t?? REF: t?? d? PMVs 8 ??t? RF: ??t? ??? EPMVs "" p??te] e PVs 9 d?p?? d? t??a F, R^bE: d?p?? d? ?a? t??a R^a: t??a (? P) d? d?p?? PMVs 11 t?? d ?a? t?? s R^a: t?? d ?a? s R^b 13 ?d?a? RF: ?a? ?d?a? PMVs 14 pa?a?aa??e??? ??ast?? RF: pa?a?aa??e?a. ???st?? PMVs 17 ?a??t????? F: a??t????? R: ?a??t????? a?t?? E, PM 18 t?p??? RFM²: t????? EPM¹Vs 20 ?sta???? REF: ???sta???? PMVs "" s??????s?? REF: s??????s?? t? p?e?a M: s??e???s?? t? p?e?a PVs 21 d?? t?? ... (23) p?e?at?? REFM: om. P 22 ?] p R 23 t??? ?????a? RPMs: t?? ?????a FE 24 ?p????p????s?? RF: ?p???ap????s?? EVs: ?p??ap????s?? (? alt. suprascr.) P, M

1. ????? ??????????: “no limitation is necessary, the lips may be as open for our ee as for our ah, but they may also be slightly open from the centre to the corners, no part being in contact,” A. J. E.

2. “There can be no doubt that our ee is meant, and, although this is usually considered to be a ‘bright’ sound, it will be found that if, while singing it, and without moving the tongue, the lips be as much closed as for oo, the result, which will be French u, is much more musical. Whatever doubt may remain from this description of the precise shades of sound, there can be none that ?, ?, ? had different sounds, as indeed transcripts of Greek into Latin letters and Latin into Greek letters shew that they had, partially at least, down to the 12th century A.D., although the confusion was complete in the 15th, as it has since remained. Dionysius does not describe the diphthongs ??, ??, or the digraphs ??, ??, ??, ??,” A. J. E.

5. “This would best suit our aw in awn shortened, that is, very nearly our o in on. Short e is not referred to, nor the short sounds of a, ?, ?,” A. J. E.

11. For the pronunciation of ? see Introduction, p. 44, and cp. Dionysius Thrax Ars Gramm. § 7 (Uhlig p. 14): ?t? d? t?? s?f???? d?p?? ?? ?st? t??a? ?, ?, ?. d?p?? d? e???ta?, ?t? ?? ??ast?? a?t?? ?? d?? s?f???? s???e?ta?, t? ?? ? ?? t?? s ?a? d, t? d? ? ?? t?? ? ?a? s, t? d? ? ?? t?? p ?a? s.—For the late use of d?? (with the genitive) of the means or material by or of which a thing is composed cp. 154 10 and 180 6; also Antiqq. Rom. i. ?? ??es? t? p???? p??a????? d?? ????? ?a? ?a???? s????? a?t???f???.

17. ?tt? ... ????: a true phonetic explanation.

20. For m and n in Greek and Latin (especially at the end of clauses) cp. Quintil. xii. 10. 31 “Quid? quod pleraque nos illa quasi mugiente littera cludimus M, in quam nullum Graece verbum cadit: at illi ny iucundam et in fine praecipue quasi tinnientem illius loco ponunt, quae est apud nos rarissima in clausulis.”

25. ???a??? ... ?d??t??. Demosthenes’ difficulty in pronouncing this letter (the trilled palato-dental r) is well known: e.g. Quintil. i. 11. 5 “(rho littera), qua Demosthenes quoque laboravit.”

1 p??sa?????? R: p??a?????? EF: p??s??a?????? P, Vs: p??a????????? M 2 ???? REF: ???? d? M: om. PVs "" ?s?? a?t?? R: ?s?? a?t?? F: ?s??? a?t?? M: ?s?? a?t?? EPVs 5 d ?a? t?? ? REF: ? ?a? t?? d PMVs 13 ?a? p?e???sa? REF: ?a? e? p?e???sa? PM: ?a? e? p?e???se?e Vs 14 ?????? RPMVs: ?????? EF

2. Perhaps the variations in the readings here (cp. also 148 16) indicate that one or two of the words originally stood in the dual number.—d?? ?s?? a?t?? (EPV) would mean ‘through the middle of the palate.’

9. As in Virgil (Aen. viii. 140: cp. v. 217), “at Maiam, auditis si quicquam credimus, Atlas, " idem Atlas generat caeli qui sidera tollit.”—The same view of l is expressed in Demetr. de Eloc. § 174 p??? d? t?? ????? (sc. ?d?a ?st?) “?a???st?at??, ??????.” ? te ??? t?? ??da s??????s?? ???d?? t? ??e?, ?a? ? t?? ?? ??a?t?? (for the effect of the double l and n cp. such words as ‘bella’ and ‘donna’ in Italian).

12. It is well known that the Comic Poets make fun of Euripides’ line ?s?s? s’, ?? ?sas?? ??????? ?s?? (Med. 476: with Porson’s note). Pericles is said to have led the way in substituting tt for the less pleasing ss (see Lucian’s Iudicium Vocalium for the substitution itself). On the other hand, it has been observed (with reference to de Corona § 208 ???’ ??? ?st??, ??? ?st?? ?p?? ???tete, ??d?e? ????a???, t?? ?p?? t?? ?p??t?? ??e??e??a? ?a? s?t???a? ???d???? ???e???, ? t??? ?a?a???? p?????d??e?sa?ta? t?? p??????? ?a? t??? ?? ??ata?a?? pa?ata?a????? ?a? t??? ?? Sa?a??? ?a?a??sa?ta? ?a? t??? ?p’ ??te?s?? ?a? p?????? ?t????? t??? ?? t??? d??s???? ??as? ?e??????, ??a???? ??d?a?, ??? ?pa?ta? ????? ? p???? t?? a?t?? ????sasa t??? ??a?e?, ??s????, ???? t??? ?at????sa?ta? a?t?? ??d? t??? ??at?sa?ta? ?????): “in defence of English we may note that this renowned passage, perhaps the most effective ever spoken by an orator, has no less than fifty sigmas in sixty-seven words” (Goodwin’s edition of Demosth. de Cor. p. 148). There is also an interesting article on “Sigmatism in Greek Dramatic Poetry” in the American Journal of Philology xxix. 1 (cp. xxxi. 1). Mr. J. A. Scott there proves by means of examples that Homer, Pindar, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes and the Comic Poets, do not avoid recurrent sigmas; and he adds that “the phrases ? f???s??at?? and ‘Euripidean sigmatism,’ which rest on the assumption that Euripides in a peculiar way marred his style by an excessive use of sigma, have no basis of truth to support them.” He further remarks, “It is Lasus of Hermione [Athen. 455 c], the so-called teacher of Pindar, who won a certain kind of fame by producing asigmatic verses; but it was evidently a species of poetic gymnastics such as was later achieved by the poets of the ????? ?e?p????at?? and the ?d?sse?a ?e?p????at??, where the trick was to write the first book of each poem without a, the second without , and so on.” In Sappho’s Hymn to Aphrodite (C. V. c. 23) there is no lack of sigmas. But we may be sure that neither Demosthenes, nor any good reader of Sappho, would be guilty of undue sibilation in the actual delivery of the speech or of the lines: it is the continual hissing that, as in English, has to be avoided. (For the pronunciation of s, s, s?, s, ss see Report of Classical Association on Greek Pronunciation, p. 349 infra, and Giles’ Comparative Philology p. 115).—Instances of not unpleasant accumulations of the s sound in Latin are to be found in Virg. Aen. v. 46 “annuus exactis completur mensibus orbis”; Virg. Georg. i. 389 “et sola in sicca secum spatiatur harena”; Cic. Topic. i. 1 “maiores nos res scribere ingressos, C. Trebati, et iis libris, quos brevi tempore satis multos edidimus, digniores e cursu ipso revocavit voluntas tua.” Cp. Quintil. ix. 4. 37 “ceterum consonantes quoque, earumque praecipue quae sunt asperiores, in commissura verborum rixantur, ut si s ultima cum x proxima confligat; quarum tristior etiam, si binae collidantur, stridor est, ut ars studiorum. quae fuit causa et Servio, ut dixi, subtrahendae s litterae, quotiens ultima esset aliaque consonante susciperetur; quod reprehendit Luranius, Messala defendit.” An example of the recurrence of the s sound in English poetry is:—

O the golden sheaf, the nestling treasure-armful!
O the nutbrown tresses nodding interlaced!

George Meredith,
Love in the Valley;

or Shakespeare’s

“This precious stone set in the silver sea;”

or many of the lines in Marlowe’s ‘smooth song’ “Come live with me, and be my love.” Of its deliberate elimination an instance is furnished by John Thelwall’s English Song without a Sibilant, entitled “The Empire of the Mind,” in which the last of the four stanzas runs:—

But when to radiant form and feature,
Internal worth and feeling join
With temper mild and gay goodnature,—
Around the willing heart, they twine
The empire of the mind.

1 ?a? REF: om. PMVs "" ??a? [??d?]? cum litura F, E: ??a? a?d?? R: ??d?? ??a? P, MVs 2 d???? ... (4) ?????p??? om. R "" t??t? ?a? EF: t??t? PVs 3 ??pe F: ???e MV: ???pe EPs "" s?????te?e?[ata] ??da cum rasura F: s?????t??e? [-te??? ?da M] f???e?ta P, V: s?????te?? f???e?ta Es "" d??????? F: d??????? EPMVs: om. Athenaeus 4 ??d???? EF Athenaeus: ??da??? PMVs "" ?????p??? EFM: ?????p?? PVs 7 ?a? t? ? RE: t? d? ? FPMVs 11 ?a??????? RPMVs: om. EF 14 ??f??e?ta? MVs 16 ????? RFM: ????? t? p ?a? t? f ?a? t? ߯ EPVs "" t? te P 17 t? p?e?a P "" ?es?? R 18 a?t??] a?t?? P 23 ete????? REF: ete???t????? PMVs

1. Athenaeus quotes the lines of Pindar (ll. 3, 4 infra) in x. 455 C and in xi. 467 B. The former passage closely illustrates Dionysius’ remarks: ???da??? d? p??? t?? ?s???p????e?sa? ?d??, ?? ? a?t?? f?s? ???a????, ????e? ???f?? t???? ?? e??p???? p???????t??, ?? p????? t??t? p??s??????t?? d?? t? ?d??at?? e??a? ?p?s??s?a? t?? s??a ?a? d?? t? ? d?????e??, ?p???se?

p??? ?? e??pe s?????t??e?? t’ ???d?
?a? t? s?? ??d???? ?????p???.

ta?ta s?e??sa?t’ ?? t?? p??? t??? ???e???ta? ??s?? t?? ???????? t?? ?s???? ?d??, ?t?? ?p????feta? ???ta????, ?a? ? e?? t?? ???t?a d? t?? ?? ?????? p????e?? t? ??s? ???? ?s???? ?st??, ?? f?s?? ??a??e?d?? ? ???t???? ?? t??t? pe?? ??s????, ?? ?st?? ?????

??at?a ??p? ???a? te ???????’ ??????.

In Pindar’s own text the right reading possibly is:—

p??? ?? ??pe s?????t??e?? t’ ???d?
d??????? ?a? t? s?? ??d???? ?????p??s?? ?p? st??t??.

Mr. P. N. Ure suggests that Pindar’s real reference was not to the sound of san but to its form, and that ??d???? means either ‘misleading’ with reference to the similarity in form of san to mu, or ‘spurious,’ as not being the form for the sibilant employed at Thebes, where letters were introduced into Greece.

3. s?????t??e?a: unusual feminine of s?????te???, ‘stretched out like a measuring line.’

5. “That the s in sd meant z appears from what Dionysius presently says, that ? is ‘quietly roughened by the breath,’ implying that it was voiced,” A. J. E. p. 44. The statement (p. 43 ibid.) that dz was probably an impossible initial combination to a Greek may be compared with Classical Review xix. 441 as well as with more ancient evidence.

13. Dionysius’ various statements as to the aspirates are discussed in E. A. Dawes’ Pronunciation of the Greek Aspirates pp. 29 ff. (as well as in Blass’s Ancient Greek Pronunciation).

15. Dionysius does not actually use Greek equivalents for the adjectives labial, dental, and guttural; but he clearly knows the physiological facts in which those terms have their origin.

18. As illustrating Dionysius’ own love of variety, compare ?s?? ?f??? here with ????? ?f??? (l. 14), eta?? t??t?? (l. 12), et???? ?a? eta?? ?f??? (150 9), ?s?? d? ?a? ?p??????? (150 4).

23. ?at? t??? ete????? ?d??ta?. “The pronunciation of the Greek and Roman t by placing the tongue against the roots of the gums in lieu of the upper teeth is not one of the more serious errors [in the modern pronunciation of Greek and Latin], at least it does not strike our ears as such. But it has always seemed to me that the taunting verses of Ennius,

O Tite tute Tati tibi tanta tyranne tulisti,

as of Sophocles,

t?f??? t? t’ ?ta t?? te ???? t? t’ ?at’ e?,

lose a good deal of their effect if the t’s are muffled behind the gums instead of being hurled out from the rampart of the teeth,” J. P. Postgate How to pronounce Latin p. 11.

4 d?] de? P "" ?a?e?a EM: ?a??a F: ?a?e?a? PV "" s???a?? PV 5 ???a ?a?? EF: ?a?? ???a V: ???a P "" p??ste??t? EPV: p??st???t? M: t?? p??s??t? F 8 ??a?? P: ??a?e? MV: om. EF "" p??ste??t? EPMV: p??s??t? F 9 ?? EF: om. PMV 15 ?????? EFV: ???????? PM 19 e????a ?? F 20 e??????] e??????? P: e??????? M "" ?’ ??? a???? P, M: te ??? a???? F: te a? p???? E: d’ a? p???? V 21 ?? PMV: om. EF 22 t???att??] t? ?e?p?? PM "" t?? ex t? corr. F: ? t?? PM, V 23 a?t?? F: ?a?t?? PMV 24 e ???????a? ... (25) ??a?t?? om. F "" p??te Uptonus, e Us.: ?pt? PM: d V

2. Cp. Quintil. ix. 4. 84 “sit in hoc quoque aliquid fortasse momenti, quod et longis longiores et brevibus sunt breviores syllabae; ut, quamvis neque plus duobus temporibus neque uno minus habere videantur, ideoque in metris omnes breves longaeque inter sese sint pares, lateat tamen nescio quid, quod supersit aut desit. nam versuum propria condicio est, ideoque in his quaedam etiam communes.”

8. ??a??: cp. de Isocr. c. 20 ??a?? d? t??a ... ?????ata.

12. t??s?? ... p??s???a??: the meaning apparently is that the first prefix increases the length by one augmentation; the second, by two; the third, by three. a?t? = ? s???a? st??f-.

22. ?p? t???att??: cp. Aristot. Eth. Nic. ii. 7. 12 ? d? p??sp???s?? ? ?? ?p? t? e???? ??a???e?a ?a? ? ???? a?t?? ??a???, ? d’ ?p? t? ??att?? e????e?a ?a? e???? [? ????], iv. 7. 14 ?? d’ e????e? ?p? t? ??att?? ?????te? ?a???ste??? ?? t? ??? fa????ta?; and Long. de Sublim. c. 38 a? d’ ?pe???a? ?a??pe? ?p? t? e????, ??t?? ?a? ?p? t???att??.

26. ?e??e?s?a? here (and in 204 3, 210 9) may perhaps supply a parallel (though not a complete one) of the kind desired in Classical Quarterly i. 41 n. 1.

1 ?? F: ??te PMV 2 ?t??? ? ????? F: ????? ? ?t??? PMV 8 ?a? EF: om. PMV 10 ?a? (posterius) EF: ?a? t?? PMV 13 p?sa? EFM: p?sa? t?? PV 16 d? PMV: ?d? EF 17 a?t?? EF: a?t?? te PMV 18 t? d? FM: t? EPV 19 ???e?a? F: d? ???e?a? E: ???e??? PM: d? ???e??? V 20 t?? EF: om. PMV 21 t?? om. P 22 ??fa??e?? EF: ?fa??e?? PMV

1. H. Richards (Classical Review xix. 252) suggests ??t?, in place of the ??te of PMV and the ?? of F.

3. If this passage (from 152 4 up to this point) be taken in connexion with one from the scholia to Hephaestion and another from Marius Victorinus (see Goodell’s Greek Metric pp. 6, 7), we find the following difference indicated as between the school of the metrici and that of the rhythmici: “The metrici considered the long syllable as always twice the length of the short; whatever variation from this ratio the varying constitution of syllables produced was treated as too slight to affect the general flow of verse. The rhythmici, on the other hand, held that long syllables differed greatly from each other in quantity, and that short syllables differed from each other in some degree, apart from variations in tempo. The doctrine of ?????a or irrationality, whereby some syllables were longer or shorter by a small undefined amount than the complete long, was associated by some with this theory, as in a passage of Dionysius Halic. (C. V. c. 17 ?? d’ ?p? t?? a???? ... t?? p??? ?a??? ?? ?????: cp. c. 20 ibid.). Some, at least, affirmed also that a single consonant required half the time of a short vowel, and that two consonants or a double consonant required the same time as a short vowel; those writers accordingly set up a scale of measurement for syllables, simply counting the number of time-units required, on this theory, by the constituent vowels and consonants,” Goodell Greek Metric pp. 8, 9.

20. Cp. the use of the long o in such passages as Virg. Aen. iii. 670 ff. “verum ubi nulla datur dextra adfectare potestas " nec potis Ionios fluctus aequare sequendo, " clamorem immensum tollit, quo pontus et omnes " contremuere undae”; v. 244 ff. “tum satus Anchisa cunctis ex more vocatis " victorem magna praeconis voce Cloanthum " declarat viridique advelat tempora lauro, " muneraque in navis ternos optare iuvencos " vinaque et argenti magnum dat ferre talentum.” See also Demetr. p. 42 for A. C. Bradley’s comments on Virgil’s line “tendebantque manus ripae ulterioris amore.”

23. Aristotle (Poetics c. 22) points out that it would be disastrous to substitute the trivial ??????s?? for ???s?? in this passage.—With regard to the sound of the line cp. schol. on Il. xvii. 265 ?a? ?st?? ?de?? ??a ??a ?a??ss?? ?p?fe??e??? p?ta?? ?e?at? ?a? t? ??a??ptes?a? ????e???, ?a? t?? ??at????e? t?? p?ta?? ?a?ass?a? ????a? ????sa?, ? ???sat? d?? t?? ?pe?t?se?? t?? ???s??. a?t? ? e???? ???t???? ??a?se t? p???ata? ??t?? ??a???ste??? t?? ??????? t? ?????e??? pa??st?se? ... t?? ??? ?pa?????? t?? ?d?t?? ?????? ? t?? “???s??” ??ad?p??s?? ???a? ?pet??ese s???d?a?.

1 tet?f?????? E: tet?f????? F: t?f??????? PMV 2 t?? d?? EMV: d?? t?? FP 8 p??? EF: p???? PMV Hom. 10 e??e?? om. F 11 ??e?a?] ????a? FM 15 ?????e?? F: ??*?e?? P: ???e?? MV 16 d????s?? P: ????s?? Hom. 18 ??p????? PMV 19 ?? F: ?? PMV 20 ??stas?? FM: ??tas?? PV 21 de??at?? PV

1. ????d??: a somewhat poetical word, though used by Herodotus and Plato. Its use in a highly figurative passage of Herodotus (v. 18) is censured in the de Sublim. iv. 7 ?a? t? ???d?te??? ?? p????, t? f??a? t?? ?a??? ???a??a? “????d??a? ?f?a???.”

4. In these lines, and in 154 23, the reiteration of the long ?, and of the long ?, is particularly to be noted.

9. p??p???????d?e???: imitated by Ap. Rhod. Argon. i. 386 p??p???a??e???, and ii. 595 p??p???ata??d??. Cp. Odyss. xvii. 524 ???e? d? ??? de??? t?d’ ??et? p?ata p?s???, " p??p???????d?e???.

10. ?????? ????: cp. Virg. Aen. i. 272 “hic iam ter centum totos regnabitur annos,” and iii. 284 “interea magnum sol circumvolvitur annum.”

11. s?at?? ??e???: cp. Virg. Aen. vii. 783 “ipse inter primos praestanti corpore Turnus.”—p????? ?pe?????: cp. Virg. Aen. ix. 475 “at subitus miserae calor ossa reliquit, " excussi manibus radii revolutaque pensa.”

12. A blending of (1) pa?’ ??d?? ??t?? ??, (2) pa?’ ??d?? ?te??? ?.

16. Cp. Virg. Aen. ix. 477 “evolat infelix et femineo ululatu " scissa comam muros amens atque agmina cursu " prima petit,” etc.

18. Batteux (RÉflexions pp. 219-21) quotes and analyzes the well-known passage of Racine’s PhÈdre (v. 6) which begins: “Un effroyable cri, sorti du fond des flots, " Des airs en ce moment a troublÉ le repos.” He says: “Dans le dernier morceau de Racine qui peint l’objet terrible, il n’y a pas un vers qui n’ait le caractÈre de la chose exprimÉe. Ce sont des sons aigus et perÇans, des syllabes chargÉe de consonnes, et de consonnes Épaisses: sorti du fond des flots; notre sang s’est glacÉ; L’onde approche, se brise; Son front large est armÉ. Des mots qui se heurtent: effroyable cri; cri redoutable; le crin s’est hÉrissÉ. D’autres mots larges et spacieux: Cependant, sur le dos de la plaine liquide, S’ÉlÈve À gros bouillons (S’ÉlÈve rejetÉ À l’autre vers comme celui-ci de DesprÉaux, S’ÉlÈve un lit de plume) une montaigne humide; cornes menaÇantes; Écailles jaunissantes; Indomptable taureau, dragon impÉtueux. Des syllabes qui se renversent les unes sur le autres: Sa croupe se recourbe en replis tortueux. Ce vers, dans un poËme ancient, eÛt ÉtÉ cÉlÉbrÉ de siÈcle en siÈcle.”

1 ?? F: te PMV 2 p??? ???a PV: p??s??a PM 4 ??t??? EF: ??t???tata PMV 5 p?a??t??] ??a?t?? PM 6 ?????e? F: ????e? PMV 8 e????? P, EM Hom.: e???a F 11 ?a? ?et????? ??? EF: ??? ?a? ?et????? V: ?a? ?et????? M: ??? P 12 t?? EF: om. PMV 13 ?? P: ?? EFMV 14 f??a???? EF: f?????? P: f??a???? V: f??a???? M "" t?????] ta???? F

2. p??? ???a ????te?: for ???a cp. 160 4. The writer must, in Matthew Arnold’s phrase, have his “eye on the object.” Cp. Aristot. Poet. c. xvii. de? d? t??? ????? s???st??a? ?a? t? ???e? s??ape????es?a? ?t? ???sta p?? ??t?? t???e???? ??t? ??? ?? ??a???stata ???? ?spe? pa?’ a?t??? ?????e??? t??? p?att?????? e???s??? t? p??p?? ?a? ???sta ?? ?a?????? t? ?pe?a?t?a: and Long. de Sublim. c. xv. ??’ ??? ?? e?p???, ?t? ? ???? t?? ???f??t?? s??ep?a??e? t?? ??at??, ?a? s?????d??e???sa t??? ?pp??? s??ept???ta?; ?? ??? ??, e? ? t??? ???a????? ??e????? ?????? ?s?d????sa ?f??et?, t??a?t’ ?? p?te ?fa?t?s??.

4. ??t???: cp. Aristot. Poet. c. iv. t? te ??? ?e?s?a? s?f?t?? t??? ?????p??? ?? pa?d?? ?st? (?a? t??t? d?af????s? t?? ????? ???? ?t? ??t???tat?? ?st? ?a? t?? a??se?? p??e?ta? d?? ??se?? t?? p??ta?), ?a? t? ?a??e?? t??? ??as? p??ta?.

6. For the repeated r sound cp. the passage of the Aeneid (i. 108) which begins “talia iactanti stridens Aquilone procella,” and schol. on Odyss. v. 402 t?? d? pep??????? ? ????? (sc. ????e?)? t?a?? ??? t? ?, t? ?, t? ?.

8. Cp. schol. ad Il. ii. 210 s?f??? t? ?p??e???? tet?????ta? t? ?p?? ta?? ???at?p???a??.—In this line F’s reading e???a accords with a conjecture of Bentley’s.

9. Cp. Virg. Aen. v. 437 “stat gravis Entellus nisuque immotus eodem " corpore tela modo atque oculis vigilantibus exit.”

11. Not all languages, however, have the same powers in this direction: cp. Quintil. i. 5. 72 “sed minime nobis concessa est ???at?p???a; quis enim ferat, si quid simile illis merito laudatis ????e ??? et s??e ?f?a??? fingere audeamus? Iam ne balare quidem aut hinnire fortiter diceremus, nisi iudicio vetustatis niterentur” (Quintilian has just before, §§ 67 and 70, referred to Pacuvius’ repandirostrum and incurvicervicum: which may be compared with ????a????a????, Aristot. Poet. c. 21); and viii. 6. 31 “???at?p???a quidem, id est fictio nominis, Graecis inter maxima habita virtutes, nobis vix permittitur ... vix illa, quae pep?????a vocant, quae ex vocibus in usum receptis quocunque modo declinantur, nobis permittimus, qualia sunt Sullaturit et proscripturit.” Greek, English and German admit onomatopoeia more readily than Latin and French. Any undue restriction (such as that indicated by Quintilian when defining pep?????a) hampers the life of a language. Words should serve their apprenticeship, no doubt; but there should be no lack of probationers. We feel that the language itself is growing when Cicero uses ‘dulcescit’ of the growing and ripening grape, or when Erasmus uses the same word to indicate that England ‘grew’ upon him the more he knew it.—For the general question of the right of coining new words or reviving disused words see Demetr. pp. 255, 297, 298 (and cp. §§ 94, 220 ibid.). Many of Dionysius’ remarks, here and elsewhere, seem to concern the choice or the manufacture of words rather than their arrangement; but, from the nature of the case, he clearly finds it hard to draw a strict dividing-line either in this direction or in regard to the entire ?e?t???? t?p?? as distinguished from the p?a?at???? t?p??.

13. In giving the singular, P seems clearly right here, and as clearly wrong when giving the plural in 156 19.

2 ??ata EPM: ??t??? V: ???ata F 3 ????? E: ???a M 4 ????a? F "" d?p?te FMV: d? P 5 d’ ?? F: de ??? (???? M) ?? PMV 9, 10, 11 pa??] pe?? R "" ??a?t??] p?a??t?? F: cf. 158 5 10 d??a?? RF: s???es?? EPV "" s???es?? EF: s????se?? PMV: ??se?? R 12 ????? REF: ????? [?]??eta? cum litura P, MV 13 ??????? REF: ?a??? PV 14 a?t?a RMV: a?t?a? F: a?t??? EP 15 ?at? F: ?a? PMV 20 t??a?ta? Us.: t??a?ta F, PMV 21 pa?ade??as? F: de??as?? P, MV 23 ?p??t?? t?? MV: ?p??t?? FP

1. Cp. Virg. Aen. i. 87 “insequitur clamorque virum stridorque rudentum”; Ap. Rhod. Argon. i. 725 ?p? p???? d? ????e? " ?p?a te ???a p??ta t???sset? ??ss?????s??.

5. So Diog. Laert. (auctore Favorino in octavo libro Omnigenae historiae): ?a? p??t?? ??e???se t?? ??aat???? t?? d??a?? (Vit. Plat. 25).

8. The following passage (from ?t? to ?a?? a?t?a) is quoted in schol. anon. in Hermog. (Walz Rhett. Gr. vii. 1049), with the prefatory words ???? ?a? ?? t? pe?? s????se?? ????t?? pe?? ???e?? d?a?a???? ???e? ?t? ?t?.

10. The endless possibilities of these syllabic, verbal, and other permutations had evidently impressed the imagination of Dionysius: together with their climax in literature itself, and in all the great types of literature.

12. “This sentence (?ste p???? ?????? ... ???ata ?a?? a?t?a e??a?) puts boldly the truth which Aristotle had evaded or pooh-poohed in his excessive devotion to the philosophy of literature rather than to literature itself” (Saintsbury History of Criticism i. 130).

21. pa?ade??as? is perhaps to be preferred to de??as? here: cp. 164 16.

22. ?p? sa?t?? = per te ipsum, tuopte Marte: cp. 96 21 ?s??p??? d’ a?t?? ?p’ ?a?t?? ?e??e???.

23. p???f???tat?? In this respect Homer’s great compeer is Shakespeare, in whose dramas “few things are more remarkable than the infinite range of style, speech, dialect they unfold before us” (Vaughan Types of Tragic Drama p. 165).—The passage of Dionysius which follows might be endlessly illustrated from Shakespeare; e.g. from Sonnet civ., Romeo and Juliet ii. 2 and v. 3, Antony and Cleopatra ii. 2 (speeches of Enobarbus), Tempest iii. 1. In the scene of the Tempest, correspondence and variety are alike conspicuous. Ferdinand’s address (beginning “Admired Miranda!”) tallies—to the line and even to the half-line—with Miranda’s reply, and the concluding lines are, in the one case,

But you, O you,
So perfect and so peerless, are created
Of every creature’s best;

and, in the other,

But I prattle
Something too wildly, and my father’s precepts
I therein do forget.

In the same scene the lines—

O, she is
Ten times more gentle than her father’s crabbed,
And he’s composed of harshness,

would have a very different effect (cp. quotation from Aristotle’s Poetics on 78 9 supra) if written as follows:—

O, she is
Ten times more gracious than her sire is stern,
And he is merely cruel

(‘merely’ being understood, of course, in the Shakespearian sense of ‘absolutely’).

2 ????? FP: ????? EM²V 9 st????as?a? F Hom.: st????es?a? PMV 10 d?att????? F "" pe?? F, V: pa?a P, M 11 ?p?de????e??? F: ??de????e??? PMV 14 p?t? F, MV: p??t? P: cf. 202 6 infra. 17 ?at? t?? t?p?? t??de ?? ?? t?? ?pa?t?se?e (hoc verborum ordine) PV "" ?at? F: ?a? ?at? PV 20 ?a???????a? ? F: ?a???????a? ?a? PMV 21 t? a?t? F: t??t? PMV

1. Cp. Virg. Aen. ii. 496 “non sic, aggeribus ruptis cum spumeus amnis " exiit oppositasque evicit gurgite moles, " fertur in arva furens cumulo camposque per omnes " cum stabulis armenta trahit.”

7. Cp. Virg. Aen. x. 305 “solvitur (sc. puppis Tarchontis) atque viros mediis exponit in undis, " fragmina remorum quos et fluitantia transtra " impediunt retrahitque pedes simul unda relabens.”

14. Cp. Virg. Aen. v. 478, “durosque reducta " libravit dextra media inter cornua caestus " arduus, effractoque illisit in ossa cerebro.”—Demetr. (de Eloc. § 219), in quoting this passage of Homer, couples with it Il. xxiii. 116 p???? d’ ??a?ta ??ta?ta p??a?t? te d???? t’ ????? (Virgil’s “quadripedante putrem sonitu quatit ungula campum,” Aen. viii. 596).—Another good Virgilian instance of adaptation of sound to sense is Georg. iv. 174 “illi inter sese magna vi bracchia tollunt " in numerum, versantque tenaci forcipe ferrum.”

18. f?? seems (cp. the legal use of aio) to approximate to the sense of ?e?e?? (as in Pind. Nem. iii. 28, Soph. Aj. 1108). Either so, or (as Upton suggested) we may insert de??, or the sense may simply be, “I say that the man who aims ... does combine, etc. (i.e. when he knows his own business).”

19. For the construction ????? ?a??? ?? t? s??t????a? t?? f???? cp. Fragm. of Duris of Samos, ?f???? d? ?a? Te?p?p?? t?? ?e?????? p?e?st?? ?pe?e?f??sa?, ??te ??? ??se?? et??a?? ??de?a? ??te ?d???? ?? t? f??sa?, a?t?? d? t?? ???fe?? ???? ?pee????sa?.

20. Here, again, the Aristotelian ‘mean’ may possibly be intended.

22. Theophrastus: for other references to Theophrastus in the Scripta Rhetorica of Dionysius see de Lysia cc. 6, 14; de Isocr. c. 3; de Din. c. 2; de Demosth. c. 3. The passage of Theophrastus which Dionysius has in mind here is no doubt that mentioned by Demetr. de Eloc. § 173 p??e? d? e??a??? t?? ????e?a? ?a? t? ?e??e?a ?a?? ???ata. ???sat? d’ a?t? Te?f?ast?? ??t??? ?????? ???at?? ?st? t? p??? t?? ????? ? p??? t?? ???? ?d?, ? t? t? d?a???? ??t???.

1 ???a] ?a?’ ? F 2 ?e??ses?a?] ???es?a? F 3 a???? om. F 4 ???st?? ?ses?a?] ???s??? F 5 ?p? FPMV "" e???ta? t? ??d?? F: t? ??d?? e???ta? PMV 7 ?a????????a s 11 ? p???t?? P: p???t?? FM 13 ???t?a?? PV: ???t??a?? F: ???t?a? M 15 t???’ ?fe??? F: t???a ???? PM, V 17 s???fa??e? F, EP: s???fa??e M: s???fa?e? V 18 e?a??p?ep?ste?a E "" p??t??] t??t?? V "" ???ata PMV: ????t?? EF 25 ?d’ F: ??d’ M: ?d’ V

1. pa?ade??at?? ??e?a looks like an adscript (possibly on ????e?: to indicate that there were many other topics in Theophrastus’ book), which has found its way into the text.

4. For the distinction between poetry and prose cp. Aristot. Rhet. iii. 3 (1406 a) ?? ?? ??? p???se? p??pe? ???a ?e???? e?pe??, ?? d? ???? t? ?? ?p?ep?ste?a, t? d?, ?? ? ?ata????, ??e????e? ?a? p??e? fa?e??? ?t? p???s?? ?st??, ?pe? de? ?e ???s?a? a?t???, and iii. 4 (1406 b) ???s??? d? ? e???? ?a? ?? ????, ???????? d?? p???t???? ???.

5. ??? ?p? s??p?? = ‘haud ab re.’

The minute variations in word-order between F and P are not usually given in the critical footnotes. But the fact that P places (here and in 164 17) the verb at the end of the sentence is noteworthy.

18. Cp. Virg. Georg. iv. 334-44; Aen. vii. 710-21; Milton Par. Lost i. 351-5. 396-414, 464-9, 576-87 (especially 583-7); and see Matthew Arnold (On translating Homer: Last Words p. 29) as to Hom. Il. xvii. 216 ff.

26. Dionysius (here as elsewhere) doubtless intended his remarks to apply to the lines that follow his quotation, as well as to those actually quoted.

27. ?? e?d?s?: this expressive phrase is as old as Homer himself (Il. x. 250 e?d?s? ??? t?? ta?ta et’ ???e???? ????e?e??). It occurs also in Thucyd. (ii. 36. 4 a??????e?? ?? e?d?s?? ?? ????e??? ??s?).

1 a?t? Toupius: a?t?? libri 6 ?de?? EF: ? ?? (?a? M²) t?? PM: ? ? t?? V 7 e om. PMV 10 ?a? ??a om. P 12 t?ssa?e? E 13 ?a???? FM 20 ?e???ta EF: ?e???ta PMV

1. Usener’s a?t? (“all his Catalogue is on the same high level”) is perhaps preferable to the manuscript reading a?t??, which, however, may be taken to refer to p??es?? (166 13). Usener’s suggestion has, it should be pointed out, been anticipated by Toup (ad Longin. p. 296).

5. In this chapter Dionysius seems to have specially in view Aristotle’s Rhetoric iii. 8 (cp. note on 255 25 infra) and the ?????? st???e?a of Aristoxenus. But his general standpoint probably comes nearer to that of Aristophanes of Byzantium and Dionysius Thrax: he is, that is to say, primarily a metrist and a grammarian, and at times looks upon the rhythmists and musicians with some distrust.

11, 12. Dionysius agrees here with Aristoxenus, ?????? st???e?a ii. 16 ? d? s?a???e?a t?? ????? ?a? ??????? p????e? t? a?s??se?, p??? ?st?? e?? ? p?e???? ????: and § 18 ibid. ?t? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?????? p??? ??? ?? e?? fa?e???, ?t?.

17. See Introduction (p. 6 supra) for a classified list of the metrical feet mentioned in this chapter. Voss says as to the p????????, “nullum ex eo alicuius momenti constitui potest carmen, cum numero et pondere paene careat. aptus dumtaxat ad celeres motus exprimendos, cuius modi erant armati saltus Corybantum apud Graecos, et Saliorum apud Romanos”; see also Hermog. II. ?d. i. (Walz iii. p. 293, lines 1-11). Some sensible remarks on the whole question are made by Quintil. ix. 4. 87: “miror autem in hac opinione doctissimos homines fuisse, ut alios pedes ita eligerent aliosque damnarent, quasi ullus esset, quem non sit necesse in oratione deprehendi. licet igitur paeona sequatur Ephorus, inventum a Thrasymacho, probatum ab Aristotele, dactylumque, ut temperatos brevibus ac longis; fugiat molossum et trochaeum, alterius tarditate alterius celeritate damnata; herous, qui est idem dactylus, Aristoteli amplior, iambus humanior videatur; trochaeum ut nimis currentem damnet eique cordacis nomen imponat; eademque dicant Theodectes ac Theophrastus, similia post eos Halicarnasseus Dionysius: irrumpent etiam ad invitos, nec semper illis heroo aut paeone suo, quem, quia versum raro facit, maxime laudant, uti licebit. ut sint tamen aliis alii crebriores, non verba facient, quae neque augeri nec minui nec sicuti modulatione produci aut corripi possint, sed transmutatio et collocatio.”

20. ???e d? s? ?t?.: source unknown; perhaps the reference is to the tearing of Pentheus limb from limb.—A similar line in Latin would be: “id agite peragite celeriter,” Marius Victorinus Ars Gramm. iii. 1.

5 ? ?e??a? ?e??a? ? ta?ta? PMV: ? ?e??a? ? ta?ta? E, F 10 ?? om. PMV 11 ?pe? s???? EMV: ?p? s????? FP 13 ??des? ?e????e?e sic F 14 ?? EPMV: om. F 17 ???e??? MV: om. FP 18 t???a???] t???a??? F. uncinis includendum vel t???a??? p??? vel ???e??? tamquam glossema quod, margini olim adscriptum, in textum postea irrepserit 20 ?a? ??e???? om. P

2. The high rank assigned to the spondee is noted in schol. anon. ad Hermog. II. ?d. (Walz Rhett. Gr. vii. 1049): t?tte? (sc. ?????s???) d? t?? sp??de??? et’ a?t?? (sc. et? t?? ?a??? ?????).—For Dionysius’ view of the spondee and other feet see also Walz viii. 980 ?????s??? ?? ?? t? pe?? s????se?? ????t?? f?s?? ?t? ? d??t???? ?t?.

4. Euripides’ Hec. 162-4 runs thus in G. G. A. Murray’s text:—

p??a? ? ta?ta? ? ?e??a?
ste???; †p?? d’ ?s?; †p?? t?? ?e??
†? da????? †?pa?????;

As the editor remarks later, “metrum nec in se perfectum,” etc. See also Porson’s note on the same passage of the Hecuba.—For a Latin spondaic line cp. Ennius “olli respondit rex Albai longai” (Annal. Reliq. i. 31 Vahlen).

7. The iambus and the trochee abound in ordinary speech, and must therefore be used in oratory with moderation: cp. Cic. de Oratore iii. 47 “nam cum sint numeri plures, iambum et trochaeum frequentem segregat ab oratore Aristoteles, Catule, vester, qui natura tamen incurrunt ipsi in orationem sermonemque nostrum; sed sunt insignes percussiones eorum numerorum et minuti pedes”; Orator 56. 189 “versus saepe in oratione per imprudentiam dicimus; quod vehementer est vitiosum, sed non attendimus neque exaudimus nosmet ipsos; senarios vero et Hipponacteos effugere vix possumus; magnam enim partem ex iambis nostra constat oratio”; Aristot. Rhet. iii. 8. 4 ? d’ ?a?? a?t? ?st?? ? ????? ? t?? p?????? d?? ???sta p??t?? t?? ?t??? ?ae?a f??????ta? ?????te?: Poet. iv. 14 ???sta ??? ?e?t???? t?? ?t??? t? ?ae??? ?st??? s?e??? d? t??t??? p?e?sta ??? ?ae?a ????e? ?? t? d?a???t? t? p??? ????????, ???et?a d? ???????? ?a? ??a????te? t?? ?e?t???? ?????a?: Demetr. de Eloc. § 43 ? d? ?a?? e?te??? ?a? t? t?? p????? ???e? ?????. p????? ???? ?t?a ?a??? ?a???s?? ??? e?d?te?.

9. Cp. Aristot. Rhet. iii. 8 ? d? t???a??? ???da????te???? d???? d? t? tet??et?a? ?st? ??? ????? t???a??? t? tet??et?a.

11. As in Hor. Epod. ii. 1 “Beatus ille, qui procul negotiis.”

13. This line of Archilochus is preserved (together with the six that follow it) in Stobaeus Florileg. i. 207 (Meineke). For a similar Latin trochaic verse see Marius Victorinus i. 12 “Roma, Roma cerne, quanta sit Deum benignitas.”

18. For the effect of tribrachs in Latin cp. Marius Victorinus i. 12 “nemus ave reticuit, ager homine sonat.”

20. ?a? ??e????: these words are absent from P; perhaps rightly. They do not sort well with ?a? ??d?? ... ?e??a???.

3 d?ae???? (? suprascripto) P: d?a???e? ?? M¹: d?ae???? ?? M²V: d?a???e? F "" t????de F: t?de PMV 5 d?e?? P: d???? MV: F 6 a???? F: a???? ??at??a? t?? ?a?e??? PMV "" e?s???? EF: e?s?????? PMV 7 d?a?e???asta? F: ????asta? E 8 ??e??e? P, M: ??e??? V: ??d?? F 9 ???ae L. Dindorfius: d????ae libri 11 ??e??? t? F: ??e??? PV: e???? M "" pe??t????a? F: pe???e??a? PMV 12 pe???a??es?a? F 14 ?efa??? E: ?efa??? F: ?efa??? PMV "" ??e?? P: ??e? EFMV 16 d??t???? EFM: da?t? P: da?t?????? V "" t? ?????? t?? ????e?a? EF: ?????? ?????a? PMV 17 ?p? R

2. ????at????: various modern examples of the rhythmical effect of long and short syllables will be found in Demetr., e.g. p. 219. Here may be added, from George Meredith’s Love in the Valley—

Thicker crowd the shades as the grave East deepens
Glowing, and with crimson a long cloud swells.
Maiden still the morn is; and strange she is, and secret;
Strange her eyes; her cheeks are cold as cold sea-shells.

Here the long syllables in italics may be contrasted with:

9. Virg. Ecl. viii. 68 might be fancifully divided in such a way as to present several feet of this kind:

16. Cp. Long. de Sublim. xxxix. 4 ???? te ??? ?p? t?? da?t?????? e???ta? ?????? e??e??stat?? d’ ??t?? ?a? e?e??p????, d?? ?a? t? ?????, ?? ?se? ?????st??, ?t??? s???st?s??.

19. This is of course the very start of Odysseus’ adventures as recounted by himself. He sails away from Ilium on as many dactyls as possible.—For dactyls freely used in the Virgilian hexameter cp. Aen. ix. 503 “at tuba terribilem sonitum procul aere canoro [increpuit, etc.]”; Georg. iii. 284 “sed fugit interea, fugit irreparabile tempus.”

20. t??t?? t?? p?d??. “Unless a lacuna be assumed, a rather violent assumption, the phrase [i.e. t??t?? t?? p?d??] must simply resume the a?t?? just before the hexameter, the t??t?? just before that, and the d??t???? two lines earlier, which immediately follows the phrase of description,” Goodell Greek Metric p. 172.

1 ?s? F: p?s? PMV 2 ?te??? ?st?? F: ?te??? d? PMV "" ???? F: t??a PMV 3 ?p? t?? ?????? FP¹V: ?p? t??’ ?????? P²: ?p? t??a ????? M "" te?e?t?? t??t?? FM: t??t?? te?e?t? V: te?e?t?? P 4 ???????? FM²: ?????? PM¹V 6 ???*p???? cum rasura F: ???p???? PMV 8 t??s???a?? F 9 s???st??e? F: s???st??e ?? PMV "" d? p??e? F: d? ??e? PV 12 t????t?? PM: t????de FV 13 p??ta?? FM² "" ?p??a?s? EP: ?p??es? MV: ?p??ess? F "" ?a??e????? EF: ?a??e????s?? PMV 14 ?? F: ??? PMV 15 ? F: om. PMV 16 s?? EPMV: s? F "" s???? EFMV: s??e? Ps 17 p??? ?st? t? EF: d? p??? t??t? PMV "" e?s se??t?ta (s pr. suprascripto) ????a? P 18 p??t? te??? P, MV: s??te??? F 21 t??’ ??t??, t??’ ??a?] t??a ??? t???d?? F 22 t??? p?s?? FPM: ?????? V 23 pa?????e??? E

1. ?s?: cp. 190 9, where there is the same divergence between F and PMV.

2, 4. See Glossary under ?????? and ????????.

13. Usener suggests that this line may possibly come from the Persae of Timotheus, some newly-discovered fragments of which were issued by Wilamowitz-Moellendorff in 1903.—Similarly, in Latin, cretics may be found in such lines of Terence as “tum coacti necessario se aperiunt” (Andr. iv. 1).

16.

might give the metrical effect, in a rough and uncouth way. In Latin cp. “baccare, laetare praesente Frontone” (Rufinus de Metris Comicorum).

18. p??t? te?? t?? a????, ‘at the head of’; cp. note on 98 7 supra.

21. After p??e??? P has a gap which would contain a dozen letters, and in the middle of the gap the original copyist has written ??d(??) ?e?p(e?).

4 ?sta? EF: ?st? PMV "" d?? EF: d?e?? P: d???? MV 5 t? p?e?? FM: p?e?? PV 7 et????? ?a? ??????? F: ??????? (????? MV) te ?a? et????? PMV 10 ?e??a?a F: ea?a PMV 14 d???? post s?p?????ta? praestant FMV: om. P "" ?p??t?? t?? PMV: ?p??t?? F 17 ?e?ta? F: ???e?ta? PM: ???e?ta? V 20 ?? FP: ??d? MV 23 ?sta? FPM: ?st? V

3. ?p???? d? ... e???? t????. A. J. Ellis (p. 48) says, “This gives a simple and convenient rule for practising the quantitative pronunciation of words of more than three syllables.... The effect of quantity in prose is the most difficult thing for moderns to appreciate. Hence the only easy pronunciation of Greek is the modern, where quantity is entirely neglected, and a force-accent used precisely as in English.”

5. On the subject of metrical feet Aristotle (Rhet. iii. 8) is brief; Cicero (Orator cc. 63, 64) is fuller; while Dionysius in this chapter enters into still further details. Reference may also be made to Quintil. ix. 4. 45 ff. and to Demetr. de Eloc. §§ 38 ff.

6. This passage (down to l. 21) brings out clearly the importance of rhythm in prose-writing.

16. e??: the less agreeable alternative is pleasantly treated as though it were the more remote. Cp. e?? on 166 8 (though there ???????? stands in the earlier clause, 166 6).

17. H. Richards (Classical Review xix. 252) suggests ?p??e?ta? (or s???e?ta?), in order to account for the ???e?ta? of PM and the ???e?ta? of V.

21. Would not ?spe? ??d? ?? t?? ??t??? (or the like: cp. 100 18) be required if the meaning were “any more than from the metrical”? The author’s point is brought out more clearly in 192 21, 196 8, etc. Cp. Quintil. ix. 4. 87, “miror autem in hac opinione doctissimos homines fuisse, ut alios pedes ita eligerent aliosque damnarent, quasi ullus esset, quem non sit necesse in oratione deprehendi” (the passage is more fully quoted on p. 169 supra).

23. pe??: no change in the reading is necessary; cp. 200 4 ????a pe?? p?????, and 136 6 ????a ?p?? p????? ?e????t??.

2 ?d? e?????t?? EP: ?d? om. MV: e?????t?? ?d? F (perperam: cf. vv. 6, 7) 3 t?? (ante ?????) om. F 9 ???t???? PM "" p??t?? FM: p??t?? a?t? PV 10 t??t? PMV 11 ?p?a??e???? ... a???? om. P 14 s???e?est?t?? P 21 d? PV: d? FM

3. t?? p??s???ta ?t?.: viz. t?? ?????t??, d?????t? t?? S????a (schol. ad Thucyd. ii. 35). Dionysius has this passage of Thucydides in view when he writes (Antiqq. Rom. v. 17) ??? ??? p?t’ ????a??? p??s??esa? t?? ?p?t?f??? ?pa???? t? ???, e?t’ ?p? t?? ?p’ ??te?s?? ?a? pe?? Sa?a??a ?a? ?? ??ata?a?? ?p?? t?? pat??d?? ?p??a???t?? ????e???, e?t’ ?p? t?? pe?? ?a?a???a ?????.—Bircovius illustrates the rhythmical effect of the Greek by a similar analysis of the exordium of Livy’s History, “facturusne operae pretium sim, si a primordio urbis res populi Romani perscripserim, nec satis scio nec, si sciam, dicere ausim, quippe qui cum veterem tum vulgatam esse rem videam, dum novi semper scriptores aut in rebus certius aliquid allaturos se aut scribendi arte rudem vetustatem superaturos credunt.”

6. The first clause is clearly meant to be divided as follows:

The formation of the anapaest is noticeable, and in other ways the metrical division seems rather arbitrary. For ????de ?d? (without elision of the final e) cp. n. on 180 8. [Here and elsewhere, no attempt has been made to secure metrical equivalence between the Greek original and the English version.]

Goodell (Chapters on Greek Metric p. 42) says of the analysis which begins here: “It is incredible that the rhetor supposed he was describing the actual spoken rhythm, in the sense of Aristoxenus; he was giving the quantities of the syllables in the conventional way, and his readers so understood him.”

9. Cp. the metrical effect of

10. Second clause:

16. Third clause:

It is to be noticed that Dionysius treats the final syllable of ????e?es?a? as long before a?t??, and (more unaccountably) the final syllable of ?a??? as long before ?p?. The length of the diphthong -a? might, no doubt, be maintained in prose utterance; but it is not easy to see on what principle -??? could be pronounced -?? before ?p?. It might indeed be urged that the final syllable of a rhythmical phrase must (like that of a metrical line) be regarded as indifferent (long or short): cp. Cic. Orat. 63. 214 “persolutas;—dichoreus; nihil enim ad rem, extrema illa longa sit an brevis.” But this is to remind us once more that, though there is a sound general basis for the observations of Dionysius, it is easy for both ancient and modern theorists to frame rules more definite than the facts warrant.

1 ????a t? F: ????a PMV 3 ?a???st?? P "" ??] ?a? FMV: om. P "" e??e?e?a? P: e??e??? MV "" ?p???? F: ?? ??????? t??? PMV 4 ta?t??? Us.: ta?t?? e? F: ta?t?? PMV 7 fa?e??? ?a? pe????t?? F 9 ??d’ ????s?? P: ??d’ ????s? FMV 13 ?a???? FP: ?a?? MV 15 p??s??e? F 16 d ? de?te??? F: de ?te??? P, V: d’ ?te??? M 17 e??’ ? F: e?ta PMV 19 ?? F: ?? ? PMV 25 d?] de? F

4. The passage from the Menexenus is quoted by Dionysius in the de Demosth. c. 24, with the remark ? ?? e?s??? ?a?ast? ?a? p??p??sa t??? ?p??e?????? p???as? ??????? te ????t?? ??e?a ?a? se??t?t?? ?a? ?????a?, t? d’ ?p??e??e?a ?????’ ???a t??? p??t??? ?t?. It is also given, as an illustration of the musical and other effects of periphrasis, in the de Sublimitate c. 28: ??a d? t??t??? et???? ????se t?? ???s??, ? ????? ?a?? t?? ????? ?e??p???se, ?a??pe? ?????a? t??? t?? ?? t?? pe??f??se?? pe???e?e??? e???e?a?;—A somewhat similar period in Latin is that of Sallust (Bell. Catilin. i. 1), “omnes homines, qui sese student praestare ceteris animalibus, summa ope niti decet, ne vitam silentio transeant veluti pecora, quae natura prona atque ventri oboedientia finxit.”

8. First clause:

Here three points call for comment: (1) ??de ????s?? (and not ??d’ ????s?? with FPMV) was clearly (cp. l. 16) read by Dionysius: so in the text of Plato himself; (2) the lengthening of t? before p??s????ta (although the usage of Comedy would seem to show that such lengthening was uncommon in the language of ordinary life) is preferred as giving a cretic; (3) very strangely, it is thought possible to scan the final syllable of sf?s?? as long (cp. 178 17, 184 2, 8).

13. We have a considerable part of an iambic line if we scan thus:

19. For ?? ?? d??a cp. de Demosth. c. 39.

22. Second clause:

1 ?st?? e??e?? F, E: ?st? PMV 2 ???e?a? EFM: e???e?a? PV 3 ??t?? EF: ??t?? PMV 5 d??s????? EPV: d??s???ea M "" ??????? FMV: ?a? ?????? P: ?????? E 6 ?te EF: ? PV: ? ?a? M 9 s??t???s? d? EF: d? s??t???s?? P, MV 12 ????] ?? ??? P 13 ?p?d?d?? F: ?atad?d?? PMV 16 ta?ta] ?at? ta?ta PV 17 ????? F: ?? ????? PMV 18 d? t??de V: t??de PM: d? F

2. ???e?a?: cp. 122 21, unless 130 6 should seem to support the reading e???e?a? in the present passage.

5. For ???s????? (as given by some manuscripts) cp. Demetr. de Eloc. § 175 ?a? ???? t? ?? d?’ e?f???a? ?f?????ta? ?? ?tt????, “???s?????” ?????te? ?a? “S????t??.”

7. Cp. Long. de Sublim. c. iii. ???s?a????s? d’ e?? t??t? t? ????? ??e??e??? ?? t?? pe??tt?? ?a? pep??????? ?a? ???sta t?? ?d???, ?p???????te? d? e?? t? ??p???? ?a? ?a???????.—Dionysius perhaps fails to see that a high-pitched style may sometimes be used et’ e????e?a?, as Aristotle (Rhet. iii. 7. 11) says in reference to the Phaedrus.

8. ?t?????: cp. de Demosth. cc. 6, 7, 24-29, and Ep. ad Cn. Pomp. cc. 1, 2.—For the probable order in which the ‘Scripta Rhetorica’ appeared see D.H. pp. 5-7. The de Comp. Verb. is referred to twice in the de Demosth. (cc. 49, 50).—With d????ta? (not ded???ta?, de Din. c. 13, de Demosth. c. 49; nor d?????seta?, de Lysia cc. 12, 14) cp. de Isaeo c. 2, de Demosth. c. 57.

9. Dionysius is fond of the asseveration ?? ??a, ‘mehercule.’

17. First clause:

—The expression ?ataet????te? may indicate that Dionysius himself wrote marks of quantity over the syllables in question: such marks are given by F in 178 2-4, 10, 11, 16, 17, and are also found in the Paris Manuscript (1741) of Demetr. de Eloc. §§ 38, 39.—With the rhythmical effect of this passage of Demosthenes, Bircovius compares “Si, patres conscripti, pro vestris immortalibus in me fratremque meum liberosque nostros meritis parum vobis cumulate gratias egero, quaeso obtestorque, ne meae naturae potius, quam magnitudini vestrorum beneficiorum, id tribuendum putetis” (Cic. Post Reditum in Senatu Oratio init.).

22. Second clause:

—There are fresh difficulties in the “scansion” here. Dionysius speaks as if the last syllable of e????a? may (and indeed preferably) be counted long: this involves the lengthening of a short vowel before a single consonant, cp. n. on 180 8.—With regard to the paeons, d?ate?? will form a “catalectic” paeon (? ? ? –), but t? te p??e? will not form a “procatarctic” paeon (– ? ? ?) unless the final syllable of p??e? is reckoned short.—To extract a molossus from ?a? p?s??, the last syllable of p?s?? must be lengthened. Strange as it appears, the cumulative evidence seems (if our text is sound) to show that Dionysius would (at any rate, for the purpose of prose rhythm) lengthen a short vowel before a single consonant.

2 e?ta ???t???? F: ?pe?ta ???t???? PMV 3 pa???e? F: pa???e? PMV 4 ??at???? F: ??at????? PMV "" a?t?? PV: a?t?? FM 5 t??de F: t?? PMV 7 ?peta? d? F: ?pe?ta de P, M: ?pe?ta V 8 ?a? F: ?a? ? PMV 11 ?a?? F "" t???a??? F: t?? t???a??? PMV 17 ?ata?e??e?s??a? F "" ?a? F: ? PMV 19 ?s?? ?a? te?e?ta??? F: te?e?ta??? ?a? ?s?? PMV "" ? s?f?st?? F: s?f?st?? PMV 20 ??da t? F: ??d’ ? t? PMV 22 ??e??e?? F: e??e?e?? PMV "" e??e?e?? F: ??e?e?? PV¹: ??e??e?? MV² 25 p???a??? FP, M: p???a??? V

4. ?????e? ??? ??at???? a?t?? d?a??e??: this statement should be noted, together with the a priori grounds on which Dionysius elsewhere (e.g. 180 12-16) makes his choice between the alternatives which present themselves.

6. Third clause:

—If t??t??? is a bacchius, it must be scanned

and if t?? ????(a) is a cretic, it must be scanned

There are, no doubt, many cases of abnormal lengthening in Homeric versification (e.g. f??e ?as????te at the beginning of a line, Il. iv. 155), but not to such an extent as would satisfy ‘Eucleides the elder’: ???? ????e?d?? ? ???a???, ?? ??d??? p??e??, e? t?? d?se? ??te??e?? ?f’ ?p?s?? ???eta?, ?a?p???sa? ?? a?t? t? ???e?,—“?p?????? e?d?? ?a?a????de ad????ta” (Aristot. Poet. c. xxii.).

11. ?te ?a???? ... t???a??? ?de??: it is obvious that we could discover some of these feet in the passage if we were to choose our own way of dividing it. If in Latin, for example, we were to take such a sentence as quonam igitur pacto probari potest insidias Miloni fecisse Clodium? (Cic. pro Milone 12. 32), we could extract dactyls, spondees, trochees, iambi, cretics, anapaests, etc. from the various section into which we chose to divide it: e.g.

And so with several other possible scansions (cp. Laurand Études sur le style de CicÉron p. 138).

19. For Hegesias cp. Introduction, pp. 52-5 supra.

20. ? t?? ??a ... ???e??: reminiscent of Demosth. Philipp. iii. 54, Fals. Leg. 220.

2 a?? F: ?? PMV 3 d? F: de P, MV 4 ?? t?? ?pes?? PMV: ?pes?? ?? t?? F 5 ?e?t? F: ??et? PMV 6 ?? t?? F: ?? PMV 8 ?st?? d’ F: t? d? PMV 10 ??????] e??e??? F 11 ????? fe??e??? d’ F: ????? fe??e??? ? d’ PMV 12 te ???ata??f???ta? PMV: te ?ata?e?f???ta? F 14 a?t?? PMV 16 ??a???? MV 17 t??t?? F: t??t?? PMV 18 ??d? ??e?? f?e??t??a? (-?t- M) PMV 19 p?te?a F: p?te??? PMV 21 ?a? p?? F

1-3. Cp. Dryden Mac Flecknoe ll. 19, 20, “The rest to some faint meaning make pretence, " But Shadwell never deviates into sense.” The wilfulness and malice prepense (p?????a) of Hegesias’ stupidity may be illustrated by Dr. Johnson’s remark about Thomas Sheridan: “Why, Sir, Sherry is dull, naturally dull; but it must have taken him a great deal of pains to become what we now see him. Such an access of stupidity, Sir, is not in nature” (Boswell’s Life of Johnson i. 453).

4. The reading of PMV seems preferable, since ?? is not infrequently attached to adverbs or adverbial phrases such as d?’ ???????.

5. ?e?t?: t??ea? used for ????a?, as in 208 13 and 232 25.—Contrast the active ??s? in the next line.

9. Arrian (Exped. Alexandri ii. 25. 4) thus describes the commencement of Alexander’s siege, and Batis’ defence, of Gaza (332 B.C.): ????a?d??? d? ?p’ ????pt?? ???? p??e?s?a? t?? st????. ?a? ?? a?t? t? ?? ???a t?? ?a?a?st???? ?a??????? S???a? p??s?e??????ta ?d?? e??????? d? t??, ? ???a ?? ??t??, ??at?? t?? Ga?a??? p??e??, ?? p??se??e? ??e???d??, ???? ??a?? te ?s??t??? ?pa??e??? ?a? s?t?? ?? p????? pa?es?e?a??? d?a??? ?? ??????? p???????a? ?a? t? ????? p?ste???, ?p?te ?? ?? ????a?, ???? ? d??es?a? t? p??e? ????a?d???. In continuing and completing (cc. 26, 27) his narrative of the siege, Arrian makes no mention of the fate of Batis. On this point Plutarch, too, is silent (Vit. Alex. c. 25), and so is Diodorus Siculus xvii. 48. 7. The obviously rhetorical cast of Hegesias’ narrative, and of that of Curtius (Histor. Alexandri Magni iv. 6, 7-30), should cause it to be accepted with greater reserve than Grote (xi. 469 n. 1) thinks needful to maintain.—For the probable share of Cleitarchus in propagating this story about Alexander see C. MÜller Scriptores Rerum Alexandri Magni pp. 75, 142; and for his bombast cp. Long. de Sublim. iii. 2 and Demetr. de Eloc. § 304.

11. ?????: viz. after a two months’ siege (????a?d??? d? st?ate?sa? ?p? G??a? f?????????? ?p? ?e?s?? ?a? d????? p??sed?e?sa? e??e ?at? ???t?? t?? p????, Diod. Sic. xvii. 48. 7).—Batis was supported by only a small force: “modico praesidio muros ingentis operis tuebatur,” Curtius iv. 6. 7.

14. ??e??a: Curtius iv. 6. 7 “praeerat ei Betis, eximiae in regem suum fidei.” Josephus (Ant. Iud. xi. 8. 3 Naber) gives the name of the governor as ?a??s??. Arrian gives Batis. ‘Baetis’ seems the right form in 188 13, and so perhaps in Curtius.

15. e?d???. It must have been from the point of view of his countrymen that Batis possessed e?d?? (cp. 188 16). Usener suggests ?????.

?? ??ate??? d?f???: cp. Xen. Cyrop. vi. 4. 9 ta?t’ e?p?? ?at? t?? ???a? t?? ??ate??? d?f??? ???a??e? ?p? t? ??a, where (as here) d?f??? = sella aurigae.

21. t? s??ta?a: no doubt the ?pasp?sta? are meant: Alexander is represented as advancing at the head of his Guards.—In the English translation of the passage that follows no attempt has been made to reproduce all the peculiarities of Hegesias’ style.

1 ?e???e?t? PMV: ????e?et? F "" ?pa?t?? om. F "" ?p???t? Radermacher: ?p??? F: e?s??? P, MV 2 s??e?a?e?? FMV: s??e????e?? Ps 3 e?? t? t???? PMV: om. F 4 p??te??? ? ??t?? F 5 s???af?e?? PMV: s???a??sa? F 6 ??ete?a? F "" p??s?e??? F: p???e??? PMV 7 ?p? PMV: ?p? F 8 t?? F: ?a? t?? PMV 10 ?p?p?a F: ?p?p?at? MV: ?p? pa?a?a?? P "" ??t?? ??a F: ??t?? ??? PMV 11 ???st?se?] ???tase? F "" t???at?? F: t???sa?t?? PMV 12 e?a??s??????? F, MV: tet?a??s??????? P 13 a?st[?]? cum litura P: as???a FMV "" a?t??] Sylburgius: a?t?? FM: a?t?? PV 15 ?a? (ante ??s???tat??) F: ?? PMV "" ??s???tat?? P: de????tat?? FMV "" ?a? t? ???a PMV: t? s?a F 17 ?a?(???) P: ?a????? V: ?????? F: ??????? M 18 ???a?e? F

1. Blass (Rhythm. Asian. p. 19) would read e?s???t?, comparing intravit in Curtius iv. 6. 23.

3. s???d?ae?: cp. Propert. iii. 9. 17 “est quibus Eleae concurrit palma quadrigae; " est quibus in celeres gloria nata pedes.”

6. t?? ??ete?a?: Hegesias may have used the article in order to avoid the hiatus ??e???d?? ??ete?a?. F omits it (as unnecessary).

7. t? pte????a t?? ???a???: cp. Schol. Venet. B ad Hom. Il. iv. 132 ??a ? ?a?ep? ????ta? ? p????, e?? t??t? t? ???? ??e?, ?a?’ ? ???????? ?p?fe??e?a t? pte????a t?? ???a??? ?sf???et? ?p? t?? ??st????. See also the references given under pt???? in L. & S., and in Stephanus.—Perhaps Hegesias has Il. iv. 132 directly in mind. The meaning will then be (with F’s reading ?p?), “as his assailant had struck it [the sword] against the skirts of Alexander’s corselet.” But the account in Curtius iv. 6. 15 seems to confirm ?p?: “quo conspecto, Arabs quidam, Darei miles, maius fortuna sua facinus ausus, gladium clipeo tegens, quasi transfuga genibus regis advolvitur. ille adsurgere supplicem, recipique inter suos iussit. at barbarus gladio strenue in dextram translato cervicem adpetiit regis: qui exigua corporis declinatione evitato ictu in vanum manum barbari lapsam amputat gladio.”

10. ?p?p?a: cp. Curtius iv. 6. 24 “inter primores dimicat; ira quoque accensus, quod duo in obsidione urbis eius vulnera acceperat.” The reading of P, ?p? pa?a?a??, apparently means ‘over and above the ancient ???a?,’ and it is possible that Hegesias wrote both this and ?p?p?a: or ?p? pa?a?a?? may gloss p??sfat??.

12. The number, as given by Curtius (iv. 6. 30), was “circa decem milia.”

?p? t?? s??p???a ??e???? = ?p? t? s??p?sa ??e???: cp. Aristot. Rhet. iii. 6 ???? t? f??a? t?? s??p???a e??a? ???? ??????.

15. ??s???tat??: cp. Curtius iv. 6. 27 “non interrito modo sed contumaci quoquo vultu intuens regem.” Usener conjectures ??s???p??, with considerable probability: cp. 162 19 supra.

17. ??????: cp. Hesych. ????a? ??????, da?t?????, and Antiq. Rom. ii. 38 ?a? a?t?? (???pe?a?) ???? e?s???eta? t?? ?a????, ? pe?? t??? ???ste???? ?a???s?? ?f????? (?? Sa????), ?a? t?? da?t?????.—Probably here a large curb-chain is meant, rather than a cheek-ring, which would be too small. So Curtius iv. 6. 29 “per talos enim spirantis lora traiecta sunt [cp. Virg. Aen. ii. 273], religatumque ad currum traxere circa urbem equi gloriante rege, Achillen, a quo genus ipse deduceret, imitatum se esse poena in hostem capienda.” In Homer ???te? are employed (190 13).

18. p??e?? (‘to pound,’ ‘to knead’) is one of the many forced metaphors in this excerpt from Hegesias.

1 ?a???ete??? Schaefer: ?a? ??ete??? libri 2 ???t?? F: ??t?? MV "" sa???? F: ?ast??? PMV 3 ???fa??e MV²: ???fa??e F: ??efa??et? P "" ?d??? F: ?d??? MV: ??d??? P 9 ?st?? om. P "" ?s? F: p?s? PMV 12 t????te F: t????ta? PMV 14 ?ase?] ?d?se? F 16 ?st???? ?’ Hom. "" ?????te FMV Hom.: ????te P 18 p?p?a?t?] p?t?a?t? Hom. 22 t???e F Hom.: t??e PM: te??e V

1. It is not clear whether the strict distinction between a?a??s?? (wrong vocabulary, spelling, or pronunciation) and s??????s?? (wrong syntax) is here maintained. Possibly Batis may have offended (1) by using a word (desp?t??) abhorrent to all free men of Greek blood, or (2) by using it in the wrong case, or (3) by mispronouncing it: cp. Sandys History of Classical Scholarship i. 148, for the comprehensiveness of the term s??????s??. But if it be held that s??????s?? cannot occur in one isolated word (cp. Quintil. i. 5. 36), then it may be supposed that the reference here is to grammatical blunders in other words ejaculated by the unhappy Batis.

3. ?a??????? ????: a comparison suggests itself with the Assyrian bulls represented in reliefs (cp. Tennyson’s Maud, “That oil’d and curl’d Assyrian Bull”).—The reading of P, ?te??? ??d???, might mean ‘far different from a man’ (viri: not ?????p??, hominis).

4. Hegesias’ use of st?at??t???? may be compared with de Lys. c. 12 (of Iphicrates) ? te ????? p??? t? f??t???? ?a? st?at??t???? ??e? ?a? ??? ??t?? ?fa??e? ??t?????? ???????a? ?? st?at??t???? a???de?a? ?a? ??a???e?a?.

7. ?st?? a?????e???: not simply a periphrasis for a????eta?.

8. For Hector’s insensibility cp. Murray’s Rise of the Greek Epic pp. 118, 132.—The savagery of Achilles was, nevertheless, generally felt to need extenuation, as may be seen from the curious explanations proffered in the scholia: e.g. ? d? ?a???a??? f?s?? ?t? p?t???? ?st? Tessa???? t??? t?? f??t?t?? f???a? s??e?? pe?? t??? t?? f??e????t?? t?f???, ?t?.

11. Cp. Virg. Aen. ii. 268 ff. (the vision of the mangled Hector).

2 ?? FP: ??’ MV 4 e??e??? s?a F: e??e??? ?a PMV "" de??? FPM: de???? V 6 ?p? F: ?? ?p? PMV 8 ?? F: om. PMV 10 p??t?? FM: om. PV "" ?a? e? FPM: e? ?a? V "" ?? om. P 11 ??d? e?? P, MV: ??de?? F "" ??d? (??d’ V) ?d????? MV: ? ?d????? F: om. P 12 ?t?? ?? ??p?se? om. F 13 d? F: d? PMV 15 d?] d? F 19 ????ta PMV: ??ta EF 20 d? EF: d’ ?? PMV "" ?e? EF: ?? ?e? MV: om. P 21 t??? EF: ?? t??? PV: ?? ??? M

5. f????a, ‘pride,’ ‘spirit,’ ‘mettle,’ ‘feeling,’ ‘self-respect’: cp. 186 5.

6. ?atea??t??, ‘enervated,’ ‘effeminate’ (Lat. fractus): cp. Philo Jud. i. 262 (Mangey) ??a?d??? ?a? ?atea??te? ?a? ????d??a? t? f????ata, i. 273 p??es? t??? ?atea??s? ?a? te?????????.

8, 9. ??e???? refers to the passage last quoted, t??t?? to that quoted first. The remoteness implied in ??e???? is here that of greatness and antiquity; the nearness in t??t??, that of the commonplace and recent.

10. The reading e? ?a? (‘although’) would perhaps be preferable in sense, if only it had better manuscript attestation. [In 198 15 there is a similar fluctuation between ?a? e? and e? ?a?.]

13. For various points of rhythm and metre raised in cc. 18, 19, and elsewhere, reference may be made to the Introduction, pp. 33-9.

16. For the importance of variety (especially in relation to rhythm) cp. a well-known fragment of Isocrates’ Art of Rhetoric: ???? d? ? ????? ? ????? ?st?, ????? ???? ?d? ?et???, ?atafa??? ???. ???? e???? pa?t? ????, ???sta ?a??? ? t???a??? (“prose must not be merely prose, or it will be dry; nor metrical, or its art will be undisguised; but it should be compounded with every sort of rhythm, particularly iambic or trochaic”). The views of Theophrastus on the point are reported in Cic. de Orat. iii. 48. 184 ff. “namque ego illud adsentior Theophrasto, qui putat orationem, quae quidem sit polita atque facta quodam modo, non astricte, sed remissius numerosam esse oportere,” etc.

18. ?????: cp. Ep. ad Cn. Pomp. c. 3 ????? d’ ??e?, f?s?? ? ???da??? [Nem. vii. 52], ?a? ??? ?a? t? t??p?’ ???e’ ?f??d?s?a, and Hom. Il. xiii. 636 p??t?? ?? ????? ?st?, ?t?.

19. ????ta avoids the awkward hiatus ?d?a ??ta. The fact that ??e? follows shortly is not a conclusive objection, since Dionysius, and Greek authors generally, were free from the bad taste which avoids, at all costs, repetitions of this kind: cp. ?aa??e?a ... ???eta? (106 18).

8 ?p????ta? FE: ?p????ta? PMV 9 te ?a? PMV (cf. l. 6 supra): ?a? EF 11 t?? ??t?st??f?? PM: t??? ??t?st??f??? F: ??t?st??f?? V 12 ?p?d?? V "" ta?t? ?st?? F 14 ???st? s???st??e? pe???d?? PMV: s???st??e pe???d?? ???st? E: s???st??e pe???d?? F 15 a?t??? secl. Usener 16 a?ta?? PMV: a?t??? EF "" ?? om. F 18 d? om. EF 20 e?s???? t?? PMV: e?s???? EF

5. ??d? t??t??? ?pas?: e.g. not the cretic, and (strictly) not the trochee.

7. ??a??????? ... ???at???? ... d?at?????: the distinction between these scales is indicated in Macran’s Harmonics of Aristoxenus p. 6: “Was it then possible to determine for practical purposes the smallest musical interval? To this question the Greek theorists gave the unanimous reply, supporting it by a direct appeal to facts, that the voice can sing, and the ear perceive, a quarter-tone; but that any smaller interval lies beyond the power of ear and voice alike. Disregarding then the order of the intervals, and considering only their magnitudes, we can see that one possible division of the tetrachord was into two quarter-tones and a ditone, or space of two tones; the employment of these intervals characterized a scale as of the Enharmonic genus. Or again, employing larger intervals one might divide the tetrachord into, say, two-thirds of a tone, and the space of a tone and five-sixths: or into two semitones, and the space of a tone and a half. The employment of these divisions or any lying between them marked a scale as Chromatic. Or finally, by the employment of two tones one might proceed to the familiar Diatonic genus, which divided the tetrachord into two tones and a semitone. Much wonder and admiration has been wasted on the Enharmonic scale by persons who have missed the true reason for the disappearance of the quarter-tone from our modern musical system. Its disappearance is due not to the dulness or coarseness of modern ear or voice, but to the fact that the more highly developed unity of our system demands the accurate determination of all sound-relations by direct or indirect resolution into concords; and such a determination of quarter-tones is manifestly impossible.”

18. ???a???: as compared, say, with Pindar.

20. ?? d? pe?? St?s?????? te ?a? ???da???: the two possible senses of this and similar phrases may be illustrated from Plutarch, viz. (1) the man and his followers, e.g. ?? pe?? ???s????? (Plutarch Vit. Demosth. 28. 2); (2) the man himself, e.g. t??? pe?? ??s????? ?a? F??????t?? (ibid. 16. 2: cp. 30. 2) = ‘Aeschines and Philocrates.’ So with ?? ?f? and ?? ?at?. But sense (2) needs careful scrutiny wherever it seems to occur; the meaning may simply be ‘men like Aeschines,’ etc.—For the ‘graves Camenae’ of Stesichorus cp. Hor. Carm. iv. 9. 8, and Quintil. x. 1. 62 “Stesichorus quam sit ingenio validus, materiae quoque ostendunt, maxima bella et clarissimos canentem duces et epici carminis onera lyra sustinentem.”

21. Such long periods are particularly effective (cp. 196 13) when they include clauses of various lengths and end with an impressive one: e.g. Cic. Catil. ii. 1. 1 “Tandem aliquando, Quirites, L. Catilinam, " furentem audacia, " scelus anhelantem, " pestem patriae nefarie molientem, " vobis atque huic urbi ferro flammaque minitantem, " ex urbe vel eiecimus, " vel emisimus, " vel ipsum egredientem verbis prosecuti sumus”; and similarly Bossuet Oraison funÈbre de Henriette-Marie de France: “Celui qui rÈgne dans les cieux " et de qui relÈvent tous les empires, " À qui seul appartient la gloire, la majestÉ et l’indÉpendance " est aussi le seul qui se glorifie de faire la loi aux rois, " et de leur donner, quand il lui plaÎt, de grandes et de terribles leÇons.”

7 ?a? F: om. PMV 8 ??e? ?a? ?de?a? PMV: ?a? ?de?a? ??e? F: ??e? E 10 ??? F: ??e? P: ???? EMV 11 ??a??????? EF: ?????a? PMV 14 ?] t? F 15 a?t?????te??? F: a?t?? (om. E) ?????te??? t? d? ?ad?te??? EPMV "" t? d? ?????ste??? om. EF 18 ?? P²MV: ?t? P¹: om. F 19 ?a? F: om. PMV "" de?? ??a? F: d? ???a? de?? PMV 20 t??t? PMV: t??t? F 21 eta??? FP: ? eta??? MV 24 ???a??? PMV: ?d??at?? EF 25 p?????a?? F "" e??a???t????? EF: e????t??a?? PMV 26 ?? ??] ?? P "" ?st???a?? PMV "" s??at? EF: s??at?s?? PM: s??at?s? V

1. For the characteristics of the various modes cp. (besides the Republic and the Politics) Lucian Harmonides i. 1 ?a? t?? ?????a? ???st?? d?af???tte?? t? ?d???, t?? F?????? t? ???e??, t?? ??d??? t? ?a??????, t?? ?????? t? se???, t?? ??????? t? ??af????.

3. t?t? ?? ... t?t? d?: cp. 132 19, where (as here) F and P have t?te.

5. ??e???s?????te?, ‘using full liberty,’ ‘showing their independence.’ Cp. de Thucyd. c. 8 ... ??te p??st??e?? t??? p???as?? ??d?? ? ? d??a??? ??te ?fa????, ??d? ??e???s????? t? ??af?, ???????t?? d? ?a? ?a?a??? t?? p??a??es?? ?p? pa?t?? f????? ?a? p?s?? ???a?e?a? f???tt??, and c. 24 ibid. ?? d? t??? s???et????? ?a? t??? p???et????? ?????? ?a? ?t? ????? ?? t??? d?a?????s? t?? t?? ????t?? d???e?? p???t?? t??p?? ??e???s????? (translated in D.H. p. 135). So Hor. Carm. iv. 2. 10 “seu per audaces nova dithyrambos " verba devolvit numerisque fertur " lege solutis.”

?? ?at? may refer simply to the individuals mentioned, or to them and their contemporaries: cp. note on 194 20.

For Philoxenus, Timotheus (including the newly discovered Persae), and Telestes see Jebb’s Bacchylides pp. 47-55; Weir Smyth’s Greek Melic Poets pp. 460-7; W. von Christ Gesch. der Griech. Litt.³ pp. 188, 189.

8. ??e??e??a? ??e? ?a? ?de?a?: it is a mistake to cut out ?a? ?de?a? on the authority of E alone. An Epitomizer would naturally omit the words, while Dionysius’ liking for amplitude and rhythm would as naturally lead him to use them. Cp. Demosth. Timocr. § 205 e? d? t?? e?sf??e? ???? ?? ?? t??? ??? ????????? ?d??e?? ? p?s’ ????s?a ?a? ?de?a ?e??seta?, ??t?? ???? ?d??e? t?? p???? ?a? ?ata?s???e? p??ta?. The word ?de?a is found also in l. 5 supra and 176 20. The repetition within a few sentences is not inconsistent with Dionysius’ practice in such matters: cp. note on 192 19 supra.

1 ?? ??a?????? (om. ?? ?????) F 2 ??? ? ?e PMV: ??? ? E: ???? ? F "" ??e???? EF: ??e??? PM: ??e???? V 3 ???? ?a? pe??de?s P 5 e?? pe???d?? om. FE 6 t?? post ?????? add. E (vocabulis e?? pe???d?? omissis) "" f??a?? EF: f?s??? M: ????? P: om. V 7 ???? F 8 a??es?? F: d?a??es?? P 10 ???a? EF: om. PMV 11 ?p’ EPV: ??? ?p’ F, M "" t?? ????? om. F 12 ???eta? om. F 13 e?? ?t? PMV: ?t? t?? F: ?t? E 14 ?a? Schaefer: ?? libri "" ???as? F: s??as?? PMV "" ?pas? om. F 15 ???? om. P "" ?a? e? F: e? ?a? PMV 18 a?t?? P: a?t? FMV "" p??? de???? PMV: de???? sf?d?a F 20 t? p??ta PMV: p??ta F 21 ?e??s??] ?e??s?? F 23 ???tt?? F, E: ?????? PMV "" ?spe? F: ?spe? ? PMV 25 ?a? E: ?a? ? FPMV 26 ?a??e?? F: pa?a?a??e?? PMV

2. The following passage emphasizes in a striking way the supreme importance of variety as an element in excellence of style.

6. f??a??: P’s reading ????? may, as Usener suggests, be a relic of f??a???.

14. The manuscript reading ?? suggests the possibility that some such words as e???ta? p??te??? have been lost after ?t??e? in l. 16.

18. a?t??, ‘the matter,’ ‘the question.’ Cp. Eurip. Phoen. 626 a?t? s?a?e? (res ipsa declarabit). See also note on 140 14 supra.

3 ?d?? ???? ??? F: ?a? ?d?? ??? ???? PMV "" p??tte?? ?d? pa?a??pe?? F: ta??tt?? ?d? pa?a??p?? P, MV 4 de??at?? F: de??at?? ? pa?ade??at?? PMV 5 ?pe? ???a PMV: ???a ???a ?st?? F "" ?? F: a?t?a PMV 10 ???? PMV: ???? ?a? EF 13 d? F: d? PMV 17 ?a?pe? EF: ?a? t?? P, MV "" ?? ??] ??(??) P: ?? ? M: ?? V: om. EF 18 a?t??? EF: t??t??? PV: t??t? M 20 pa??de??a P: pa?ade??at? V "" p????? F: ?p? p????? PMV 21 d? FP: ??? MV 26 p?t??? F: p?t??? t??? PMV 27 t?? p?t??? om. F

1. It is implied that no general rules can be laid down on this point, but we must trust to nature,—to the aesthetic perceptions of the individual author,—on the principle that “tristia maestum " vultum verba decent, iratum plena minarum, " ludentem lasciva, severum seria dictu,” Hor. Ars P. 105-7.

3. An early reading may have been ?spe? e?????e?a ?ta? ?d?? ???? ??? ta??tt? ?d? pa?a??p?.

7. p???e???tat??: lit. ‘readiest to hand.’—The verb p???e????es?a? is used often by Dionysius (76 2, 236 21, 250 13) in the meaning ‘to select.’

13. ta?ta d? pa?at?????ta: Dionysius would (as the trend of his argument throughout the treatise shows) have an author not only observe, but improve upon, the methods of ordinary people. There is no real discrepancy between this passage and that quoted (78 18 supra) from Coleridge’s Biographia Literaria.

17. ?????? ???????: the two feet (dactyl and spondee) apparently are meant. Of course, the hexameter line can be so divided as to yield longer feet such as the a??e??? (see 206 11) or the molossus; but such divisions are not natural.

18. ?a???????? ... ?a? f???te????: see D.H. p. 46.

26. Here, and in 202 8, p?t??? is used to represent Homer’s ??a?: in 202 10, 13, p?t?a. ????? (202 9) = Homer’s ??f??.

8 ?t??? F 9 ????? F 10 ???? EF: ???? PMV "" ????? F 11 ?? ? ??’ Radermacher: ??? ?? F: ?? ??? PMV 12 ?? ?? Schaefer: ?? FMV: ?? P, E 13 ??a????e? EF: ??a???e? PV 15 a??a? om. F 16 ?pe?ta p?sa? F: ?pe??’ ?pasa? PMV "" d?ae???as?? F 18 ??a?t?? FP: om. EMV 19 te (post ??????) F: te ?a? EPMV 21 p?t’ ??? F: om. PMV 22 t??? EF: om. PMV 25 a?? EFM²V: ?ad? PM¹ "" ???? EF: ???? PMV

6. Cp. Demetr. de Eloc. § 72 ?? d? t? e?a??p?epe? ?a?a?t??? s??????s?? pa?a?a????t’ ?? p??p??sa ?t?? d?? a????, ?? t? “??a? ??? ??es?e.” ?a? ??? ? st???? ???? t? ?s?e? ?? t?? s??????se??, ?a? e??ta? t?? ????? t?? ??af???? ?a? ?a?. So Eustathius: t? d? “??a? ??? ??es?e p?t? ??f??” ?pa??e?ta? ????? t?? s???????. ?fa??e? ??? t?? d?s???e?a? t?? t?? ???se?? ????? t? t?? f?????t?? ?pa??????, d?’ ?? ??????t?? t? st?a ??? ??ta? t???e?? ? ?????, ???’ ?????? a??e? s??e??????e??? t? ????d?? t?? ??? ??e??. The Homeric passage is imitated in Pope’s Essay on Criticism, “When Ajax strives some rock’s vast weight to throw, " The line too labours, and the words move slow.”—For the effect of the long unblended vowels cp. the first of Virgil’s two well-known lines, “ter sunt conati imponere Pelio Ossam " scilicet, atque Ossae frondosum involvere Olympum” (Georg. i. 282).

15. It is not easy to see how this result is reached. Perhaps in l. 5 the last syllable of ?t?? is counted long for the purpose of the argument. A perception of the difficulty may have led to the omission of a??a? in F.

18. The meaning is: ‘either by repetition of vowels [???e’ ????ta, ??a?] or by the juxtaposition of semi-vowels and mutes [with the semi-vowels first: ?? S?s?f??, e?se?d?? ??ate??, ??a? ast????ta].’—In 204 15 the words p?d??de ?????det? may be taken to express the ‘bumps’ of the stone as it rolls down.

22. Cp. Quintil. ix. 4. 98 “est enim quoddam in ipsa divisione verborum latens tempus, ut in pentametri medio spondeo, qui nisi alterius verbi fine alterius initio constat, versum non efficit.”—The effect of the short syllables in counterfeiting delay may be illustrated by Cic. pro Milone 11. 28 “paulisper, dum se uxor, ut fit, comparat, commoratus est.”

1 ?a? t?? ?p???? EF: ?p???? te PMV 6 t?? ... ?p?st??f??sa? ... ?ata????????? p?t?a? EF: t?? ... ?p?st??f??ta ... ?ata?????e??? p?t??? PMV 13 t??t? EFM¹: t??t? PM²V 14 ?p?st???as ?e P, E: ?p?st??as (? suprascr.) ?a? F, MV: ?p?st???as?e Hom. "" ??ata?? ?s P: ??ata?? F: ??ata?? ?? MV 15 a???? PMV 16 s???ata?e????sta? PMV: s??????eta? EF 18 ??? te PM: ??? F 19 ta?t?? PMV: ta?t?? F "" ????? ?de?? PV: ?de?? ????? ?st?? F 21 ??? ?a? F(E): ??? ??? P, MV "" ?? d??st?s? E: ??d’ ?st?s? F: d?est????a? PMV 24 d? F: d? ??a? PMV "" ??d’ F: ?a? ??d’ PMV "" a?ta? F: a?ta? PMV "" t??e??? FPV: t??e?a? M "" d? F: ??? PMV "" ?atasp?s?a? F: ?atesp?s?a? PM: ?atesp?s?a? V

15. “Downward anon to the valley rebounded the boulder remorseless” (Sandys, in Jebb’s Rhetoric of Aristotle p. 172). Voss marks the contrast between the slow and the rapid line by translating the one by “Eines Marmors Schwere mit grosser Gewalt fortheben,” and the other by “Hurtig mit Donnergepolter entrollte der tÜckische Marmor.”—For similar adaptations of sound to sense cp. Lucret. iii. 1000 “hoc est adverso nixantem trudere monte " saxum quod tamen e summo iam vertice rursum " volvitur et plani raptim petit aequora campi”; Virg. Aen. vi. 616 “saxum ingens volvunt alii, radiisque rotarum " districti pendent”; id. ib. viii. 596 “quadripedante putrem sonitu quatit ungula campum” (in imitation of Il. xxiii. 116); id. ib. v. 481 “sternitur exanimisque tremens procumbit humi bos”; id. ib. ii. 304-8 “in segetem ... de vertice pastor”; Racine PhÈdre v. 6 “L’essieu crie et se rompt: l’intrÉpide Hippolyte " Voit voler en Éclats tout son char fracassÉ; " Dans les rÊnes lui-mÊme il tombe embarrassÉ”; Pope’s “Up a high hill he heaves a huge round stone” (Odyss. xi.) or his “That like a wounded snake drags its slow length along” (Essay on Criticism), as compared with his “Thunders impetuous down, and smokes along the ground” (Odyss. xi.).—It is an interesting question whether Dionysius overstates his case when he makes ‘Homer’ as conscious and sedulous an artist (?e? t? ?a???????? ?a? f???te????, 200 18) as any later imitator. It is, however, unlikely that even the earliest poets who were late enough to produce consummate music were insensible to the effect of the music they produced. But great poets in all ages have had their ear so attuned by long use and practice to the music of sounds as to choose the right letters, syllables, and words almost unconsciously.

19. ta?t??: Usener reads ta?t’ ??: but (1) ta?t?? refers naturally to a?t?a; (2) with ????? the verb is often omitted, e.g. 186 19, 202 2; (3) if there were a verb, ?st?? would here be more natural than ??.

22. The meaning is that the absence of short words implies the absence of frequent breaks, and this absence contributes to rapid utterance.

24. t??e???, ‘perfect longs.’ The diphthongs in a?t??, ?pe?ta, and ??a?d??, are simply long by nature; they are not long by position as well. The ? in p?d??de, and the ? in ?????det?, are long by position but not by nature. The ? in ??a?, and the ? in ??a?d??, are long by nature but not (in the former case) by position. “Of the seven long syllables not one—except the last—contains more elements than are needful to make it pass for long and at the same time avoid hiatus; that is, no long vowel or diphthong is followed by more than one consonant; two consonants occur only where required to extend a short vowel to a long syllable” (Goodell Greek Metric p. 175). Compare 150 22-154 3, and see also Gloss., s.v. t??e???.—M here has t??e?a? (not t??e???): cp. te?e?a? in 174 1.

1 s?st??es?a? P: s??te?e?s?a? F 4 d??st??a? F: d??st??e?? PMV 5 d??tas?? F 6 d???t???? F 10 ??????? F: ?????? P, MV 12 ??t?? F: ??t?? ?e PMV 17 d??e? ?a? FM: ?d??e? P: e?d??e? V 19 ?de?a? ?a? ?a??? F: ?a??? ?a? ?de?a? PMV 23 ??? F: ? PM: om. V 24 s?? ?a? PMV: ?a? F "" ??a??? ?a? p???t?? te (te om. M) ?a? P, M 25 a?t?????? F: a?t???(a?) P: a?t???a?? MV 26 ???? F: ??? PMV

1. t? ?a??t?t? ?t?.: i.e. the utterance must necessarily be rapid when the syllables are short and trip along.

2. “Again, as between words, there is no hiatus, no semi-vowel or mute meets a semi-vowel, there is no rhetorical pause and no elision, the words almost run together into one” (Goodell Greek Metric p. 175).

11. a??e???: see note on 200 17 supra.

13. t?? ??????? [s???a??]: i.e. the long syllables in p?d??de and ?????det?.—With Usener’s conjecture pa?ae????a? the meaning will be “and these too are such as have irrational syllables incorporated with them.”

14. t???a???: Schaefer suggests t???a????, Sauppe ???e???.

18. ??????ta?: cp. Antiqq. Rom. vi. 9 ? a?????? ??, ??? ?? ??????ta? t?? ?? t??de t?? p????? ???a?? ?ata?a?e??. In 68 11 s???? is added, ??? d’ ??????ta? ?? s????: and in 224 22 ?????? is found in P and V.

23. ?? ta?? ?a?’ ???a? ???as?a??: this is one of the incidental references which show that Dionysius taught rhetoric at Rome.

1 hiatum indicavit Schottius 2 te om. F 4 ?a?e??a P, MV: ?a? ta?ta F "" d?e??????s? V "" t??? FM: om. PV 5 ?? F: om. PMV 7 ???? om. PV 9 ? om. P 11 d? ?p? MV: d? ?at? P 12 e?d???? F (E): ?d???? PMV "" d?af???? p????? F: p????? d?af???? PMV 13 e?? s??????s?? F 14 ?d??? ??? ???st? ?a?a?t??a] ?d??ata ???st? ?a?a?t??? F 16 fa??? F: fa???? PMV "" ????af?a F: ????af?a?? PM 19 p?s? Us.: ?p?s? libri 20 ?pa?te? F 22 ??a? EF: om. PMV 25 ??at????st??? PV 26 ? ??????? om. P

3. As the sentence stands, the infinitives ??s???a?, pa?as?e?? and d?e??????sa? are without regular government. ????e??? may be inserted after ??s???a?, or (as Usener prefers to think) something like ??a??a??? ??? ????a? p??t?? ?? pa?ast?sa? may be supposed to have fallen out between pa?s?a? and t??e?.

7. Dionysius’ practice of variety in his own style is shown by his use of ?fe?? here, as compared with ???a? in l. 6.

12. This and the following chapters should be compared carefully with de Demosth. cc. 36 ff.

21. For Greek views as to types of style in general (not simply ?????a?) reference may be made to Demetr. pp. 28 ff.

24. At this point in the Epitome, the Darmstadt codex has (in the margin) ? d? ????ta???? t? ?? t?? s????se?? ?d???, t? d? ?s????, t? d? ?s?? ?a?e?.

26. ? ???????: cp. 232 25 (where P again omits the second epithet) and 248 9 (with critical note).

1 e???at?? EF: ?????? PMV 2 ?at? E: ?at? t?? FPMV 3 ???? F 4 ?? P: ?? F "" ?at? t?? FPMV: ?at? E 5 te ?a? t?? PMV: te ?a? F: ?a? E 6 ?? om. P 7 ??t?? F: ?e?t?? PMV 8 ?a?a?t?? om. PV 9 ?s?? F 11 ?spe? F: ?? PMV 12 ?a? F: om. PMV "" ?sa e?pe?? codd.: ?? ins. Schaeferus 13 ?? ?? F: ?? ??a? PMV "" de?se?e F: de?se? P: de?se?? MV 17 pe??fe??a? F 18 d?at?se?? F 20 ??a? F: ?? P: ???? MV 21 a? ? F: a? ?te P, MV 22 ?a? ? F: ?de P "" ???a? d?] ??? a?de F

1. Here (and in 246 11) it is open to question whether ?????? does not fit the context better than e???at??.

2. The passage of Pindar is quoted in Cic. Ep. ad Att. xiii. 38 “nunc me iuva, mi Attice, consilio, ‘p?te??? d??? te???? ?????,’ id est utrum aperte hominem asperner et respuam, ‘? s????a?? ?p?ta??.’ ut enim Pindaro sic ‘d??a ?? ???? ?t???e?a? e?pe??.’ omnino moribus meis illud aptius, sed hoc fortasse temporibus.”

3. ?at? ????: sc. t?? ?????. —Cp. de Demosth. c. 36 ?? d? s?????te? ?f’ ??at??a? t? ???s??tata t?? ??t?? ?a? ?s?? ?????sa? ??????.

4. ? p?t’ ... ?: a favourite Platonic usage, e.g. Gorgias 462 E ? ???????te??? ? t? ?????? e?pe??, Apol. 39 A ???? ? ?? t??t’ ? ?a?ep??, ? ??d?e?, ???at?? ??f??e??, ???? p??? ?a?ep?te??? p?????a?.

5. The intermediate, or eclectic, styles are numerous and differ greatly according as they relax or strain the extreme, or pronounced, styles: cp. de Demosth. c. 37 init.

8. A point worth considering is how far this may seem to make for or against the view that the Dionysian doctrine of styles is Peripatetic in origin, being derived from Theophrastus.

10. s????: cp. s??e?t?? (Lat. acervalis, Cic. de Div. ii. 4. 11), in the sense which it bears in Hor. Ep. ii. 1. 45-47 and Cic. Academ. ii. 16. 49.

15. Batteux (p. 249) would illustrate the austere style from Rousseau’s Ode i. 2 (tirÉe du Psaume xviii.), “Les cieux instruisent la terre " À rÉvÉrer leur auteur; " Tout ce que leur globe enserre " CÉlÈbre un Dieu crÉateur,” etc.—With c. 22 of the C.V. should be compared, throughout, cc. 38, 39 of the de Demosth.

18. ?p??e?? te ?t?.: i.e. it (the austere style) aims at dividing its clauses from one another by appreciable pauses.

1 e?? F: ?? PMV 2 s???a?? F: s???a?? PMV 3 p?te ?a? ? ?????? F 5 ????? Us.: ????? ? ??? ?tt?? P: ??? ?tt?? ????? F: ??? ?tt?? MV 6 ?a? (alt.) EF: ?a? t??? PMV 7 ?a? ??te EF: ?????eta? ?a? ??te PMV "" e??a? om. P 8 pa?’ ???a F "" ??a??a?a? P, M: ??????? F, E: ??a??a?a V "" ????????a? ???’ P, MV: ???????a d? ?a? EF 9 ?ap?? EF: ?p?? PMV 10 ? t???? F "" ???eta? EF 11 s??apa?t????sa? E: s??apa?t????sa?? F: s??a?t????sa? PM: s??a?????sa? V "" ?a?ta?? EF (coniecerat Uptonus): om. PMV 12 ??d? EF: ??te PMV 17 ????sa Sylburgius: ????sa? libri "" t?? d???t?? P 18 s?et?????? Schaeferus: s?et???e?a? libri "" p?a?ate?a? secl. Usenerus 19 ????sa P: ????sa? FM: om. V "" ?p?t?d’ ??de?(a?) P: ?p?t?de?e? ??d? FMV "" ?t? Uptonus: ?p? libri "" ?st?? F: om. PMV 20 ?a? FP: ?at? MV "" ?d?a] d? MV "" ????st??f?? PM: ??t????p?? F 21 ??a?????] ??a?s???? F 22 ?pe??pt???] ?p?de?t??? F 23 ????e?st?? F "" t?? EF: t? PMV 24 p???? libri "" ????ta F "" ?????? om. F 25 d? om. EF

8. Perhaps ?????? d???e???ta, ??a??????a d? ?a?: with ?p? (‘in the case of’) retained in l. 19.

11. The meaning is that the austere style does not seek for periods containing a complete thought, and that, if accidentally it stumbles into them, it wishes to emphasize (by means of careful abstention from all artificial means of rounding off the sentence) the absence of premeditation.—With regard to Upton’s conjecture ?a?ta?? it should be noticed that this is only one of many instances in which his acuteness has since been confirmed by manuscript authority.

18. ? ??a: cp. (for the order) ?? ??a 120 9. ? is here used because of the preceding negatives.

22. ?? p?????? ?pe??pt??? ?t?.: in other words, such a style delights in anacolutha.

19-24. It is to be noticed, in this and other sentences, that Dionysius often so writes as to reflect the character of the style he is for the moment describing.—Baudat (p. 58) illustrates the style in question by quotations from Malherbe and Boileau, and adds: “Chacun connaÎt ces vers du Cor d’Alf. de Vigny:

Roncevaux! Roncevaux! dans ta sombre vallÉe
L’ombre du grand Roland n’est donc pas consolÉe!

Le son on y revient six fois, le son an trois fois, le son au deux fois; ils sont tous trois sourds et la rime en Ée seule est sonore. La succession de ces sons produit une harmonie dure, qui a quelque chose de voilÉ et de funÈbre; on croit entendre le grondement de l’orage.”

1 p???t????? F 2 ?p??? Sylburgius: ?p?e??? F: ?p?e??e? PMV: om. E 5 p???t????? F 8 ?a??????] ????(???) P 10 ??d’ ??e???e??ta P: ??d’ ??e???e?ta M: ??d’ ?? ????e??ta F 12 ?t???? PV: ?t??? FM 13 d? F 17 t?? ??? ?st?? ????? P "" ? ???? E: ???? FMV 18 de?t’ EFM²V: ?det’ P, M¹ "" ?? ????? EFV: ?? s???(??) P 19 p?peta? P 20 ?? t’] ?? F "" ?ste?? F (?ste?? praestat idem 222 14) 21 ????a?? libri: sed cf. n. crit. ad 222 14

2. For Antimachus of Colophon cp. de Imitat. ii. 6 ??t?a??? d? e?t???a? [?f???t?se?] ?a? ?????st???? t?a??t?t?? ?a? t?? s??????? t?? ??a??a???: Catullus xcv. 20 “at populus tumido gaudeat Antimacho”: Quintil. x. 1. 53 “contra in Antimacho vis et gravitas et minime vulgare eloquendi genus habet laudem. sed quamvis ei secundas fere grammaticorum consensus deferat, et affectibus et iucunditate et dispositione et omnino arte deficitur, ut plane manifesto appareat, quanto sit aliud proximum esse, aliud parem.” Plato’s admiration for his poetry is said to have been great.

3. For Empedocles as being a physicist rather than a poet see Aristot. Poet. i. 9 ?a? ??? ?? ?at????? ? f?s???? t? d?? t?? ?t??? ??f???s??, ??t? ?a?e?? e???as??, ??d?? d? ?????? ?st?? ???? ?a? ?ped???e? p??? t? ?t???, d?? t?? ?? p???t?? d??a??? ?a?e??, t?? d? f?s??????? ????? ? p???t??. But on the other side cp. Lucret. i. 731 “carmina quin etiam divini pectoris eius " vociferantur et exponunt praeclara reperta, " ut vix humana videatur stirpe creatus.” The fragments of Empedocles go far to justify Lucretius’ opinion; and the true poetic gifts of Empedocles, as of Lucretius himself, may have been seen in his work as a whole, even more than in its parts.

3, 4. The e?a??p??pe?a of Pindar is emphasized in the de Imitat. B. vi. 2.—Similarly, ibid., as to Aeschylus: ? d’ ??? ??s????? p??t?? ?????? te ?a? t?? e?a??p?epe?a? ???e???, ?t?.

5. For other references to Antiphon see de Isaeo c. 20, de Thucyd. c. 51, de Demosth. c. 8, Ep. i. ad Amm. c. 2, and C.V. c. 10. Also Thucyd. viii. 68 ??t?f?? ???? ????a??? t?? ?a?’ ?a?t?? ??et? te ??de??? de?te??? ?a? ???t?st?? ????????a? ?e??e??? ?a? ? ????? e?pe??.—For Thucydides himself see D.H. passim (especially pp. 30-34, 104 ff., 130 ff.).

17. G. S. Farnell Greek Lyric Poetry p. 417: “The excited nature of the rhythm throughout, and the rapturous enthusiasm with which the approach of spring is described, are eminently characteristic of the dithyramb at its best; and it is easy to understand how such a style, in the hands of inferior poets, degenerated into the florid inanity which characterizes the later dithyrambic poets.”

18. de?t’ ?? ?????, ‘come ye to the dance.’ “?? cum accus. (eight times in Pindar, chiefly in the Aeolic odes) is a relic of the original stage of the language when this preposition had the functions of the Latin in. It is preserved in Boeotian, Thessalian, North-West Greek, Eleian, Arcadian, Cyprian, and perhaps even in the Attic ??a??. The accusative use was abandoned on the rise of ??-? (cf. ab-s), which, before a vowel, became e??, before a consonant, ??” (Weir Smyth Greek Melic Poets p. 359). P’s curious reading ?? s???(??) is to be noticed.

20. ?fa???: the reference is to the Athenian Acropolis, and the passage suggested a fitting motto to Otto Jahn for his Pausaniae Descriptio Arcis Athenarum.

2 ??d?t(??) P, MV: ?ad?t?? E: ?d’ ???? F "" ?a?ete P, EMV: ???e? F (cp. 224 4) "" t?? t’ ?a??d??p?? Us.: ??te ???d??p?? F: t’ ??t’ ?a??d??p?? P: t?? te ???d??pt?? E: t’ ??t’ ?pa??d??p?? M: t?? ?a??d??pt?? V "" ???d?? EFV: ????? PM 3 ????e? t? e] d?ate???te F 4 p??e????ta? ?? d?? F: p??e????te? ???da? (???da?? EV) ceteri 5 ??ss?d?ta? s: ??ss?d??ta? deleto ? priore P (??ss?d?ta? leg. Us.): ??ss?da? F, EMV 6 t?? P: ?? ceteri "" ????? ?? EFMV: ???(??). t(??) P 7 ?? P: te EV: ?? te FM "" ??pe P: ??p?e? ceteri 8 ????? P: se??a? EV: se???? FM 9 ??a???a te???? Us.: ??a??ea ?e?? P, E: ?? ???ea tee?? F: ?? ????a ?e?a MV "" s?at’ Us.: te??t?? F: ??t?? cett. 10 f??????e???? Kock: f??????e??? F: f??????? ?a??? cett. "" ??????te? F "" ??a? F: ??a? cett. "" ???a?? F 11 e??a?? F "" ?p????s?? F: ?pa??s?? cett. 12 t?te om. F "" ???t?? ???s?? EFV: ???ta? (as??ta? P) ????’ PM 12-13 ??ata? (??at?? V) ??? f?a? ??date EV: ??at??? f?e??date F: ??at??? ??? f?e??te P, M 13 ???s? F "" ????ta? PM: ?????ta? EFV 14 ??e? te F: ????e? t’ EPM: ????e?te V: ??e?te s "" ?f?? F: ?f? E: ?fa V: ?fa?? PM 15 ??e? te Hermannus: ????e? te libri: ??e?te s 18 ??a???ta? F: ??a?????ta? PMV 19 ?p? F: ?p? t? PMV "" ?a? ?? t? Us.: ?a? ??te PMV: ?? t? F 21 ?a? FM: ?a? t? PV "" e? F: om. PMV

2. ?a?e?? would be infinitive for imperative, or (rather) infinitive of purpose after a verb of motion (just as Boeckh, in l. 7 infra, reads e?p?e?).

????? (????? PM) might be taken to refer to honey, or to ‘drink-offerings of spring-gathered herbs.’

4. de?te???: “post Iovem patrem secundo loco ad Bacchum filium,” Boeckh. Or the reference may be to a previous visit of Pindar to Athens.

9. ‘The clear-seen tokens of his rites are not unnoticed.’ In other words, the return of spring indicates to the god that his festival is at hand: cp. Aristoph. Nub. 311 (Weir Smyth).

12. ???eta? ... ??e? ... ??e?: schema Pindaricum.

15. “Metre: paeonic-logaoedic as Ol. 10, Pyth. 5. Schmidt (Eurythmie 428) regards the metre as logaoedic throughout. The fragment belongs to the ?p??e????a ???, that is, it is not divided into strophes,” Weir Smyth.

21. It is convenient to use ‘readers’ occasionally in the translation. But ‘hearers’ (?? ??????te?) would more naturally be used by a Greek: just as ?????? (218 1) is strictly ‘discourse’ rather than ‘literature.’

1 ?????? ... t????? ?a? om. F "" t??? de P 3 d? ?a? F: ?a? PMV "" ???s?e??? F 4 ??? PMV: ?? ??? F 5 a?t? F 10 ?a? ??t?t?p?? EF: ??t?t?p?? te PMV "" e?ep?? EF: e?pet?? PMV 13 t?? f?se? P, M in marg. F: om. F¹: t? ??se? V 14 p??t?ttes?a? F: p??tet???e P, MV 15 ??d? PMV: ??te F "" ???a] ???a F: d?? (߯ P) ???a EPM: d?? t? ???a V "" s???pte?] t?pte? F 16 ?e??s?a? EF: ????es?a? P: ???es?a? MV "" ?s??? EM 17 ??at???? EF 18 e d??a? PV: ’ ?d??e FM 19 ???e?? F: ???? ???e?? PMV 22 d? t??t? PV: d’ ep? t??t?? F, M 23 ?e?? FM: om. PV "" d?a???e? F: ???? te PMV 24 a?t?] Sch., a?t? libri 26 ????e? ? F: ????e? t? P, MV

5. a?t?: sc. in this author, or in this passage. Cp. 168 1, 230 29.

13. Dionysius’ general object is to show that there is a kind of intentional discord or clash in Pindar’s dithyramb.

17. ‘If each of the letters is uttered with its proper quality,’ viz. if we say ?? ????? and not ?? ?????.

19. ???st?f????: not, of course, the comic poet of Athens, but the grammarian of Byzantium.—From this passage, and from 278 5 infra, it would appear that Aristophanes divided the text of Pindar and other lyric poets into metrical cola. Such cola are found in the recently-discovered Bacchylides papyrus (written probably in Dionysius’ own century—the first century B.C.), which is also the earliest manuscript in which accents are used.

21. ??t???? pa?de?: cp. 266 8 ?????f?? te ?a? t??e?t?? pa?s??, ‘the generation of painters and sculptors.’ So ?????f?? pa?de? Plato Legg. 769 B, pa?de? ??t???? Luc. Anach. 19. The term will include pupils or apprentices, as well as sons: cp. Plato Rep. v. 467 A ? ??? ?s??sa? t? pe?? t?? t???a?, ???? t??? t?? ?e?a??? pa?da?, ?? p???? ?????? d?a??????te? ?e????s? p??? ?ptes?a? t?? ?e?ae?e??; Earlier still we have the schools of the bards—the ????da? or ????? pa?de?, like ‘the sons of the prophets’ in the Old Testament. As used by later writers, the periphrasis with pa?de? may be compared with ?? pe??, ?? ?f? (cp. note on 194 20 supra).

26. “The passages relating to ???p??? ?p?, and ?a? ????a??? (Thuc. i. 1), where the word in each case is said to end in ?, have led some persons to suppose that Dionysius pronounced ?? and a? as real diphthongs of two vowels ending in ?. We know, however, that at this time a? was a single vowel e prolonged, and that it was only called a diphthong because written with two letters, just as ea in each, great are often spoken of as a diphthong, in place of a digraph. We know also that ? subscript was not pronounced, and yet Dionysius speaks of ???a?? as ending with ?. Consequently there is no need to suppose that ?? was a real diphthong either. The language is merely orthographical. As to the amount of pause, we find similar combinations within the same Greek word: ?? and e in ??eta?, ? and d in ??d?a, a? and a in ??a?; while ? before t is quite common as in ??t??, and ? before p, ? becomes , ?, as in ?p????, ????at??. Hence much of this criticism may be fanciful. But it is certain that there is a different feeling respecting the collision of letters which end and begin a word, and those which come together in the same word. Thus in French poetry open vowels are entirely forbidden. It is impossible to say ‘cela ira’ in serious French verse. Yet ‘haÏr’ is quite admissible. Hence there may be some foundation for the preceding observations, which, however, like many others in the treatise, ride a theory very hard,” A. J. E. [The observations of the critic, himself, must obviously be accepted with considerable reserve: see, for example, the note on 230 19 infra.]

2 p??t?tteta?] pa?’ ??? t?tteta? F "" t?? FM: t?? ? PV 4 ?sfa???? ?? d? P 5 t?? ????? F: t?? ????? PMV "" s??des?? F 6 de?] d? F 8 ?ata t? p?te? ?t? F: ?at? t? d?p?te PMV 9 ?? e??a?] ??e?? F 11 ?a? ??f???? om. P "" ?st?sa P 13 d?se?f???t?? F: d?se?f???t?? E: d?s??f???? PMV 14 p???se? EF 17 t?? om. EF 18 ??????? P 19 t?? st?at?? t?te E: t??t?te et in margine st?(at??) F: t?? p t?te M: t?te V: t??t?? Ps 20 a?t??? EF: a?t??? PMV "" st?at??] s??at?? V. 22 ??f???? F "" ???te??? F: ???te??? t? p ?a? t? ? PMV "" ?? FM: om. PV 23 ???eta? F: te ???eta? PMV "" ???tt?? F: ???ss?? PMV 24 p?????sta???? F, M 25 te t?? st?at?? om. F

15. ??t??, ????seta?: possibly an intentional play on words.

18. Clearly Dionysius does not believe that, in this passage, final ? before initial p was pronounced as —???t?? as ???t?: though final ? sometimes appears under this form in inscriptions, as also does medial ? in such compounds as s?p?s???. The literal meaning of the passage seems to be, ‘The ? must be firmly planted [pronounced distinctly, dwelt upon], and ???t?? p?pete cannot be run together in one word, as ???tap?pete or the like might be.’

1 ???tt?? F: ???ss?? PMV "" s??e????s??] e??????? s??e????s?? F: ??e????s?? PV 2 ?? F: ?? d? PMV 3 d? F: d? PMV "" t? st?a PMV: t?? F 5 e? ?? d??stata? P: d?’ ?? s???stata? FMV "" ?e??? te F: ?e??? PMV 6 e?ep?? F: e?pet?? PV: e?te??? M 7 a???? P 8 ??????? F: ?????s? PMV 10 p??e? F: p??e? t?? PMV "" d?e?e?s?? Us.: ???s?? P: d????s?? FMV 11 t? ? Sylburgius: t?? ? (?? F) FMV: om. P "" ??ta F 14 ????a?? F: ????a?? PMV 16 ??ta F 18 ?e????e??? F: ?pe?e?????? PMV 19 ?a????t?? F 20 ????] ?????? F 21 t?a?e?a ???ta??a om. F 22 s???pteta? F: s???pteta? ???a PMV 23 d??as?? FM¹: d??stas?? PVM² 25 s??apt????? F: ?p?s??apt????? PMV "" ?????? F: om. PMV "" a??? et ?f?te?a F "" ?? ???] ?? P: ??? F: ??? e?s?? MV 26 et??a? F: s?et??a? PMV "" t? d?? s???a? Us.: t?? d?? (߯ P) s???a?? libri 27 d?e?? FP: d???? MV

2. ?? ?a? p??te??? e???ta? ??: the passages which seem to be meant (144 22 and 148 15) do not exactly tally with the present one.

12. We must supply ?at? ?a? s???a??, which words are found in 218 14 and 220 2 (cp. 230 4): otherwise we are confronted with such examples to the contrary as ???a and (in this immediate context) eta?a??e??, ????e???, etc.

21. t’ e?- are treated as one syllable. So in 218 22, Dionysius probably intends us to divide as follows:

etc.

23. In Dionysius’ own words, it might be said that the interval between the article ? and the noun ?????? with which it agrees is quite an ‘appreciable gap.’ Cp. Introduction, p. 12 supra.

24. t?? s??a???f??: the fused or blended syllable—t’ e?-.

1 ?f???? Us. (coll. 220 14): ?f????t? libri 2 e?petest??a? PM¹V: e?epest??a? M²: e?epest?t?? F 4 ??d?t?? M: ? d’ ???? F "" ???ete stef???? PMV: ???e? F 5 ??? F: om. PMV 6 a?t??? ?????? F: ?????? PMV: t?p??? ?te ?a?’ ins. Usenerus 9 t?? t’] t’ a?t’ P: t’ a? M: ?? t’ F: t?? t’ V "" ?a??d??p?? F: ?a??d??p?? PM: ????d??pt?? V 13 ?] ? F "" ???????? FM²: ?????e?sa PM¹V 14 d?e??s?? M: d????s?? V 17 ? F: ?? PMV "" d?] te F "" ???d?? codd.: ????? s 18 ?f???? FM: ?f???? PV "" d?ate??? te F: d???e? t? e PMV 19 p??e????ta? ?? de F: p??e????te? ???da? (-d?? M, -da?? V) PMV 20 ????e???] ???a??? ???? F 22 ?? F: ?? ?????? PV: ?? ?????? M 25 t??] t?? P

1. p???se?e ... p???se?: cp. 220 14, 256 23.

6. If Usener’s supplement be not accepted, we might read t? ?d? ?at? t??? ?????? s??at?s???, ?t?.

10. de??? s????????ta?, ‘meet here with a clash,’ as it were.

17. pa???e?ta? ?t?.: viz. the ? of ???d?? comes next to the d in d???e?, and the ? at the end of ???a?? precedes the ? in ?dete.—For ? and d in juxtaposition cp. English and (where the d is often slurred in pronunciation) and, on the other hand, English sound (where the d is not original).

19. The ? at the end of ???a?? seems, therefore, to have been regarded by Dionysius as a separate letter, and not as an ? ??e?f???t??. Perhaps it was sounded in music; cp. the final e in French. In Dionysius’ time it was not uncommon to omit it even in writing: p????? ??? ????? t?? ? ???f??s? t?? d?t????, ?a? ???????s? d? t? ???? f?s???? a?t?a? ??? ???? (Strabo xiv. 1. 50).

22. ??????ta? ??: cp. de Lysia c. 16 ??a d? ?a? pe?? t?? ?de?? ??????ta? ?? t? p??s????ta e?pe??, ?t?.

23. Bircovius compares, with the following passage of Thucydides, the opening of Sallust’s Bell. Iug. v. 1: “Bellum scripturus sum, quod populus Romanus cum Iugurtha rege Numidarum gessit, primum quia magnum et atrox variaque victoria fuit, dehinc quia tum primum superbiae nobilitatis obviam itum est; quae contentio divina et humana cuncta permiscuit eoque vecordiae processit ut studiis civilibus bellum atque vastitas Italiae finem faceret.”

24. t?? p???????: probably the first twenty-three chapters are meant—as far as the word ?p?da??? ?st? p???? ?t?.

25. In the English translation no attempt has been made to reproduce the style of the original Greek. For this purpose the long sentences employed in early English prose-writers are most suitable; e.g. Francis Bacon’s rendering (Considerations touching a War with Spain iii. 516, in Harleian Miscellany v. 84) of Thucyd. i. 23: “The truest cause of this war, though least voiced, I conceive to have been this: that the Athenians being grown great, to the terror of the Lacedemonians, did impose upon them the necessity of a war; but the causes that went abroad in speeches were these,” etc. Thomas Hobbes’ translation of the opening of the History keeps close to the sentence-structure of the original: “Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the war of the Peloponnesians and the Athenians as they warred against each other, beginning to write as soon as the war was on foot; with expectation it should prove a great one, and most worthy the relation of all that had been before it: conjecturing so much, both from this, that they flourished on both sides in all manner of provision; and also because he saw the rest of Greece siding with the one or the other faction, some then presently and some intending so to do,” etc. Hobbes’ version is well known; but the unpublished translation of Francis Hickes [1566-1631], from which the following extract has been taken by the courtesy of the Librarian of Christ Church, Oxford, is also of much interest: “Thucydides the Athenian hath written the warres of the Peloponnesians and Athenians, with all the manner and fashion of their fight, and tooke in hande to put the same in writinge, as soone as ever the said warres weare begone, for a hope he had, that they would be great, and more worthy of memorie, than all the warres of former tyme have been: conjecturinge so much, because he sawe them both so richlie abound with all provisions thereunto belonginge, and all the rest of the Grecian nations, readie to joyne themselves to the one side or the other; some, presentlie upon their fallinge out, and the rest intendinge to do the like. This, no doubt, was the greatest stirre, that ever was amonge the Grecians, consistinge likewise partly of the Barbarians, and to speake in a word, of many and sundrie nations. As for the acts achieved by them before the tyme of this warre, or former matters yet of more antiquitie, it is impossible to finde out any certaintie, because the tyme is so long past, since they weare performed: but, by these conjectures, which upon due examination of former tymes, I believe to be true, I must thinke they weare of no great moment, either for the course of warre, or any other respect. Now it is most probable, that the country which we now call Grece, had not in old tyme any settled inhabitants, but did often change her dwellers, who weare still easie to be removed from their possessions if they weare urged by any greater forces, for when there was as yet no trade of Merchandise amongst men: no free entercourse of traffique one with another, either by land or sea: none that tilled any more ground, than what would serve to sustaine their present lives: none that had any money in this purse nor any that planted the earth with fruits for they knewe not how soone others would come and bereave them of it, their cities beinge all unwalled and bearing the mind, that they should everie where finde enough to serve their turnes for their dailie sustenance, they weare therefore easie to be driven out of any place; and for that cause, did nether strengthen themselves with great cities, nor warlike furniture for defence.”

1 ?a?] te ?a? P 4 te om. EF "" ?sa? libri: sed apud Thucydidem lectio potior ?sa? [“?sa? F g Schol. Plat. Rep. 449 A Suid. Phot.: ?sa? cett.”] 6 p??? ... d?a????e??? om. P 9 p?e?st?? EF: p?e?st?? sic P: p?e?st?? MV "" ?a? t? EFs: ?a? PMV 10 ??e?? P 11 a???te??? F 13 p??e???? P "" t? ???a PMV: t’ ???a F 16 ?p???p??te? F 17 ?p??????te? ???????? (om. ?de??) F 20 ??d? ??? f?te???te? om. F

4. ?sa?: cp. schol. ad Thucyd. i. 1 ?sa?] et? sp??d?? ?p??e???t?.

9. t? (before ?t?) is omitted by the Palatine and the Ambrosian MSS. in de Thucyd. c. 20.

3 ???stat? F: ?pa??sta?t? Thucyd. 4 a?t? EF: a?t? p???? PMV "" s??e?e????a? EV 5 ?a? a?a?? EFM: om. PV 6 ???s?????sa P: ???s?a????sa FMV 7 ?a? t?a?? om. EF "" st??f??? F 11 a?t?? t??t? ?e PMV: a?t?? te F: a?t?? E 14 ? ???? EF: ???? PMV 15 ?p??? M: ?pe??? F: e?p??? PV "" d?a????? F¹ 16 s?? s?a?? PM: s?a?? EFV "" ??d??? Us.: ?a?d?a F: ?a??? P, MV "" ?sta? F: ?st? PMV 18 etaa????sa? F: etaa????s? MV

3. For estimates of Thucydides’ style in general cp. not only this passage of Dionysius but also D.H. pp. 131-59, 175-82 (Text and Translation of Ep. ii. ad Amm., together with notes and some references to Marcellinus); Croiset Thucydide: Livres i.-ii. pp. 102 ff. and Histoire de la littÉrature grecque iv. pp. 155 ff.; Girard Essai sur Thucydide pp. 210-19; Blass Att. Bereds. i. pp. 203-44; Norden Kunstprosa i. pp. 96-101; Jebb in Hellenica pp. 306 ff.

4. This long sentence (Il. 4-14) is, itself, a good example of Greek word-order and the lucidity possible to it.

7. Batteux (pp. 250-3) maintains, in detail, that these comments on the style of Thucydides would also apply to a passage of Bossuet (in the Oraison funÈbre de Henriette Anne d’ Angleterre, duchesse d’OrlÉans), which “a tous les caractÈres d’une composition austÈre; c’est partout un style robuste, nerveux, Âpre mÊme quelquefois, et presque rustique.” The passage is that which describes the abasement of all human grandeur by Death: “La voilÀ, malgrÉ ce grand coeur, cette princesse si admirÉe et si chÉrie; la voilÀ, telle que la mort nous l’a faite. Encore ce reste tel quel va-t-il disparaÎtre; cette ombre de gloire va s’Évanouir, et nous l’allons voir dÉpouillÉe mÊme de cette triste dÉcoration. Elle va descendre À ces sombres lieux, À ces demeures souterraines, pour y dormir dans la poussiÈre avec les grands de la terre, comme parle Job; avec ces rois et ces princes anÉantis, parmi lesquels À peine peut-on la placer, tant les rangs y sont pressÉs, tant la mort est prompte À remplir ces places,” etc. Batteux begins his careful and interesting analysis as follows: “Nul choix des sons. MalgrÉ ce grand coeur est dur. Cette princesse si est sifflant: si admirÉe et si; choc de voyelles. La voilÀ telle que la mort nous l’a faite: mots jetÉs plutÔt que placÉs. Encore ce reste tel quel va-t-il dis: pointes de rochers. De cette triste dÉcoration n’est guÈre plus doux. Et ces trois monosyllables brefs et rocailleux, comme parle Job, etc.

9. a??ade? ... ??????: this happy description of Thucydides’ style shows that Dionysius saw in style a mirror of the man (cp. ??d??? ?a?a?t?? ?? ????? ??????eta?, Menand. Fragm. 72, and Dionys. H. Antiqq. Rom. i. 1 ?p?e???? ??? ?pa?te? ??????s?? e????a? e??a? t?? ???st?? ????? t??? ??????).—The general drift of Dionysius’ phrase is, of course, commendatory: he does not (cp. 120 8, 9) mean ‘but such beauty as it (Thucydides’ style) displays is archaic and perverse.’

12. These well-known words of Thucydides (i. 22. 4) are quoted also in de Thucyd. c. 7.—A scholium on Thucyd. (l.c.) runs: ?t?a] ???d??. ?t?a, t?? ????e?a?? ?????sa, t?? ?????? ?????. a???tteta? d? t? ????? ???d?t??. The passage is well elucidated by Lucian, and by Pliny the Younger: (1) Lucian de conscribenda historica c. 42 ? d’ ??? T????d?d?? e? ??a t??t’ ??????t?se, ?a? d??????e? ??et?? ?a? ?a??a? s????af????, ???? ???sta ?a?a??e??? t?? ???d?t??, ???? t?? ?a? ???sa? ??????a? a?t?? t? ???a. ?t?a ??? f?s? ????? ?? ?e? s?????fe?? ?pe? ?? t? pa??? ?????sa, ?a? ? t? ???de? ?sp??es?a?, ???? t?? ????e?a? t?? ?e?e?????? ?p??e?pe?? t??? ?ste???, (2) Pliny Ep. v. 8 “nam plurimum refert, ut Thucydides ait, ?t?a sit an ?????sa: quorum alterum oratio, alterum historia est.”

13. e?sae?: Thucydides himself no doubt wrote ?? a?e?: see Marcellinus § 52 for a?e? (rather than ?e?) as constituting a mark of ? ???a?a ?t??? in Thucydides.

14. ? ???? (divisim) should probably be read: cp. 230 23.

17. The meaning possibly is, “you can easily proceed with the same line of observation right through work which is consistently of a similar character to this.”

2 ?faa?t?e?(??) F: ?pa??e??? E 6 et? t??t?? F 7 ?a? t?? p (post ?) ins. Uptonus 8 pa?a?e????? Us.: pa?a?e?e?a? libri 11 ??d?? PMV: ????? EF 12 ??? F: ???? EPMV: ?? s??p? Us. 13 ?p?] ?p? P "" te?e?ta?a? F, MV: om. P 17 d??sta?e? P, MV: d??st??e EF 18 ??? EF: te ??? PMV 21 ?a? a?t?? F: a???? PMV "" t? F: om. PMV 24 ?p?t?a???e? PV: ?p?t?a???e? FM "" d?a?a??sas?? P: ?p??a?asas? F 26 t??? Sauppe: t??a libri 27 ???? ??] ?? ?s?? P 29 ?ae?? fa?tas?a? F: fa?tas?a? ?a??e?? PMV

9. Perhaps an effect analogous to that of syncopation in music is meant.

10, 11. Different words, and a different order, seem hardly possible here. If p??e?? were put after ????a???, the juxtaposed letters would be much the same as in the existing arrangement.

16. te?e?ta?a?: it may be that some word like s????p?? is to be supplied. Or te?e?t?? may be read: or te?e?ta?a.

19. The present passage (lines 15-19) shows, as Blass (Ancient Greek Pronunciation p. 66) remarks, that the educated pronunciation of the Augustan period did not confuse a? with e.

22-5. Here, again, the author would hardly have much choice in the arrangement of the words in question.

26. t???: viz. in the words ?a? ??p?sa?, te ?ses?a?, ?a? ????????tat??.

2 t?? p??t?? uncis inclusit Usenerus 4 ????s?? Us.: ????sa libri 7 ?a? ... ?????eta? om. F "" ?a? ?f??a P: om. FMV "" ?spe?] ?pe? PMV 8 t?a??t?ta? F: ?a? t?a??t?ta? PMV 9 e? t??] e?pe? F 10 d? F: d? t?? PMV "" pe???aa?????? F: ?pe???aa?????? PMV 11 ta?ta?? F: a?ta?? PMV 12 t?? ???? ? p??ta ta?ta ???a F 13 s???a?? F 14 ?a? ?f???? ?a? ??t?t?p?? P 17 t?sa?ta? Uptonus: t?sa?ta libri (cf. 160 20) 20 s???t?? F: s??at?s?? PMV 21 t? ???a PMV: t???a F "" ?a?a?t????? F: ?a?a?t???st??? PV: ?a?a?t???st??? ?a? M "" ????e?st?? FMV 22 a?st????] ?s????? F "" ?pe????s??? PM²: ?pe????s??? M¹V "" d?e????a? F: ?pe????a? PMV 25 ?a? ?????? om. P "" ?t????? F: ????? PMV

1. Dionysius seems to discern three periods in the first sentence of Thucydides, viz. (1) T????d?d?? ... ???????? (2) ????e??? ... p??s?e?e??????, (3) te?a???e??? ... d?a????e???. The general sense here is: ‘as there is no connexion between ????e??? and te?a???e???, we must take the latter as beginning a new period, and yet logically ????e??? belongs to it.’ If the words t?? p??t?? are to be retained at all, they might possibly be transported with t?? de?t??a?: ‘as though it were a part of the first period and not the end of the second.’

4. Usener’s ????s?? seems likely, though the words ?a? ??? ... ? ?s?? might be regarded as parenthetical and ????sa as in agreement with pe???d??.

18. p???? d? ?a? ?t?.: cp. Cic. Orat. ix. 32. 33 “itaque numquam est (Thucydides) numeratus orator ... sed, cum mutila quaedam et hiantia locuti sunt, quae vel sine magistro facere potuerunt, germanos se putant esse Thucydidas.”

25. For ?????? cp. n. on 208 26 supra.—The whole chapter should be compared with de Demosth. c. 40. In c. 49 of that treatise Dionysius refers expressly to his previously written de Compositione: e? d? t?? ?pa?t?se? ?a? ta?t’ ?t? a?e?? ?p? p?t’ ??e?, t??? ?p???at?s??? ??? ?a??, ??? pe?? t?? s????se?? t?? ????t?? pep?a?ate?e?a, p??ta ?sa p??e? t?? ????de pa?a?e?p????? e?seta? (cp. c. 50 ibid.).

1 ?? EPM: om. FV 5 ?e????s?a? EF: ?[a?] ????s?a? cum rasura P: ?a? ???e?s?a? MV 6 f??es?a? EFM: f??es?a? ?a? PV "" t?? ?t???? PMV: t?? ?at???? F: ?at???? E "" ?a? FMV: om. P "" ???e?s?a? F 7 ?s?? om. F "" t? ????ta EF: t? ????ta ??ata PMV 8 s????e?f?a? F: s??e???f?[a?] cum rasura P, MV 9 ?? E: om. FPMV "" ??? EF: t?? PMV "" ?p?te????ta PMV: d?ate?e?? E: d?ate????ta F 11 pe???a????sa? EFM: ?a????sa? PV 12 t??t? t? om. EF "" e??t????? PM "" ?f?s?? F: ?fa?s?? M: ?fa?s?? cum rasura P, V: ?fa?? Es 13 t?f? t??a (sed suprascripto e) P "" s??a???? P 14 t? EF: om. PMV 16 p?? ... pa?a?e???d??e????? om. P 17 d?’ EF: ?a? d?’ PMV 20 e? E: om. FPMV 21 ??????sa Schaefer: ??????sa? EFPM 22 ?t??? EF: ?????? PMV

1. ‘It does not expect its words to be looked at individually, and from every side, like statues.’ Cp. 210 17 supra.

7. More literally, ‘finding firmness in mutual support.’

9. Cp. de Demosth. c. 40 t? ??? ???? ?st?? a?t?? ????a ?a? ? p???? p?a?ate?a pe?? t? s?spas???a? te ?a? s???f???a? p??ta t? ???a t?? pe???d??, ??? ???e?? ?p?te????ta fa?tas?a?, ?a? ?t? p??? t??t? pe?? t? p?sa? e??a? t?? ?????, ?spe? ?? ta?? ??s??a?? s?f???a??, ?de?a? ?a? ???????. t??t?? d? t? ?? a? t?? ??????? ????e?a? p????s?, ?t?.

14, 15. That is to say: the words it uses must be beautiful in sound and smoothly syllabled.

20. e?, which Usener adopts from E, helps to balance ?p?t?de??? supra. At the same time, it could be spared and may have arisen from a dittography of the first two letters in s???f???a?. Similarly, in l. 9 supra, the ?? which E gives (together with the infinitive d?ate?e??, as it should be noticed) cannot be regarded as indispensable.

22. ?t???: the reading of PMV (pe???d?? ??????) may be right, in the sense of periodi ambitum. In the Epitome, ?t??? has possibly been substituted (as a clearer word) for ??????. F’s reading is ?t??? ??? ?? ?p?e??e?e? ????sas?a?, with all the four last words dotted out as having been written in error: which suggests that ?t??? may be no more than the last syllable of ?s?et???.

?? p?e?a t??e??? ??d??? ??at?se?: much will, clearly, depend on the person in question, since some men (as Lord Rosebery once said of Mr. Gladstone) have lungs which can utter sentences like “Biscayan rollers.” The Greeks were so rhetorical that they tended to look at a written passage constantly from the rhetorical point of view, and if a ‘period’ was too long for one breath they would try to analyze it into two periods if they could: cp. note on 232 1 supra.

1 ???seta? P 2 ?????? EFM: ????? PV "" e??st??? EF: ???st??? PMV 3 ?a? om. P 4 ?? EF: om. PMV 6 ta?ta? EV: ta?ta F: ta? a?ta? P, M 7 fa?e???? F 8 ?s??? F: ?s??? ? PMV "" p???? PV: t? p???? M: t???? F 9 p??sest?? PMV: p??est?? F "" ???a?????? FPM: a?a???? V: ?eat?????? E 11 d? ?a? F: d? PMV 12 t?? p??t??a? EFM: t?? p??t??a P, V "" ?a? ?????tata FM: om. PV 14 ta?t? F: a?t?? P, MV 15 ????e EF: ????e PMV "" ?????sta EFP: ?????sta ????? M: ???sta ????? V 16 d??e? EFP: om. MV 17 et’ a?t?? EF: et? ta?t?? PMV 20 ta?t?? EF: ta?ta PMV

6. ?? pe???pt??, ‘ex edito loco,’ ‘undique.’

16-20. The list that follows may seem somewhat ill-assorted if it be not remembered that the point of contact between the authors mentioned is simply smoothness of word-arrangement.—For Hesiod cp. de Imitat. B. vi. 2 ?s??d?? ?? ??? ?f???t?se? ?d???? d?’ ????t?? ?e??t?t?? ?a? s????se?? ?e????: and Quintil. x. 1. 52 “raro assurgit Hesiodus, magnaque pars eius in nominibus est occupata; tamen utiles circa praecepta sententiae levitasque verborum et compositionis probabilis, daturque ei palma in illo medio genere dicendi.”—In de Demosth. c. 40 Hesiod, Sappho, Anacreon, and Isocrates are (as here) considered to be examples of the ?????a ??af???.

17. Simonides is thus characterized in de Imitat. B. vi. 2: S????d?? d? pa?at??e? t?? ??????? t?? ????t??, t?? s????se?? t?? ????e?a?? p??? t??t???, ?a?’ ? e?t??? e???s?eta? ?a? ???d????, t? ???t??es?a? ? e?a??p?ep?? ???? pa??t????. The DanaË (quoted in c. 26) will illustrate the concluding clause of this estimate.

18. Euripides: cp. Aristot. Rhet. iii. 2 ???pteta? d’ e?, ??? t?? ?? t?? e?????a? d?a???t?? ??????? s??t???? ?pe? ????p?d?? p??e? ?a? ?p?de??e p??t??, and Long. de Subl. c. xl. d??t? t?? s????se?? p???t?? ? ????p?d?? ????? ?st?? ? t?? ???.

19. With respect to Ephorus the opinions of Diodorus and of Suidas are somewhat at variance: (1) Diodorus Sic. v. 1 ?f???? d? t?? ?????? p???e?? ??a???f?? ?? ???? ?at? t?? ?????, ???? ?a? ?at? t?? ???????a? ?p?t?te??e?, (2) Suidas ? ?? ??? ?f???? ?? t? ???? ?p????, t?? d? ????e?a? t?? ?st???a? ?pt??? ?a? ?????? ?a? ?de?a? ???? ?p?tas??.

Theopompus: cp. an article, by the present writer, in the Classical Review xxii. 118 ff. on “Theopompus in the Greek Literary Critics: with special reference to the newly discovered Greek historian (Grenfell & Hunt Oxyrhynchus Papyri part v. pp. 110-242).” Reference may also be made to D.H. pp. 18, 96, 120-6, etc. Gibbon (Decline and Fall c. 53) classes Theopompus in high company: “we must envy the generation that could still peruse the history of Theopompus, the orations of Hyperides, the comedies of Menander, and the odes of Alcaeus and Sappho.”

20. Isokrates: see D.H. pp. 18, 20-22, 41, etc., and Demetr. pp. 8-11, 47, etc.

2 d??? d???p???e FP 4 ???? FP 5 t?d’ ???e p??a ?at ???ta P: t? d’ ?"""?’"""?e""" p?t? ?at’ ???ta F 6 ????s ?p??? P 8 ???se??? FP 9 ??? p?sde??a?sa F: ??a ?p??e??asa P 10 ?(a?) P: t?? F 11 d????? tes F: d????te? P "" pte?a? pt??a?? ?e??? F: pt??’ ?p’ ??a??? ???? s P 12 d?a?s? F: d’ ?es p? P 13 a??ad’ F: ???’ ???’ P "" t? d’ ? ??a??a P: s? d?a ?a??a F 14 ??a??t? p??s?p? FP sine iota (item vv. 17, 18 F) 15 ??e’ ?tt? d ?? (?? E) t? P, E 16 d’ ??te ?a??? P: de??? ?a???? F 17 ??tte ? F: ?’ ?tt’ ??? P 18 a????a???? P: ?a???? F "" d??te pe??? F: d’ ??tepe? ?? P 19 a? (a? corr.) sa???essa? P: ?a? sa???essa? FE: a?? Bergkius 20 ?d???e? Gaisfordius ex Etym. Magn. 485. 41: t?s s??apfa d???? P: t?s ? ?apfa d???s? F 24 ??? ?e?????sa F: ?’ ?? ?’ ??????s, P

1. To Dionysius here, and to the de Sublimitate c. x., we owe the preservation of the two most considerable extant fragments of Sappho’s poetry. The Ode to Anactoria is quoted by ‘Longinus’ as a picture of pa??? s???d??: it is imitated in Catullus li. Ad Lesbiam (“Ille mi par esse deo videtur”). The Hymn to Aphrodite has been rendered repeatedly into English: some eight versions are printed in H. T. Wharton’s Sappho pp. 51-64. Two recent English translations are of special interest: (1) that of the late Dr. Walter Headlam—immatura eheu morte praerepti—in his Book of Greek Verse pp. 6-9; (2) that of Dr. Arthur Way, which is printed in the present volume. Dr. Way has, it will be observed, succeeded in maintaining a double rhyme throughout.

24. “Bloomfeld’s ??????sa? was strenuously defended by Welcker RM 11. 266, who held that the subject of f???se? was a man. No MS. whose readings were known before 1892 settled the dispute. Now Piccolomini’s VL show ??????sa (Hermes 27),” Weir Smyth Greek Lyric Poets p. 233. Notes on the entire ode will be found in Weir Smyth op. cit. pp. 230-3, and in G. S. Farnell’s Greek Lyric Poetry pp. 327-9, and a few also in W. G. Headlam’s Book of Greek Verse pp. 265-7.

3 ?a?e?e?e? F: ???e? P 4 ?s? F: ?st? compendio F 5 s??e?e?a EF: s??epe?a PMV 8 te ?a? ??f????? om. EF 9 d?? p?s?? EF: de?? d?’ ???? PMV 10 p?f??e? ... s??e?fe??e?a EF: om. PMV 11 s??e?fe??e?a E: s??e?f??es?a? F "" ? ?f??a PM: ?a? ?f???? FE 13 ??e?s?? EF: e?s?? PMV 14 ?? F: e???? ?? PMV 15 t?s??t??? Sylburgius: t????t??? PMV 16 ?a? ?f???? F: om. PMV 18 e???s?? MV: e???s??? F: om. P 19 ?t?] ?t? F 21 e????? t?? F 23 d? ?? F 24 ?pede???? F 25 ???a??(??) P 26 pa???e?? d??a? F: d??a? pa???e?? PMV

5. W. G. Headlam (Book of Greek Verse p. 265) well says that Dionysius’ comments on the smooth style (especially in relation to Sappho) are worth the attention of those who would gather the effect which Sappho’s language made upon a Greek ear practised in the minute study of expression; and he proceeds: “There is always in the verse of Sappho a directness and unlaboured ease of language, as if every lovely sentence came by nature from the mouth at once; as though she spoke in song, and what she sang were the expression of her very soul, the voice of languorous enjoyment and desire of beauty:

My blood was hot wan wine of love,
And my song’s sound the sound thereof,
The sound of the delight of it.”

22. Dionysius shows good judgement in not subjecting Sappho’s Hymn to a detailed analysis, letter by letter.

24. ?p? t?? pa?ade???t??, ‘in the light of the appropriate examples.’ Cp. 152 3, 232 23. The phrase sometimes indicates ‘familiar,’ ‘stock,’ or ‘previous’ examples; cp. de Demosth. c. 40 ??a d? ? d???e? d?a?t?? t?? ????????a?, t??? ??a????s???ta? ?p? t? ?? ???a?? ?????ta pa?ade??ata ?e?e???te? ??ast??fe??, ?t?.—In 242 2 infra, ‘with illustrations’ (no article in PMV, though F has t??).

1 t??] t(??) P 2 p???es?? F 3 pa?ade???t?? PMV: t?? pa?ade???t?? F "" d? F 4 p??e? P "" pa?ade??a? Us.: p?s? de??a? FM: de??a? PV 5 ??????t?? F 6 pa?a??s?a? F: pa?a??s? PMV "" a?t?? om. F "" ?ates?e?as???? P: ?ates?e?as???? FV: ?ates?e?as???? M 7 ??] ? F 8 pe?? F: pe??? t?? P, MV 9 ??e?pa??t???? ?de F 11 ???] t??t?? F "" ???a?] ??a? Isocratis libri 12 ?spe? EPMV Isocr.: ?? pe?? e? F 14 ?a?est???t?? Isocr. 15 e?????? F "" ?a? t? PMV Isocr.: t? EF 16 [?]???s?? cum litura P, MV "" ?t? ... ????s?? om. F 17 t??? om. E 18 t??? om. PM 19 ?p?te????ta? PMV Isocr.: ?p?te????ta? EF 20 ??? PMV Isocr.: ??? EF 21 ?et????? F 23 ?e?? PV "" ??d’] ?? d’ F

6. pa?a??s?a?: the Middle, as given by F, is to be preferred (cp. 182 12). In 122 14, on the other hand, F gives pa????, where the other MSS. supply the right reading pa????a?.

11. In the English translation of this passage of Isocrates no attempt has been made to reproduce the effects to which Dionysius calls attention: to do so would involve sacrificing equivalence of meaning to equivalence of letter-combinations.—Bircovius compares, in Latin, the opening passage of Cic. pro Caecina: “si, quantum in agro locisque desertis audacia potest, tantum in foro atque in iudiciis impudentia valeret, non minus nunc in caussa cederet A. Caecina Sex. Aebutii impudentiae, quam tum in vi facienda cessit audaciae. verum et illud considerati hominis esse putavit, qua de re iure decertare oporteret, armis non contendere: et hoc constantis, quicum vi et armis certare noluisset, eum iure iudicioque superare.” Batteux (p. 253) quotes from FlÉchier’s oratorical picture of M. de Turenne: “Soit qu’il fallÛt prÉparer les affaires ou les dÉcider; chercher la victoire avec ardeur, ou l’attendre avec patience; soit qu’il fallÛt prÉvenir les desseins des ennemis par la hardiesse, ou dissiper les craintes et les jalousies des alliÉs par la prudence; soit qu’il fallÛt se modÉrer dans les prospÉritÉs, ou se soutenir dans les malheurs de la guerre, son Âme fut toujours Égale. Il ne fit que changer vertus, quand la fortune changeait de face; heureux sans orgueil, malheureux avec dignitÉ. ... Si la licence fut rÉprimÉe; si les haines publiques et particuliÈres furent assoupies; si les lois reprirent leur ancienne vigueur; si l’ordre et le repos furent rÉtablis dans les villes et dans les provinces; si les membres furent heureusement rÉunis À leur chef; c’est À lui, France, que tu le dois.” Batteux maintains that this passage shows the same qualities of style as Dionysius’ extract from Isocrates.

13. ? sfa?e???: Koraes would read ?a? sfa?e???. His note (Isocr. ii. 102) runs: “??? ?????? ?pe???se? ? ??????? ??apt??? e??a?, ?a? sfa?e???? ????e d? ?a? ? ?ta??? etaf?ast??, s?p?e?t????, ?? d?a?e??t????, ??e??????a?, ? ??a???st??? e??a? ?e??????a?, Quasi che la cittÀ in alcun pericolo si trovasse, et le cose sue in pessima conditione fossero.”

18. s??t??e??: Koraes l.c. ?a??? t? ??? ??t???af??, S????e??. S??t??e?? d? ???e?, ?at’ e?f??s?? ?tt????, t??? f?????, ?pe?d?, ?? f?s?? ??p???at??? (???. S??ta???), ?a?ep?? ?fe??? ?? ?????e? t? t?? f???? ???a. ?sa?t?? ? t?? Ga???? f???, t?? p???es?? pa?a??p??sa, Taxe ???ase t?? s??ta???, t?? t??? ?ta???? ?a??????? Tassa, ?a? ??a ?p???se Taxer (?ta?. Tassare), ?p? t?? t?sse?? ?a? ?p????e?? t??? f?????? ??e? ? t?? G?a???? f???, t? ?d?a pa?? t?? ????t???? ?a????sa, ?s???t?se t? ??da?a, ??ssa ?a? ?ass???.

2 ta?t?? (ta?t?? M) t?? d???e? P, MV Isocr.: t?? d???e? ta?t? F, E 5 p?e?st??? ???d????? PM Isocr.: p?e???? ???d????? V: p?e?st?? ???d???? EF 8 p???s???? F (cum Isocratis codd. quibusdam) 9 ????a ... ??de?a?? om. F "" ????as?a? PMV 10 s?f??s??? EPMV Isocr.: ?a? s?f??s??? F 12 d??a?t? PMV Isocr.: e??a?t? EF "" t?? e??d?? t??t?? PMV Isocr.: t??t?? t?? e??d?? EF "" a?t?? libri 13 ?ata??pe?? PMV Isocr.: om. EF "" ?d??e? PV Isocr.: ?d?? ?? M: ?d?? EF "" ?? om. F: ?? t?? E "" e??a? d????s?? PMV Isocr.: om. EF 17 s??e???pta? te EPMV: s????e?pt?ta? F "" ?? ?a?’ ?? PMV: ??d?? EF 18 ?d?a ... p?ate?a (sine iota) P 19 ??d? EF: ??d’ ?? PMV 20 f???? P 21 te ... a?a?a? om. F 22 p??pete?? PV: p??sf?e?? FM ?? V 25 ?a?d??? P 26 e???? F: om. PM, post ??de?a? ponit V 27 ??? F "" ???? t?? ????? P 28 p??? PMV: sf?d?a F

17 ff. When expressing admiration, Dionysius often tends (as here) to reproduce the style admired.—For further estimates of Isokrates’s style reference may be made to Dionysius’ separate essay on Isokrates (in his de Antiq. Or.); Jebb Att. Or. ii. 54 ff.; Blass Att. Bereds. ii. 131 ff.

19. The reading ??d’ ?? is possibly right, viz. ‘at long time-intervals’; cp. 222 5.

1 d? PMV: d? F "" e?p?epe?a? P 2 te om. P 3 ???? t?] ????t? P "" pe??fe??? F: pe??fa??? PMV "" ?a? e?????a?? F 4 ????? F: ???a?? PMV 5 p??? F: ?? p??? PM: ?? p????? V 7 s??te?e?ta? cum rasura P 8 d??? FP: ?? d??? MV 9 s????se?? FP: ??se?? MV 10 t??t? EF: t??t? te PMV "" d?e?? FPM: d???? V 11 e???at?? F: ?????? PMV "" sp??e? te PMV: ??? ??t? F: te delevit Usenerus "" te F: om. PMV 12 d? P "" p?? PMV: ?? EF "" ??e????] ??e???? F 13 ??at??a? P "" ??at?st??] ??at?st?? ?? F: ??at?st??? ?? E 14 a?t? PV 15 t?? ?st? E: t?? F: ?st? PMV 16 ?a? te???? om. FE 17 ?s??] ?? F "" a??es?? FP "" d? PMVE 19 e?d???? EF: ?d?a? PMV

8. ?a?: i.e. ‘by going through details as well (as by taking this general view).’

9. This chapter (c. 23) should be compared throughout with chapter 40 of the de Demosth., which begins ? d? et? ta?t?? ? ??af??? ?a? ?eat???? ?a? t? ????? a??????? p?? t?? se??? t??a?t?, ?t?.

10. The treatment of the third harmony in this chapter seems somewhat curt and vague.

12. The third style (Dionysius means) has no special character of its own: it is a combination of the best things in the two others: this, in fact, constitutes its superiority, since, according to Aristotle, virtue is a mean (Aristot. Eth. Nic. ii. 5, 1106 b 27 es?t?? t?? ??a ?st?? ? ??et?, st??ast??? ?e ??sa t?? ?s??).

13. ?????? t?? t?? ?? ??at??? ??at?st??: it is interesting to find Homer represented (248 8-10) as a kind of eclectic in style. There are many indications that Dionysius regards him as a diligent literary craftsman. See generally de Demosth. c. 41 init. t?? d? t??t?? ?????a? ... ??t??e?.

16. ?a? te????: it may possibly be better to bracket these words, as they are omitted by F as well as by E. But their retention would not be inconsistent with Aristotelian doctrine. Cp. Eth. Nic. ii. 5, 1106 b 8 e? d? p?sa ?p?st?? ??t? t? ????? e? ?p?te?e?, p??? t? ?s?? ??p??sa ?a? e?? t??t? ????sa t? ???a (??e? e???as?? ?p????e?? t??? e? ????s?? ?????? ?t? ??t’ ?fe?e?? ?st?? ??te p??s?e??a?, ?? t?? ?? ?pe????? ?a? t?? ???e??e?? f?e????s?? t? e?, t?? d? es?t?t?? s????s??, ?? d’ ??a??? te???ta?, ?? ????e?, p??? t??t? ??p??te? ???????ta?), ? d’ ??et? p?s?? t????? ????est??a ?a? ?e???? ?st??, ?spe? ?a? ? f?s??, t?? ?s?? ?? e?? st??ast???. Reference may also be made to Politics iii. 13, 1284 b 7-13, and to Eth. Eud. ii. 1220 b 21 ?? ?pa?t? s??e?e? ?a? d?a??et? ?st?? ?pe???? ?a? ???e???? ?a? ?s??, ?a? ta?ta ? p??? ?????a ? p??? ???, ???? ?? ???ast???, ?? ?at????, ?? ????d????, ?? ??e???t???, ?a? ?? ?p?????? p???e?, ?a? ?p?st?????? ?a? ??ep?st??????, ?a? te????? ?a? ?t????, ?t?.

18. p??te???: cp. 210 6-10.

19. Batteux (p. 257) well explains Dionysius’ meaning, and suggests the names of certain French authors who may be held to exemplify and adorn the ‘mean’ (‘middle’) style: “Denys d’Halicarnasse observe avec justesse que le mÉlange des deux extrÊmes dans la composition mixte ne se fait pas dans un milieu prÉcis, mais avec une certaine latitude; qu’on ne pouvait Être plus prÈs et plus loin de l’un des deux extrÊmes; que le mÊme auteur pouvait l’Être plus dans une partie de son ouvrage, et l’Être moins dans une autre partie. C’est ce que nous venons d’observer dans l’oraison funÈbre de M. de Turenne, et qu’ainsi il n’est pas aisÉ de fixer avec prÉcision la place des auteurs qui tiennent le milieu entre les deux compositions. Avec cette restriction, nous pouvons placer dans le milieu FÉnelon, Racine, DesprÉaux, MoliÈre, La Fontaine, Voltaire, qui ont les deux mÉrites de la force et de l’ÉlÉgance, qui ont les nerfs et la grÂce, les fruits et les fleurs.”

3 t?? ?p’ a?t?? F: t?? ?p??t?? PMV 5 ????p? p???? P, MV 6 ?p?p???? F 10 ????? ?et???] pe?? ????? F "" ?et??? ... pe?? om. F 13 ?? ... ????e??? om. P

1. ?at? t?? ???s?????: cp. de Demosth. c. 52 e? d? t? d??e? ta?ta ?a? p???? p????? ?a? p?a?ate?a? e????? e??a?, ?a? ??a ????? d??e? ?at? t?? ???s?????? ??d?? ??? t?? e????? ????? ?st? p???? ?????. ???’ ??? ?p?????s?ta? t??? ??????????ta? a?t??? ?a?p???, ????? d’ ??? ??a ???? t?? ?pa????, ?? ?p?d?d?s?? ? ?????? ?a? ??s? ?a? et? t?? te?e?t??, p?sa? ???seta? t?? [te] p?a?ate?a? ???tt? t?? p??s????s??. The reference in both cases is to Demosth. Chers. § 48 e? d? t? d??e? ta?ta ?a? dap???? e????? ?a? p???? p????? ?a? p?a?ate?a? e??a?, ?a? ??’ ????? d??e?? ???’ ??? ????s?ta? t? t? p??e? et? ta?ta ?e??s?e?a, ?? ta?ta ? ’????, e???se? ??s?te???? t? ????ta? p??e?? t? d???ta.

4. For the general attitude of Epicurus cp. Quintil. ii. 17. 15 “nam de Epicuro, qui disciplinas omnes fugit, nihil miror,” and ib. xii. 2. 24 “nam in primis nos Epicurus a se ipse dimittit, qui fugere omnem disciplinam navigatione quam velocissima iubet [Diog. Laert. Vit. Epic. 6 pa?de?a? d? p?sa? (i.e. t?? ????????? pa?de?a?), a????e, fe??e t? ???t??? ???e???]”; Cic. de Finibus i. 5. 14 “sed existimo te minus ab eo [sc. Epicuro] delectari, quod ista Platonis, Aristotelis, Theophrasti orationis ornamenta neglexerit.”—Probably the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus is among those who are criticized in the p?a?ate?a ?? s??eta???? ?p?? t?? p???t???? f???s?f?a? p??? t??? ?atat?????ta? a?t?? ?d???? (de Thucyd. c. 2).

5-8. Usener (Epicurea, fragm. 230) gave this passage as follows: t? ??? ?p?p???? t?? ???fe?? ??t??, ?? a?t?? ?p??????? ???e?, t??? ? st??a??????? t?? p???? etap?pt??t?? ???t????? p????? ????a? ?? ?a? s?a??t?t?? ??e??f??a???.

5. ??? ?p?p????: cp. Sheridan Clio’s Protest: “You write with ease, to shew your breeding; " But easy writing’s vile hard reading”; Quintil. x. 3. 10 “summa haec est rei: cito scribendo non fit, ut bene scribatur; bene scribendo fit, ut cito.”

7. ???t?????: for ???t????? as an Epicurean term cp. Diog. Laert. Vit. Epic. 147 ?ste t? ???t????? ?pa? ??a?e??. The ‘variable criterion’ or ‘shifting standard,’ in Dionysius’ quotation, is either the judgment of the ear (regarded as a part of sensation generally) or the literary fashion of the day.

8. Chapter 24 may be compared throughout with de Demosth. c. 41.

9. For the relations of Prose to Verse see Introduction, pp. 33-9.

16. The metrical lines which Dionysius thinks he detects in Demosthenes are not more (nor less) convincing than the rude hexameters which have been pointed out in Cicero: latent lines cannot be expected to be obvious. Ad Quirites post reditum 16 “sed etiam rerum mearum gestarum auctores, testes, laudatoresque fuere” [but the better reading here is laudatores fuerunt]. Pro Archia PoËta i. 1 “si quid est in me ingenii, iudices, quod sentio quam sit exiguum, aut si qua exercitatio dicendi, in qua me non infiteor mediocriter esse versatum,” etc. Tusc. Disp. iv. 14. 31 “illud animorum corporumque dissimile, quod animi valentes morbo temptari possunt, ut corpora possunt.” Pro Roscio Amer. i. 1 “credo ego vos, iudices, mirari quid sit quod, cum tot summi oratores hominesque nobilissimi sedeant, ego potissimum surrexerim.” Cp. Livy xxi. 9 “nec tuto eos adituros inter tot tam effrenatarum gentium arma, nec Hannibali in tanto discrimine rerum operae esse legationes audire,” and Tacitus Ann. i. 1 “urbem Romam a principio reges habuere.” In most of these passages except the last, the natural pauses in delivery would destroy any real hexameter effect. See further in Quintil. ix. 4. 72 ff.—Among later Greek writers, St. John Chrysostom, in his de Sacerdotio iii. 14 and 16, is supposed to yield one entire hexameter and part of another: [?p’ ??e????] t?? ?ap??? p???f?e?e ?a? ?a???se? ?pasa?, and ?????ta? d?? t?? t?? ?ast??? ???????.

3 ????se?] ???se? F 4 e om. P, Demosth. "" ?te F 5 ????a? ?? Demosth. "" ?de??? om. F "" ??e?a PMV 7 ?p? t??t? om. EF 8 ??’ E: ??a P: ??a M: ??? V: om. F "" ????? ??? EFM: ??? ????? PV 9 pe??] ?p?? Demosth. "" t?? EFPM: t?? t?? V "" ?e????s?? PV¹: ?e?????s?? FMV² "" ?sfa??? ??? PMV: ??? ?sfa??? EF, D 11 t??t??] t??t?? EF "" ?st? ?? M: ??? ?st? ?? P: t????? ?st? ?? V: ?st? ?? ??? E: ?st?? F: ?? ?st?? D "" ? EPM D.: ? ?? F: om. V 12 cum f???? voce deficit codex Florentinus (F) 16 ?p??es?e PM: ?p??es?a? V "" ???t(a) P: ?e???a MV 18 ??d??] ??d’ P 20 s???e???? EP: ???e???? MV "" ??sa? MV: ??sa? P: om. E 23 t?? ???as?a? P: t?? ???as?a? MV 25 ???atateta?????? EPM: ???atae??????? V

4-11. In Butcher’s and in Weil’s texts (which are here identical) the opening of the Aristocrates runs as follows: ?de?? ???, ? ??d?e? ????a???, ???s? ?t’ ?d?a? ????a? ?? ?de??? ??e?’ ??e?? ???st????t??? ?at?????s??ta t??t???, ?te ????? ????t? t? ?a? fa???? ???t?’ ?t???? ??t?? ?p? t??t? p????e?? ?a?t?? e?? ?p???e?a?, ???’ e?pe? ??’ ????? ??? ??????a? ?a? s??p?, ?p?? t?? ?e?????s?? ??e?? ??? ?sfa??? ?a? ? pa?a????s???ta? ?p?ste?????a? p???? a?t??, pe?? t??t?? ?? ?st?? ?pas’ ? sp??d?. The minute differences between this text and that presented with metrical comments by Dionysius deserve careful notice.—The collocation t?? ?d?a? ??e?’ ????a? is found in de Cor. § 147.

12. Here, with the word f????, the codex Florentinus Laurentianus (F) unfortunately ends.

24. It is hardly necessary to insert ????t?? before ???, since the word may be supplied from l. 22 supra.

3 ?d???? MV: ?d????? EP 5 a?t?? PV 6 ?et??? E 9 ???d??? P 10 s?????sa P 20 ?et??? EPM: ?et??? V 21 e?????? M "" d??s????? EM 25 t??t? P 26 p??s??(e?) P: p??s??e? MV 27 ?? MV: t?s 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 ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????t? p???t??? ????? pa?’ a?t?? t?? s???es?? ?fe??? p???as??, ?? ? pe????? ?t?a ?a? ?????? t??a? ???ata?e????s????? ?d????. ?? ??t?? ?e p??s??e? a?t?? ?et??? ??d’ ??????? e??a? d??e??, ??a ? ????ta? p???a ? ????, ???sa t?? a?t?? ?a?a?t??a, ???’ e?????? a?t?? ?p???? fa??es?a? ?a? e?et???. ??t? ??? ?? e?? p???t??? ??, ?? ?? p???? ?e, ?a? e?????sa ??, ?? ?? ????.

4. Cp. Aristot. Rhet. iii. 8 t? d? s??a t?? ???e?? de? ?te ?et??? e??a? ?te ??????? ... d?? ????? de? ??e?? t?? ?????, ?t??? d? ?? p???a ??? ?sta?: 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 t???? preserved by Joannes Siceliotes, Walz Rhett. Gr. vi. 156) ???? d? ? ????? ? ????? ?st?? ????? ???? ?d? ?et???? ?atafa??? ???. ???? e???? pa?t? ????, ???sta ?a??? ?a? t???a??? (Isocr. Tech. fr. 6 Benseler-Blass).

5. ???seta? ... t?? a?t?? ?a?a?t??a: cp. the construction of excedere and egredi with the accusative.

6. ?et??? is given not only by E but by Joannes Sicel. (Walz Rhett. Gr. vi. 165. 28) and by Maximus Planudes (ibid. v. 473. 4) ?a? ?????s??? d? f?s??, ?p???? t?? p???t???? ????? e?????? e??a? ?a? ?et???.

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. t??a?t?: i.e. e??????, the subject to ?????t? being ? p???t??? ?????. The t?s of P may be due to a dittography of the first syllable of t??a?t?: or it may originally have stood with t??a?t? (t??a?t? t?? = talis fere).

3 ??a??a??? V ?? M: ?? d??a??? PM¹ 6 t(??) P, V: t?? M 8 d?’ MV: d?^? sic P 11 e pa?e??a? M 15 ?de??] ?de P 18 t??t? M, E: t??t? PV 24 t??t? EP: ?????? t??t? MV 27 ??af??p?d?? sic P: ??af??p?d?? MV "" ????’ PM: ???ea V

7. p??te???: viz. 252 3 supra.

9. ??apa?st???? has been suggested here and in 260 2; but cp. d??t???? p?da 84 21 and ?????? da?t????? 202 19.

10. pa?’ ?: cp. note on 80 4 supra.

11. ???s? e: 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:—

?de?? ???, ? ??d?e? ????a???, ???s? e
?t’ ?d?a? ????a? ?de??? ??e?’
[??e?? ???st????t??? ?at?????s??ta t??t???,]
?te ????? ????t? t? ?a? fa???? ???t?a ?t???? ??t?? ?p? t??t?
p????e?? ?a?t?? e?? ?p???e?a??
???’ e?pe? ??’ ????? ??? ??????a? [?a? s??p?,]
pe?? t?? ?e????s?? ??e?? ?sfa??? ???
?a? ? pa?a????s???ta?
?p?ste?????a? p???? a?t??,
[pe?? t??t?? ?st? ?? ?pasa ? sp??d?.]

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. d?a??se?e: from this it is clear that ??e?’ (rather than ??e?a) 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 ?te (without elision) in 252 4.

27. For this line cp. Schneider’s Callimachea pp. 789, 790, where it is classed among the Fragmenta Anonyma.

1 ?a? P: e? d? ?a? M: ??? ?a? V 4 d?e?? P: d???? MV 5 ?t??? V et suprascr. ????? M: e??? P 6 e? ??? t? Sauppius: e? ?? t?? P: ?a? t? M: ??? t?? V 7 t?? PV: om. M 8 ?? ?t??a] ?t??a ??? PM: ?t??a? ?? V: correxit Blomfieldius: ?t??a Seidlerus "" p?ta add. Usenerus 10-11 t??de t?t’ P, i.e. t??de? ?t’: t??de ?t’ MV 13 t??? PM: t??? te V "" ???a?? Sauppius: ??a??? P: ?a??? MV 15 ?t??a ??? PM: ?t??a? ?? V: cf. adnot. ad l. 8 supra 21 p?da p??s?a?? PM: p??s?a?? p?da V "" t????t? P: t????t?? MV 22 t??? PM: t??? V 24 ?e??e?(??); P 25 ????? P: ??e??? MV 26 ??’ P, V: ??a M 27 ??a compendio P

8. ‘For no other girl, O bridegroom, was like unto her.’—Usener’s insertion of p?ta, 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 ???t?’ ?ta?? in the passage of Demosthenes. If ???t?’ ?t???? be read (as in the best texts of Demosthenes), then the choice will be to suppose either (1) that the first syllable of ?t???? 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 ??’ in 252 8.

For ??a as being “in Poets sometimes much like ??a” see L. & S. s.v. (with the examples there quoted).

28. ?? ??a: cp. ? ??a in 260 25. The general sense of the passage is well brought out in the Epitome: ?a? ?t? t? “?a? s??p?” pa?epes?? ?p?s??t??e??? t? ?t??? ?f???se.

3 pa?t?pas?? Us.: ?? ?p?s? PM: ?? p?s?? V "" ?sa ?st?? PM: ?sa ???sta? V 4 ????] ??a P "" ?a?(??) P: ?a???? MV 10 t? te p??e? Demosth. 11 ?p???a? ?? P 12 ?at(a)??(?)e?(??) P: ?ata???e??? M: ?ata?e???????? V: ?ata?e??as????? Sylburgius 13 t? V: t? PM 15 ???a? P: ????? V 22 ??a??a????? P: ??a??a??? ?? M "" d???(e?) P "" ?fe????a? MV: ?f????a? P

1. ??????: 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 d?ate??? for d?ate??). He can hardly have intended to retain e????a? in its present position, but must have had in mind some such order as ?s?? ???? e????a?. His language, however, has subjected him to grave suspicion, and Usener reads ????e in place of ???, remarking that “Dionysius numerorum in verbo e????a? 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 e????a? 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 ?? ???a?? is far from clear. According to Usener, “Dionysius pedes t? p??e? ?a? et (t?sa?)t?? ?p???a? dicit.” Perhaps the ???a? rather are: (1) t? [te] p??e? (if the te be added, in l. 10, from Demosthenes), and (2) [?a?] p?s?? ?-.

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”: de??a? ????. Jebb’s notes (pp. 415, 416 ibid.) may be consulted.

19. ?atad????, ‘vehement attack,’ ‘invective.’ Used in this sense by Aeschines and Polybius, as well as by Dionysius (e.g. de Thucyd. c. 3 ?st? d? t? ????? ?? t?? p?a?ate?a? ?? ?atad??? t?? T????d?d?? p??a???se?? te ?a? d???e??). Cp. the verb ?atat???e??, and D.H. p. 194; and our own use of ‘run down.’

22. ?????: cp. de Antiqq. Rom. iv. 4 ??? d? ?????? ?f?s?? (t?? ???se??), and iv. 11 ibid. t?? te d??a? ?????? ????p??ta?.

23. With this and the following pages should be compared the later version found in the de Demosth. cc. 51, 52. There ?????? (which in itself as a good prose word, used frequently by Demosthenes himself as well as by Dionysius 94 11 supra) is represented by ?a??da???. 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 ?? t??t?? d??a? ?s?e? ?? ??? e?f??? ??, ???’ ?? p???? s???e???? de???t?t? ?a? d???e? ???e???. ?d??e? d? t??t?? s?e??? e??a? ??a t? ? ??d??? ????sa? t??a ???s?????? ?p? ?a???? ?????t??, ???? ?a??e??? ?? ?????s?? p??????? t?? d??? ?a????t?? ???ast? ? pa?e??e??, e? ? t???? pef???t???? ?a? pa?es?e?as????. e?? t??t? d’ ????? te p????? t?? d?a????? ???e?a??? a?t?? ?a? ????a? ?p?s??pt?? ????????? ?f?se? ??e?? a?t?? t? ?????ata. 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.

1 ?s?’] ?st’ ?st?? M "" ?te compendio P: ?ta? MV "" ???f? MV 4 t? ??? ... ????t?? om. P 8 d?d??sa? P 10 ? ?? P 11 ? inseruit Sadaeus (coll. commentario de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 51) 13 d?d??s(??) P "" ?a?t?? EM: a?t?? PV 14 f???? ?a? ????? PMV: ????? E "" ??????? E: om. PMV "" e???? P 20 ?? ??? MV: ?? ?e EP 21 ?p?fa????s??, ?? MV: om. EP "" s??et??a?t? V 23 d???e?pe? PM: d????pe? EV 24 ?????a PV: ?????sa E: ?????sata M

4. t? ???: we cannot (for example) imagine Thucydides as anxiously counting the long syllables that find a place in his striking dictum ??t?? ?ta?a?p???? t??? p?????? ? ??t?s?? t?? ????e?a? (i. 20). But they are there, all the same, and add greatly to the dignity of the utterance.

6. ???????: a slight word-play on ?????? in 262 23 supra may be intended.

14. f???? ?a? ?????: 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 f???? ?a? 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. ??apt???, ‘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. d??t??, ‘tablet’: originally so called because of its delta-like, or triangular, shape.

3 ???st????] ?ef???? P 4 e?e?e?a? M¹ 5 e???? P "" ???a Schaeferus (dittographiam suspicatus et coll. 264 16, 66 5): ?t’ (?te V) ?????a MV: om. P 9 ?p?de????????? Us.: ?p?de????????? libri 10 f???a PMV: f?e?a E 12 t??t??? te PM: t??t??? V "" t?? ?? PM: t?? 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 ?at??? ... ???st????, but the sentence, or sentences, which these introduce. (Usener suggests that P’s reading ?ef???? 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: ??f????? d? ?a? ?a?a?t??? e????as? p??????? ?st?a???? e???s?a? t?? ????? t?? ????te?a?. 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 ??t?a 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. t?? ??a??st??: an interesting addition is made in the de Demosth. c. 51 p???t???? d’ ??a d????????, p??ta? ?pe???a? t??? ?a?’ a?t?? f?se? te ?a? p???, t?? ??a??st?? t???? e?? t? e? ???e??, e? d? ?a? ta?ta ?????sta, ???????se.

9. ??de????????? may perhaps be suggested in place of ?p?de?????????: cp. de Demosth. c. 51 ?? ??? d? t?? p??sta? ?? ?a? ??afe?? ?? ??? f?a?t? ?e???? e?st???a? ??de????e??? t?s??t??? e?sf????ta? p?????, ?ste ?t?. If, on the other hand, ?p?de????????? be retained, we may perhaps translate ‘pupils who have exercises in manual dexterity, and studies of veins, etc., given them to copy (cp. ?p?de??a).’—With ?e???? e?st???a? cp. ?e??? e?st???a? (‘well-aimed shafts’) in Eurip. Troad. 811.

10. t?? ?????: 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.” ????? is the ‘lanugo plumea.’ Cp. de Demosth. c. 38 ????? ???a??p????.

11. ?atat??e?? ?t?. = ?atat??e?? e?? ta?ta t?? t???a?, de Demosth. c. 51.

15. After ??????, ?? may be inserted with Sauppe, who compares de Demosth. c. 52 ?t? e??????? ?? ?t? ??ta ?a? ?e?st? t?? a??at?? ?pt?e??? a?t?? ??? ?????? ?? ?a? ta?ta ?a? t???a p??ta d?? p????? ?p?e?e?a? te ?a? f???t?d?? ??e??. But the verb may have been omitted in the C.V. in order to avoid its repetition with ?sa d??at? ??.

1 pese?? EP: ???e?? MV 3 sfa??da? P: sf?a??da? V 4 ?de? p??e?? E 8 ?a Us.: ???? PMV¹: ???? ?a? V² 21 d? EM: te PV 23 ?? inseruit Sadaeus coll. comment. de Demosth. c. 52 "" ?pe?d?? E: ?pe? PV: ?pe?ta M 25 p???s? EM¹: p???se? PM²V 27 t????t? EM: t????t? P: t????t?? V 29 t??? ... ?pe????? E: t??? ... ?pe????? PMV

3. ?? t?? ??st??: cp. ?p? t?? ??st?? l. 25 infra.

5. Dionysius is thinking of Aristot. Eth. Nic. i. 1 d?af??? d? t?? fa??eta? t?? te???? t? ?? ??? e?s?? ?????e?a?, t? d? pa?’ a?t?? ???a t???. ?? d’ e?s? t??? t??? pa?? t?? p???e??, ?? t??t??? e?t?? p?f??e t?? ??e??e??? t? ???a.

8. If ???? ???se? be retained, the meaning will be ‘not with much trouble, but by means of their acquired skill.’ But ?a ???se? derives support from the parallel passages in de Demosth. c. 52 ?a ???se? [???se? Sylburg, for the manuscript reading ???se??] and ?ste ?a ???se? ?e??????? te ?a? ?pta?st?? a?t?? e??a? t? ?????.

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:—?ta ??fa a, ?ta e? e, etc. A terracotta plate found in Attica, doubtless intended for use in schools, contains a number of syllables a? a? ?a? da? e? e? ?e? de? ?t?.”

26. ?pta?st??: Usener reads ?pta?st?. But the adverb goes better with d?e???e?a than the adjective would with ??e? te ?a? t??e?. Cp. de Demosth. c. 51 (the later version of the present passage) ?pta?st?? te ?a? ?at? p????? e?p?te?a?, and Plato Theaet. 144 B ? d? ??t? ?e??? te ?a? ?pta?st?? ?a? ???s??? ???eta? ?p? t?? a??se?? te ?a? ??t?se?? et? p????? p???t?t??, ???? ??a??? ?e?a ???f?t? ????t?? (these last words are echoed in the de Demosth. c. 20).

29. ????ta??: cp. de Demosth. c. 18 ?a?t?? ?e t??? ????ta?? t?? ???????? ???e?? ?s????? t?? ?f?? p??se??a? de? ?a? ?f??t??? t?? ?a??, and de Isocr. c. 11 fin.; also de????? ?????st?? 282 3 infra.

1 ?t??e?? Reiskius: ?t???s?? libri 2 ?e??at????? PM: ?e???t????? V 5 s??????? M 10 s?et??a M: ?et??a EPV 17 ?????a?? EM: ???????? PV

2. ?e??at?????, ‘vigorously’: cp. Sext. Empir. p. 554 (Bekker) ?? ?e??at????? ?p???a?a? ?? d??at???? t?? ?p????a? t?? te ??a??? ?a? ?a???. The other reading ?e???t????? 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. ? s??apa?t????ta t??? st?????, ‘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 “???? ’ ????pa?a? ??f??? ???st??e? ??d?e? ?????e? ????????, pe??sa? d? e de??’ ??a???te? t??d’ ??d??? p??? d?a?’? ? d’ ????? ???? ?d??e” (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.”

1 ??d?? ... ta?att?e??? MV: om. P 3 tatt????? Sauppius: tatt???? libri 5 e?????? ... ?e?? Us.: ?a? pe?? t??t?? [?? add. MV] ????. ?? d? p??????? t? pa?ade??ata ?e?? PMV 8 ? ?’] ? Hom. 11 t???? EV: t????t?? PM 14 t?ta?t?? d? E: om. PMV 15 ? Hom.: ? V: ?? [fort. ??] PM, E 22 ?pe?t’ ... ?e??? om. P 25 ???? ?? PM

3. ?at? ... tatt?????: cp. Ven. A Schol. on Il. xv. 347 ?t? ????d?t?? ???fe? ?p?sse?es???. s???e?ta? d? t? d????? ?at? p?e????? tass?e???.

6. a?t??, ‘here,’ ‘on the spot.’ Cp. Diod. Sic. ii. 60 ?e?? d? t?? ?? ???? t?? ???? ?e?e?????? ?pa??e??a? tete?e??te? a?t?? pe???????e? t??de t?? ????.—With ?ata??e?s? cp. Antiq. Rom. vii. 14 te?e?t?? d’ ? ????t??, e?? ?pe???? t??a t????de ?at???e?se t?? ?????, ?? ?t?.

7. In Latin, Bircovius well compares Virg. Aen. i. 180-91.

8. Dionysius’ point will be better appreciated if the passage of the Odyssey (xiv. 1-7) be given not bit by bit but as a whole:—

a?t?? ? ?’ ?? ?????? p??s?? t???e?a? ?ta?p??
????? ??’ ???e?ta d?’ ????a?, ? ?? ?????
p?f?ade d??? ?f????, ? ?? ??t??? ???sta
??det? ??????, ??? ?t?sat? d??? ?d?sse??.
t?? d’ ??’ ??? p??d?? e??’ ?e???, ???a ?? a???
????? d?d?t?, pe??s??pt? ??? ????,
?a?? te e???? te, pe??d????.

15. Compare (in Latin) the opening of Terence’s Phormio, if written continuously: “Amicus summus meus et popularis Geta heri ad me venit. erat ei de ratiuncula iam pridem apud me relicuom pauxillulum nummorum: id ut conficerem. confeci: adfero. nam erilem filium eius duxisse audio uxorem: ei credo munus hoc corraditur. quam inique comparatumst. ei qui minus habent ut semper aliquid addant ditioribus!”

1 ?a? V: ?at? PM 4 ?p??e? P 5 ?a??? te e????? te PM 9 ????e?? P: ????e?? t?? ????? MV 10 pa?’ e???pd? sic P: e???p?d?? MV 15 ?? te s: ?ste PMV "" d?s?e?e??? ????d?? PMV: transposuit Sylburgius 16 ??? inseruit Musgravius 19 e????a om. P "" st???? MV: st?? P: st???? s 21 a??? M: a?t? PV 24 ?????d’ s: ?????de P: ?????d? MV 26 ???’ ?te??? PM: ??d?te??? V

12. ????eta?: sibi vindicat, ‘annexes.’—The fragment of Euripides, taken as a whole, runs thus in Nauck’s collection:—

? ?a?a pat???, ?? ????? ????eta?,
?a??’, ?? te p?t??? ????d?? d?s?e?e???
??? ?ate?e??, ???e? e???a? ?????.
???? ??? ????? pa?? e t? ????????
t??te? ?a??a??? ??a??e?? ?????d’ ????
?a???????, ???a ?t??’ ?d???? ???
???se? ???e????a.

25. ?a???????: cp. Callim. Hymn. in Delum 70 fe??e ?? ???ad??, fe??e? d’ ???? ?e??? ????? " ?a???????, together with the scholium ???? ???ad?a? t? ?a???????, ???a t?? ????? t?? ??e?? ???at??a, ???e?a? t?? ??????, ?f?e??e? ??a????.

5 ????? t?? P "" ?ateste?ase P 6 ?pete? P "" d? PM: d? V 7 ?at? P: ta?ta ?at? MV 9 ??t?st??f?? PM: ??t?st??f?? V "" ????? e?se???e??? P: ????? ??t?s? d?e???e??? MV 10 ?a???] d’ ?? ? P 13 t? ?? Schneidewinus: te ?? PM: t’ ?? V "" ?f??e? ante ?? Bergkius inseruit, post p???? Usenerus 14 te Brunckius: d? PMV 15 ???pe? Brunckius: ???pe? P: ??e?pe? MV "" ??? Thierschius: ??t’ P: ??t’ MV

4. Bircovius points out that Hor. Carm. iii. 27. 33 ff. might be printed as continuous prose, thus: “quae simul centum tetigit potentem oppidis Creten: ‘Pater, o relictae filiae nomen, pietasque’ dixit ‘victa furore! unde quo veni? levis una mors est virginum culpae. vigilansne ploro turpe commissum, an vitiis carentem ludit imago vana, quae porta fugiens eburna somnium ducit?’” etc. The short rhymeless lines of Matthew Arnold’s Rugby Chapel might be run together in the same way, e.g. “There thou dost lie, in the gloom of the autumn evening. But ah! that word, gloom, to my mind brings thee back, in the light of thy radiant vigour, again; in the gloom of November we pass’d days not dark at thy side; seasons impair’d not the ray of thy buoyant cheerfulness clear. Such thou wast! and I stand in the autumn evening, and think of by-gone evenings with thee.” The word-arrangement from line to line is such that this passage might almost be read as prose, except for a certain rhythm and for an occasional departure from the word-order of ordinary prose.

5. Aristophanes: cp. note on 218 19 supra.

8. Compare, for example, the last two stanzas, printed continuously, of Tennyson’s In Memoriam cxv.: “Where now the seamew pipes, or dives in yonder greening gleam, and fly the happy birds, that change their sky to build and brood, that live their lives from land to land; and in my breast spring wakens too; and my regret becomes an April violet, and buds and blossoms like the rest.”

11. ?p?d??????: probably the DanaË was a ??????, and in any case it illustrates, to the full, the “maestius lacrimis Simonideis” of Catullus (Carm. xxxviii. 8), or Wordsworth’s “one precious, tender-hearted scroll " Of pure Simonides.” Cp. also de Imitat. ii. 6. 2 ?a?’ ? e?t??? e???s?eta? ?a? ???d????, t? ???t??es?a? ? e?a??p?ep?? ???? pa??t????: and Quintil. x. 1. 64 “Simonides, tenuis alioqui, sermone proprio et iucunditate quadam commendari potest; praecipua tamen eius in commovenda miseratione virtus, ut quidam in hac eum parte omnibus eius operis auctoribus praeferant.”

12. Verse-translations of the DanaË will be found also in J. A. Symonds’ Studies of the Greek Poets i. 160, and in Walter Headlam’s Book of Greek Verse pp. 49-51. Headlam observes that the DanaË is a passage extracted from a longer poem, and that the best commentary on it is Lucian’s Dialogues of the Sea 12. Weir Smyth (Greek Lyric Poetry p. 321) remarks: “It must be confessed that, if we have all that Dionysius transcribed, he has proved his point [viz. that by an arrangement into d?ast??a? the poetical rhythm can be so obscured that the reader will be unable to recognize strophe, antistrophe, or epode] so successfully that no one has been able to demonstrate the existence of all three parts of the triad. Wilamowitz (Isyllos 144) claims to have restored strophe (??e?? ... d???at?), epode (?a??e???f? ... de???? ??), and antistrophe (?a? ??? ...); ?te ... da?da??? belonging to another triad. To accept this adjustment one must have faith in the extremely elastic ionics of the German scholar. Nietzsche, R. M. 23. 481, thought that 1-3 formed the end of the strophe, 4-12 the antistrophe (1-3 = 10-12). In v. 1 he omitted ?? and read t’ ???? p?e??? with ??e???e?? in 10, but even then the dactyls vary with spondees over frequently. By a series of reckless conjectures Hartung extricated strophe and antistrophe out of the lines, while Blass’ (Philol. 32. 140) similar conclusion is reached by conjectures only less hazardous than those of Hartung. Schneidewin and Bergk, adopting the easier course, which refuses all credence to Dionysius, found only antistrophe and epode; and so, doubtfully, Michelangeli; while Ahrens (Jahresber. des Lyceums zu Hannover, 1853), in despair, classed the fragment among the ?p??e????a. Since verses 2-3 may = 11-12, I have followed Nietzsche, though with much hesitation. The last seven verses suit the character of a concluding epode.”

15. ???pe? = ??ep???? (same sense as Usener’s conjecture f??tte?).

1 t???? Athen. ix. 396 E: t????? PMV 2 s? d’ ??te?? Casaubonus: ??d’ a?ta?? P: s? d’ a?te e?? Athen. (l.c.) 3 ??a?a????de? ?e? P, V: ?a?a???? d’ ?t??? Athen.: corr. Bergkius "" ????sse?s P, V: ???sse?? Athen. 4 d???at? Guelf.: d???at? PM: d???a?t? V "" d??a ???t?? ??ape? Us.: de???t? ?ape? P, MV 5 sta?e?? Bergkius: tad’ e?s P, MV 6 ??a? d’ Bergkius: a??ea? d’ P, V: a??a?a? d’ M 9 p??? ???p? ?. p?. Us.: p??s?p?? ?a??? p??s?p?? P: p??s?p?? ?a??? MV 10 ?? Sylburgius: ?? P: ? M: ? V 11 ?a? M: ??? V: ?e cum litura P "" ?ept?? s: ?ept?? PMV 14 a?t(a)????a (i.e. eta????a: cp. 90 4 supra) P: a?t(a)?????? M: ata??????a V 17 ??sf? d??a? Victorius: ???f? d??as P: ?? ?fe?d?as MV 19 p??e?p? PMV (cf. e?pe?e? P, Aristot. Rhet. 1408 a 32) 21 a?t? Sylburgius: a?t? PMV

4. d??a ???t??: cp. d??a e??t?? te ?a? ???as?a? (282 4), which may be an unconscious echo of this passage. “To me the expression seems to indicate that Simonides took a view of the story different from the ordinary one, and imagined that the chest was not open or boat-like but closed over,—a ‘Noah’s ark.’ This would not have suited the vase-painters, but there is nothing inconsistent with it in the poem. DanaË does not speak of seeing the waves, nor of the wind ruffling the child’s hair, but only of ????? f??????—she heard it. Hence I think the words imply—‘which, even apart from its being night, would be gloomy, and thou wert so launched forth in the darksome gloaming.’ She makes no reference to seeing the stars” (A. S. Way).

5. Schneidewin reads ta?e??.

7. ????e??: rarely constructed with the accusative case.

11. ??? ???t??: constructio ad sensum with ?pe??e? ??a? (= ?p????e?).

12. e?de ??f??: the a?????a (‘cradle-song, lullaby’) was familiar to the Greeks, and the mother does not forget it amid the perils of the sea. Cp. Theocr. xxiv. 7-9—

e?det’ ?? ??fea ????e??? ?a? ????s??? ?p????
e?det’ ?? ????, d?’ ?de?fe?, e?s?a t???a?
????? e??????s?e ?a? ????? ?? ????s?e.

20. From Hom. Il. xi. 514, 515—

??t??? ??? ???? p????? ??t????? ?????
???? t’ ??t??e?? ?p? t’ ?p?a f??a?a p?sse??.

‘For more than a multitude availeth the leech for our need,
When the shaft sticketh deep in the flesh, when the healing salve must be spread.’

1 a?t?? ta?? Us.: a?t?? ta?s P: a?t? ta?? M: a?ta?? V 3 ?????st?? Sylburgius: de????s a? ta????stas sic P: ??ta????st?? etiam MV 4 ?e Us.: te P: om. MV 5 ????????? PM: om. V "" sp??da?a? e??a? (sic) P: ? sp??da?a e??a? MV 6 ?????s??? a???a??a(se??) pe(??) s????se?? ????t??: ~ litteris maiusculis subscripsit P

2. The training meant would consist chiefly in that general reading of Greek authors which is indicated in this treatise or in the de Imitatione, and in Quintilian’s Tenth Book: it would carry out the precept “vos exemplaria Graeca " nocturna versate manu, versate diurna.” Afterwards would follow the technical and systematic study of style or eloquence, regarded as a preparation for public life.

3. ?????st??: cp. note on 268 29 supra and Plato Phaedr. 269 D t? ?? d??as?a?, ? Fa?d?e, ?ste ?????st?? t??e?? ?e??s?a?, e????—?s?? d? ?a? ??a??a???—??e?? ?spe? t???a? e? ?? s?? ?p???e? f?se? ??t????? e??a?, ?s? ??t?? ????????, p??s?a?? ?p?st??? te ?a? e??t??, ?t?? d’ ?? ???e?p?? t??t??, ta?t? ?te??? ?s?.

4. The best Greeks and Romans at all times believed in work, and in genius as including the capacity for taking pains. Compare (in addition to the passage of the Phaedrus) Soph. El. 945 ??a? p???? t?? ????? ??d?? e?t??e?: Eurip. Fragm. 432 t? ??? p?????t? ?? ?e?? s???a??e?: Aristoph. Ran. 1370 ?p?p???? ?’ ?? de????: Cic. de Offic. i. 18. 60 “nec medici, nec imperatores, nec oratores, quamvis artis praecepta perceperint, quidquam magna laude dignum sine usu et exercitatione consequi possunt”: Quintil. Inst. Or. Prooem. § 27 “sicut et haec ipsa (bona ingenii) sine doctore perito, studio pertinaci, scribendi, legendi, dicendi multa et continua exercitatione per se nihil prosunt.” See also note on page 264 supra.