Part i. (1906), p. 45, there is a short “Discourse on Music” which the

editors are inclined to attribute to Hippias of Elis, the contemporary of Socrates.

B. _Accent in Ancient Greek_

If there were any doubt that the Greek accent was an affair of pitch rather than of stress, the eleventh chapter of this treatise would go far to remove it. It is clear that Dionysius describes the difference between the acute and the grave accent as a variation of pitch, and that he considers this variation to

[Page 42]

be approximately the same as the musical interval of a fifth, or (as he himself explains) three tones and a semitone. Similarly Aristoxenus (_Harm._ i. 18) writes λέγεται γὰρ δὴ καὶ λογῶδές τι μέλος, τὸ συγκείμενον ἐκ τῶν προσῳδιῶν τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασιν· φυσικὸν γὰρ τὸ ἐπιτείνειν καὶ ἀνιέναι ἐν τῷ διαλέγεσθαι (‘for there is a kind of melody in speech which depends upon the accent of words, as the voice in speaking rises and sinks by a natural law,’ Macran). The expression προσῳδία itself (cp. τάσεις φωνῆς αἱ καλούμεναι προσῳδίαι, =196= 16) implies a melodic character, and the adjectives (ὀξύς and βαρύς) which denote ‘acute’ and ‘grave’ are used regularly in Greek music for what we call ‘high’ and ‘low’ pitch.[62] It would be hard to believe that βαρύς could ever have indicated an _absence of stress_.

That such a musical pitch—such a rising or falling of tone—can be quite independent of quantity seems to be proved by the analogy of Vedic Sanskrit, inasmuch as, when reciting verses in that language, the native priests are said to succeed in keeping quantity and musical accent altogether distinct. “We cannot now say exactly how Homer’s verse sounded in the ears of the Greeks themselves; and yet we can tell even this more nearly than Matthew Arnold imagined. Sanskrit verse, like Greek, had both quantity and musical accent; and the recitation of the Vedic poems, as handed down by immemorial tradition, and as it may be heard to-day, keeps both these elements clear. It is a sort of intoned recitative, most impressive and agreeable to the sensitive ear.”[63]

A useful handbook on the general subject of Greek Accentuation (including its musical character) is Vendryes’ _Traité d’accentuation grecque_, which is prefaced by a bibliographical list. The volume is noticed, in the _Classical Review_ xix. 363-367, by J. P. Postgate, who supplements it in some important directions. There is also a discussion of the nature and theory of the Greek accent in Hadley’s _Essays_ pp. 110-127. As Monro (_Modes_ p. 113) remarks, it is our habit of using Latin translations of the terms of Greek grammar that has tended to obscure the fact that those terms belong in almost every case to the ordinary vocabulary of music. The point of the illustration drawn from the _Orestes_, in the _C.V._ c. 11, is that the musical setting in question neglected entirely the natural tune, or accent, of the words. It is not to be assumed that Dionysius approved (except within narrow limits) of this practice or of the

[Page 43]

corresponding neglect of syllabic quantity (=128= 19). He probably regarded such excesses as innovations due to inferior schools of music and rhythm. In the hymns found at Delphi (and also in an inscription discovered by W. M. Ramsay) there is a remarkable correspondence between the musical notes and the accentuation of the words, as was pointed out by Monro (_Modes_ pp. 90, 91, 116, 141; and _Classical Review_ ix. 467-470). It is the hymns to Apollo (belonging probably to the early part of the third century B.C.), in which the acute accents usually coincide with a rise of pitch, that Dionysius would doubtless have regarded as embodying the classical practice. In early times, it must be remembered, words and music were written by the same man; cp. G. S. Farnell _Greek Lyric Poetry_ pp. 41, 42. The chief surviving fragments of Greek music (including the recent discoveries at Delphi) will be found in C. Jan’s _Musici Scriptores Graeci_ (with Supplement), as published by Teubner.

C. _Pronunciation of Ancient Greek_

The _de Compositione_ is not a treatise on Greek Pronunciation, or even on Greek Phonetics. The sections which touch upon these subjects are strictly subsidiary to the main theme; they are literary rather than philological in aim. There was, in fact, no independent study of phonetics in Greek antiquity; the subject was simply a handmaid in the service of music and rhetoric. Hence the reference early in c. 14 to the authority of Aristoxenus “the musician,” and the constant endeavour to rank the letters according to standards of beautiful sound. Still, though Dionysius’ object in describing the way in which the different letters are produced is not scientific but aesthetic and euphonic, much praise is due to the rigorous thoroughness which led him to undertake such an investigation at all. And it has had important incidental results.

One modern authority claims that, notwithstanding difficulties in the interpretation of the _de Compositione_ due either to vague statements in the text or to defective knowledge on our own part, it is possible to reconstruct, with essential accuracy, the “Dionysian Pronunciation of Greek,” or (in other words) the pronunciation current among cultivated Greeks during the fifty years preceding the birth of Christ; while another authority has given a transliteration of the Lord’s Prayer, according to the original text, in the Hellenistic pronunciation of the first century A.D.[64] It is, further, maintained that, thanks to the general progress of philological

[Page 44]

research, we can in the main reproduce with certainty the sounds (including even the aspirates) actually heard at Athens in the fourth century B.C.—with such certainty, at all events, as will suffice for the practical purposes of the modern teacher.[65]

Two circumstances render it unsafe to lean unduly on Dionysius’ evidence in determining the pronunciation of the earlier Greek period. Although he studied with enthusiasm the literature produced by Greece in her prime, and would certainly desire to read it to his pupils in the same tones as might have been used by its original authors, it is hardly likely that the pronunciation of the language had changed less in three or four hundred years than that (say) of English has changed since the days of Shakespeare.[66] The other circumstance is the uncertainty which attends some of his statements, quite apart from any question of the period which they may be supposed to cover. This uncertainty is due to the fact that there was no science of phonetics in his day, and that consequently his explanations are sometimes obscure, either in themselves or at all events to their modern interpreters. But in many other cases he is, fortunately, explicit and easily understood. One example only shall be given, but that an important one: the pronunciation of ζ. In =144= 9-12, it is clearly indicated that ζ is a double letter, and that it is composed of σ and δ (in that order): διπλᾶ δὲ τρία τό τε ζ̄ καὶ τὸ ξ̄ καὶ τὸ ψ̄. διπλᾶ δὲ λέγουσιν αὐτὰ ἤτοι διὰ τὸ σύνθετα εἶναι τὸ μὲν ζ̄ διὰ τοῦ σ̄ καὶ δ̄, τὸ δὲ ξ̄ διὰ τοῦ κ̄ καὶ σ̄, τὸ δὲ ψ̄ διὰ τοῦ π̄ καὶ σ̄, κτλ. The manuscript testimony is here in favour of σ̄ καὶ δ̄ (rather than the reverse order), and it may be noticed that the similar reading, ὐπασ̅δ̅εύξαισα, is well supported in Sappho’s _Hymn to Aphrodite_ (=238= 9). The statement is not in any way contradicted by the further statements in =146= 5 and =148= 6; and taken together with other evidence (e.g. such forms as συρίσδειν = συρίζειν, κωμάσδειν = κωμάζειν, Ἀθήναζε = Ἀθήνασδε), it seems to establish this as

[Page 45]

at least one pronunciation of ζ. The actual pronunciation may well have varied at different times and in different places. Some authorities think that in fifth-century Greece the sound was like that of English =zd= in the word ‘gla=z=e=d=,’ while in the fourth century it roughly resembled =dz= in the word ‘a=dz=e’ (Arnold and Conway, _op. cit._ pp. 6, 7).

The book which deals most directly with the _de Compositione_ in relation to Greek pronunciation is A. J. Ellis’ _English, Dionysian, and Hellenic Pronunciation of Greek, considered in reference to School and College Use_. In applying great phonetic skill to the interpretation of Dionysius’ statements, the author of this pamphlet has done much service; but he abandons too lightly any attempt to recover a still earlier pronunciation, and shows an uncritical spirit in so readily believing (p. 4) that Erasmus could be hoaxed in the matter of Greek pronunciation. A more trustworthy work is F. Blass’ _Pronunciation of Ancient Greek_ (translated by W. J. Purton), in which the scientific aids towards a reconstruction of the old pronunciation are marshalled with much force. Arnold and Conway’s _Restored Pronunciation of Greek and Latin_, and Giles’ _Manual of Comparative Philology_ (pp. 114-118: especially p. 115 for ζ), contain a succinct statement of probable results. There is also a good article, by W. G. Clark, on Greek Pronunciation and Accentuation in the _Journal of Philology_ i. pp. 98-108; with which should be compared the papers by Wratislaw and Geldart in vol. ii. of the same journal. The entire conflict on the subject of Greek pronunciation, as waged by the early combatants in England and Holland, is reflected in Havercamp’s two volumes entitled _Sylloge Scriptorum qui de linguae Graecae vera et recta pronuntiatione commentarios reliquerunt, videlicet Adolphi Mekerchi, Theodori Bezae, Jacobi Ceratini et Henrici Stephani_ (Leyden, 1736), and his _Sylloge Altera Scriptorum qui ... reliquerunt, videlicet Desiderii Erasmi, Stephani Vintoniensis Episcopi, Cantabrigiensis Academiae Cancellarii, Joannis Checi, Thomae Smith, Gregorii Martini, et Erasmi Schmidt_ (Leyden, 1740). Erasmus’ dialogue _de recta Latini Graecique sermonis pronunciatione_ (Basle, 1528) was, in its way, a true work of science in that it laid stress on the fact that variety of symbols implied variety of sounds, and that diphthongal writing implied a diphthongal pronunciation. Attention has lately been directed to the fact that Erasmus claims no originality for his views on this subject, and that he had been anticipated, in varying degrees, by Jerome Aleander in France, by Aldus Manutius in Italy, and (earlier still) by the Spanish humanist, Antonio of Lebrixa (Bywater _The Erasmian Pronunciation of Greek and its Precursors_ Oxford, 1908). It may be noted, in passing, that when enumerating the errors of his Byzantine contemporaries, Antonio mentions that they pronounced Ζ “as a single letter, whereas

[Page 46]

it was really composite, and stood for SD” (Bywater, p. 20). Among the immediate successors of Erasmus in this field the most interesting, perhaps, is Sir Thomas Smith (1513-1577), who, like Cheke, was one of the “etists” and so incurred the wrath of Stephen Gardiner and drew out that edict which threatened various penalties (including corporal punishment for boys) against the practice of unlawful innovations in the province of Greek pronunciation. It was Smith who, in his treatise _de recta et emendata linguae Graecae pronuntiatione_ (Havercamp, ii. 542), detected a lacuna in the text of _C.V._ =140= 16 as current in his time, and secured the right sense by the insertion of δύο δὲ βραχέα τό τε ε̄ καὶ τὸ ο̄ after τὸ ω̄ (in l. 17). Echoes, more or less distinct, of the long dispute as to the pronunciation of the ancient classical languages may be heard in such various quarters as: (1) [Beaumont and] Fletcher’s _Elder Brother_ ii. 1, “Though I can speak no Greek, I love the sound on’t; it goes so thundering as it conjur’d devils”; (2) King James I. (in an address to the University of Edinburgh, delivered at Stirling), “I follow his [George Buchanan’s] pronunciation, both of his Latin and Greek, and am sorry that my people of England do not the like; for certainly their pronunciation utterly fails the grace of these two learned languages”; and (3) Gibbon’s reference to “our most corrupt and barbarous mode of uttering Latin.” In modern times a constant effort is being made to get nearer to the true pronunciation of the two classical languages; and (to speak of Greek alone) some interesting side-lights have been shed on the subject by the discovery of Anglo-Saxon or Oriental transliterations (cp. Hadley _Essays_ pp. 128-140, and Bendall in _Journal of Philology_ xxix. 199-201). The application of well-ascertained results to the teaching of Greek pronunciation could be injurious only if it were allowed to impede the principal object of Greek study—contact with the great minds of the past. But an attempt to recapture some part of the music of the Greek language is hardly likely to have this disastrous effect.

D. _Greek Grammar_

Grammar, like phonetics, was by the ancients often regarded as a part of “music.”[67] It would not, therefore, seem unnatural to his readers that, in a treatise on euphony, Dionysius should continually be referring to the _parts of speech_ (τὰ μόρια τοῦ λόγου). He also uses freely such technical terms of grammar as: πτῶσις, ἔγκλισις, ἀπαρέμφατος, πληθυντικῶς, ὕπτιος, ἀρρενικός, θηλυκός, οὐδέτερος, ἄρθρον, ὄνομα, πρόθεσις, σύνδεσμος, etc. Though himself concerned more immediately with the euphonic relations

[Page 47]

of words, he is fully alive to the phenomena of their syntactical relations. His remarks on grammatical points show, as might have been expected, many points of contact with the brief treatise of another Dionysius—Dionysius Thrax, who was born a full century earlier than himself. Dionysius Thrax was a pupil of Aristarchus, and produced the earliest formal Greek Grammar. Some interesting hints as to the successive steps in grammatical analysis which had made such a Grammar possible may be found in the second chapter of the _de Compositione_, where special mention is made of Theodectes, Aristotle, and “the leaders of the Stoic School.” In c. 5, a useful protest is raised against the tyranny of grammar, which so often seeks to control by iron “rules” the infinite variety and living flexibility of language.

The standard edition of _Dionysii Thracis Ars Grammatica_ is that by Uhlig (Leipzig, 1883). The whole question of ancient views on grammar can be studied in Steinthal’s _Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Römern, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Logik_ (2nd ed., Berlin, 1890-91).

E. _Sources of the_ de Compositione

It must strike every reader of the treatise, that Dionysius combines some assertion of originality with many acknowledgments of indebtedness to predecessors. In this there is, of course, no necessary inconsistency. The work covers a wide field, and implies an acquaintance with many special studies. While referring with gratitude and respect to the admitted authorities in these various branches of learning or science, Dionysius claims for himself a certain originality of idea and of treatment. He is among the first to have written a separate treatise on this particular subject, and he is the first to have attempted an adequate treatment of it.[68]

In making these acknowledgments, Dionysius does not specify any Latin writers, nor indeed any recent writers whatsoever. When Quintilian, in the fourth chapter of his Ninth Book, is himself writing a short _de Compositione_, he mentions “Halicarnasseus Dionysius” and (with special respect) “M. Tullius.”[69]

[Page 48]

But Dionysius says not a word about Cicero or Horace, although the former was partly and the latter fully contemporary with himself, and although they, like himself, were students of literary composition. As his work on early Roman history shows, Dionysius was not ignorant of Latin; and it is unfortunate that he did not think of comparing Greek writers with Latin. But the comparative method of literary criticism hardly existed in Greek antiquity, notwithstanding the reference to Cicero and Demosthenes in the _de Sublimitate_, whose author (it may be added here) not only treats of σύνθεσις in two of his chapters, but also tells us that he had already dealt with the subject in two separate treatises.[70]

To his Greek predecessors Dionysius often refers in general terms. For example, they are called οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν in =140= 7, οἱ πρότερον in =96= 7, and οἱ ἀρχαῖοι in =68= 9. The last term best suggests Dionysius’ habitual attitude, which was that of looking to the past for the finest work in criticism as well as in literature.[71] And so it will be found that, though the _de Compositione Verborum_ contains incidental references to the Stoics and to other leaders of thought, its highest respect seems to be reserved for Aristotle and his disciples Theophrastus and Aristoxenus.[72] But the question of Dionysius’ obligations to his predecessors (and to the Peripatetics particularly) is so large and far-reaching that it must be treated separately elsewhere. Meanwhile, let it be noted how considerably his various writings illustrate, and are illustrated by, the _Rhetoric_ of Aristotle.[73]

As to its originality, the book may well be left to answer for itself. It does not read like a dull compilation. The learning is there, but it is lightly borne, and none can doubt that the writer has long thought over his subject and can give to others the fruits of his reflexions with verve and a contagious enthusiasm. The work has an easy flow of its own, as though it had been rapidly (but not carelessly) written, out of a well-stored mind, while its author was busy

[Page 49]

with his teaching and with the many literary enterprises to which he so often refers. It must be conceded that a literary critic who deals with so difficult, many-sided, and elusive a subject as that of composition can hardly avoid some errors of detail, since he cannot hope to be a master in all the accessory sciences upon which he has to lean. But we may well be content if he preserves for later ages much invaluable literature and teaching which would otherwise have been lost,—if he himself maintains (amid corrupting influences) high standards in his literary preferences and in his own writing,—and if he sheds a ray of light upon many a hidden beauty of Greek style which would but for him be shrouded in darkness.

Reference may be made to G. Ammon _de Dionysii Halicarnassensis Librorum Rhetoricorum Fontibus_ and to G. Mestwerdt _de Dionysii Halicarnassensis in libro de Compositione Verborum Studiis_. One section of the subject is also treated in G. L. Hendrickson’s valuable papers on the ‘Peripatetic Mean of Style and the Three Stylistic Characters’ and on the ‘Origin and Meaning of the Ancient Characters of Style’ in the _American Journal of Philology_ vols. xxv. and xxvi.; and in H. P. Breitenbach’s dissertation on _The ‘De Compositione’ of Dionysius of Halicarnassus considered with reference to the ‘Rhetoric’ of Aristotle_.

F. _Quotations and Literary References in the_ de Compositione

The greatest of all the lyrical passages quoted in the treatise is Sappho’s _Hymn to Aphrodite_. But great as this is, it does not stand alone. It has companions, if not equals, in the _Danaë_ of Simonides and in the opening of a Pindaric dithyramb. The very preservation of these splendid relics, as of some slighter ones, we owe to Dionysius alone.[74] The total extent of the quotations made in the course of the treatise may be judged from the references given at the foot of the translation: these illustrative extracts form a substantial part of the work they illustrate. The width of Dionysius’ literary outlook may also be inferred from the following roughly-drawn Chronological Table, which (for the sake of completeness) includes some authors who are mentioned but not actually quoted:—

[Page 50]

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF AUTHORS QUOTED OR MENTIONED IN THE _DE COMPOSITIONE_

+----------+------------+---------+-------------+-----------+------------+ | | Epic | Elegiac | | | Comedy and | | B.C. | Poetry. | and | Lyric. | Tragedy. | Satire. | | | | Iambic. | | | | | | | | | | | +----------+------------+---------+-------------+-----------+------------+ |Before 700| Homer | ... | ... | ... | ... | | | Hesiod | | | | | | | | | | | | | 700-600 | ... | Archi- | Alcaeus | ... | ... | | | | lochus | Sappho | | | | | | | Stesichorus | | | | | | | | | | | 600-500 | ... | ... | Anacreon | ... | ... | | | | | | | | | 500-400 | ... | ... | Simonides | Aeschylus |Aristophanes| | | | | Pindar | Sophocles | | | | | | Bacchylides | Euripides | | | | | | | | | | 400-300 | Antimachus | ... | Philoxenus | ... | ... | | | of | | Timotheus | | | | | Colophon | | Telestes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 300-200 | ... | [Calli- | ... | ... | Euphorio | | | | machus] | | |Chersonesita| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Sotades | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 200-100 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | +----------+------------+---------+-------------+-----------+------------+

+----------+------------+-------------+------------+---------------+ | | | | | Grammar; | | B.C. | History. | Oratory and | Philosophy.| Musical and | | | | Rhetoric. | | Metrical | | | | | | Science, etc. | +----------+------------+-------------+------------+---------------+ |Before 700| ... | ... | ... | ... | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 700-600 | ... | ... | ... | ... | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 600-500 | ... | ... | ... | ... | | | | | | | | 500-400 | Herodotus | Gorgias | Empedocles | ... | | | Thucydides | Antiphon | (verse) | | | | | | Democritus | | | | | | | | | 400-300 | Ctesias | Isocrates | Plato | Aristoxenus | | | Xenophon | Aeschines | Aristotle | | | | Theopompus | Demosthenes |Theophrastus| | | | Ephorus | Theodectes | | | | | | | | | | 300-200 | ... | Hegesias | Epicurus | Aristophanes | | | | | and the | of | | | | | Epicureans | Byzantium | | | | | | | | | | | Chrysippus | | | | | | and the | | | | | | Stoics | | | | | | | | | 200-100 | Polybius | ... | ... | ... | +----------+------------+-------------+------------+---------------+

[Page 51]

To this list might be added the minor historians, of the third and second centuries B.C., who are mentioned together with Polybius in c. 4, and of whom some account will be found in the notes on that chapter: Phylarchus, Duris, Psaon, Demetrius of Callatis, Hieronymus, Antigonus, Heracleides, and Hegesianax. And it will be noticed, further, that the treatise contains a large number of unassigned verse-fragments, which can only be referred, vaguely, to some lyric poet or to the lyric portions of some tragic poet. By such anonymous fragments, as well as by the poems quoted under the names of Sappho and Simonides, we are reminded of the many lost works of Greek literature and of the happy surprises which Egypt or Herculaneum or the Sultan’s Library may still have in store for us. If the quotations as a whole—identified and unidentified, previously known and previously unknown—are passed in review, it will be found that Dionysius has given us a small Anthology of Greek prose and verse. While strictly relevant to the main theme, his illustrations are chosen with so much taste, and from so wide a field of study, that (to adapt his own words) οὐκ ἀηδὴς ὁ λόγος ἐγένετο πολλοῖς ὥσπερ ἄνθεσι διαποικιλλόμενος τοῖς ἐαρινοῖς.[75]

Two prose-writers mentioned by Dionysius seem to invite special comment: Polybius and Hegesias. It is not without a kind of shock that we find the great historian Polybius classed, along with Phylarchus and the rest, among writers whose works no man can bring himself to read from cover to cover.[76] But we have to remember that the judgment is passed solely from the standpoint of style; and from this restricted standpoint, it can hardly be said that subsequent critics have ventured to reverse it and to maintain that Polybius is (to use the modern expression) an eminently “readable” author. Let one modern estimate be quoted, and that from a writer who appreciates fully the greatness of Polybius’ theory of history, and

[Page 52]

who, on the other hand, is not concerned to vindicate the soundness of Dionysius’ judgment: “Unfortunately, his [Polybius’] style is a serious deterrent to the reader. We long for the ease, the finished grace, the flowing simplicity of Herodotus; or again, for the terse and rapid phrase of Thucydides, the energy, the precision of each single word, the sentence packed with thought. Polybius has lost the Greek artistic feeling for writing, the delicate sense of proportion, the faculty of reserve. The freshness and distinction of the Attic idiom are gone. He writes with an insipid and colourless monotony. In arranging his materials he is equally inartistic. He is always anticipating objections and digressing; he wearies you with dilating on the excellence of his own method; he even assures you that the size and price of his book ought not to keep people from buying it. Admirable as is the substance of his writing, he pays the penalty attaching to neglect of form—he is read by the few.”[77]

Hegesias is not only mentioned, but quoted, in the treatise. A few detached sentences are given from his writings, and one longer passage. In c. 4 Dionysius rewrites a brief extract from Herodotus in utter defiance of the customary rules (or practices) of Greek word-order, and then exclaims, “This form of composition resembles that of Hegesias: it is affected, degenerate, enervated.” He proceeds: “In such trumpery arts the man is a hierophant. He writes, for instance, ‘After a goodly festival another goodly one keep we.’ ‘Of Magnesia am I, the mighty land, a man of Sipylus I.’ ‘No little drop into the Theban waters spewed Dionysus: O yea, sweet is the stream, but madness it engendereth.’”

In c. 18 Dionysius illustrates the beauty of prose-rhythm from Thucydides, Plato, and Demosthenes. He then assigns to Hegesias a bad pre-eminence among writers who have neglected this essential of their art. Quoting a passage of some length from his _History_, he asks how it compares with Homer’s description

[Page 53]

of a similar scene; and he holds the vast superiority of the latter to be due ‘chiefly, if not entirely, to the difference in the rhythms.’ In the words just cited there is obviously much exaggeration. But we must allow for Dionysius’ preoccupation in this treatise (cp. τοῦτ’ ἦν σχεδὸν ᾧ μάλιστα διαλλάττει ποιητής τε ποιητοῦ καὶ ῥήτωρ ῥήτορος, τὸ συντιθέναι δεξιῶς τὰ ὀνόματα, =92= 18-20), and must, at any rate, try to discover wherein the main defect of Hegesias’ rhythms is supposed to lie. It is probable that no single thing in the passage offends the ear of Dionysius so much as the double trochees (or their metrical equivalent) which are found at the end of so many of the clauses. This double trochee, or dichoree, is found in its normal form (– ᴗ – ⏒) at the end of such _cola_ as those which terminate in: τοῖς ἀρίστοις, καὶ τὸ πλῆθος, εἰς τὸ τολμᾶν, τῇ μαχαίρᾳ, καὶ Φιλωτᾶς, καὶ τὸ χρῶμα, σκαιὸν ἐχθρόν. The metrical equivalent ᴗ ᴗ ᴗ – ⏒ occurs in such instances as: πρότερον οὕτως, ἕνεκα πρᾶξαι, κατακοπῆναι, καθικετεύων. It is interesting to observe that this final dichoree is regarded both by Cicero and by Quintilian as characteristic of the Asiatic orators.[78] Let it be added that, in the extract from Hegesias, the dichorees are not confined to the close of clauses but occur freely in other positions,

[Page 54]

while many of the sentences are short and the reverse of periodic; and it will be granted that Cicero has good ground for calling attention to the jerky, or staccato, character of the style in question. In the _Orator_ (67. 226) the effect of Hegesias’ writing is thus described: “quam (sc. numerosam comprehensionem) perverse fugiens Hegesias, dum ille quoque imitari Lysiam volt, alterum paene Demosthenem, saltat incidens particulas.” And his manner is amusingly parodied in one of the letters to Atticus (_ad Att._ xii. 6): “de Caelio vide, quaeso, ne quae lacuna sit in auro: | ego ista non novi; | sed certe in collubo est detrimenti satis. | huc aurum si accedit |—sed quid loquor? | tu videbis. | habes Hegesiae genus! quod Varro laudat.”[79] Two further specimens (not given by Dionysius) of Hegesias’ style will add point to Cicero’s parody. The first is preserved by Strabo (_Geogr._ 396): ὁρῶ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν | καὶ τὸ περιττῆς τριαίνης | ἐκεῖθι σημεῖον· | ὁρῶ τὴν Ἐλευσῖνα, | καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν γέγονα μύστης· | ἐκεῖνο Λεωκόριον· | τοῦτο Θησεῖον· | οὐ δύναμαι δηλῶσαι | καθ’ ἓν ἕκαστον. The other specimen is quoted by Photius (_Bibl._ cod. 250) from Agatharchides, the geographer of Cnidus: ὅμοιον πεποίηκας, Ἀλέξανδρε, Θήβας κατασκάψας, ὡς ἂν εἰ ὁ Ζεὺς ἐκ τῆς κατ’ οὐρανὸν μερίδος ἐκβάλλοι τὴν σελήνην. ὑπολείπομαι γὰρ τὸν ἥλιον ταῖς Ἀθήναις. δύο γὰρ αὗται πόλεις τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἦσαν ὄψεις. διὸ καὶ περὶ τῆς ἑτέρας ἀγωνιῶ νῦν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ εἷς αὐτῶν ὀφθαλμὸς ἡ Θηβαίων ἐκκέκοπται πόλις.[80]

It is quite clear, from his express statements, that Dionysius, in his criticisms, has in view, mainly if not entirely, the bad rhythms of Hegesias. But the passages which he quotes seem open to criticism on other grounds as well. The long extract in c. 18 contains metaphors which might well seem violent to the Greeks, who allowed themselves less licence than the moderns do in this direction (e.g. ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐλπὶς αὕτη συνέδραμεν εἰς τὸ τολμᾶν, and τοὺς δ’ ἄλλους ὀργὴ πρόσφατος ἐπίμπρα); and it is high-flown expressions of this kind which the author of the _de Sublimitate_ has in view when he writes: τά γε μὴν Ἀμφικράτους

[Page 55]

τοιαῦτα καὶ Ἡγησίου καὶ Ματρίδος· πολλαχοῦ γὰρ ἐνθουσιᾶν ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντες οὐ βακχεύουσιν ἀλλὰ παίζουσιν (iii. 2). False emphasis, too, and a general desire to purchase notoriety by the cheap method of eccentric word-order, would appear to be implied in Dionysius’ own parody in c. 4 (=90= 15-19). For example, Ἀλυάττου and ἐθνῶν, though not in themselves important, are assigned prominent positions at the beginning and the end of the sentence. But the greatest of all the defects of Hegesias—especially when compared with Homer—is a certain vulgarity of tone.

The contrast drawn between Hegesias and Homer may seem overstrained, but it is eminently characteristic of Dionysius. Homer was to him the great pure fount of Greek, and his own constant desire was “antiquos accedere fontes.” Hegesias, on the other hand, typifies to him the decline in Greek literature which followed the death of Alexander, whose exploits he records with so feeble a magniloquence. And yet the curious thing is that Hegesias, who lived probably in the earlier part of the third century, aspires (as Cicero tells us) to copy Lysias. But while endeavouring thus to imitate one of the most Attic of the Attic writers, he came, by the irony of fate, to be regarded as the founder of the degenerate Asiatic school: Ἡγησίας ὁ ῥήτωρ, ὃς ἦρξε μάλιστα τοῦ Ἀσιανοῦ λεγομένου ζήλου, παραφθείρας τὸ καθεστηκὸς ἔθος τὸ Ἀττικόν (Strabo _Geogr._ xiv. 1. 41).[81] In the terms “Attic” and “Asiatic” there often lurks some confusion of thought, as well as no little prejudice and rhetorical animosity. But of Dionysius, as compared with Hegesias, it is clearly within the mark to say that, though he lived two centuries later, he has vastly more of the true Attic feeling for purity of style; and that, though he may himself have cherished wild dreams of turning back the tide of language, yet in league with some leading Romans of his day he did good service by showing how the best Attic models may hold out to future ages shining examples of the skill and beauty which all men should strive after in handling the language of their birth.

[Page 56]

For Dionysius in relation to contemporary Romans, and to the struggle between Asianism and Atticism, reference may be made to _Dionysius of Halicarnassus: the Three Literary Letters_ pp. 34-49.

G. _Manuscripts and Text_

The chief authorities for the text of the _de Compositione_ are indicated in the following list of abbreviations employed in the apparatus criticus of the present edition:—

_Siglorum in notulis criticis adhibitorum Index_

F = cod. Florentinus Laurentianus lix. 15. saec. xii. P = cod. Parisinus bibl. nat. 1741. saec. xi. (x.). M = cod. Venetus Marcianus 508. saec. xv. V = cod. Vergetii Parisiensis bibl. nat. 1798. saec. xvi.

E = Διονυσίου Ἁλικαρνασέως τοῦ περὶ Συνθέσεως Ὀνομάτων =Ἐπιτομή=. saec. inc.

R = Rhetor Graecus (Scholiasta Hermogenis περὶ ἰδεῶν, i. 6). saec. inc.

a = editio princeps Aldi Manutii (Aldi Manutii Rhetores Graeci, tom. i.), Venetiis. 1508. s = editio Roberti Stephani, Lutetiae. 1547. r = exemplum Reiskianum, Lipsiae. 1775. Us = exemplum ab Usenero et Radermachero Lipsiae nuper editum.

The Florentine manuscript (F) contains, besides certain writings of other authors, the following works of Dionysius: (1) the essays on Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, and Dinarchus: and (2) the _de Compositione Verborum_ (as far as the words πειρατέον δὴ καὶ περὶ τούτων λέγειν ἃ φρονῶ in c. 25). The Paris manuscript 1741 (P) is the famous codex which contains not only the _de Comp. Verb._, but also Aristotle’s _Rhetoric_ and _Poetics_, Demetrius _de Elocutione_, Dionysius Halic. _Ep. ad Amm. II._, _De Vet. Scr._, etc. Some notes upon the manuscript are given in _Demetrius on Style_ pp. 209-11; and the editor has examined it once more at Paris for the purposes of the present recension. The remaining manuscripts are considerably later than F and P.

[Page 57]

M belongs to the fifteenth century, and V was copied by the Cretan calligrapher Ange Vergèce (as he was called in France) in the sixteenth century. The edition of Robert Stephens is based upon V. In the _Journal of Philology_ xxvii. pp. 83 ff., there is a careful collation, by A. B. Poynton, of “Some Readings of MS. Canonici 45” (C: sixteenth century) in the Bodleian Library, with regard to which the collator says: “Despite the care with which the work is done, the manuscript is not of much value as a presentation of the Florentine tradition, since F exists and the writer of C is rather a διασκευαστής than a copyist. The interest of the manuscript is antiquarian and bibliographical.... It is a copy made at some time in the sixteenth century, probably after 1560. It is based on the Florentine MS. with _variae lectiones_ and marginal notes. It has not the appearance of being a mechanical copy: rather it seems to be the work of a scholar who was conversant with the MSS. of the treatise and, while he was aware of the importance of the Florentine MS., saw that in many cases it needed to be corrected.”

The dates of the Epitome and of the _Rhetor Graecus_ are uncertain. But both are early and highly important authorities. The latter quotes