xiv. 439-42), an endeavour is made to view the literary life of
Dionysius in relation to its Roman surroundings.]
[Footnote 71: The more recent writers on rhetoric (οἱ νέοι τεχνογράφοι, _de Isaeo_ c. 14) would not greatly appeal to Dionysius.]
[Footnote 72: Cp. =254= 23, =256= 3, =164= 22, =138= 6.]
[Footnote 73: The quotations from Aristotle and other writers in the Notes will serve to indicate roughly the obligations of Dionysius to his predecessors.]
[Footnote 74: Among the shorter fragments preserved by him are one of Bacchylides (in c. 25), and another from the _Telephus_ of Euripides (in c. 26). Two lines of the _Danaë_ are, it should in strict accuracy be stated, quoted as follows by Athenaeus ix. 396 E:—
ὦ τέκος, οἷον ἔχω πόνον· σὺ δ’ ἀωτεῖς, γαλαθηνῷ δ’ ἤτορι κνώσσεις. ]
[Footnote 75: _de C.V._ =214= 7. There is, perhaps, room for a book or dissertation on _Quotation in Classical Antiquity_: with reference to such points as the citation or non-citation of authorities, the employment of literary illustrations, the poetical quotations in the Orators or in the Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία or in the Poets themselves; and so forth. On the question of verbal fidelity, something is said in the present editor’s brief article on ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus as an authority for the Text of Thucydides’ (_Classical Review_ xiv. 244-246); and such quotations as that from _Odyss._ xvi. 1-16 in c. 3 of the present treatise might be critically examined from the same point of view. A similar study of _Translation in Classical Antiquity_ would also be a useful piece of work.]
[Footnote 76: _de C.V._ =94= 4. Of Phylarchus as a historian Polybius himself gives an unflattering account.]
[Footnote 77: S. H. Butcher _Harvard Lectures on Greek Subjects_ p. 114. Cp. J. L. Strachan Davidson in _Hellenica_ pp. 414, 416: “The Nemesis of his contempt for the form and style of his writing has come on Polybius in the neglect which he has experienced at the hands of the modern world.... He has not the genius, and will not take the trouble to acquire the trained sensitiveness of art which might have supplied its place; and thus his writing has no distinction and no charm, and we miss in reading him what gives half their value to great writers—the consciousness that we are in the hands of a master.” But, on the other hand, see J. B. Bury’s _Ancient Greek Historians_, e.g. pp. 196, 218, 220.]
[Footnote 78: Cicero (_Or._ 63. 212) says, with reference to the various ways of ending the period, “e quibus unum est secuta Asia maxime, qui dichoreus vocatur, cum duo extremi chorei sunt.” And Quintilian (ix. 4. 103) “claudet et dichoreus, id est idem pes sibi ipse iungetur, quo Asiani usi plurimum; cuius exemplum Cicero ponit: _Patris dictum sapiens temeritas fili comprobavit_.” The dichoree is condemned also in the _de Sublim._ c. 41 μικροποιοῦν δ’ οὐδὲν οὕτως ἐν τοῖς ὑψηλοῖς, ὡς ῥυθμὸς κεκλασμένος λόγων καὶ σεσοβημένος, οἷον δὴ πυρρίχιοι καὶ τροχαῖοι καὶ διχόρειοι, τέλεον εἰς ὀρχηστικὸν συνεκπίπτοντες ... ὡς ἐνίοτε προειδότας τὰς ὀφειλομένας καταλήξεις αὐτοὺς ὑποκρούειν τοῖς λέγουσι καὶ φθάνοντας ὡς ἐν χορῷ τινι προαποδιδόναι τὴν βάσιν. It is the _constant recurrence_ of the same feet that is to be deprecated (cp. Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 8. 1, and Theon. _Progymn._ in Walz _Rhet. Gr._ i. 169); a single dichoree would not be avoided even by Dionysius himself, e.g. νοῦν ἐχόντων (=192= 5). Cicero’s appreciation of Carbo’s _patris dictum sapiens temeritas fili comprobavit_ may be instructively compared with Dionysius’ attitude towards the general question of good and bad rhythms. They both seem to allow too little for other considerations; one of them approves, and the other disapproves, the final dichoree; and both agree in the main point, that there should be plenty of variety: “hoc dichoreo (sc. _comprobavit_) tantus clamor contionis excitatus est, ut admirabile esset. quaero nonne id numerus effecerit? verborum ordinem immuta, fac sic: ‘comprobavit fili temeritas,’ iam nihil erit, etsi ‘temeritas’ ex tribus brevibus et longa est, quam Aristoteles ut optimum probat, a quo dissentio. ‘at eadem verba, eadem sententia.’ animo istuc satis est, auribus non satis. sed id crebrius fieri non oportet; primum enim numerus agnoscitur, deinde satiat, postea cognita facilitate contemnitur” (Cic. _Orat._ 63. 214). Hegesias’ lack of ear seems, further, to be shown in the awkward accumulation of disyllables; e.g. διὰ τῶν =ποδῶν χαλκοῦν= ψάλιον διείραντας =ἕλκειν κύκλῳ γυμνόν= (=188= 17), and =τρόπῳ σκαιὸν ἐχθρόν= (=190= 5). Cp. =132= 3 μήτ’ ὀλιγοσύλλαβα πολλὰ ἑξῆς λαμβάνοντα.]
[Footnote 79: Modern parallels are dangerous, but the detractors of Macaulay might be disposed to compare his short detached sentences (so different from the elaborate periods of some earlier English prose-writers) with those of Hegesias.]
[Footnote 80: In this last extract, all the sentences end in dichorees. The fragments of Hegesias have been collected by C. Müller _Scriptores Rerum Alexandri Magni_ pp. 138-144.]
[Footnote 81: With παραφθείρας cp. Cic. _Brut._ 83. 286 “atque Charisi [an imitator of Lysias] vult Hegesias esse similis, isque se ita putat Atticum, ut veros illos prae se paene agrestes putet. at quid est tam fractum, tam minutum, tam in ipsa, quam tamen consequitur, concinnitate puerile?” For the influence which Hegesias had on style as late as the time of Pausanias cp. J. G. Frazer’s _Pausanias_ i. lxix. lxx., and Blass _Die Rhythmen der asianischen und römischen Kunstprosa_ pp. 91 ff.]
[Footnote 82: e.g. καθάπερ =138= 13; ἀναίσθιος, ὑποδεκτική, ἀκόμψευστον, ἔχοντα =212= 21-24; see also =196= 24, 25. The issue is often so perplexing that no editor can feel certain whether F’s reading or P’s should be placed in his text: he only knows that _both_ readings must be recorded _either_ in the text or in the critical footnotes. For the _strong points_ of F see such passages as pp. 182, 184 in c. 18.]
[Footnote 83: Other examples of these _variae lectiones_, pointing perhaps sometimes to a sort of double recension, are such as οὐδέτερον μὲν εὔμορφον, ἧττον δὲ δυσειδὲς τὸ ε̄ (=144= 4: REF), compared with οὐδέτερον μὲν εὔηχον, ἧττον δὲ δυσηχὲς τὸ ο̄ (=144= 4: PMV), =66= 2 νεωστὶ PMV, ἄρτι F; =100= 23 ἐνταῦθα PMV, ἐνθάδε F; =198= 18 and =244= 28 πάνυ PMV, σφόδρα F. Continually F’s readings differ from P’s in such a way that either alternative is quite satisfactory and neither could well have originated in any manuscript corruption of the other. Under the same head will come minute variations (not always recorded in this edition) of word-order in the traditions represented by F and P. So, too, with such minutiae as the elision or non-elision of final vowels, and the insertion or non-insertion of ν ἐφελκυστικόν.]
[Footnote 84: F’s πλεῖστον κίνδυνον for πλείστους κινδύνους in =244= 5 seems due to a desire to diminish the number of sigmas in the sentence, while some minute changes in word-order look like deliberate attempts to improve the flow and sound of the passage. Such discrepancies in the word-order of F and P occur in other parts of the treatise, and not simply in the quotations.]
[Footnote 85: Homer _Odyssey_ xv. 125.]
[Footnote 86: Homer _Odyssey_ xv. 126, 127.]
[Footnote 87: Bergk _Poetae Lyrici Graeci_, _Fragm. Adesp._ 85.]
[Footnote 88: Bergk _ibid._; Philoxenus _Fragm._ 6.]
[Footnote 89: Homer _Odyssey_ xvi. 1-16. The verse-translations, here and throughout, are from the hand of Mr. A. S. Way.]
[Footnote 90: Herodotus i. 8-10.]
[Footnote 91: Homer _Iliad_ xii. 433-5.]
[Footnote 92: Euphorio Chersonesita; cp. Hephaest. c. 16.]
[Footnote 93: Homer _Iliad_ xiii. 392, 393.]
[Footnote 94: Sotades _Fragm._]
[Footnote 95: Euripides _Fragm._ 924 (Nauck).]
[Footnote 96: Herodotus i. 6.]
[Footnote 97: Thucydides i. 24.]
[Footnote 98: Hegesias _Fragm._; cp. C. Müller _Scriptores Rerum Alexandri Magni_ p. 138.]
[Footnote 99: Homer _Odyssey_ xvi. 273, xvii. 202, xxiv. 157.]
[Footnote 100: Cp. Homer _Odyssey_ vi. 230, 231; viii. 20; xxiii. 157, 158; xxiv. 369.]
[Footnote 101: Cp. Demosthenes _de Corona_ 296.]
[Footnote 102: Homer _Odyssey_ i. 1.]
[Footnote 103: Homer _Iliad_ i. 1.]
[Footnote 104: Homer _Odyssey_ iii. 1.]
[Footnote 105: Homer _Iliad_ v. 115; _Odyssey_ iv. 762, vi. 324.]
[Footnote 106: Homer _Iliad_ ii. 484.]
[Footnote 107: Homer _Iliad_ xxiv. 486.]
[Footnote 108: Homer _Iliad_ xxi. 20.]
[Footnote 109: Homer _Iliad_ xxii. 467.]
[Footnote 110: Homer _Odyssey_ xxii. 17.]
[Footnote 111: Homer _Iliad_ ii. 89.]
[Footnote 112: Homer _Iliad_ xix. 103-4.]
[Footnote 113: Homer _Iliad_ i. 459, ii. 422 etc.]
[Footnote 114: Homer _Iliad_ iv. 125.]
[Footnote 115: Homer _Odyssey_ vi. 115-6.]
[Footnote 116: Homer _Odyssey_ xiv. 425.]
[Footnote 117: Homer _Odyssey_ iii. 449-50.]
[Footnote 118: Demosthenes _de Corona_, init.]
[Footnote 119: Demosthenes _de Pace_ 6.]
[Footnote 120: Demosthenes _Aristocr._ 1.]
[Footnote 121: Thucydides iii. 57.]
[Footnote 122: Demosthenes _de Corona_ 119.]
[Footnote 123: Demosthenes _de Corona_ 179.]
[Footnote 124: Demosthenes _Philipp._ iii. 17.]
[Footnote 125: Plato _Menex._ 236 E.]
[Footnote 126: Aeschines _c. Ctes._ 202.]
[Footnote 127: Sophocles _Fragm._ 706 (Nauck).]
[Footnote 128: Demosthenes _Lept._ 2.]
[Footnote 129: Euripides _Orestes_ 140-2.]
[Footnote 130: Pindar _Fragm._ 79 (Schroeder).]
[Footnote 131: Homer _Iliad_ xvii. 265.]
[Footnote 132: Homer _Odyssey_ ix. 415-16.]
[Footnote 133: Homer _Iliad_ xxii. 220-1.]
[Footnote 134: Homer _Iliad_ xxii. 476.]
[Footnote 135: Homer _Iliad_ xviii. 225.]
[Footnote 136: Homer _Odyssey_ v. 402.]
[Footnote 137: Homer _Iliad_ xii. 207.]
[Footnote 138: Homer _Iliad_ ii. 209 (and 210).]
[Footnote 139: Homer _Iliad_ xvi. 361.]
[Footnote 140: Homer _Odyssey_ xvii. 36-7; xix. 53-4.]
[Footnote 141: Homer _Odyssey_ vi. 162-3.]
[Footnote 142: Homer _Odyssey_ xi. 281-2.]
[Footnote 143: Homer _Odyssey_ vi. 137.]
[Footnote 144: Homer _Odyssey_ xi. 36-7.]
[Footnote 145: Homer _Iliad_ iv. 452-3.]
[Footnote 146: Homer _Iliad_ xxi. 240-2.]
[Footnote 147: Homer _Odyssey_ ix. 289-90.]
[Footnote 148: Homer _Iliad_ ii. 494-501.]
[Footnote 149: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 112; Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm. Adesp._ 136.]
[Footnote 150: Cp. Euripides _Hecuba_ 163-4.]
[Footnote 151: Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm. Adesp._ 138.]
[Footnote 152: Archilochus _Fragm._ 66 (Bergk _P.L.G._).]
[Footnote 153: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 108.]
[Footnote 154: Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm. Adesp._ 139.]
[Footnote 155: Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm. Adesp._ 140.]
[Footnote 156: Euripides _Hippolytus_ 201.]
[Footnote 157: Homer _Odyssey_ ix. 39.]
[Footnote 158: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 111; Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm. Adesp._ 141.]
[Footnote 159: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 117; Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm. Adesp._ 142.]
[Footnote 160: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 110; Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm. Adesp._ 143.]
[Footnote 161: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 116; Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm. Adesp._ 144.]
[Footnote 162: Thucydides ii. 35.]
[Footnote 163: Here and elsewhere, no attempt has been made to secure metrical equivalence between the Greek original and the English version. A metrical analysis, or “scansion,” of the original Greek is given in the notes.]
[Footnote 164: Plato _Menexenus_ 236 D.]
[Footnote 165: Homer _Iliad_ xxiii. 382.]
[Footnote 166: Demosthenes _de Corona_ init.]
[Footnote 167: Demosthenes _de Corona_ init.]
[Footnote 168: C. Müller _Scriptores Rerum Alexandri Magni_ p. 141 (_Hegesiae Fragmenta_).]
[Footnote 169: Homer _Iliad_ xxii. 395-411.]
[Footnote 170: Homer _Odyssey_ xi. 593-6.]
[Footnote 171: Homer _Odyssey_ xi. 596-7.]
[Footnote 172: Homer _Odyssey_ xi. 597-8.]
[Footnote 173: Pindar _Fragm._ 213 (Schroeder).]
[Footnote 174: Pindar _Fragm._ 75 (Schroeder).]
[Footnote 175: Thucydides i. 1.]
[Footnote 176: Thucydides i. 22.]
[Footnote 177: Sappho _Fragm._ i. (Bergk): translated by A. S. Way.]
[Footnote 178: Isocrates _Areopagiticus_ §§ 1-5.]
[Footnote 179: Homer _Iliad_ xxi. 196-7.]
[Footnote 180: cp. Demosthenes _Chers._ 48.]
[Footnote 181: Epicurus _Fragm._ 230 (Usener).]
[Footnote 182: Demosthenes _Aristocr._ 1.]
[Footnote 183: _Fragm. Orphica_, Mullach i. 166.]
[Footnote 184: Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 8.]
[Footnote 185: Aristophanes _Nubes_ 961.]
[Footnote 186: Callimachus _Fragm._ 391 (Schneider).]
[Footnote 187: Sappho _Fragm._ 106 (Bergk).]
[Footnote 188: Aristophanes _Nubes_ 962.]
[Footnote 189: Euripides _Archelaus_; Nauck _T.G.F._, _Eurip. Fragm._ 229.]
[Footnote 190: Demosthenes _de Corona_ § 1.]
[Footnote 191: Bergk _P.L.G._, _Fragm. Adesp._ 118.]
[Footnote 192: Bacchylides _Fragm._ 11 (Jebb).]
[Footnote 193: Plato _Republic_ i. 1.]
[Footnote 194: Homer _Odyssey_ xiv. 1-7.]
[Footnote 195: Euripides _Telephus_; Nauck _T.G.F., Eurip. Fragm._ 696.]
[Footnote 196: Euripides _Telephus_; Nauck _T.G.F., Eurip. Fragm._ 696.]
[Footnote 197: Simonides _Fragm._ 37 (Bergk): translated by A. S. Way.]
[Footnote 198: Homer _Iliad_ xi. 514.]
[Footnote 199: ὁ σκοτεινός: cp. Dionys. Hal. _de Thucyd._ c. 46, Demetr. _de Eloc._ § 192, Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 5. 6.]
[Footnote 200: A good practical recipe for brevity combined with clearness is given in the _Rhet. ad Alex._ c. 30: συντόμως δὲ [δηλώσομεν], ἐὰν ἀπὸ τῶν πραγμάτων καὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων περιαιρῶμεν τὰ μὴ ἀναγκαῖα ῥηθῆναι, ταῦτα μόνα καταλείποντες, ὧν ἀφαιρεθέντων ἀσαφὴς ἔσται ὁ λόγος.]
[Footnote 201: He illustrates from the Introduction (προοίμιον) of Thucydides—the passage quoted in _C.V._ c. 22. A good example of the εἰρομένη λέξις in Thucydides (who is an acknowledged master of the κατεστραμμένη λέξις) is furnished by Thucyd. i. 9. 2: cp. p. 119 _supra_.]
[Footnote 202: Earlier (vii. 9. 6) in his treatise, Quintilian has quoted ‘Aio te, Aeacida, Romanos vincere posse’; and these oracular ambiguities had been glanced at previously by Aristotle (_Rhet._ iii. 5. 4).]
[Footnote 203: In a passage of Aristotle (_Eth. Nic._ vi. 1142 b ἀλλ’ ὀρθότης τίς ἐστιν ἡ εὐβουλία βουλῆς) βουλῆς seems to be emphatic because so far separated from ὀρθότης. Cp. L. H. G. Greenwood in the _Classical Review_ xix. 18, and the same writer’s translation (_Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics Book Six_ p. 111), “But deliberative excellence is rightness in deliberation.”]
[Footnote 204: Short and simple as it is, this last sentence is a good example of effective word-order. τριήρης is put early, to contrast it with φρούριον in the previous sentence. Then the time is indicated. Next τῶν Ἀθηναίων (removed from Thucydides’ usual position for a dependent genitive) is put in expressive juxtaposition to ὑπὸ τῶν Συρακοσιών. Lastly, the reason or circumstance is given: ἐφορμοῦσα τῷ λιμένι. And the rhythm of the sentence is not unpleasant.]
[Footnote 205: Aristotle (_Rhet._ i. 15), in quoting the first line only, gives ταῦτ’ οὖν ἐγὼ κτλ.]
[Footnote 206: In English it would be interesting to test, by these criteria, such usages (for usages they may be called in so far as they rest on the authority of many good writers) as the ‘split infinitive,’ or the preposition coming at the end of a sentence.]
[Footnote 207: The authenticity of these portions of the _Odyssey_ was suspected in antiquity. But compare _Iliad_ xviii. 587-8 (quoted in Introduction p. 13 _supra_) or _Odyss._ xi. 160-1.]
[Footnote 208: The dates and stages of these changes cannot as yet be settled with precision. But the practical choice seems to be between the earliest and the latest values, though there is no doubt whatever that a distinct =h= was heard in all these sounds long after the fourth century B.C.]
[Footnote 209: It is not easy to determine precisely the sound of χθ, φθ (χθών, φθόνος) at the beginning of words, and the Committee therefore thinks it best to leave the option of (1) sounding the first consonants as κ and π respectively, and the θ as it is in other positions (this applies both to students who adopt the fricative and to those who adopt the primitive aspirate pronunciation of the letters in other positions), or (2) where the fricative pronunciation is adopted, of sounding χ and φ, in this position also, respectively as Scotch _ch_ and English _f_.]
[Footnote 210: This had actually happened in spoken Greek by the second century A.D.]
[Footnote 211: This paragraph is taken from _The Restored Pronunciation of Greek and Latin_, 4th edition, Cambridge, 1908.]
[Page 353]
_A._ INDEX OF PASSAGES QUOTED IN THE _DE COMPOSITIONE_
The thick numerals indicate the pages on which the quotations are found.
=Aeschines= _Ctes._ 202, =116=
=Archilochus= _Fragm._ 66, =170=
=Aristophanes= _Nubes_ 961, =256=; _ib._ 962, =258=
=Aristotle= _Rhet._ iii. 8, =254=
=Bacchylides= _Fragm._ 11, =262=
=Callimachus= _Fragm._ 391, =256=
=Demosthenes= _Aristocr._ 1, =108=, =252=. _Chers._ 48, =250=. _De Cor._ 1, =108=, =182=, =184=, =260=; 119, =112=; 179, =114=. _Lept._ 2, =118=. _De Pace_ 6, =108=. _Philipp._ iii. 17, =114=
=Epicurus= _Fragm._ 230, =250=.
=Euphorio Chersonesita= _Fragm._, =86=
=Euripides= _Hecuba_ 163-4, =170=. _Hippolytus_ 201, =172=. _Orestes_ 140-2, =128=. _Fragm._ 229 (_Archelaus_), =260=; 696 (_Telephus_), =276-8=; 924, =88=
=Hegesias= _Fragm._, =92=; =186-90=
=Herodotus= i. 6, =90=; i. 8-10, =80-82=.
=Homer= _Iliad_ i. 1, =98=; i. 459, =102=; ii. 89, =100=; ii. 209, =158=; ii. 422, =102=; ii. 484, =100=; ii. 494-501, =166=; iv. 125, =102=; iv. 452-3, =164=; v. 115, =100=; xi. 514, =280=; xii. 207, =158=; xii. 433-5, =84=; xiii. 392-3, =86=; xvi. 361, =158=; xvii. 265, =154=; xviii. 225, =156=; xix. 103-4, =100=; xxi. 20, =100=; xxi. 196-7, =248=; xxi. 240-2, =164=; xxii. 220-1, =156=; xxii. 395-411, =190-2=; xxii. 467, =100=; xxii. 476, =156=; xxiii. 382, =182=; xxiv. 486, =100=. _Odyssey_ i. 1, =98=; iii. 1, =98=; iii. 449-50, =102=; v. 402, =158=; vi. 115-6, =102=; vi. 137, =162=; vi. 162-3, =162=; vi. 230-1, =92=; ix. 39, =172=; ix. 289-90, =164=; ix. 415-6, =156=; xi. 36-7, =162=; xi. 281-2, =162=; xi. 593-8, =202-4=; xiv. 1-8, =274-6=; xiv. 425, =102=; xv. 125-7, =64=; xvi. 1-16, =76-78=; xvi. 273, =92=; xvii. 36, 37, =162=; xix. 53, 54, =162=; xxii. 17, =100=
=Isocrates= _Areop._ 1-5, =242-4=
=Orphica= _Fragm._, =252=
=Philoxenus= _Fragm._ 6, =68=
=Pindar= _Fragm._ 75, =214-6=; 79, =148=; 213, =210=
=Plato= _Menex._ 236 D, =180=; 236 E, =116=; _Rep._ i. 1, =266=
=Sappho= _Fragm._ 1 (_Hymn to Aphrodite_), =238-40=; 106, =258=
=Simonides= _Fragm._ 37 (_Danaë_), =278-80=
=Sophocles= _Fragm._ 706, =116=
=Sotades= _Fragm._, =88=
=Thucydides= i. 1, =224-28=; i. 22, =228=; i. 24, =90=; ii. 35, =178=; iii. 57, =110=
=Anonymous Fragments= (=chiefly Lyrical=) on pages =68= (Bergk 85), =168= (Bergk 112, Nauck 136), =170= (N. 138; B. 108); =172= (N. 139, 140); =174= (B. 110, N. 143; B. 111, N. 141; B. 116, N. 144; B. 117, N. 142); =262= (B. 118)
[Page 354]
_B._ INDEX OF NAMES AND MATTERS
The numerals indicate the pages to which reference is made. As the contents of the Greek text are fully summarized on pp. 1-9 _supra_, and as many of the more characteristic Greek words find a place in the Glossary, the brief entries in Index B will be found to refer mainly to the Introduction and the Notes.
=Accent= 41-43, 126 ff., 196, 292, 320, 328, 329
=Adjective= 102, 103, 299
=Adverb= 70, 100, 299
=Aeschines= 116
=Aeschylus= 12, 20, 214, 215
=Agathon= 304
=Alcaeus= 194, 248, 249
=Alexander of Macedon= 186, 187
=Amphibrachys= 172, 184, 287
=Anacreon= 236
=Anagnostes= 338
=Anapaest= 172, 287
=Anaximenes= xi (Preface). See also under ‘Rhetorica ad Alexandrum,’ p. 357 _infra_
=Anthology=, epigrams from 66, 335
=Antigonus= 94
=Antimachus= 214
=Antiphon= 29, 120, 332
=Antithesis= 247, 288
=Aphrodite, Sappho’s Hymn to= 238-41
=Apollonius Rhodius= 156
=Appellative= 71, 319
=Archaism= 212, 290
=Archilochus= 171
=Architecture in relation to literary composition= 28, 106
=Aristophanes= 12, 22, 123, 143, 290, 304, 311, 314, 335
=Aristophanes of Byzantium= 218, 278, 320
=Aristotle= x-xii (Preface), 15, 34, 35, 39, 40, 48, 71, 75, 139, 153, 155, 163, 165, 166, 168, 171, 176, 189, 214, 246, 247, 248, 249, 254, 255, 268, 290, 291, 292, 301, 308, 309, 310, 312, 313, 315, 316, 318, 319, 320, 325, 329, 334, 336, 337, 340, _passim_
=Aristoxenus= 42, 43, 48, 125, 138, 168, 287, 318
=Arnold, Matthew= 26, 158, 167, 278
=Arrian= 186, 187
=Article= 70, 289
=Aspirates= 149, 294, 350
=Athenaeus= 148, etc.
=Auctor ad Herennium= 316
=Audiences=, their sensitiveness to the music of sounds 40, 120 ff.
=Austere composition or harmony= 210 ff.
=Bacchius= 174, 292
=Bacchylides= 49, 219, 262, 263
=Bacon, Francis= 225
=Beauty of style.= See under ‘nobility’
=Biblical illustrations= 24, 31, 36, 37, 113, 178, 289, 297, 298, 303, 332, etc.
=Blackmore, R. D.= 37
=Boeotian towns= 166-68
=Boileau= 31
=Bossuet= 195, 228
=Buchanan, George= 46
=Buffon= 29
=Caesar, Julius= 13, 267, 296
=Callimachus= 87, 256 (attribution doubtful), 272, 277
=Candaules=, story of 81
=Carlyle= 37
=Case= 320, with references there given
=Catullus= 239, 278
=Chapters=, division into 9, 11
=Charm of style= 120 ff., 130 ff.
=Cheke, Sir John= 45, 46
=Chiastic arrangement= 14, 19
=Choice, or selection, of words= 69, 73, 79, etc.
=Choree= 170, 333
=Chromatic scale= 194
=Chronological table= of authors quoted or mentioned in the _C.V._ 50
=Chrysippus= 94, 95, 96, 97
=Chrysostom= 67, 251, 288
=Cicero= 15, 18, 25, 26, 28, 35, 37, 38, 48, 53, 54, 55, 72, 73, 89, 114, 124, 159, 203, 266, 271, 286, 301, 305, 306, 315, 316, 319, 330, 331, 334, 335, _passim_
[Page 355]
=Circumflex accent= 126 ff.
=Clearness in Greek word-order= 12-13, 15-17. See also under ‘Obscurity,’ p. 356 _infra_
=Cleitarchus= 187
=Climax= 114
=Coleridge, S. T.= 36, 38, 79, 254
=Colon.= See under ‘Member’
‘=Comma=’ 306, with references there given
=Common vowels.= See under ‘Doubtful’
=Comparative Method= (in relation to literary study) 48
=Composition= 10, 71 ff., 208 ff., 326, _passim_
=Conjunctions or connectives= 71, 325
=Coray= 243
=Cousin, Victor= 343
‘=Cratylus=’ of Plato 160
=Cretic= 174, 307
=Ctesias= 120
=Curtius= 187, 188, 189
‘=Cyclic=’ 174, 307
=Dactyl= 172, 173
‘=Danaë=’ of Simonides 278-81
=Dareste, Rodolphe= 344, 345, 346
=Date of the= ‘=de Compositione=’ 1, 60
=Delphi=, hymns found at 43
=Demetrius= of Callatis 94
=Demetrius=, the supposed author of the _De Elocutione_ 16, 18, 19, 90, 91, 286, 305, 308, _passim_
=Democritus= 248, 249
=Demosthenes= 13, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 25, 29, 33, 34, 39, 41, 146, 182, 196, 248, 249, 339, 340, _passim_. See also Index A
=Dentals= 149
=Dependent genitive=, order of 337
=Dialectic= 69, 94, 104
=Diatonic scale= 194
=Diodorus Siculus= 187, 237, 274
=Diogenes Laertius= 82, 97, 251
=Dionysius of Halicarnassus= 1, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 29, 48, 207, 229, _passim_
=Dionysius Thrax= 47, 71, 139, 145, 319, 332
=Diphthongs= 219
=Dithyramb= 214
=Dorian mode= 196
=Doubtful vowels= 296, with references there given (s.v. δίχρονος)
=Dryden= 186
=Duris= 94
=Eliot, George= 37
=Empedocles= 34, 214, 332
=Emphasis= 17-26
=English language= 31, 35, 36, 342 ff., _passim_
=Enharmonic scale= 194
‘=Enjambement=’ 270-73, 275, 278, 325
=Ennius= 170, 314
=Ephorus= 236, 237
=Epic Cycle=, poets of the 248
=Epic poetry= 214, 274, _passim_. See also under ‘Homer,’ p. 356 _infra_
=Epicurus= 250, 251
=Epitome=: Greek Epitome of _C.V._ 10, 57, 65, 89, 116, 197, 209
=Epode= 300, with references there given
=Erasmus= 45, 159
=Etymology= 160, 300
=Euphony= 27-29, 338, etc.
=Euphorio Chersonesita= 87
=Euripides= 22, 23, 24, 146, 236, 237. See also Index A
=Eustathius= 202
=Fifth=, the musical interval so called 126
=Flaubert, Gustav= 28
=Fléchier= 243
=Fletcher= 46 (‘Elder Brother’)
=Florentine manuscript of the C.V.= 56-58
=Foot=, metrical 168
=France, Anatole= 27
=Freedom of Greek word-order= 11-14
=French language= 31, 36, 270, 342 ff., _passim_
=Galen= 331
=Gardiner, Stephen= 46
=Gellius, Aulus= 28
=Gender= 106, 107
=German language= 33, 36, 342 ff., _passim_
=Gibbon, Edward= 46, 86, 237
=Gladstone, William Ewart= 126, 235
=Glossary= 285-334 (cp. Preface ix, x)
=Goethe= 36
=Gorgias= 132
=Grammar= 46, 47
=Grave accent= 126 ff.
=Gutturals= 149
‘=Harmony=’ 290, with references there given
=Havercamp= 45
=Hector and Achilles= 190, 191
=Hegemon= 168
=Hegesianax= 94, 95
=Hegesias= 52-55, 90, 184-92
=Heracleides= 94, 95
=Heracleitus= 335, 340
=Hermogenes= 26, 85, 87, 90
=Herodotus= 16, 24, 26, 30, 80 ff., 90, 120, 196, 248, 249
=Hesiod= 236, 237
=Hesychius=, 69, 189, 288, 322, 332
=Hexameter= 85, 87
=Hiatus= 39, 323
=Hibeh Papyri= xi (Preface), 41
[Page 356]
=Hickes, Francis= 226
=Hieronymus= 94
=Hobbes, Thomas= 226
=Holland, Philemon= 328
=Homer= vii-ix (Preface), 13, 14, 19, 33, 34, 76 ff., 136, 248, 274, 337, _passim_. See also Index A
=Horace= ix (Preface), 15, 48, 78, 81, 113, 195, 197, 200, 267, 273, 278, 322, 323, 336, _passim_
=Hypallage= 78, 330
=Hyperbaton= 26, 340
=Hypobacchius= 174
=Hysteron proteron= 102
=Iambus= 170
=Intermediate or harmoniously blended composition= 246 ff., 301
=Invention= (of subject matter) 1, 67, 318, etc.
=Ionic tetrameter= 86, 304
‘=Irrational=’ 154, 174, 207, 286, 287
=Isocrates= 11, 29, 78, 92, 192, 198, 236, 237, 242 ff., 264
=Ithyphallic poem= 86, 303
=Jacobs, Friedrich= 345, 346
=James I., King= 46
=Johnson, Samuel= 186
=Josephus= 187, 308
=Labials= 149
=Latin= (especially Latin word-order, as compared with that of Greek and the modern languages) 13, 21, 25, 29-33, 48, etc.
=Lemaître, Jules= 31
=Lessing= 31
=Letters= 138 ff.
‘=Literature=’ 34, 217, 309
=Livy= 178
‘=Longinus=’ =de Sublimitate= 14, 26, 48, 74, 239, _passim_
=Lucian= 68, 196, 229, 279, 327, 333
=Lucidity.= See under ‘Clearness’
=Lucretius= 204, 214
=Luther= 267
=Lydian mode= 196
=Lysias= 16, 55
=Malherbe= 31
=Manuscripts of the C.V.= x (Preface), 56-59
=Marcellinus= 228, 229, 335
=Marlowe= 35, 147
=Maximus Planudes= 86
=Melic poetry= 309, with references there given
=Member= (=clause=, ‘=colon=’) 73, 110 ff., 307
=Menander= 229
=Meredith, George= 147, 172
=Metaphor= 54, 310
=Metre= 33-39, 310
=Metrici= 154, 172, 174, 218, 310
=Milton= 22, 23, 36, 167
=Mimnermus= 273
=Modern languages= (especially in relation to word-order) 12, 29-33, 103, etc.; 342-47
=Modes=, musical 196
=Molière= 91, 138
=Molossus= 172
=Music= 39-41, 124 ff.
=Mute letters= 138 ff., 292
=Natural order of words= 98 ff.
=Neoptolemus= 15
=Nobility of style= 120 ff., 136
=Normal word-order in Greek= 14, 15
=Noun= 71, 98-100, 313
=Number=, grammatical 106, 107
=Obscurity= 16, 17, 335-41. See also under ‘Clearness,’ p. 355 _supra_
=Onomatopoeia= 158, 159, 316
=Order of words in Greek and other languages= 11-39, 98 ff., _passim_
=Orphic fragments= 252
=Ovid= 33, 124
=Oxyrhynchus Papyri= 29, 237, 289
=Paeon= 314, with references there given
=Painting in relation to literary composition= 208
=Paris Manuscript of the C.V.= x (Preface), 56-58
=Participle= 72, 310
=Parts of speech= 71 ff.
=Passion= 314, with references there given
=Pentameter= 256, 315
=Period= 13, 73, 118
=Peripatetics= 48. See also under ‘Aristotle’ (p. 354 _supra_), and ‘Theophrastus’ (p. 357 _infra_)
=Philo Judaeus= 192
‘=Philosophy=’ 331
=Philoxenus= 196, 197
=Phonetics= 43, 44, 140 ff.
=Photius= 333
‘=Phrase=’ 306, with references there given
=Phrygian mode= 196
=Phylarchus= 94
=Pindar= 49, 194, 214 ff. See also under Index A
=Plato= 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 29, 31, 33, 34, 139, 180, 182, 196, 248, 249, 264 ff., _passim_. See also under Index A
=Pliny the Younger= 229
=Plural= 106, 107
=Plutarch= 67, 187, 264, 299, 326, 330, 332
[Page 357]
=Poetry= (in relation to prose) 33-39, 250 ff., etc.
=Polybius= 51, 52, 94, 296
=Pope, Alexander= vii (Preface), 202, 205, 324
=Porson, Richard= 14, 146
=Preposition= 71, 319
=Pronoun= 70, 102, 288
=Pronunciation= 43-46, 140 ff., 348-51, _passim_
=Propertius= 188
‘=Propriety=’ 39, 198 ff., 318, 319, _passim_
=Prose= (in relation to poetry) 33-39, 250 ff., 287 (ἄμετρος), 309 (λόγος), etc.
=Prosodiacs= 86
=Psaon= 94
=Punctuation= 306, 340
=Puttenham= 299
=Pyrrhic= 168
=Quantity=, effect of syllabic quantity in prose 29
=Quintilian= 11, 15, 18, 19, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 38, 46, 47, 53, 70, 71, 81, 89, 93, 98, 145, 152, 168, 195, 203, 248, 250, 265, 266, 300, 301, 305, 306, 315-21, 325, 328, 330, 332, 336, _passim_
=Quotations in the C.V.= 49-56. See also Index A
=Racine= 118, 157, 205, 270
=Reading= (learning to read) 268, 269
=Renan, Ernest= 31
‘=Rhetor Graecus=’ 57, 138
=Rhetorica ad Alexandrum= xi (Preface), 26, 75, 313, 336
=Rhetorical Handbooks= 270, 282, 329
=Rhyme or jingle= 64, 65, 315
=Rhythm= 33-39, 168 ff., 176 ff., 320
=Rhythmici= 154, 172
=Rich, Barnaby= 82
=Rousseau= 211
=Rufus Metilius= xii (Preface), 1, 66
=Ruskin= 37
=Sallust= 38, 180, 225
=San= 148, 149
=Sappho= vii-viii (Preface), 49, 194, 236 ff., 258. See also Index A
=Scales=, musical 194
=Schema Pindaricum= 217
=Schleiermacher, Friedrich= 343
=Scholia= (to Homer and other authors) 76, 132, 155, 158, 170, 188, 191, 229, 274, 277, 288, 333, etc.
=Semivowels= 138 ff., 302
=Sextus Empiricus= 139
=Shakespeare= 44, 81, 112, 135, 147, 161, 321
=Sheridan= 250
=Sigmatism= 146, 147
=Simonides= vii-viii (Preface), 49, 236, 278 ff.
=Simplicity of diction illustrated and commended= 75-85, 134-37
=Smith, Sir Thomas= 45, 46, 141
=Smooth composition or harmony= 232 ff., 293
=Socrates= 120, 160
=Solecism= 190
=Sophist= 184, 264, 321
=Sophocles= 248, 249, 337. See also Index A
=Sotades= 88, 328
=Sound an echo to the sense= 156 ff., 200 ff.
=Sources of the C.V.= 47-49
=Spondee= 170, 322
=Stesichorus= 194, 195, 248
=Stevenson, Robert Louis= 32, 40
=Stoics= 48, 71, 94-97, 104
=Strabo= 55, 285, 290
=Strophe= 194 etc., 323
=Styles of composition= 208 ff.
=Substance and Form= viii (Preface); cp. Demetr. pp. 34 ff.
=Suidas= 237, 296
=Summary of the C.V.= 1-9
‘=Suspense=’ 13
=Swinburne, Algernon Charles= 271, 325
=Syllables= 150 ff., 324
=Synaloepha= 108 etc., 325
=Tacitus= 316
=Taste= 132, 134, 304
‘=Tautology=’ 240, 328
=Taylor, Jeremy= 303
=Telestes= 196, 197
=Tennyson= 86, 190, 271, 278
=Tense= 108, 333
=Terence= 101, 275
=Tetrameters= 87, 329
=Text of the C.V.= x (Preface), 56-59, _passim_
=Thelwall, John= 147
=Theocritus= 281
=Theodectes= 47, 71
=Theophrastus= 34, 37, 48, 164, 165, 193, 305, etc.
=Theopompus= 29, 236, 237
=Thucydides= 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 33, 34, 120, 178, 214, 224 ff., 335-7, _passim_. See also Index A
=Timotheus= 175, 196, 197
=Title of the C.V.= 10, 326
=Tragic poets= 236, 248, 329
=Tribrach= 170. See also under ‘Choree,’ p. 354 _supra_
=Trimeter= 258, 329
=Trisyllable= 170, 329
=Trochee= 170, 330
=Types of style= 208 ff.
[Page 358]
=Usage as the sovereign arbiter= 102
=Variety= 29, 39, 192 ff., 310
=Vedic Sanskrit= 42
=Verbs= 71, 98-100, 108, 320
=Vigny, Alfred de= 213
=Virgil= 19, 21, 156, 157, 164, 173, 204, 327, etc.
=Vowels= 138 ff., 332
=Welsh language= 31
=Wilson, Thomas= [of Eton and King’s College, Cambridge; earliest translator of any part of Demosthenes into English] 326
=Wordsworth= viii (Preface), 79, 271
=Xenophon= 14, 19, 23, 120
=Zeta=, pronunciation of 44, 45
THE END
_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.
[Page 359]
Cambridge University Press.
BY PROFESSOR W. RHYS ROBERTS.
The following contributions made to Greek literary and literary-historical study by Dr. Roberts are published at the Cambridge University Press. The volumes are arranged in the order of their original appearance.
=THE ANCIENT BOEOTIANS=: their Character and Culture, and their Reputation. With a Map, a Table of Dates, and a List of Authorities. Demy 8vo. 5s.
=STUDY OF GREEK.= A Chapter in Frederic Spencer’s _Chapters on the Aims and Practice of Teaching_. Third Impression, 1903. Crown 8vo. 6s.
=LONGINUS ON THE SUBLIME.= The Greek Text edited after the Paris Manuscript, with Translation, Facsimiles, and Appendices (Textual, Linguistic, Literary, and Bibliographical). Second Edition, 1907. Demy 8vo. 9s.
=DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS: The Three Literary Letters.= The Greek Text edited with Translation, Facsimile, Notes, Glossary of Rhetorical Terms, Bibliography, and Introductory Essay on Dionysius as a Literary Critic. Demy 8vo. 9s.
=DEMETRIUS ON STYLE.= The Greek Text of Demetrius _de Elocutione_. Edited after the Paris Manuscript, with Translation, Facsimiles, Glossary, etc., and Introductory Essay on the Greek Study of Prose Style. Demy 8vo. 9s. net.
EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS OF _DEMETRIUS ON STYLE_.
Professor B. L. GILDERSLEEVE in the _AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY_.—“It is to me a welcome sign of the times that Mr. Roberts has attracted so much attention and gained so much reputation by his admirable editions of _Longinus on the Sublime_ and of _The Three Literary Letters of Dionysius of Halicarnassus_, to which he has now added _Demetrius on Style_.... As for Demetrius, nothing could be more timely than the revival of his admirable manual.... No wonder that one hails with satisfaction the prospect of a new edition of the _De Compositione_ by so competent a hand as Mr. Roberts, if indeed we may construe his suggestion as a promise.”
_ATHENÆUM._—“We have to congratulate Professor Roberts on the completion of another preliminary study for his projected work on ‘Ancient Literary Criticism,’ which is a worthy companion to his _Longinus_ and _The Three Literary Letters of Dionysius_.... These three books are indispensable to the student of Greek literature.... In the translation Professor Roberts seems to have improved on his former versions; this is more easy and effective.”
_TIMES._—“Dr. Roberts has introduced to English readers some choice literary morsels. His _Longinus on the Sublime_, the first of the ancient works on literary criticism which he edited—we might almost say, to our shame, rescued from oblivion—is a most able and inspiring book.... _Demetrius on Style_ is edited equally well. The translation, indeed, is even better; idiomatic and pleasant to read, it is often most happy, and there are very few passages where we should differ in our rendering of the Greek.”
[Page 360]
_SPECTATOR._—“Dr. Roberts is to be congratulated upon the accomplishment of a worthy task. His edition of the famous treatise known as _Demetrius on Style_ is a credit to our English learning. The editor is not merely a scholar, he is a man of letters as well; and in his notes he has applied the maxims of the ancient Greek to the literature of to-day with the utmost skill. Indeed, though Greek lies at this moment under a cloud of suspicion, we can none the less recommend this work without diffidence or fear, since no English writer can study Dr. Roberts’s translation and notes without purging his own composition of faults innumerable.”
_GUARDIAN._—“Dr. Rhys Roberts here gives us a third instalment of his work on the Greek literary critics, and the further he proceeds the greater becomes the benefit that he is conferring on classical scholars. It is much to have made the masterpieces of the later Greek criticism generally accessible, and especially to have rescued Dionysius of Halicarnassus from a neglect and contempt that were wholly undeserved, to have given him new utterance, to have shown that even for moderns his precepts are not obsolete. Nor is the chorus of approval with which Dr. Roberts’s work has been received, both at home and abroad, any louder than is warranted. His own style and taste are above reproach, and his learning is abundant.”
_WESTMINSTER REVIEW._—“Dr. W. Rhys Roberts has taken for his province the whole subject of Greek literary criticism. In 1899 appeared his scholarly and exhaustive edition of _Longinus on the Sublime_, which was followed, two years later, by an admirable edition of _The Three Literary Letters of Dionysius of Halicarnassus_. He has now laid English scholarship under a further obligation by his even more admirable edition of _Demetrius on Style_. Each of these three texts is accompanied by a translation at once accurate, terse, lucid, and idiomatic.”
_JOURNAL OF EDUCATION._—“We make no doubt that Professor Roberts’s earlier books—_Longinus on the Sublime_ and _The Three Literary Letters of Dionysius_—are known to those of our readers who are serious students of Greek. We believe they have done a good deal already to restore ancient criticism to the place which it used to hold. The present volume is a worthy companion to the other two.”
Professor R. Y. TYRRELL in _HERMATHENA_.—“This edition is of wide scope and excellent design. It includes an Essay on Greek Prose Style, a full summary of the treatise itself, and a careful treatment of the difficult questions concerning its date and authorship. The fact that this is the first English text and the first English translation of a very valuable and interesting work gives it an added importance, and opens up what will be a new field for many scholars.... The translation, which is exceedingly vigorous, elegant and ingenious, has one other signal merit: it never ‘hedges’: the translator never hides a doubt about the meaning under ambiguous language; he leaves no uncertainty about the meaning which he attaches to the text; and in the few places where we may venture to take a different view we feel that there is always something to be said for the version which we reject.... Dr. Roberts has a very keen eye and ear for literary beauty; and the treatise affords ample scope for the employment of his wide and various knowledge of modern literature.... The _De Elocutione_ is a treatise full of interesting and suggestive comment; and all lovers of literature owe their best thanks to Professor Roberts for the edition of it which he has put in their hands.”
The volume has also been favourably reviewed by the following Continental scholars: Dr. PH. WEBER (_Neue Philologische Rundschau_), M. THÉODORE REINACH (_Revue des Études Grecques_), Professor AMÉDÉE HAUVETTE (_Revue Critique d’histoire et de littérature_), Professor CH. MICHEL (_Revue de l’Instruction publique en Belgique_), and Professor GIOVANNI SETTI (_La Cultura_).