CHAPTER IV

TO CHANGE ORDER IS TO DESTROY BEAUTY

To show yet more conclusively the great force wielded by the faculty of composition both in poetry and prose, I will quote some passages which are universally regarded as fine, and show what a different air is imparted to both verse and prose by a mere change in their arrangement. First let these lines be taken from the Homeric poems:—

But with them was it as with a toil-bowed woman righteous-souled— In her scales be the weights and the wool, and the balance on high doth she hold Poised level, that so may the hard-earned bread to her babes be doled.[91]

This metre is the complete heroic metre of six feet, the basis

[Page 86]

πόδα βαινόμενον. ἐγὼ δὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων τούτων μετακινήσας τὴν σύνθεσιν τοὺς αὐτοὺς στίχους ἀντὶ μὲν ἑξαμέτρων ποιήσω τετραμέτρους, ἀντὶ δὲ ἡρωϊκῶν προσοδιακοὺς τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον·

ἀλλ’ ἔχεν ὥστε γυνὴ χερνῆτις τάλαντ’ ἀληθής, 5 ἥ τ’ εἴριον ἀμφὶς καὶ σταθμὸν ἔχουσ’ ἀνέλκει ἰσάζουσ’, ἵν’ ἀεικέα παισὶν ἄροιτο μισθόν.

τοιαῦτά ἐστι τὰ πριάπεια, ὑπό τινων δ’ ἰθυφάλλια λεγόμενα, ταυτί·

οὐ βέβηλος, ὦ τελέται τοῦ νέου Διονύσου, 10 κἀγὼ δ’ ἐξ εὐεργεσίης ὠργιασμένος ἥκω.

ἄλλους πάλιν λαβὼν στίχους Ὁμηρικούς, οὔτε προσθεὶς αὐτοῖς οὐδὲν οὔτε ἀφελών, τὴν δὲ σύνθεσιν ἀλλάξας μόνον ἕτερον ἀποδώσω γένος τὸ τετράμετρον καλούμενον Ἰωνικόν·

ὣς ὁ πρόσθ’ ἵππων καὶ δίφρου κεῖτο τανυσθείς, 15 βεβρυχώς, κόνιος δεδραγμένος αἱματοέσσης.

ὣς ὁ πρόσθ’ ἵππων καὶ δίφρου κεῖτο τανυσθείς, αἱματοέσσης κόνιος δεδραγμένος, βεβρυχώς.

1 πόδα δάκτυλον PMV || τῶν] τῶν αὐτῶν PV 3 προσωιδιακοὺς FP: προσῳδικοὺς MV 5 ἔχεν FMV: ἔχον P scholl. Hermogenis || τάλαντ’ F: τάλαντα PMV 6 ἥ τ’ FM: ἣ PV || ἐχ(ων)ουσ’ P: ἔχουσα F || ἄνελκει P: ἕλκει F 8 [ὑ]πό τινων δὲ ἰθυφάλλια cum litura F, MV: διφίλια P 10 συμβέβηλος F || τελεταί (sic) P: λέγεται FMV || δρονύσου P 11 εὐεργεσίης P: ἐργασίης MV: ἐργασίας F || ὀργιασμένος F: ὡργια*σμένος P 13 οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς PV 14 γένος τὸ F: μέλος PMV || τὸ ante καλούμενον dant PMV 16, 17 om. F 16 αἱματοσέσ(η)ς P: αἱματοέσης V

3. Maximus Planudes (Walz _Rhett. Gr._ v. 491), referring to this passage, says: ἃ πῶς ἂν εἶεν προσῳδικὰ (v. προσῳδιακὰ) καὶ προσόμοια τοῖς πριαπείοις, ἢ πάλιν πῶς ταῦτα πριάπεια, οὐδαμῶς ἔχω συνορᾶν. For the _prosodia_ (προσόδια, sc. ᾄσματα: also called προσοδιακοί), 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 προσοδιακὸς πούς (– – ᴗ). Cp. Bacchyl. _Fragm._ 19 (Bergk: 7, Jebb).—Reading προσῳδικοὺς (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 στίχοι πολιτικοί, 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 (ἔργων τοιούτων. ἐμὲ δὲ χρὴ γήραϊ λυγρῷ) into an iambic trimeter: the only thing needed being that the ι of γήραϊ should be not adscript but subscript. So Schol. Ven. A (_ad loc._) ὅτι ὁ στίχος οὗτος καὶ ἑξάμετρος γίνεται καὶ τρίμετρος παρὰ τὴν ἀγωγὴν τῆς προφορᾶς, and Schol. Townl. ἐπιτέτευκται ὁ στίχος ταῖς κοιναῖς, ὥστ’ ἢν θέλωμεν καὶ ἴαμβος ἔσται, ὡς τὸ “σμύρνης ἀκράτου καὶ κέδρου νηλεῖ καπνῷ” (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 Εὐφορίωνι τῷ Χερρονησιώτῃ.

15. The commentators on Hermogenes secure trochees by changing the order of the words in this line—ἔκειτο καὶ δίφρου τανυσθείς, or τανυσθεὶς κεῖτο καὶ δίφρου.

[Page 87]

of which is the dactyl. I will change the order of the words, and will turn the same lines into tetrameters instead of hexameters, into prosodiacs instead of heroics. Thus:—

But it was with them as with a righteous-souled woman toil-bowed, In her scales weights and wool lie, on high doth she hold the balance Level-poised, so that bread hardly-earned may be doled to her babes.

Such are the following Priapean, or (as some call them) ithyphallic, lines:—

I am no profane one, O young Dionysus’ votaries; By his favour come I too initiate as one of his.[92]

Taking again other lines of Homer, and neither adding nor withdrawing anything, but simply varying the order, I will produce another kind of verse, the so-called Ionic tetrameter:—

So there outstretched was he lying, his steeds and his chariot before, Groaning, convulsively clutching the dust that was red with his gore.[93]

So there outstretched was he lying, his steeds and his chariot before, At the dust that was red with his gore clutching convulsively, groaning.

[Page 88]

τοιαῦτ’ ἐστὶ τὰ Σωτάδεια ταυτί·

ἔνθ’ οἱ μὲν ἐπ’ ἄκραισι πυραῖς νέκυες ἔκειντο γῆς ἐπὶ ξένης, ὀρφανὰ τείχεα προλιπόντες Ἑλλάδος ἱερῆς καὶ μυχὸν ἑστίης πατρῴης, ἥβην τ’ ἐρατὴν καὶ καλὸν ἡλίου πρόσωπον. 5

δυναίμην δ’ ἂν ἔτι πολλὰς ἰδέας μέτρων καὶ διαφόρους εἰς τὸν ἡρωϊκὸν ἐμπιπτούσας στίχον ἐπιδεικνύναι, τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὀλίγου δεῖν πᾶσι συμβεβηκὸς μέτροις τε καὶ ῥυθμοῖς ἀποφαίνειν, ὥστε τῆς μὲν ἐκλογῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων τῆς αὐτῆς μενούσης, τῆς δὲ συνθέσεως μόνης μεταπεσούσης τά τε 10 μέτρα μεταρρυθμίζεσθαι καὶ συμμεταπίπτειν αὐτοῖς τὰ σχήματα, τὰ χρώματα, τὰ ἤθη, τὰ πάθη, τὴν ὅλην τῶν ποιημάτων ἀξίωσιν· ἀλλ’ ἀναγκασθήσομαι πλειόνων ἅψασθαι θεωρημάτων, ὧν ἔνια ὀλίγοις πάνυ ἐστὶ γνώριμα. ἐπὶ πολλῶν δ’ ἴσως καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα ἐπὶ τῶν τοιούτων καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι 15 τὰ Εὐριπίδεια ταῦτα ἐπενεγκεῖν·

μή μοι λεπτῶν θίγγανε μύθων, ψυχή· τί περισσὰ φρονεῖς; εἰ μὴ μέλλεις σεμνύνεσθαι παρ’ ὁμοίοις. 20

ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐάσειν μοι δοκῶ κατὰ τὸ παρόν. ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἡ πεζὴ λέξις τὸ αὐτὸ δύναται παθεῖν τῇ ἐμμέτρῳ μενόντων μὲν τῶν ὀνομάτων, ἀλλαττομένης δὲ τῆς συνθέσεως, πάρεστι τῷ βουλομένῳ σκοπεῖν. λήψομαι δ’ ἐκ τῆς Ἡροδότου λέξεως τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ἱστορίας, ἐπειδὴ καὶ γνώριμός ἐστι 25 τοῖς πολλοῖς, μεταθεὶς τὸν χαρακτῆρα τῆς διαλέκτου μόνον.

1 τοιαῦτα PMV || Σωτάδεια Planudes: σωτάδια libri 2 ἄκραισι FM: ἄκραις PV || ἔγκειντο F 5 ἥβη, suprascr. ν P^1 || ἐρατὴν Hermannus: ἐραστὴν F: ἐρατεινὴν PMV 6 δυναίμην PV: ἐδυνάμην FM 7 δὲ PMV || καὶ P: κἂν F: κἀν MV 8 τε om. F 9 ὀμάτων, suprascr. νο P^1 10 μεταπιπτούσης (πεσούσης in marg.) F: μεταπεσούσης M: μάλιστα πεσούσης PV 12 τὰ πάθη om. P 13 ἀλλ’ ἀναγκασθήσομαι] ἀναγκασθήσομαι δὲ F: ἀλλ’ ἀν(αν)κασθήσομαι P || ἅπτεσθαι P 14 γνώρισμα F^1 15 δὲ PMV || καὶ om. P 19 μέλλοις F 21 οὗν F 22 ἐμμέτρω ὄντων PMV 23 τῶν F: τῶν αὐτῶν E: om. PMV || ἀλλασομένης P: ἀλλασσομένης MV 24 τῶ βουλομέν(ω) P || δὲ PMV et =90= 1 25 ἐπειδὴ F: ἐπεὶ 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. =Σωτάδειος=.

7. Palaeographically κἀν (MV) is tempting, since the other readings (κἂν and καὶ) could easily be derived from it. But the difficulty is that Dionysius seems elsewhere to use the simple dative with συμβαίνω, and would probably have expressed the meaning ‘in the case of’ by ἐπί with the genitive. καὶ ἔν γε τῇ ἀρχαίᾳ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ φωνῇ αὐτὸ συμβαίνει τὸ ὄνομα (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. =ἐάσειν μοι δοκῶ= = _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 μενόντων γὰρ τῶν αὐτῶν ὀνομάτων, ἀλλαττομένης δὲ τῆς συνθέσεως, #καταφανὲς τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ ἄμουσόν τε καὶ ἀκαλλώπιστον#.

[Page 89]

Such are the following Sotadean lines:—

There upon the summit of the burning pyres their corpses lay In an alien land, the widowed walls forsaken far away, Walls of sacred Hellas; and the hearths upon the homeland shore, Winsome youth, the sun’s fair face—forsaken all for evermore![94]

I could, if I wished, adduce many more different types of measures all belonging to the class of the heroic line, and show that the same thing is true of almost all the other metres and rhythms, namely that, when the choice of words remains unaltered and only the arrangement is changed, the verses invariably lose their rhythm, while their formation is ruined, together with the complexion, the character, the feeling, and the whole effectiveness of the lines. But in so doing I should be obliged to touch on a number of speculations, with some of which very few are familiar. To many speculations, perhaps, and particularly to those bearing on the matter in hand, the lines of Euripides may fitly be applied:—

With subtleties meddle not thou, O soul of mine: Wherefore be overwise, except in thy fellows’ eyes Thou lookest to be revered as for wisdom divine?[95]

So I think it wise to leave this ground unworked for the present. But anyone who cares may satisfy himself that the diction of prose can be affected in the same way as that of verse when the words are retained but the order is changed. I will take from the writings of Herodotus the opening of his History, since it is familiar to most people, simply changing the

[Page 90]

“Κροῖσος ἦν Λυδὸς μὲν γένος, παῖς δ’ Ἀλυάττου, τύραννος δ’ ἐθνῶν τῶν ἐντὸς Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ· ὃς ῥέων ἀπὸ μεσημβρίας μεταξὺ Σύρων τε καὶ Παφλαγόνων ἐξίησι πρὸς βορέαν ἄνεμον εἰς τὸν Εὔξεινον καλούμενον πόντον.” μετατίθημι τῆς λέξεως ταύτης τὴν ἁρμονίαν, καὶ γενήσεταί μοι οὐκέτι ὑπαγωγικὸν 5 τὸ πλάσμα οὐδ’ ἱστορικόν, ἀλλ’ ὀρθὸν μᾶλλον καὶ ἐναγώνιον· “Κροῖσος ἦν υἱὸς μὲν Ἀλυάττου, γένος δὲ Λυδός, τύραννος δὲ τῶν ἐντὸς Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ ἐθνῶν· ὃς ἀπὸ μεσημβρίας ῥέων μεταξὺ Σύρων καὶ Παφλαγόνων εἰς τὸν Εὔξεινον καλούμενον πόντον ἐκδίδωσι πρὸς βορέαν ἄνεμον.” οὗτος ὁ χαρακτὴρ οὐ 10 πολὺ ἀπέχειν ἂν δόξειεν τῶν Θουκυδίδου τούτων· “Ἐπίδαμνός ἐστι πόλις ἐν δεξιᾷ εἰσπλέοντι τὸν Ἰόνιον κόλπον· προσοικοῦσι δ’ αὐτὴν Ταυλάντιοι βάρβαροι, Ἰλλυρικὸν ἔθνος.” πάλιν δὲ ἀλλάξας τὴν αὐτὴν λέξιν ἑτέραν αὐτῇ μορφὴν ἀποδώσω τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· “Ἀλυάττου μὲν υἱὸς ἦν Κροῖσος, 15 γένος δὲ Λυδός, τῶν δ’ ἐντὸς Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ τύραννος ἐθνῶν· ὃς ἀπὸ μεσημβρίας ῥέων Σύρων τε καὶ Παφλαγόνων μεταξὺ πρὸς βορέαν ἐξίησιν ἄνεμον ἐς τὸν καλούμενον πόντον Εὔξεινον.” Ἡγησιακὸν τὸ σχῆμα τοῦτο τῆς συνθέσεως, μικρόκομψον, ἀγεννές, μαλθακόν· τούτων γὰρ τῶν λήρων 20

1 κροῖσσος P || ἀλυάττεω E 2 ἄλυος FMV ut 8, 16 infra FPMV 3 ἐξίησιν P 4 μαιτατίθημι P: μάρτυρα τίθημι M 5 γενησετέμοι suprascr. αί P^1 || ὑπαγωγικὸν F: ἐπαγ(ω)γικον suprascr. ϋ P: ἐπαγωγικὸν MV 6 οὐδε P,MV 7 ἦν Ἀλυάττου μὲν παῖς E || ἀλυ*άττου P 9 παφλαγόνων καὶ σύρων F 10 ὁ suprascr. P^1 11 δόξειε F 12 (εστι) * * P || πρ(οσ)οικοῦσιν P 13 δὲ PV 14 δὲ ἀλλάξας F: διαλλάξας PMV || αὐτῆι add. in margine F^1: αὐτὴν PM 16 δ’ om. PV 18 ἐξίησιν FM: ἔξεισιν PV || ἐς F: εἰς PMV ut supra 20 ἀγεννες P,V: ἀγενὲς FMa

3. Hude (following Dionysius) conjecturally restores τε in the text of Herodotus. Usener, on the other hand, thinks that Dionysius has deliberately inserted τε 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”): καὶ ὁ Θουκυδίδης δὲ πανταχοῦ σχεδὸν φεύγει τὸ λεῖον καὶ ὁμαλὲς τῆς συνθέσεως, καὶ ἀεὶ μᾶλλόν τι προσκρούοντι ἔοικεν, ὥσπερ οἱ τὰς τραχείας ὁδοὺς πορευόμενοι, ἐπὰν λέγῃ ὅτι “τὸ μὲν δὴ ἔτος, ὡς ὡμολόγητο, ἄνοσον ἐς τὰς ἄλλας ἀσθενείας ἐτύγχανεν ὄν.” ῥᾷον μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἥδιον ὧδ’ ἄν τις εἶπεν, ὅτι “ἄνοσον ἐς τὰς ἄλλας ἀσθενείας ὂν ἐτύγχανεν,” ἀφῄρητο δ’ αὐτοῦ τὴν μεγαλοπρέπειαν.—Hermogenes (Walz _Rhett. Gr._ iii. 206) shows how the passage would be changed for the worse by such a πλαγιασμός as the use of a genitive absolute at the start: e.g. Κροίσου ὄντος κτλ.

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 ἐσπλέοντι εἰς: 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 σύ τε, λεπτοτάτων λήρων ἱερεῦ, φράζε πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὅ τι χρῄζεις. Cp. Cic. _pro Sestio_ 17. 39 “stuprorum sacerdos,” and also D.H. p. 169 (note on καὶ πολὺς ὁ τελέτης ἐστὶν ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις παρ’ αὐτῷ). ‘Hierophant,’ ‘adept,’ ‘past master,’ will give something of the idea.

[Page 91]

nature of the dialect: “Croesus was a Lydian by birth and the son of Alyattes. He was lord over all the nations on this side of the river Halys, which flows from the south between Syria and Paphlagonia, and falls, towards the north, into the sea which is called the Euxine.”[96] I change the order here, and the cast of the passage will become no longer that of a spacious narrative, but tense rather and forensic: “Croesus was the son of Alyattes, and by birth a Lydian. He was lord, on this side of the river Halys, over all nations; which river from the south flowing between Syria and Paphlagonia runs into the sea which is called the Euxine and debouches towards the north.” This style would seem not to differ widely from that of Thucydides in the words: “Epidamnus is a city on the right as you enter the Ionian Gulf: its next neighbours are barbarians, the Taulantii, an Illyrian race.”[97] Once more I will recast the same passage and give a new form to it as follows: “Alyattes’ son was Croesus, by birth a Lydian. Lord over all nations he was, on this side of the river Halys; which river, from the south flowing between Syria and Paphlagonia, falls, with northward run, into the Euxine-called sea.” This affected, degenerate, emasculate way of arranging words resembles that of Hegesias, the high-priest of this kind of nonsense. He

[Page 92]

ἱερεὺς ἐκεῖνος ἀνὴρ τοιαῦτα γράφων· “Ἐξ ἀγαθῆς ἑορτῆς ἀγαθὴν ἄγομεν ἄλλην.” “Ἀπὸ Μαγνησίας εἰμὶ τῆς μεγάλης Σιπυλεύς.” “Οὐ γὰρ μικρὰν εἰς Θηβαίων ὕδωρ ἔπτυσεν ὁ Διόνυσος· ἡδὺς μὲν γάρ ἐστι, ποιεῖ δὲ μαίνεσθαι.”

ἅλις ἔστω παραδειγμάτων. ἱκανῶς γὰρ οἴομαι πεποιηκέναι 5 φανερὸν ὃ προὔκειτό μοι, ὅτι μείζονα ἰσχὺν ἔχει τῆς ἐκλογῆς ἡ σύνθεσις. καί μοι δοκεῖ τις οὐκ ἂν ἁμαρτεῖν εἰκάσας αὐτὴν τῇ Ὁμηρικῇ Ἀθηνᾷ· ἐκείνη τε γὰρ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα τὸν αὐτὸν ὄντα ἄλλοτε ἀλλοῖον ἐποίει φαίνεσθαι, τοτὲ μὲν μικρὸν καὶ ῥυσὸν καὶ αἰσχρὸν 10

πτωχῷ λευγαλέῳ ἐναλίγκιον ἠδὲ γέροντι,

τοτὲ δὲ τῇ αὐτῇ ῥάβδῳ πάλιν ἐφαψαμένη

μείζονά τ’ εἰσιδέειν καὶ πάσσονα θῆκεν ἰδέσθαι, κὰδ δὲ κάρητος οὔλας ἧκε κόμας ὑακινθίνῳ ἄνθει ὁμοίας, 15

αὕτη τε τὰ αὐτὰ λαμβάνουσα ὀνόματα τοτὲ μὲν ἄμορφα καὶ πτωχὰ καὶ ταπεινὰ ποιεῖ φαίνεσθαι τὰ νοήματα, τοτὲ δ’ ὑψηλὰ καὶ πλούσια [καὶ ἁδρὰ] καὶ καλά. καὶ τοῦτ’ ἦν σχεδὸν ᾧ μάλιστα διαλλάττει ποιητής τε ποιητοῦ καὶ ῥήτωρ ῥήτορος, τὸ συντιθέναι δεξιῶς τὰ ὀνόματα. τοῖς μὲν οὖν 20 ἀρχαίοις ὀλίγου δεῖν πᾶσι πολλὴ ἐπιτήδευσις ἦν αὐτοῦ, παρ’ ὃ καὶ καλά ἐστιν αὐτῶν τά τε μέτρα καὶ τὰ μέλη καὶ οἱ λόγοι· τοῖς δὲ μεταγενεστέροις οὐκέτι πλὴν ὀλίγων· χρόνῳ δ’

1 ἀνὴρ libri: cf. D.H. p. 169 5 ἅλις F: ἂν P || ἔστω F: ἔστω τῶν PMV || ἱκαν(ῶς) P^1 7 δοκεῖ τις οὐκ ἂν PV: οὐ δοκεῖ τις EFM || ἁμαρτάνειν PMV 10 μὲν μικρὸν καὶ ῥυσὸν EF: μὲν ῥυσὸν καὶ μικρὸν PMV 11 ἠδὲ] ἠδὲ καὶ F || γέροντα P 12 ῥάβδω P 15 ὑακινθίν(ω) P 16 αὕτη Sylburgius: αὐτή libri 17 πτωχὰ καὶ ταπεινὰ PMV: ταπεινὰ καὶ πτωχὰ EF || δὲ PMV 18 καὶ ἁδρὰ delevit Sadaeus || τοῦτ’ ἦν σχεδὸν ὧι PE: τοῦτ’ ἦν ὃ (ᾧ M) FM: τούτῳ V 19 διαλάττει P 20 τὸ EFP: τῷ MV 21 πᾶσιν P || ἐπιτήδευσις Sylburgius: ἐπίδοσις libri 22 τε om. PV 23 οὐκ ἔστι P || χρον(ω) 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. =μικράν=: understand ψακάδα or λιβάδα. Casaubon conjectured μιαρὰν: Reiske, μικρὰν <χολὴν>.

4. =ἡδύς=: sc. ὁ ποταμός. An easy course would be to change ἡδύς to ἡδύ 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 θῆκεν ἰδέσθαι.

16. Cp. Isocr. Paneg. § 8 ἐπειδὴ δ’ οἱ λόγοι τοιαύτην ἔχουσι τὴν φύσιν, ὥσθ’ οἷον τ’ εἶναι περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν πολλαχῶς ἐξηγήσασθαι, καὶ τά τε μεγάλα ταπεινὰ ποιῆσαι καὶ τοῖς μικροῖς περιθεῖναι, κτλ.

17. The antitheses are ὑψηλά)(ταπεινά, πλούσια)(πτωχά, καλά)(ἄμορφα. The order πτωχὰ καὶ ταπεινά in PMV gives a chiasmus. ἁδρά is the gloss of some rhetorician on ὑψηλά (cp. _de Demosth._ c. 34, where this gloss actually occurs in one of the manuscripts). The word ἁδρός does not belong to Dionysius’ rhetorical terminology; cp. Long. p. 194.

18. =ἦν=, ‘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 πολλή τις ἐγένετο ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ἐπιθυμία καὶ πρόνοια τοῦ καλῶς ἁρμόττειν τὰ ὀνόματα ἔν τε μέτροις καὶ δίχα μέτρων, καὶ πάντες, ὅσοι σπουδαίας ἐβουλήθησαν ἐξενεγκεῖν γραφάς, οὐ μόνον ἐζήτησαν ὀνομάσαι τὰ νοήματα καλῶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὰ <τὰ ὀνόματα> εὐκόσμῳ συνθέσει περιλαβεῖν.

21. The conjecture =ἐπιτήδευσις= 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 ἐπίδοσις might possibly be retained and translated “made numerous contributions to it.” Disselbeck suggests δόσις, and compares _de Demosth._ cc. 18, 48, 51.

[Page 93]

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: Oh yea, sweet it is, but madness it engendereth.”[98]

Enough of examples. I think I have I sufficiently proved my point that composition is more effective than selection. In fact, it seems to me that one might fairly compare the former to Athena in Homer. For she used to make the same Odysseus appear now in one form, now in another,—at one time puny and wrinkled and ugly,

In semblance like to a beggar wretched and eld-forlorn,[99]

at another time, by a fresh touch of the selfsame wand,

She moulded him taller to see, and broader: his wavy hair She caused o’er his shoulders to fall as the hyacinth’s purple rare.[100]

So, too, composition takes the same words, and makes the ideas they convey appear at one time unlovely, beggarly and mean; at another, exalted, rich and beautiful. A main difference between poet and poet, orator and orator, really does lie in the aptness with which they arrange their words. Almost all the ancients made a special study of this; and consequently their poems, their lyrics, and their prose are things of beauty. But among their successors, with few exceptions, this was no longer so.

[Page 94]

ὕστερον παντάπασιν ἠμελήθη καὶ οὐδεὶς ᾤετο δεῖν ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὸ εἶναι οὐδὲ συμβάλλεσθαί τι τῷ κάλλει τῶν λόγων· τοιγάρτοι τοιαύτας συντάξεις κατέλιπον οἵας οὐδεὶς ὑπομένει μέχρι κορωνίδος διελθεῖν, Φύλαρχον λέγω καὶ Δοῦριν καὶ Πολύβιον καὶ Ψάωνα καὶ τὸν Καλλατιανὸν Δημήτριον 5 Ἱερώνυμόν τε καὶ Ἀντίγονον καὶ Ἡρακλείδην καὶ Ἡγησιάνακτα καὶ ἄλλους μυρίους· ὧν ἁπάντων εἰ τὰ ὀνόματα βουλοίμην λέγειν, ἐπιλείψει με ὁ τῆς ἡμέρας χρόνος. καὶ τί δεῖ τούτους θαυμάζειν, ὅπου γε καὶ οἱ φιλοσοφίαν ἐπαγγελλόμενοι καὶ τὰς διαλεκτικὰς ἐκφέροντες τέχνας οὕτως εἰσὶν 10 ἄθλιοι περὶ τὴν σύνθεσιν τῶν ὀνομάτων ὥστε αἰδεῖσθαι καὶ λέγειν; ἀπόχρη δὲ τεκμηρίῳ χρήσασθαι τοῦ λόγου Χρυσίππῳ τῷ Στωϊκῷ (περαιτέρω γὰρ οὐκ ἂν προβαίην)· τούτου γὰρ οὔτ’ ἄμεινον οὐδεὶς τὰς διαλεκτικὰς τέχνας ἠκρίβωσεν οὔτε ἁρμονίᾳ χείρονι συνταχθέντας ἐξήνεγκε λόγους τῶν γοῦν 15 ὀνόματος καὶ δόξης ἀξιωθέντων. καίτοι σπουδάζειν γέ τινες

1 οὐδεῖσ P 2 τι om. P || τ(ω) P 3 κατέλειπον P 4 φύταρχον PM 5 σάωνα PMV: στατωνα [**TN: φ written above first τ of στατωνα] F || καλατιανὸν P: καλαντιανὸν MV: καλανδιανὸν F 6 ἀντίγονον F: ἀντίλογον PMV || ἡγησι(α)νακτα P,F: ἡγησίννακτα M: ἡγησίαν μάγνητα V 7 εἰ post ὀνόματα ponunt PMV 9 οἱ F^2P: om. F^1: οἱ τὴν MV 12 τῶι λόγωι χρυσίππου τοῦ στωικοῦ PMV 13 τοῦτο F 14 οὔτε (ante ἄμεινον) PMV 15 χείρονι ante ἁρμονίᾳ habent PMV || γ’ οὖν F,M: om. PV 16 σπουδάζειν PMV: σπουδάζεσθαι F

1. =ᾤετο δεῖν ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὸ εἶναι=: pleonasm. Perhaps ᾤετ’ ἀσκεῖν ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὸ εἶναι, 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 πρῶτον μέν, ὅσα κἀμὲ εἰδέναι, τὴν Ῥωμαϊκὴν ἀρχαιολογίαν ἐπιδραμόντος Ἱερωνύμου τοῦ Καρδιανοῦ συγγραφέως, ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν Ἐπιγόνων πραγματείᾳ· ἔπειτα Τιμαίου τοῦ Σικελιώτου, τὰ μὲν ἀρχαῖα τῶν ἱστοριῶν ἐν ταῖς κοιναῖς ἱστορίαις ἀφηγησαμένου, τοὺς δὲ πρὸς Πύρρον τὸν Ἠπειρώτην πολέμους εἰς ἰδίαν καταχωρίσαντος πραγματείαν· ἅμα δὲ τούτοις Ἀντιγόνου τε καὶ Πολυβίου, καὶ Σιληνοῦ, καὶ μυρίων ἄλλων τοῖς αὐτοῖς πράγμασιν οὐχ ὁμοίως ἐπιβαλόντων· ὧν ἕκαστος ὀλίγα, καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτὰ διεσπουδασμένως οὐδὲ ἀκριβῶς, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν ἐπιτυχόντων ἀκουσμάτων συνθείς, ἀνέγραψεν.—In the present passage Ἀντίλογον, Ἀντίλοχον, Ἀντίοχον, and Ἀμφίλοχον 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 (Τρωϊκά). Cp. C. Müller iii. 68-70.

8. Cp. Demosth. _de Cor._ § 296 ἐπιλείψει με λέγοντα ἡ ἡμέρα τὰ τῶν προδοτῶν ὀνόματα, and _Epist. ad. Hebr._ xi. 32 καὶ τί ἔτι λέγω; ἐπιλείψει με γὰρ διηγούμενον ὁ χρόνος περὶ Γεδεών, κτλ. 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. =ὅπου γε=: cp. Long. _de Subl._ iv. 4 τί δεῖ περὶ Τιμαίου λέγειν, ὅπου γε καὶ οἱ ἥρωες ἐκεῖνοι, Ξενοφῶντα λέγω καὶ Πλάτωνα, καίτοιγε ἐκ τῆς Σωκράτους ὄντες παλαίστρας, ὅμως διὰ τὰ οὕτως μικροχαρῆ ποτε ἑαυτῶν ἐπιλανθάνονται;

12. The reading τῷ λόγῳ Χρυσίππου τοῦ Στωικοῦ (PMV) would mean “to point, in proof, to the style (τῷ λόγῳ = ‘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 προβαίην should be retained, as against Usener’s conjecture προβαῖεν, 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 μή πού τι προὔβης τῶνδε καὶ περαιτέρω—words which Dionysius may have had in mind; and Plato _Phaedr._ 239 D ἃ δῆλα καὶ οὐκ ἄξιον περαιτέρω προβαίνειν.

16. =σπουδάζειν=: Usener adopts F’s reading σπουδάζεσθαι, with the remark “medii rari vestigium servandum erat.” But he quotes no examples; and Dionysius elsewhere uses the active (e.g. σπουδαζόντων, =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_, σπουδάσομαι, 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 σπουδάσεται ... σπουδάσατε, while in the passage of Plato there is an important variation in the reading.

[Page 95]

At last, in later times, it was utterly neglected; no one thought it absolutely indispensable, or that it contributed anything to the beauty of discourse. Consequently they left behind them lucubrations that no one has the patience to read from beginning to end. I mean men like Phylarchus, Duris, Polybius, Psaon, Demetrius of Callatis, Hieronymus, Antigonus, Heracleides, Hegesianax, and countless others: a whole day would not be enough if I tried to repeat the bare names of them all.[101] But why wonder at these, when even those who call themselves professors of philosophy and publish manuals of dialectic fail so wretchedly in the arrangement of their words that I shrink from even mentioning their names? It is quite enough to point, in proof of my statement, to Chrysippus the Stoic: for farther I will not go. Among writers who have achieved any name or distinction, none have written their treatises on dialectic with greater accuracy, and none have published discourses which are worse specimens of composition. And yet some of them claimed

[Page 96]

προσεποιήθησαν αὐτῶν καὶ περὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος ὡς ἀναγκαῖον ὂν τῷ λόγῳ καὶ τέχνας γέ τινας ἔγραψαν ὑπὲρ τῆς συντάξεως τῶν τοῦ λόγου μορίων· ἀλλὰ πολύ τι πάντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπεπλάγχθησαν καὶ οὐδ’ ὄναρ εἶδον, τί ποτ’ ἐστὶ τὸ ποιοῦν ἡδεῖαν καὶ καλὴν τὴν σύνθεσιν. ἐγὼ γοῦν ὅτε 5 διέγνων συντάττεσθαι ταύτην τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, ἐζήτουν εἴ τι τοῖς πρότερον εἴρηται περὶ αὐτῆς καὶ μάλιστα τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς φιλοσόφοις, εἰδὼς τοὺς ἄνδρας οὐ μικρὰν φροντίδα τοῦ λεκτικοῦ τόπου ποιουμένους· δεῖ γὰρ αὐτοῖς τἀληθῆ μαρτυρεῖν. οὐδαμῇ δ’ οὐδὲν εἰρημένον ὑπ’ οὐδενὸς ὁρῶν τῶν γοῦν 10 ὀνόματος ἠξιωμένων οὔτε μεῖζον οὔτ’ ἔλαττον εἰς ἣν ἐγὼ προῄρημαι πραγματείαν, ἃς δὲ Χρύσιππος καταλέλοιπε συντάξεις διττὰς ἐπιγραφὴν ἐχούσας “περὶ τῆς συντάξεως τῶν τοῦ λόγου μερῶν” οὐ ῥητορικὴν θεωρίαν ἐχούσας ἀλλὰ διαλεκτικήν, ὡς ἴσασιν οἱ τὰς βίβλους ἀνεγνωκότες, ὑπὲρ 15 ἀξιωμάτων συντάξεως ἀληθῶν τε καὶ ψευδῶν καὶ δυνατῶν καὶ ἀδυνάτων ἐνδεχομένων τε καὶ μεταπιπτόντων καὶ ἀμφιβόλων καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν τοιουτοτρόπων, οὐδεμίαν οὔτ’ ὠφέλειαν οὔτε χρείαν τοῖς πολιτικοῖς λόγοις συμβαλλομένας εἰς γοῦν ἡδονὴν καὶ κάλλος ἑρμηνείας, ὧν δεῖ στοχάζεσθαι τὴν 20 σύνθεσιν· ταύτης μὲν τῆς πραγματείας ἀπέστην, ἐσκόπουν δ’ αὐτὸς ἐπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ γενόμενος, εἴ τινα δυναίμην εὑρεῖν φυσικὴν ἀφορμήν, ἐπειδὴ παντὸς πράγματος καὶ πάσης ζητήσεως αὕτη δοκεῖ κρατίστη εἶναι ἀρχή. ἁψάμενος δέ τινων θεωρημάτων καὶ δόξας ὁδῷ μοι τὸ πρᾶγμα χωρεῖν ὡς ἔμαθον 25 ἑτέρωσέ ποι ταύτην ἄγουσαν ἐμὲ τὴν ὁδόν, οὐχ ὅποι προὐθέμην

1 αὐτῶι F,M 2 ὂν F: om. P || τ(ω) λογ(ω) P || γε om. PMV || ἔγραψαν PM: ἔγραψεν F: ἐπέγραψαν V || ὑπερ * * P 4 ἀπεπλανήθησαν PMV || οὐδε P, MV 5 ἐγὼ γ’ οὖν F: ἔγωγ’ οὖν PMV || ὅτε διέγνων PMV: ὅτ’ ἔγνων F 9 τόπου] λόγου F || τε ποιημένους P 10 οὐδαμεῖ (suprascr. ηι) P^1 || δ’ om. P || εἰρημένον om. PMV || γοῦν om. PV 13 περὶ] οὐ περὶ PM 14 οὐ] καὶ P 16 τε] δὲ PMV 17 ἀμφιλόβων P 18 οὔτ’ ὠφέλειαν om. P 19 συμβαλλομένων PMV 20 καὶ F: ἢ PMV 22 δὲ PMV 24 δοκεῖ] δοκεῖ καὶ P 25 μοι FP: τινι MV || τὰ πράγματα προχωρεῖν F 26 ἐμὲ om. F || προὐθέμην PMV: πρ[ου]θέμην ‘πορευοίμην cum litura F

4. =οὐδ’ ὄναρ εἶδον= = ‘ne somnio quidem viderunt,’ ‘ne per somnia quidem viderunt.’

6. For =ἔγνων= (as a v.l. for διέγνων) =συντάττεσθαι= cp. _Antiqq. Rom._ i. 1 ... οὔτε διαβολὰς καθ’ ἑτέρων ἐγνωκὼς ποιεῖσθαι συγγραφέων. The passage which begins here and ends with the words πραγματείας ἀπέστην 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: σύνταξις δευτέρα· περὶ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῶν λεγομένων ε′, περὶ τῆς συντάξεως τῶν λεγομένων δ′, περὶ τῆς συντάξεως καὶ στοιχείων τῶν λεγομένων πρὸς Φίλιππον γ′, περὶ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ λόγου πρὸς Νικίαν α′, περὶ τοῦ πρὸς ἕτερα λεγομένου α′.

23. =φυσικὴν ἀφορμήν=: this suggests the Stoic point of view.

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

[Page 97]

to make a serious study of this department also, as being absolutely essential to good writing, and wrote some manuals on the grouping of the parts of speech. But they all went far astray from the truth and never even dreamt what it is that makes composition attractive and beautiful. At any rate, when I resolved to treat of this subject methodically, I tried to find out whether anything at all had been said about it by earlier writers, and particularly by the philosophers of the Porch, because I knew that these worthies were accustomed to pay no little attention to the department of discourse: one must give them their due. But in no single instance did I light upon any contribution, great or small, made by any author, of any reputation at all events, to the subject of my choice. As for the two treatises which Chrysippus has bequeathed to us, entitled “on the grouping of the parts of speech,” they contain, as those who have read the books are aware, not a rhetorical but a dialectical investigation, dealing with the grouping of propositions, true and false, possible and impossible, admissible and variable, ambiguous, and so forth. These contribute no assistance or benefit to civil oratory, so far at any rate as charm and beauty of style are concerned; and yet these qualities should be the chief aim of composition. So I desisted from this inquiry, and falling back upon my own resources proceeded to consider whether I could find some starting-point indicated by nature itself, since nature is generally accepted as the best first principle in every operation and every inquiry. So applying myself to certain lines of investigation, I was beginning to think that the plan was making fair progress, when I became aware that my path of progress was leading me in a quite different direction, and not towards the goal which I

[Page 98]

καὶ ἀναγκαῖον ἦν ἐλθεῖν, ἀπέστην. κωλύσει δ’ οὐδὲν ἴσως κἀκείνης ἅψασθαι τῆς θεωρίας καὶ τὰς αἰτίας εἰπεῖν δι’ ἃς ἐξέλιπον αὐτήν, ἵνα μή με δόξῃ τις ἀγνοίᾳ παρελθεῖν αὐτὴν ἀλλὰ προαιρέσει.

V

ἐδόκει δή μοι τῇ φύσει μάλιστα ἡμᾶς ἑπομένους οὕτω 5 δεῖν ἁρμόττειν τὰ μόρια τοῦ λόγου, ὡς ἐκείνη βούλεται. αὐτίκα τὰ ὀνόματα πρῶτα ἡγούμην τάττειν τῶν ῥημάτων (τὰ μὲν γὰρ τὴν οὐσίαν δηλοῦν, τὰ δὲ τὸ συμβεβηκός, πρότερον δ’ εἶναι τῇ φύσει τὴν οὐσίαν τῶν συμβεβηκότων), ὡς τὰ Ὁμηρικὰ ἔχει ταυτί· 10

ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα, πολύτροπον

καὶ

μῆνιν ἄειδε, θεά

καὶ

ἠέλιος δ’ ἀνόρουσε λιπών 15

καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια τούτοις· ἡγεῖται μὲν γὰρ ἐν τούτοις τὰ ὀνόματα, ἕπεται δὲ τὰ ῥήματα. πιθανὸς ὁ λόγος, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀληθὴς ἔδοξεν εἶναί μοι. ἕτερα γοῦν παράσχοιτ’ ἄν τις παραδείγματα παρὰ τῷ αὐτῷ ποιητῇ κείμενα ἐναντίως συντεταγμένα ἢ ταῦτα συντέτακται, καλὰ δὲ οὐχ ἧττον καὶ πιθανά. τίνα 20 οὖν ἐστι ταῦτα;

1 δὲ PV 3 ἀγνοία F 6 ἐκείνηι βεβούληται P 7 πρῶτα post ὀνόματα om. PMV || ἡγούμην PMV: ἠξίουν F || πρὸ ante τῶν add. PMV 8 οὐσίαν FV: αἰτίαν PM || δηλοῖ F 9 δε P, V || τῇ φύσει om. F 10 ταυτί om. PMV 18 παράσχοιτ’ ἄν τις PMV: παράσχοι τις ἂν F 19 τ(ω) αυτ(ω) P 20 δὲ Sauppius: τε 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, πρῶτα τῶν ῥημάτων, receives some support from =174= 18 _infra_. But cp. Steph. s.v. πρῶτος.—F’s reading ἠξίουν is probably due to some corrector who was unaware that there is good classical authority for ἡγοῦμαι = ἡγοῦμαι δεῖν.

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. =πρότερον=: probably adverbial; cp. Hom. _Il._ vii. 424 and ix. 551.

15. The completed line (_Odyss._ iii. 1) is: ἠέλιος δ’ ἀνόρουσε, λιπὼν περικαλλέα λίμνην κτλ.

18. =παράσχοιτ’ ἄν τις=: for the middle voice cp. =214= 6 and =122= 14.

20. Usener’s οἷά τινα seems a needless and somewhat violent change for the manuscript reading τίνα οὖν. No doubt οἷά ἐστι ταῦτα is found in =100= 27; but (1) Dionysius’ love of μεταβολή in style should be remembered, (2) οἷά τινα is not a usual phrase, (3) the lively rhetorical question is characteristic.

[Page 99]

sought and which I felt I must attain; and so I gave up the attempt. I may as well, perhaps, touch on that inquiry also, and state the reasons which led me to abandon it, so that I may not be open to the suspicion of having passed it by in ignorance, and not of deliberate choice.