Chapter XXXVIII: Appendix: C

GREEK PRONUNCIATION: SCHEME OF THE CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION

In October 1908 the Classical Association adopted a number of recommendations made by its Greek Pronunciation Committee, and has since published them for the use of teachers and others. They are put forward “not as constituting a complete scientific scheme, but as approximations which, for teaching purposes, may be regarded as practicable, and at the same time as a great advance on the present usage, both for clearness in teaching and for actual likeness to the ancient sounds.” The period (the early fourth century B.C.) to which they are intended mainly to apply is one whose literature Dionysius studied rather than that in which he lived (cp. pages 43-46 above). But his scattered hints are of great moment in the whole inquiry; and if they are read with care and with reference to their bearing, not only on disputed points, but on points which (largely through the evidence they furnish) are undisputed, it will be seen how much we owe to them when making any attempt to reconstruct the pronunciation of the classical period. The principal passages of Dionysius’ text which throw light upon the question of Greek pronunciation and accentuation will be found on pages 126-130, 136-150, 218-224, 230 above. The following are the suggestions made by the Classical Association:—

VOWELS

ᾱ and α, ῑ and ι, ε and ο, η and ω may be pronounced as the corresponding vowels in Latin, i.e.

ᾱ, as =a= in _f_=a=_ther_,

α, as =a= in =a=_ha_.

ῑ, as =ee= in _f_=ee=_d_.

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

ε, as =e= in _fr_=e=_t_.

ο, as =o= in _n_=o=_t_.

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

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

[Page 349]

The pronunciation recommended for η and ω is dictated by practical considerations. But in any school where the pupils have been accustomed to distinguish the sounds of French =è= and =é=, the Committee feels that the open sound (of =è= in _il mène_), which is historically correct for η, may well be adopted. In the same way there is no doubt that the pronunciation of ω in the fifth century B.C. was the open sound of _oa_ in Eng. _broad_, not that of the ordinary English _ō_. But since the precise degree of openness varied at different epochs, the Committee, though preferring the open pronunciation, sees no sufficient reason for excluding the obviously convenient practice of sounding ω just as Latin _ō_. For both Greek and Latin the diphthongal character of the English vowels in _m_=a=_te_ and _h_=o=_me_, i.e. the slight _ĭ_ sound in _mate_ and the slight _ŭ_ sound in _home_, _own_, is incorrect. But the discrepancy is not one which any but fairly advanced students need be asked to notice, unless indeed they happen to be already familiar with the pure vowel sounds of modern Welsh or Italian.

υ as French =ŭ= in _d_=u= _pain_.
ῡ as French =ū= in _r_=u=_e_ or Germ. =ü= in _gr_=ü=_n_.

In recommending this sound for the Greek υ, the Committee is partly guided by the fact that its correct production is now widely and successfully taught in English schools in early stages of instruction in French and German. But in any school where the sound is strange to the pupils at the stage at which Greek is begun, if it is felt that the effort to acquire the sound would involve a serious hindrance to progress, the Committee can only suggest that, for the time, the υ should be pronounced as Latin _u_ (short as _oo_ in Eng. _took_, long as _oo_ in Eng. _loose_), though this obscures the distinction between words like λύω and λούω.

DIPHTHONGS

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

οι = ο + ι as Eng. =oi= in =oi=_l_.

υι = υ + ι as Fr. =ui= in _l_=ui=.

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

ει. The precise sound of ει is difficult to determine, but in Attic Greek it was never confused with η till a late period, and to maintain the distinction clearly it is perhaps best for English students to pronounce it as Eng. _eye_, though in fact it must have been nearer to Fr. _ée_ in _passée_, Eng. _ey_ in _grey_. The Greek Ἀλφειός is Latin _Alphēus_.

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

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

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

CONSONANTS

π, β, τ, δ, κ, and γ as _p_, _b_, _t_, _d_, _k_, and _g_ respectively in Latin; except that γ (before γ, κ, and χ) is used to denote the nasal sound heard in Eng. _ankle_, _anger_.

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

σ, ς always as Lat. =s= (Eng. =s= in _mou_=s=_e_), except before β, γ and μ, where the sound was as in Eng. _has been_, _has gone_, _has made_: e.g. ἄσβεστος, φάσγανον, ἑσμός.

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

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

[Page 350]

ASPIRATES

The Committee has carefully considered the pronunciation of the aspirated consonants in Greek. It is certain that the primitive pronunciation of χ, θ, φ was as =k.h=, =t.h=, =p.h=, that is as =k=, =t=, =p= followed by a strong breath, and the Committee is not prepared to deny that this pronunciation lasted down into the classical period. Further, there is no doubt that the adoption of this pronunciation makes much in Greek accidence that is otherwise obscure perfectly comprehensible. If φαίνω be pronounced π_h_αίνω, it is readily understood why the reduplicated perfect is πεπ_h_ηνα; but if it be pronounced _f_αινω, the perfect, pronounced πε_f_ηνα, is anomalous. The relation of ἀφίστημι and the like to ἵστημι, of φροῦδος to ὁδός, of θρίξ to τρίχα becomes intelligible when it is seen that θ, φ, and χ contain a real =h=-sound. This advantage seems to be one of the reasons why it has been adopted in practice by a certain number of English teachers.

In the course of time the pronunciation of the aspirates changed by degrees to that of fricatives, which is now current in most districts of Greece, φ becoming =f=, θ pronounced as =th=, in English =th=_in_, and χ acquiring the sound of the German =ch=.[208]

If the later sounds are accepted, no change in the common pronunciation of θ and φ in England will be required, but it will remain desirable to distinguish between the sounds of κ and χ, which are at present confused: ἄκος and ἄχος, καίνω and χαίνω being now pronounced alike. This may be done by giving χ the sound of =kh=, or of German =ch=, as in au=ch=. The Committee would, on the whole, recommend the latter alternative as being more familiar in German, Scotch, and Irish place-names.[209]

The Committee, though loath to do anything to discourage the primitive pronunciation of the aspirates, has not been able to satisfy itself that it would be easy to introduce this pronunciation into schools to which it is strange; and it is of opinion that it is not advisable to recommend anything at present that might increase the labour of the teacher or the student of Greek. It therefore abstains from recommending any change in the common pronunciation of the aspirates except in the case of χ.

ACCENTUATION

There is no doubt that in the Classical period of Greek the accented syllables were marked by a _higher pitch_ or _note_ than the unaccented, and not by more _stress_, not, that is, with a stronger current of breath and more muscular effort. Therefore, unless the student is capable of giving a _musical_ value to the Greek signs of accent, it is doubtful whether he should

[Page 351]

attempt to represent them in pronunciation; for in many cases we should make our pronunciation more, not less remote from that of the Greeks themselves if we gave to their accented syllables the same _stress_ as we do to the accented syllables in English; for example, in paroxytone dactyls (κεχρημένος) when the penult is stressed, the quantity of the long antepenult is apt to be shortened and its metrical value destroyed.[210] But where there is no conflict between accent and quantity (ἀγαθός), something may be said for stressing moderately the accented syllable, and so distinguishing e.g. καλῶς and κάλως, Διός and δῖος, ταὐτά and ταῦτα.[211]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: _Regarded from this point of view, the Chronological Table given on page 50 is full of interest._]

[Footnote 2: _Reference may also be made to pages 27-29, 33, 34, 40-55, 74-85, 92-95, 98 ff., 122-127, 134-137, 154-167, 184-193, 200-207, 236-241, 264-281. Especially to be noticed is that warm praise of simplicity (pp. 76-85, 134-137) which should suffice to prove that Dionysius is not a ‘rhetorician’ in any invidious sense._]

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

[Footnote 4: _de Isocrate_ c. 2, δουλεύει γὰρ ἡ διάνοια πολλάκις τῷ ῥυθμῷ τῆς λέξεως, καὶ τοῦ κομψοῦ λείπεται τὸ ἀληθινόν ... βούλεται δὲ ἡ φύσις τοῖς νοήμασιν ἕπεσθαι τὴν λέξιν, οὐ τῇ λέξει τὰ νοήματα.]

[Footnote 5: The Greek word (κεφάλαια, _capita_) corresponding to ‘chapters’ occurs several times in the _C.V._ (see Glossary, s.v.); and one (περιοχή) of the words corresponding to ‘paragraph’ is found in the _de Thucyd._ c. 25. The paramount importance and dignity of the πραγματικὸς τόπος is indicated in the _C.V._ =66= 9-15, and in the _de Demosth._ c. 58 fin.]

[Footnote 6: Quintilian (_Inst. Or._ ix. 4. 23) applies the term _naturalis ordo_ to such collocations as _viros ac feminas_, _diem ac noctem_, _ortum et occasum_. But even here the order, though perhaps natural, is certainly not necessary.]

[Footnote 7: A good example of the severance of χρόνος from its _article_ by an adjectival phrase will be found in the _C. V._ itself, =222= 22: ἡμιφώνῳ γὰρ ἄφωνον συνάπτεται τῷ ν̄ τὸ τ̄ καὶ διαβέβηκεν ἀξιόλογον διάβασιν =ὁ= μεταξὺ τοῦ τε προσηγορικοῦ τοῦ “πανδαίδαλον” καὶ τῆς συναλοιφῆς τῆς συναπτομένης αὐτῷ =χρόνος=. The convenience of this articular bracket is obvious.]

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

[Footnote 9: Attention is called to the elaborate word-order by Mr. P. N. Ure in his edition of this portion of Thucydides. The extent to which prepositions can be parted from cases, in post-Homeric as well as in Homeric Greek, is worth notice as a somewhat different illustration of the freedom of Greek order. See, for example, the remarks in Liddell and Scott’s _Lexicon_ on the position of εἰς.]

[Footnote 10: In Caesar _B.G._ ii. 25 more than a hundred words come between the subject, _Caesar_ and the main verb _processit_.]

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

[Footnote 12: A good illustration of the freedom of order possible (at any rate theoretically) in Greek, even within the limits of verse, is supplied in a letter from Richard Porson to Andrew Dalzel: “There is a passage of Sophocles three times quoted by Plutarch, and always in a different order, but so as in the three variations to remain a senarian. Now the fragment consists of five words, and the sense is this: ‘(The physicians) wash away bitter bile with bitter drugs [πικροῖς πικρὰν κλύζουσι φαρμάκοις χολήν].’ The five words, you know, will admit of one hundred and twenty permutations, and what is extremely odd, these words will admit twenty transpositions [which Porson proceeds to indicate], and still constitute a trimeter iambic.”—Luard’s _Correspondence of Richard Porson_ pp. 91, 92.]

[Footnote 13: Horace _Ars Poetica_ 40,

cui lecta potenter erit res,
nec facundia deseret hunc nec lucidus ordo.

Can the obscure _potenter_ here be a Latin translation of some such technical term (found by Horace or Neoptolemus in the Greek writers on literary criticism) as δυνατῶς or δεινῶς or πιθανῶς?]

[Footnote 14: Demetrius, for example, evidently expects to find more lucidity in the plain style (the ἰσχνὸς χαρακτήρ) of a Lysias than in the elevated style (μεγαλοπρεπὴς χαρακτήρ) of a Thucydides: see the summary in _Demetrius on Style_ pp. 33, 34. And a principal reason for this is that the former keeps more closely than the latter to the normal order of words in Greek (_de Eloc._ §§ 191 ff.). For Herodotus as compared with Thucydides cp. _de Imit._ ii. 3. 1 τῆς σαφηνείας δὲ ἀναμφισβήτως Ἡροδότῳ τὸ κατόρθωμα δέδοται (quoted in the editor’s _Dionysius of Halicarnassus: the Three Literary Letters_ p. 173).]

[Footnote 15: εὐαρίθμητοι γάρ τινές εἰσιν οἷοι πάντα τὰ Θουκυδίδου συμβαλεῖν, καὶ οὐδ’ οὗτοι χωρὶς ἐξηγήσεως γραμματικῆς ἔνια, _de Thucyd._ c. 51.]

[Footnote 16: οὐ γὰρ ἀγοραίοις ἀνθρώποις οὐδ’ ἐπιδιφρίοις ἢ χειροτέχναις οὐδὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις οἳ μὴ μετέσχον ἀγωγῆς ἐλευθερίου ταύτας κατασκευάζεσθαι τὰς γραφάς, ἀλλ’ ἀνδράσι διὰ τῶν ἐγκυκλίων μαθημάτων ἐπὶ ῥητορικήν τε καὶ φιλοσοφίαν ἐληλυθόσιν, οἷς οὐδὲν φανήσεται τούτων ξένον, _de Thucyd._ c. 50. A comprehensive condemnation of ἀσάφεια is found in the same essay, c. 52: ἡ πάντα λυμαινομένη τὰ καλὰ καὶ σκότον παρέχουσα ταῖς ἀρεταῖς ἀσάφεια.]

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

[Footnote 18: In the same way, Dionysius must surely feel the loss both of clearness and of emphasis involved in transferring ἡ μόνη ἐλπίς (=112= 1 and 4) from the middle to the end of the sentence. χάρις and πάθος may cover these cardinal points: “no clearness no charm,” he might well say,—“no emphatic order no full expression of feeling.”]

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

[Footnote 20: Cp. Lewis Campbell in the _Classical Review_ iv. 301, and Goodell in the paper named on p. 33 _infra_. In the matter of emphasis, Greek sentences are usually constructed on a diminuendo, English sentences on a crescendo principle. The English of μὴ ’φευρεθῇς =ἄνους τε καὶ γέρων= ἅμα (Soph. _Antig._ 281) is, as Jebb gives it, “lest thou be found at once _an old man and foolish_.” As fuller examples, in prose and verse, Mr. L. H. G. Greenwood suggests the _Phaedrus_ 230 B, C (Νὴ τὴν Ἥραν ... Φαῖδρε) and the _Rhesus_ 78-85, 119-130.]

[Footnote 21: The views of Quintilian and Demetrius with regard to rhythm are applicable also to emphasis: Quintil. ix. 4. 67 “nam ut initia clausulaeque plurimum momenti habent, quotiens incipit sensus aut desinit: sic in mediis quoque sunt quidam conatus, iique leviter insistunt. currentium pes, etiamsi non moratur, tamen vestigium facit”; Demetrius (_de Eloc._ § 39) πάντες γοῦν ἰδίως τῶν τε πρώτων μνημονεύομεν καὶ τῶν ὑστάτων, καὶ ὑπὸ τούτων κινούμεθα, ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν μεταξὺ ἔλαττον ὥσπερ ἐγκρυπτομένων ἢ ἐναφανιζομένων.]

[Footnote 22: The initial emphasis is here reinforced by μέν and δέ: elsewhere by the chiastic arrangement, as in (10).]

[Footnote 23: Compare the occasional postponement of a relative pronoun with the same object: e.g. Thucyd. i. 77 =βιάζεσθαι= γὰρ οἷς ἂν ἐξῇ, δικάζεσθαι οὐδὲν προσδέονται.]

[Footnote 24: Our poets can, and do, imitate the emphatic position of a word placed at the beginning of a line with a stop immediately following (as βάλλ’ in Hom. _Il._ i. 52, κόπτ’ in _Odyss._ ix. 290, and _haesit_ in Virg. _Aen._ xi. 803):—

And over them triumphant Death his dart
Shook, but delayed to strike.

MILTON _Paradise Lost_ xi. 491.

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

_Me_, though just right, and the fixed laws of Heaven,
Did first create your leader—next, free choice,
With what besides in council or in fight
Hath been achieved of merit—yet this loss,
Thus far at least recovered, hath much more
Established in a safe, unenvied throne,
Yielded with full consent.

MILTON _Paradise Lost_ ii. 18-24.
]

[Footnote 25: Here τούτους is emphasized by καί as well as by its position well in front of the verb which governs it, while μισθοῦ depends for its emphasis on its position alone. ‘But even these hidden piles did divers (entering the water) saw off—for pay.’ Compare the analysis which Quintilian (ix. 4. 29) gives of Cicero’s “ut tibi necesse esset in conspectu populi Romani vomere _postridie_.”]

[Footnote 26: For the rhetorical and metrical effect Sandys (_ad loc._) compares Milton _Paradise Lost_ vi. 912, “Firm they might have stood, | Yet fell.”]

[Footnote 27: In this sentence the orator would probably pause slightly before γενναίως, and thus (1) emphasize it; (2) separate it from διδῷ. Other means (illustrated by various examples in this Introduction) of throwing a word into relief are: the interposition of a number of unemphatic words, the use of particles such as μέν and δέ, the placing of emphatic words in contrasted pairs near together or remote from one another.]

[Footnote 28: The order here (1) avoids the juxtaposition of too many accusative-terminations; (2) provides a conclusion which satisfies ear and mind alike.]

[Footnote 29: The position of τἄμ’ here may be compared with that of ἐμούς in Eurip. _Med._ 1045 ἄξω παῖδας ἐκ γαίας =ἐμούς= (‘for they are mine’). In English, too, both the end and the beginning may be emphatic: e.g. “_silver and gold_ have I _none_.”]

[Footnote 30: Quoted by Dionysius (_C.V._ c. 3), though without any special reference to the point of _emphasis_.]

[Footnote 31: Quoted by T. D. Goodell _School Grammar of Attic Greek_ p. 296. ἡμεῖς seems to owe some at least of its emphasis to its late insertion. If placed immediately after ηὐξήσαμεν, it would, surely, lose a little in weight. Goodell does right to include some treatment of the question of Greek word-order in a Grammar intended primarily for use in schools. It should be pointed out even to beginners that so simple a sentence as οἱ δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι ἐνίκησαν τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους can be arranged in half-a-dozen ways, each with its own separate shade of meaning. Compare the remarks of W. H. D. Rouse with regard to the teaching of Latin: “It is possible by question and answer to make clear from the first the essential structure of an inflected language, as depending for emphasis on the order of words; and this lies at the root of style. Thus a simple sentence may give matter for several questions. Take _Caesar Labienum laudat_. I may ask, _Quem laudat Caesar?_ Answer: _Labienum laudat Caesar._ Question: _Quid facit Caesar?_ Answer: _Laudat Labienum Caesar._ If all the texts read are treated in this way, the pupils become used to correct accidence, syntax, and order, and learn the elements of style” (_Classical Review_ xxi. 130; cp. also W. H. S. Jones _The Teaching of Latin_ p. 33). An instructive contrast might be drawn, with reference to the context in either case, between _Romanus sum civis_ in Livy ii. 12, and _Civis Romanus sum_ in Cicero _Verr._ II. v. 65, 66.]

[Footnote 32: With “verbi transgressio” cp. “verborum concinna transgressio” in Cic. _de Orat._ iii. 54. 207.]

[Footnote 33: A modern reader might be disposed to see an example of emphasis in the illustrative passage which “Longinus” here quotes from Herodotus vi. 11. In _hyperbata_ the _Treatise on the Sublime_ itself greatly abounds, being much influenced (in this as in other ways) by Plato. For examples of _hyperbaton_ in Plato see Riddell’s edition of the _Apology_, pp. 228 ff. Among modern English writers, Matthew Arnold had a curious and perhaps half-humorous trick of securing emphasis by a “bold and hazardous” _hyperbaton_ (cp. _de Sublim._ xxii. 4), which keeps back the verb till the end of the sentence: e.g. “And a good deal of ignorance about these there certainly, among English public men, is”; “the grand thing in teaching is to have faith that some aptitudes for this every one has”; “one thing that Protestants have, and that the Catholics think they have a right, where they are in great numbers, to have too, this thing to the Prussian Catholics Prussia has given.” Such oddities are, in English, usually of a playful and undress character: e.g. “it was really a party that one might feel proud of having been asked to; at least I might, and did, very” (_Life and Letters of Sir Richard Claverhouse Jebb_ p. 93; cp. J. D. Duff’s remarks, on the same page, with regard to the literary adequacy of the following English translation of a pathetic sentence in one of Demosthenes’ greatest speeches: “this woman in the first instance merely quietly to drink and eat dessert they tried to force, I should suppose”).]

[Footnote 34: The immediately preceding sentence in Quintilian is “venio nunc ad ornatum, in quo sine dubio plus quam in ceteris dicendi partibus sibi indulget orator.” This may be compared with Dionysius’ view that it is the accessory arts (such as the _heightening_ of style) that best reveal the orator’s power: ἐξ ὧν μάλιστα διάδηλος ἡ τοῦ ῥήτορος γίνεται δύναμις (_de Thucyd._ c. 23). In this attitude there is always some danger (unless, like Dionysius himself, a writer has a saving belief in the virtue of simplicity) of falling into that vice of _écrire trop bien_, which, according to M. Anatole France, is the worst of all literary vices.]

[Footnote 35: If we were to say that in a Greek sentence there are two kinds of arrangement, viz. (1) grammatical arrangement which aims at clearness, and (2) rhetorical arrangement which aims at (α) emphasis, and (β) euphony; then it must be admitted that Dionysius’ real subject is (2) (β)]

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

[Footnote 37: _C.V._ =244= 23. Perhaps ‘spontaneous’ or ‘subconscious’ would be a better translation than ‘instinctive.’ Dionysius certainly does not intend to exclude _training_.]

[Footnote 38: The judgment of the ear appears to be indicated by the words τοῦ πυκνὰ μεταπίπτοντος κριτηρίου at the end of c. 24.]

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

[Footnote 40: Cic. _ad Att._ xiv. 20. Dionysius Halic. _Ant. Rom._ i. 1 ἐπιεικῶς γὰρ ἅπαντες νομίζουσιν εἰκόνας εἶναι τῆς ἑκάστου ψυχῆς τοὺς λόγους. Buffon _Discours de réception à l’Académie_, 1753: “le style est l’homme même.” Cp. Plato _Rep._ iii. 400 D τί δ’ ὁ τρόπος τῆς λέξεως, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, καὶ ὁ λόγος; οὐ τῷ τῆς ψυχῆς ἤθει ἕπεται;]

[Footnote 41: Cp. p. 24 _supra_. The desire to avoid monotony of termination would seem to be the main explanation of such collocations as οὗ τοῖς ἄλλοις εἴργεσθαι προαγορεύουσι τοῖς τοῦ φόνου φεύγουσι τὰς δίκας and τῷ αὐτῷ χρῶνται νόμῳ τούτῳ [Antiphon v.]. Additional emphasis, too, falls on τοῖς ἄλλοις and τῷ αὐτῷ, as on σωτηρίαν ἀσφαλῆ in Demosthenes’ peroration.]

[Footnote 42: In describing the smooth or elegant style of composition (as practised by Isocrates and his followers, including Theopompus), Dionysius notes, as one of its characteristics, the avoidance of hiatus. This avoidance is to be noticed in the recently discovered _Hellenica_; and without basing any positive conclusion on the fact, Grenfell and Hunt point out that the author usually avoids hiatus “even at the cost of producing an unnatural order of words, e.g. ἐπηρμένοι μισεῖν ἦσαν τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους and ἴωμεν, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἔφη, πολῖται, ἐπὶ τοὺς τυράννους” (_Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ v. 124).]

[Footnote 43: e.g. the greater tendency in Latin to place the principal verb at the end of the sentence. Cp. Quintil. ix. 4. 26 “verbo sensum cludere, multo, si compositio patiatur, optimum est. in verbis enim sermonis vis est. si id asperum erit, cedet haec ratio numeris, ut fit apud summos Graecos Latinosque oratores frequentissime. sine dubio erit omne quod non cludet, _hyperbaton_, et ipsum hoc inter tropos vel figuras, quae sunt virtutes, receptum est.” In Latin the words μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα οὐ πολλῷ ὕστερον Εὔβοια ἀπέστη ἀπ’ Ἀθηναίων would naturally run “haud multum postea Euboea ab Atheniensibus defecit” (J. P. Postgate _Sermo Latinus_ p. 7).]

[Footnote 44: On the other side, the classical writers not seldom yield to the temptation to write long and rambling sentences, whereas the best English authors are stimulated by the very absence of inflexions to arrange their thoughts with great care and clearness within the sentence and the paragraph. By these and other means English prose becomes, in the hands of a great master, an instrument of surpassing force and beauty. As there are differences in word-order between Greek and Latin, so are there among the modern analytical languages, though (in a comparison) it may be legitimate to group those languages together. An order regarded as natural (i.e. customary) in one modern language will not be so regarded in another. Further, a language like German (though it is often unable to follow the Greek order without ambiguity: cp. Lessing’s _Laocoon_ c. 18) possesses a greater number of inflexions than English or French. Welsh, too, has certain syntactical features which enable it often to reproduce the Greek order more faithfully than English can do. For example: in St. John’s Gospel xvii. 9 where the Greek has οὐ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου ἐρωτῶ, ἀλλὰ περὶ ὧν δέδωκάς μοι, ὅτι σοί εἰσιν, the Welsh version gives _Nid dros y byd yr wyf yn gweddio, ond dros y rhai a roddaist i mi; canys eiddot ti ydynt._ And Plato _Apol._ c. 33 καὶ ἐὰν ταῦτα ποιῆτε, δίκαια πεπονθὼς ἐγὼ ἔσομαι ὑφ’ ὑμῶν, αὐτός τε καὶ οἱ υἱεῖς: Welsh, _Ac os hyn a wnewch, yr hyn sydd gyfiawn fyddaf fi wedi ei dderbyn oddiar eich llaw, myfi a’m meibion._ [These Welsh instances are given on p. 38 of the present editor’s chapter on the Teaching of Greek, in F. Spencer’s _Aims and Practice of Teaching_.] In Appendix II. at the end of this volume will be found a few idiomatic modern renderings (in English, French, and German) from Greek prose originals.]

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

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

[Footnote 47: Edinburgh edition of Stevenson’s works, iii. 236-61 (_Miscellanies_). “It is a singularly suggestive inquiry into a subject which has always been considered too vague and difficult for analysis, at any rate since the days of the classical writers on rhetoric, whom Stevenson had never read” (Graham Balfour’s _Life of Robert Louis Stevenson_ ii. 11). S. H. Butcher (_Harvard Lectures_ pp. 242, 243) regards the essay as “a pretty precise modern parallel to the speculations of Dionysius,” and quotes some passages in proof. The following is an example of such points of contact. Stevenson: “Each phrase in literature is built of sounds, as each phrase in music consists of notes. One sound suggests, echoes, demands and harmonizes with another; and the art of rightly using these concordances is the final art in literature.” Dionysius (_C.V._ c. 16): ὥστε πολλὴ ἀνάγκη καλὴν μὲν εἶναι λέξιν ἐν ᾗ καλά ἐστιν ὀνόματα, καλῶν δὲ ὀνομάτων συλλαβάς τε καὶ γράμματα καλὰ αἴτια εἶναι, ἡδεῖάν τε διάλεκτον ἐκ τῶν ἡδυνόντων τὴν ἀκοὴν γίνεσθαι. Compare p. 40 _infra_ as to the music of sounds; and see _Demetrius on Style_ p. 43, as to Stevenson and other English writers on style.]

[Footnote 48: Compare especially the speeches in _Il._ ix., and the warm eulogies they have drawn from Quintilian (x. 1. 47; cp. x. 1. 27, with reference to Theophrastus) and from many others since his time. Dionysius’ _versification_ of Demosthenes, and _prosification_ of Simonides, in c. 25 and c. 26, may not seem altogether happy, but one or two points should be remembered in his favour. He does not recognize merely mechanical conceptions of literature: such as are implied in the Latin-derived words _prose_ and _verse_, or in _literature_ itself. He would probably have agreed with Aristotle that “Homer and Empedocles have nothing in common but the metre, so that it would be right to call the one poet, the other physicist rather than poet” (Aristot. _Poet._ i. 9, S. H. Butcher). He might probably have also maintained that, in essentials, Theognis is less of a poet than Plato. And in modern times, if he had known them, he might have called attention to the rhymed rhetoric which often passed as poetry in eighteenth-century England, and have asked whether the elevation of thought and the measured cadences of Demosthenes did not entitle him to a higher poetic rank than that.]

[Footnote 49: Of Thucydides: ποιητοῦ τρόπον ἐνεξουσιάζων (_de Thucyd._ c. 24). Of Plato: ᾔσθετο γὰρ τῆς ἰδίας ἀπειροκαλίας καὶ ὄνομα ἔθετο αὐτῇ τὸ διθύραμβον, ὃ νῦν ἂν ᾐδέσθην ἐγὼ λέγειν ἀληθὲς ὄν. τοῦτο δὲ παθεῖν ἔοικεν, ὡς ἐγὼ νομίζω, τραφεὶς μὲν ἐν τοῖς Σωκρατικοῖς διαλόγοις ἰσχνοτάτοις οὖσι καὶ ἀκριβεστάτοις, οὐ μείνας δ’ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀλλὰ τῆς Γοργίου καὶ Θουκυδίδου κατασκευῆς ἐρασθείς (_Ep. ad Cn. Pomp._ c. 2; _de Demosth._ c. 6. See further in _Demetrius on Style_ p. 14, n. 1).]

[Footnote 50: It will be noticed that the only question here is about differences of form. But it is one of Dionysius’ great merits to have proclaimed so clearly the leading part which beauty of form (not simply verse, but expression generally) plays in all high poetry. Aristotle was by no means insensible to this essential element, but he is apt to dwell more fully (though we must remember the fragmentary condition of the _Poetics_) on the associations of ποιητής than on those of ἀοιδός. It is in connexion with _prose_ rather than with poetry, that it seems necessary to lay most stress upon the intellectual and logical elements involved, and to pay heed not only to the nature of the subject matter itself but to the sustained argument in which it is presented. Reason in prose and emotion in poetry: these are perhaps the two leading elements, if any distinction of the kind is to be attempted.]

[Footnote 51: Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 1. 9; 8. 1 and 3; 2. 1. Cp. Cic. _Orat._ 56. 187 “perspicuum est igitur numeris astrictam orationem esse debere, carere versibus; sed ei numeri poëticine sint an ex alio genere quodam deinceps est videndum”; 57. 195 “ego autem sentio omnes in oratione esse quasi permixtos et confusos pedes; nec enim effugere possemus animadversionem, si semper eisdem uteremur, quia nec numerosa esse, ut poëma, neque extra numerum, ut sermo vulgi, esse debet oratio: alterum nimis est vinctum, ut de industria factum appareat, alterum nimis dissolutum, ut pervagatum ac vulgare videatur.” Also _ibid._ 51. 172; 57. 194-196; 58. 198; 68. 227. Cicero’s correct attitude is the more noticeable that he is commonly supposed to have been swayed by Asiatic rather than by Attic influences.]

[Footnote 52: _C.V._ c. 25 χωρὶς δὲ τῆς Ἀριστοτέλους μαρτυρίας, ὅτι ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν ἐμπεριλαμβάνεσθαί τινας τῇ πεζῇ λέξει ῥυθμούς, εἰ μέλλοι τὸ ποιητικὸν ἐπανθήσειν αὐτῇ κάλλος, ἐκ τῆς πείρας τις αὐτῆς γνώσεται.]

[Footnote 53: The modern custom is to view with some suspicion these inversions when found in prose composition, though in German prose they are common enough. It would be interesting to take two such sentences of the New Testament as μεγάλη ἡ Ἄρτεμις Ἐφεσίων (Acts xix. 28, 34) and ἔπεσεν, ἔπεσεν Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη (Apoc. xiv. 8), and see how they have been rendered into various modern languages by translators generally (both in authorised and unauthorised versions). It would probably be found that the French language here has been true to what Dionysius would call its λογοείδεια, or essentially prose character. In English the justification of the inversion would be the emotional nature of the original passages, which may be held to raise them to the same plane as poetry. [It would, on the other hand, be not good but bad journalism to write, “Uproarious were the proceedings at yesterday’s meeting of the Grand Committee.”] For the effect of word-order in English verse see an extract from Coleridge’s _Biographia Literaria_ in the notes, p. 79 _infra_. Coleridge was fond of offering, as a rough definition of poetry, “the best words in the best order.”]

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

[Footnote 55: The words “How art thou” are, it will be noticed, differently divided in these two lines with a kind of Dionysian freedom.]

[Footnote 56: Ruskin continually, and Carlyle often (e.g. _Sartor Resartus_ bk. iii. c. 8), provides examples of iambic rhythm. So George Eliot _Mill on the Floss_ bk. vii.: “living through again, in one supreme moment, the days when they had clasped their little hands in love, and roamed the daisied fields together.” And Blackmore, in _Lorna Doone_ c. 3: “The sullen hills were flanked with light, and the valleys chined with shadow, and all the sombrous moors between awoke in furrowed anger.” [Blackmore sometimes falls also into the hexameter rhythm, as in the same chapter: “And suddenly a strong red light, cast by the cloud-weight | downwards, | spread like | fingers | over the | moorland, || opened the | alleys of | darkness, and | hung on the | steel of the | riders.”]]

[Footnote 57: Cicero’s conception of the requirements of rhythmical prose (as compared with those of verbal fidelity) is curiously illustrated by the way in which he is supposed to have recast the letter sent by Lentulus to Catiline. Sallust _Cat._ 44 “quis sim ex eo quem ad te misi cognosces: fac cogites in quanta calamitate sis et memineris te virum esse: consideres quid tuae rationes postulent: auxilium petas ab omnibus etiam ab infimis.” Cicero _Cat._ iii. 12 “quis sim scies ex eo quem ad te misi: cura ut vir sis et cogita quem in locum sis progressus: vide ecquid tibi iam sit necesse et cura ut omnium tibi auxilia adiungas, etiam infimorum.” Cp. A. C. Clark (reviewing Zieliňski) _Classical Review_ xix. 172.]

[Footnote 58: Cp. _C.V._ =176= 20 οὐ γὰρ ἀπελαύνεται ῥυθμὸς οὐδεὶς ἐκ τῆς ἀμέτρου λέξεως, ὥσπερ ἐκ τῆς ἐμμέτρου. With regard to the occasional presence in prose of metrical or quasi-metrical lines, the likely explanation seems often to be one which Dionysius does not favour (πολλὰ γὰρ αὐτοσχεδιάζει μέτρα ἡ φύσις, =256= 19), rather than one which recognizes μέτρα καὶ ῥυθμούς τινας =ἐγκατατεταγμένους ἀδήλως= (=254= 3).]

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 63: W. H. D. Rouse’s edition of _Matthew Arnold on translating Homer_ Introd. p. 7.]

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

[Footnote 65: Arnold and Conway _Restored Pronunciation of Greek and Latin_ pp. iv. 3, 7, 20-26. Cp. also the pamphlet on the _Pronunciation of Greek_ issued by the Classical Association in 1908 (pp. 348-51 _infra_). In the _Contemporary Review_ of March 1897 the history of Greek pronunciation in England is ably sketched by J. Gennadius.]

[Footnote 66: Even the pronunciation of the poet’s name has changed with the lapse of centuries; and the spelling _Shakspere_ is preferred by some authorities not only because it has excellent manuscript authority, but because it may serve to remind us that “he and his fellows pronounced his name _Shahk-spare_, with the _a_ of father in _Shahk_, and with the French _e_ (our _a_) in _spare_” (Furnivall).]

[Footnote 67: Quintil. i. 10. 17 “siquidem Archytas atque Aristoxenus etiam subiectam grammaticen musicae putaverunt,” etc.]

[Footnote 68: _C.V._ =68= 7-11, ... τὴν περὶ τῆς συνθέσεως τῶν ὀνομάτων πραγματείαν ὀλίγοις μὲν ἐπὶ νοῦν ἐλθοῦσαν, ὅσοι τῶν ἀρχαίων ῥητορικὰς ἢ διαλεκτικὰς συνέγραψαν τέχνας, οὐδενὶ δ’ ἀκριβῶς οὐδ’ ἀποχρώντως μέχρι τοῦ παρόντος ἐξειργασμένην, ὡς ἐγὼ πείθομαι.]

[Footnote 69: Some reference to Quintilian’s own apparent indebtedness to the _de Imitatione_ of Dionysius will be found in _Demetrius on Style_ p. 25.]

[Footnote 70: _de Sublim._ xxxix. 1. In the editor’s article on the “Literary Circle of Dionysius of Halicarnassus” (_Classical Review_ xiv. 439-42), an endeavour is made to view the literary life of Dionysius in relation to its Roman surroundings.]

[Footnote 71: The more recent writers on rhetoric (οἱ νέοι τεχνογράφοι, _de Isaeo_ c. 14) would not greatly appeal to Dionysius.]

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

[Footnote 73: The quotations from Aristotle and other writers in the Notes will serve to indicate roughly the obligations of Dionysius to his predecessors.]

[Footnote 74: Among the shorter fragments preserved by him are one of Bacchylides (in c. 25), and another from the _Telephus_ of Euripides (in c. 26). Two lines of the _Danaë_ are, it should in strict accuracy be stated, quoted as follows by Athenaeus ix. 396 E:—

ὦ τέκος, οἷον ἔχω πόνον·
σὺ δ’ ἀωτεῖς, γαλαθηνῷ δ’ ἤτορι κνώσσεις.
]

[Footnote 75: _de C.V._ =214= 7. There is, perhaps, room for a book or dissertation on _Quotation in Classical Antiquity_: with reference to such points as the citation or non-citation of authorities, the employment of literary illustrations, the poetical quotations in the Orators or in the Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία or in the Poets themselves; and so forth. On the question of verbal fidelity, something is said in the present editor’s brief article on ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus as an authority for the Text of Thucydides’ (_Classical Review_ xiv. 244-246); and such quotations as that from _Odyss._ xvi. 1-16 in c. 3 of the present treatise might be critically examined from the same point of view. A similar study of _Translation in Classical Antiquity_ would also be a useful piece of work.]

[Footnote 76: _de C.V._ =94= 4. Of Phylarchus as a historian Polybius himself gives an unflattering account.]

[Footnote 77: S. H. Butcher _Harvard Lectures on Greek Subjects_ p. 114. Cp. J. L. Strachan Davidson in _Hellenica_ pp. 414, 416: “The Nemesis of his contempt for the form and style of his writing has come on Polybius in the neglect which he has experienced at the hands of the modern world.... He has not the genius, and will not take the trouble to acquire the trained sensitiveness of art which might have supplied its place; and thus his writing has no distinction and no charm, and we miss in reading him what gives half their value to great writers—the consciousness that we are in the hands of a master.” But, on the other hand, see J. B. Bury’s _Ancient Greek Historians_, e.g. pp. 196, 218, 220.]

[Footnote 78: Cicero (_Or._ 63. 212) says, with reference to the various ways of ending the period, “e quibus unum est secuta Asia maxime, qui dichoreus vocatur, cum duo extremi chorei sunt.” And Quintilian (ix. 4. 103) “claudet et dichoreus, id est idem pes sibi ipse iungetur, quo Asiani usi plurimum; cuius exemplum Cicero ponit: _Patris dictum sapiens temeritas fili comprobavit_.” The dichoree is condemned also in the _de Sublim._ c. 41 μικροποιοῦν δ’ οὐδὲν οὕτως ἐν τοῖς ὑψηλοῖς, ὡς ῥυθμὸς κεκλασμένος λόγων καὶ σεσοβημένος, οἷον δὴ πυρρίχιοι καὶ τροχαῖοι καὶ διχόρειοι, τέλεον εἰς ὀρχηστικὸν συνεκπίπτοντες ... ὡς ἐνίοτε προειδότας τὰς ὀφειλομένας καταλήξεις αὐτοὺς ὑποκρούειν τοῖς λέγουσι καὶ φθάνοντας ὡς ἐν χορῷ τινι προαποδιδόναι τὴν βάσιν. It is the _constant recurrence_ of the same feet that is to be deprecated (cp. Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 8. 1, and Theon. _Progymn._ in Walz _Rhet. Gr._ i. 169); a single dichoree would not be avoided even by Dionysius himself, e.g. νοῦν ἐχόντων (=192= 5). Cicero’s appreciation of Carbo’s _patris dictum sapiens temeritas fili comprobavit_ may be instructively compared with Dionysius’ attitude towards the general question of good and bad rhythms. They both seem to allow too little for other considerations; one of them approves, and the other disapproves, the final dichoree; and both agree in the main point, that there should be plenty of variety: “hoc dichoreo (sc. _comprobavit_) tantus clamor contionis excitatus est, ut admirabile esset. quaero nonne id numerus effecerit? verborum ordinem immuta, fac sic: ‘comprobavit fili temeritas,’ iam nihil erit, etsi ‘temeritas’ ex tribus brevibus et longa est, quam Aristoteles ut optimum probat, a quo dissentio. ‘at eadem verba, eadem sententia.’ animo istuc satis est, auribus non satis. sed id crebrius fieri non oportet; primum enim numerus agnoscitur, deinde satiat, postea cognita facilitate contemnitur” (Cic. _Orat._ 63. 214). Hegesias’ lack of ear seems, further, to be shown in the awkward accumulation of disyllables; e.g. διὰ τῶν =ποδῶν χαλκοῦν= ψάλιον διείραντας =ἕλκειν κύκλῳ γυμνόν= (=188= 17), and =τρόπῳ σκαιὸν ἐχθρόν= (=190= 5). Cp. =132= 3 μήτ’ ὀλιγοσύλλαβα πολλὰ ἑξῆς λαμβάνοντα.]

[Footnote 79: Modern parallels are dangerous, but the detractors of Macaulay might be disposed to compare his short detached sentences (so different from the elaborate periods of some earlier English prose-writers) with those of Hegesias.]

[Footnote 80: In this last extract, all the sentences end in dichorees. The fragments of Hegesias have been collected by C. Müller _Scriptores Rerum Alexandri Magni_ pp. 138-144.]

[Footnote 81: With παραφθείρας cp. Cic. _Brut._ 83. 286 “atque Charisi [an imitator of Lysias] vult Hegesias esse similis, isque se ita putat Atticum, ut veros illos prae se paene agrestes putet. at quid est tam fractum, tam minutum, tam in ipsa, quam tamen consequitur, concinnitate puerile?” For the influence which Hegesias had on style as late as the time of Pausanias cp. J. G. Frazer’s _Pausanias_ i. lxix. lxx., and Blass _Die Rhythmen der asianischen und römischen Kunstprosa_ pp. 91 ff.]

[Footnote 82: e.g. καθάπερ =138= 13; ἀναίσθιος, ὑποδεκτική, ἀκόμψευστον, ἔχοντα =212= 21-24; see also =196= 24, 25. The issue is often so perplexing that no editor can feel certain whether F’s reading or P’s should be placed in his text: he only knows that _both_ readings must be recorded _either_ in the text or in the critical footnotes. For the _strong points_ of F see such passages as pp. 182, 184 in c. 18.]

[Footnote 83: Other examples of these _variae lectiones_, pointing perhaps sometimes to a sort of double recension, are such as οὐδέτερον μὲν εὔμορφον, ἧττον δὲ δυσειδὲς τὸ ε̄ (=144= 4: REF), compared with οὐδέτερον μὲν εὔηχον, ἧττον δὲ δυσηχὲς τὸ ο̄ (=144= 4: PMV), =66= 2 νεωστὶ PMV, ἄρτι F; =100= 23 ἐνταῦθα PMV, ἐνθάδε F; =198= 18 and =244= 28 πάνυ PMV, σφόδρα F. Continually F’s readings differ from P’s in such a way that either alternative is quite satisfactory and neither could well have originated in any manuscript corruption of the other. Under the same head will come minute variations (not always recorded in this edition) of word-order in the traditions represented by F and P. So, too, with such minutiae as the elision or non-elision of final vowels, and the insertion or non-insertion of ν ἐφελκυστικόν.]

[Footnote 84: F’s πλεῖστον κίνδυνον for πλείστους κινδύνους in =244= 5 seems due to a desire to diminish the number of sigmas in the sentence, while some minute changes in word-order look like deliberate attempts to improve the flow and sound of the passage. Such discrepancies in the word-order of F and P occur in other parts of the treatise, and not simply in the quotations.]

[Footnote 85: Homer _Odyssey_ xv. 125.]

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

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

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

[Footnote 89: Homer _Odyssey_ xvi. 1-16. The verse-translations, here and throughout, are from the hand of Mr. A. S. Way.]

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 94: Sotades _Fragm._]

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

[Footnote 96: Herodotus i. 6.]

[Footnote 97: Thucydides i. 24.]

[Footnote 98: Hegesias _Fragm._; cp. C. Müller _Scriptores Rerum Alexandri Magni_ p. 138.]

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

[Footnote 100: Cp. Homer _Odyssey_ vi. 230, 231; viii. 20; xxiii. 157, 158; xxiv. 369.]

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

[Footnote 102: Homer _Odyssey_ i. 1.]

[Footnote 103: Homer _Iliad_ i. 1.]

[Footnote 104: Homer _Odyssey_ iii. 1.]

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

[Footnote 106: Homer _Iliad_ ii. 484.]

[Footnote 107: Homer _Iliad_ xxiv. 486.]

[Footnote 108: Homer _Iliad_ xxi. 20.]

[Footnote 109: Homer _Iliad_ xxii. 467.]

[Footnote 110: Homer _Odyssey_ xxii. 17.]

[Footnote 111: Homer _Iliad_ ii. 89.]

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

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

[Footnote 114: Homer _Iliad_ iv. 125.]

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

[Footnote 116: Homer _Odyssey_ xiv. 425.]

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

[Footnote 118: Demosthenes _de Corona_, init.]

[Footnote 119: Demosthenes _de Pace_ 6.]

[Footnote 120: Demosthenes _Aristocr._ 1.]

[Footnote 121: Thucydides iii. 57.]

[Footnote 122: Demosthenes _de Corona_ 119.]

[Footnote 123: Demosthenes _de Corona_ 179.]

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 128: Demosthenes _Lept._ 2.]

[Footnote 129: Euripides _Orestes_ 140-2.]

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

[Footnote 131: Homer _Iliad_ xvii. 265.]

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

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

[Footnote 134: Homer _Iliad_ xxii. 476.]

[Footnote 135: Homer _Iliad_ xviii. 225.]

[Footnote 136: Homer _Odyssey_ v. 402.]

[Footnote 137: Homer _Iliad_ xii. 207.]

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

[Footnote 139: Homer _Iliad_ xvi. 361.]

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

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

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

[Footnote 143: Homer _Odyssey_ vi. 137.]

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 149: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 112; Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm. Adesp._ 136.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 156: Euripides _Hippolytus_ 201.]

[Footnote 157: Homer _Odyssey_ ix. 39.]

[Footnote 158: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 111; Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm. Adesp._ 141.]

[Footnote 159: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 117; Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm. Adesp._ 142.]

[Footnote 160: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 110; Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm. Adesp._ 143.]

[Footnote 161: Bergk _P.L.G., Fragm. Adesp._ 116; Nauck _T.G.F., Fragm. Adesp._ 144.]

[Footnote 162: Thucydides ii. 35.]

[Footnote 163: Here and elsewhere, no attempt has been made to secure metrical equivalence between the Greek original and the English version. A metrical analysis, or “scansion,” of the original Greek is given in the notes.]

[Footnote 164: Plato _Menexenus_ 236 D.]

[Footnote 165: Homer _Iliad_ xxiii. 382.]

[Footnote 166: Demosthenes _de Corona_ init.]

[Footnote 167: Demosthenes _de Corona_ init.]

[Footnote 168: C. Müller _Scriptores Rerum Alexandri Magni_ p. 141 (_Hegesiae Fragmenta_).]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 175: Thucydides i. 1.]

[Footnote 176: Thucydides i. 22.]

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 182: Demosthenes _Aristocr._ 1.]

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

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

[Footnote 185: Aristophanes _Nubes_ 961.]

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

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

[Footnote 188: Aristophanes _Nubes_ 962.]

[Footnote 189: Euripides _Archelaus_; Nauck _T.G.F._, _Eurip. Fragm._ 229.]

[Footnote 190: Demosthenes _de Corona_ § 1.]

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

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

[Footnote 193: Plato _Republic_ i. 1.]

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 198: Homer _Iliad_ xi. 514.]

[Footnote 199: ὁ σκοτεινός: cp. Dionys. Hal. _de Thucyd._ c. 46, Demetr. _de Eloc._ § 192, Aristot. _Rhet._ iii. 5. 6.]

[Footnote 200: A good practical recipe for brevity combined with clearness is given in the _Rhet. ad Alex._ c. 30: συντόμως δὲ [δηλώσομεν], ἐὰν ἀπὸ τῶν πραγμάτων καὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων περιαιρῶμεν τὰ μὴ ἀναγκαῖα ῥηθῆναι, ταῦτα μόνα καταλείποντες, ὧν ἀφαιρεθέντων ἀσαφὴς ἔσται ὁ λόγος.]

[Footnote 201: He illustrates from the Introduction (προοίμιον) of Thucydides—the passage quoted in _C.V._ c. 22. A good example of the εἰρομένη λέξις in Thucydides (who is an acknowledged master of the κατεστραμμένη λέξις) is furnished by Thucyd. i. 9. 2: cp. p. 119 _supra_.]

[Footnote 202: Earlier (vii. 9. 6) in his treatise, Quintilian has quoted ‘Aio te, Aeacida, Romanos vincere posse’; and these oracular ambiguities had been glanced at previously by Aristotle (_Rhet._ iii. 5. 4).]

[Footnote 203: In a passage of Aristotle (_Eth. Nic._ vi. 1142 b ἀλλ’ ὀρθότης τίς ἐστιν ἡ εὐβουλία βουλῆς) βουλῆς seems to be emphatic because so far separated from ὀρθότης. Cp. L. H. G. Greenwood in the _Classical Review_ xix. 18, and the same writer’s translation (_Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics Book Six_ p. 111), “But deliberative excellence is rightness in deliberation.”]

[Footnote 204: Short and simple as it is, this last sentence is a good example of effective word-order. τριήρης is put early, to contrast it with φρούριον in the previous sentence. Then the time is indicated. Next τῶν Ἀθηναίων (removed from Thucydides’ usual position for a dependent genitive) is put in expressive juxtaposition to ὑπὸ τῶν Συρακοσιών. Lastly, the reason or circumstance is given: ἐφορμοῦσα τῷ λιμένι. And the rhythm of the sentence is not unpleasant.]

[Footnote 205: Aristotle (_Rhet._ i. 15), in quoting the first line only, gives ταῦτ’ οὖν ἐγὼ κτλ.]

[Footnote 206: In English it would be interesting to test, by these criteria, such usages (for usages they may be called in so far as they rest on the authority of many good writers) as the ‘split infinitive,’ or the preposition coming at the end of a sentence.]

[Footnote 207: The authenticity of these portions of the _Odyssey_ was suspected in antiquity. But compare _Iliad_ xviii. 587-8 (quoted in Introduction p. 13 _supra_) or _Odyss._ xi. 160-1.]

[Footnote 208: The dates and stages of these changes cannot as yet be settled with precision. But the practical choice seems to be between the earliest and the latest values, though there is no doubt whatever that a distinct =h= was heard in all these sounds long after the fourth century B.C.]

[Footnote 209: It is not easy to determine precisely the sound of χθ, φθ (χθών, φθόνος) at the beginning of words, and the Committee therefore thinks it best to leave the option of (1) sounding the first consonants as κ and π respectively, and the θ as it is in other positions (this applies both to students who adopt the fricative and to those who adopt the primitive aspirate pronunciation of the letters in other positions), or (2) where the fricative pronunciation is adopted, of sounding χ and φ, in this position also, respectively as Scotch _ch_ and English _f_.]

[Footnote 210: This had actually happened in spoken Greek by the second century A.D.]

[Footnote 211: This paragraph is taken from _The Restored Pronunciation of Greek and Latin_, 4th edition, Cambridge, 1908.]

[Page 353]

_A._ INDEX OF PASSAGES QUOTED IN THE _DE COMPOSITIONE_

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

=Aeschines= _Ctes._ 202, =116=

=Archilochus= _Fragm._ 66, =170=

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

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

=Bacchylides= _Fragm._ 11, =262=

=Callimachus= _Fragm._ 391, =256=

=Demosthenes= _Aristocr._ 1, =108=, =252=. _Chers._ 48, =250=. _De
Cor._ 1, =108=, =182=, =184=, =260=; 119, =112=; 179, =114=.
_Lept._ 2, =118=. _De Pace_ 6, =108=. _Philipp._ iii. 17, =114=

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

=Euphorio Chersonesita= _Fragm._, =86=

=Euripides= _Hecuba_ 163-4, =170=. _Hippolytus_ 201, =172=. _Orestes_
140-2, =128=. _Fragm._ 229 (_Archelaus_), =260=; 696 (_Telephus_),
=276-8=; 924, =88=

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

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

=Homer= _Iliad_ i. 1, =98=; i. 459, =102=; ii. 89, =100=; ii. 209,
=158=; ii. 422, =102=; ii. 484, =100=; ii. 494-501, =166=; iv. 125,
=102=; iv. 452-3, =164=; v. 115, =100=; xi. 514, =280=; xii. 207,
=158=; xii. 433-5, =84=; xiii. 392-3, =86=; xvi. 361, =158=; xvii.
265, =154=; xviii. 225, =156=; xix. 103-4, =100=; xxi. 20, =100=;
xxi. 196-7, =248=; xxi. 240-2, =164=; xxii. 220-1, =156=; xxii.
395-411, =190-2=; xxii. 467, =100=; xxii. 476, =156=; xxiii. 382,
=182=; xxiv. 486, =100=. _Odyssey_ i. 1, =98=; iii. 1, =98=; iii.
449-50, =102=; v. 402, =158=; vi. 115-6, =102=; vi. 137, =162=; vi.
162-3, =162=; vi. 230-1, =92=; ix. 39, =172=; ix. 289-90, =164=;
ix. 415-6, =156=; xi. 36-7, =162=; xi. 281-2, =162=; xi. 593-8,
=202-4=; xiv. 1-8, =274-6=; xiv. 425, =102=; xv. 125-7, =64=; xvi.
1-16, =76-78=; xvi. 273, =92=; xvii. 36, 37, =162=; xix. 53, 54,
=162=; xxii. 17, =100=

=Isocrates= _Areop._ 1-5, =242-4=

=Orphica= _Fragm._, =252=

=Philoxenus= _Fragm._ 6, =68=

=Pindar= _Fragm._ 75, =214-6=; 79, =148=; 213, =210=

=Plato= _Menex._ 236 D, =180=; 236 E, =116=; _Rep._ i. 1, =266=

=Sappho= _Fragm._ 1 (_Hymn to Aphrodite_), =238-40=; 106, =258=

=Simonides= _Fragm._ 37 (_Danaë_), =278-80=

=Sophocles= _Fragm._ 706, =116=

=Sotades= _Fragm._, =88=

=Thucydides= i. 1, =224-28=; i. 22, =228=; i. 24, =90=; ii. 35, =178=;
iii. 57, =110=

=Anonymous Fragments= (=chiefly Lyrical=) on pages =68= (Bergk 85),
=168= (Bergk 112, Nauck 136), =170= (N. 138; B. 108); =172= (N.
139, 140); =174= (B. 110, N. 143; B. 111, N. 141; B. 116, N. 144;
B. 117, N. 142); =262= (B. 118)

[Page 354]

_B._ INDEX OF NAMES AND MATTERS

The numerals indicate the pages to which reference is made. As the contents of the Greek text are fully summarized on pp. 1-9 _supra_, and as many of the more characteristic Greek words find a place in the Glossary, the brief entries in Index B will be found to refer mainly to the Introduction and the Notes.

=Accent= 41-43, 126 ff., 196, 292, 320, 328, 329

=Adjective= 102, 103, 299

=Adverb= 70, 100, 299

=Aeschines= 116

=Aeschylus= 12, 20, 214, 215

=Agathon= 304

=Alcaeus= 194, 248, 249

=Alexander of Macedon= 186, 187

=Amphibrachys= 172, 184, 287

=Anacreon= 236

=Anagnostes= 338

=Anapaest= 172, 287

=Anaximenes= xi (Preface). See also under ‘Rhetorica ad Alexandrum,’ p.
357 _infra_

=Anthology=, epigrams from 66, 335

=Antigonus= 94

=Antimachus= 214

=Antiphon= 29, 120, 332

=Antithesis= 247, 288

=Aphrodite, Sappho’s Hymn to= 238-41

=Apollonius Rhodius= 156

=Appellative= 71, 319

=Archaism= 212, 290

=Archilochus= 171

=Architecture in relation to literary composition= 28, 106

=Aristophanes= 12, 22, 123, 143, 290, 304, 311, 314, 335

=Aristophanes of Byzantium= 218, 278, 320

=Aristotle= x-xii (Preface), 15, 34, 35, 39, 40, 48, 71, 75, 139, 153,
155, 163, 165, 166, 168, 171, 176, 189, 214, 246, 247, 248, 249,
254, 255, 268, 290, 291, 292, 301, 308, 309, 310, 312, 313, 315,
316, 318, 319, 320, 325, 329, 334, 336, 337, 340, _passim_

=Aristoxenus= 42, 43, 48, 125, 138, 168, 287, 318

=Arnold, Matthew= 26, 158, 167, 278

=Arrian= 186, 187

=Article= 70, 289

=Aspirates= 149, 294, 350

=Athenaeus= 148, etc.

=Auctor ad Herennium= 316

=Audiences=, their sensitiveness to the music of sounds 40, 120 ff.

=Austere composition or harmony= 210 ff.

=Bacchius= 174, 292

=Bacchylides= 49, 219, 262, 263

=Bacon, Francis= 225

=Beauty of style.= See under ‘nobility’

=Biblical illustrations= 24, 31, 36, 37, 113, 178, 289, 297, 298, 303,
332, etc.

=Blackmore, R. D.= 37

=Boeotian towns= 166-68

=Boileau= 31

=Bossuet= 195, 228

=Buchanan, George= 46

=Buffon= 29

=Caesar, Julius= 13, 267, 296

=Callimachus= 87, 256 (attribution doubtful), 272, 277

=Candaules=, story of 81

=Carlyle= 37

=Case= 320, with references there given

=Catullus= 239, 278

=Chapters=, division into 9, 11

=Charm of style= 120 ff., 130 ff.

=Cheke, Sir John= 45, 46

=Chiastic arrangement= 14, 19

=Choice, or selection, of words= 69, 73, 79, etc.

=Choree= 170, 333

=Chromatic scale= 194

=Chronological table= of authors quoted or mentioned in the _C.V._ 50

=Chrysippus= 94, 95, 96, 97

=Chrysostom= 67, 251, 288

=Cicero= 15, 18, 25, 26, 28, 35, 37, 38, 48, 53, 54, 55, 72, 73, 89,
114, 124, 159, 203, 266, 271, 286, 301, 305, 306, 315, 316, 319,
330, 331, 334, 335, _passim_

[Page 355]

=Circumflex accent= 126 ff.

=Clearness in Greek word-order= 12-13, 15-17. See also under
‘Obscurity,’ p. 356 _infra_

=Cleitarchus= 187

=Climax= 114

=Coleridge, S. T.= 36, 38, 79, 254

=Colon.= See under ‘Member’

‘=Comma=’ 306, with references there given

=Common vowels.= See under ‘Doubtful’

=Comparative Method= (in relation to literary study) 48

=Composition= 10, 71 ff., 208 ff., 326, _passim_

=Conjunctions or connectives= 71, 325

=Coray= 243

=Cousin, Victor= 343

‘=Cratylus=’ of Plato 160

=Cretic= 174, 307

=Ctesias= 120

=Curtius= 187, 188, 189

‘=Cyclic=’ 174, 307

=Dactyl= 172, 173

‘=Danaë=’ of Simonides 278-81

=Dareste, Rodolphe= 344, 345, 346

=Date of the= ‘=de Compositione=’ 1, 60

=Delphi=, hymns found at 43

=Demetrius= of Callatis 94

=Demetrius=, the supposed author of the _De Elocutione_ 16, 18, 19, 90,
91, 286, 305, 308, _passim_

=Democritus= 248, 249

=Demosthenes= 13, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 25, 29, 33, 34, 39, 41, 146, 182,
196, 248, 249, 339, 340, _passim_. See also Index A

=Dentals= 149

=Dependent genitive=, order of 337

=Dialectic= 69, 94, 104

=Diatonic scale= 194

=Diodorus Siculus= 187, 237, 274

=Diogenes Laertius= 82, 97, 251

=Dionysius of Halicarnassus= 1, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 29, 48, 207, 229,
_passim_

=Dionysius Thrax= 47, 71, 139, 145, 319, 332

=Diphthongs= 219

=Dithyramb= 214

=Dorian mode= 196

=Doubtful vowels= 296, with references there given (s.v. δίχρονος)

=Dryden= 186

=Duris= 94

=Eliot, George= 37

=Empedocles= 34, 214, 332

=Emphasis= 17-26

=English language= 31, 35, 36, 342 ff., _passim_

=Enharmonic scale= 194

‘=Enjambement=’ 270-73, 275, 278, 325

=Ennius= 170, 314

=Ephorus= 236, 237

=Epic Cycle=, poets of the 248

=Epic poetry= 214, 274, _passim_. See also under ‘Homer,’ p. 356 _infra_

=Epicurus= 250, 251

=Epitome=: Greek Epitome of _C.V._ 10, 57, 65, 89, 116, 197, 209

=Epode= 300, with references there given

=Erasmus= 45, 159

=Etymology= 160, 300

=Euphony= 27-29, 338, etc.

=Euphorio Chersonesita= 87

=Euripides= 22, 23, 24, 146, 236, 237. See also Index A

=Eustathius= 202

=Fifth=, the musical interval so called 126

=Flaubert, Gustav= 28

=Fléchier= 243

=Fletcher= 46 (‘Elder Brother’)

=Florentine manuscript of the C.V.= 56-58

=Foot=, metrical 168

=France, Anatole= 27

=Freedom of Greek word-order= 11-14

=French language= 31, 36, 270, 342 ff., _passim_

=Galen= 331

=Gardiner, Stephen= 46

=Gellius, Aulus= 28

=Gender= 106, 107

=German language= 33, 36, 342 ff., _passim_

=Gibbon, Edward= 46, 86, 237

=Gladstone, William Ewart= 126, 235

=Glossary= 285-334 (cp. Preface ix, x)

=Goethe= 36

=Gorgias= 132

=Grammar= 46, 47

=Grave accent= 126 ff.

=Gutturals= 149

‘=Harmony=’ 290, with references there given

=Havercamp= 45

=Hector and Achilles= 190, 191

=Hegemon= 168

=Hegesianax= 94, 95

=Hegesias= 52-55, 90, 184-92

=Heracleides= 94, 95

=Heracleitus= 335, 340

=Hermogenes= 26, 85, 87, 90

=Herodotus= 16, 24, 26, 30, 80 ff., 90, 120, 196, 248, 249

=Hesiod= 236, 237

=Hesychius=, 69, 189, 288, 322, 332

=Hexameter= 85, 87

=Hiatus= 39, 323

=Hibeh Papyri= xi (Preface), 41

[Page 356]

=Hickes, Francis= 226

=Hieronymus= 94

=Hobbes, Thomas= 226

=Holland, Philemon= 328

=Homer= vii-ix (Preface), 13, 14, 19, 33, 34, 76 ff., 136, 248, 274,
337, _passim_. See also Index A

=Horace= ix (Preface), 15, 48, 78, 81, 113, 195, 197, 200, 267, 273,
278, 322, 323, 336, _passim_

=Hypallage= 78, 330

=Hyperbaton= 26, 340

=Hypobacchius= 174

=Hysteron proteron= 102

=Iambus= 170

=Intermediate or harmoniously blended composition= 246 ff., 301

=Invention= (of subject matter) 1, 67, 318, etc.

=Ionic tetrameter= 86, 304

‘=Irrational=’ 154, 174, 207, 286, 287

=Isocrates= 11, 29, 78, 92, 192, 198, 236, 237, 242 ff., 264

=Ithyphallic poem= 86, 303

=Jacobs, Friedrich= 345, 346

=James I., King= 46

=Johnson, Samuel= 186

=Josephus= 187, 308

=Labials= 149

=Latin= (especially Latin word-order, as compared with that of Greek
and the modern languages) 13, 21, 25, 29-33, 48, etc.

=Lemaître, Jules= 31

=Lessing= 31

=Letters= 138 ff.

‘=Literature=’ 34, 217, 309

=Livy= 178

‘=Longinus=’ =de Sublimitate= 14, 26, 48, 74, 239, _passim_

=Lucian= 68, 196, 229, 279, 327, 333

=Lucidity.= See under ‘Clearness’

=Lucretius= 204, 214

=Luther= 267

=Lydian mode= 196

=Lysias= 16, 55

=Malherbe= 31

=Manuscripts of the C.V.= x (Preface), 56-59

=Marcellinus= 228, 229, 335

=Marlowe= 35, 147

=Maximus Planudes= 86

=Melic poetry= 309, with references there given

=Member= (=clause=, ‘=colon=’) 73, 110 ff., 307

=Menander= 229

=Meredith, George= 147, 172

=Metaphor= 54, 310

=Metre= 33-39, 310

=Metrici= 154, 172, 174, 218, 310

=Milton= 22, 23, 36, 167

=Mimnermus= 273

=Modern languages= (especially in relation to word-order) 12, 29-33,
103, etc.; 342-47

=Modes=, musical 196

=Molière= 91, 138

=Molossus= 172

=Music= 39-41, 124 ff.

=Mute letters= 138 ff., 292

=Natural order of words= 98 ff.

=Neoptolemus= 15

=Nobility of style= 120 ff., 136

=Normal word-order in Greek= 14, 15

=Noun= 71, 98-100, 313

=Number=, grammatical 106, 107

=Obscurity= 16, 17, 335-41. See also under ‘Clearness,’ p. 355 _supra_

=Onomatopoeia= 158, 159, 316

=Order of words in Greek and other languages= 11-39, 98 ff., _passim_

=Orphic fragments= 252

=Ovid= 33, 124

=Oxyrhynchus Papyri= 29, 237, 289

=Paeon= 314, with references there given

=Painting in relation to literary composition= 208

=Paris Manuscript of the C.V.= x (Preface), 56-58

=Participle= 72, 310

=Parts of speech= 71 ff.

=Passion= 314, with references there given

=Pentameter= 256, 315

=Period= 13, 73, 118

=Peripatetics= 48. See also under ‘Aristotle’ (p. 354 _supra_), and
‘Theophrastus’ (p. 357 _infra_)

=Philo Judaeus= 192

‘=Philosophy=’ 331

=Philoxenus= 196, 197

=Phonetics= 43, 44, 140 ff.

=Photius= 333

‘=Phrase=’ 306, with references there given

=Phrygian mode= 196

=Phylarchus= 94

=Pindar= 49, 194, 214 ff. See also under Index A

=Plato= 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 29, 31, 33, 34, 139, 180, 182, 196,
248, 249, 264 ff., _passim_. See also under Index A

=Pliny the Younger= 229

=Plural= 106, 107

=Plutarch= 67, 187, 264, 299, 326, 330, 332

[Page 357]

=Poetry= (in relation to prose) 33-39, 250 ff., etc.

=Polybius= 51, 52, 94, 296

=Pope, Alexander= vii (Preface), 202, 205, 324

=Porson, Richard= 14, 146

=Preposition= 71, 319

=Pronoun= 70, 102, 288

=Pronunciation= 43-46, 140 ff., 348-51, _passim_

=Propertius= 188

‘=Propriety=’ 39, 198 ff., 318, 319, _passim_

=Prose= (in relation to poetry) 33-39, 250 ff., 287 (ἄμετρος), 309
(λόγος), etc.

=Prosodiacs= 86

=Psaon= 94

=Punctuation= 306, 340

=Puttenham= 299

=Pyrrhic= 168

=Quantity=, effect of syllabic quantity in prose 29

=Quintilian= 11, 15, 18, 19, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 38, 46, 47, 53,
70, 71, 81, 89, 93, 98, 145, 152, 168, 195, 203, 248, 250, 265,
266, 300, 301, 305, 306, 315-21, 325, 328, 330, 332, 336, _passim_

=Quotations in the C.V.= 49-56. See also Index A

=Racine= 118, 157, 205, 270

=Reading= (learning to read) 268, 269

=Renan, Ernest= 31

‘=Rhetor Graecus=’ 57, 138

=Rhetorica ad Alexandrum= xi (Preface), 26, 75, 313, 336

=Rhetorical Handbooks= 270, 282, 329

=Rhyme or jingle= 64, 65, 315

=Rhythm= 33-39, 168 ff., 176 ff., 320

=Rhythmici= 154, 172

=Rich, Barnaby= 82

=Rousseau= 211

=Rufus Metilius= xii (Preface), 1, 66

=Ruskin= 37

=Sallust= 38, 180, 225

=San= 148, 149

=Sappho= vii-viii (Preface), 49, 194, 236 ff., 258. See also Index A

=Scales=, musical 194

=Schema Pindaricum= 217

=Schleiermacher, Friedrich= 343

=Scholia= (to Homer and other authors) 76, 132, 155, 158, 170, 188,
191, 229, 274, 277, 288, 333, etc.

=Semivowels= 138 ff., 302

=Sextus Empiricus= 139

=Shakespeare= 44, 81, 112, 135, 147, 161, 321

=Sheridan= 250

=Sigmatism= 146, 147

=Simonides= vii-viii (Preface), 49, 236, 278 ff.

=Simplicity of diction illustrated and commended= 75-85, 134-37

=Smith, Sir Thomas= 45, 46, 141

=Smooth composition or harmony= 232 ff., 293

=Socrates= 120, 160

=Solecism= 190

=Sophist= 184, 264, 321

=Sophocles= 248, 249, 337. See also Index A

=Sotades= 88, 328

=Sound an echo to the sense= 156 ff., 200 ff.

=Sources of the C.V.= 47-49

=Spondee= 170, 322

=Stesichorus= 194, 195, 248

=Stevenson, Robert Louis= 32, 40

=Stoics= 48, 71, 94-97, 104

=Strabo= 55, 285, 290

=Strophe= 194 etc., 323

=Styles of composition= 208 ff.

=Substance and Form= viii (Preface); cp. Demetr. pp. 34 ff.

=Suidas= 237, 296

=Summary of the C.V.= 1-9

‘=Suspense=’ 13

=Swinburne, Algernon Charles= 271, 325

=Syllables= 150 ff., 324

=Synaloepha= 108 etc., 325

=Tacitus= 316

=Taste= 132, 134, 304

‘=Tautology=’ 240, 328

=Taylor, Jeremy= 303

=Telestes= 196, 197

=Tennyson= 86, 190, 271, 278

=Tense= 108, 333

=Terence= 101, 275

=Tetrameters= 87, 329

=Text of the C.V.= x (Preface), 56-59, _passim_

=Thelwall, John= 147

=Theocritus= 281

=Theodectes= 47, 71

=Theophrastus= 34, 37, 48, 164, 165, 193, 305, etc.

=Theopompus= 29, 236, 237

=Thucydides= 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 33, 34, 120, 178, 214, 224
ff., 335-7, _passim_. See also Index A

=Timotheus= 175, 196, 197

=Title of the C.V.= 10, 326

=Tragic poets= 236, 248, 329

=Tribrach= 170. See also under ‘Choree,’ p. 354 _supra_

=Trimeter= 258, 329

=Trisyllable= 170, 329

=Trochee= 170, 330

=Types of style= 208 ff.

[Page 358]

=Usage as the sovereign arbiter= 102

=Variety= 29, 39, 192 ff., 310

=Vedic Sanskrit= 42

=Verbs= 71, 98-100, 108, 320

=Vigny, Alfred de= 213

=Virgil= 19, 21, 156, 157, 164, 173, 204, 327, etc.

=Vowels= 138 ff., 332

=Welsh language= 31

=Wilson, Thomas= [of Eton and King’s College, Cambridge; earliest
translator of any part of Demosthenes into English] 326

=Wordsworth= viii (Preface), 79, 271

=Xenophon= 14, 19, 23, 120

=Zeta=, pronunciation of 44, 45

THE END

_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.

[Page 359]

Cambridge University Press.

BY PROFESSOR W. RHYS ROBERTS.

The following contributions made to Greek literary and literary-historical study by Dr. Roberts are published at the Cambridge University Press. The volumes are arranged in the order of their original appearance.

=THE ANCIENT BOEOTIANS=: their Character and Culture, and their
Reputation. With a Map, a Table of Dates, and a List of
Authorities. Demy 8vo. 5s.

=STUDY OF GREEK.= A Chapter in Frederic Spencer’s _Chapters on the
Aims and Practice of Teaching_. Third Impression, 1903. Crown
8vo. 6s.

=LONGINUS ON THE SUBLIME.= The Greek Text edited after the Paris
Manuscript, with Translation, Facsimiles, and Appendices
(Textual, Linguistic, Literary, and Bibliographical). Second
Edition, 1907. Demy 8vo. 9s.

=DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS: The Three Literary Letters.= The Greek
Text edited with Translation, Facsimile, Notes, Glossary of
Rhetorical Terms, Bibliography, and Introductory Essay on
Dionysius as a Literary Critic. Demy 8vo. 9s.

=DEMETRIUS ON STYLE.= The Greek Text of Demetrius _de Elocutione_.
Edited after the Paris Manuscript, with Translation,
Facsimiles, Glossary, etc., and Introductory Essay on the Greek
Study of Prose Style. Demy 8vo. 9s. net.

EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS OF _DEMETRIUS ON STYLE_.

Professor B. L. GILDERSLEEVE in the _AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY_.—“It is to me a welcome sign of the times that Mr. Roberts has attracted so much attention and gained so much reputation by his admirable editions of _Longinus on the Sublime_ and of _The Three Literary Letters of Dionysius of Halicarnassus_, to which he has now added _Demetrius on Style_.... As for Demetrius, nothing could be more timely than the revival of his admirable manual.... No wonder that one hails with satisfaction the prospect of a new edition of the _De Compositione_ by so competent a hand as Mr. Roberts, if indeed we may construe his suggestion as a promise.”

_ATHENÆUM._—“We have to congratulate Professor Roberts on the completion of another preliminary study for his projected work on ‘Ancient Literary Criticism,’ which is a worthy companion to his _Longinus_ and _The Three Literary Letters of Dionysius_.... These three books are indispensable to the student of Greek literature.... In the translation Professor Roberts seems to have improved on his former versions; this is more easy and effective.”

_TIMES._—“Dr. Roberts has introduced to English readers some choice literary morsels. His _Longinus on the Sublime_, the first of the ancient works on literary criticism which he edited—we might almost say, to our shame, rescued from oblivion—is a most able and inspiring book.... _Demetrius on Style_ is edited equally well. The translation, indeed, is even better; idiomatic and pleasant to read, it is often most happy, and there are very few passages where we should differ in our rendering of the Greek.”

[Page 360]

_SPECTATOR._—“Dr. Roberts is to be congratulated upon the accomplishment of a worthy task. His edition of the famous treatise known as _Demetrius on Style_ is a credit to our English learning. The editor is not merely a scholar, he is a man of letters as well; and in his notes he has applied the maxims of the ancient Greek to the literature of to-day with the utmost skill. Indeed, though Greek lies at this moment under a cloud of suspicion, we can none the less recommend this work without diffidence or fear, since no English writer can study Dr. Roberts’s translation and notes without purging his own composition of faults innumerable.”

_GUARDIAN._—“Dr. Rhys Roberts here gives us a third instalment of his work on the Greek literary critics, and the further he proceeds the greater becomes the benefit that he is conferring on classical scholars. It is much to have made the masterpieces of the later Greek criticism generally accessible, and especially to have rescued Dionysius of Halicarnassus from a neglect and contempt that were wholly undeserved, to have given him new utterance, to have shown that even for moderns his precepts are not obsolete. Nor is the chorus of approval with which Dr. Roberts’s work has been received, both at home and abroad, any louder than is warranted. His own style and taste are above reproach, and his learning is abundant.”

_WESTMINSTER REVIEW._—“Dr. W. Rhys Roberts has taken for his province the whole subject of Greek literary criticism. In 1899 appeared his scholarly and exhaustive edition of _Longinus on the Sublime_, which was followed, two years later, by an admirable edition of _The Three Literary Letters of Dionysius of Halicarnassus_. He has now laid English scholarship under a further obligation by his even more admirable edition of _Demetrius on Style_. Each of these three texts is accompanied by a translation at once accurate, terse, lucid, and idiomatic.”

_JOURNAL OF EDUCATION._—“We make no doubt that Professor Roberts’s earlier books—_Longinus on the Sublime_ and _The Three Literary Letters of Dionysius_—are known to those of our readers who are serious students of Greek. We believe they have done a good deal already to restore ancient criticism to the place which it used to hold. The present volume is a worthy companion to the other two.”

Professor R. Y. TYRRELL in _HERMATHENA_.—“This edition is of wide scope and excellent design. It includes an Essay on Greek Prose Style, a full summary of the treatise itself, and a careful treatment of the difficult questions concerning its date and authorship. The fact that this is the first English text and the first English translation of a very valuable and interesting work gives it an added importance, and opens up what will be a new field for many scholars.... The translation, which is exceedingly vigorous, elegant and ingenious, has one other signal merit: it never ‘hedges’: the translator never hides a doubt about the meaning under ambiguous language; he leaves no uncertainty about the meaning which he attaches to the text; and in the few places where we may venture to take a different view we feel that there is always something to be said for the version which we reject.... Dr. Roberts has a very keen eye and ear for literary beauty; and the treatise affords ample scope for the employment of his wide and various knowledge of modern literature.... The _De Elocutione_ is a treatise full of interesting and suggestive comment; and all lovers of literature owe their best thanks to Professor Roberts for the edition of it which he has put in their hands.”

The volume has also been favourably reviewed by the following Continental scholars: Dr. PH. WEBER (_Neue Philologische Rundschau_), M. THÉODORE REINACH (_Revue des Études Grecques_), Professor AMÉDÉE HAUVETTE (_Revue Critique d’histoire et de littérature_), Professor CH. MICHEL (_Revue de l’Instruction publique en Belgique_), and Professor GIOVANNI SETTI (_La Cultura_).