Chapter VI: Introduction: I (3)

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

[Page 54]

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

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

[Page 55]

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

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

[Page 56]

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

G. _Manuscripts and Text_

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

_Siglorum in notulis criticis adhibitorum Index_

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 57]

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

The dates of the Epitome and of the _Rhetor Graecus_ are uncertain. But both are early and highly important authorities. The latter quotes c. 14 only of the treatise, but the quotation enabled Usener to show that the text of F agreed in the main with that of the _Rhetor_ and of the Epitome. The result was to enhance greatly the authority of F, with which earlier editors had merely an indirect and imperfect acquaintance. But by a not unnatural reaction against the excessive attention paid to what may be called the P group (PMV: though M and V sometimes coincide with F against P), Usener is inclined too readily to follow F, or even E, when standing alone. Still, while the readings supported only by F, or E, or P should be carefully scrutinized and independently judged, the concurrent testimony of FE and any other MS. is very strong indeed.

Two passages taken almost at a venture (say, the first twenty lines of c. 12 and the last twenty of c. 19) would be enough to show that neither F nor P can be exclusively followed, and that Usener himself is often (more often than is indicated in this edition) driven to desert F, which in fact contains, in these or other places, a large number of impossible or even absurd readings.[82]

[Page 58]

Where, however, there are genuine instances of various readings (as εὐκαιροτέραις: εὐροωτέραις in the last of the passages just specified), it seems best to follow F (especially when supported by other authorities), even though the hand of an ingenious early scholar may sometimes with reason be suspected.[83]

One reason for accepting with reserve the unsupported testimony of F is that its evidence is sometimes far from sound in regard to quotations from authors whose text is well established from other sources. In the principal quotations from Pindar and Thucydides this defect is not so manifest; and it may even be claimed that its text of the Pindaric dithyramb, and of the Herodotus extract on p. 82, is distinguished by many excellent features, though not so many as Usener was at first inclined to claim in the case of the Pindar. But in the extract from the _Areopagiticus_ of Isocrates which is given in c. 23, the text presented by F (as compared with that presented by P) seems to suggest that, in dealing with Dionysius’ own words as well as with his quotations, the transcriber may have felt entitled to make rather free alterations on his own account. In order to provide readers with the means of judging for themselves, the critical apparatus has been made specially full at this point.[84]

Usener’s text of the _de Compositione_ deserves the highest respect: it is the last undertaking of one of the greatest philologists of the nineteenth century, and every succeeding editor must find himself deep in its debt. Its record of readings is full to exhaustiveness. In the present edition less wealth of detail is attempted (especially in regard to F and R), though all really

[Page 59]

important and typical variations have, it is hoped, been duly registered, and particular attention has been paid to the minute collation of P. But apart from the correction of misprints (as on pp. =124= 13, =132= 23, =250= 7), it is hoped that the following among other readings will commend themselves (on an examination of the sections of the Notes or Glossary in which they are defended) as superior to those adopted by Usener (and indicated here in brackets) from conjecture or on manuscript authority: =64= 11 (σοὶ omitted), =70= 5 (εὖ τί), =78= 17 (παλαιαί), =80= 13 (παιδικόν), =94= 13 (προβαῖεν), =94= 16 (σπουδάζεσθαι), =98= 20 (οἷά τινα), =106= 13 (εὖ ἢ), =132= 20 (θηρᾶν), =142= 9 (σπανίζει), etc.

H. _Recent Writings connected with the_ de Compositione

A full bibliography, covering not only the _de Compositione_ of Dionysius but his rhetorical and critical works generally, is given in the present editor’s _Dionysius of Halicarnassus: the Three Literary Letters_ (published in January 1901), pp. 209-219. The following are (in chronological order) the early editors who have done most to further the study of the _de Compositione_: Aldus Manutius (_editio princeps_), Robertus Stephanus, F. Sylburg, J. Upton, J. J. Reiske, G. H. Schaefer, and F. Goeller. Much interest still attaches to C. Batteux’ publication (1788): _Traité de l’arrangement des mots: traduit du grec de Denys d’Halicarnasse; avec des réflexions sur la langue française, comparée avec la langue grecque_. The translation is too free and based on too poor a text to meet the needs of exact scholarship. But the _Réflexions_ (which accompany the translation, in vol. vi. of the author’s _Principes de littérature_) are full of suggestive remarks. Another excellent literary study of Dionysius is that of Max. Egger: _Denys d’Halicarnasse: essai sur la critique littéraire et la rhétorique chez les Grecs au siècle d’Auguste_ (Paris, 1902). As its title indicates, this volume takes a wide range; and it reveals that full competence in these matters which it is natural to expect from the son of Émile Egger. A short general account, by Radermacher, of Dionysius’ critical essays will be found in Pauly-Wissowa’s _Realencyclopädie_ vol. v.

The first volume of Usener and Radermacher’s text was included in the bibliographical list mentioned above. In 1904 appeared the second volume, containing the _de Compositione_ and

[Page 60]

some other critical writings of Dionysius (_Dionysii Halicarnasei opuscula ediderunt Hermannus Usener et Ludovicus Radermacher. Voluminis sec. fasc. prior._ _Lipsiae_, 1904). The second volume is on a par with the first, which was welcomed, as a notable achievement, in the _Classical Review_ xiv. pp. 452-455, where also attention was drawn (p. 454 _a_) to a questionable emendation previously introduced by Usener into the text of the _de Imitatione_. This emendation is withdrawn in Usener’s second volume—a fact which may be mentioned as one proof among many that his tendency was to grow more conservative and, in particular, more attentive to the testimony of P 1741. The titles of A. B. Poynton’s articles on Dionysius are: “Oxford MSS. of Dionysius Halicarnasseus, _De Compositione Verborum_” (_Journal of Philology_ xxvii. pp. 70-99), and “Oxford MSS. of the _Opuscula_ of Dionysius of Halicarnassus” (_Journal of Philology_ xxviii. pp. 162-185). Among other useful _subsidia_ lately published may be mentioned: W. Kroll’s “Randbemerkungen” in _Rhein. Mus._ lxii. pp. 86-101, and Larue van Hook’s _Metaphorical Terminology of Greek Rhetoric and Literary Criticism_ (Chicago, 1905). R. H. Tukey (_Classical Review_, September 1909, p. 188) makes the interesting suggestion that “the _De Compositione_ belongs chronologically between the two parts of the _De Demosthene_.” The use of the present tense δηλοῦται, in _C.V._ =182= 8 may be held to countenance this view.

In some recent books of larger scope it is pleasant to notice an increased appreciation of the high value of the work done by Dionysius in the field of literary criticism. Certain of these estimates may be quoted in conclusion. R. C. Jebb, in the _Companion to Greek Studies_ p. 137: “The maturity of the ‘Attic revival’ is represented at Rome, in the Augustan age, by the best literary critic of antiquity, Dionysius of Halicarnassus.” A. and M. Croiset _Histoire de la littérature grecque_ v. p. 371: “Les uns et les autres [les contemporains et les rhéteurs des âges suivants] appréciaient avec raison l’érudition de Denys, la justesse de son esprit, sa finesse dans le discernement des ressemblances et des différences, la solidité de sa doctrine, son goût dans le choix des exemples. De plus, ils se sentaient touchés, comme nous et plus que nous, par la vivacité de ses admirations, par cette sorte de foi communicative, qui faisait de lui le défenseur des traditions classiques.” Wilamowitz-Moellendorff

[Page 61]

_Die griechische Literatur des Altertums_ pp. 102 and 148: “Von unbestreitbar hohem und dauerndem Werte ist die andere Seite der rhetorischen Theorie und Praxis, die sich auf den Ausdruck erstreckt, die Stilistik.... Es ist ein hohes Lob, dass er (Dionysios von Halikarnass) im Grunde dieselbe stilistische Überzeugung vertritt wie Cicero, und wir sind ihm für die Erhaltung von ungemein viel Wichtigem zu Dank verpflichtet; seine Schriften über die attischen Redner und über die Wortfügung sind auch eine nicht nur belehrende, sondern gefällige Lekture.” J. E. Sandys _History of Classical Scholarship_ i. p. 279: “In the minute and technical criticism of the art and craft of Greek literature, the works of Dionysius stand alone in all the centuries that elapsed between the _Rhetoric_ of Aristotle and the treatise _On the Sublime_.” G. Saintsbury _History of Criticism_ i. pp. 136, 137, 132: “Dionysius is a very considerable critic, and one to whom justice has not usually, if at all, yet been done.... A critic who saw far, and for the most part truly, into the proper province of literary criticism.... This treatise [sc. the _de Compositione_], if studied carefully, must raise some astonishment that Dionysius should have been spoken of disrespectfully by anyone who himself possesses competence in criticism. From more points of view than one, the piece gives Dionysius no mean rank as a critic.” S. H. Butcher _Harvard Lectures on Greek Subjects_ pp. 236, 239: “Of his fine perception of the harmonies of Greek speech we can entertain no reasonable doubt.... We cannot dismiss his general criticism as unsound or fanciful. The whole history of the evolution of Greek prose, and the practice of the great masters of the art, support his main contention.” With these extracts may be coupled one from the _Spectator_ of March 23, 1901: “In this treatise Dionysius reviews and attempts to explain the art of literature. It is a brilliant effort to analyse the sensuous emotions produced by the harmonious arrangement of beautiful words. Its eternal truth might make it a textbook for to-day.”

[Page 62]

In the Notes and Glossary, as in the Introduction, references are usually given to the lines, as well as the pages, of the Greek text here printed: e.g. =80= 7 = page =80= line 7 of the _De Compositione_.—The following abbreviations are used in referring to volumes already issued by the editor:—

D.H. = ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus: the Three Literary Letters.’
Long. = ‘Longinus on the Sublime.’
Demetr. = ‘Demetrius on Style.’

[Page 63]

ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΟΥ ΑΛΙΚΑΡΝΑΣΕΩΣ

_ΠΕΡΙ ΣΥΝΘΕΣΕΩΣ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΩΝ_

[Page 64]

ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΟΥ ΑΛΙΚΑΡΝΑΣΕΩΣ

_ΠΕΡΙ ΣΥΝΘΕΣΕΩΣ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΩΝ_

I

“Δῶρόν τοι καὶ ἐγώ, τέκνον φίλε, τοῦτο δίδωμι,”

καθάπερ ἡ παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ φησὶν Ἑλένη ξενίζουσα τὸν Τηλέμαχον, 5 πρώτην ἡμέραν ἄγοντι ταύτην γενέθλιον, ἀφ’ οὗ παραγέγονας εἰς ἀνδρὸς ἡλικίαν, ἡδίστην καὶ τιμιωτάτην ἑορτῶν ἐμοί· πλὴν οὔτε #χειρῶν# δημιούργημα πέμπω σοι τῶν ἐμῶν, ὡς ἐκείνη φησὶ διδοῦσα τῷ μειρακίῳ τὸν πέπλον, οὔτ’ #ἐς γάμου# μόνον #ὥραν# καὶ #γαμετῆς# χάριν εὔθετον, ἀλλὰ ποίημα μὲν καὶ γέννημα 10 παιδείας καὶ ψυχῆς τῆς ἐμῆς, κτῆμα δὲ σοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ χρῆμα πρὸς ἁπάσας τὰς ἐν τῷ βίῳ χρείας ὁπόσαι γίνονται διὰ λόγων ὠφέλιμον, ἀναγκαιότατον ἁπάντων χρημάτων, εἴ τι κἀγὼ τυγχάνω τῶν δεόντων φρονῶν, ἅπασι μὲν ὁμοίως τοῖς ἀσκοῦσι τοὺς πολιτικοὺς λόγους, ἐν ᾗ ποτ’ ἂν ἡλικίᾳ 15

1 ἁλικαρνασσέως PV^2 4 καὶ om. V 6 ταυτηνὶ PMV 7 ἡδίστην om. P 8 χεῖρον PV^1 9 ἔφη PV || οὔτε εἰς PMV 11 σοὶ om. E 12 πάσας EF 13 ὠφέλιμον V: ὠφελίμων EFM: ὠφέλιμοι P 14 τι] τι δὴ MV

2. For the meaning and rendering of =σύνθεσις= see Glossary, p. 326 _infra_.

5. In ll. 5, 8, 9, 10, the reference is to _Odyssey_ xv. 123-127:—

Ἑλένη δὲ παρίστατο καλλιπάρῃος
πέπλον ἔχουσ’ ἐν χερσίν, ἔπος τ’ ἔφατ’ ἐκ τ’ ὀνόμαζε·
Δῶρον τοι καὶ ἐγώ, τέκνον φίλε, τοῦτο δίδωμι,
μνῆμ’ Ἑλένης χειρῶν, πολυηράτου ἐς γάμου ὥρην,
σῇ ἀλόχῳ φορέειν.

10. The word =γαμετή= is used by Dionysius in the interesting and highly characteristic passage which opens the _de Antiq. Oratoribus_ (c. 2).—Here Sauppe conjectures γαμετῇ for γαμετῆς.—For =εὔθετος= cf. _de Thucyd._ c. 55 τὸ διηγηματικὸν μέρος αὐτῆς πλὴν ὀλίγων πάνυ θαυμαστῶς ἔχειν καὶ εἰς πάσας εἶναι τὰς χρείας εὔθετον, τὸ δὲ δημηγορικὸν οὐχ ἅπαν εἰς μίμησιν ἐπιτήδειον εἶναι.

11. =κτῆμα ... χρῆμα=, ‘a treasure and a tool,’ ‘a compliment and an implement’: similarly =264= 14 φθόνῳ καὶ χρόνῳ (the reading of PMV), and =268= 9 χρόνῳ τε πολλῷ καὶ πόνῳ, =184= 25 ἀγνοίας ... προνοίας. Cp. the jingles found in the fragments of Gorgias, or in Aristophanes (ῥώμῃ ... γνώμῃ, _Av._ 637, 638; σχῆμα ... λῆμα, _Ran._ 463). Such rhyming tendencies (frequent in the orations of Cicero) are condemned in prose-writing by modern taste, though they have, in the course of centuries, found much acceptance in poetry.—For the antithesis in κτῆμα ... χρῆμα cp. Isocr. _ad Demonicum_ 28, Cic. _ad Fam._ vii. 29, 30, Lucr. _de Rer. Nat._ iii. 971.

The Epitome (except E^r) omits =σοι=, thus securing brevity at the price of rhythm, antithesis, and point. Cp. =66= 13, where E omits οἰκειοτέρα.

14. =κἀγώ=: the καί gives a modest tone, as in Soph. _Philoct._ 192 εἴπερ κἀγώ τι φρονῶ (Jebb).

15. =πολιτικούς=: see =Glossary=, s.v.

[Page 65]

DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS

ON

LITERARY COMPOSITION