Chapter 17

2 ιοδέτ(ων) P, MV: ἰαδέτων E: ὅδ’ ἐγὼν F || λαχετε P, EMV: λάχει F (cp.2244) || τᾶν τ’ ἐαριδρόπων Us.: ἄντε ἀριδρόπων F: τ’ ἀντ’ ἐαριδρέπων P: τάν τε ἀριδρέπτων E: τ’ ἀντ’ ἐπαριδρέπων M: τῶν ἐαριδρέπτων V || ἀοιδάν EFV: λοιβάν PM 3 Διόθεν τέ με] διατεθέντε F 4 πορευθέντα· οἱ δἂν F: πορευθέντες ἀοιδαὶ (ἀοιδαῖς EV) ceteri 5 κισσοδέταν s: κισσοδόνταν deleto ν priore P (κισσοδόταν leg. Us.): κισσοδαη F, EMV 6 τὸν P: ὃν ceteri || βρόμιον ὃν EFMV: βρόμι(ον). τ(ον) P 7 μὲν P: τε EV: μέν τε FM || μέλπε P: μέλπομεν ceteri 8 ἔμολον P: σεμέλαν EV: σεμέλην FM 9 ἐναργέα τελέων Us.: ἐναργεα νεμέω P, E: ἐν ἄλγεα τεμεῶι F: ἐν ἀργέα νεμέα MV || σάματ’ Us.: τεμάντιν F: μάντιν cett. 10 φοινικοεάνων Kock: φοινικοεάων F: φοίνικος ἐανῶν cett. || οἰχθόντες F || ὧραν F: ὥραν cett. || θάλαμοι F 11 εὐόαμον F || ἐπάγοισιν F: ἐπαΐωσιν cett. 12 τότε om. F || ἄμβροτον χέρσον EFV: ἀμβρόταν (αμσβρόταν P) χθόν’ PM 12-13 ἐραταὶ (ἐρατὰς V) ἴων φόβαι ῥόδατε EV: ἐρατέων φοβερόδατε F: ἐρατὰν· ΐον φοβεράτε P, M 13 κόμισι F || μίγνυται PM: μίγνυνται EFV 14 ἀχεῖ τε F: οἰχνεῖ τ’ EPM: οἰχνεῖτε V: ὑμνεῖτε s || ὀμφᾶι F: ὀμφᾶ E: ὀμφα V: ὀμφαῖς PM 15 ἀχεῖ τε Hermannus: οἰχνεῖ τε libri: ὑμνεῖτε s 18 ἀναβέβληται F: ἀνακέκληται PMV 19 ἐπὶ F: ἐπὶ τὸ PMV || καὶ οὐ τὸ Us.: καὶ οὔτε PMV: οὐ τὸ F 21 καὶ FM: καὶ τὸ PV || εὖ F: om. PMV2. λαχεῖν would be infinitive for imperative, or (rather) infinitive of purpose after a verb of motion (just as Boeckh, in l. 7infra, reads μελπέμεν).λοιβᾶν (λοιβάν PM) might be taken to refer to honey, or to ‘drink-offerings of spring-gathered herbs.’4.δεύτερον: “post Iovem patremsecundo locoad Bacchum filium,” Boeckh. Or the reference may be to a previous visit of Pindar to Athens.9. ‘The clear-seen tokens of his rites are not unnoticed.’ In other words, the return of spring indicates to the god that his festival is at hand: cp. Aristoph.Nub.311 (Weir Smyth).12.βάλλεται ... ἀχεῖ ... ἀχεῖ:schema Pindaricum.15. “Metre: paeonic-logaoedic asOl.10,Pyth.5. Schmidt (Eurythmie428) regards the metre as logaoedic throughout. The fragment belongs to the ἀπολελυμένα μέλη, that is, it is not divided into strophes,” Weir Smyth.21. It is convenient to use ‘readers’ occasionally in the translation. But ‘hearers’ (οἱ ἀκούοντες) would more naturally be used by a Greek: just as λόγους (2181) is strictly ‘discourse’ rather than ‘literature.’

2. λαχεῖν would be infinitive for imperative, or (rather) infinitive of purpose after a verb of motion (just as Boeckh, in l. 7infra, reads μελπέμεν).

λοιβᾶν (λοιβάν PM) might be taken to refer to honey, or to ‘drink-offerings of spring-gathered herbs.’

4.δεύτερον: “post Iovem patremsecundo locoad Bacchum filium,” Boeckh. Or the reference may be to a previous visit of Pindar to Athens.

9. ‘The clear-seen tokens of his rites are not unnoticed.’ In other words, the return of spring indicates to the god that his festival is at hand: cp. Aristoph.Nub.311 (Weir Smyth).

12.βάλλεται ... ἀχεῖ ... ἀχεῖ:schema Pindaricum.

15. “Metre: paeonic-logaoedic asOl.10,Pyth.5. Schmidt (Eurythmie428) regards the metre as logaoedic throughout. The fragment belongs to the ἀπολελυμένα μέλη, that is, it is not divided into strophes,” Weir Smyth.

21. It is convenient to use ‘readers’ occasionally in the translation. But ‘hearers’ (οἱ ἀκούοντες) would more naturally be used by a Greek: just as λόγους (2181) is strictly ‘discourse’ rather than ‘literature.’

μετρίαν ἔχοντες αἴσθησιν περὶ λόγους. τίνι δὲ κατασκευασθένταἐπιτηδεύσει τοιαῦτα γέγονεν (οὐ γὰρ ἄνευ γε τέχνηςκαὶ λόγου τινός, αὐτοματισμῷ δὲ καὶ τύχῃ χρησάμενα τοῦτονεἴληφε τὸν χαρακτῆρα), ἐγὼ πειράσομαι δεικνύναι.τὸ πρῶτον αὐτῷ κῶλον ἐκ τεττάρων σύγκειται λέξεως 5μορίων, ῥήματος καὶ συνδέσμου καὶ δυεῖν προσηγορικῶν· τὸμὲν οὖν ῥῆμα καὶ ὁ σύνδεσμος συναλοιφῇ κερασθέντα οὐκἀηδῆ πεποίηκε τὴν ἁρμονίαν· τὸ δὲ προσηγορικὸν τῷ συνδέσμῳσυντιθέμενον ἀποτετράχυκεν ἀξιολόγως τὴν ἁρμογήν· τὸ γὰρἐν χορὸνκαὶ ἀντίτυπον καὶ οὐκ εὐεπές, τοῦ μὲν συνδέσμου 10λήγοντος εἰς ἡμίφωνον στοιχεῖον τὸ ν̄, τοῦ δὲ προσηγορικοῦτὴν ἀρχὴν λαμβάνοντος ἀφ’ ἑνὸς τῶν ἀφώνων τοῦ χ̄· ἀσύμμικταδὲ τῇ φύσει ταῦτα τὰ στοιχεῖα καὶ ἀκόλλητα· οὐ γὰρπέφυκε κατὰ μίαν συλλαβὴν τοῦ χ̄ προτάττεσθαι τὸ ν̄,ὥστε οὐδὲ συλλαβῶν ὅρια γινόμενα συνάπτει τὸν ἦχον, ἀλλ’ 15ἀνάγκη σιωπήν τινα γενέσθαι μέσην ἀμφοῖν τὴν διορίζουσανἑκατέρου τῶν γραμμάτων τὰς δυνάμεις. τὸ μὲν δὴ πρῶτονκῶλον οὕτω τραχύνεται τῇ συνθέσει. κῶλα δέ με δέξαιλέγειν οὐχ οἷς Ἀριστοφάνης ἢ τῶν ἄλλων τις μετρικῶνδιεκόσμησε τὰς ᾠδάς, ἀλλ’ οἷς ἡ φύσις ἀξιοῖ διαιρεῖν τὸν 20λόγον καὶ ῥητόρων παῖδες τὰς περιόδους διαιροῦσι.τὸ δὲ τούτῳ παρακείμενον κῶλον τὸ “ἐπί τε κλυτὰνπέμπετε χάριν θεοί” διαβέβηκεν ἀπὸ τοῦ προτέρου διάβασινἀξιόλογον καὶ περιείληφεν ἐν αὑτῷ πολλὰς ἁρμονίας ἀντιτύπους.ἄρχει μὲν γὰρ αὐτοῦ στοιχεῖον ἓν τῶν φωνηέντων τὸ 25ε̄ καὶ παράκειται ἑτέρῳ φωνήεντι τῷ ῑ· εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἔληγε[219]whose literary sense has been tolerably developed. I will attempt to show by what method such results have been achieved, since it is not by spontaneous accident, but by some kind of artistic design, that this passage has acquired its characteristic form.The first clause consists of four words—a verb, a connective, and two appellatives. Now the mingling and the amalgamation of the verb and the connective have produced a rhythm which is not without its charm; but the combination of the connective with the appellative has resulted in a junction of considerable roughness. For the words ἐν χορόν are jarring and uneuphonious, since the connective ends with the semivowel ν, while the appellative begins with one of the mutes, χ. These letters by their very nature cannot be blended and compacted, since it is unnatural for the combination νχ to form part of a single syllable; and so, when ν and χ are the boundaries of adjacent syllables, the voice cannot be continuous, but there must necessarily be a pause separating the letters if each of them is uttered with its proper sound. So, then, the first clause is roughened thus by the arrangement of its words. (You must understand me to mean by “clauses” not those into which Aristophanes or any of the other metrists has arranged the odes, but those into which Nature insists on dividing the discourse and into which the disciples of the rhetoricians divide their periods.)The next clause to this—ἐπί τε κλυτὰν πέμπετε χάριν θεοί—is separated from the former by a considerable interval and includes within itself many dissonant collocations. It begins with one of the vowels, ε, in close proximity to which is another vowel, ι—the letter which came at the end of the preceding

[219]whose literary sense has been tolerably developed. I will attempt to show by what method such results have been achieved, since it is not by spontaneous accident, but by some kind of artistic design, that this passage has acquired its characteristic form.The first clause consists of four words—a verb, a connective, and two appellatives. Now the mingling and the amalgamation of the verb and the connective have produced a rhythm which is not without its charm; but the combination of the connective with the appellative has resulted in a junction of considerable roughness. For the words ἐν χορόν are jarring and uneuphonious, since the connective ends with the semivowel ν, while the appellative begins with one of the mutes, χ. These letters by their very nature cannot be blended and compacted, since it is unnatural for the combination νχ to form part of a single syllable; and so, when ν and χ are the boundaries of adjacent syllables, the voice cannot be continuous, but there must necessarily be a pause separating the letters if each of them is uttered with its proper sound. So, then, the first clause is roughened thus by the arrangement of its words. (You must understand me to mean by “clauses” not those into which Aristophanes or any of the other metrists has arranged the odes, but those into which Nature insists on dividing the discourse and into which the disciples of the rhetoricians divide their periods.)The next clause to this—ἐπί τε κλυτὰν πέμπετε χάριν θεοί—is separated from the former by a considerable interval and includes within itself many dissonant collocations. It begins with one of the vowels, ε, in close proximity to which is another vowel, ι—the letter which came at the end of the preceding

[219]

whose literary sense has been tolerably developed. I will attempt to show by what method such results have been achieved, since it is not by spontaneous accident, but by some kind of artistic design, that this passage has acquired its characteristic form.

The first clause consists of four words—a verb, a connective, and two appellatives. Now the mingling and the amalgamation of the verb and the connective have produced a rhythm which is not without its charm; but the combination of the connective with the appellative has resulted in a junction of considerable roughness. For the words ἐν χορόν are jarring and uneuphonious, since the connective ends with the semivowel ν, while the appellative begins with one of the mutes, χ. These letters by their very nature cannot be blended and compacted, since it is unnatural for the combination νχ to form part of a single syllable; and so, when ν and χ are the boundaries of adjacent syllables, the voice cannot be continuous, but there must necessarily be a pause separating the letters if each of them is uttered with its proper sound. So, then, the first clause is roughened thus by the arrangement of its words. (You must understand me to mean by “clauses” not those into which Aristophanes or any of the other metrists has arranged the odes, but those into which Nature insists on dividing the discourse and into which the disciples of the rhetoricians divide their periods.)

The next clause to this—ἐπί τε κλυτὰν πέμπετε χάριν θεοί—is separated from the former by a considerable interval and includes within itself many dissonant collocations. It begins with one of the vowels, ε, in close proximity to which is another vowel, ι—the letter which came at the end of the preceding

1 λόγους ... τέχνης καὶ om. F || τινὶ δε P 3 δὲ καὶ F: καὶ PMV || χρησάμενον F 4 ἐγὼ PMV: ὃν ἐγὼ F 5 αὐτὸ F 10 καὶ ἀντίτυπον EF: ἀντίτυπόν τε PMV || εὐεπὲς EF: εὐπετὲς PMV 13 τῆι φύσει P, M in marg. F: om. F1: τῆ ῥύσει V 14 προτάττεσθαι F: προτετάχθε P, MV 15 οὐδὲ PMV: οὔτε F || ὅρια] ὄρια F: δύο (β̄ P) μόρια EPM: δύο τὰ μόρια V || συνάπτει] τύπτει F 16 γενέσθαι EF: γίγνεσθαι P: γίνεσθαι MV || μέσοιν EM 17 ἑκατέρων EF 18 με δέξαι PV: μ’ ἔδοξε FM 19 λέγειν F: νυνὶ λέγειν PMV 22 δὲ τούτω PV: δ’ επι τούτων F, M 23 θεοὶ FM: om. PV || διαβέβηκεν F: βέβηκέ τε PMV 24 αὑτῷ] Sch., αὐτῷ libri 26 ἔληγεν ὁ F: ἔληξεν τὸ P, MV5.αὐτῷ: sc. in this author, or in this passage. Cp.1681,23029.13. Dionysius’ general object is to show that there is a kind of intentional discord or clash in Pindar’s dithyramb.17. ‘If each of the letters is uttered with its proper quality,’ viz. if we say ἐν χορόν and not ἐγ χορόν.19.Ἀριστοφάνης: not, of course, the comic poet of Athens, but the grammarian of Byzantium.—From this passage, and from2785infra, it would appear that Aristophanes divided the text of Pindar and other lyric poets into metricalcola. Suchcolaare found in the recently-discovered Bacchylides papyrus (written probably in Dionysius’ own century—the first centuryB.C.), which is also the earliest manuscript in which accents are used.21.ῥητόρων παῖδες: cp.2668 ζωγράφων τε καὶ τορευτῶν παισίν, ‘the generation of painters and sculptors.’ So ζωγράφων παῖδες PlatoLegg.769B, παῖδες ῥητόρων Luc.Anach.19. The term will include pupils or apprentices, as well as sons: cp. PlatoRep.v. 467Aἢ οὐκ ᾔσθησαι τὰ περὶ τὰς τέχνας, οἷον τοὺς τῶν κεραμέων παῖδας, ὡς πολὺν χρόνον διακονοῦντες θεωροῦσι πρὶν ἅπτεσθαι τοῦ κεραμεύειν; Earlier still we have the schools of the bards—the Ὁμηρίδαι or Ὁμήρου παῖδες, like ‘the sons of the prophets’ in the Old Testament. As used by later writers, the periphrasis with παῖδες may be compared with οἱ περί, οἱ ἀμφί (cp. note on19420supra).26. “The passages relating to Ὀλύμπιοι ἐπί, and καὶ Ἀθηναίων (Thuc. i. 1), where the word in each case is said to end in ι, have led some persons to suppose that Dionysius pronounced οι and αι as real diphthongs of two vowels ending in ι. We know, however, that at this time αι was a single vowel ε prolonged, and that it was only called a diphthong because written with two letters, just aseaineach,greatare often spoken of as a diphthong, in place of a digraph. We know also that ι subscript was not pronounced, and yet Dionysius speaks of ἀγλαΐᾳ as ending with ι. Consequently there is no need to suppose that οι was a real diphthong either. The language is merely orthographical. As to the amount of pause, we find similar combinations within the same Greek word: οι and ε in οἴεται, ν and δ in ἄνδρα, αι and α in Αἴας; while ν before τ is quite common as in ὄντων, and ν before π, κ becomes μ, γ, as in ἔμπορος, ἐγκρατής. Hence much of this criticism may be fanciful. But it is certain that there is a different feeling respecting the collision of letters which end and begin a word, and those which come together in the same word. Thus in French poetry open vowels are entirely forbidden. It is impossible to say ‘cela ira’ in serious French verse. Yet ‘haïr’ is quite admissible. Hence there may be some foundation for the preceding observations, which, however, like many others in the treatise, ride a theory very hard,” A. J. E. [The observations of the critic, himself, must obviously be accepted with considerable reserve: see, for example, the note on23019infra.]

5.αὐτῷ: sc. in this author, or in this passage. Cp.1681,23029.

13. Dionysius’ general object is to show that there is a kind of intentional discord or clash in Pindar’s dithyramb.

17. ‘If each of the letters is uttered with its proper quality,’ viz. if we say ἐν χορόν and not ἐγ χορόν.

19.Ἀριστοφάνης: not, of course, the comic poet of Athens, but the grammarian of Byzantium.—From this passage, and from2785infra, it would appear that Aristophanes divided the text of Pindar and other lyric poets into metricalcola. Suchcolaare found in the recently-discovered Bacchylides papyrus (written probably in Dionysius’ own century—the first centuryB.C.), which is also the earliest manuscript in which accents are used.

21.ῥητόρων παῖδες: cp.2668 ζωγράφων τε καὶ τορευτῶν παισίν, ‘the generation of painters and sculptors.’ So ζωγράφων παῖδες PlatoLegg.769B, παῖδες ῥητόρων Luc.Anach.19. The term will include pupils or apprentices, as well as sons: cp. PlatoRep.v. 467Aἢ οὐκ ᾔσθησαι τὰ περὶ τὰς τέχνας, οἷον τοὺς τῶν κεραμέων παῖδας, ὡς πολὺν χρόνον διακονοῦντες θεωροῦσι πρὶν ἅπτεσθαι τοῦ κεραμεύειν; Earlier still we have the schools of the bards—the Ὁμηρίδαι or Ὁμήρου παῖδες, like ‘the sons of the prophets’ in the Old Testament. As used by later writers, the periphrasis with παῖδες may be compared with οἱ περί, οἱ ἀμφί (cp. note on19420supra).

26. “The passages relating to Ὀλύμπιοι ἐπί, and καὶ Ἀθηναίων (Thuc. i. 1), where the word in each case is said to end in ι, have led some persons to suppose that Dionysius pronounced οι and αι as real diphthongs of two vowels ending in ι. We know, however, that at this time αι was a single vowel ε prolonged, and that it was only called a diphthong because written with two letters, just aseaineach,greatare often spoken of as a diphthong, in place of a digraph. We know also that ι subscript was not pronounced, and yet Dionysius speaks of ἀγλαΐᾳ as ending with ι. Consequently there is no need to suppose that οι was a real diphthong either. The language is merely orthographical. As to the amount of pause, we find similar combinations within the same Greek word: οι and ε in οἴεται, ν and δ in ἄνδρα, αι and α in Αἴας; while ν before τ is quite common as in ὄντων, and ν before π, κ becomes μ, γ, as in ἔμπορος, ἐγκρατής. Hence much of this criticism may be fanciful. But it is certain that there is a different feeling respecting the collision of letters which end and begin a word, and those which come together in the same word. Thus in French poetry open vowels are entirely forbidden. It is impossible to say ‘cela ira’ in serious French verse. Yet ‘haïr’ is quite admissible. Hence there may be some foundation for the preceding observations, which, however, like many others in the treatise, ride a theory very hard,” A. J. E. [The observations of the critic, himself, must obviously be accepted with considerable reserve: see, for example, the note on23019infra.]

τὸ πρὸ αὐτοῦ. οὐ συναλείφεται δὲ οὐδὲ ταῦτ’ ἀλλήλοις, οὐδὲπροτάττεται κατὰ μίαν συλλαβὴν τὸ ῑ τοῦ ε̄· σιωπὴ δέ τιςμεταξὺ ἀμφοῖν γίνεται, διερείδουσα τῶν μορίων ἑκάτερον καὶτὴν βάσιν αὐτοῖς ἀποδιδοῦσα ἀσφαλῆ. ἐν δὲ τῇ κατὰ μέροςσυνθέσει τοῦ κώλου τοῖς μὲνἐπί τεσυνδέσμοις ἀφ’ ὧν 5ἄρχεται τὸ κῶλον, εἴτε ἄρα πρόθεσιν αὐτῶν δεῖ τὸ ἡγούμενονκαλεῖν, τὸ προσηγορικὸν ἐπικείμενον μόριον τὸκλυτὰνἀντίτυπον πεποίηκε καὶ τραχεῖαν τὴν σύνθεσιν· κατὰ τίποτε; ὅτι βούλεται μὲν εἶναι βραχεῖα ἡ πρώτη συλλαβὴτοῦκλυτάν, μακροτέρα δ’ ἐστὶ τῆς βραχείας ἐξ ἀφώνου τε 10καὶ ἡμιφώνου καὶ φωνήεντος συνεστῶσα. τὸ δὲ μὴ εἰλικρινῶςαὐτῆς βραχὺ καὶ ἅμα τὸ ἐν τῇ κράσει τῶν γραμμάτωνδυσεκφόρητον ἀναβολήν τε ποιεῖ καὶ ἐγκοπὴν τῆς ἁρμονίας.εἰ γοῦν τὸ κ̄ τις ἀφέλοι τῆς συλλαβῆς καὶ ποιήσειενἐπίτε λυτάν, λυθήσεται καὶ τὸ βραδὺ καὶ τὸ τραχὺ τῆς 15ἁρμονίας. πάλιν τῷκλυτὰνπροσηγορικῷ τὸπέμπετεῥηματικὸν ἐπικείμενον οὐκ ἔχει συνῳδὸν οὐδ’ εὐκέραστον τὸνἦχον, ἀλλ’ ἀνάγκη στηριχθῆναι τὸ ν̄ καὶ πιεσθέντος ἱκανῶςτοῦ στόματος τότε ἀκουστὸν γενέσθαι τὸ π̄· οὐ γὰρ ὑποτακτικὸντῷ ν̄ τὸ π̄. τούτου δ’ αἴτιον ὁ τοῦ στόματος 20σχηματισμὸς οὔτε κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον οὔτε τῷ αὐτῷτρόπῳ τῶν γραμμάτων ἐκφέρων ἑκάτερον· τοῦ μὲν γὰρ ν̄περὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν γίνεται ὁ ἦχος καὶ τῆς γλώττης ἄκροιςτοῖς ὀδοῦσι προσανισταμένης καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος διὰ τῶνῥωθώνων μεριζομένου, τοῦ δὲ π̄ μύσαντός τε τοῦ στόματος 25[221]clause. These letters, again, do not coalesce with one another, nor can ι stand before ε in the same syllable. There is a certain silence between the two letters, which thrusts apart the two elements and gives each a firm position. In the detailed arrangement of the clause the postposition of the appellative part of speech κλυτάν to the connectives ἐπί τε with which the phrase opens (though perhaps the first of these connectives should rather be called apreposition) has made the composition dissonant and harsh. For what reason? Because the first syllable of κλυτάν is ostensibly short, but actually longer than the ordinary short, since it is composed of a mute, a semi-vowel, and a vowel. It is the want of unalloyed brevity in it, combined with the difficulty of pronunciation involved in the combination of the letters, that causes retardation and interruption in the harmony. At all events, if you were to remove the κ from the syllable and to make it ἐπί τε λυτάν, there would be an end to both the slowness and the roughness of the arrangement. Further: the verbal form πέμπετε, subjoined to the appellative κλυτάν, does not produce a harmonious or well-tempered sound. The ν must be firmly planted and the π be heard only when the lips have been quite pressed together, for the π cannot be tacked on to the ν. The reason of this is the configuration of the mouth, which does not produce the two letters either at the same spot or in the same way. ν is sounded on the arch of the palate, with the tongue rising towards the edge of the teeth and with the breath passing in separate currents through the nostrils; π with the lips closed, the tongue

[221]clause. These letters, again, do not coalesce with one another, nor can ι stand before ε in the same syllable. There is a certain silence between the two letters, which thrusts apart the two elements and gives each a firm position. In the detailed arrangement of the clause the postposition of the appellative part of speech κλυτάν to the connectives ἐπί τε with which the phrase opens (though perhaps the first of these connectives should rather be called apreposition) has made the composition dissonant and harsh. For what reason? Because the first syllable of κλυτάν is ostensibly short, but actually longer than the ordinary short, since it is composed of a mute, a semi-vowel, and a vowel. It is the want of unalloyed brevity in it, combined with the difficulty of pronunciation involved in the combination of the letters, that causes retardation and interruption in the harmony. At all events, if you were to remove the κ from the syllable and to make it ἐπί τε λυτάν, there would be an end to both the slowness and the roughness of the arrangement. Further: the verbal form πέμπετε, subjoined to the appellative κλυτάν, does not produce a harmonious or well-tempered sound. The ν must be firmly planted and the π be heard only when the lips have been quite pressed together, for the π cannot be tacked on to the ν. The reason of this is the configuration of the mouth, which does not produce the two letters either at the same spot or in the same way. ν is sounded on the arch of the palate, with the tongue rising towards the edge of the teeth and with the breath passing in separate currents through the nostrils; π with the lips closed, the tongue

[221]

clause. These letters, again, do not coalesce with one another, nor can ι stand before ε in the same syllable. There is a certain silence between the two letters, which thrusts apart the two elements and gives each a firm position. In the detailed arrangement of the clause the postposition of the appellative part of speech κλυτάν to the connectives ἐπί τε with which the phrase opens (though perhaps the first of these connectives should rather be called apreposition) has made the composition dissonant and harsh. For what reason? Because the first syllable of κλυτάν is ostensibly short, but actually longer than the ordinary short, since it is composed of a mute, a semi-vowel, and a vowel. It is the want of unalloyed brevity in it, combined with the difficulty of pronunciation involved in the combination of the letters, that causes retardation and interruption in the harmony. At all events, if you were to remove the κ from the syllable and to make it ἐπί τε λυτάν, there would be an end to both the slowness and the roughness of the arrangement. Further: the verbal form πέμπετε, subjoined to the appellative κλυτάν, does not produce a harmonious or well-tempered sound. The ν must be firmly planted and the π be heard only when the lips have been quite pressed together, for the π cannot be tacked on to the ν. The reason of this is the configuration of the mouth, which does not produce the two letters either at the same spot or in the same way. ν is sounded on the arch of the palate, with the tongue rising towards the edge of the teeth and with the breath passing in separate currents through the nostrils; π with the lips closed, the tongue

2 προτάττεται] παρ’ οἷς τάττεται F || τις FM: τις ἡ PV 4 ἀσφαλῆι· ἐν δὴ P 5 τοῦ κώλου F: τῶν κώλων PMV || σύνδεσμον F 6 δεῖ] δὴ F 8 κατα τί ποτε· ὅτι F: κατά τι δήποτε PMV 9 μὲν εἶναι] μένειν F 11 καὶ ἡμιφώνου om. P || ἑστῶσα P 13 δυσεκφόρητον F: δυσεκφώνητον E: δυσέκφορον PMV 14 ποιήσει EF 17 τὸν om. EF 18 ἀνάγκηι P 19 τοῦ στόματος τότε E: το̈́ῦτοτε et in margine στομ(ατος) F: τοῦ π̄ τότε M: τότε V: τούτου Ps 20 αἴτιον EF: αἴτιος PMV || στόματος] σχήματος V. 22 ἐκφέρον F || ἑκάτερον F: ἑκάτερον τὸ π̄ καὶ τὸ ν̄ PMV || νῦ FM: om. PV 23 γίνεται F: τε γίνεται PMV || γλώττης F: γλώσσης PMV 24 προἀνισταμένης F, M 25 τε τοῦ στόματος om. F15.λυτάν,λυθήσεται: possibly an intentional play on words.18. Clearly Dionysius does not believe that, in this passage, final ν before initial π was pronounced as μ—κλυτάν as κλυτάμ: though final ν sometimes appears under this form in inscriptions, as also does medial ν in such compounds as συμπόσιον. The literal meaning of the passage seems to be, ‘The ν must be firmly planted [pronounced distinctly, dwelt upon], and κλυτὰν πέμπετε cannot be run together in one word, as κλυταμπέμπετε or the like might be.’

15.λυτάν,λυθήσεται: possibly an intentional play on words.

18. Clearly Dionysius does not believe that, in this passage, final ν before initial π was pronounced as μ—κλυτάν as κλυτάμ: though final ν sometimes appears under this form in inscriptions, as also does medial ν in such compounds as συμπόσιον. The literal meaning of the passage seems to be, ‘The ν must be firmly planted [pronounced distinctly, dwelt upon], and κλυτὰν πέμπετε cannot be run together in one word, as κλυταμπέμπετε or the like might be.’

καὶ οὐδὲν τῆς γλώττης συνεργούσης τοῦ τε πνεύματος κατὰτὴν ἄνοιξιν τῶν χειλῶν τὸν ψόφον λαμβάνοντος ἀθροῦν, ὡςκαὶ πρότερον εἴρηταί μοι· ἐν δὲ τῷ μεταλαμβάνειν τὸ στόμασχηματισμὸν ἕτερον ἐξ ἑτέρου μήτε συγγενῆ μήτε παρόμοιονἐμπεριλαμβάνεταί τις χρόνος, ἐν ᾧ διίσταται τὸ λεῖόν τε 5καὶ εὐεπὲς τῆς ἁρμονίας. καὶ ἅμα οὐδ’ ἡ προηγουμένη τοῦπέμπετεσυλλαβὴ μαλακὸν ἔχει τὸν ἦχον ἀλλ’ ὑποτραχύνειτὴν ἀκοὴν ἀρχομένη τε ἐξ ἀφώνου καὶ λήγουσα εἰς ἡμίφωνον.τῷ τεχάριντὸθεοὶπαρακείμενον ἀνακόπτει τὸν ἦχον καὶποιεῖ διερεισμὸν ἀξιόλογον τῶν μορίων, τοῦ μὲν εἰς ἡμίφωνον 10λήγοντος τὸ ν̄, τοῦ δὲ ἄφωνον ἔχοντος ἡγούμενον τὸ θ̄·οὐδενὸς δὲ πέφυκε προτάττεσθαι τῶν ἀφώνων τὰ ἡμίφωνα.τούτοις ἐπιφέρεται τρίτον κῶλον τουτί “πολύβατον οἵτ’ ἄστεος ὀμφαλὸν θυόεντα ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς Ἀθάναιςοἰχνεῖτε.” ἐνταῦθα τῷ τεὀμφαλὸνεἰς τὸ ν̄ λήγοντι τὸ 15θυόενταπαρακείμενον ἀπὸ τοῦ θ̄ ἀρχόμενον ὁμοίαν ἀποδίδωσινἀντιτυπίαν τῇ πρότερον, καὶ τῷθυόενταεἰς φωνῆεντὸ ᾱ λήγοντι ζευγνύμενον τὸ “ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς” ἀπὸφωνήεντος τοῦ ε̄ λαμβάνον τὴν ἀρχὴν διέσπακε τῷ μεταξὺχρόνῳ τὸν ἦχον οὐκ ὄντι ὀλίγῳ. τούτοις ἐκεῖνα ἕπεται 20“πανδαίδαλόν τ’ εὐκλέ’ ἀγοράν”· τραχεῖα κἀνταῦθα καὶἀντίτυπος ἡ συζυγία· ἡμιφώνῳ γὰρ ἄφωνον συνάπτεται τῷν̄ τὸ τ̄ καὶ διαβέβηκεν ἀξιόλογον διάβασιν ὁ μεταξὺ τοῦ τεπροσηγορικοῦ τοῦπανδαίδαλονκαὶ τῆς συναλοιφῆς τῆςσυναπτομένης αὐτῷ χρόνος· μακραὶ μὲν γὰρ ἀμφότεραι, 25μείζων δὲ οὐκ ὀλίγῳ τῆς μετρίας ἡ συναλείφουσα τὰ δύοσυλλαβή, ἐξ ἀφώνου τε καὶ δυεῖν συνεστῶσα φωνηέντων· εἰ[223]doing none of the work, and the breath forming a concentrated noise when the lips are opened, as I have said before. While the mouth is taking one after another shapes that are neither akin nor alike, some time is consumed, during which the smoothness and euphony of the arrangement is interrupted. Moreover, the first syllable of πέμπετε has not a soft sound either, but is rather rough to the ear, as it begins with a mute and ends with a semi-vowel. θεοί coming next to χάριν pulls the sound up short and makes an appreciable interval between the words, the one ending with the semi-vowel ν, the other beginning with the mute θ. And it is unnatural for a semi-vowel to stand before any mute.Next follows this third clause, πολύβατον οἵ τ’ ἄστεος ὀμφαλὸν θυόεντα ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς Ἀθάναις οἰχνεῖτε. Here θυόεντα which begins with θ, being placed next to ὀμφαλὸν which ends in ν, produces a dissonance similar to that previously mentioned; and ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς which opens with the vowel ε, being linked to θυόεντα which ends with the vowel α, interrupts the voice by the considerable interval of time there is between them. Following these come the words πανδαίδαλόν τ’ εὐκλέ’ ἀγοράν. Here, too, the combination is rough and dissonant. For the mute τ is joined to the semi-vowel ν; and the interval between the appellative πανδαίδαλον and the elided syllable which follows it is quite an appreciable gap; for both syllables are long, but the syllable which unites the two letters ε and υ, consisting as it does of a mute and two vowels, is considerably longer than the average. At any rate, if the τ in the syllable

[223]doing none of the work, and the breath forming a concentrated noise when the lips are opened, as I have said before. While the mouth is taking one after another shapes that are neither akin nor alike, some time is consumed, during which the smoothness and euphony of the arrangement is interrupted. Moreover, the first syllable of πέμπετε has not a soft sound either, but is rather rough to the ear, as it begins with a mute and ends with a semi-vowel. θεοί coming next to χάριν pulls the sound up short and makes an appreciable interval between the words, the one ending with the semi-vowel ν, the other beginning with the mute θ. And it is unnatural for a semi-vowel to stand before any mute.Next follows this third clause, πολύβατον οἵ τ’ ἄστεος ὀμφαλὸν θυόεντα ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς Ἀθάναις οἰχνεῖτε. Here θυόεντα which begins with θ, being placed next to ὀμφαλὸν which ends in ν, produces a dissonance similar to that previously mentioned; and ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς which opens with the vowel ε, being linked to θυόεντα which ends with the vowel α, interrupts the voice by the considerable interval of time there is between them. Following these come the words πανδαίδαλόν τ’ εὐκλέ’ ἀγοράν. Here, too, the combination is rough and dissonant. For the mute τ is joined to the semi-vowel ν; and the interval between the appellative πανδαίδαλον and the elided syllable which follows it is quite an appreciable gap; for both syllables are long, but the syllable which unites the two letters ε and υ, consisting as it does of a mute and two vowels, is considerably longer than the average. At any rate, if the τ in the syllable

[223]

doing none of the work, and the breath forming a concentrated noise when the lips are opened, as I have said before. While the mouth is taking one after another shapes that are neither akin nor alike, some time is consumed, during which the smoothness and euphony of the arrangement is interrupted. Moreover, the first syllable of πέμπετε has not a soft sound either, but is rather rough to the ear, as it begins with a mute and ends with a semi-vowel. θεοί coming next to χάριν pulls the sound up short and makes an appreciable interval between the words, the one ending with the semi-vowel ν, the other beginning with the mute θ. And it is unnatural for a semi-vowel to stand before any mute.

Next follows this third clause, πολύβατον οἵ τ’ ἄστεος ὀμφαλὸν θυόεντα ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς Ἀθάναις οἰχνεῖτε. Here θυόεντα which begins with θ, being placed next to ὀμφαλὸν which ends in ν, produces a dissonance similar to that previously mentioned; and ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς which opens with the vowel ε, being linked to θυόεντα which ends with the vowel α, interrupts the voice by the considerable interval of time there is between them. Following these come the words πανδαίδαλόν τ’ εὐκλέ’ ἀγοράν. Here, too, the combination is rough and dissonant. For the mute τ is joined to the semi-vowel ν; and the interval between the appellative πανδαίδαλον and the elided syllable which follows it is quite an appreciable gap; for both syllables are long, but the syllable which unites the two letters ε and υ, consisting as it does of a mute and two vowels, is considerably longer than the average. At any rate, if the τ in the syllable

1 γλώττης F: γλώσσης PMV || συνεργούσης] μεριζομένη συνεργούσης F: ἐνεργούσης PV 2 ὡς F: ὡς δὴ PMV 3 δὲ F: δὴ PMV || τὸ στόμα PMV: τὸν F 5 εν ὧι διίσταται P: δι’ οὗ συνίσταται FMV || λεῖόν τε F: λεῖον PMV 6 εὐεπὲς F: εὐπετὲς PV: εὐτελὲς M 7 μακρὸν P 8 ἀρχομένη F: ἄρχουσά PMV 10 ποιεῖ F: ποιεῖ τὸν PMV || διερεισμὸν Us.: ἐρισμὸν P: διορισμὸν FMV 11 τὸ ν̄ Sylburgius: τοῦ ν̄ (νῦ F) FMV: om. P || θῆτα F 14 ἀθάναις F: ἀθήναις PMV 16 θῆτα F 18 ζευγνύμενον F: ἐπεζευγμένον PMV 19 λαμβάνοντος F 20 ἦχον] χρόνον F 21 τραχεῖα κἀνταῦθα om. F 22 συνάπτεται F: συνάπτεται γράμμα PMV 23 διάβασιν FM1: διάστασιν PVM225 συναπτομένης F: ἐπισυναπτομένης PMV || χρόνος F: om. PMV || μακρὰ et ἀμφότερα F || μὲν γὰρ] μὲν P: γὰρ F: γάρ εἰσιν MV 26 μετρίας F: συμμετρίας PMV || τὰ δύο συλλαβή Us.: τὰς δύο (β̄ P) συλλαβὰς libri 27 δυεῖν FP: δυοῖν MV2.ὡς καὶ πρότερον εἴρηταί μοι: the passages which seem to be meant (14422 and14815) do not exactly tally with the present one.12. We must supply κατὰ μίαν συλλαβήν, which words are found in21814 and2202 (cp.2304): otherwise we are confronted with such examples to the contrary as ἔνθα and (in this immediate context) μεταλαμβάνειν, ἀρχόμενον, etc.21.τ’ εὐ-are treated as one syllable. So in21822, Dionysius probably intends us to divide as follows:ᴗ ᴗ – ἐπιτε|κλυτάν,etc.23. In Dionysius’ own words, it might be said that the interval between the article ὁ and the noun χρόνος with which it agrees is quite an ‘appreciable gap.’ Cp. Introduction, p.12supra.24.τῆς συναλοιφῆς: the fused or blended syllable—τ’ εὐ-.

2.ὡς καὶ πρότερον εἴρηταί μοι: the passages which seem to be meant (14422 and14815) do not exactly tally with the present one.

12. We must supply κατὰ μίαν συλλαβήν, which words are found in21814 and2202 (cp.2304): otherwise we are confronted with such examples to the contrary as ἔνθα and (in this immediate context) μεταλαμβάνειν, ἀρχόμενον, etc.

21.τ’ εὐ-are treated as one syllable. So in21822, Dionysius probably intends us to divide as follows:

ᴗ ᴗ – ἐπιτε|κλυτάν,

etc.

23. In Dionysius’ own words, it might be said that the interval between the article ὁ and the noun χρόνος with which it agrees is quite an ‘appreciable gap.’ Cp. Introduction, p.12supra.

24.τῆς συναλοιφῆς: the fused or blended syllable—τ’ εὐ-.

γοῦν τις αὐτῆς ἀφέλοι τὸ τ̄ καὶ ποιήσειεπανδαίδαλονεὐκλέ’ ἀγοράν, εἰς τὸ δίκαιον ἐλθοῦσα μέτρον εὐεπεστέρανποιήσει τὴν ἁρμονίαν.ὅμοια τούτοις ἐστὶ κἀκεῖνα “ἰοδέτων λάχετε στεφάνων.”παράκειται γὰρ ἡμίφωνα δύο ἀλλήλοις τὸ ν̄ καὶ τὸ λ̄, φυσικὴν 5οὐκ ἔχοντα συζυγίαν τῷ μήτε κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ‹τόπους μήτεκαθ’› ὁμοίους σχηματισμοὺς τοῦ στόματος ἐκφέρεσθαι. καὶ τὰἐπὶ τούτοις λεγόμενα μηκύνεταί τε ταῖς συλλαβαῖς καὶ διέστηκεταῖς ἁρμονίαις ἐπὶ πολύ “στεφάνων τᾶν τ’ ἐαριδρόπων”·μακραὶ γὰρ καὶ δεῦρο συγκρούονται συλλαβαὶ τὸ δίκαιον 10ὑπεραίρουσαι μέτρον, ἥ τε λήγουσα τοῦστεφάνωνμορίου δυσὶπεριλαμβάνουσα ἡμιφώνοις φωνῆεν γράμμα φύσει μακρὸν καὶἡ συναπτομένη ταύτῃ τρισὶ μηκυνομένη γράμμασιν ἀφώνῳ καὶφωνήεντι μακρῶς λεγομένῳ καὶ ἡμιφώνῳ· διερεισμός τε οὖνγέγονε τοῖς μήκεσι τῶν συλλαβῶν, καὶ ἀντιτυπία τῇ παραθέσει 15τῶν γραμμάτων, οὐκ ἔχοντος τοῦ τ̄ συνῳδὸν τῷ ν̄ τὸν ἦχον,ὃ καὶ πρότερον εἴρηκα. παράκειται δὲ καὶ τῷἀοιδᾶνεἰς τὸν̄ λήγοντι ἀπὸ τοῦ δ̄ ἀρχόμενον ἀφώνου τὸΔιόθεντε καὶτῷσὺν ἀγλαΐᾳεἰς τὸ ῑ λήγοντι τὸἴδετε πορευθέντ’ἀοιδᾶνἀρχόμενον ἀπὸ τοῦ ῑ. πολλά τις ἂν εὕροι τοιαῦτα 20ὅλην τὴν ᾠδὴν σκοπῶν.ἵνα δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν εἰπεῖν ἐγγένηταί μοι,Πινδάρου μὲν ἅλις ἔστω, Θουκυδίδου δὲ λαμβανέσθω λέξις ἡἐκ τοῦ προοιμίου ἥδε·Θουκυδίδης Ἀθηναῖος ξυνέγραψε τὸν πόλεμον τῶν 25[225]be removed and πανδαίδαλον εὐκλέ’ ἀγοράν be read, the syllable, falling into the normal measure, will make the composition more euphonious.The words ἰοδέτων λάχετε στεφάνων are open to the same criticism as those already mentioned. For here two semi-vowels, ν and λ, come together, although they do not naturally admit of amalgamation owing to the fact that they are not pronounced ‹at the same regions nor› with the same configurations of the mouth. The words that follow these have their syllables lengthened and are widely divided from one another in arrangement: στεφάνων τᾶν τ’ ἐαριδρόπων. For here also there is a concurrence of long syllables which exceed the normal measure,—the final syllable of the word στεφάνων which embraces between two semi-vowels a vowel naturally long, and the syllable linked with it, which is lengthened by means of three letters, a mute, a vowel pronounced long, and a semi-vowel. Separation is produced by the lengths of the syllables, and dissonance by the juxtaposition of the letters, since the sound of τ does not accord with that of ν, as I have said before. Next to ἀοιδᾶν, which ends in ν, comes Διόθεν τε, which begins with the mute δ, and next to σὺν ἀγλαΐᾳ, which ends in ι, comes ἴδετε πορευθέντ’ ἀοιδᾶν, which begins with ι. Many such features may be found on a critical examination of the whole ode.But in order to leave myself time for dealing with what remains, no more of Pindar. From Thucydides let us take this passage of the Introduction:—“Thucydides, an Athenian, composed this history of the war

Θουκυδίδης Ἀθηναῖος ξυνέγραψε τὸν πόλεμον τῶν 25

[225]be removed and πανδαίδαλον εὐκλέ’ ἀγοράν be read, the syllable, falling into the normal measure, will make the composition more euphonious.The words ἰοδέτων λάχετε στεφάνων are open to the same criticism as those already mentioned. For here two semi-vowels, ν and λ, come together, although they do not naturally admit of amalgamation owing to the fact that they are not pronounced ‹at the same regions nor› with the same configurations of the mouth. The words that follow these have their syllables lengthened and are widely divided from one another in arrangement: στεφάνων τᾶν τ’ ἐαριδρόπων. For here also there is a concurrence of long syllables which exceed the normal measure,—the final syllable of the word στεφάνων which embraces between two semi-vowels a vowel naturally long, and the syllable linked with it, which is lengthened by means of three letters, a mute, a vowel pronounced long, and a semi-vowel. Separation is produced by the lengths of the syllables, and dissonance by the juxtaposition of the letters, since the sound of τ does not accord with that of ν, as I have said before. Next to ἀοιδᾶν, which ends in ν, comes Διόθεν τε, which begins with the mute δ, and next to σὺν ἀγλαΐᾳ, which ends in ι, comes ἴδετε πορευθέντ’ ἀοιδᾶν, which begins with ι. Many such features may be found on a critical examination of the whole ode.But in order to leave myself time for dealing with what remains, no more of Pindar. From Thucydides let us take this passage of the Introduction:—“Thucydides, an Athenian, composed this history of the war

[225]

be removed and πανδαίδαλον εὐκλέ’ ἀγοράν be read, the syllable, falling into the normal measure, will make the composition more euphonious.

The words ἰοδέτων λάχετε στεφάνων are open to the same criticism as those already mentioned. For here two semi-vowels, ν and λ, come together, although they do not naturally admit of amalgamation owing to the fact that they are not pronounced ‹at the same regions nor› with the same configurations of the mouth. The words that follow these have their syllables lengthened and are widely divided from one another in arrangement: στεφάνων τᾶν τ’ ἐαριδρόπων. For here also there is a concurrence of long syllables which exceed the normal measure,—the final syllable of the word στεφάνων which embraces between two semi-vowels a vowel naturally long, and the syllable linked with it, which is lengthened by means of three letters, a mute, a vowel pronounced long, and a semi-vowel. Separation is produced by the lengths of the syllables, and dissonance by the juxtaposition of the letters, since the sound of τ does not accord with that of ν, as I have said before. Next to ἀοιδᾶν, which ends in ν, comes Διόθεν τε, which begins with the mute δ, and next to σὺν ἀγλαΐᾳ, which ends in ι, comes ἴδετε πορευθέντ’ ἀοιδᾶν, which begins with ι. Many such features may be found on a critical examination of the whole ode.

But in order to leave myself time for dealing with what remains, no more of Pindar. From Thucydides let us take this passage of the Introduction:—

“Thucydides, an Athenian, composed this history of the war

1 ἀφέλοι Us. (coll.22014): ἀφέλοιτο libri 2 εὐπετεστέραν PM1V: εὐεπεστέραν M2: εὐεπεστάτην F 4 ἰωδέτων M: ὃ δ’ ἐγὼν F || λάχετε στεφάνων PMV: λάχει F 5 γὰρ F: om. PMV 6 αὐτοὺς ὁμοίους F: ὁμοίους PMV: τόπους μήτε καθ’ ins. Usenerus 9 τᾶν τ’] τ’ αὖτ’ P: τ’ αὖ M: ἄν τ’ F: τῶν τ’ V || ἐαριδρόπων F: ἔαριδρέπων PM: ἐἀριδρέπτων V 13 ἡ] μὴ F || μηκυνομένη FM2: μηκυνθεῖσα PM1V 14 διερισμός M: διορισμός V 17 ὃ F: ὡς PMV || δὲ] τε F || ἀοιδὰν codd.: λοιβὰν s 18 ἀφώνου FM: ἄφωνον PV || διατεθὲν τε F: διόθεν τέ με PMV 19 πορευθέντα· οἱ δε F: πορευθέντες ἀοιδαν (-δὰν M, -δανὶ V) PMV 20 ἀρχόμενον] ἀρχαῖοι μόνον F 22 μοι F: μοι χρόνος PV: μοι χρόνων M 25 τῶν] τὸν P1.ποιήσειε ... ποιήσει: cp.22014,25623.6. If Usener’s supplement be not accepted, we might read τῷ μηδὲ κατὰ τοὺς ὁμοίους σχηματισμούς, κτλ.10.δεῦρο συγκρούονται, ‘meet here with a clash,’ as it were.17.παράκειταικτλ.: viz. the ν of ἀοιδᾶν comes next to the δ in διόθεν, and the ι at the end of ἀγλαΐᾳ precedes the ι in ἴδετε.—For ν and δ in juxtaposition cp. Englishand(where thedis often slurred in pronunciation) and, on the other hand, Englishsound(where thedis not original).19. The ι at the end ofἀγλαΐᾳseems, therefore, to have been regarded by Dionysius as a separate letter, and not as an ι ἀνεκφώνητον. Perhaps it was sounded in music; cp. the finalein French. In Dionysius’ time it was not uncommon to omit it even in writing: πολλοὶ γὰρ χωρὶς τοῦ ι γράφουσι τὰς δοτικάς, καὶ ἐκβάλλουσι δὲ τὸ ἔθος φυσικὴν αἰτίαν οὐκ ἔχον (Strabo xiv. 1. 50).22.ἐγγένηταί μοι: cp.de Lysiac. 16 ἵνα δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν ἐγγένηταί μοι τὰ προσήκοντα εἰπεῖν, κτλ.23. Bircovius compares, with the following passage of Thucydides, the opening of Sallust’sBell. Iug.v. 1: “Bellum scripturus sum, quod populus Romanus cum Iugurtha rege Numidarum gessit, primum quia magnum et atrox variaque victoria fuit, dehinc quia tum primum superbiae nobilitatis obviam itum est; quae contentio divina et humana cuncta permiscuit eoque vecordiae processit ut studiis civilibus bellum atque vastitas Italiae finem faceret.”24.τοῦ προοιμίου: probably the first twenty-three chapters are meant—as far as the word Ἐπίδαμνός ἐστι πόλις κτλ.25. In the English translation no attempt has been made to reproduce the style of the original Greek. For this purpose the long sentences employed in early English prose-writers are most suitable; e.g. Francis Bacon’s rendering (Considerations touching a War with Spainiii. 516, inHarleian Miscellanyv. 84) of Thucyd. i. 23: “The truest cause of this war, though least voiced, I conceive to have been this: that the Athenians being grown great, to the terror of the Lacedemonians, did impose upon them the necessity of a war; but the causes that went abroad in speeches were these,” etc. Thomas Hobbes’ translation of the opening of the History keeps close to the sentence-structure of the original: “Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the war of the Peloponnesians and the Athenians as they warred against each other, beginning to write as soon as the war was on foot; with expectation it should prove a great one, and most worthy the relation of all that had been before it: conjecturing so much, both from this, that they flourished on both sides in all manner of provision; and also because he saw the rest of Greece siding with the one or the other faction, some then presently and some intending so to do,” etc. Hobbes’ version is well known; but the unpublished translation of Francis Hickes [1566-1631], from which the following extract has been taken by the courtesy of the Librarian of Christ Church, Oxford, is also of much interest: “Thucydides the Athenian hath written the warres of the Peloponnesians and Athenians, with all the manner and fashion of their fight, and tooke in hande to put the same in writinge, as soone as ever the said warres weare begone, for a hope he had, that they would be great, and more worthy of memorie, than all the warres of former tyme have been: conjecturinge so much, because he sawe them both so richlie abound with all provisions thereunto belonginge, and all the rest of the Grecian nations, readie to joyne themselves to the one side or the other; some, presentlie upon their fallinge out, and the rest intendinge to do the like. This, no doubt, was the greatest stirre, that ever was amonge the Grecians, consistinge likewise partly of the Barbarians, and to speake in a word, of many and sundrie nations. As for the acts achieved by them before the tyme of this warre, or former matters yet of more antiquitie, it is impossible to finde out any certaintie, because the tyme is so long past, since they weare performed: but, by these conjectures, which upon due examination of former tymes, I believe to be true, I must thinke they weare of no great moment, either for the course of warre, or any other respect. Now it is most probable, that the country which we now call Grece, had not in old tyme any settled inhabitants, but did often change her dwellers, who weare still easie to be removed from their possessions if they weare urged by any greater forces, for when there was as yet no trade of Merchandise amongst men: no free entercourse of traffique one with another, either by land or sea: none that tilled any more ground, than what would serve to sustaine their present lives: none that had any money in this purse nor any that planted the earth with fruits for they knewe not how soone others would come and bereave them of it, their cities beinge all unwalled and bearing the mind, that they should everie where finde enough to serve their turnes for their dailie sustenance, they weare therefore easie to be driven out of any place; and for that cause, did nether strengthen themselves with great cities, nor warlike furniture for defence.”

1.ποιήσειε ... ποιήσει: cp.22014,25623.

6. If Usener’s supplement be not accepted, we might read τῷ μηδὲ κατὰ τοὺς ὁμοίους σχηματισμούς, κτλ.

10.δεῦρο συγκρούονται, ‘meet here with a clash,’ as it were.

17.παράκειταικτλ.: viz. the ν of ἀοιδᾶν comes next to the δ in διόθεν, and the ι at the end of ἀγλαΐᾳ precedes the ι in ἴδετε.—For ν and δ in juxtaposition cp. Englishand(where thedis often slurred in pronunciation) and, on the other hand, Englishsound(where thedis not original).

19. The ι at the end ofἀγλαΐᾳseems, therefore, to have been regarded by Dionysius as a separate letter, and not as an ι ἀνεκφώνητον. Perhaps it was sounded in music; cp. the finalein French. In Dionysius’ time it was not uncommon to omit it even in writing: πολλοὶ γὰρ χωρὶς τοῦ ι γράφουσι τὰς δοτικάς, καὶ ἐκβάλλουσι δὲ τὸ ἔθος φυσικὴν αἰτίαν οὐκ ἔχον (Strabo xiv. 1. 50).

22.ἐγγένηταί μοι: cp.de Lysiac. 16 ἵνα δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν ἐγγένηταί μοι τὰ προσήκοντα εἰπεῖν, κτλ.

23. Bircovius compares, with the following passage of Thucydides, the opening of Sallust’sBell. Iug.v. 1: “Bellum scripturus sum, quod populus Romanus cum Iugurtha rege Numidarum gessit, primum quia magnum et atrox variaque victoria fuit, dehinc quia tum primum superbiae nobilitatis obviam itum est; quae contentio divina et humana cuncta permiscuit eoque vecordiae processit ut studiis civilibus bellum atque vastitas Italiae finem faceret.”

24.τοῦ προοιμίου: probably the first twenty-three chapters are meant—as far as the word Ἐπίδαμνός ἐστι πόλις κτλ.

25. In the English translation no attempt has been made to reproduce the style of the original Greek. For this purpose the long sentences employed in early English prose-writers are most suitable; e.g. Francis Bacon’s rendering (Considerations touching a War with Spainiii. 516, inHarleian Miscellanyv. 84) of Thucyd. i. 23: “The truest cause of this war, though least voiced, I conceive to have been this: that the Athenians being grown great, to the terror of the Lacedemonians, did impose upon them the necessity of a war; but the causes that went abroad in speeches were these,” etc. Thomas Hobbes’ translation of the opening of the History keeps close to the sentence-structure of the original: “Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the war of the Peloponnesians and the Athenians as they warred against each other, beginning to write as soon as the war was on foot; with expectation it should prove a great one, and most worthy the relation of all that had been before it: conjecturing so much, both from this, that they flourished on both sides in all manner of provision; and also because he saw the rest of Greece siding with the one or the other faction, some then presently and some intending so to do,” etc. Hobbes’ version is well known; but the unpublished translation of Francis Hickes [1566-1631], from which the following extract has been taken by the courtesy of the Librarian of Christ Church, Oxford, is also of much interest: “Thucydides the Athenian hath written the warres of the Peloponnesians and Athenians, with all the manner and fashion of their fight, and tooke in hande to put the same in writinge, as soone as ever the said warres weare begone, for a hope he had, that they would be great, and more worthy of memorie, than all the warres of former tyme have been: conjecturinge so much, because he sawe them both so richlie abound with all provisions thereunto belonginge, and all the rest of the Grecian nations, readie to joyne themselves to the one side or the other; some, presentlie upon their fallinge out, and the rest intendinge to do the like. This, no doubt, was the greatest stirre, that ever was amonge the Grecians, consistinge likewise partly of the Barbarians, and to speake in a word, of many and sundrie nations. As for the acts achieved by them before the tyme of this warre, or former matters yet of more antiquitie, it is impossible to finde out any certaintie, because the tyme is so long past, since they weare performed: but, by these conjectures, which upon due examination of former tymes, I believe to be true, I must thinke they weare of no great moment, either for the course of warre, or any other respect. Now it is most probable, that the country which we now call Grece, had not in old tyme any settled inhabitants, but did often change her dwellers, who weare still easie to be removed from their possessions if they weare urged by any greater forces, for when there was as yet no trade of Merchandise amongst men: no free entercourse of traffique one with another, either by land or sea: none that tilled any more ground, than what would serve to sustaine their present lives: none that had any money in this purse nor any that planted the earth with fruits for they knewe not how soone others would come and bereave them of it, their cities beinge all unwalled and bearing the mind, that they should everie where finde enough to serve their turnes for their dailie sustenance, they weare therefore easie to be driven out of any place; and for that cause, did nether strengthen themselves with great cities, nor warlike furniture for defence.”

Πελοποννησίων καὶ Ἀθηναίων ὡς ἐπολέμησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους,ἀρξάμενος εὐθὺς καθισταμένου καὶ ἐλπίσας μέγαντε ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἀξιολογώτατον τῶν προγεγενημένων,τεκμαιρόμενος ὅτι ἀκμάζοντές τε ᾖσαν ἐς αὐτὸν ἀμφότεροιπαρασκευῇ τῇ πάσῃ, καὶ τὸ ἄλλο Ἑλληνικὸν ὁρῶν 5ξυνιστάμενον πρὸς ἑκατέρους, τὸ μὲν εὐθύς, τὸ δὲ καὶδιανοούμενον. κίνησις γὰρ αὕτη μεγίστη δὴ τοῖς Ἕλλησινἐγένετο καὶ μέρει τινὶ τῶν βαρβάρων, ὡς δ’ εἰπεῖν καὶἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀνθρώπων. τὰ γὰρ πρὸ αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ἔτιπαλαιότερα σαφῶς μὲν εὑρεῖν διὰ χρόνου πλῆθος ἀδύνατα 10ἦν· ἐκ δὲ τεκμηρίων, ὧν ἐπὶ μακρότατον σκοποῦντί μοιπιστεῦσαι ξυμβαίνει, οὐ μεγάλα νομίζω γενέσθαι οὔτεκατὰ τοὺς πολέμους οὔτε ἐς τὰ ἄλλα. φαίνεται γὰρ ἡνῦν Ἑλλὰς καλουμένη οὐ πάλαι βεβαίως οἰκουμένη, ἀλλὰμεταναστάσεις τε οὖσαι τὰ πρότερα καὶ ῥᾳδίως ἕκαστοι 15τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀπολείποντες βιαζόμενοι ὑπό τινων ἀεὶπλειόνων. τῆς γὰρ ἐμπορίας οὐκ οὔσης οὐδ’ ἐπιμιγνύντεςἀδεῶς ἀλλήλοις οὔτε κατὰ γῆν οὔτε διὰ θαλάσσης,νεμόμενοί τε τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστοι ὅσον ἀποζῆν καὶ περιουσίανχρημάτων οὐκ ἔχοντες οὐδὲ γῆν φυτεύοντες, ἄδηλον 20[227]which the Peloponnesians and the Athenians waged against one another. He began as soon as the war broke out, in the expectation that it would be great and memorable above all previous wars. This he inferred from the fact that both parties were entering upon it at the height of their military power, and from noticing that the rest of the Greek races were ranging themselves on this side or on that, or were intending to do so before long. No commotion ever troubled the Greeks so greatly: it affected also a considerable section of the barbarians, and one may even say the greater part of mankind. Events previous to this, and events still more remote, could not be clearly ascertained owing to lapse of time. But from such evidence as I find I can trust however far back I go, I conclude that they were not of great importance either from a military or from any other point of view. It is clear that the country now called Hellas was not securely settled in ancient times, but that there were migrations in former days, various peoples without hesitation leaving their own land when hard pressed by superior numbers of successive invaders. Commerce did not exist, nor did men mix freely with one another on land or by sea. Each tribe aimed at getting a bare living out of the lands it occupied. They had no reserve of capital, nor did they plant the ground with fruit-trees, since it was uncertain, especially as they had

[227]which the Peloponnesians and the Athenians waged against one another. He began as soon as the war broke out, in the expectation that it would be great and memorable above all previous wars. This he inferred from the fact that both parties were entering upon it at the height of their military power, and from noticing that the rest of the Greek races were ranging themselves on this side or on that, or were intending to do so before long. No commotion ever troubled the Greeks so greatly: it affected also a considerable section of the barbarians, and one may even say the greater part of mankind. Events previous to this, and events still more remote, could not be clearly ascertained owing to lapse of time. But from such evidence as I find I can trust however far back I go, I conclude that they were not of great importance either from a military or from any other point of view. It is clear that the country now called Hellas was not securely settled in ancient times, but that there were migrations in former days, various peoples without hesitation leaving their own land when hard pressed by superior numbers of successive invaders. Commerce did not exist, nor did men mix freely with one another on land or by sea. Each tribe aimed at getting a bare living out of the lands it occupied. They had no reserve of capital, nor did they plant the ground with fruit-trees, since it was uncertain, especially as they had

[227]

which the Peloponnesians and the Athenians waged against one another. He began as soon as the war broke out, in the expectation that it would be great and memorable above all previous wars. This he inferred from the fact that both parties were entering upon it at the height of their military power, and from noticing that the rest of the Greek races were ranging themselves on this side or on that, or were intending to do so before long. No commotion ever troubled the Greeks so greatly: it affected also a considerable section of the barbarians, and one may even say the greater part of mankind. Events previous to this, and events still more remote, could not be clearly ascertained owing to lapse of time. But from such evidence as I find I can trust however far back I go, I conclude that they were not of great importance either from a military or from any other point of view. It is clear that the country now called Hellas was not securely settled in ancient times, but that there were migrations in former days, various peoples without hesitation leaving their own land when hard pressed by superior numbers of successive invaders. Commerce did not exist, nor did men mix freely with one another on land or by sea. Each tribe aimed at getting a bare living out of the lands it occupied. They had no reserve of capital, nor did they plant the ground with fruit-trees, since it was uncertain, especially as they had

1 καὶ] τε καὶ P 4 τε om. EF || ἦσαν libri: sed apud Thucydidem lectio potior ᾖσαν [“ᾖσαν F g Schol. Plat.Rep.449ASuid. Phot.: ἦσαν cett.”] 6 πρὸς ... διανοούμενον om. P 9 πλεῖστον EF: πλεῖστων sic P: πλείστων MV || καὶ τὰ EFs: καὶ PMV 10 ἐρεῖν P 11 μακρότερον F 13 πολεμίους P || τὰ ἄλλα PMV: τ’ ἄλλα F 16 ἀπολιπόντες F 17 ἐπιμιγνῦντες ἀλλήλοις (om. ἀδεῶς) F 20 οὐδὲ γῆν φυτεύοντες om. F4.ᾖσαν: cp. schol. ad Thucyd. i. 1 ᾖσαν] μετὰ σπουδῆς ἐπορεύοντο.9.τά(before ἔτι) is omitted by the Palatine and the AmbrosianMSS.inde Thucyd.c. 20.

4.ᾖσαν: cp. schol. ad Thucyd. i. 1 ᾖσαν] μετὰ σπουδῆς ἐπορεύοντο.

9.τά(before ἔτι) is omitted by the Palatine and the AmbrosianMSS.inde Thucyd.c. 20.

ὂν ὁπότε τις ἐπελθὼν καὶ ἀτειχίστων ἅμα ὄντων ἄλλοςἀφαιρήσεται, τῆς τε καθ’ ἡμέραν ἀναγκαίου τροφῆς πανταχοῦἂν ἡγούμενοι ἐπικρατεῖν οὐ χαλεπῶς ἀνίσταντο.αὕτη ἡ λέξις ὅτι μὲν οὐκ ἔχει λείας οὐδὲ συνεξεσμέναςἀκριβῶς τὰς ἁρμονίας οὐδ’ ἔστιν εὐεπὴς καὶ μαλακὴ καὶ 5λεληθότως ὀλισθάνουσα διὰ τῆς ἀκοῆς ἀλλὰ πολὺ τὸ ἀντίτυπονκαὶ τραχὺ καὶ στρυφνὸν ἐμφαίνει, καὶ ὅτι πανηγυρικῆςμὲν ἢ θεατρικῆς οὐδὲ κατὰ μικρὸν ἐφάπτεται χάριτος, ἀρχαϊκὸνδέ τι καὶ αὔθαδες ἐπιδείκνυται κάλλος, ὡς πρὸς εἰδόταςὁμοίως τοὺς εὐπαιδεύτους ἅπαντας οὐδὲν δέομαι λέγειν, ἄλλως 10τε καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦτό γε τοῦ συγγραφέως ὁμολογήσαντος, ὅτιεἰς μὲν ἀκρόασιν ἧττον ἐπιτερπὴς ἡ γραφή ἐστι, “κτῆμα δ’εἰσαεὶ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀγώνισμα εἰς τὸ παραυτίκα ἀκούεινσύγκειται.” τίνα δ’ ἐστὶ τὰ θεωρήματα οἷς χρησάμενος ὁἀνὴρ οὕτως ἀπηνῆ καὶ αὐστηρὰν πεποίηκε τὴν ἁρμονίαν, δι’ 15ὀλίγων σοι σημανῶ· ῥᾴδιον γὰρ ἔσται μικρὰ μεγάλων εἶναιδείγματα τοῖς μὴ χαλεπῶς ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ ὁμοίου τε καὶ ἀκολούθουμεταβαίνουσιν θεωρίαν.[229]no fortifications, when some invader would come and rob them of their property. They also thought that they could command the bare necessities of daily life anywhere; and so, for all these reasons, they made no difficulty about giving up their land.”[175]There is no need for me to say, when all educated people know it as well as I, that this passage is not smooth or nicely finished in its verbal arrangement, and is not euphonious and soft, and does not glide imperceptibly through the ear, but shows many features that are discordant and rough and harsh; that it does not make the slightest approach to attaining the grace appropriate to an oration delivered at a public festival or to a speech on the stage, but is marked by a sort of antique and self-willed beauty. Indeed, the historian himself admits that his narrative is but little calculated to give pleasure when heard: “it has been composed as a possession for all time rather than as an essay to be recited at some particular competition.”[176]I will briefly point out to you the principles by following which the author has made the arrangement so rugged and austere. Small things will readily serve you as samples of great: you can easily go on noting resemblances and making comparisons for yourself.

ὂν ὁπότε τις ἐπελθὼν καὶ ἀτειχίστων ἅμα ὄντων ἄλλοςἀφαιρήσεται, τῆς τε καθ’ ἡμέραν ἀναγκαίου τροφῆς πανταχοῦἂν ἡγούμενοι ἐπικρατεῖν οὐ χαλεπῶς ἀνίσταντο.

αὕτη ἡ λέξις ὅτι μὲν οὐκ ἔχει λείας οὐδὲ συνεξεσμέναςἀκριβῶς τὰς ἁρμονίας οὐδ’ ἔστιν εὐεπὴς καὶ μαλακὴ καὶ 5λεληθότως ὀλισθάνουσα διὰ τῆς ἀκοῆς ἀλλὰ πολὺ τὸ ἀντίτυπονκαὶ τραχὺ καὶ στρυφνὸν ἐμφαίνει, καὶ ὅτι πανηγυρικῆςμὲν ἢ θεατρικῆς οὐδὲ κατὰ μικρὸν ἐφάπτεται χάριτος, ἀρχαϊκὸνδέ τι καὶ αὔθαδες ἐπιδείκνυται κάλλος, ὡς πρὸς εἰδόταςὁμοίως τοὺς εὐπαιδεύτους ἅπαντας οὐδὲν δέομαι λέγειν, ἄλλως 10τε καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦτό γε τοῦ συγγραφέως ὁμολογήσαντος, ὅτιεἰς μὲν ἀκρόασιν ἧττον ἐπιτερπὴς ἡ γραφή ἐστι, “κτῆμα δ’εἰσαεὶ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀγώνισμα εἰς τὸ παραυτίκα ἀκούεινσύγκειται.” τίνα δ’ ἐστὶ τὰ θεωρήματα οἷς χρησάμενος ὁἀνὴρ οὕτως ἀπηνῆ καὶ αὐστηρὰν πεποίηκε τὴν ἁρμονίαν, δι’ 15ὀλίγων σοι σημανῶ· ῥᾴδιον γὰρ ἔσται μικρὰ μεγάλων εἶναιδείγματα τοῖς μὴ χαλεπῶς ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ ὁμοίου τε καὶ ἀκολούθουμεταβαίνουσιν θεωρίαν.

[229]no fortifications, when some invader would come and rob them of their property. They also thought that they could command the bare necessities of daily life anywhere; and so, for all these reasons, they made no difficulty about giving up their land.”[175]There is no need for me to say, when all educated people know it as well as I, that this passage is not smooth or nicely finished in its verbal arrangement, and is not euphonious and soft, and does not glide imperceptibly through the ear, but shows many features that are discordant and rough and harsh; that it does not make the slightest approach to attaining the grace appropriate to an oration delivered at a public festival or to a speech on the stage, but is marked by a sort of antique and self-willed beauty. Indeed, the historian himself admits that his narrative is but little calculated to give pleasure when heard: “it has been composed as a possession for all time rather than as an essay to be recited at some particular competition.”[176]I will briefly point out to you the principles by following which the author has made the arrangement so rugged and austere. Small things will readily serve you as samples of great: you can easily go on noting resemblances and making comparisons for yourself.

[229]

no fortifications, when some invader would come and rob them of their property. They also thought that they could command the bare necessities of daily life anywhere; and so, for all these reasons, they made no difficulty about giving up their land.”[175]

There is no need for me to say, when all educated people know it as well as I, that this passage is not smooth or nicely finished in its verbal arrangement, and is not euphonious and soft, and does not glide imperceptibly through the ear, but shows many features that are discordant and rough and harsh; that it does not make the slightest approach to attaining the grace appropriate to an oration delivered at a public festival or to a speech on the stage, but is marked by a sort of antique and self-willed beauty. Indeed, the historian himself admits that his narrative is but little calculated to give pleasure when heard: “it has been composed as a possession for all time rather than as an essay to be recited at some particular competition.”[176]I will briefly point out to you the principles by following which the author has made the arrangement so rugged and austere. Small things will readily serve you as samples of great: you can easily go on noting resemblances and making comparisons for yourself.

Back to Index Next