XII

1 σῖγα σῖγα M2: σίγα σίγα cett. (necnon codd. Eur.) || λευκὸν codd. Dionys.: λεπτὸν Eurip. 2 τίθετ(αι) P1: τιθεῖτ(αι) P2: τιθεῖτε FEMV || κτυπῆτε P1: κτυπεῖτε cett. 3 ἀποπρόβατ’ V: ἄπο προβᾶτ’ PM: ἄπο πρόβατ’ FE || ἐκεῖσε libri || ἀποπρόμοι F, EPM: ἀπόπροθι Vs 6 τῆι F, E: ἐπὶ PMV 8 τίθεται FP: τιθεῖτε EMV 9 δ’ αἱ Us.: δὲ libri 11 ἀποπρόβατ’ V: ἄπο*προβᾶτε P: ἄπο πρόβατε EF: ἄπο προβᾶτ’ ἐκεῖσε M 13 καταβέβηκεν PMV 18 καὶ αὔξουσαι PMV2.τίθετεis clearly right, notwithstanding the strong manuscript evidence (FEMV) for τιθεῖτε.4. The general sense is thatσῖγαis sung upon a monotone, though the spoken word had two tones or pitches (the acute and the grave, the high and the low), and, “indeed, both of them combined in the circumflex accent of its first syllable” (HadleyEssaysp. 113).7. Dionysius clearly means “in speaking,” and “on two successive syllables.” Without the latter addition, the case of an enclitic throwing back its accent on a proparoxytone word seems to be left out of account.14. D. B. MonroModes of Ancient Greek Musicp. 117 writes: “In English the time or quantity of syllables is as little attended to as the pitch. But in Greek the distinction of long and short furnished a prose rhythm which was a serious element in their rhetoric. In the rhythm of music, according to Dionysius, the quantity of syllables could be neglected, just as the accent was neglected in the melody. This, however, does not mean that the natural time of the syllables could be treated with the freedom which we see in a modern composition. The regularity of lyric metres is sufficient to prove that the increase or diminution of natural quantity referred to by Dionysius was kept within narrow limits, the nature of which is to be gathered from the remains of the ancient system of Rhythmic. From these sources we learn with something like certainty that the rhythm of ordinary speech, as determined by the succession of long or short syllables, was the basis of metres not only intended for recitation, such as the hexameter and the iambic trimeter, but also of lyrical rhythm of every kind.” With this statement should be compared the extract (given below, l. 17) from Goodell’sGreek Metric.16.τῇ φύσει: cp. Cic.Orat.51. 173 “et tamen omnium longitudinum et brevitatum in sonis sicut acutarum graviumque vocum iudicium ipsa natura in auribus nostris collocavit.” And with regard to accentuation as well as quantities: id.ib.18. 57 “est autem etiam in dicendo quidam cantus obscurior ... in quo illud etiam notandum mihi videtur ad studium persequendae suavitatis in vocibus: ipsa enim natura, quasi modularetur hominum orationem, in omni verbo posuit acutam vocem nec una plus nec a postrema syllaba citra tertiam; quo magis naturam ducem ad aurium voluptatem sequatur industria.”17 ff. Cp. GoodellChapters on Greek Metricp. 52: “We find ample recognition [sc. in these two sentences] of the fact that in Greek lyric metres, so far as they come under what we have seen called μέλη and ῥυθμοί or ‘rhythmi,’ long and short syllables alike were more or less variable. In some way the reader knew in what rhythmical scheme or pattern the poet intended the verses to be rendered. To reproduce the rhythmical pattern which the poet had in mind, the singer, if not also the reader, made some long syllables longer and others shorter than two χρόνοι πρῶτοι, and made some short syllables longer than one χρόνος πρῶτος. It seemed to Dionysius in those cases that one did not so much regulate the times by the syllables, but rather regulated the syllables by the times.”19. The compoundπαραύξουσαι, as given by EF, may be compared with παραυξηθεῖσα in15218. Dionysius does not avoid hiatus after καί, and so he would not prefer παραύξουσαι to αὔξουσαι on this account, though an early reviser of his text might do so.εἰς τἀναντία μεταχωρεῖν: e.g., a short syllable will sometimes be treated as if it were long and were circumflexed.

2.τίθετεis clearly right, notwithstanding the strong manuscript evidence (FEMV) for τιθεῖτε.

4. The general sense is thatσῖγαis sung upon a monotone, though the spoken word had two tones or pitches (the acute and the grave, the high and the low), and, “indeed, both of them combined in the circumflex accent of its first syllable” (HadleyEssaysp. 113).

7. Dionysius clearly means “in speaking,” and “on two successive syllables.” Without the latter addition, the case of an enclitic throwing back its accent on a proparoxytone word seems to be left out of account.

14. D. B. MonroModes of Ancient Greek Musicp. 117 writes: “In English the time or quantity of syllables is as little attended to as the pitch. But in Greek the distinction of long and short furnished a prose rhythm which was a serious element in their rhetoric. In the rhythm of music, according to Dionysius, the quantity of syllables could be neglected, just as the accent was neglected in the melody. This, however, does not mean that the natural time of the syllables could be treated with the freedom which we see in a modern composition. The regularity of lyric metres is sufficient to prove that the increase or diminution of natural quantity referred to by Dionysius was kept within narrow limits, the nature of which is to be gathered from the remains of the ancient system of Rhythmic. From these sources we learn with something like certainty that the rhythm of ordinary speech, as determined by the succession of long or short syllables, was the basis of metres not only intended for recitation, such as the hexameter and the iambic trimeter, but also of lyrical rhythm of every kind.” With this statement should be compared the extract (given below, l. 17) from Goodell’sGreek Metric.

16.τῇ φύσει: cp. Cic.Orat.51. 173 “et tamen omnium longitudinum et brevitatum in sonis sicut acutarum graviumque vocum iudicium ipsa natura in auribus nostris collocavit.” And with regard to accentuation as well as quantities: id.ib.18. 57 “est autem etiam in dicendo quidam cantus obscurior ... in quo illud etiam notandum mihi videtur ad studium persequendae suavitatis in vocibus: ipsa enim natura, quasi modularetur hominum orationem, in omni verbo posuit acutam vocem nec una plus nec a postrema syllaba citra tertiam; quo magis naturam ducem ad aurium voluptatem sequatur industria.”

17 ff. Cp. GoodellChapters on Greek Metricp. 52: “We find ample recognition [sc. in these two sentences] of the fact that in Greek lyric metres, so far as they come under what we have seen called μέλη and ῥυθμοί or ‘rhythmi,’ long and short syllables alike were more or less variable. In some way the reader knew in what rhythmical scheme or pattern the poet intended the verses to be rendered. To reproduce the rhythmical pattern which the poet had in mind, the singer, if not also the reader, made some long syllables longer and others shorter than two χρόνοι πρῶτοι, and made some short syllables longer than one χρόνος πρῶτος. It seemed to Dionysius in those cases that one did not so much regulate the times by the syllables, but rather regulated the syllables by the times.”

19. The compoundπαραύξουσαι, as given by EF, may be compared with παραυξηθεῖσα in15218. Dionysius does not avoid hiatus after καί, and so he would not prefer παραύξουσαι to αὔξουσαι on this account, though an early reviser of his text might do so.

εἰς τἀναντία μεταχωρεῖν: e.g., a short syllable will sometimes be treated as if it were long and were circumflexed.

γὰρ ταῖς συλλαβαῖς ἀπευθύνουσι τοὺς χρόνους, ἀλλὰ τοῖςχρόνοις τὰς συλλαβάς.δεδειγμένης δὴ τῆς διαφορᾶς ᾗ διαφέρει μουσικὴ λογικῆς,λοιπὸν ἂν εἴη κἀκεῖνα λέγειν, ὅτι τὸ μὲν τῆς φωνῆς μέλος,λέγω δὲ οὐ τῆς ᾠδικῆς ἀλλὰ τῆς ψιλῆς, ἐὰν ἡδέως διατιθῇ 5τὴν ἀκοήν, εὐμελὲς λέγοιτ’ ἄν, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐμμελές· ἡ δ’ ἐν τοῖςχρόνοις τῶν μορίων συμμετρία σῴζουσα τὸ μελικὸν σχῆμαεὔρυθμος, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἔνρυθμος· πῇ δὲ διαφέρει ταῦτα ἀλλήλων,κατὰ τὸν οἰκεῖον καιρὸν ἐρῶ. νυνὶ δὲ τἀκόλουθ’ ἀποδοῦναιπειράσομαι, πῶς ἂν γένοιτο λέξις πολιτικὴ παρ’ αὐτὴν τὴν 10σύνθεσιν ἡδύνουσα τὴν ἀκρόασιν κατά τε τὰ μέλη τῶνφθόγγων καὶ κατὰ τὰς συμμετρίας τῶν ῥυθμῶν καὶ κατὰ τὰςποικιλίας τῶν μεταβολῶν καὶ κατὰ τὸ πρέπον τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις,ἐπειδὴ ταῦθ’ ὑπεθέμην τὰ κεφάλαια.XIIοὐχ ἅπαντα πέφυκε τὰ μέρη τῆς λέξεως ὁμοίως διατιθέναι 15τὴν ἀκοήν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὴν ὁρατικὴν αἴσθησιν τὰ ὁρατὰπάντα οὐδὲ τὴν γευστικὴν τὰ γευστὰ οὐδὲ τὰς ἄλλας αἰσθήσειςτὰ κινοῦντα ἑκάστην· ἀλλὰ καὶ γλυκαίνουσιν αὐτήν τινεςἦχοι καὶ πικραίνουσι, καὶ τραχύνουσι καὶ λεαίνουσι, καὶπολλὰ ἄλλα πάθη ποιοῦσι περὶ αὐτήν. αἰτία δὲ ἥ τε 20τῶν γραμμάτων φύσις ἐξ ὧν ἡ φωνὴ συνέστηκεν, πολλὰςκαὶ διαφόρους ἔχουσα δυνάμεις, καὶ ἡ τῶν συλλαβῶν πλοκὴπαντοδαπῶς σχηματιζομένη. τοιαύτην δὴ δύναμιν ἐχόντωντῶν τῆς λέξεως μορίων ἐπειδὴ μεταθεῖναι τὴν ἑκάστου φύσινοὐχ οἷόν τε, λείπεται τὸ τῇ μίξει καὶ κράσει καὶ παραθέσει 25συγκρύψαι τὴν παρακολουθοῦσαν αὐτῶν τισιν ἀτοπίαν, τραχέσι[131]quantity of the syllables, but the quantity of the syllables is regulated by the time.The difference between music and speech having thus been shown, some other points remain to be mentioned. If the melody of the voice—not the singing voice, I mean, but the ordinary voice—has a pleasant effect upon the ear, it will be called melodious rather than in melody. So also symmetry in the quantities of words, when it preserves a lyrical effect, is rhythmical rather than in rhythm. On the precise bearing of these distinctions I will speak at the proper time. For the present I will pass on to the next question, and try to show how a style of civil oratory can be attained which, simply by means of the composition, charms the ear with its melody of sound, its symmetry of rhythm, its elaborate variety, and its appropriateness to the subject. These are the headings which I have set before myself.CHAPTER XIIHOW TO RENDER COMPOSITION CHARMINGIt is not in the nature of all the words in a sentence to affect the ear in the same way, any more than all visible objects produce the same impression on the sense of sight, things tasted on that of taste, or any other set of stimuli upon the sense to which they correspond. No, different sounds affect the ear with many different sensations of sweetness, harshness, roughness, smoothness, and so on. The reason is to be found partly in the many different qualities of the letters which make up speech, and partly in the extremely various forms in which syllables are put together. Now since words have these properties, and since it is impossible to change the fundamental nature of any single one of them, we can only mask the uncouthness which is inseparable from some of them, by means of

οὐχ ἅπαντα πέφυκε τὰ μέρη τῆς λέξεως ὁμοίως διατιθέναι 15τὴν ἀκοήν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὴν ὁρατικὴν αἴσθησιν τὰ ὁρατὰπάντα οὐδὲ τὴν γευστικὴν τὰ γευστὰ οὐδὲ τὰς ἄλλας αἰσθήσειςτὰ κινοῦντα ἑκάστην· ἀλλὰ καὶ γλυκαίνουσιν αὐτήν τινεςἦχοι καὶ πικραίνουσι, καὶ τραχύνουσι καὶ λεαίνουσι, καὶπολλὰ ἄλλα πάθη ποιοῦσι περὶ αὐτήν. αἰτία δὲ ἥ τε 20τῶν γραμμάτων φύσις ἐξ ὧν ἡ φωνὴ συνέστηκεν, πολλὰςκαὶ διαφόρους ἔχουσα δυνάμεις, καὶ ἡ τῶν συλλαβῶν πλοκὴπαντοδαπῶς σχηματιζομένη. τοιαύτην δὴ δύναμιν ἐχόντωντῶν τῆς λέξεως μορίων ἐπειδὴ μεταθεῖναι τὴν ἑκάστου φύσινοὐχ οἷόν τε, λείπεται τὸ τῇ μίξει καὶ κράσει καὶ παραθέσει 25συγκρύψαι τὴν παρακολουθοῦσαν αὐτῶν τισιν ἀτοπίαν, τραχέσι

[131]quantity of the syllables, but the quantity of the syllables is regulated by the time.The difference between music and speech having thus been shown, some other points remain to be mentioned. If the melody of the voice—not the singing voice, I mean, but the ordinary voice—has a pleasant effect upon the ear, it will be called melodious rather than in melody. So also symmetry in the quantities of words, when it preserves a lyrical effect, is rhythmical rather than in rhythm. On the precise bearing of these distinctions I will speak at the proper time. For the present I will pass on to the next question, and try to show how a style of civil oratory can be attained which, simply by means of the composition, charms the ear with its melody of sound, its symmetry of rhythm, its elaborate variety, and its appropriateness to the subject. These are the headings which I have set before myself.CHAPTER XIIHOW TO RENDER COMPOSITION CHARMINGIt is not in the nature of all the words in a sentence to affect the ear in the same way, any more than all visible objects produce the same impression on the sense of sight, things tasted on that of taste, or any other set of stimuli upon the sense to which they correspond. No, different sounds affect the ear with many different sensations of sweetness, harshness, roughness, smoothness, and so on. The reason is to be found partly in the many different qualities of the letters which make up speech, and partly in the extremely various forms in which syllables are put together. Now since words have these properties, and since it is impossible to change the fundamental nature of any single one of them, we can only mask the uncouthness which is inseparable from some of them, by means of

[131]

quantity of the syllables, but the quantity of the syllables is regulated by the time.

The difference between music and speech having thus been shown, some other points remain to be mentioned. If the melody of the voice—not the singing voice, I mean, but the ordinary voice—has a pleasant effect upon the ear, it will be called melodious rather than in melody. So also symmetry in the quantities of words, when it preserves a lyrical effect, is rhythmical rather than in rhythm. On the precise bearing of these distinctions I will speak at the proper time. For the present I will pass on to the next question, and try to show how a style of civil oratory can be attained which, simply by means of the composition, charms the ear with its melody of sound, its symmetry of rhythm, its elaborate variety, and its appropriateness to the subject. These are the headings which I have set before myself.

It is not in the nature of all the words in a sentence to affect the ear in the same way, any more than all visible objects produce the same impression on the sense of sight, things tasted on that of taste, or any other set of stimuli upon the sense to which they correspond. No, different sounds affect the ear with many different sensations of sweetness, harshness, roughness, smoothness, and so on. The reason is to be found partly in the many different qualities of the letters which make up speech, and partly in the extremely various forms in which syllables are put together. Now since words have these properties, and since it is impossible to change the fundamental nature of any single one of them, we can only mask the uncouthness which is inseparable from some of them, by means of

3 δὴ τῆς PMV: τῆς F 4 τὸ μὲν] μὲν τὸ F 5 ἐὰν Us.: κἂν PV: ὃ μὲν FM || διατίθησι FM 6 εὐμενὲς P 7 συμμετρία σώζουσα FPM: συμμετριάζουσα V 8 πῆ F: τῆι P || ἀλλήλων om. P 14 ἐπειδὴ δὲ ταῦθ’ F 18 αὐτὴν τινὲς EF: τινες αὐτὴν PMV 20 ἥ τε] ἡ EF 23 δὴ] ἤδη F: δὲ ἤδη E 25 τὸ τῆι F, E: τῆι P, MV 25 καὶ τῆι κράσει F 26 συγκρύπτειν EF || ἀτοπίαν om. F1. The subject ofἀπευθύνουσιis, of course, ἡ μουσική τε καὶ ῥυθμική.7.συμμετρία: cp. l. 12 τὰς συμμετρίας τῶν ῥυθμῶν, and25410 τεταγμένους σῴζουσα ῥυθμούς.9.κατὰ τὸν οἰκεῖον καιρόν: i.e. in cc. 25, 26.10.παρ’ αὐτὴν τὴν σύνθεσιν.With this use of παρά cp.15612 παρ’ οὐδὲν οὕτως ἕτερον ἢ τὰς τῶν συλλαβῶν κατασκευάς,1609 παρὰ τὰς τῶν γραμμάτων συμπλοκάς κτλ.,20211 καὶ παρὰ τί γέγονε τούτων ἕκαστον;—In αὐτὴν τὴν σύνθεσιν the contrast implied is with ἡ ἐκλογὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων: cp.25221 κατὰ γοῦν τὴν σύνθεσιν αὐτήν· ἐπεὶ καὶ ἡ ἐκλογὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων μέγα τι δύναται.23. If ἤδη be read (with F and E) the meaning will be, “the data being the letters with their invariable qualities.” Cp. the Germanschon.25. Quintil. ix. 91 “miscendi ergo sunt, curandumque, ut sint plures, qui placent, et circumfusi bonis deteriores lateant. nec vero in litteris syllabisque natura mutatur, sed refert, quae cum quaque optime coeat.”

1. The subject ofἀπευθύνουσιis, of course, ἡ μουσική τε καὶ ῥυθμική.

7.συμμετρία: cp. l. 12 τὰς συμμετρίας τῶν ῥυθμῶν, and25410 τεταγμένους σῴζουσα ῥυθμούς.

9.κατὰ τὸν οἰκεῖον καιρόν: i.e. in cc. 25, 26.

10.παρ’ αὐτὴν τὴν σύνθεσιν.With this use of παρά cp.15612 παρ’ οὐδὲν οὕτως ἕτερον ἢ τὰς τῶν συλλαβῶν κατασκευάς,1609 παρὰ τὰς τῶν γραμμάτων συμπλοκάς κτλ.,20211 καὶ παρὰ τί γέγονε τούτων ἕκαστον;—In αὐτὴν τὴν σύνθεσιν the contrast implied is with ἡ ἐκλογὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων: cp.25221 κατὰ γοῦν τὴν σύνθεσιν αὐτήν· ἐπεὶ καὶ ἡ ἐκλογὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων μέγα τι δύναται.

23. If ἤδη be read (with F and E) the meaning will be, “the data being the letters with their invariable qualities.” Cp. the Germanschon.

25. Quintil. ix. 91 “miscendi ergo sunt, curandumque, ut sint plures, qui placent, et circumfusi bonis deteriores lateant. nec vero in litteris syllabisque natura mutatur, sed refert, quae cum quaque optime coeat.”

λεῖα μίσγοντα καὶ σκληροῖς μαλακὰ καὶ κακοφώνοις εὔφωνακαὶ δυσεκφόροις εὐπρόφορα καὶ βραχέσι μακρά, καὶ τἆλλατὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον εὐκαίρως συντιθέντα καὶ μήτ’ ὀλιγοσύλλαβαπολλὰ ἑξῆς λαμβάνοντα (κόπτεται γὰρ ἡ ἀκρόασις) μήτεπολυσύλλαβα πλείω τῶν ἱκανῶν, μήδε δὴ ὁμοιότονα παρ’ 5ὁμοιοτόνοις μήδ’ ὁμοιόχρονα παρ’ ὁμοιοχρόνοις. χρὴ δὲ καὶτὰς πτώσεις τῶν ὀνοματικῶν ταχὺ μεταλαμβάνειν (μηκυνόμεναιγὰρ ἔξω τοῦ μετρίου πάνυ προσίστανται ταῖς ἀκοαῖς) καὶτὴν ὁμοιότητα διαλύειν συνεχῶς ὀνομάτων τε τῶν ἑξῆςτιθεμένων πολλῶν καὶ ῥημάτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων μερῶν τὸν 10κόρον φυλαττομένους, σχήμασί τε μὴ ἐπὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἀεὶμένειν ἀλλὰ θαμινὰ μεταβάλλειν καὶ τρόπους μὴ τοὺς αὐτοὺςἐπεισφέρειν, ἀλλὰ ποικίλλειν, μηδὲ δὴ ἄρχεσθαι πολλάκις ἀπὸτῶν αὐτῶν μηδὲ λήγειν εἰς τὰ αὐτὰ ὑπερτείνοντας τὸν ἑκατέρουκαιρόν. 15καὶ μηδεὶς οἰηθῇ με καθάπαξ ταῦτα παραγγέλλειν ὡςἡδονῆς αἴτια διὰ παντὸς ἐσόμενα ἢ τἀναντία ὀχλήσεως· οὐχοὕτως ἀνόητός εἰμι· οἶδα γὰρ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν γινομένην πολλάκιςἡδονήν, τοτὲ μὲν ἐκ τῶν ὁμοιογενῶν, τοτὲ δὲ ἐκ τῶν ἀνομοιογενῶν·ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ πάντων οἴομαι δεῖν τὸν καιρὸν ὁρᾶν· οὗτος 20γὰρ ἡδονῆς καὶ ἀηδίας κράτιστον μέτρον. καιροῦ δὲ οὔτεῥήτωρ οὐδεὶς οὔτε φιλόσοφος εἰς τόδε χρόνου τέχνην ὥρισεν,οὐδ’ ὅσπερ πρῶτος ἐπεχείρησε περὶ αὐτοῦ γράφειν Γοργίας[133]mingling and fusion and juxtaposition,—by mingling smooth with rough, soft with hard, cacophonous with melodious, easy to pronounce with hard to pronounce, long with short; and generally by happy combinations of the same kind. Many words of few syllables must not be used in succession (for this jars upon the ear), nor an excessive number of polysyllabic words; and we must avoid the monotony of setting side by side words similarly accented or agreeing in their quantities. We must quickly vary the cases of substantives (since, if continued unduly, they greatly offend the ear); and in order to guard against satiety, we must constantly break up the effect of sameness entailed by placing many nouns, or verbs, or other parts of speech, in close succession. We must not always adhere to the same figures, but change them frequently; we must not re-introduce the same metaphors, but vary them; we must not exceed due measure by beginning or ending with the same words too often.Still, let no one think that I am proclaiming these as universal rules—that I suppose keeping them will always produce pleasure, or breaking them always produce annoyance. I am not so foolish. I know that pleasure often arises from both sources—from similarity at one time, from dissimilarity at another. In every case we must, I think, keep in view good taste, for this is the best criterion of charm and its opposite. But about good taste no rhetorician or philosopher has, so far, produced a definite treatise. The man who first undertook to write on the subject, Gorgias of Leontini, achieved nothing

[133]mingling and fusion and juxtaposition,—by mingling smooth with rough, soft with hard, cacophonous with melodious, easy to pronounce with hard to pronounce, long with short; and generally by happy combinations of the same kind. Many words of few syllables must not be used in succession (for this jars upon the ear), nor an excessive number of polysyllabic words; and we must avoid the monotony of setting side by side words similarly accented or agreeing in their quantities. We must quickly vary the cases of substantives (since, if continued unduly, they greatly offend the ear); and in order to guard against satiety, we must constantly break up the effect of sameness entailed by placing many nouns, or verbs, or other parts of speech, in close succession. We must not always adhere to the same figures, but change them frequently; we must not re-introduce the same metaphors, but vary them; we must not exceed due measure by beginning or ending with the same words too often.Still, let no one think that I am proclaiming these as universal rules—that I suppose keeping them will always produce pleasure, or breaking them always produce annoyance. I am not so foolish. I know that pleasure often arises from both sources—from similarity at one time, from dissimilarity at another. In every case we must, I think, keep in view good taste, for this is the best criterion of charm and its opposite. But about good taste no rhetorician or philosopher has, so far, produced a definite treatise. The man who first undertook to write on the subject, Gorgias of Leontini, achieved nothing

[133]

mingling and fusion and juxtaposition,—by mingling smooth with rough, soft with hard, cacophonous with melodious, easy to pronounce with hard to pronounce, long with short; and generally by happy combinations of the same kind. Many words of few syllables must not be used in succession (for this jars upon the ear), nor an excessive number of polysyllabic words; and we must avoid the monotony of setting side by side words similarly accented or agreeing in their quantities. We must quickly vary the cases of substantives (since, if continued unduly, they greatly offend the ear); and in order to guard against satiety, we must constantly break up the effect of sameness entailed by placing many nouns, or verbs, or other parts of speech, in close succession. We must not always adhere to the same figures, but change them frequently; we must not re-introduce the same metaphors, but vary them; we must not exceed due measure by beginning or ending with the same words too often.

Still, let no one think that I am proclaiming these as universal rules—that I suppose keeping them will always produce pleasure, or breaking them always produce annoyance. I am not so foolish. I know that pleasure often arises from both sources—from similarity at one time, from dissimilarity at another. In every case we must, I think, keep in view good taste, for this is the best criterion of charm and its opposite. But about good taste no rhetorician or philosopher has, so far, produced a definite treatise. The man who first undertook to write on the subject, Gorgias of Leontini, achieved nothing

2 εὐπρόφορα] εὔφορα F 3 συντεθέντα F 4 πολλὰ ... (5) πολυσύλλαβα om. P. 7 μηκυνόμενά τε γὰρ F: μηκυνόμεναί τε γὰρ M 8 προίστανται F 9 τε τῶν Us.: τέ τινων F, E: τινῶν PMV 11 φυλασσομένους EF: φυλαττόμενον s || ἐπὶ FE: om. PMV || ἀεὶ μένειν EF: διαμένειν PMV 14 ὑπερτείνοντας Us.: ὑπερτείνοντα libri 17 τἀναντία FE: τοὐναντίον PMV 19 ὁμοιογενῶν EM: ὁμοίων γενῶν F: ἀνομοίων PV || ἀνομοιογενῶν EFM: ὁμογενῶν PV 22 τόδε χρόνου FMV: τὸ λέγειν P 23 πρῶτον P2. Compare the scholia of Maximus Planudes on the π. ἰδ. of Hermogenes: τοῦτο γάρ φησι καὶ Διονύσιος, ὅτι δεῖ μιγνύειν βραχέσι μακρὰ καὶ πολυσυλλάβοις ὀλιγοσύλλαβα, τοῦτο γὰρ ἡδέως διατίθησι τὴν ἀκοήν (WalzRhett. Gr.v. 520).12. Cp. Anonymi scholia on Hermog. π. ἰδ. (Walz vii. 1049), διὰ τοῦτο κάλλους ἴδιον ὁ ῥυθμός, εἴτε βέβηκεν εἴτε μή· ἐπειδὴ κατὰ Διονύσιον ἡδύνει τὴν ἀκοὴν καὶ ποικίλλει, καὶ μὴ ἄρχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν, μηδὲ λήγειν εἰς αὐτά, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐξ ἁπάντων καλῶν ῥυθμῶν, τουτέστι ποδῶν, συγκεῖσθαι τὸν λόγον· ἀνάγκη γὰρ αὐτὸν οὕτω καλὸν εἶναι· τάττει δὲ τὸν σπονδεῖον μετ’ αὐτῶν.14.ὑπερτείνοντας ... καιρόν: lit. ‘exceeding due measure in either case.’ On the whole, Usener is perhaps right in reading the plural here and in l. 11; clearness, and variety of termination, recommend the change. But (1) allMSS.have ὑπερτείνοντα, (2) the singular has been used in ll. 1, 3, 4supra, and so might as well be maintained to the end, while φυλαττομένους (instead of φυλαττόμενον) might arise from the initial σ of σχήμασι.20.τὸν καιρὸν ὁρᾶν, ‘to have an eye to (or observe) the rules of good taste,’ is a natural and appropriate expression. The use of θηρατός in1343 is no argument for reading θηρᾶν here, but rather tells against the anticipation of so pronounced a metaphor. Moreover, themiddlevoice is found in this sense inde Demosth.c. 40 τὴν εὐφωνίαν θηρωμένη καὶ τὴν εὐμέλειαν. With ὁρᾶν cp.de Demosth.c. 49 ἄλλως τε καὶ τοῦ καιροῦ τὰ μέτρα ὁρῶν andde Thucyd.c. 1 τῆς προαιρέσεως οὐχ ἅπαντα κατὰ τὸν ἀκριβέστατον λογισμὸν ὁρώσης (where θηρώσης is given in Usener-Radermacher’s text).21. Quintil. xi. 1. 1 “parata, sicut superiore libro continetur, facultate scribendi cogitandique et ex tempore etiam, cum res poscet, orandi, proxima est cura, ut dicamus apte; quam virtutem quartam elocutionis Cicero demonstrat, quaeque est meo quidem iudicio maxime necessaria. nam cum sit ornatus orationis varius et multiplex conveniatque alius alii: nisi fuerit accommodatus rebus atque personis, non modo non illustrabit eam sed etiam destruet et vim rerum in contrarium vertet.”22.τόδε χρόνου: Usener reads τόδε γε (without χρόνου), in view of P’s τὸ λέγειν. But τόδε γε is unusual in this sense, whereas ἔτι καὶ εἰς τόδε χρόνου is found inAntiqq. Rom.i. 16. Cp. i. 38ibid.καὶ παρὰ Κελτοῖς εἰς τόδε χρόνου γίνεται: also i. 61, 68, iii. 31, vi. 13.

2. Compare the scholia of Maximus Planudes on the π. ἰδ. of Hermogenes: τοῦτο γάρ φησι καὶ Διονύσιος, ὅτι δεῖ μιγνύειν βραχέσι μακρὰ καὶ πολυσυλλάβοις ὀλιγοσύλλαβα, τοῦτο γὰρ ἡδέως διατίθησι τὴν ἀκοήν (WalzRhett. Gr.v. 520).

12. Cp. Anonymi scholia on Hermog. π. ἰδ. (Walz vii. 1049), διὰ τοῦτο κάλλους ἴδιον ὁ ῥυθμός, εἴτε βέβηκεν εἴτε μή· ἐπειδὴ κατὰ Διονύσιον ἡδύνει τὴν ἀκοὴν καὶ ποικίλλει, καὶ μὴ ἄρχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν, μηδὲ λήγειν εἰς αὐτά, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐξ ἁπάντων καλῶν ῥυθμῶν, τουτέστι ποδῶν, συγκεῖσθαι τὸν λόγον· ἀνάγκη γὰρ αὐτὸν οὕτω καλὸν εἶναι· τάττει δὲ τὸν σπονδεῖον μετ’ αὐτῶν.

14.ὑπερτείνοντας ... καιρόν: lit. ‘exceeding due measure in either case.’ On the whole, Usener is perhaps right in reading the plural here and in l. 11; clearness, and variety of termination, recommend the change. But (1) allMSS.have ὑπερτείνοντα, (2) the singular has been used in ll. 1, 3, 4supra, and so might as well be maintained to the end, while φυλαττομένους (instead of φυλαττόμενον) might arise from the initial σ of σχήμασι.

20.τὸν καιρὸν ὁρᾶν, ‘to have an eye to (or observe) the rules of good taste,’ is a natural and appropriate expression. The use of θηρατός in1343 is no argument for reading θηρᾶν here, but rather tells against the anticipation of so pronounced a metaphor. Moreover, themiddlevoice is found in this sense inde Demosth.c. 40 τὴν εὐφωνίαν θηρωμένη καὶ τὴν εὐμέλειαν. With ὁρᾶν cp.de Demosth.c. 49 ἄλλως τε καὶ τοῦ καιροῦ τὰ μέτρα ὁρῶν andde Thucyd.c. 1 τῆς προαιρέσεως οὐχ ἅπαντα κατὰ τὸν ἀκριβέστατον λογισμὸν ὁρώσης (where θηρώσης is given in Usener-Radermacher’s text).

21. Quintil. xi. 1. 1 “parata, sicut superiore libro continetur, facultate scribendi cogitandique et ex tempore etiam, cum res poscet, orandi, proxima est cura, ut dicamus apte; quam virtutem quartam elocutionis Cicero demonstrat, quaeque est meo quidem iudicio maxime necessaria. nam cum sit ornatus orationis varius et multiplex conveniatque alius alii: nisi fuerit accommodatus rebus atque personis, non modo non illustrabit eam sed etiam destruet et vim rerum in contrarium vertet.”

22.τόδε χρόνου: Usener reads τόδε γε (without χρόνου), in view of P’s τὸ λέγειν. But τόδε γε is unusual in this sense, whereas ἔτι καὶ εἰς τόδε χρόνου is found inAntiqq. Rom.i. 16. Cp. i. 38ibid.καὶ παρὰ Κελτοῖς εἰς τόδε χρόνου γίνεται: also i. 61, 68, iii. 31, vi. 13.

ὁ Λεοντῖνος οὐδὲν ὅ τι καὶ λόγου ἄξιον ἔγραψεν· οὐδ’ ἔχειφύσιν τὸ πρᾶγμα εἰς καθολικὴν καὶ ἔντεχνόν τινα περίληψινπεσεῖν, οὐδ’ ὅλως ἐπιστήμῃ θηρατός ἐστιν ὁ καιρὸς ἀλλὰδόξῃ. ταύτην δ’ οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ πολλῶν καὶ πολλάκις γυμνάσαντεςἄμεινον τῶν ἄλλων εὑρίσκουσιν αὐτόν, οἱ δ’ 5ἀγύμναστον ἀφέντες σπανιώτερον καὶ ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τύχης.ἵνα δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων εἴπω, ταῦτ’ οἴομαι χρῆναιφυλάττειν ἐν τῇ συνθέσει τὸν μέλλοντα διαθήσειν τὴν ἀκοὴνἡδέως· ἢ τὰ εὐμελῆ καὶ εὔρυθμα καὶ εὔφωνα ὀνόματα, ὑφ’ὧν γλυκαίνεταί τε καὶ ἐκμαλάττεται καὶ τὸ ὅλον οἰκείως 10διατίθεται ἡ αἴσθησις, ταῦτα ἀλλήλοις συναρμόττειν, ἢ τὰμὴ τοιαύτην ἔχοντα φύσιν ἐγκαταπλέκειν τε καὶ συνυφαίνειντοῖς δυναμένοις αὐτὴν γοητεύειν, ὥστε ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκείνων χάριτοςἐπισκοτεῖσθαι τὴν τούτων ἀηδίαν· οἷόν τι ποιοῦσιν οἱφρόνιμοι στρατηλάται κατὰ τὰς συντάξεις τῶν στρατευμάτων· 15καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι ἐπικρύπτουσι τοῖς ἰσχυροῖς τὰ ἀσθενῆ, καὶγίνεται αὐτοῖς οὐδὲν τῆς δυνάμεως ἄχρηστον. διαναπαύεινδὲ τὴν ταυτότητά φημι δεῖν μεταβολὰς εὐκαίρους εἰσφέροντα·καὶ γὰρ ἡ μεταβολὴ παντὸς ἔργου χρῆμα ἡδύ. τελευταῖονδὲ ὃ δὴ καὶ πάντων κράτιστον, οἰκείαν ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς 20ὑποκειμένοις καὶ πρέπουσαν ἁρμονίαν. δυσωπεῖσθαι δ’ οὐδὲνοἴομαι δεῖν οὔτε ὄνομα οὔτε ῥῆμα, ὅ τι καὶ τέτριπται, μὴσὺν αἰσχύνῃ λέγεσθαι μέλλον· οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτω ταπεινὸν ἢῥυπαρὸν ἢ ἄλλην τινὰ δυσχέρειαν ἔχον ἔσεσθαί φημι λόγουμόριον, ᾧ σημαίνεταί τι σῶμα ἢ πρᾶγμα, ὃ μηδεμίαν ἕξει 25χώραν ἐπιτηδείαν ἐν λόγοις. παρακελεύομαι δὲ τῇ συνθέσει[135]worth mentioning. The nature of the subject, indeed, is not such that it can fall under any comprehensive and systematic treatment, nor can good taste in general be apprehended by science, but only by personal judgment. Those who have continually trained this latter faculty in many connexions are more successful than others in attaining good taste, while those who leave it untrained are rarely successful, and only by a sort of lucky stroke.To proceed. I think the following rules should be observed in composition by a writer who looks to please the ear. Either he should link to one another melodious, rhythmical, euphonious words, by which the sense of hearing is touched with a feeling of sweetness and softness,—those which, to put it broadly, come home to it most; or he should intertwine and interweave those which have no such natural effect with those that can so bewitch the ear that the unattractiveness of the one set is overshadowed by the grace of the other. We may compare the practice of good tacticians when marshalling their armies: they mask the weak portions by means of the strong, and so no part of their force proves useless. In the same way I maintain we ought to relieve monotony by the tasteful introduction of variety, since variety is an element of pleasure in everything we do. And last, and certainly most important of all, the setting which is assigned to the subject matter must be appropriate and becoming to it. And, in my opinion, we ought not to feel shy of using any noun or verb, however hackneyed, unless it carries with it some shameful association; for I venture to assert that no part of speech which signifies a person or a thing will prove so mean, squalid, or otherwise offensive as to have no fitting place in discourse. My advice is that, trusting to the

[135]worth mentioning. The nature of the subject, indeed, is not such that it can fall under any comprehensive and systematic treatment, nor can good taste in general be apprehended by science, but only by personal judgment. Those who have continually trained this latter faculty in many connexions are more successful than others in attaining good taste, while those who leave it untrained are rarely successful, and only by a sort of lucky stroke.To proceed. I think the following rules should be observed in composition by a writer who looks to please the ear. Either he should link to one another melodious, rhythmical, euphonious words, by which the sense of hearing is touched with a feeling of sweetness and softness,—those which, to put it broadly, come home to it most; or he should intertwine and interweave those which have no such natural effect with those that can so bewitch the ear that the unattractiveness of the one set is overshadowed by the grace of the other. We may compare the practice of good tacticians when marshalling their armies: they mask the weak portions by means of the strong, and so no part of their force proves useless. In the same way I maintain we ought to relieve monotony by the tasteful introduction of variety, since variety is an element of pleasure in everything we do. And last, and certainly most important of all, the setting which is assigned to the subject matter must be appropriate and becoming to it. And, in my opinion, we ought not to feel shy of using any noun or verb, however hackneyed, unless it carries with it some shameful association; for I venture to assert that no part of speech which signifies a person or a thing will prove so mean, squalid, or otherwise offensive as to have no fitting place in discourse. My advice is that, trusting to the

[135]

worth mentioning. The nature of the subject, indeed, is not such that it can fall under any comprehensive and systematic treatment, nor can good taste in general be apprehended by science, but only by personal judgment. Those who have continually trained this latter faculty in many connexions are more successful than others in attaining good taste, while those who leave it untrained are rarely successful, and only by a sort of lucky stroke.

To proceed. I think the following rules should be observed in composition by a writer who looks to please the ear. Either he should link to one another melodious, rhythmical, euphonious words, by which the sense of hearing is touched with a feeling of sweetness and softness,—those which, to put it broadly, come home to it most; or he should intertwine and interweave those which have no such natural effect with those that can so bewitch the ear that the unattractiveness of the one set is overshadowed by the grace of the other. We may compare the practice of good tacticians when marshalling their armies: they mask the weak portions by means of the strong, and so no part of their force proves useless. In the same way I maintain we ought to relieve monotony by the tasteful introduction of variety, since variety is an element of pleasure in everything we do. And last, and certainly most important of all, the setting which is assigned to the subject matter must be appropriate and becoming to it. And, in my opinion, we ought not to feel shy of using any noun or verb, however hackneyed, unless it carries with it some shameful association; for I venture to assert that no part of speech which signifies a person or a thing will prove so mean, squalid, or otherwise offensive as to have no fitting place in discourse. My advice is that, trusting to the

1 οὐδὲν F: οὐδ’ MV: om. P || καὶ F: om. PMV 5 αὐτόν FM: om. PV 6 ἀγύμναστον F, γρ M: ἀνάσκητον PM1V || σπανιωτέρ(αν) P, MV 9 ἢ EFM: om. PV 10 ἐκμαλάττεται F: μαλάττεται PMV 15 συντάξεις FM: τάξ[ει]ς cum litura P, V 16 ἐπικρύπτουσι EF: συγκρύπτουσιν P, MV 17 ἄχρηστον FE: μέρος ἄχρηστον PMV 20 κράτιστον EF: ἐστὶ κράτιστον PMV 21 καὶ πρέπουσαν om. F 22 δεῖν om. F || ὅτι καὶ τέτριπται EF: ὅτ’ (οὔτ’ V) ἐπιτέτραπται PMV 23 μέλλον EF: om. PMV 24 ῥυπαρὸν EF: ῥυπαρὸν ἢ μιαρὸν PV: μιαρὸν M || ἔχον om. F 26 δὲ EF: δὲ ἐν PMV1. For οὐδ’ ὅτι (as read by Schaefer) Dobree suggested a number of alternatives,—οἶδ’ (= οἶδα), οὐδὲν, οὐδ’ ὁτιοῦν.7. The passage that begins here is, itself, a good example of rhythmical and melodious writing.10.τὸ ὅλον: cp. Long. p. 207, s.v. σύνολον.15. The description inIliadiv. 297-300 may be in Dionysius’ mind. Cp. Cic.Brut.36. 139 “omnia veniebant Antonio in mentem; eaque suo quaeque loco, ubi plurimum proficere et valere possent, ut ab imperatore equites pedites levis armatura, sic ab illo in maxime opportunis orationis partibus collocabantur”; Xen.Cyrop.vii. 5. 5 ἀναπτυχθείσης δ’ οὕτω τῆς φάλαγγος ἀνάγκη τοὺς πρώτους ἀρίστους εἶναι καὶ τοὺς τελευταίους, ἐν μέσῳ δὲ τοὺς κακίστους τετάχθαι.19. Cp. Dionys. Hal.Ep. ad Cn. Pompeiumc. 3 ὡς ἡδὺ χρῆμα ἐν ἱστορίας γραφῇ μεταβολὴ καὶ ποικίλον: Aristot.Eth.vii. 1154 b μεταβολὴ δὲ πάντων γλυκύ, κατὰ τὸν ποιητήν: Eurip.Orest.234 μεταβολὴ πάντων γλυκύ. Dionysius’ whole-hearted faith in the virtues of μεταβολή (considered in its widest bearings) rests on a basis of permanent truth. If we open Shakespeare at random, we can see how the verbal forms (‘remember,’ ‘bequeathed,’ ‘sayest,’ ‘charged,’ ‘begins’) are varied in the opening sentence ofAs You Like It; and this though our language is almost wholly analytical. And the words that fall from Lear in his madness (King Leariv. 6) are full of the most moving μεταβολαί, as well as of the most pathetic variations from τὸ εὐμελὲς to τὸ ἐμμελές.

1. For οὐδ’ ὅτι (as read by Schaefer) Dobree suggested a number of alternatives,—οἶδ’ (= οἶδα), οὐδὲν, οὐδ’ ὁτιοῦν.

7. The passage that begins here is, itself, a good example of rhythmical and melodious writing.

10.τὸ ὅλον: cp. Long. p. 207, s.v. σύνολον.

15. The description inIliadiv. 297-300 may be in Dionysius’ mind. Cp. Cic.Brut.36. 139 “omnia veniebant Antonio in mentem; eaque suo quaeque loco, ubi plurimum proficere et valere possent, ut ab imperatore equites pedites levis armatura, sic ab illo in maxime opportunis orationis partibus collocabantur”; Xen.Cyrop.vii. 5. 5 ἀναπτυχθείσης δ’ οὕτω τῆς φάλαγγος ἀνάγκη τοὺς πρώτους ἀρίστους εἶναι καὶ τοὺς τελευταίους, ἐν μέσῳ δὲ τοὺς κακίστους τετάχθαι.

19. Cp. Dionys. Hal.Ep. ad Cn. Pompeiumc. 3 ὡς ἡδὺ χρῆμα ἐν ἱστορίας γραφῇ μεταβολὴ καὶ ποικίλον: Aristot.Eth.vii. 1154 b μεταβολὴ δὲ πάντων γλυκύ, κατὰ τὸν ποιητήν: Eurip.Orest.234 μεταβολὴ πάντων γλυκύ. Dionysius’ whole-hearted faith in the virtues of μεταβολή (considered in its widest bearings) rests on a basis of permanent truth. If we open Shakespeare at random, we can see how the verbal forms (‘remember,’ ‘bequeathed,’ ‘sayest,’ ‘charged,’ ‘begins’) are varied in the opening sentence ofAs You Like It; and this though our language is almost wholly analytical. And the words that fall from Lear in his madness (King Leariv. 6) are full of the most moving μεταβολαί, as well as of the most pathetic variations from τὸ εὐμελὲς to τὸ ἐμμελές.

πιστεύοντας ἀνδρείως πάνυ καὶ τεθαρρηκότως αὐτὰ ἐκφέρεινὉμήρῳ τε παραδείγματι χρωμένους, παρ’ ᾧ καὶ τὰεὐτελέστατα κεῖται τῶν ὀνομάτων, καὶ Δημοσθένει καὶἩροδότῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, ὧν ὀλίγῳ ὕστερον μνησθήσομαικαθ’ ὅ τι ἂν ἁρμόττῃ περὶ ἑκάστου. ταῦτά μοι περὶ τῆς 5ἡδείας εἰρήσθω συνθέσεως, ὀλίγα μὲν ὑπὲρ πολλῶν θεωρημάτων,ἱκανὰ δὲ ὡς κεφάλαια εἶναι.XIIIεἶἑν. καλὴ δ’ ἁρμονία πῶς γένοιτ’ ἂν εἴ τις ἔροιτό μεκαὶ ἐκ ποίων θεωρημάτων, οὐκ ἄλλως πως μὰ Δία φαίην ἂνοὐδ’ ἐξ ἄλλων τινῶν ἢ ἐξ ὧνπερ ἡ ἡδεῖα· τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ 10ποιητικὰ ἀμφοῖν, μέλος εὐγενές, ῥυθμὸς ἀξιωματικός, μεταβολὴμεγαλοπρεπής, τὸ πᾶσι τούτοις παρακολουθοῦν πρέπον.ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡδεῖά τις γίνεται λέξις, οὕτω καὶ γενναία τιςἑτέρα, καὶ ῥυθμὸς ὥσπερ γλαφυρός τις, οὕτω καὶ σεμνός τιςἕτερος, καὶ τὸ μεταβάλλειν ὥσπερ χάριν ἔχει, οὕτω καὶ 15πίνον· τὸ δὲ δὴ πρέπον εἰ μὴ τοῦ καλοῦ πλεῖστον ἕξειμέρος, σχολῇ γ’ ἂν ἄλλου τινός. ἐξ ἁπάντων δή φημιτούτων ἐπιτηδεύεσθαι δεῖν τὸ καλὸν ἐν ἁρμονίᾳ λέξεως ἐξὧνπερ καὶ τὸ ἡδύ. αἰτία δὲ κἀνταῦθα ἥ τε τῶν γραμμάτωνφύσις καὶ ἡ τῶν συλλαβῶν δύναμις, ἐξ ὧν πλέκεται τὰ ὀνόματα· 20ὑπὲρ ὧν καιρὸς ἂν εἴη λέγειν, ὥσπερ ὑπεσχόμην.XIVἀρχαὶ μὲν οὖν εἰσι τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φωνῆς καὶ ἐνάρθρου[137]effect of the composition, we should bring out such expressions with a bold and manly confidence, following the example of Homer, in whom the most commonplace words are found, and of Demosthenes and Herodotus and others, whom I will mention a little later so far as is suitable in each case. I think I have now spoken at sufficient length on charm of style. My treatment has been but a brief survey of a wide field, but will furnish the main heads of the study.CHAPTER XIIIHOW TO RENDER COMPOSITION BEAUTIFULSo far, so good. But, if some one were to ask me in what way, and by attention to what principles, literary structure can be made beautiful, I should reply: In no other way, believe me, and by no other means, than those by which it is made charming, since the same elements contribute to both, namely noble melody, stately rhythm, imposing variety, and the appropriateness which all these need. For as there is a charming diction, so there is another that is noble; as there is a polished rhythm, so also is there another that is dignified; as variety in one passage adds grace, so in another it adds mellowness; and as for appropriateness, it will prove the chief source of beauty, or else the source of nothing at all. I repeat, the study of beauty in composition should follow the same lines throughout as the study of charm. The prime cause, here as before, is to be found in the nature of the letters and the phonetic effect of the syllables, which are the raw material out of which the fabric of words is woven. The time may perhaps now have come for redeeming my promise to discuss these.CHAPTER XIVTHE LETTERS: THEIR CLASSIFICATION, QUALITIES, AND MODE OF PRODUCTIONThere are in human and articulate speech a number of first-beginnings

εἶἑν. καλὴ δ’ ἁρμονία πῶς γένοιτ’ ἂν εἴ τις ἔροιτό μεκαὶ ἐκ ποίων θεωρημάτων, οὐκ ἄλλως πως μὰ Δία φαίην ἂνοὐδ’ ἐξ ἄλλων τινῶν ἢ ἐξ ὧνπερ ἡ ἡδεῖα· τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ 10ποιητικὰ ἀμφοῖν, μέλος εὐγενές, ῥυθμὸς ἀξιωματικός, μεταβολὴμεγαλοπρεπής, τὸ πᾶσι τούτοις παρακολουθοῦν πρέπον.ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡδεῖά τις γίνεται λέξις, οὕτω καὶ γενναία τιςἑτέρα, καὶ ῥυθμὸς ὥσπερ γλαφυρός τις, οὕτω καὶ σεμνός τιςἕτερος, καὶ τὸ μεταβάλλειν ὥσπερ χάριν ἔχει, οὕτω καὶ 15πίνον· τὸ δὲ δὴ πρέπον εἰ μὴ τοῦ καλοῦ πλεῖστον ἕξειμέρος, σχολῇ γ’ ἂν ἄλλου τινός. ἐξ ἁπάντων δή φημιτούτων ἐπιτηδεύεσθαι δεῖν τὸ καλὸν ἐν ἁρμονίᾳ λέξεως ἐξὧνπερ καὶ τὸ ἡδύ. αἰτία δὲ κἀνταῦθα ἥ τε τῶν γραμμάτωνφύσις καὶ ἡ τῶν συλλαβῶν δύναμις, ἐξ ὧν πλέκεται τὰ ὀνόματα· 20ὑπὲρ ὧν καιρὸς ἂν εἴη λέγειν, ὥσπερ ὑπεσχόμην.

ἀρχαὶ μὲν οὖν εἰσι τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φωνῆς καὶ ἐνάρθρου

[137]effect of the composition, we should bring out such expressions with a bold and manly confidence, following the example of Homer, in whom the most commonplace words are found, and of Demosthenes and Herodotus and others, whom I will mention a little later so far as is suitable in each case. I think I have now spoken at sufficient length on charm of style. My treatment has been but a brief survey of a wide field, but will furnish the main heads of the study.CHAPTER XIIIHOW TO RENDER COMPOSITION BEAUTIFULSo far, so good. But, if some one were to ask me in what way, and by attention to what principles, literary structure can be made beautiful, I should reply: In no other way, believe me, and by no other means, than those by which it is made charming, since the same elements contribute to both, namely noble melody, stately rhythm, imposing variety, and the appropriateness which all these need. For as there is a charming diction, so there is another that is noble; as there is a polished rhythm, so also is there another that is dignified; as variety in one passage adds grace, so in another it adds mellowness; and as for appropriateness, it will prove the chief source of beauty, or else the source of nothing at all. I repeat, the study of beauty in composition should follow the same lines throughout as the study of charm. The prime cause, here as before, is to be found in the nature of the letters and the phonetic effect of the syllables, which are the raw material out of which the fabric of words is woven. The time may perhaps now have come for redeeming my promise to discuss these.CHAPTER XIVTHE LETTERS: THEIR CLASSIFICATION, QUALITIES, AND MODE OF PRODUCTIONThere are in human and articulate speech a number of first-beginnings

[137]

effect of the composition, we should bring out such expressions with a bold and manly confidence, following the example of Homer, in whom the most commonplace words are found, and of Demosthenes and Herodotus and others, whom I will mention a little later so far as is suitable in each case. I think I have now spoken at sufficient length on charm of style. My treatment has been but a brief survey of a wide field, but will furnish the main heads of the study.

So far, so good. But, if some one were to ask me in what way, and by attention to what principles, literary structure can be made beautiful, I should reply: In no other way, believe me, and by no other means, than those by which it is made charming, since the same elements contribute to both, namely noble melody, stately rhythm, imposing variety, and the appropriateness which all these need. For as there is a charming diction, so there is another that is noble; as there is a polished rhythm, so also is there another that is dignified; as variety in one passage adds grace, so in another it adds mellowness; and as for appropriateness, it will prove the chief source of beauty, or else the source of nothing at all. I repeat, the study of beauty in composition should follow the same lines throughout as the study of charm. The prime cause, here as before, is to be found in the nature of the letters and the phonetic effect of the syllables, which are the raw material out of which the fabric of words is woven. The time may perhaps now have come for redeeming my promise to discuss these.

There are in human and articulate speech a number of first-beginnings

2 χρωμένους EFMV: χρ(ω)μεν(ος) P 4 ὀλίγον F: sed cf.1547 7 εἶναι· εἶἑν sic P, FM: εἶεν V 8 με καὶ F: ἢ PMV 9 μὰ PMV: νὴ F 10 οὐδ’] οὐκ PV || ἡ F: om. PMV 13 οὕτω καὶ PMV: οὕτω F 14 ἑτέρα PMV: ἄρα F || σεμνός τις F: σεμνὸς PMV 15 ἔχει P: ἔχει (ἔχειν V) τινὰ FMV 16 πινόν (θ suprascripto) P: πιθανόν V: τὸ πῖνον M: πόνον F 18 δεῖν] δὴ F 20 ὀνόματα PE: ὀνόματα ταῦτα FMV 22 φωνῆς καὶ ἐνάρθρου REF: καὶ ἐνάρθρου φωνῆς αἱ PMVs6.ὑπέρ= περί: l. 21infra,962, etc. Reiske’s ἀπό is attractive; but does ὀλίγα really = ὀλίγα θεωρήματα?8.εἶἑν= “So!” The breathing on the last syllable (as given by the best manuscripts, here and in other authors) helps to distinguish this word from the third pers. plur. optat. of εἰμί.9. In a negative sentence,μὰ Δίαis to be preferred to νὴ Δία.13.λέξις: μέλος (cp. l. 11supra) is here in question. Hence Usener suggests μέλισις. Perhaps λέξις (‘the words,’ ‘the libretto’) is here felt to include the music,—‘a passage set to music’: cp.12422 καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταύτῃ καὶ μέλος ἔχουσιν αἱ λέξεις (‘the words’) καὶ ῥυθμὸν καὶ μεταβολὴν καὶ πρέπον, and contrast12620-1.16.πίνον, ‘mellowness,’ ‘ripeness’ (see Gloss.). The readings of FPMV seem all to point in this direction. πόνον (F’s reading) might possibly mean either ‘involve trouble’ (to the author) or ‘suggest painstaking’ (to the reader). Usener conjectures τόνον.22. Chapter xiv., which in some respects is the most interesting in the treatise, might easily be ridiculed by one of those scoffers whom Dionysius elsewhere (25217) mentions with aversion. InLe Bourgeois Gentilhomme(ii. 4) there is much that could serve for a parody of theC. V.—the Maître de Philosophie with his “Sans la science, la vie est presque une image de la mort” (nam sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago), his “tout ce qui n’est point prose est vers; et tout ce qui n’est point vers est prose,” and (particularly) his remarks onl’orthographie: “Pour bien suivre votre pensée et traiter cette matière en philosophe, il faut commencer selon l’ordre des choses, par une exacte connaissance de la nature des lettres, et de la différente manière de les prononcer toutes. Et là-dessus j’ai à vous dire que les lettres sont divisées en voyelles, ainsi dites voyelles parce qu’elles expriment les voix; et en consonnes, ainsi appelées consonnes parce qu’elles sonnent avec les voyelles, et ne font que marquer les diverses articulations des voix.” These remarks include descriptions (many of which are taken almost verbatim from De Cordemoy’sDiscours physique de la parole, published in 1668) of the mode in which various letters are formed, and (incidentally) M. Jourdain’s exclamation, “A, E, I, I, I, I. Cela est vrai. Vive la science!”

6.ὑπέρ= περί: l. 21infra,962, etc. Reiske’s ἀπό is attractive; but does ὀλίγα really = ὀλίγα θεωρήματα?

8.εἶἑν= “So!” The breathing on the last syllable (as given by the best manuscripts, here and in other authors) helps to distinguish this word from the third pers. plur. optat. of εἰμί.

9. In a negative sentence,μὰ Δίαis to be preferred to νὴ Δία.

13.λέξις: μέλος (cp. l. 11supra) is here in question. Hence Usener suggests μέλισις. Perhaps λέξις (‘the words,’ ‘the libretto’) is here felt to include the music,—‘a passage set to music’: cp.12422 καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταύτῃ καὶ μέλος ἔχουσιν αἱ λέξεις (‘the words’) καὶ ῥυθμὸν καὶ μεταβολὴν καὶ πρέπον, and contrast12620-1.

16.πίνον, ‘mellowness,’ ‘ripeness’ (see Gloss.). The readings of FPMV seem all to point in this direction. πόνον (F’s reading) might possibly mean either ‘involve trouble’ (to the author) or ‘suggest painstaking’ (to the reader). Usener conjectures τόνον.

22. Chapter xiv., which in some respects is the most interesting in the treatise, might easily be ridiculed by one of those scoffers whom Dionysius elsewhere (25217) mentions with aversion. InLe Bourgeois Gentilhomme(ii. 4) there is much that could serve for a parody of theC. V.—the Maître de Philosophie with his “Sans la science, la vie est presque une image de la mort” (nam sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago), his “tout ce qui n’est point prose est vers; et tout ce qui n’est point vers est prose,” and (particularly) his remarks onl’orthographie: “Pour bien suivre votre pensée et traiter cette matière en philosophe, il faut commencer selon l’ordre des choses, par une exacte connaissance de la nature des lettres, et de la différente manière de les prononcer toutes. Et là-dessus j’ai à vous dire que les lettres sont divisées en voyelles, ainsi dites voyelles parce qu’elles expriment les voix; et en consonnes, ainsi appelées consonnes parce qu’elles sonnent avec les voyelles, et ne font que marquer les diverses articulations des voix.” These remarks include descriptions (many of which are taken almost verbatim from De Cordemoy’sDiscours physique de la parole, published in 1668) of the mode in which various letters are formed, and (incidentally) M. Jourdain’s exclamation, “A, E, I, I, I, I. Cela est vrai. Vive la science!”

μηκέτι δεχόμεναι διαίρεσιν, ἃ καλοῦμεν στοιχεῖα καὶ γράμματα·γράμματα μὲν ὅτι γραμμαῖς τισι σημαίνεται, στοιχεῖα δὲ ὅτιπᾶσα φωνὴ τὴν γένεσιν ἐκ τούτων λαμβάνει πρώτων καὶ τὴνδιάλυσιν εἰς ταῦτα ποιεῖται τελευταῖα. τῶν δὴ στοιχείων τεκαὶ γραμμάτων οὐ μία πάντων φύσις, διαφορὰ δὲ αὐτῶν 5πρώτη μέν, ὡς Ἀριστόξενος ὁ μουσικὸς ἀποφαίνεται, καθ’ ἣντὰ μὲν φωνὰς ἀποτελεῖ, τὰ δὲ ψόφους· φωνὰς μὲν τὰλεγόμενα φωνήεντα, ψόφους δὲ τὰ λοιπὰ πάντα. δευτέρα δὲκαθ’ ἣν τῶν μὴ φωνηέντων ἃ μὲν καθ’ ἑαυτὰ ψόφους ὁποίουςδή τινας ἀποτελεῖν πέφυκε, ῥοῖζον ἢ σιγμὸν ἢ μυγμὸν ἢ 10τοιούτων τινῶν ἄλλων ἤχων δηλωτικούς· ἃ δ’ ἐστὶν ἁπάσηςἄμοιρα φωνῆς καὶ ψόφου καὶ οὐχ οἷά τε ἠχεῖσθαι καθ’ ἑαυτά·διὸ δὴ ταῦτα μὲν ἄφωνα τινὲς ἐκάλεσαν, θάτερα δὲ ἡμίφωνα.οἱ δὲ τριχῇ νείμαντες τὰς πρώτας τε καὶ στοιχειώδεις τῆςφωνῆς δυνάμεις φωνήεντα μὲν ἐκάλεσαν, ὅσα καὶ καθ’ ἑαυτὰ 15[139]admitting no further division which we call elements and letters: “letters” (γράμματα) because they are denoted by certain lines (γραμμαί), and “elements” (στοιχεῖα) because every sound made by the voice originates in these, and is ultimately resolvable into them. The elements and letters are not all of the same nature. Of the differences between them, the first is, as Aristoxenus the musician makes clear, that some represent vocal sounds, while others represent noises: the former being represented by the so-called “vowels,” the latter by all the other letters. A second difference is that some of the non-vowels by their nature give rise to some noise or other,—a whizzing, a hissing, a murmur, or suggestions of some such sounds, whereas others are devoid of all voice or noise and cannot be sounded by themselves. Hence some writers have called the latter “voiceless” (“mutes”), the others “semi-voiced” (“semi-vowels”). Those writers who make a threefold division of the first or elemental powers of the voice give the name ofvoiced(vowels) to all letters which can be uttered, either by themselves or

[139]admitting no further division which we call elements and letters: “letters” (γράμματα) because they are denoted by certain lines (γραμμαί), and “elements” (στοιχεῖα) because every sound made by the voice originates in these, and is ultimately resolvable into them. The elements and letters are not all of the same nature. Of the differences between them, the first is, as Aristoxenus the musician makes clear, that some represent vocal sounds, while others represent noises: the former being represented by the so-called “vowels,” the latter by all the other letters. A second difference is that some of the non-vowels by their nature give rise to some noise or other,—a whizzing, a hissing, a murmur, or suggestions of some such sounds, whereas others are devoid of all voice or noise and cannot be sounded by themselves. Hence some writers have called the latter “voiceless” (“mutes”), the others “semi-voiced” (“semi-vowels”). Those writers who make a threefold division of the first or elemental powers of the voice give the name ofvoiced(vowels) to all letters which can be uttered, either by themselves or

[139]

admitting no further division which we call elements and letters: “letters” (γράμματα) because they are denoted by certain lines (γραμμαί), and “elements” (στοιχεῖα) because every sound made by the voice originates in these, and is ultimately resolvable into them. The elements and letters are not all of the same nature. Of the differences between them, the first is, as Aristoxenus the musician makes clear, that some represent vocal sounds, while others represent noises: the former being represented by the so-called “vowels,” the latter by all the other letters. A second difference is that some of the non-vowels by their nature give rise to some noise or other,—a whizzing, a hissing, a murmur, or suggestions of some such sounds, whereas others are devoid of all voice or noise and cannot be sounded by themselves. Hence some writers have called the latter “voiceless” (“mutes”), the others “semi-voiced” (“semi-vowels”). Those writers who make a threefold division of the first or elemental powers of the voice give the name ofvoiced(vowels) to all letters which can be uttered, either by themselves or

1 ἃ R: ἃς libri 3 πρώτων F: πρτωP: πρῶτον RMVs 4 τελευταῖα P: τελευταῖον R: τελευταῖαν FVs: τελευταίαν M 9 μὴ φωνηέντων REFM: μὲν φωνηέντων PRb: φωνηέντων Vs 10 σιγμὸν REF: συριγμὸν PMVs || μυγμὸν RE: μιγμὸν F: ποππυσμὸν P: ἀποπτυσμὸν Vs: ποππυσμὸν ἢ μυγμὸν M 11 δηλωτικούς RF: δηλωτικά EPMVs 13 διὸ δὴ REF: om. PMVs || θάτερα] καθάπερ F 14 τῆς φωνῆς RFM: φωνῆς PVs1. The following note, given in Usener-Radermacher ii. 1, p. 48, is important for its bearing on the text of theC. V.: “Scholiasta Hermogenis Περὶ ἰδεῶν I 6 in Walzii rhet. gr. VII. p. 964, 23 (correctus ex codd. Paris. 1983 = Raet 2977 = Rb) ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν στοιχείων ἄριστα παραδίδωσιν ὁ Διονύσιος ἐν τῷ περὶ συνθήκης ὀνομάτων συγγράμματι· λέγει γὰρ τί συμβέβηκεν ἑκάστῳ τῶν στοιχείων καὶ ποίαν μὲν δύναμιν ἔχει τὰ φωνήεντα, ποίαν δὲ τὰ σύμφωνα καὶ πάλιν αὖ τὰ ἡμίφωνα· πλὴν ἵνα τι καὶ θαυμάσωμεν τὸν ἄνδρα τῆς δεξιότητος, αὐτὴν παραθώμεθα τὴν λέξιν·Ἀρχαὶ μὲν ... εἶναι ἐκεῖνα(p. 969. 18 W.). καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Διονύσιος· οἷς προσέχων οὐκ ἂν διαμάρτοις τοῦ προσήκοντος. εἰ γὰρ σεμνὸν ποιεῖν ἐθέλεις (sic b: ἐθέλοις a Walzius) τὸν λόγον, ἐκλεξάμενος τὰ μακρὰ καὶ ὅσα τεταμένον (τεταγμένον W) λαμβάνει καὶ διηνεκῆ τὸν αὐλὸν τοῦ πνεύματος λάμβανε· φεῦγε δὲ τὰ βραχέως ἐξ ἀποκοπῆς τε λεγόμενα καὶ μιᾷ πληγῇ πνεύματος καὶ τῆς ἀρτηρίας ἐπὶ βραχὺ κινηθείσης ἐκφερόμενα· τὰ γὰρ μακρὰ τῶν φωνηέντων τῷ σεμνῷ μᾶλλον ἁρμόττει ἅτε (εἴ τε b) μηκυνόμενα κατὰ τὴν ἐκφορὰν καὶ πολὺν ἠχοῦντα χρόνον· ἀνοίκεια (Walzius: ἀνοίκειον a b) δὲ τὰ βραχέως λεγόμενα καὶ σπαδονίζοντα (σπαδωνίζοντα b σπανίζοντα Walzius) τὸν ἦχον. ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἁπλῶς οὐδὲ (οὔτε libri) τὰ μακρὰ δεῖ λαμβάνειν, ἀλλὰ τὰ κατὰ τὴν ἐκφορὰν διογκοῦντα τὸ στόμα καὶ ὅσα λέγεται τοῦ στόματος ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀνοιγομένου καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος ἄνω φερομένου (ἀναφερομένου b) πρὸς τὸν οὐρανόν, ἢ ὅσα περιστέλλει τὰ χείλη καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ποιεῖ περὶ τὸ ἀκροστόμιον. ὥστε δεῖ μάλιστα χρῆσθαι ταῖς λέξεσιν ὅσαι πλεονάζουσι τῷ τε ᾱ καὶ τῷ ω̄.”2. Dionysius ThraxArs Gramm.§ 6 (Uhlig p. 9) γράμματα δὲ λέγεται διὰ τὸ γραμμαῖς καὶ ξυσμαῖς τυποῦσθαι· γράψαι γὰρ τὸ ξῦσαι παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς.3. With this passage generally cp. Aristot.Poet.c. 20 στοιχεῖον μὲν οὖν ἐστιν φωνὴ ἀδιαίρετος, οὐ πᾶσα δὲ ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἧς πέφυκε συνετὴ γίγνεσθαι φωνή· καὶ γὰρ τῶν θηρίων εἰσὶν ἀδιαίρετοι φωναί, ὧν οὐδεμίαν λέγω στοιχεῖον· ταύτης δὲ μέρη τό τε φωνῆεν καὶ τὸ ἡμίφωνον καὶ ἄφωνον. ἔστιν δὲ φωνῆεν μὲν ‹τὸ› ἄνευ προσβολῆς ἔχον φωνὴν ἀκουστήν, οἷον τὸ Σ καὶ τὸ Ρ, ἄφωνον δὲ τὸ μετὰ προσβολῆς καθ’ αὑτὸ μὲν οὐδεμίαν ἔχον φωνήν, μετὰ δὲ τῶν ἐχόντων τινὰ φωνὴν γιγνόμενον ἀκουστόν, οἷον τὸ Γ καὶ τὸ Δ. ταῦτα δὲ διαφέρει σχήμασίν τε τοῦ στόματος καὶ τόποις καὶ δασύτητι καὶ ψιλότητι καὶ μήκει καὶ βραχύτητι, ἔτι δὲ ὀξύτητι καὶ βαρύτητι καὶ τῷ μέσῳ· περὶ ὧν καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐν τοῖς μετρικοῖς προσήκει θεωρεῖν.6.Aristoxenus, of Tarentum, the great musical theorist of Greece, lived during the times of Alexander the Great. Dionysius refers to him also inde Demosth.c. 48.9. Cp. Sext. Empir.adv. Math.i. 102 καὶ ἡμίφωνα μὲν ὅσα δι’ αὑτῶν ῥοῖζον ἢ σιγμὸν ἢ μυγμὸν ἤ τινα παραπλήσιον ἦχον κατὰ τὴν ἐκφώνησιν ἀποτελεῖν πεφυκότα, κτλ.10. ποππυσμόν, the reading of P, might mean ‘a popping sound.’13. The division into vowels, consonants, and mutes appears in PlatoCratyl.424Cἆρ’ οὖν καὶ ἡμᾶς οὕτω δεῖ πρῶτον μὲν τὰ φωνήεντα (‘vowels’) διελέσθαι, ἔπειτα τῶν ἑτέρων κατὰ εἴδη τά τε ἄφωνα (‘consonants’) καὶ ἄφθογγα (‘mutes’); ἄφωνα seems in this passage to mean ‘consonants’; in later times σύμφωνα was often so used. In thePhilebus18Dthe originator of an ‘art of grammar’ is attributed to the EgyptianTheuth.

1. The following note, given in Usener-Radermacher ii. 1, p. 48, is important for its bearing on the text of theC. V.: “Scholiasta Hermogenis Περὶ ἰδεῶν I 6 in Walzii rhet. gr. VII. p. 964, 23 (correctus ex codd. Paris. 1983 = Raet 2977 = Rb) ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν στοιχείων ἄριστα παραδίδωσιν ὁ Διονύσιος ἐν τῷ περὶ συνθήκης ὀνομάτων συγγράμματι· λέγει γὰρ τί συμβέβηκεν ἑκάστῳ τῶν στοιχείων καὶ ποίαν μὲν δύναμιν ἔχει τὰ φωνήεντα, ποίαν δὲ τὰ σύμφωνα καὶ πάλιν αὖ τὰ ἡμίφωνα· πλὴν ἵνα τι καὶ θαυμάσωμεν τὸν ἄνδρα τῆς δεξιότητος, αὐτὴν παραθώμεθα τὴν λέξιν·Ἀρχαὶ μὲν ... εἶναι ἐκεῖνα(p. 969. 18 W.). καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Διονύσιος· οἷς προσέχων οὐκ ἂν διαμάρτοις τοῦ προσήκοντος. εἰ γὰρ σεμνὸν ποιεῖν ἐθέλεις (sic b: ἐθέλοις a Walzius) τὸν λόγον, ἐκλεξάμενος τὰ μακρὰ καὶ ὅσα τεταμένον (τεταγμένον W) λαμβάνει καὶ διηνεκῆ τὸν αὐλὸν τοῦ πνεύματος λάμβανε· φεῦγε δὲ τὰ βραχέως ἐξ ἀποκοπῆς τε λεγόμενα καὶ μιᾷ πληγῇ πνεύματος καὶ τῆς ἀρτηρίας ἐπὶ βραχὺ κινηθείσης ἐκφερόμενα· τὰ γὰρ μακρὰ τῶν φωνηέντων τῷ σεμνῷ μᾶλλον ἁρμόττει ἅτε (εἴ τε b) μηκυνόμενα κατὰ τὴν ἐκφορὰν καὶ πολὺν ἠχοῦντα χρόνον· ἀνοίκεια (Walzius: ἀνοίκειον a b) δὲ τὰ βραχέως λεγόμενα καὶ σπαδονίζοντα (σπαδωνίζοντα b σπανίζοντα Walzius) τὸν ἦχον. ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἁπλῶς οὐδὲ (οὔτε libri) τὰ μακρὰ δεῖ λαμβάνειν, ἀλλὰ τὰ κατὰ τὴν ἐκφορὰν διογκοῦντα τὸ στόμα καὶ ὅσα λέγεται τοῦ στόματος ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀνοιγομένου καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος ἄνω φερομένου (ἀναφερομένου b) πρὸς τὸν οὐρανόν, ἢ ὅσα περιστέλλει τὰ χείλη καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ποιεῖ περὶ τὸ ἀκροστόμιον. ὥστε δεῖ μάλιστα χρῆσθαι ταῖς λέξεσιν ὅσαι πλεονάζουσι τῷ τε ᾱ καὶ τῷ ω̄.”

2. Dionysius ThraxArs Gramm.§ 6 (Uhlig p. 9) γράμματα δὲ λέγεται διὰ τὸ γραμμαῖς καὶ ξυσμαῖς τυποῦσθαι· γράψαι γὰρ τὸ ξῦσαι παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς.

3. With this passage generally cp. Aristot.Poet.c. 20 στοιχεῖον μὲν οὖν ἐστιν φωνὴ ἀδιαίρετος, οὐ πᾶσα δὲ ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἧς πέφυκε συνετὴ γίγνεσθαι φωνή· καὶ γὰρ τῶν θηρίων εἰσὶν ἀδιαίρετοι φωναί, ὧν οὐδεμίαν λέγω στοιχεῖον· ταύτης δὲ μέρη τό τε φωνῆεν καὶ τὸ ἡμίφωνον καὶ ἄφωνον. ἔστιν δὲ φωνῆεν μὲν ‹τὸ› ἄνευ προσβολῆς ἔχον φωνὴν ἀκουστήν, οἷον τὸ Σ καὶ τὸ Ρ, ἄφωνον δὲ τὸ μετὰ προσβολῆς καθ’ αὑτὸ μὲν οὐδεμίαν ἔχον φωνήν, μετὰ δὲ τῶν ἐχόντων τινὰ φωνὴν γιγνόμενον ἀκουστόν, οἷον τὸ Γ καὶ τὸ Δ. ταῦτα δὲ διαφέρει σχήμασίν τε τοῦ στόματος καὶ τόποις καὶ δασύτητι καὶ ψιλότητι καὶ μήκει καὶ βραχύτητι, ἔτι δὲ ὀξύτητι καὶ βαρύτητι καὶ τῷ μέσῳ· περὶ ὧν καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐν τοῖς μετρικοῖς προσήκει θεωρεῖν.

6.Aristoxenus, of Tarentum, the great musical theorist of Greece, lived during the times of Alexander the Great. Dionysius refers to him also inde Demosth.c. 48.

9. Cp. Sext. Empir.adv. Math.i. 102 καὶ ἡμίφωνα μὲν ὅσα δι’ αὑτῶν ῥοῖζον ἢ σιγμὸν ἢ μυγμὸν ἤ τινα παραπλήσιον ἦχον κατὰ τὴν ἐκφώνησιν ἀποτελεῖν πεφυκότα, κτλ.

10. ποππυσμόν, the reading of P, might mean ‘a popping sound.’

13. The division into vowels, consonants, and mutes appears in PlatoCratyl.424Cἆρ’ οὖν καὶ ἡμᾶς οὕτω δεῖ πρῶτον μὲν τὰ φωνήεντα (‘vowels’) διελέσθαι, ἔπειτα τῶν ἑτέρων κατὰ εἴδη τά τε ἄφωνα (‘consonants’) καὶ ἄφθογγα (‘mutes’); ἄφωνα seems in this passage to mean ‘consonants’; in later times σύμφωνα was often so used. In thePhilebus18Dthe originator of an ‘art of grammar’ is attributed to the Egyptian

φωνεῖται καὶ μεθ’ ἑτέρων καὶ ἔστιν αὐτοτελῆ· ἡμίφωνα δ’ ὅσαμετὰ μὲν φωνηέντων αὐτὰ ἑαυτῶν κρεῖττον ἐκφέρεται, καθ’ἑαυτὰ δὲ χεῖρον καὶ οὐκ αὐτοτελῶς· ἄφωνα δ’ ὅσα οὔτε τὰςτελείας οὔτε τὰς ἡμιτελεῖς φωνὰς ἔχει καθ’ ἑαυτά, μεθ’ἑτέρων δ’ ἐκφωνεῖται. 5ἀριθμὸς δὲ αὐτῶν ὅστις ἐστίν, οὐ ῥᾴδιον εἰπεῖν ἀκριβῶς,ἐπεὶ πολλὴν παρέσχε καὶ τοῖς πρὸ ἡμῶν ἀπορίαν τὸ πρᾶγμα·οἱ μὲν γὰρ ᾠήθησαν εἶναι τριακαίδεκα τὰ πάντα τῆς φωνῆςστοιχεῖα, κατεσκευάσθαι δὲ τὰ λοιπὰ ἐκ τούτων· οἱ δὲ καὶτῶν εἰκοσιτεσσάρων οἷς χρώμεθα νῦν πλείω. ἡ μὲν οὖν ὑπὲρ 10τούτων θεωρία γραμματικῆς τε καὶ μετρικῆς, εἰ δὲ βούλεταίτις, καὶ φιλοσοφίας οἰκειοτέρα· ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπόχρη μήτ’ ἐλάττουςτῶν κ̅δ̅ μήτε πλείους ὑποθεμένοις εἶναι τὰς τῆς φωνῆς ἀρχὰςτὰ συμβεβηκότα αὐτοῖς λέγειν, τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπὸ τῶν φωνηέντωνποιησαμένοις. 15ἔστι δὴ ταῦτα τὸν ἀριθμὸν ζ̄, δύο μὲν βραχέα τό τε ε̄καὶ τὸ ο̄, δύο δὲ μακρὰ τό τε η̄ καὶ τὸ ω̄, τρία δὲ δίχρονατό τε ᾱ καὶ τὸ ῑ καὶ τὸ ῡ, καὶ γὰρ ἐκτείνεται ταῦτα καὶσυστέλλεται· καὶ αὐτὰ οἱ μὲν δίχρονα, ὥσπερ ἔφην, οἱ δὲμεταπτωτικὰ καλοῦσιν. φωνεῖται δὲ ταῦτα πάντα παρὰ τῆς 20ἀρτηρίας συνηχούσης τῷ πνεύματι καὶ τοῦ στόματος ἁπλῶςσχηματισθέντος τῆς τε γλώττης οὐδὲν πραγματευομένης ἀλλ’[141]together with others, and are self-sufficing;semi-vowelsto all which are pronounced better in combination with vowels, worse and imperfectly when taken singly;mutesto all which by themselves admit of neither perfect nor half-perfect utterance, but are pronounced only in combination with others.It is not easy to say exactly what the number of these elements is, and our predecessors also have felt much doubt upon the question. Some have held that there are only thirteen elements of speech all told, and that the rest are but combinations of these; others that there are more than even the twenty-four which we now recognize. The discussion of this point belongs more properly to grammar and prosody, or even, perhaps, to philosophy. It is enough for us to assume the elements of speech to be neither more nor less than twenty-four, and to specify the properties of each, beginning with the vowels.These are seven in number: two short, viz. ε and ο; two long, viz. η and ω; and three common, viz. α, ι and υ. These last can be either long or short, and some call them “common,” as I have just done, others “variable.” All these sounds are produced from the windpipe, which resounds to the breath, while the mouth assumes a simple shape; the tongue takes no part

[141]together with others, and are self-sufficing;semi-vowelsto all which are pronounced better in combination with vowels, worse and imperfectly when taken singly;mutesto all which by themselves admit of neither perfect nor half-perfect utterance, but are pronounced only in combination with others.It is not easy to say exactly what the number of these elements is, and our predecessors also have felt much doubt upon the question. Some have held that there are only thirteen elements of speech all told, and that the rest are but combinations of these; others that there are more than even the twenty-four which we now recognize. The discussion of this point belongs more properly to grammar and prosody, or even, perhaps, to philosophy. It is enough for us to assume the elements of speech to be neither more nor less than twenty-four, and to specify the properties of each, beginning with the vowels.These are seven in number: two short, viz. ε and ο; two long, viz. η and ω; and three common, viz. α, ι and υ. These last can be either long or short, and some call them “common,” as I have just done, others “variable.” All these sounds are produced from the windpipe, which resounds to the breath, while the mouth assumes a simple shape; the tongue takes no part

[141]

together with others, and are self-sufficing;semi-vowelsto all which are pronounced better in combination with vowels, worse and imperfectly when taken singly;mutesto all which by themselves admit of neither perfect nor half-perfect utterance, but are pronounced only in combination with others.

It is not easy to say exactly what the number of these elements is, and our predecessors also have felt much doubt upon the question. Some have held that there are only thirteen elements of speech all told, and that the rest are but combinations of these; others that there are more than even the twenty-four which we now recognize. The discussion of this point belongs more properly to grammar and prosody, or even, perhaps, to philosophy. It is enough for us to assume the elements of speech to be neither more nor less than twenty-four, and to specify the properties of each, beginning with the vowels.

These are seven in number: two short, viz. ε and ο; two long, viz. η and ω; and three common, viz. α, ι and υ. These last can be either long or short, and some call them “common,” as I have just done, others “variable.” All these sounds are produced from the windpipe, which resounds to the breath, while the mouth assumes a simple shape; the tongue takes no part

Back to Index Next