Dionysius of Halicarnassus — On Literary Composition — CHAPTER XVIII EFFECT OF VARIOUS RHYTHMS

CHAPTER XVIII EFFECT OF VARIOUS RHYTHMS

The reason why I have been led to make these preliminary remarks (for certainly it was no part of my design to touch without due cause on metrical and rhythmical questions, but only so far as it was really necessary) is this, that it is through rhythms which are noble and dignified, and contain an element of greatness, that composition becomes dignified, noble, and splendid, while it is made a paltry and unimpressive sort of thing by the use of those rhythms that are ignoble and mean, whether they are taken severally by themselves, or are woven together according to their mutual affinities. If, then, it is within human capacity to frame the style entirely from the finest rhythms, our aspirations will be realized; but if it should prove necessary to blend the worse with the better, as happens in many cases (for names have been attached to things in a haphazard way), we must manage our material artistically. We must disguise our compulsion by the gracefulness of the composition: the more so that we have full liberty of action, since no rhythm is banished from non-metrical language, as some are from metrical.

It remains for me to produce proofs of my statements, in order that my argument may carry conviction. Wide as the field is, a few proofs will suffice. Thus it is surely beyond dispute

4 ἔσται EF: ἐστὶ PMV || δύο EF: δυεῖν P: δυοῖν MV 5 τὰ πλείω FM: πλείω PV 7 μετρικῶν καὶ ῥυθμικῶν F: ῥυθμικῶν (ῥυθμῶν MV) τε καὶ μετρικῶν PMV 10 γενναία F: βεβαία PMV 14 δῆλον post συμπλέκωνται praestant FMV: om. P || ἁπάντων τῶν PMV: ἁπάντων F 17 κεῖται F: ἔκκειται PM: ἔγκειται V 20 οὐ FP: οὐδὲ MV 23 ἔσται FPM: ἔστι V

3. ἁπλοῦς δὲ ... μείζων τριῶν. A. J. Ellis (p. 48) says, “This gives a simple and convenient rule for practising the quantitative pronunciation of words of more than three syllables.... The effect of quantity in prose is the most difficult thing for moderns to appreciate. Hence the only easy pronunciation of Greek is the modern, where quantity is entirely neglected, and a force-accent used precisely as in English.”

5. On the subject of metrical feet Aristotle (Rhet. iii. 8) is brief; Cicero (Orator cc. 63, 64) is fuller; while Dionysius in this chapter enters into still further details. Reference may also be made to Quintil. ix. 4. 45 ff. and to Demetr. de Eloc. §§ 38 ff.

6. This passage (down to l. 21) brings out clearly the importance of rhythm in prose-writing.

16. εἴη: the less agreeable alternative is pleasantly treated as though it were the more remote. Cp. εἴη on 166 8 (though there ἐγχωροίη stands in the earlier clause, 166 6).

17. H. Richards (Classical Review xix. 252) suggests ἐπίκειται (or σύγκειται), in order to account for the ἔκκειται of PM and the ἔγκειται of V.

21. Would not ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐμμέτρου (or the like: cp. 100 18) be required if the meaning were “any more than from the metrical”? The author’s point is brought out more clearly in 192 21, 196 8, etc. Cp. Quintil. ix. 4. 87, “miror autem in hac opinione doctissimos homines fuisse, ut alios pedes ita eligerent aliosque damnarent, quasi ullus esset, quem non sit necesse in oratione deprehendi” (the passage is more fully quoted on p. 169 supra).

23. περί: no change in the reading is necessary; cp. 200 4 ὀλίγα περὶ πολλῶν, and 136 6 ὀλίγα ὑπὲρ πολλῶν θεωρημάτων.

μεγαλοπρεπῶς τὴν Θουκυδίδου λέξιν τὴν ἐν τῷ ἐπιταφίῳ
ταύτην· “Οἱ μὲν πολλοὶ τῶν ἐνθάδε ἤδη εἰρηκότων ἐπαινοῦσι
τὸν προσθέντα τῷ νόμῳ τὸν λόγον τόνδε, ὡς καλὸν ἐπὶ τοῖς
ἐκ τῶν πολέμων θαπτομένοις ἀγορεύεσθαι αὐτόν.” τί οὖν
ἐστιν ὃ πεποίηκε ταύτην μεγαλοπρεπῆ τὴν σύνθεσιν; τὸ ἐκ      5
τοιούτων συγκεῖσθαι ῥυθμῶν τὰ κῶλα. τρεῖς μὲν γὰρ οἱ τοῦ
πρώτου προηγούμενοι κώλου σπονδεῖοι πόδες εἰσίν, ὁ δὲ
τέταρτος ἀνάπαιστος, ὁ δὲ μετὰ τοῦτον αὖθις σπονδεῖος, ἔπειτα
κρητικός, ἅπαντες ἀξιωματικοί. καὶ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον κῶλον
διὰ ταῦτ’ ἐστὶ σεμνόν· τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς τουτί “ἐπαινοῦσι τὸν      10
προσθέντα τῷ νόμῳ τὸν λόγον τόνδε” δύο μὲν ὑποβακχείους
ἔχει τοὺς πρώτους πόδας, κρητικὸν δὲ τὸν τρίτον, εἶτ’
αὖθις ὑποβακχείους δύο καὶ συλλαβὴν ὑφ’ ἧς τελειοῦται τὸ
κῶλον· ὥστ’ εἰκότως σεμνόν ἐστι καὶ τοῦτο ἐκ τῶν εὐγενεστάτων
τε καὶ καλλίστων ῥυθμῶν συγκείμενον. τὸ δὲ δὴ      15
τρίτον κῶλον “ὡς καλὸν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐκ τῶν πολέμων θαπτομένοις
ἀγορεύεσθαι αὐτόν” ἄρχεται μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ κρητικοῦ
ποδός, δεύτερον δὲ λαμβάνει τὸν ἀνάπαιστον καὶ τρίτον
σπονδεῖον καὶ τέταρτον αὖθις ἀνάπαιστον, εἶτα δύο τοὺς ἑξῆς
δακτύλους, καὶ σπονδείους δύο τοὺς τελευταίους, εἶτα κατάληξιν.      20
εὐγενὲς δὴ καὶ τοῦτο διὰ τοὺς πόδας γέγονεν. τὰ

[179]

that the following passage in the Funeral Speech of Thucydides is composed with dignity and grandeur: “Former speakers on these occasions have usually commended the statesman who caused an oration to form part of this funeral ceremony: they have felt it a fitting tribute to men who were brought home for burial from the fields of battle where they fell.”[162] What has made the composition here so impressive? The fact that the clauses are composed of impressive rhythms. For the three feet which usher in the first clause are spondees, the fourth is an anapaest, the next a spondee once more, then a cretic,—all stately feet. Hence the dignity of the first clause. The next clause, “have usually commended the statesman who caused an oration to form part of this funeral ceremony,”[163] has two hypobacchii as its first feet, a cretic as its third, then again two hypobacchii, and a syllable by which the clause is completed; so that this clause too is naturally dignified, formed as it is of the noblest and most beautiful rhythms.

The third clause, “they have felt it a fitting tribute to men who were brought home for burial from the fields of battle where they fell,” begins with the cretic foot, has an anapaest in the second place, a spondee in the third, in the fourth an anapaest again, then two dactyls in succession, closing with two spondees and the terminal syllable. So this passage also owes its noble ring to its rhythmical structure; and most of the

2 ἤδη εἰρηκότων EP: ἤδη om. MV: εἰρηκότων ἤδη F (perperam: cf. vv. 6, 7) 3 τὸν (ante λόγον) om. F 9 κριτικός PM || πρῶτον FM: πρῶτον αὐτῶ PV 10 τοῦτο PMV 11 ὑποβακχείους ... αὖθις om. P 14 συγγενεστάτων P 21 δὴ PV: δὲ FM

3. τὸν προσθέντα κτλ.: viz. τὸν νομοθέτην, δηλονότι τὸν Σόλωνα (schol. ad Thucyd. ii. 35). Dionysius has this passage of Thucydides in view when he writes (Antiqq. Rom. v. 17) ὀψὲ γάρ ποτ’ Ἀθηναῖοι προσέθεσαν τὸν ἐπιτάφιον ἔπαινον τῷ νόμῳ, εἴτ’ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπ’ Ἀρτεμισίῳ καὶ περὶ Σαλαμῖνα καὶ ἐν Πλαταιαῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος ἀποθανόντων ἀρξάμενοι, εἴτ’ ἀπὸ τῶν περὶ Μαραθῶνα ἔργων.—Bircovius illustrates the rhythmical effect of the Greek by a similar analysis of the exordium of Livy’s History, “facturusne operae pretium sim, si a primordio urbis res populi Romani perscripserim, nec satis scio nec, si sciam, dicere ausim, quippe qui cum veterem tum vulgatam esse rem videam, dum novi semper scriptores aut in rebus certius aliquid allaturos se aut scribendi arte rudem vetustatem superaturos credunt.”

6. The first clause is clearly meant to be divided as follows:

The formation of the anapaest is noticeable, and in other ways the metrical division seems rather arbitrary. For ἐνθάδε ἤδη (without elision of the final ε) cp. n. on 180 8. [Here and elsewhere, no attempt has been made to secure metrical equivalence between the Greek original and the English version.]

Goodell (Chapters on Greek Metric p. 42) says of the analysis which begins here: “It is incredible that the rhetor supposed he was describing the actual spoken rhythm, in the sense of Aristoxenus; he was giving the quantities of the syllables in the conventional way, and his readers so understood him.”

9. Cp. the metrical effect of

– ᴗ – ᴗ – ᴗ ᴗ – ᴗ ᴗ – – ᴗ – – “Who is this | that cometh | from Edom | with dyed garm(ents) | from Bozrah?”

10. Second clause:

16. Third clause:

It is to be noticed that Dionysius treats the final syllable of ἀγορεύεσθαι as long before αὐτόν, and (more unaccountably) the final syllable of καλὸν as long before ἐπί. The length of the diphthong -αι might, no doubt, be maintained in prose utterance; but it is not easy to see on what principle -ο̆ν could be pronounced -ο̄ν before ἐπί. It might indeed be urged that the final syllable of a rhythmical phrase must (like that of a metrical line) be regarded as indifferent (long or short): cp. Cic. Orat. 63. 214 “persolutas;—dichoreus; nihil enim ad rem, extrema illa longa sit an brevis.” But this is to remind us once more that, though there is a sound general basis for the observations of Dionysius, it is easy for both ancient and modern theorists to frame rules more definite than the facts warrant.

πλεῖστα δ’ ἐστὶ παρὰ Θουκυδίδῃ τοιαῦτα, μᾶλλον δὲ ὀλίγα
τὰ μὴ οὕτως ἔχοντα, ὥστ’ εἰκότως ὑψηλὸς εἶναι δοκεῖ καὶ
καλλιεπὴς ὡς εὐγενεῖς ἐπάγων ῥυθμούς.

τὴν δὲ δὴ Πλατωνικὴν λέξιν ταυτηνὶ τίνι ποτὲ ἄλλῳ
κοσμηθεῖσαν οὕτως ἀξιωματικὴν εἶναι φαίη τις ἂν καὶ καλήν,      5
εἰ μὴ τῷ συγκεῖσθαι διὰ τῶν καλλίστων τε καὶ ἀξιολογωτάτων
ῥυθμῶν; ἔστι γὰρ δὴ τῶν πάνυ φανερῶν καὶ περιβοήτων,
ᾗ κέχρηται ὁ ἀνὴρ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ἐπιταφίου ἀρχήν· “ἔργῳ
μὲν ἡμῖν οἵδε ἔχουσιν τὰ προσήκοντα σφίσιν αὐτοῖς· ὧν
τυχόντες πορεύονται τὴν εἱμαρμένην πορείαν.” ἐν τούτοις δύο      10
μέν ἐστιν ἃ συμπληροῖ τὴν περίοδον κῶλα, ῥυθμοὶ δὲ οἱ
ταῦτα διαλαμβάνοντες οἵδε· βακχεῖος μὲν ὁ πρῶτος· οὐ γὰρ
δή γε ὡς ἰαμβικὸν ἀξιώσαιμ’ ἂν ἔγωγε τὸ κῶλον τουτὶ ῥυθμίζειν
ἐνθυμούμενος ὅτι οὐκ ἐπιτροχάλους καὶ ταχεῖς ἀλλ’
ἀναβεβλημένους καὶ βραδεῖς τοῖς οἰκτιζομένοις προσῆκεν ἀποδίδοσθαι      15
τοὺς χρόνους· σπονδεῖος δ’ ὁ δεύτερος· ὁ δ’ ἑξῆς
δάκτυλος διαιρουμένης τῆς συναλοιφῆς· εἶθ’ ὁ μετὰ τοῦτον
σπονδεῖος· ὁ δ’ ἑξῆς μᾶλλον κρητικὸς ἢ ἀνάπαιστος· ἔπειθ’,
ὡς ἐμὴ δόξα, σπονδεῖος· ὁ δὲ τελευταῖος ὑποβάκχειος, εἰ δὲ
βούλεταί τις, ἀνάπαιστος· εἶτα κατάληξις. τούτων τῶν      20
ῥυθμῶν οὐδεὶς ταπεινὸς οὐδὲ ἀγεννής. τοῦ δὲ ἑξῆς κώλου
τουδί “ὧν τυχόντες πορεύονται τὴν εἱμαρμένην πορείαν”
δύο μέν εἰσιν οἱ πρῶτοι πόδες κρητικοί, σπονδεῖοι δὲ
οἱ μετὰ τούτους δύο· μεθ’ οὓς αὖθις κρητικός, ἔπειτα τελευταῖος
ὑποβάκχειος. ἀνάγκη δὴ τὸν ἐξ ἁπάντων συγκείμενον      25

[181]

passages in Thucydides are of this stamp; indeed, there are few that are not so framed. So he thoroughly deserves his reputation for loftiness and beauty of language, since he habitually introduces noble rhythms.

Again, take the following passage of Plato. What can be the device that produces its perfect dignity and beauty, if it is not the beautiful and striking rhythms that compose it? The passage is one of the best known and most often quoted, and it is found near the beginning of our author’s Funeral Speech: “In very truth these men are receiving at our hands their fitting tribute: and when they have gained this guerdon, they journey on, along the path of destiny.”[164] Here there are two clauses which constitute the period, and the feet into which the clauses fall are as follows:—The first is a bacchius, for certainly I should not think it correct to scan this clause as an iambic line, bearing in mind that not swift, tripping movements, but retarded and slow times are appropriate to those over whom we make mourning. The second is a spondee; the next is a dactyl, the vowels which might coalesce being kept distinct; after that, a spondee; next, what I should call a cretic rather than an anapaest; then, according to my view, a spondee; in the last place a hypobacchius or, if you prefer to take it so, an anapaest; then the terminal syllable. Of these rhythms none is mean nor ignoble. In the next clause, “when they have gained this guerdon, they journey on, along the path of destiny,” the two first feet are cretics, and next after them two spondees; after which once more a cretic, then lastly a hypobacchius. Thus the discourse is composed entirely of beautiful rhythms, and it necessarily follows that it is itself

1 ὀλίγα τὰ F: ὀλίγα PMV 3 καλλίστης P || ὡς] καὶ FMV: om. P || εὐγενείας P: εὐγενὴς MV || ἐπάγων F: ὡς ἐκλέγων τοὺς PMV 4 ταυτηνὶ Us.: ταύτην εἰ F: ταύτην PMV 7 φανερὸν καὶ περιβόητον F 9 οἵδ’ ἔχουσιν P: οἵδ’ ἔχουσι FMV 13 ἰαμβικὸν FP: ἴαμβον MV 15 προσήκει F 16 δ ὁ δεύτερος F: δε ἕτερος P, V: δ’ ἕτερος M 17 εἴθ’ ὁ F: εἶτα PMV 19 ὡς F: ὡς ἡ PMV 25 δὴ] δεῖ F

4. The passage from the Menexenus is quoted by Dionysius in the de Demosth. c. 24, with the remark ἡ μὲν εἰσβολὴ θαυμαστὴ καὶ πρέπουσα τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις πράγμασι κάλλους τε ὀνομάτων ἕνεκα καὶ σεμνότητος καὶ ἁρμονίας, τὰ δ’ ἐπιλεγόμενα οὐκέθ’ ὅμοια τοῖς πρώτοις κτλ. It is also given, as an illustration of the musical and other effects of periphrasis, in the de Sublimitate c. 28: ἆρα δὴ τούτοις μετρίως ὤγκωσε τὴν νόησιν, ἢ ψιλὴν λαβὼν τὴν λέξιν ἐμελοποίησε, καθάπερ ἁρμονίαν τινὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς περιφράσεως περιχεάμενος εὐμέλειαν;—A somewhat similar period in Latin is that of Sallust (Bell. Catilin. i. 1), “omnes homines, qui sese student praestare ceteris animalibus, summa ope niti decet, ne vitam silentio transeant veluti pecora, quae natura prona atque ventri oboedientia finxit.”

8. First clause:

Here three points call for comment: (1) οἵδε ἔχουσιν (and not οἵδ’ ἔχουσιν with FPMV) was clearly (cp. l. 16) read by Dionysius: so in the text of Plato himself; (2) the lengthening of τά before προσήκοντα (although the usage of Comedy would seem to show that such lengthening was uncommon in the language of ordinary life) is preferred as giving a cretic; (3) very strangely, it is thought possible to scan the final syllable of σφίσιν as long (cp. 178 17, 184 2, 8).

13. We have a considerable part of an iambic line if we scan thus:

– – ᴗ – – – ᴗ – ᴗ ἔργῳ | μὲν ἡ|μῖν οἵδ’ | ἔχου|σι.

19. For ὡς ἐμὴ δόξα cp. de Demosth. c. 39.

22. Second clause:

καλῶν ῥυθμῶν καλὸν εἶναι λόγον. μυρία τοιαῦτ’ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν
καὶ παρὰ Πλάτωνι. ὁ γὰρ ἀνὴρ ἐμμέλειάν τε καὶ εὐρυθμίαν
συνιδεῖν δαιμονιώτατος, καὶ εἴ γε δεινὸς ἦν οὕτως ἐκλέξαι τὰ
ὀνόματα ὡς συνθεῖναι περιττός, καί νύ κεν ἢ παρέλασσεν
τὸν Δημοσθένη κάλλους ἑρμηνείας ἕνεκεν, ἢ ἀμφήριστον      5
ἔθηκεν. νῦν δὲ περὶ μὲν τὴν ἐκλογὴν ἔστιν ὅτε διαμαρτάνει,
καὶ μάλιστα ἐν οἷς ἂν τὴν ὑψηλὴν καὶ περιττὴν καὶ ἐγκατάσκευον
διώκῃ φράσιν, ὑπὲρ ὧν ἑτέρωθί μοι δηλοῦται σαφέστερον.
συντίθησι δὲ τὰ ὀνόματα καὶ ἡδέως καὶ καλῶς νὴ
Δία, καὶ οὐκ ἄν τις αὐτὸν ἔχοι κατὰ τοῦτο μέμψασθαι τὸ      10
μέρος.

ἑνὸς ἔτι παραθήσομαι λέξιν, ᾧ τὰ ἀριστεῖα τῆς ἐν λόγοις
δεινότητος ἀποδίδωμι. ὅρος γὰρ δή τίς ἐστιν ἐκλογῆς τε
ὀνομάτων καὶ κάλλους συνθέσεως ὁ Δημοσθένης. ἐν δὴ τῷ
περὶ τοῦ στεφάνου λόγῳ τρία μέν ἐστιν ἃ τὴν πρώτην      15
περίοδον συμπληροῖ κῶλα, οἱ δὲ ταῦτα καταμετροῦντες οἵδε
εἰσὶν ῥυθμοί· “πρῶτον μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῖς
θεοῖς εὔχομαι πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις.” ἄρχει δὲ τοῦδε τοῦ
κώλου βακχεῖος ῥυθμός, ἔπειθ’ ἕπεται σπονδεῖος, εἶτ’ ἀνάπαιστός      20
τε καὶ μετὰ τούτον ἕτερος σπονδεῖος, εἶθ’ ἑξῆς
κρητικοὶ τρεῖς, σπονδεῖος δ’ ὁ τελευταῖος. τοῦ δὲ δευτέρου
κώλου τοῦδε “ὅσην εὔνοιαν ἔχων ἐγὼ διατελῶ τῇ τε

[183]

beautiful. Countless instances of this kind are to be found in Plato as well as in Thucydides. For this author has a perfect genius for discovering true melody and fine rhythm, and if he had only been as able in the choice of words as he is unrivalled in the art of combining them, he “had even outstript” Demosthenes, so far as beauty of style is concerned, or “had left the issue in doubt.”[165] As it is, he is sometimes quite at fault in his choice of words; most of all when he is aiming at a lofty, unusual, elaborate style of expression. With respect to this I explain myself more explicitly elsewhere. But he does most assuredly put his words together with beauty as well as charm; and from this point of view no one could find any fault with him.

I will cite a passage of one other writer,—the one to whom I assign the palm for oratorical mastery. Demosthenes most certainly forms a sort of standard alike for choice of words and for beauty in their arrangement. In the Speech on the Crown there are three clauses which constitute the first period; and the rhythms by which they are measured are as follows: “first of all, men of Athens, I pray to all the gods and goddesses.”[166] A bacchius begins this first clause; then follows a spondee; next an anapaest, and after this another spondee; then three cretics in succession, and a spondee as the last foot. In the second clause, “that all the loyal affection I bear my whole life through to the

1 ἐστιν εὑρεῖν F, E: ἐστι PMV 2 ἐμμέλειαν EFM: εὐμέλειαν PV 3 οὕτως EF: οὗτος PMV 5 δημοσθένην EPV: δημοσθένεα M || κάλλους FMV: καὶ ἄλλους P: κάλλος E 6 ὅτε EF: ἃ PV: ἃ καὶ M 9 συντίθησι δὲ EF: δὲ συντίθησιν P, MV 12 ἑνὸς] ἐν οἷς P 13 ἀποδίδωμι F: καταδίδωμι PMV 16 ταῦτα] κατὰ ταῦτα PV 17 ῥυθμοί F: οἱ ῥυθμοί PMV 18 δὲ τοῦδε V: τοῦδε PM: δὲ F

2. ἐμμέλειαν: cp. 122 21, unless 130 6 should seem to support the reading εὐμέλειαν in the present passage.

5. For Δημοσθένην (as given by some manuscripts) cp. Demetr. de Eloc. § 175 καὶ ὅλως τὸ νῦ δι’ εὐφωνίαν ἐφέλκονται οἱ Ἀττικοί, “Δημοσθένην” λέγοντες καὶ “Σωκράτην.”

7. Cp. Long. de Sublim. c. iii. ὀλισθαίνουσι δ’ εἰς τοῦτο τὸ γένος ὀρεγόμενοι μὲν τοῦ περιττοῦ καὶ πεποιημένου καὶ μάλιστα τοῦ ἡδέος, ἐποκέλλοντες δὲ εἰς τὸ ῥωπικὸν καὶ κακόζηλον.—Dionysius perhaps fails to see that a high-pitched style may sometimes be used μετ’ εἰρωνείας, as Aristotle (Rhet. iii. 7. 11) says in reference to the Phaedrus.

8. ἑτέρωθι: cp. de Demosth. cc. 6, 7, 24-29, and Ep. ad Cn. Pomp. cc. 1, 2.—For the probable order in which the ‘Scripta Rhetorica’ appeared see D.H. pp. 5-7. The de Comp. Verb. is referred to twice in the de Demosth. (cc. 49, 50).—With δηλοῦται (not δεδήλωται, de Din. c. 13, de Demosth. c. 49; nor δηλωθήσεται, de Lysia cc. 12, 14) cp. de Isaeo c. 2, de Demosth. c. 57.

9. Dionysius is fond of the asseveration νὴ Δία, ‘mehercule.’

17. First clause:

—The expression καταμετροῦντες may indicate that Dionysius himself wrote marks of quantity over the syllables in question: such marks are given by F in 178 2-4, 10, 11, 16, 17, and are also found in the Paris Manuscript (1741) of Demetr. de Eloc. §§ 38, 39.—With the rhythmical effect of this passage of Demosthenes, Bircovius compares “Si, patres conscripti, pro vestris immortalibus in me fratremque meum liberosque nostros meritis parum vobis cumulate gratias egero, quaeso obtestorque, ne meae naturae potius, quam magnitudini vestrorum beneficiorum, id tribuendum putetis” (Cic. Post Reditum in Senatu Oratio init.).

22. Second clause:

—There are fresh difficulties in the “scansion” here. Dionysius speaks as if the last syllable of εὔνοιαν may (and indeed preferably) be counted long: this involves the lengthening of a short vowel before a single consonant, cp. n. on 180 8.—With regard to the paeons, διατελῶ will form a “catalectic” paeon (ᴗ ᴗ ᴗ –), but τῇ τε πόλει will not form a “procatarctic” paeon (– ᴗ ᴗ ᴗ) unless the final syllable of πόλει is reckoned short.—To extract a molossus from καὶ πᾶσιν, the last syllable of πᾶσιν must be lengthened. Strange as it appears, the cumulative evidence seems (if our text is sound) to show that Dionysius would (at any rate, for the purpose of prose rhythm) lengthen a short vowel before a single consonant.

πόλει καὶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν” πρῶτος μὲν ὑποβάκχειός ἐστι πούς,
εἶτα βακχεῖος, εἰ δὲ βούλεταί τις, δάκτυλος· εἶτα κρητικός·
μεθ’ οὕς εἰσι δύο σύνθετοι πόδες οἱ καλούμενοι παιᾶνες· οἷς
ἕπεται μολοττὸς ἢ βακχεῖος, ἐγχωρεῖ γὰρ ἑκατέρως αὐτὸν
διαιρεῖν· τελευταῖος δὲ ὁ σπονδεῖος. τοῦ δὲ τρίτου κώλου τοῦδε      5
“τοσαύτην ὑπάρξαι μοι παρ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τουτονὶ τὸν
ἀγῶνα” ἄρχουσι μὲν ὑποβάκχειοι δύο, ἕπεται δὲ κρητικός,
ᾧ συνῆπται σπονδεῖος· εἶτ’ αὖθις βακχεῖος ἢ κρητικός, καὶ
τελευταῖος πάλιν κρητικός, εἶτα κατάληξις. τί οὖν ἐκώλυε
καλὴν ἁρμονίαν εἶναι λέξεως, ἐν ᾗ μήτε πυρρίχιός ἐστι ποὺς      10
μήτε ἰαμβικὸς μήτε ἀμφίβραχυς μήτε τῶν χορείων ἢ τροχαίων
μηδείς; καὶ οὐ λέγω τοῦτο, ὅτι τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων ἕκαστος
οὐ κέχρηταί ποτε καὶ τοῖς ἀγεννεστέροις ῥυθμοῖς. κέχρηται
γάρ· ἀλλ’ εὖ συγκεκρύφασιν αὐτοὺς καὶ συνυφάγκασι διαλαβόντες
τοῖς κρείττοσι τοὺς χείρονας.      15

οἷς δὲ μὴ ἐγένετο πρόνοια τούτου τοῦ μέρους, οἱ μὲν ταπεινάς,
οἱ δὲ κατακεκλασμένας, οἱ δ’ ἄλλην τινὰ αἰσχύνην καὶ
ἀμορφίαν ἐχούσας ἐξήνεγκαν τὰς γραφάς. ὧν ἐστι πρῶτός τε
καὶ μέσος καὶ τελευταῖος ὁ Μάγνης ὁ σοφιστὴς Ἡγησίας·
ὑπὲρ οὗ μὰ τὸν Δία καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους θεοὺς ἅπαντας οὐκ οἶδα τί      20
χρὴ λέγειν, πότερα τοσαύτη περὶ αὐτὸν ἀναισθησία καὶ παχύτης
ἦν ὥστε μὴ συνορᾶν, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἀγεννεῖς ἢ εὐγενεῖς ῥυθμοί,
ἢ τοσαύτη θεοβλάβεια καὶ διαφθορὰ τῶν φρενῶν ὥστ’ εἰδότα
τοὺς κρείττους ἔπειτα αἱρεῖσθαι τοὺς χείρονας, ὃ καὶ μᾶλλον
πείθομαι· ἀγνοίας μὲν γάρ ἐστι καὶ τὸ κατορθοῦν πολλαχῇ,      25

[185]

city and all of you,”[167] first comes a hypobacchius; then a bacchius or, if you prefer to take it so, a dactyl; then a cretic; after which there are two composite feet called paeons. Next follows a molossus or a bacchius, for it can be scanned either way. Last comes the spondee. The third clause, “may as fully be accorded by you to support me in this trial,”[167b] is opened by two hypobacchii. A cretic follows, to which a spondee is attached. Then again a bacchius or a cretic; last a cretic once more; then the terminal syllable. Is not a beautiful cadence inevitable in a passage which contains neither a pyrrhic, nor an iamb, nor an amphibrachys, nor a single choree or trochee? Still, I do not affirm that none of those writers ever uses the more ignoble rhythms also. They do use them; but they have artistically masked them, and have only introduced them at intervals, interweaving the inferior with the superior.

Those authors who have not given heed to this branch of their art have published writings which are either mean, or flabby, or have some other blemish or deformity. Among them the first and midmost and the last is the Magnesian, the sophist Hegesias. Concerning him, I swear by Zeus and all the other gods, I do not know what to say. Was he so dense, and so devoid of artistic feeling, as not to see which the ignoble or noble rhythms are? or was he smitten with such soul-destroying lunacy, that though he knew the better, he nevertheless invariably chose the worse? It is to this latter view that I incline. Ignorance often blunders into the right path: only wilfulness

2 εἶτα κρητικός F: ἔπειτα κρητικός PMV 3 παιᾶνες F: παίωνες PMV 4 ἐκατέρως F: ἑκατέρους PMV || αὐτὸν PV: αὐτῶν FM 5 τοῦδε F: τοῦ PMV 7 ἔπεται δὲ F: ἔπειτα δε P, M: ἔπειτα V 8 καὶ F: καὶ ὁ PMV 11 ἴαμβος F || τροχαίων F: τῶν τροχαίων PMV 17 κατακεκλεισμένας F || καὶ F: ἢ PMV 19 μέσος καὶ τελευταῖος F: τελευταῖος καὶ μέσος PMV || ὁ σοφιστὴς F: σοφιστὴς PMV 20 οἶδα τί F: οἶδ’ ὅ τι PMV 22 ἀγεννεῖς F: εὐγενεῖς PMV || εὐγενεῖς F: ἀγενεῖς PV1: ἀγεννεῖς MV2 25 πολλαχῆι FP, M: πολλαχοῦ V

4. ἐγχωρεῖ γὰρ ἑκατέρως αὐτὸν διαιρεῖν: this statement should be noted, together with the a priori grounds on which Dionysius elsewhere (e.g. 180 12-16) makes his choice between the alternatives which present themselves.

6. Third clause:

—If τουτονὶ is a bacchius, it must be scanned

– – ⏓ τουτονὶ:

and if τὸν ἀγῶν(α) is a cretic, it must be scanned

– ᴗ – τὸν ἀγῶν|α!

There are, no doubt, many cases of abnormal lengthening in Homeric versification (e.g. φίλε κασίγνητε at the beginning of a line, Il. iv. 155), but not to such an extent as would satisfy ‘Eucleides the elder’: οἷον Εὐκλείδης ὁ ἀρχαῖος, ὡς ῥᾴδιον ποιεῖν, εἴ τις δώσει ἐκτείνειν ἐφ’ ὁπόσον βούλεται, ἰαμβοποιήσας ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ λέξει,—“Ἐπιχάρην εἶδον Μαραθῶνάδε βαδίζοντα” (Aristot. Poet. c. xxii.).

11. μήτε ἰαμβικὸς ... τροχαίων μηδείς: it is obvious that we could discover some of these feet in the passage if we were to choose our own way of dividing it. If in Latin, for example, we were to take such a sentence as quonam igitur pacto probari potest insidias Miloni fecisse Clodium? (Cic. pro Milone 12. 32), we could extract dactyls, spondees, trochees, iambi, cretics, anapaests, etc. from the various section into which we chose to divide it: e.g.

And so with several other possible scansions (cp. Laurand Études sur le style de Cicéron p. 138).

19. For Hegesias cp. Introduction, pp. 52-5 supra.

20. μὰ τὸν Δία ... λέγειν: reminiscent of Demosth. Philipp. iii. 54, Fals. Leg. 220.

προνοίας δὲ τὸ μηδέποτε. ἐν γοῦν ταῖς τοσαύταις γραφαῖς,
αἷς καταλέλοιπεν ὁ ἀνήρ, μίαν οὐκ ἂν εὕροι τις σελίδα
συγκειμένην εὐτυχῶς. ἔοικεν δὴ ταῦτα ὑπολαβεῖν ἐκείνων
κρείττω καὶ μετὰ σπουδῆς αὐτὰ ποιεῖν, εἰς ἃ δι’ ἀνάγκην ἄν
τις ἐμπεσὼν ἐν λόγῳ σχεδίῳ δι’ αἰσχύνης θεῖτο φρόνημα ἔχων      5
ἀνήρ. θήσω δὲ καὶ τούτου λέξιν ἐκ τῆς ἱστορίας, ἵνα σοι
γένηται δῆλον ἐκ τῆς ἀντιπαραθέσεως, ὅσην μὲν ἀξίωσιν ἔχει
τὸ εὐγενὲς ἐν ῥυθμοῖς, ὅσην δ’ αἰσχύνην τὸ ἀγεννές. ἔστιν δ’
ὃ λαμβάνει πρᾶγμα ὁ σοφιστὴς τοιόνδε. Ἀλέξανδρος πολιορκῶν
Γάζαν χωρίον τι τῆς Συρίας πάνυ ἐχυρὸν τραυματίας      10
τε γίνεται κατὰ τὴν προσβολὴν καὶ τὸ χωρίον αἱρεῖ χρόνῳ.
φερόμενος δ’ ὑπ’ ὀργῆς τούς τ’ ἐγκαταληφθέντας ἀποσφάττει
πάντας, ἐπιτρέψας τοῖς Μακεδόσι τὸν ἐντυχόντα κτείνειν, καὶ
τὸν ἡγεμόνα αὐτῶν αἰχμάλωτον λαβών, ἄνδρα ἐν ἀξιώματι
καὶ τύχης καὶ εἴδους, ἐξ ἁρματείου δίφρου δῆσαι κελεύσας      15
ζῶντα καὶ τοὺς ἵππους ἐλαύνειν ἀνὰ κράτος ἐν τῇ πάντων
ὄψει διαφθείρει. τούτων οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι τις εἰπεῖν δεινότερα
πάθη οὐδ’ ὄψει φοβερώτερα. πῶς δὴ ταῦτα ἡρμήνευκεν ὁ
σοφιστής, ἄξιον ἰδεῖν, πότερα σεμνῶς καὶ ὑψηλῶς ἢ ταπεινῶς
καὶ καταγελάστως.      20

“ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἔχων τὸ σύνταγμα προηγεῖτο. καί πως

[187]

never does. At all events, in the host of writings which the man has left behind him, you will not find one single page successfully put together. He seems, indeed, to have regarded his own methods as better than those of his predecessors, and to have followed them with enthusiasm; and yet anybody else, if he were to be driven into such errors in an impromptu speech, would blush for them, were he a man of any self-respect. Well, I will quote a passage from him also, taken from his History, in order to make clear to you, by means of a comparison, how splendid noble rhythms are, and how disgraceful are their opposites. The following is the subject treated by the sophist. Alexander when besieging Gaza, an unusually strong position in Syria, is wounded during the assault and takes the position after some delay. In a transport of anger he massacres all the prisoners, permitting the Macedonians to slay all who fall in their way. Having captured their commandant, a man of distinction for his high station and good looks, he gives orders that he should be bound alive to a war-chariot and that the horses should be driven at full speed before the eyes of all; and in this way he kills him. No one could have a story of more awful suffering to narrate, nor one suggesting a more horrible picture. It is worth while to observe in what style our sophist has represented this scene—whether with gravity and elevation or with vulgarity and absurdity:—

“The King advanced, at the head of his division. It seems

2 αἷς F: ἃς PMV 3 δὴ F: δε P, MV 4 ἄν τις ἐμπεσὼν PMV: ἐμπεσὼν ἄν τις F 5 θεῖτο F: ἔθετο PMV 6 ἐκ τῆς F: ἐξ PMV 8 ἔστιν δ’ F: τί δὲ PMV 10 ἐχυρὸν] εὐχερῶς F 11 χρόνῳ φερόμενος δ’ F: χρόνῳ φερόμενος ὁ δ’ PMV 12 τε ἐγκαταληφθέντας PMV: τε καταλειφθέντας F 14 αὐτὸν PMV 16 ἐλαύνων MV 17 τούτων F: τοῦτον PMV 18 οὐδὲ ὄψεις φοβεροτέρας (-ωτ- M) PMV 19 πότερα F: πότερον PMV 21 καὶ πῶς F

1-3. Cp. Dryden Mac Flecknoe ll. 19, 20, “The rest to some faint meaning make pretence, | But Shadwell never deviates into sense.” The wilfulness and malice prepense (πρόνοια) of Hegesias’ stupidity may be illustrated by Dr. Johnson’s remark about Thomas Sheridan: “Why, Sir, Sherry is dull, naturally dull; but it must have taken him a great deal of pains to become what we now see him. Such an access of stupidity, Sir, is not in nature” (Boswell’s Life of Johnson i. 453).

4. The reading of PMV seems preferable, since ἄν is not infrequently attached to adverbs or adverbial phrases such as δι’ ἀνάγκην.

5. θεῖτο: τίθεμαι used for ἡγοῦμαι, as in 208 13 and 232 25.—Contrast the active θήσω in the next line.

9. Arrian (Exped. Alexandri ii. 25. 4) thus describes the commencement of Alexander’s siege, and Batis’ defence, of Gaza (332 B.C.): Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ἐπ’ Αἰγύπτου ἔγνω ποιεῖσθαι τὸν στόλον. καὶ ἦν αὐτῷ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα τῆς Παλαιστίνης καλουμένης Συρίας προσκεχωρηκότα ἤδη· εὐνοῦχος δέ τις, ᾧ ὄνομα ἦν Βάτις, κρατῶν τῆς Γαζαίων πόλεως, οὐ προσεῖχεν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ, ἀλλὰ Ἄραβάς τε μισθωτοὺς ἐπαγόμενος καὶ σῖτον ἐκ πολλοῦ παρεσκευακὼς διαρκῆ ἐς χρόνιον πολιορκίαν καὶ τῷ χωρίῳ πιστεύων, μήποτε ἂν βίᾳ ἁλῶναι, ἔγνω μὴ δέχεσθαι τῇ πόλει Ἀλέξανδρον. In continuing and completing (cc. 26, 27) his narrative of the siege, Arrian makes no mention of the fate of Batis. On this point Plutarch, too, is silent (Vit. Alex. c. 25), and so is Diodorus Siculus xvii. 48. 7. The obviously rhetorical cast of Hegesias’ narrative, and of that of Curtius (Histor. Alexandri Magni iv. 6, 7-30), should cause it to be accepted with greater reserve than Grote (xi. 469 n. 1) thinks needful to maintain.—For the probable share of Cleitarchus in propagating this story about Alexander see C. Müller Scriptores Rerum Alexandri Magni pp. 75, 142; and for his bombast cp. Long. de Sublim. iii. 2 and Demetr. de Eloc. § 304.

11. χρόνῳ: viz. after a two months’ siege (Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ στρατεύσας ἐπὶ Γάζαν φρουρουμένην ὑπὸ Περσῶν καὶ δίμηνον προσεδρεύσας εἷλε κατὰ κράτος τὴν πόλιν, Diod. Sic. xvii. 48. 7).—Batis was supported by only a small force: “modico praesidio muros ingentis operis tuebatur,” Curtius iv. 6. 7.

14. ἡγεμόνα: Curtius iv. 6. 7 “praeerat ei Betis, eximiae in regem suum fidei.” Josephus (Ant. Iud. xi. 8. 3 Naber) gives the name of the governor as Βαβημήσης. Arrian gives Batis. ‘Baetis’ seems the right form in 188 13, and so perhaps in Curtius.

15. εἴδους. It must have been from the point of view of his countrymen that Batis possessed εἶδος (cp. 188 16). Usener suggests ἤθους.

ἐξ ἁρματείου δίφρου: cp. Xen. Cyrop. vi. 4. 9 ταῦτ’ εἰπὼν κατὰ τὰς θύρας τοῦ ἁρματείου δίφρου ἀνέβαινεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἅρμα, where (as here) δίφρος = sella aurigae.

21. τὸ σύνταγμα: no doubt the ὑπασπισταί are meant: Alexander is represented as advancing at the head of his Guards.—In the English translation of the passage that follows no attempt has been made to reproduce all the peculiarities of Hegesias’ style.

ἐβεβούλευτο τῶν πολεμίων τοῖς ἀρίστοις ἀπαντᾶν ἐπιόντι·
τοῦτο γὰρ ἔγνωστο, κρατήσασιν ἑνὸς συνεκβαλεῖν καὶ τὸ
πλῆθος. ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐλπὶς αὕτη συνέδραμεν εἰς τὸ τολμᾶν,
ὥστ’ Ἀλέξανδρον μηδέποτε κινδυνεῦσαι πρότερον οὕτως. ἀνὴρ
γὰρ τῶν πολεμίων εἰς γόνατα συγκαμφθεὶς ἔδοξε τοῦτ’ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ      5
τῆς ἱκετείας ἕνεκα πρᾶξαι. προσέμενος δ’ ἐγγὺς μικρὸν
ἐκνεύει τὸ ξίφος ἐνέγκαντος ὑπὸ τὰ πτερύγια τοῦ θώρακος,
ὥστε γενέσθαι τὴν πληγὴν οὐ καιριωτάτην. ἀλλὰ τὸν μὲν
αὐτὸς ἀπώλεσεν κατὰ κεφαλῆς τύπτων τῇ μαχαίρᾳ, τοὺς δ’
ἄλλους ὀργὴ πρόσφατος ἐπίμπρα. οὕτως ἄρα ἑκάστου τὸν      10
ἔλεον ἐξέστησεν ἡ τοῦ τολμήματος ἀπόνοια τῶν μὲν ἰδόντων,
τῶν δ’ ἀκουσάντων, ὥσθ’ ἑξακισχιλίους ὑπὸ τὴν σάλπιγγα
ἐκείνην τῶν βαρβάρων κατακοπῆναι. τὸν μέντοι Βαῖτιν αὐτὸν
ἀνήγαγον ζῶντα Λεόνατος καὶ Φιλωτᾶς. ἰδὼν δὲ πολύσαρκον
καὶ μέγαν καὶ βλοσυρώτατον (μέλας γὰρ ἦν καὶ τὸ χρῶμα),      15
μισήσας ἐφ’ οἷς ἐβεβούλευτο καὶ τὸ εἶδος ἐκέλευσεν διὰ τῶν
ποδῶν χαλκοῦν ψάλιον διείραντας ἕλκειν κύκλῳ γυμνόν.
πιλούμενος δὲ κακοῖς περὶ πολλὰς τραχύτητας ἔκραζεν. αὐτὸ
δ’ ἦν, ὃ λέγω, τὸ συνάγον ἀνθρώπους. ἐπέτεινε μὲν γὰρ ὁ

[189]

that the leaders of the enemy had formed the design of meeting him as he approached. For they had come to the conclusion that, if they overcame him personally, they would be able to drive out all his host in a body. Now this hope ran with them on the path of daring, so that never before had Alexander been in such danger. One of the enemy fell on his knees, and seemed to Alexander to have done so in order to ask for mercy. Having allowed him to approach, he eluded (not without difficulty) the thrust of a sword which he had brought under the skirts of his corselet, so that the thrust was not mortal. Alexander himself slew his assailant with a blow of his sabre upon the head, while the king’s followers were inflamed with a sudden fury. So utterly was pity, in the breasts of those who saw and those who heard of the attempt, banished by the desperate daring of the man, that six thousand of the barbarians were cut down at the trumpet-call which forthwith rang out. Baetis himself, however, was brought before the king alive by Leonatus and Philotas. And Alexander seeing that he was corpulent and huge and most grim (for he was black in colour too), was seized with loathing for his very looks as well as for his design upon his life, and ordered that a ring of bronze should be passed through his feet and that he should be dragged round a circular course, naked. Harrowed by pain, as his body passed over many a rough piece of ground, he began to scream. And it was just this detail which I now mention that brought people together. The torment racked him,

1 ἐβεβούλευτο PMV: ἐβουλεύετο F || ἀπαντᾶν om. F || ἐπιόντι Radermacher: ἐπιών F: εἰσιῶν P, MV 2 συνεκβαλεῖν FMV: συνεκβάλλειν Ps 3 εἰς τὸ τολμᾶν PMV: om. F 4 πρότερον ἢ οὕτως F 5 συγκαμφθεὶς PMV: συγκαθίσας F 6 ἰκετείας F || προσέμενος F: προέμενος PMV 7 ὑπὸ PMV: ἐπὶ F 8 τὴν F: καὶ τὴν PMV 10 ἐπίμπρα F: ἐπίμπρατο MV: ἐπὶ παλαιαῖς P || οὕτως ἄρα F: οὕτως γὰρ PMV 11 ἐξέστησεν] ἐξήτασεν F || τολμήματος F: τολμήσαντος PMV 12 εξακισχιλίους F, MV: τετρακισχιλίους P 13 βαῖστ[ϊ]ν cum litura P: βασιλέα FMV || αὐτὸν] Sylburgius: αὐτῶν FM: αὐτοῦ PV 15 καὶ (ante βλοσυρώτατον) F: ὡς PMV || βροσυρώτατον P: βδελυρώτατον FMV || καὶ τὸ χρῶμα PMV: τὸ σῶμα F 17 ψαλ(ιον) P: ψαλλίον V: ψέλιον F: ψέλλιον M 18 ἔκραξεν F

1. Blass (Rhythm. Asian. p. 19) would read εἰσιόντι, comparing intravit in Curtius iv. 6. 23.

3. συνέδραμεν: cp. Propert. iii. 9. 17 “est quibus Eleae concurrit palma quadrigae; | est quibus in celeres gloria nata pedes.”

6. τῆς ἱκετείας: Hegesias may have used the article in order to avoid the hiatus Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ἱκετείας. F omits it (as unnecessary).

7. τὰ πτερύγια τοῦ θώρακος: cp. Schol. Venet. B ad Hom. Il. iv. 132 ἵνα μὴ χαλεπὴ γένηται ἡ πληγή, εἰς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος ἄγει, καθ’ ὃ ἀλλήλοις ἐπιφερόμενα τὰ πτερύγια τοῦ θώρακος ἐσφίγγετο ὑπὸ τοῦ ζωστῆρος. See also the references given under πτέρυξ in L. & S., and in Stephanus.—Perhaps Hegesias has Il. iv. 132 directly in mind. The meaning will then be (with F’s reading ἐπί), “as his assailant had struck it [the sword] against the skirts of Alexander’s corselet.” But the account in Curtius iv. 6. 15 seems to confirm ὑπό: “quo conspecto, Arabs quidam, Darei miles, maius fortuna sua facinus ausus, gladium clipeo tegens, quasi transfuga genibus regis advolvitur. ille adsurgere supplicem, recipique inter suos iussit. at barbarus gladio strenue in dextram translato cervicem adpetiit regis: qui exigua corporis declinatione evitato ictu in vanum manum barbari lapsam amputat gladio.”

10. ἐπίμπρα: cp. Curtius iv. 6. 24 “inter primores dimicat; ira quoque accensus, quod duo in obsidione urbis eius vulnera acceperat.” The reading of P, ἐπὶ παλαιαῖς, apparently means ‘over and above the ancient ὀργαί,’ and it is possible that Hegesias wrote both this and ἐπίμπρα: or ἐπὶ παλαιαῖς may gloss πρόσφατος.

12. The number, as given by Curtius (iv. 6. 30), was “circa decem milia.”

ὑπὸ τὴν σάλπιγγα ἐκείνην = ὑπὸ τὸ σάλπισμα ἐκεῖνο: cp. Aristot. Rhet. iii. 6 οἷον τὸ φάναι τὴν σάλπιγγα εἶναι μέλος ἄλυρον.

15. βλοσυρώτατον: cp. Curtius iv. 6. 27 “non interrito modo sed contumaci quoquo vultu intuens regem.” Usener conjectures βλοσυρωπόν, with considerable probability: cp. 162 19 supra.

17. ψάλιον: cp. Hesych. ψάλια· κρίκοι, δακτύλιοι, and Antiq. Rom. ii. 38 καὶ αὐτὴν (Τάρπειαν) ἔρως εἰσέρχεται τῶν ψαλίων, ἃ περὶ τοῖς ἀριστεροῖς βραχίοσιν ἐφόρουν (οἱ Σαβῖνοι), καὶ τῶν δακτυλίων.—Probably here a large curb-chain is meant, rather than a cheek-ring, which would be too small. So Curtius iv. 6. 29 “per talos enim spirantis lora traiecta sunt [cp. Virg. Aen. ii. 273], religatumque ad currum traxere circa urbem equi gloriante rege, Achillen, a quo genus ipse deduceret, imitatum se esse poena in hostem capienda.” In Homer ἱμάντες are employed ( 190 13).

18. πιλεῖν (‘to pound,’ ‘to knead’) is one of the many forced metaphors in this excerpt from Hegesias.

πόνος, βάρβαρον δ’ ἐβόα, δεσπότην καθικετεύων· γελᾶν δὲ ὁ
σολοικισμὸς ἐποίει. τὸ δὲ στέαρ καὶ τὸ κύτος τῆς σαρκὸς
ἐνέφαινε Βαβυλώνιον ζῷον ἕτερον ἁδρόν. ὁ μὲν οὖν ὄχλος
ἐνέπαιζε, στρατιωτικὴν ὕβριν ὑβρίζων εἰδεχθῆ καὶ τῷ τρόπῳ
σκαιὸν ἐχθρόν.” 5

ἆρά γε ὅμοια ταῦτ’ ἐστὶ τοῖς Ὁμηρικοῖς ἐκείνοις, ἐν οἷς
Ἀχιλλεύς ἐστιν αἰκιζόμενος Ἕκτορα μετὰ τὴν τελευτήν; καίτοι
τό γε πάθος ἐκεῖνο ἔλαττον· εἰς ἀναίσθητον γὰρ σῶμα ἡ
ὕβρις· ἀλλ’ ὅμως ἄξιόν ἐστιν ἰδεῖν, ὅσῳ διενήνοχεν ὁ ποιητὴς
τοῦ σοφιστοῦ· 10

ἦ ῥα, καὶ Ἕκτορα δῖον ἀεικέα μήδετο ἔργα·
ἀμφοτέρων μετόπισθε ποδῶν τέτρηνε τένοντε
ἐς σφυρὸν ἐκ πτέρνης, βοέους δ’ ἐξῆπτεν ἱμάντας,
ἐκ δίφροιο δ’ ἔδησε· κάρη δ’ ἕλκεσθαι ἔασεν·
ἐς δίφρον δ’ ἀναβὰς ἀνά τε κλυτὰ τεύχε’ ἀείρας 15
μάστιξεν δ’ ἐλάαν, τὼ δ’ οὐκ ἀέκοντε πετέσθην.
τοῦ δ’ ἦν ἑλκομένοιο κονίσαλος· ἀμφὶ δὲ χαῖται
κυάνεαι πίμπλαντο, κάρη δ’ ἅπαν ἐν κονίῃσι
κεῖτο πάρος χαρίεν· τότε δὲ Ζεὺς δυσμενέεσσι
δῶκεν ἀεικίσσασθαι ἑῇ ἐν πατρίδι γαίῃ. 20
ὣς τοῦ μὲν κεκόνιτο κάρη ἅπαν· ἡ δέ νυ μήτηρ
τίλλε κόμην, ἀπὸ δὲ λιπαρὴν ἔρριψε καλύπτρην
τηλόσε, κώκυσεν δὲ μάλα μέγα παῖδ’ ἐσιδοῦσα·
ᾤμωξεν δ’ ἐλεεινὰ πατὴρ φίλος, ἀμφὶ δὲ λαοὶ

[191]

and he kept uttering outlandish yells, asking mercy of Alexander as ‘my lord’; and his jargon made them laugh. His fat and his bulging corpulence suggested to them another creature, a huge-bodied Babylonian animal. So the multitude scoffed at him, mocking with the coarse mockery of the camp an enemy who was so repulsive of feature and so uncouth in his ways.”[168]

Is this description, I ask, comparable with those lines of Homer in which Achilles is represented as maltreating Hector after his death? And yet the suffering in the latter case is less, for it is on a mere senseless body that the outrage is inflicted. But it is worth while, nevertheless, to note the vast difference between the poet and the sophist:—

He spake, and a shameful mishandling devised he for Hector slain;
For behind each foot did he sunder therefrom the sinews twain
From the ankle-joint to the heel: hide-bands through the gashes he thrust;
To his chariot he bound them, and left the head to trail in the dust.
He hath mounted his car, and the glorious armour thereon hath he cast,
And he lashed the horses, and they with eager speed flew fast.
And a dust from the haling of Hector arose, and tossed wide-spread
His dark locks: wholly in dust his head lay low—that head
Once comely: ah then was the hero delivered over of Zeus
In his very fatherland for his foes to despitefully use.
So dust-besprent was his head; but his mother was rending her hair
The while, and she flung therefrom her head-veil glistering-fair
Afar, and with wild loud shriek as she looked on her son she cried;
And in piteous wise did his father wail, and on every side

1 καθικετεύων Schaefer: καὶ ἱκετεύων libri 2 κοῖτος F: κῦτος MV || σαρκὸς F: γαστρὸς PMV 3 ἐνέφαινε MV2: ἀνέφαινε F: ἐνεφαίνετο P || ἀδρὸν F: ἁδρόν MV: ἀνδρος P 9 ἐστιν om. P || ὅσω F: πόσω PMV 12 τένοντε F: τένοντας PMV 14 ἔασεν] ἔδησεν F 16 μάστιξέν ῥ’ Hom. || ἀέκοντε FMV Hom.: ἄκοντε P 18 πίμπλαντο] πίτναντο Hom. 22 τίλλε F Hom.: τῆλε PM: τεῖλε V

1. It is not clear whether the strict distinction between βαρβαρισμός (wrong vocabulary, spelling, or pronunciation) and σολοικισμός (wrong syntax) is here maintained. Possibly Batis may have offended (1) by using a word (δεσπότης) abhorrent to all free men of Greek blood, or (2) by using it in the wrong case, or (3) by mispronouncing it: cp. Sandys History of Classical Scholarship i. 148, for the comprehensiveness of the term σολοικισμός. But if it be held that σολοικισμός cannot occur in one isolated word (cp. Quintil. i. 5. 36), then it may be supposed that the reference here is to grammatical blunders in other words ejaculated by the unhappy Batis.

3. Βαβυλώνιον ζῷον: a comparison suggests itself with the Assyrian bulls represented in reliefs (cp. Tennyson’s Maud, “That oil’d and curl’d Assyrian Bull”).—The reading of P, ἕτερον ἀνδρός, might mean ‘far different from a man’ (viri: not ἀνθρώπου, hominis).

4. Hegesias’ use of στρατιωτικός may be compared with de Lys. c. 12 (of Iphicrates) ἥ τε λέξις πολὺ τὸ φορτικὸν καὶ στρατιωτικὸν ἔχει καὶ οὐχ οὕτως ἐμφαίνει ῥητορικὴν ἀγχίνοιαν ὡς στρατιωτικὴν αὐθάδειαν καὶ ἀλαζονείαν.

7. ἐστιν αἰκιζόμενος: not simply a periphrasis for αἰκίζεται.

8. For Hector’s insensibility cp. Murray’s Rise of the Greek Epic pp. 118, 132.—The savagery of Achilles was, nevertheless, generally felt to need extenuation, as may be seen from the curious explanations proffered in the scholia: e.g. ὁ δὲ Καλλίμαχός φησιν ὅτι πάτριόν ἐστι Θεσσαλοῖς τοὺς τῶν φιλτάτων φονέας σύρειν περὶ τοὺς τῶν φονευθέντων τάφους, κτλ.

11. Cp. Virg. Aen. ii. 268 ff. (the vision of the mangled Hector).

κωκυτῷ τ’ εἴχοντο καὶ οἰμωγῇ κατὰ ἄστυ.
τῷ δὲ μάλιστ’ ἂρ ἔην ἐναλίγκιον, ὡς εἰ ἅπασα
Ἴλιος ὀφρυόεσσα πυρὶ σμύχοιτο κατ’ ἄκρης.

οὕτως εὐγενὲς σῶμα καὶ δεινὰ πάθη λέγεσθαι προσῆκεν ὑπ’
ἀνδρῶν φρόνημα καὶ νοῦν ἐχόντων. ὡς δὲ ὁ Μάγνης εἴρηκεν, 5
ὑπὸ γυναικῶν ἢ κατεαγότων ἀνθρώπων λέγοιτ’ ἂν καὶ οὐδὲ
τούτων μετὰ σπουδῆς, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ χλευασμῷ καὶ καταγέλωτι.
τί οὖν αἴτιον ἦν ἐκείνων μὲν τῶν ποιημάτων τῆς εὐγενείας,
τούτων δὲ τῶν φλυαρημάτων τῆς ταπεινότητος; ἡ τῶν
ῥυθμῶν διαφορὰ πάντων μάλιστα, καὶ εἰ μὴ μόνη. ἐν 10
ἐκείνοις μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲ εἷς ἄσεμνος στίχος οὐδ’ ἀδόκιμος,
ἐνταῦθα δὲ οὐδεμία περίοδος ἥτις οὐ λυπήσει.

εἰρηκὼς δὴ καὶ περὶ τῶν ῥυθμῶν ὅσην δύναμιν ἔχουσιν,
ἐπὶ τὰ λειπόμενα μεταβήσομαι.