CHAPTER XXV HOW PROSE CAN RESEMBLE VERSE
Now that I have finished this part of the subject, I think you must be eager for information on the next point—how unmetrical language is made to resemble a beautiful poem or lyric, and how a poem or lyric is brought into close likeness to beautiful prose. I will begin with the language of prose, choosing by preference an author who has, I think, in a pre-eminent degree taken the impress of poetical style. I could wish to mention a larger number, but have not time for all. Who, then, will not admit that the speeches of Demosthenes
3 τὸν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν F: τῶν ἁπάντων PMV 5 οὐκἐπὶ πόνου P, MV 6 ἐπίπονον F 10 λέξις ἄμετρος] πεζὴ λέξις F || ἄμετρος ... πεζῇ om. F 13 ὃν ... βουλόμενος om. P
1. κατὰ τὸν Δημοσθένην: cp. de Demosth. c. 52 εἰ δὲ τῷ δοκεῖ ταῦτα καὶ πόνου πολλοῦ καὶ πραγματείας μεγάλης εἶναι, καὶ μάλα ὀρθῶς δοκεῖ κατὰ τὸν Δημοσθένην· οὐδὲν γὰρ τῶν μεγάλων μικρῶν ἐστι πόνων ὤνιον. ἀλλ’ ἐὰν ἐπιλογίσηται τοὺς ἀκολουθοῦντας αὐτοῖς καρπούς, μᾶλλον δ’ ἐὰν ἕνα μόνον τὸν ἔπαινον, ὃν ἀποδίδωσιν ὁ χρόνος καὶ ζῶσι καὶ μετὰ τὴν τελευτήν, πᾶσαν ἡγήσεται τήν [τε] πραγματείαν ἐλάττω τῆς προσηκούσης. The reference in both cases is to Demosth. Chers. § 48 εἰ δέ τῳ δοκεῖ ταῦτα καὶ δαπάνης μεγάλης καὶ πόνων πολλῶν καὶ πραγματείας εἶναι, καὶ μάλ’ ὀρθῶς δοκεῖ· ἀλλ’ ἐὰν λογίσηται τὰ τῇ πόλει μετὰ ταῦτα γενησόμενα, ἂν ταῦτα μὴ ’θέλῃ, εὑρήσει λυσιτελοῦν τὸ ἑκόντας ποιεῖν τὰ δέοντα.
4. For the general attitude of Epicurus cp. Quintil. ii. 17. 15 “nam de Epicuro, qui disciplinas omnes fugit, nihil miror,” and ib. xii. 2. 24 “nam in primis nos Epicurus a se ipse dimittit, qui fugere omnem disciplinam navigatione quam velocissima iubet [Diog. Laert. Vit. Epic. 6 παιδείαν δὲ πᾶσαν (i.e. τὴν ἐγκύκλιον παιδείαν), μακάριε, φεῦγε τὸ ἀκάτιον ἀράμενος]”; Cic. de Finibus i. 5. 14 “sed existimo te minus ab eo [sc. Epicuro] delectari, quod ista Platonis, Aristotelis, Theophrasti orationis ornamenta neglexerit.”—Probably the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus is among those who are criticized in the πραγματεία ἣν συνεταξάμην ὑπὲρ τῆς πολιτικῆς φιλοσοφίας πρὸς τοὺς κατατρέχοντας αὐτῆς ἀδίκως (de Thucyd. c. 2).
5-8. Usener (Epicurea, fragm. 230) gave this passage as follows: τὸ γὰρ ἐπίπονον τοῦ γράφειν ὄντως, ὡς αὐτὸς Ἐπίκουρος λέγει, τοῖς μὴ στοχαζομένοις τοῦ πυκνὰ μεταπίπτοντος κριτηρίου πολλῆς ἀργίας ἦν καὶ σκαιότητος ἀλεξιφάρμακον.
5. οὐκ ἐπιπόνου: cp. Sheridan Clio’s Protest: “You write with ease, to shew your breeding; | But easy writing’s vile hard reading”; Quintil. x. 3. 10 “summa haec est rei: cito scribendo non fit, ut bene scribatur; bene scribendo fit, ut cito.”
7. κριτηρίου: for κριτήριον as an Epicurean term cp. Diog. Laert. Vit. Epic. 147 ὥστε τὸ κριτήριον ἅπαν ἐκβαλεῖς. The ‘variable criterion’ or ‘shifting standard,’ in Dionysius’ quotation, is either the judgment of the ear (regarded as a part of sensation generally) or the literary fashion of the day.
8. Chapter 24 may be compared throughout with de Demosth. c. 41.
9. For the relations of Prose to Verse see Introduction, pp. 33-9.
16. The metrical lines which Dionysius thinks he detects in Demosthenes are not more (nor less) convincing than the rude hexameters which have been pointed out in Cicero: latent lines cannot be expected to be obvious. Ad Quirites post reditum 16 “sed etiam rerum mearum gestarum auctores, testes, laudatoresque fuere” [but the better reading here is laudatores fuerunt]. Pro Archia Poëta i. 1 “si quid est in me ingenii, iudices, quod sentio quam sit exiguum, aut si qua exercitatio dicendi, in qua me non infiteor mediocriter esse versatum,” etc. Tusc. Disp. iv. 14. 31 “illud animorum corporumque dissimile, quod animi valentes morbo temptari possunt, ut corpora possunt.” Pro Roscio Amer. i. 1 “credo ego vos, iudices, mirari quid sit quod, cum tot summi oratores hominesque nobilissimi sedeant, ego potissimum surrexerim.” Cp. Livy xxi. 9 “nec tuto eos adituros inter tot tam effrenatarum gentium arma, nec Hannibali in tanto discrimine rerum operae esse legationes audire,” and Tacitus Ann. i. 1 “urbem Romam a principio reges habuere.” In most of these passages except the last, the natural pauses in delivery would destroy any real hexameter effect. See further in Quintil. ix. 4. 72 ff.—Among later Greek writers, St. John Chrysostom, in his de Sacerdotio iii. 14 and 16, is supposed to yield one entire hexameter and part of another: [ἀπ’ ἐκείνου] τοῦ καπνοῦ προέφλεξε καὶ ἠμαύρωσεν ἅπασαν, and βιάζωνται διὰ τὴν τῆς γαστρὸς ἀνάγκην.
τοὺς Δημοσθένους λόγους, καὶ μάλιστα τάς τε κατὰ Φιλίππου
δημηγορίας καὶ τοὺς δικανικοὺς ἀγῶνας τοὺς δημοσίους; ὧν
ἐξ ἑνὸς ἀρκέσει λαβεῖν τὸ προοίμιον τουτί·
“Μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ με μήτ’
ἰδίας ἔχθρας μηδεμιᾶς ἕνεχ’ ἥκειν Ἀριστοκράτους κατηγορήσοντα 5
τουτουί, μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον
ἁμάρτημα ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς
ἀπέχθειαν· ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἆρ’ ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ λογίζομαι καὶ
σκοπῶ, περὶ τοῦ Χερόνησον ἔχειν ἀσφαλῶς ὑμᾶς καὶ
μὴ παρακρουσθέντας ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς, περὶ 10
τούτου ἐστί μοι ἅπασα ἡ σπουδή.”
πειρατέον δὴ καὶ περὶ τούτων λέγειν ἃ φρονῶ. μυστηρίοις
μὲν οὖν ἔοικεν ἤδη ταῦτα καὶ οὐκ εἰς πολλοὺς οἷά τε ἐστὶν
ἐκφέρεσθαι, ὥστ’ οὐκ ἂν εἴην φορτικός, εἰ παρακαλοίην “οἷς
θέμις ἐστὶν” ἥκειν ἐπὶ τὰς τελετὰς τοῦ λόγου, “θύρας δ’ 15
ἐπιθέσθαι” λέγοιμι ταῖς ἀκοαῖς τοὺς “βεβήλους.” εἰς γέλωτα
γὰρ ἔνιοι λαμβάνουσι τὰ σπουδαιότατα δι’ ἀπειρίαν, καὶ ἴσως
οὐδὲν ἄτοπον πάσχουσιν. ἃ δ’ οὖν βούλομαι λέγειν, τοιάδε
ἐστί.
πᾶσα λέξις ἡ δίχα μέτρου συγκειμένη ποιητικὴν μοῦσαν 20
ἢ μελικὴν χάριν οὐ δύναται προσλαβεῖν κατὰ γοῦν τὴν σύνθεσιν
αὐτήν· ἐπεὶ καὶ ἡ ἐκλογὴ τῶν ὀνομάτων μέγα τι
δύναται, καὶ ἔστι τις ὀνομασία ποιητικὴ γλωττηματικῶν τε
καὶ ξένων καὶ τροπικῶν καὶ πεποιημένων, οἷς ἡδύνεται ποίησις,
εἰς κόρον ἐγκαταμιγέντων τῇ ἀμέτρῳ λέξει, ὃ ποιοῦσιν ἄλλοι 25
τε πολλοὶ καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα Πλάτων· οὐ δὴ λέγω περὶ τῆς
ἐκλογῆς, ἀλλ’ ἀφείσθω κατὰ τὸ παρὸν ἡ περὶ ταῦτα σκέψις.
περὶ τῆς συνθέσεως αὐτῆς ἔστω ἡ θεωρία τῆς ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς
ὀνόμασι καὶ τετριμμένοις καὶ ἥκιστα ποιητικοῖς τὰς ποιητικὰς
[253]
are like the finest poems and lyrics: particularly his harangues against Philip and his pleadings in public law-suits? It will be enough to take the following exordium from one of these:—
“Let none of you, O ye Athenians, think that I have come forward to accuse the defendant Aristocrates with intent to indulge personal hate of my own, or that it is because I have got my eye on some small and petty error that I am thrusting myself with a light heart in the path of his enmity. No, if my calculations and point of view be right, my one aim and object is that you should securely hold the Chersonese, and should not again be deprived of it by political chicanery.”[182]
I must endeavour, here again, to state my views. But the subject we have now reached is like the Mysteries: it cannot be divulged to people in masses. I shall not, therefore, be discourteous in inviting those only “for whom it is lawful” to approach the rites of style, while bidding the “profane” to “close the gates of their ears.”[183] There are some who, through ignorance, turn the most serious things into ridicule, and no doubt their attitude is natural enough. Well, my views are in effect as follows:—
No passage which is composed absolutely without metre can be invested with the melody of poetry or lyric grace, at any rate from the point of view of the word-arrangement considered in itself. No doubt, the choice of words goes a long way, and there is a poetical vocabulary consisting of rare, foreign, figurative and coined words in which poetry takes delight. These are sometimes mingled with prose-writing to excess: many writers do so, Plato particularly. But I am not speaking of the choice of words: let the consideration of that subject be set aside for the present. Let our inquiry deal exclusively with word-arrangement, which can reveal possibilities of poetic grace in common everyday
3 ἀρκέσει] ἀρμόσει F 4 με om. P, Demosth. || μήτε F 5 ἔχθρας ἐμὲ Demosth. || μηδεμιᾶς om. F || ἕνεκα PMV 7 ἐπὶ τούτῳ om. EF 8 ἆρ’ E: ἆρα P: ἄρα M: οὖν V: om. F || ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ EFM: ἐγὼ ὀρθῶς PV 9 περὶ] ὑπὲρ Demosth. || τοῦ EFPM: τοῦ τὴν V || χερόνησον PV1: χερρόνησον FMV2 || ἀσφαλῶς ὑμᾶς PMV: ὑμᾶς ἀσφαλῶς EF, D 11 τούτου] τούτων EF || ἔστι μοι M: νῦν ἐστί μοι P: τοίνυν ἔστι μοι V: ἔστι μοι νῦν E: ἐστὶν F: μοί ἐστιν D || ἡ EPM D.: ἡ ἐμὴ F: om. V 12 cum φρονῶ voce deficit codex Florentinus (F) 16 ἐπίθεσθε PM: ἐπίθεσθαι V || μέλωτ(α) P: γελοῖα MV 18 οὐδὲν] οὐδ’ P 20 συγκειμένη EP: ἐγκειμένη MV || μοῦσαν MV: οὖσαν P: om. E 23 τις ὀνομασίας P: τὴν ὀνομασίαν MV 25 ἐγκατατεταγμένους EPM: ἐγκαταμεμιγμένους V
4-11. In Butcher’s and in Weil’s texts (which are here identical) the opening of the Aristocrates runs as follows: μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ μήτ’ ἰδίας ἔχθρας ἐμὲ μηδεμιᾶς ἕνεχ’ ἥκειν Ἀριστοκράτους κατηγορήσοντα τουτουί, μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον ἁμάρτημ’ ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειαν, ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἄρ’ ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ λογίζομαι καὶ σκοπῶ, ὑπὲρ τοῦ Χερρόνησον ἔχειν ὑμᾶς ἀσφαλῶς καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθέντας ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς, περὶ τούτου μοί ἐστιν ἅπασ’ ἡ σπουδή. The minute differences between this text and that presented with metrical comments by Dionysius deserve careful notice.—The collocation τῆς ἰδίας ἕνεκ’ ἔχθρας is found in de Cor. § 147.
12. Here, with the word φρονῶ, the codex Florentinus Laurentianus (F) unfortunately ends.
24. It is hardly necessary to insert ὀνομάτων before οἷς, since the word may be supplied from l. 22 supra.
χάριτας ἐπιδεικνυμένης. ὅπερ οὖν ἔφην, οὐ δύναται ψιλὴ
λέξις ὁμοία γενέσθαι τῇ ἐμμέτρῳ καὶ ἐμμελεῖ, ἐὰν μὴ περιέχῃ
μέτρα καὶ ῥυθμούς τινας ἐγκατατεταγμένους ἀδήλως. οὐ μέντοι
προσήκει γε ἔμμετρον οὐδ’ ἔρρυθμον αὐτὴν εἶναι δοκεῖν (ποίημα
γὰρ οὕτως ἔσται καὶ μέλος ἐκβήσεταί τε ἁπλῶς τὸν αὑτῆς 5
χαρακτῆρα), ἀλλ’ εὔρυθμον αὐτὴν ἀπόχρη καὶ εὔμετρον φαίνεσθαι
μόνον· οὕτως γὰρ ἂν εἴη ποιητικὴ μέν, οὐ μὴν ποίημά
γε, καὶ ἐμμελὴς μέν, οὐ μέλος δέ.
τίς δ’ ἐστὶν ἡ τούτων διαφορά, πάνυ ῥᾴδιον ἰδεῖν. ἡ μὲν
ὅμοια περιλαμβάνουσα μέτρα καὶ τεταγμένους σῴζουσα ῥυθμοὺς 10
καὶ κατὰ στίχον ἢ περίοδον ἢ στροφὴν διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν σχημάτων
περαινομένη κἄπειτα πάλιν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ῥυθμοῖς καὶ μέτροις
ἐπὶ τῶν ἑξῆς στίχων ἢ περιόδων ἢ στροφῶν χρωμένη καὶ
τοῦτο μέχρι πολλοῦ ποιοῦσα ἔρρυθμός ἐστι καὶ ἔμμετρος, καὶ
ὀνόματα κεῖται τῇ τοιαύτῃ λέξει μέτρον καὶ μέλος· ἡ δὲ 15
πεπλανημένα μέτρα καὶ ἀτάκτους ῥυθμοὺς ἐμπεριλαμβάνουσα
καὶ μήτε ἀκολουθίαν ἐμφαίνουσα αὐτῶν μήτε ὁμοζυγίαν μήτε
ἀντιστροφὴν εὔρυθμος μέν ἐστιν, ἐπειδὴ διαπεποίκιλταί τισιν
ῥυθμοῖς, οὐκ ἔρρυθμος δέ, ἐπειδὴ οὐχὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς οὐδὲ κατὰ
τὸ αὐτό. τοιαύτην δή φημι πᾶσαν εἶναι λέξιν ἄμετρον, ἥτις 20
ἐμφαίνει τὸ ποιητικὸν καὶ μελικόν· ᾗ δὴ καὶ τὸν Δημοσθένη
κεχρῆσθαί φημι. καὶ ὅτι ἀληθῆ ταῦτ’ ἐστὶ καὶ οὐδὲν ἐγὼ
καινοτομῶ, λάβοι μὲν ἄν τις καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ἀριστοτέλους μαρτυρίας
τὴν πίστιν· εἴρηται γὰρ τῷ φιλοσόφῳ τά τε ἄλλα
περὶ τῆς λέξεως τῆς πολιτικῆς ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ βίβλῳ τῶν ῥητορικῶν 25
τεχνῶν οἵαν αὐτὴν εἶναι προσῆκεν, καὶ δὴ καὶ περὶ τῆς
εὐρυθμίας ἐξ ὧν ἂν τοιαύτη γένοιτο· ἐν ᾗ τοὺς ἐπιτηδειοτάτους
[255]
words that are by no means reserved for the poets’ vocabulary. Well, as I said, simple prose cannot become like metrical and lyrical writing, unless it contains metres and rhythms unobtrusively introduced into it. It does not, however, do for it to be manifestly in metre or in rhythm (for in that case it will be a poem or a lyric piece, and will absolutely desert its own specific character); it is enough that it should simply appear rhythmical and metrical. In this way it may be poetical, although not a poem; lyrical, although not a lyric.
The difference between the two things is easy enough to see. That which embraces within its compass similar metres and preserves definite rhythms, and is produced by a repetition of the same forms, line for line, period for period, or strophe for strophe, and then again employs the same rhythms and metres for the succeeding lines, periods or strophes, and does this at any considerable length, is in rhythm and in metre, and the names of “verse” and “song” are applied to such writing. On the other hand, that which contains casual metres and irregular rhythms, and in these shows neither sequence nor connexion nor correspondence of stanza with stanza, is rhythmical, since it is diversified by rhythms of a sort, but not in rhythm, since they are not the same nor in corresponding positions. This is the character I attribute to all language which, though destitute of metre, yet shows markedly the poetical or lyrical element; and this is what I mean that Demosthenes among others has adopted. That this is true, that I am advancing no new theory, any one can convince himself from the testimony of Aristotle; for in the third book of his Rhetoric the philosopher, speaking of the various requisites of style in civil oratory, has described the good rhythm which should contribute to it.[184] He
3 ἀδήλως MV: ἀδήλους EP 5 αὐτῆς PV 6 ἔμμετρον E 9 ῥάιδιον P 10 σωίζουσα P 20 ἄμετρον EPM: ἔμμετρον V 21 μελιχρὸν M || δημοσθένην EM 25 τρίτω P 26 προσηκ(εν) P: προσήκει MV 27 ἂν MV: τίσ P
1. Cp. Coleridge Biogr. Lit. c. 18: “Whatever is combined with metre must, though it be not itself essentially poetic, have nevertheless some property in common with poetry.”
3. So de Demosth. c. 50 οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἄλλως γένοιτο πολιτικὴ λέξις παρ’ αὐτὴν τὴν σύνθεσιν ἐμφερὴς ποιήμασιν, ἂν μὴ περιέχῃ μέτρα καὶ ῥυθμούς τινας ἐγκατακεχωρισμένους ἀδήλως. οὐ μέντοι γε προσήκει αὐτὴν ἔμμετρον οὐδ’ ἔρρυθμον εἶναι δοκεῖν, ἵνα μὴ γένηται ποίημα ἢ μέλος, ἐκβᾶσα τὸν αὑτῆς χαρακτῆρα, ἀλλ’ εὔρυθμον αὐτὴν ἀπόχρη φαίνεσθαι καὶ εὔμετρον. οὕτω γὰρ ἂν εἴη ποιητικὴ μέν, οὐ μὴν ποίημά γε, καὶ μελίζουσα μέν, οὐ μὴν μέλος.
4. Cp. Aristot. Rhet. iii. 8 τὸ δὲ σχῆμα τῆς λέξεως δεῖ μήτε ἔμμετρον εἶναι μήτε ἄρρυθμον ... διὸ ῥυθμὸν δεῖ ἔχειν τὸν λόγον, μέτρον δὲ μή· ποίημα γὰρ ἔσται: and Cic. Orat. 56. 187 “perspicuum est igitur numeris astrictam orationem esse debere, carere versibus,” and 57. 195 ibid. “quia nec numerosa esse, ut poëma, neque extra numerum, ut sermo vulgi, esse debet oratio.” So Isocr. (fragm. of his τέχνη preserved by Joannes Siceliotes, Walz Rhett. Gr. vi. 156) ὅλως δὲ ὁ λόγος μὴ λόγος ἔστω· ξηρὸν γάρ· μηδὲ ἔμμετρος· καταφανὲς γάρ. ἀλλὰ μεμίχθω παντὶ ῥυθμῷ, μάλιστα ἰαμβικῷ καὶ τροχαϊκῷ (Isocr. Tech. fr. 6 Benseler-Blass).
5. ἐκβήσεται ... τὸν αὑτῆς χαρακτῆρα: cp. the construction of excedere and egredi with the accusative.
6. ἔμμετρον is given not only by E but by Joannes Sicel. (Walz Rhett. Gr. vi. 165. 28) and by Maximus Planudes (ibid. v. 473. 4) καὶ Διονύσιος δέ φησιν, ἀπόχρη τὴν πολιτικὴν λέξιν εὔρυθμον εἶναι καὶ ἔμμετρον.
17. Cp. Cic. de Orat. iii. 44. 176 “nam cum [orator] vinxit [sententiam] forma et modis, relaxat et liberat immutatione ordinis, ut verba neque alligata sint quasi certa aliqua lege versus neque ita soluta, ut vagentur.”
25. The reference is to Aristot. Rhet. iii. 8 (the passage of which part is quoted in the note on l. 4 supra).
27. τοιαύτη: i.e. εὔρυθμος, the subject to γένοιτο being ἡ πολιτικὴ λέξις. The τίσ of P may be due to a dittography of the first syllable of τοιαύτη: or it may originally have stood with τοιαύτη (τοιαύτη τις = talis fere).
ὀνομάζει ῥυθμοὺς καὶ πῇ χρήσιμος ἕκαστος αὐτῶν καταφαίνεται,
καὶ λέξεις παρατίθησί τινας αἷς πειρᾶται βεβαιοῦν
τὸν λόγον. χωρὶς δὲ τῆς Ἀριστοτέλους μαρτυρίας, ὅτι ἀναγκαῖόν
ἐστιν ἐμπεριλαμβάνεσθαί τινας τῇ πεζῇ λέξει ῥυθμούς,
εἰ μέλλοι τὸ ποιητικὸν ἐπανθήσειν αὐτῇ κάλλος, ἐκ τῆς πείρας 5
τις αὐτῆς γνώσεται.
αὐτίκα ὁ κατὰ Ἀριστοκράτους λόγος οὗ καὶ μικρῷ πρότερον
ἐμνήσθην ἄρχεται μὲν ἀπὸ κωμικοῦ στίχου τετραμέτρου δι’
ἀναπαίστων τῶν ῥυθμῶν ἐγκειμένου, λείπεται δὲ ποδὶ τοῦ
τελείου, παρ’ ὃ καὶ λέληθεν· “μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες 10
Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ με”· τοῦτο γὰρ εἰ προσλάβοι τὸ μέτρον
πόδα ἤτοι κατ’ ἀρχὰς ἢ διὰ μέσου ἢ ἐπὶ τελευτῆς, τέλειον
ἔσται τετράμετρον ἀναπαιστικόν, ὃ καλοῦσίν τινες Ἀριστοφάνειον·
μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ με παρεῖναι, 15
ἴσον δὲ τῷ
λέξω τοίνυν τὴν ἀρχαίαν παιδείαν ὡς διέκειτο.
τάχα τις ἐρεῖ πρὸς ταῦτα, ὅτι οὐκ ἐξ ἐπιτηδεύσεως τοῦτο
ἀλλ’ ἐκ ταὐτομάτου ἐγένετο· πολλὰ γὰρ αὐτοσχεδιάζει μέτρα
ἡ φύσις. ἔστω τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἶναι. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ συναπτόμενον 20
τούτῳ κῶλον, εἰ διαλύσειέ τις αὐτοῦ τὴν δευτέραν
συναλοιφὴν ἣ πεποίηκεν αὐτὸ ἄσημον ἐπισυνάπτουσα τῷ
τρίτῳ κώλῳ, πεντάμετρον ἐλεγειακὸν ἔσται συντετελεσμένον
τουτί
μήτ’ ἰδίας ἔχθρας μηδεμιᾶς ἕνεκα
ὅμοιον τούτοις
κοῦραι ἐλαφρὰ ποδῶν ἴχνι’ ἀειράμεναι.
[257]
names the most suitable rhythms, shows where each of them is clearly serviceable, and adduces some passages by which he endeavours to establish his statement. But apart from the testimony of Aristotle, experience itself will show that some rhythms must be included in prose-writing if there is to be upon it the bloom of poetical beauty.
For example, the speech against Aristocrates which I mentioned a moment ago begins with a comic tetrameter line (set there with its anapaestic rhythms), but it is a foot short of completion and in consequence escapes detection: μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ με. If this line had an additional foot either at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, it would be a perfect anapaestic tetrameter, to which some give the name “Aristophanic.”
Let none of you, O ye Athenians, think that I am standing before you,
corresponds to the line
Now then shall be told what in days of old was the fashion of boys’ education.[185]
It will perhaps be said in reply that this has happened not from design, but accidentally, since a natural tendency in us often improvises metrical fragments. Let the truth of this be granted. Yet the next clause as well, if you resolve the second elision, which has obscured its true character by linking it on to the third clause, will be a complete elegiac pentameter as follows:—
Come with intent to indulge personal hate of my own,
similar to these words:—
Maidens whose feet in the dance lightly were lifted on high.[186]
3 ἀναγκαῖον V γρ M: ἂν δίκαιον PM1 6 τ(ις) P, V: τῆς M 8 δι’ MV: δις sic P 11 με παρεῖναι M 15 μηδεὶς] μηδε P 18 τουτω M, E: τοῦτο PV 24 τουτί EP: ἀκριβῶς τουτί MV 27 ἐλαφροποδῶν sic P: ἐλαφροπόδων MV || ἴχνι’ PM: ἴχνεα V
7. πρότερον: viz. 252 3 supra.
9. ἀναπαιστικῶν has been suggested here and in 260 2; but cp. δάκτυλον πόδα 84 21 and ῥυθμοῖς δακτύλοις 202 19.
10. παρ’ ὅ: cp. note on 80 4 supra.
11. νομίσῃ με: this (together with the other remarks that follow) confirms the reading adopted in 252 4 supra.—Dionysius’ metrical arrangement of the clauses may be indicated thus:—
μηδεὶς ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, νομίσῃ με
μήτ’ ἰδίας ἔχθρας μηδεμιᾶς ἕνεχ’
[ἥκειν Ἀριστοκράτους κατηγορήσοντα τουτουΐ,]
μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον ἁμάρτημα ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ
προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειαν·
ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἆρ’ ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ λογίζομαι [καὶ σκοπῶ,]
περὶ τοῦ Χερόνησον ἔχειν ἀσφαλῶς ὑμᾶς
καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθέντας
ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς,
[περὶ τούτου ἐστί μοι ἅπασα ἡ σπουδή.]
Lines, or truncated lines, of verse are thus interspersed with pieces of pure prose,—those here inclosed in brackets. In constituting the verse-lines Dionysius has damaged a rather strong case by overstating it.
21. διαλύσειε: from this it is clear that ἕνεχ’ (rather than ἕνεκα) should be read in 252 5. The verse-arrangement in line 25 infra shows the same thing and also that we must not follow F in reading μήτε (without elision) in 252 4.
27. For this line cp. Schneider’s Callimachea pp. 789, 790, where it is classed among the Fragmenta Anonyma.
καὶ τοῦτ’ ἔτι κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν ὑπολάβωμεν αὐτοματισμὸν ἄνευ
γνώμης γεγονέναι. ἀλλ’ ἑνὸς τοῦ μεταξὺ κώλου συγκειμένου
λεκτικῶς τοῦ “ἥκειν Ἀριστοκράτους κατηγορήσοντα
τουτουί” τὸ συμπλεκόμενον τούτῳ πάλιν κῶλον ἐκ δυεῖν συνέστηκεν
μέτρων· “μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον 5
ἁμάρτημα, ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ”· εἰ γὰρ τὸ
Σαπφικόν τις ἐπιθαλάμιον τουτί
οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἀτέρα πάϊς, ὦ γαμβρέ, τοιαύτα ‹ποτα›
καὶ τοῦ κωμικοῦ τετραμέτρου, λεγομένου δὲ Ἀριστοφανείου
τουδί 10
ὅτ’ ἐγὼ τὰ δίκαια λέγων ἦνθουν καὶ σωφροσύνη ’νενόμιστο
τοὺς τελευταίους πόδας τρεῖς καὶ τὴν κατάληξιν ἐκλαβὼν
συνάψειε τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον
οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἀτέρα πάϊς, ὦ γαμβρέ, τοιαύτα ‹ποτα› καὶ 15
σωφροσύνη ’νενόμιστο·
οὐδὲν διοίσει τοῦ “μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον
ἁμάρτημα, ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ.” τὸ δ’ ἀκόλουθον
ἴσον ἐστὶν ἰαμβικῷ τριμέτρῳ τὸν ἔσχατον ἀφῃρημένῳ πόδα
“προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειαν”· τέλειον γὰρ ἔσται 20
πόδα προσλαβὸν καὶ γενόμενον τοιοῦτο
προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειάν τινα.
παρίδωμεν ἔτι καὶ ταῦτα ὡς οὐκ ἐξ ἐπιτηδεύσεως ἀλλ’
αὐτοματισμῷ γενόμενα; τί οὖν βούλεται πάλιν τὸ προσεχὲς
τούτῳ κῶλον; ἰαμβεῖον γάρ ἐστι καὶ τοῦτο τρίμετρον ὀρθόν 25
ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἆρ’ ὀρθῶς ἐγὼ λογίζομαι,
τοῦ ἄρα συνδέσμου μακρὰν λαμβάνοντος τὴν πρότεραν συλλαβήν,
καὶ ἔτι γε, νὴ Δία, μέσου παρεμπεσόντος τοῦ “καὶ
[259]
Let us suppose that this, too, has happened once more in the same spontaneous way without design. Still, after one intermediate clause arranged in a prose order, viz. ἥκειν Ἀριστοκράτους κατηγορήσοντα τουτουί, the clause which is joined to this consists of two metrical lines, viz. μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον ἁμάρτημα ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ. For if we were to take this line from Sappho’s Bridal Song—
For never another maiden there was, O son-in-law, like unto
this one,[187]
and were also to take the last three feet and the termination of the following comic tetrameter, the so-called “Aristophanic”
When of righteousness I was the popular preacher, and temperance
was in fashion,[188]
and then were to unite them thus—
οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἀτέρα πάις, ὦ γαμβρέ, τοιαύτα ‹ποτα› καὶ σωφροσύνη
’νενόμιστο,
it will precisely correspond to μήτε μικρὸν ὁρῶντά τι καὶ φαῦλον ἁμάρτημα, ἑτοίμως οὕτως ἐπὶ τούτῳ. What follows is like an iambic trimeter docked of its final foot, προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειαν. It will be complete if a foot is added and it takes this shape:—
προάγειν ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀπέχθειάν τινα.
Are we once more to neglect these facts as if they were brought about not on purpose but by accident? What, then, is the significance of the next clause to this? For this too is a correct iambic trimeter line—
ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἆρ’ ὀρθῶς ἐγὸ λογίζομαι,
if the connective ἄρα has its first syllable made long, and if further—by your leave!—the words καὶ σκοπῶ are regarded as
1 καὶ P: εἰ δὲ καὶ M: ἐὰν καὶ V 4 δυεῖν P: δυοῖν MV 5 μέτρων V et suprascr. ῥυθμῶν M: μερῶν P 6 εἰ γὰρ τὸ Sauppius: εἰ γέ τοι P: καὶ τὸ M: γάρ τοι V 7 τις PV: om. M 8 ἦν ἀτέρα] ἑτέρα νῦν PM: ἑτέραν ὗν V: correxit Blomfieldius: ἀτέρα Seidlerus || ποτα add. Usenerus 10-11 τοῦδε τοτ’ P, i.e. τουδεί ὅτ’: τοῦδε ὅτ’ MV 13 τοὺς PM: τούς τε V || ἐκλαβὼν Sauppius: ἐκβαλῶν P: ἐμβαλὼν MV 15 ἑτέρα νῦν PM: ἑτέραν ϋν V: cf. adnot. ad l. 8 supra 21 πόδα προσλαβὸν PM: προσλαβὸν πόδα V || τοιοῦτο P: τοιοῦτον MV 22 τινά PM: τινι V 24 γενόμεν(ον); P 25 ἰάμβιων P: ἰάμβειον MV 26 ἄρ’ P, V: ἄρα M 27 ἄρα compendio P
8. ‘For no other girl, O bridegroom, was like unto her.’—Usener’s insertion of ποτα, here and in l. 15 infra, will secure metrical correspondence between this passage and that of Demosthenes. Blass would attain the same result by reading ἁμάρτημ’ ἰταμῶς in the passage of Demosthenes. If ἁμάρτημ’ ἑτοίμως be read (as in the best texts of Demosthenes), then the choice will be to suppose either (1) that the first syllable of ἑτοίμως is to be suppressed in the ‘scansion’, or (2) that Dionysius has pressed his case too far and that it is just by means of this extra syllable that Demosthenes escapes any unduly poetical rhythm.
26. The scansion here supports those manuscripts which give ἆρ’ in 252 8.
For ἆρα as being “in Poets sometimes much like ἄρα” see L. & S. s.v. (with the examples there quoted).
28. νὴ Δία: cp. μὰ Δία in 260 25. The general sense of the passage is well brought out in the Epitome: καὶ ἔτι τὸ “καὶ σκοπῶ” παρεμπεσὸν ἐπισκοτούμενον τὸ μέτρον ἠφάνισε.
σκοπῶ,” ὑφ’ οὗ δὴ τὸ μέτρον ἐπισκοτούμενον ἠφάνισται. τὸ
δ’ ἐπὶ τούτῳ παραλαμβανόμενον κῶλον ἐξ ἀναπαίστων σύγκειται
ῥυθμῶν καὶ προάγει μέχρι ποδῶν ὀκτὼ τὸ αὐτὸ σχῆμα
διασῷζον
περὶ τοῦ Χερόνησον ἔχειν ἀσφαλῶς ὑμᾶς καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθέντας, 5
ὁμοίον τῷ παρ’ Εὐριπίδῃ τῷδε
βασιλεῦ χώρας τῆς πολυβώλου
Κισσεῦ, πεδίον πυρὶ μαρμαίρει.
καὶ τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο πάλιν κείμενον τοῦ αὐτοῦ κώλου μέρος 10
τουτί “ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς” ἰαμβικὸν τρίμετρόν
ἐστι ποδὶ καὶ ἡμίσει λειπόμενον· ἐγένετο δ’ ἂν τέλειον οὕτως
ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς ἐν μέρει.
ταῦτ’ ἔτι φῶμεν αὐτοσχέδια εἶναι καὶ ἀνεπιτήδευτα, οὕτω
ποικίλα καὶ πολλὰ ὄντα; ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ ἀξιῶ· καὶ γὰρ τὰ 15
ἑξῆς τούτοις ὅμοια εὑρεῖν ἔστι, πολλῶν καὶ παντοδαπῶν
ἀνάμεστα μέτρων τε καὶ ῥυθμῶν.
ἀλλ’ ἵνα μὴ τοῦτον ὑπολάβῃ τις μόνον οὕτως αὐτῷ
κατεσκευάσθαι τὸν λόγον, ἑτέρου πάλιν ἅψομαι τοῦ πάνυ
ἡρμηνεῦσθαι δαιμονίως δοκοῦντος, τοῦ ὑπὲρ Κτησιφῶντος, ὃν 20
ἐγὼ κράτιστον ἀποφαίνομαι πάντων λόγων· ὁρῶ δὴ κἀν
τούτῳ μετὰ τὴν προσαγόρευσιν τῶν Ἀθηναίων εὐθέως τὸν
κρητικὸν ῥυθμόν, εἴτε ἄρα παιᾶνά τις αὐτὸν βούλεται καλεῖν
(διοίσει γὰρ οὐδέν), τὸν ἐκ πέντε συγκείμενον χρόνων, οὐκ
αὐτοσχεδίως μὰ Δία ἀλλ’ ὡς οἷόν τε μάλιστα ἐπιτετηδευμένως 25
δι’ ὅλου τοῦ κώλου πλεκόμενον τούτου
τοῖς θεοῖς εὔχομαι πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις.
οὐ τοιοῦτος μέντοι κἀκεῖνός ἐστιν ὁ ῥυθμός
[261]
an intermediate excrescence by means of which the metre is obscured and vanishes from sight. The clause placed next to this is composed of anapaestic feet, and extends to eight feet, still keeping the same form:—
πρὸ τοῦ Χερόνησον ἔχειν ἀσφαλῶς ὑμᾶς καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθέντας,
like to this in Euripides—
O King of the country with harvests teeming,
O Cisseus, the plain with a fire is gleaming.[189]
And the part of the same clause which comes next to it—ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς—is an iambic trimeter short of a foot and a half. It would have been complete in this form—
ἀποστερηθῆναι πάλιν αὐτῆς ἐν μέρει.
Are we to say that these effects too are spontaneous and unstudied, many and various as they are? I cannot think so; for it is easy to see that the clauses which follow are similarly full of many metres and rhythms of all kinds.
But lest it be thought that he has constructed this speech alone in this way, I will touch on another where the style is admitted to show astonishing genius, that on behalf of Ctesiphon, which I pronounce to be the finest of all speeches. In this, too, immediately after the address to the Athenians, I notice that the cretic foot, or the paeon if you like to call it so (for it will make no difference),—the one which consists of five time-units,—is interwoven, not fortuitously (save the mark!) but with the utmost deliberation right through the clause—
τοῖς θεοῖς εὔχομαι πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις.[190]
Is not the following rhythm of the same kind—
4 διασωῖζον P 5 χερόνησον P: χερρόνησον MV 7 τῷδε Us.: τῶι P, M: ὦ V 8 βασιλεῦ MV: βασιλεῖ P 9 πεδίον MV: παιδι(ον) P 10 μέρος om. P 11 τρίμετρον MV: μέτρον P 12 λειπόμενον Us.: λεῖπον libri 14 ταῦτ’ ἔτι Us.: ταῦτα τί PMV: ταυτὶ s 15 καὶ πολλὰ om. P 17 ἀνάμεστα MV: ἀναλύεσθαι P 18 οὕτως αὐτῷ Us.: οὕτω MV: αὐτ(ω) P 23 βούλεται αὐτὸν PV 26 τούτου Us.: τοῦτον libri
5. Here, again, is a serious metrical difficulty. We can hardly believe that Dionysius scanned ἀσφαλῶς (or βεβαίως) as an anapaest: it is more likely that he regarded the middle syllable of ἀσφαλῶς as slurred (compare note on 258 8 supra, and also the reading λιποῦσ’ ἀνδρότητα καὶ ἥβην in Il. xvi. 857).—If (against the manuscripts) we should omit ἀσφαλῶς and read περὶ τοῦ τὴν Χερρόννησον ἔχειν ὑμᾶς καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθέντας, the metre would be comparatively normal.
12. A comparison of this line with 256 9 seems to confirm the conjecture λειπόμενον, though λείπω is sometimes intransitive.
13. A rude iambic trimeter of the colloquial kind: cp. 258 26 supra.
26. The metrical analysis of the following passage of Demosthenes should be compared and contrasted with its previous division into feet—on 182 17 ff.
27. A rough metrical equivalent in English might be: ‘Hear me, each god on high, hear me, each goddess.’ Cp. Quintil. ix. 4. 63 (as quoted on 114 20 supra).—Demosthenes’ much-admired exordium in the Crown may be compared with the Homeric invocation—
κέκλυτέ μευ πάντες τε θεοί, πᾶσαί τε θέαιναι.
Κρησίοις ἐν ῥυθμοῖς παῖδα μέλψωμεν;
ἐμοὶ γοῦν δοκεῖ· ἔξω γὰρ τοῦ τελευταίου ποδὸς τά γε ἄλλα
παντάπασιν ἴσα. ἔστω καὶ τοῦτο, εἰ βούλεταί τις, αὐτοσχέδιον·
ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ συναπτόμενον τούτῳ κῶλον ἰαμβεῖόν
ἐστιν ὀρθόν, συλλαβῇ τοῦ τελείου δέον, ἵνα δὴ κἀνταῦθα 5
ἄσημον γένηται τὸ μέτρον, ἐπεὶ μιᾶς γε συλλαβῆς προστεθείσης
τέλειον ἔσται
“ὅσην εὔνοιαν ἔχων ἐγὼ διατελῶ.”
κἄπειτα ὁ παιὰν ἢ ὁ κρητικὸς ἐκεῖνος ὁ πεντάχρονος ἥξει
ῥυθμὸς ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς τούτοις “τῇ πόλει καὶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν 10
τοσαύτην ὑπάρξαι μοι παρ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τουτονὶ τὸν
ἀγῶνα.” τοῦτο γοῦν ἔοικεν, ὅ τι μὴ κατακλωμένους ἔχει
δύο πόδας ἐν ἀρχαῖς, κατὰ γοῦν τὰ ἄλλα πάντα τῷ παρὰ
Βακχυλίδῃ
οὐχ ἕδρας ἔργον οὐδ’ ἀμβολᾶς, 15
ἀλλὰ χρυσαίγιδος Ἰτωνίας
χρὴ παρ’ εὐδαίδαλον ναὸν ἐλ-
θόντας ἁβρόν τι δεῖξαι.
ὑφορῶμαί τινα πρὸς ταῦτα καταδρομὴν ἀνθρώπων τῆς
μὲν ἐγκυκλίου παιδείας ἀπείρων, τὸ δὲ ἀγοραῖον τῆς ῥητορικῆς 20
μέρος ὁδοῦ τε καὶ τέχνης χωρὶς ἐπιτηδευόντων, πρὸς οὓς
ἀναγκαῖον ἀπολογήσασθαι, μὴ δόξωμεν ἔρημον ἀφεικέναι τὸν
ἀγῶνα. ἐροῦσι δὴ ταῦτα· ὁ Δημοσθένης οὖν οὕτως ἄθλιος
[263]
Cretan strains practising, Zeus’s son sing we?[191]
In my judgment, at all events, it is; for with the exception of the final foot there is complete correspondence. But suppose this too, if you will have it so, to be accidental. Well, the adjacent clause is a correct iambic line, falling one syllable short of completion, with the object (here again) of obscuring the metre. With the addition of a single syllable the line will be complete—
ὅσην εὔνοιαν ἔχων ἐγὼ διατελῶ.
Further, that paeon or cretic rhythm of five beats will appear in the words which follow: τῇ πόλει καὶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν τοσαύτην ὑπάρξαι μοι παρ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τουτονὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα. This, except that it has two broken feet at the beginnings, resembles in all respects the passage in Bacchylides:—
This is no time to sit still nor wait:
Unto yon carven shrine let us go,
Even gold-aegis’d Queen Pallas’ shrine,
And the rich vesture there show.[192]
I have a presentiment that an onslaught will be made on these statements by people who are destitute of general culture and practise the mechanical parts of rhetoric unmethodically and unscientifically. Against these I am bound to defend my position, lest I should seem to let the case go by default. Their argument will doubtless be: “Was Demosthenes, then, so poor a creature
3 παντάπασιν Us.: ἐν ἁπάση PM: ἐν πᾶσιν V || ἴσα ἔστω· PM: ἴσα ὥρισται V 4 ἀλλὰ] μάλα P || ἰαμβι(ον) P: ἰαμβικὸν MV 10 τῇ τε πόλει Demosth. 11 ὑπάρξαί μοι P 12 κατ(α)κλ(ω)μεν(ως) P: κατακλώμενος M: κατακεκλωμένους V: κατακεκλασμένους Sylburgius 13 τῷ V: τὸ PM 15 ἀμβολας P: ἀμβολὰς V 22 ἀναγκαίωνον P: ἀναγκαῖόν μοι M || δόξομ(εν) P || ἀφεικέναι MV: ἀφηκέναι P
1. ῥυθμοῖς: with the first syllable short, as (e.g.) in Aristoph. Nub. 638. As already pointed out, the lengthening of such syllables would be abnormal in prose. Cp. mediocriter in the passage of Cicero on p. 251 supra.
7. Dionysius can surely only mean that we have here the materials, so to say, for an iambic line, and that but one additional syllable is needed (e.g. the substitution of διατελέω for διατελῶ). He can hardly have intended to retain εὔνοιαν in its present position, but must have had in mind some such order as ὅσην ἔχων εὔνοιαν. His language, however, has subjected him to grave suspicion, and Usener reads ἔγωγε in place of ἐγώ, remarking that “Dionysius numerorum in verbo εὔνοιαν vitium non sensit.” This particular insensibility of Dionysius does not seem borne out by 182 22 supra (see note ad loc.), where the last, but not the first, syllable of εὔνοιαν is represented as doubtful.
12. Here, too, there are metrical difficulties. The close correspondence of which Dionysius speaks is not obvious; and, in particular, the reference of ἐν ἀρχαῖς is far from clear. According to Usener, “Dionysius pedes τῇ πόλει καὶ et (τοσαύ)την ὑπάρξαι dicit.” Perhaps the ἀρχαί rather are: (1) τῇ [τε] πόλει (if the τε be added, in l. 10, from Demosthenes), and (2) [καὶ] πᾶσιν ὑμ-.
14. See Long. de Sublim. xxxiii. 3 for an estimate of Bacchylides’ poetry which has been confirmed by the general character of the newly discovered poems (first published by Kenyon in 1897).
15. The prose translation of this hyporcheme, as given in Jebb’s edition (p. 416), is: “This is no time for sitting still or tarrying: we must go to the richly-wrought temple of Itona [viz. Athena Itonia] with golden aegis, and show forth some choice strain of song”: δεῖξαι ‹μέλος›. Jebb’s notes (pp. 415, 416 ibid.) may be consulted.
19. καταδρομήν, ‘vehement attack,’ ‘invective.’ Used in this sense by Aeschines and Polybius, as well as by Dionysius (e.g. de Thucyd. c. 3 ἔστι δὴ τὸ βούλημά μου τῆς πραγματείας οὐ καταδρομὴ τῆς Θουκυδίδου προαιρέσεώς τε καὶ δυνάμεως). Cp. the verb κατατρέχειν, and D.H. p. 194; and our own use of ‘run down.’
22. ἔρημον: cp. de Antiqq. Rom. iv. 4 ἐὰν δὲ ἐρήμους ἀφῶσιν (τὰς κρίσεις), and iv. 11 ibid. τάς τε δίκας ἐρήμους ἐκλιπόντας.
23. With this and the following pages should be compared the later version found in the de Demosth. cc. 51, 52. There ἄθλιος (which in itself as a good prose word, used frequently by Demosthenes himself as well as by Dionysius 94 11 supra) is represented by κακοδαίμων. The Philistine critics of Dionysius’ day, and indeed of that of Demosthenes, regarded the capacity for taking pains as anything but a necessary adjunct of genius: cp. Plut. Vit. Demosth. c. 8 ἐκ τούτου δόξαν ἔσχεν ὡς οὐκ εὐφυὴς ὤν, ἀλλ’ ἐκ πόνου συγκειμένῃ δεινότητι καὶ δυνάμει χρώμενος. ἐδόκει δὲ τούτου σημεῖον εἶναι μέγα τὸ μὴ ῥᾳδίως ἀκοῦσαί τινα Δημοσθένους ἐπὶ καιροῦ λέγοντος, ἀλλὰ καθήμενον ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ πολλάκις τοῦ δήμου καλοῦντος ὀνομαστὶ μὴ παρελθεῖν, εἰ μὴ τύχοι πεφροντικὼς καὶ παρεσκευασμένος. εἰς τοῦτο δ’ ἄλλοι τε πολλοὶ τῶν δημαγωγῶν ἐχλεύαζον αὐτὸν καὶ Πυθέας ἐπισκώπτων ἐλλυχνίων ἔφησεν ὄζειν αὐτοῦ τὰ ἐνθυμήματα. The really artistic Athens had, as Dionysius so forcibly indicates in this passage, always considered as a crime not preparation, but the want of preparation.
ἦν, ὥσθ’, ὅτε γράφοι τοὺς λόγους, μέτρα καὶ ῥυθμοὺς ὥσπερ
οἱ πλάσται παρατιθέμενος, ἐναρμόττειν ἐπειρᾶτο τούτοις τοῖς
τύποις τὰ κῶλα, στρέφων ἄνω καὶ κάτω τὰ ὀνόματα, καὶ
παραφυλάττων τὰ μήκη καὶ τοὺς χρόνους, καὶ τὰς πτώσεις
τῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ τὰς ἐγκλίσεις τῶν ῥημάτων καὶ πάντα τὰ 5
συμβεβηκότα τοῖς μορίοις τοῦ λόγου πολυπραγμονῶν; ἠλίθιος
μέντἂν εἴη εἰς τοσαύτην σκευωρίαν καὶ φλυαρίαν ὁ τηλικοῦτος
ἀνὴρ ἑαυτὸν διδούς. ταῦτα δὴ καὶ τὰ τούτοις παραπλήσια
κωμῳδοῦντας αὐτοὺς καὶ καταχλευάζοντας οὐ χαλεπῶς ἄν
τις ἀποκρούσαιτο ταῦτα εἰπών· πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄτοπον 10
ἦν, εἰ ‹ὁ› τοσαύτης δόξης ἠξιωμένος ἀνὴρ ὅσης οὐδεὶς τῶν
πρότερον ὀνομασθέντων ἐπὶ δεινότητι λόγων, ἔργα συνταττόμενος
αἰώνια καὶ διδοὺς ἑαυτὸν ὑπεύθυνον τῷ πάντα βασανίζοντι
φθόνῳ καὶ χρόνῳ ἐβουλήθη μηδὲν εἰκῇ μήτε πρᾶγμα παραλαμβάνειν
μήτ’ ὄνομα, πολλὴν δ’ ἀμφοῖν ἔχειν τούτων 15
πρόνοιαν τῆς τε ἐν τοῖς νοήμασιν οἰκονομίας καὶ τῆς εὐμορφίας
τῆς περὶ τὰ ὀνόματα, ἄλλως τε καὶ τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων οὐ
γραπτοῖς ἀλλὰ γλυπτοῖς καὶ τορευτοῖς ἐοικότας ἐκφερόντων
λόγους, λέγω δὲ Ἰσοκράτους καὶ Πλάτωνος τῶν σοφιστῶν·
ὁ μὲν γὰρ τὸν πανηγυρικὸν λόγον, ὡς οἱ τὸν ἐλάχιστον 20
χρόνον γράφοντες ἀποφαίνουσιν, ἐν ἔτεσι δέκα συνετάξατο, ὁ
δὲ Πλάτων τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ διαλόγους κτενίζων καὶ βοστρυχίζων
καὶ πάντα τρόπον ἀναπλέκων οὐ διέλειπεν ὀγδοήκοντα
γεγονὼς ἔτη· πᾶσι γὰρ δήπου τοῖς φιλολόγοις γνώριμα τὰ
περὶ τῆς φιλοπονίας τἀνδρὸς ἱστορούμενα τά τε ἄλλα καὶ 25
δὴ καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν δέλτον, ἣν τελευτήσαντος αὐτοῦ λέγουσιν
[265]
that, whenever he was writing his speeches, he would work in metres and rhythms after the fashion of clay-modellers, and would try to fit his clauses into these moulds, shifting the words to and fro, keeping an anxious eye on his longs and shorts, and fretting himself about cases of nouns, moods of verbs, and all the accidents of the parts of speech? So great a man would be a fool indeed were he to stoop to all this niggling and peddling.” If they scoff and jeer in these or similar terms, they may easily be countered by the following reply: First, it is not surprising after all that a man who is held to deserve a greater reputation than any of his predecessors who were distinguished for eloquence was anxious, when composing eternal works and submitting himself to the scrutiny of all-testing envy and time, not to admit either subject or word at random, and to attend carefully to both arrangement of ideas and beauty of words: particularly as the authors of that day were producing discourses which suggested not writing but carving and chasing—those, I mean, of the sophists Isocrates and Plato. For the former spent ten years over the composition of his Panegyric, according to the lowest recorded estimate of the time; while Plato did not cease, when eighty years old, to comb and curl his dialogues and reshape them in every way. Surely every scholar is acquainted with the stories of Plato’s passion for taking pains, especially that of the tablet which they say was found after his
1 ὥσθ’] ὥστ’ ἔστιν M || ὅτε compendio P: ὅταν MV || γράφη MV 4 τὰ μήκη ... ὀνομάτων om. P 8 διδουσα· P 10 ᾱ μὲν P 11 ὁ inseruit Sadaeus (coll. commentario de adm. vi dic. in Dem. c. 51) 13 διδοῦσ(ιν) P || ἑαυτὸν EM: αὐτὸν PV 14 φθόνω καὶ χρόνω PMV: χρόνῳ E || ἠβουλήθη E: om. PMV || εἰκῆι P 20 μὲν γὰρ MV: μέν γε EP 21 ἀποφαίνουσιν, ἐν MV: om. EP || συνετάξαντο V 23 διέλειπεν PM: διέλιπεν EV 24 γνώριμα PV: γνώρισμα E: γνωρίσματα M
4. τὰ μήκη: we cannot (for example) imagine Thucydides as anxiously counting the long syllables that find a place in his striking dictum οὕτως ἀταλαίπωρος τοῖς πολλοῖς ἡ ζήτησις τῆς ἀληθείας (i. 20). But they are there, all the same, and add greatly to the dignity of the utterance.
6. ἠλίθιος: a slight word-play on ἄθλιος in 262 23 supra may be intended.
14. φθόνῳ καὶ χρόνῳ: the word-play might be represented in English by some such rendering as “submitting himself to the revision of those scrutineers of all immortality, the tooth of envy and the tooth of time,” or (simply) “envious tongues and envious time.” To such jingles Dionysius shows himself partial in the C.V. (cp. note on 64 11 supra). It may be that, in his essay on Demosthenes, he omits the words φθόνῳ καί deliberately and on the grounds of taste; but the later version differs so greatly from the earlier that not much significance can be attached to slight variations of this kind.
18. γραπτοῖς, ‘mere mechanical writing,’ ‘scratching,’ ‘scribbling.’
21. For this period of ten years cp. Long. de Sublim. iv. 2, and also Quintil. x. 4. 4. Quintilian writes: “temporis quoque esse debet modus. nam quod Cinnae Smyrnam novem annis accepimus scriptam, et Panegyricum Isokratis, qui parcissime, decem annis dicunt elaboratum, ad oratorem nihil pertinet, cuius nullum erit, si tam tardum fuerit, auxilium.” In using the words “qui parcissime” Quintilian may have had the present passage of the C.V. in mind.
26. δέλτον, ‘tablet’: originally so called because of its delta-like, or triangular, shape.
εὑρεθῆναι ποικίλως μετακειμένην τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς Πολιτείας
ἔχουσαν τήνδε “Κατέβην χθὲς εἰς Πειραιᾶ μετὰ Γλαύκωνος
τοῦ Ἀρίστωνος.” τί οὖν ἦν ἄτοπον, εἰ καὶ Δημοσθένει
φροντὶς εὐφωνίας τε καὶ ἐμμελείας ἐγένετο καὶ τοῦ μηδὲν
εἰκῇ καὶ ἀβασανίστως τιθέναι μήτε ὄνομα μήτε νόημα; πολύ 5
τε γὰρ μᾶλλον ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ προσήκειν ἀνδρὶ κατασκευάζοντι
λόγους πολιτικοὺς μνημεῖα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεως αἰώνια μηδενὸς
τῶν ἐλαχίστων ὀλιγωρεῖν, ἢ ζῳγράφων τε καὶ τορευτῶν
παισὶν ἐν ὕλῃ φθαρτῇ χειρῶν εὐστοχίας καὶ πόνους ἀποδεικνυμένοις
περὶ τὰ φλέβια καὶ τὰ πτίλα καὶ τὸν χνοῦν καὶ 10
τὰς τοιαύτας μικρολογίας κατατρίβειν τῆς τέχνης τὴν ἀκρίβειαν.
τούτοις τε δὴ τοῖς λόγοις χρώμενος δοκεῖ μοί τις ἂν οὐδὲν
ἔξω τοῦ εἰκότος ἀξιοῦν καὶ ἔτι ἐκεῖνα εἰπών, ὅτι μειράκιον
μὲν ὄντα καὶ νεωστὶ τοῦ μαθήματος ἁπτόμενον αὐτὸν οὐκ
ἄλογον πάντα περισκοπεῖν, ὅσα δυνατὰ ἦν εἰς ἐπιτήδευσιν 15
[267]
death, with the beginning of the Republic (“I went down yesterday to the Piraeus together with Glaucon the son of Ariston”[193]) arranged in elaborately varying orders. What wonder, then, if Demosthenes also was careful to secure euphony and melody and to employ no random or untested word or thought? For it appears to me far more reasonable for a man who is composing public speeches, eternal memorials of his own powers, to attend even to the slightest details, than it is for the disciples of painters and workers in relief, who display the dexterity and industry of their hands in a perishable medium, to expend the finished resources of their art on veins and down and bloom and similar minutiae.
These arguments seem to me to make no unreasonable claim; and we may further add that though when Demosthenes was a lad, and had but recently taken up the study of rhetoric, he naturally had to ask himself consciously what the effects attainable
3 Ἀρίστωνος] κεφάλου P 4 εὐμελείας M1 5 εἰκῆι P || νόημα Schaeferus (dittographiam suspicatus et coll. 264 16, 66 5): μήτ’ (μήτε V) ἐννόημα MV: om. P 9 ἀποδεικνομένοις Us.: ὑποδεικνυμένοις libri 10 φλέβια PMV: φλεβία E 12 τούτοις τε PM: τούτοις V || τις ἂν PM: τις V
2. Demetrius (de Eloc. § 21) calls attention to the studied ease and intentional laxity of the opening period of the Republic: “The period of dialogue is one which remains lax, and is also simpler than the historical. It scarcely betrays the fact that it is a period. For instance: ‘I went down to the Piraeus,’ as far as the words ‘since they were now celebrating it for the first time.’ Here the clauses are flung one upon the other as in the disjointed style, and when we reach the end we hardly realize that the words form a period” (see also § 205 ibid.). In the passage of Dionysius it may well be meant that the words whose order was changed by Plato were not merely κατέβην ... Ἀρίστωνος, but the sentence, or sentences, which these introduce. (Usener suggests that P’s reading Κεφάλου points to a longer quotation than that actually found in existing manuscripts; and Persius’ Arma virum, and Cicero’s O Tite, i.e. the De Senectute, may be recalled.) Quintilian, however, seems to think that the first four words only, or chiefly, are meant: though the possible permutations of these are few and would hardly need to be written down. He says (Inst. Or. viii. 6. 64): “nec aliud potest sermonem facere numerosum quam opportuna ordinis permutatio; neque alio ceris Platonis inventa sunt quattuor illa verba, quibus in illo pulcherrimo operum in Piraeeum se descendisse significat, plurimis modis scripta, quam quod eum quoque maxime facere experiretur.” Diog. Laert. iii. 37 makes a more general statement: Εὐφορίων δὲ καὶ Παναίτιος εἰρήκασι πολλάκις ἐστραμμένην εὑρῆσθαι τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς Πολιτείας. But be the words few or many, the main point is that trouble of this kind was reckoned an artistic (and even a patriotic) duty. Upton has stated the case well, in reference to Cicero’s anxiety to express the words ‘to the Piraeus’ in good Latin: “Quod si Platonis haec industria quibusdam curiosa nimis et sollicita videtur, ut quae nec aetati tanti viri, nec officio congruat: quid Cicero itidem fecerit, quantum latinitatis curam gravissimis etiam reipublicae negotiis districtus habuerit, in memoriam revocent. is annum iam agens sexagesimum, inter medios civilium bellorum tumultus, qui a Caesare Pompeioque excitarentur, cum nesciret, quo mittenda esset uxor, quo liberi; quem ad locum se reciperet, missis ad Atticum litteris [ad Att. vii. 3], ab eo doceri, an esset scribendum, ad Piraeea, in Piraeea, an in Piraeum, an Piraeum sine praepositione, impensius rogabat. quae res etsi levior, et grammaticis propria, patrem eloquentiae temporibus etiam periculosissimis adeo exercuit, ut haec verba, quae amicum exstimularent, addiderit: Si hoc mihi ζήτημα persolveris, magna me molestia liberaris.” Nor was Julius Caesar less scrupulous in such matters than Cicero himself: their styles, different as they are, agree in exhibiting the fastidiousness of literary artists. Compare the modern instances mentioned in Long. p. 33, to which may be added that of Luther as described by Spalding: “non dubito narrare in Bibliotheca nostrae urbis regia servari chirographum Martini Lutheri, herois nostri, in quo exstat initium versionis Psalmorum mirifice et ipsum immutatum et subterlitum, ad conciliandos orationi, quamquam salutae, numeros.” See also Byron’s Letters (ed. Prothero) Nos. 247-255 and passim, and Antoine Albalat’s Le Travail du style enseigné par les corrections manuscrites des grands écrivains, passim.
8. τῶν ἐλαχίστων: an interesting addition is made in the de Demosth. c. 51 πολιτικὸς δ’ ἄρα δημιουργός, πάντας ὑπεράρας τοὺς καθ’ αὑτὸν φύσει τε καὶ πόνῳ, τῶν ἐλαχίστων τινὸς εἰς τὸ εὖ λέγειν, εἰ δὴ καὶ ταῦτα ἐλάχιστα, ὠλιγώρησε.
9. ἐνδεικνυμένοις may perhaps be suggested in place of ἀποδεικνυμένοις: cp. de Demosth. c. 51 οὐ γὰρ δή τοι πλάσται μὲν καὶ γραφεῖς ἐν ὕλῃ φθαρτῇ χειρῶν εὐστοχίας ἐνδεικνύμενοι τοσούτους εἰσφέρονται πόνους, ὥστε κτλ. If, on the other hand, ὑποδεικνυμένοις be retained, we may perhaps translate ‘pupils who have exercises in manual dexterity, and studies of veins, etc., given them to copy (cp. ὑπόδειγμα).’—With χειρῶν εὐστοχίας cp. χερὸς εὐστοχίαν (‘well-aimed shafts’) in Eurip. Troad. 811.
10. τὸν χνοῦν: cp. Hor. Ars P. 32 “Aemilium circa ludum faber imus et ungues | exprimet et molles imitabitur aere capillos, | infelix operis summa, quia ponere totum | nesciet.” χνοῦς is the ‘lanugo plumea.’ Cp. de Demosth. c. 38 χνοῦς ἀρχαιοπινής.
11. κατατρίβειν κτλ. = κατατήκειν εἰς ταῦτα τὰς τέχνας, de Demosth. c. 51.
15. After ἄλογον, ἦν may be inserted with Sauppe, who compares de Demosth. c. 52 ὅτι μειράκιον μὲν ἔτι ὄντα καὶ νεωστὶ τοῦ μαθήματος ἁπτόμενον αὐτὸν οὐκ ἄλογον ἦν καὶ ταῦτα καὶ τἆλλα πάντα διὰ πολλῆς ἐπιμελείας τε καὶ φροντίδος ἔχειν. But the verb may have been omitted in the C.V. in order to avoid its repetition with ὅσα δυνατὰ ἦν.
ἀνθρωπίνην πεσεῖν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἡ χρόνιος ἄσκησις ἰσχὺν
πολλὴν λαβοῦσα τύπους τινὰς ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ παντὸς τοῦ
μελετωμένου καὶ σφραγῖδας ἐνεποίησεν, ἐκ τοῦ ῥᾴστου τε
καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἕξεως αὐτὰ ἤδη ποιεῖν. οἷόν τι γίνεται κἀν
ταῖς ἄλλαις τέχναις, ὧν ἐνέργειά τις ἢ ποίησις τὸ τέλος· 5
αὐτίκα οἱ κιθαρίζειν τε καὶ ψάλλειν καὶ αὐλεῖν ἄκρως εἰδότες
ὅταν κρούσεως ἀκούσωσιν ἀσυνήθους, οὐ πολλὰ πραγματευθέντες
ἀπαριθμοῦσιν αὐτὴν εὐθὺς ἐπὶ τῶν ὀργάνων ἅμα
νοήσει· μανθάνοντες δέ γε χρόνῳ τε πολλῷ καὶ πόνῳ τὰς
δυνάμεις τῶν φθόγγων ἀναλαμβάνουσιν, καὶ οὐκ εὐθὺς αἱ 10
χεῖρες αὐτῶν ἐν ἕξει τοῦ δρᾶν τὰ παραγγελλόμενα ἦσαν, ὀψὲ
δέ ποτε καὶ ὅτε ἡ πολλὴ ἄσκησις αὐταῖς εἰς φύσεως ἰσχὺν
κατέστησε τὸ ἔθος, τότε τῶν ἔργων ἐγένοντο ἐπιτυχεῖς. καὶ
τί δεῖ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων λέγειν; ὃ γὰρ ἅπαντες ἴσμεν, ἀπόχρη
καὶ πᾶσαν αὐτῶν διακόψαι τὴν φλυαρίαν. τί δ’ ἐστὶ τοῦτο; 15
τὰ γράμματα ὅταν παιδευώμεθα, πρῶτον μὲν τὰ ὀνόματα
αὐτῶν ἐκμανθάνομεν, ἔπειτα τοὺς τύπους καὶ τὰς δυνάμεις,
εἶθ’ οὕτω τὰς συλλαβὰς καὶ τὰ ἐν ταύταις πάθη, καὶ μετὰ
τοῦτο ἤδη τὰς λέξεις καὶ τὰ συμβεβηκότα αὐταῖς, ἐκτάσεις
τε λέγω καὶ συστολὰς καὶ προσῳδίας καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια 20
τούτοις· ὅταν δὲ τὴν τούτων ἐπιστήμην λάβωμεν, τότε
ἀρχόμεθα γράφειν τε καὶ ἀναγινώσκειν, κατὰ συλλαβὴν
‹μὲν› καὶ βραδέως τὸ πρῶτον· ἐπειδὰν δὲ ὁ χρόνος ἀξιόλογος
προσελθὼν τύπους ἰσχυροὺς αὐτῶν ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς
ἡμῶν ἐμποιήσῃ, τότε ἀπὸ τοῦ ῥᾴστου δρῶμεν αὐτὰ καὶ πᾶν 25
ὅ τι ἂν ἐπιδῷ τις βιβλίον ἀπταίστως διερχόμεθα ἕξει τε
καὶ τάχει ἀπίστῳ. τοιοῦτο δὴ καὶ περὶ τὴν σύνθεσιν τῶν
ὀνομάτων καὶ περὶ τὴν εὐέπειαν τῶν κώλων ὑποληπτέον
γίνεσθαι παρὰ τοῖς ἀθληταῖς τοῦ ἔργου. τοὺς δὲ τούτου
[269]
by human skill were, yet when long training had issued in perfect mastery, and had graven on his mind forms and impressions of all that he had practised, he henceforth produced his effects with the utmost ease from sheer force of habit. Something similar occurs in the other arts whose end is activity or production. For example, when accomplished players on the lyre, the harp, or the flute hear an unfamiliar tune, they no sooner grasp it than with little trouble they run over it on the instrument themselves. They have mastered the values of the notes after much toiling and moiling, and so can reproduce them. Their hands were not at the outset in condition to do what was bidden them; they attained command of this accomplishment only after much time, when ample training had converted custom into second nature.
Why pursue the subject? A fact familiar to all of us is enough to silence these quibblers. What may this be? When we are taught to read, first we learn off the names of the letters, then their forms and their values, then in due course syllables and their modifications, and finally words and their properties, viz. lengthenings and shortenings, accents, and the like. After acquiring the knowledge of these things, we begin to write and read, syllable by syllable and slowly at first. And when the lapse of a considerable time has implanted the forms of words firmly in our minds, then we deal with them without the least difficulty, and whenever any book is placed in our hands we go through it without stumbling, and with incredible facility and speed. We must suppose that something of this kind happens in the case of the trained exponent of the literary profession as regards the arrangement of words and the euphony of clauses. And it is not unnatural that those who
1 πεσεῖν EP: ἐλθεῖν MV 3 σφαγίδας P: σφραγίδας V 4 ᾔδει ποιεῖν E 8 ἅμα Us.: ἀλλὰ PMV1: ἀλλὰ καὶ V2 21 δὲ EM: τε PV 23 μὲν inseruit Sadaeus coll. comment. de Demosth. c. 52 || ἐπειδὰν E: ἐπεὶ PV: ἔπειτα M 25 ποιήση EM1: ποιήσει PM2V 27 τοιοῦτο EM: τοιούτω P: τοιοῦτον V 29 τοὺς ... ἀπείρους E: τοῖς ... ἀπείροις PMV
3. ἐκ τοῦ ῥᾴστου: cp. ἀπὸ τοῦ ῥᾴστου l. 25 infra.
5. Dionysius is thinking of Aristot. Eth. Nic. i. 1 διαφορὰ δέ τις φαίνεται τῶν τελῶν· τὰ μὲν γάρ εἰσιν ἐνέργειαι, τὰ δὲ παρ’ αὐτὰς ἔργα τινά. ὧν δ’ εἰσὶ τέλη τινὰ παρὰ τὰς πράξεις, ἐν τούτοις βελτίω πέφυκε τῶν ἐνεργείων τὰ ἔργα.
8. If ἀλλὰ νοήσει be retained, the meaning will be ‘not with much trouble, but by means of their acquired skill.’ But ἅμα νοήσει derives support from the parallel passages in de Demosth. c. 52 ἅμα νοήσει [νοήσει Sylburg, for the manuscript reading νοήσεις] and ὥστε ἅμα νοήσει κεκριμένον τε καὶ ἄπταιστον αὐτῆς εἶναι τὸ ἔργον.
16. Referring to this description in the Cambridge Companion to Greek Studies p. 507, the late Dr. A. S. Wilkins remarks: “Some have supposed that Dionysius here describes the method of acquiring the power of reading, not by learning the names of the letters first, but by learning their powers, so combining them at once into syllables. But this is hardly consistent with his language, and is directly contradicted by a passage in Athenaeus, which tells how there was a kind of chant used in schools:—βῆτα ἄλφα βα, βῆτα εἶ βε, etc. A terracotta plate found in Attica, doubtless intended for use in schools, contains a number of syllables αρ βαρ γαρ δαρ ερ βερ γερ δερ κτλ.”
26. ἀπταίστως: Usener reads ἀπταίστῳ. But the adverb goes better with διερχόμεθα than the adjective would with ἕξει τε καὶ τάχει. Cp. de Demosth. c. 51 (the later version of the present passage) ἀπταίστως τε καὶ κατὰ πολλὴν εὐπέτειαν, and Plato Theaet. 144 B ὁ δὲ οὕτω λείως τε καὶ ἀπταίστως καὶ ἀνυσίμως ἔρχεται ἐπὶ τὰς μαθήσεις τε καὶ ζητήσεις μετὰ πολλῆς πρᾳότητος, οἷον ἐλαίου ῥεῦμα ἀψοφητὶ ῥέοντος (these last words are echoed in the de Demosth. c. 20).
29. ἀθληταῖς: cp. de Demosth. c. 18 καίτοι γε τοῖς ἀθληταῖς τῆς ἀληθινῆς λέξεως ἰσχυρὰς τὰς ἁφὰς προσεῖναι δεῖ καὶ ἀφύκτους τὰς λαβάς, and de Isocr. c. 11 fin.; also δεινοὺς ἀγωνιστάς 282 3 infra.
ἀπείρους ἢ ἀτριβεῖς ἔργου ὁτουοῦν θαυμάζειν καὶ ἀπιστεῖν,
εἴ τι κεκρατημένως ὑφ’ ἑτέρου γίνεται διὰ τέχνης, οὐκ ἄλογον.
πρὸς μὲν οὖν τοὺς εἰωθότας χλευάζειν τὰ παραγγέλματα τῶν
τεχνῶν ταῦτα εἰρήσθω.
