For Dionysius in relation to contemporary Romans, and to the struggle between Asianism and Atticism, reference may be made to Dionysius of Halicarnassus: the Three Literary Letters p-49.
G. Manuscripts and Text
The chief authorities for the text of the de Compositione are indicated in the following list of abbreviations employed in the apparatus criticus of the present edition: —
Siglorum in notulis criticis adhibitorum Index
F = cod. Florentinus Laurentianus lix. 15. saec. xii.
P = cod. Parisinus bibl. nat. 1741. saec. xi. (x.).
M = cod. Venetus Marcianus 508. saec. xv.
V = cod. Vergetii Parisiensis bibl. nat. 1798. saec. xvi.
E = Διονυσίου Ἁλικαρνασέως τοῦ περὶ Συνθέσεως Ὀνομάτων Ἐπιτομή. saec. inc.
R = Rhetor Graecus (Scholiasta Hermogenis περὶ ἰδεῶν, i. 6). saec. inc.
a = editio princeps Aldi Manutii (Aldi Manutii Rhetores Graeci, tom. i.), Venetiis. 1508.
s = editio Roberti Stephani, Lutetiae. 1547.
r = exemplum Reiskianum, Lipsiae. 1775.
Us = exemplum ab Usenero et Radermachero Lipsiae nuper editum.
The Florentine manuscript (F) contains, besides certain writings of other authors, the following works of Dionysius: (1) the essays on Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, and Dinarchus: and (2) the de Compositione Verborum (as far as the words πειρατέον δὴ καὶ περὶ τούτων λέγειν ἃ φρονῶ in c. 25). The Paris manuscript 1741 (P) is the famous codex which contains not only the de Comp. Verb., but also Aristotle’s Rhetoric and Poetics, Demetrius de Elocutione, Dionysius Halic. Ep. ad Amm. II., De Vet. Scr., etc. Some notes upon the manuscript are given in Demetrius on Style p-11; and the editor has examined it once more at Paris for the purposes of the present recension. The remaining manuscripts are considerably later than F and P. M belongs to the fifteenth century, and V was copied by the Cretan calligrapher Ange Vergèce (as he was called in France) in the sixteenth century. The edition of Robert Stephens is based upon V. In the Journal of Philology xxvii. p ff., there is a careful collation, by A. B. Poynton, of “Some Readings of MS. Canonici 45” (C: sixteenth century) in the Bodleian Library, with regard to which the collator says: “Despite the care with which the work is done, the manuscript is not of much value as a presentation of the Florentine tradition, since F exists and the writer of C is rather a διασκευαστής than a copyist. The interest of the manuscript is antiquarian and bibliographical.... It is a copy made at some time in the sixteenth century, probably after 1560. It is based on the Florentine MS. with variae lectiones and marginal notes. It has not the appearance of being a mechanical copy: rather it seems to be the work of a scholar who was conversant with the MSS. of the treatise and, while he was aware of the importance of the Florentine MS., saw that in many cases it needed to be corrected.”
The dates of the Epitome and of the Rhetor Graecus are uncertain. But both are early and highly important authorities. The latter quotes c. 14 only of the treatise, but the quotation enabled Usener to show that the text of F agreed in the main with that of the Rhetor and of the Epitome. The result was to enhance greatly the authority of F, with which earlier editors had merely an indirect and imperfect acquaintance. But by a not unnatural reaction against the excessive attention paid to what may be called the P group (PMV: though M and V sometimes coincide with F against P), Usener is inclined too readily to follow F, or even E, when standing alone. Still, while the readings supported only by F, or E, or P should be carefully scrutinized and independently judged, the concurrent testimony of FE and any other MS. is very strong indeed.
Two passages taken almost at a venture (say, the first twenty lines of c. 12 and the last twenty of c. 19) would be enough to show that neither F nor P can be exclusively followed, and that Usener himself is often (more often than is indicated in this edition) driven to desert F, which in fact contains, in these or other places, a large number of impossible or even absurd readings. Where, however, there are genuine instances of various readings (as εὐκαιροτέραις: εὐροωτέραις in the last of the passages just specified), it seems best to follow F (especially when supported by other authorities), even though the hand of an ingenious early scholar may sometimes with reason be suspected.
One reason for accepting with reserve the unsupported testimony of F is that its evidence is sometimes far from sound in regard to quotations from authors whose text is well established from other sources. In the principal quotations from Pindar and Thucydides this defect is not so manifest; and it may even be claimed that its text of the Pindaric dithyramb, and of the Herodotus extract on , is distinguished by many excellent features, though not so many as Usener was at first inclined to claim in the case of the Pindar. But in the extract from the Areopagiticus of Isocrates which is given in c. 23, the text presented by F (as compared with that presented by P) seems to suggest that, in dealing with Dionysius’ own words as well as with his quotations, the transcriber may have felt entitled to make rather free alterations on his own account. In order to provide readers with the means of judging for themselves, the critical apparatus has been made specially full at this point.
Usener’s text of the de Compositione deserves the highest respect: it is the last undertaking of one of the greatest philologists of the nineteenth century, and every succeeding editor must find himself deep in its debt. Its record of readings is full to exhaustiveness. In the present edition less wealth of detail is attempted (especially in regard to F and R), though all really important and typical variations have, it is hoped, been duly registered, and particular attention has been paid to the minute collation of P. But apart from the correction of misprints (as on p 13, 132 23, 250 7), it is hoped that the following among other readings will commend themselves (on an examination of the sections of the Notes or Glossary in which they are defended) as superior to those adopted by Usener (and indicated here in brackets) from conjecture or on manuscript authority: 64 11 (σοὶ omitted), 70 5 (εὖ τί), 78 17 (παλαιαί), 80 13 (παιδικόν), 94 13 (προβαῖεν), 94 16 (σπουδάζεσθαι), 98 20 (οἷά τινα), 106 13 (εὖ ἢ), 132 20 (θηρᾶν), 142 9 (σπανίζει), etc.
H. Recent Writings connected with the de Compositione
A full bibliography, covering not only the de Compositione of Dionysius but his rhetorical and critical works generally, is given in the present editor’s Dionysius of Halicarnassus: the Three Literary Letters (published in January 1901), p-219. The following are (in chronological order) the early editors who have done most to further the study of the de Compositione: Aldus Manutius (editio princeps), Robertus Stephanus, F. Sylburg, J. Upton, J. J. Reiske, G. H. Schaefer, and F. Goeller. Much interest still attaches to C. Batteux’ publication (1788): Traité de l’arrangement des mots: traduit du grec de Denys d’Halicarnasse; avec des réflexions sur la langue française, comparée avec la langue grecque. The translation is too free and based on too poor a text to meet the needs of exact scholarship. But the Réflexions (which accompany the translation, in vol. vi. of the author’s Principes de littérature) are full of suggestive remarks. Another excellent literary study of Dionysius is that of Max. Egger: Denys d’Halicarnasse: essai sur la critique littéraire et la rhétorique chez les Grecs au siècle d’Auguste (Paris, 1902). As its title indicates, this volume takes a wide range; and it reveals that full competence in these matters which it is natural to expect from the son of Émile Egger. A short general account, by Radermacher, of Dionysius’ critical essays will be found in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie vol. v.
The first volume of Usener and Radermacher’s text was included in the bibliographical list mentioned above. In 1904 appeared the second volume, containing the de Compositione and some other critical writings of Dionysius (Dionysii Halicarnasei opuscula ediderunt Hermannus Usener et Ludovicus Radermacher. Voluminis sec. fasc. prior. Lipsiae, 1904). The second volum
e is on a par with the first, which was welcomed, as a notable achievement, in the Classical Review xiv. p-455, where also attention was drawn ( a) to a questionable emendation previously introduced by Usener into the text of the de Imitatione. This emendation is withdrawn in Usener’s second volume — a fact which may be mentioned as one proof among many that his tendency was to grow more conservative and, in particular, more attentive to the testimony of P 1741. The titles of A. B. Poynton’s articles on Dionysius are: “Oxford MSS. of Dionysius Halicarnasseus, De Compositione Verborum” (Journal of Philology xxvii. p-99), and “Oxford MSS. of the Opuscula of Dionysius of Halicarnassus” (Journal of Philology xxviii. p-185). Among other useful subsidia lately published may be mentioned: W. Kroll’s “Randbemerkungen” in Rhein. Mus. lxii. p-101, and Larue van Hook’s Metaphorical Terminology of Greek Rhetoric and Literary Criticism (Chicago, 1905). R. H. Tukey (Classical Review, September 1909, ) makes the interesting suggestion that “the De Compositione belongs chronologically between the two parts of the De Demosthene.” The use of the present tense δηλοῦται, in C.V. 182 8 may be held to countenance this view.
In some recent books of larger scope it is pleasant to notice an increased appreciation of the high value of the work done by Dionysius in the field of literary criticism. Certain of these estimates may be quoted in conclusion. R. C. Jebb, in the Companion to Greek Studies : “The maturity of the ‘Attic revival’ is represented at Rome, in the Augustan age, by the best literary critic of antiquity, Dionysius of Halicarnassus.” A. and M. Croiset Histoire de la littérature grecque v. : “Les uns et les autres [les contemporains et les rhéteurs des âges suivants] appréciaient avec raison l’érudition de Denys, la justesse de son esprit, sa finesse dans le discernement des ressemblances et des différences, la solidité de sa doctrine, son goût dans le choix des exemples. De plus, ils se sentaient touchés, comme nous et plus que nous, par la vivacité de ses admirations, par cette sorte de foi communicative, qui faisait de lui le défenseur des traditions classiques.” Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Die griechische Literatur des Altertums p and 148: “Von unbestreitbar hohem und dauerndem Werte ist die andere Seite der rhetorischen Theorie und Praxis, die sich auf den Ausdruck erstreckt, die Stilistik.... Es ist ein hohes Lob, dass er (Dionysios von Halikarnass) im Grunde dieselbe stilistische Überzeugung vertritt wie Cicero, und wir sind ihm für die Erhaltung von ungemein viel Wichtigem zu Dank verpflichtet; seine Schriften über die attischen Redner und über die Wortfügung sind auch eine nicht nur belehrende, sondern gefällige Lekture.” J. E. Sandys History of Classical Scholarship i. : “In the minute and technical criticism of the art and craft of Greek literature, the works of Dionysius stand alone in all the centuries that elapsed between the Rhetoric of Aristotle and the treatise On the Sublime.” G. Saintsbury History of Criticism i. p, 137, 132: “Dionysius is a very considerable critic, and one to whom justice has not usually, if at all, yet been done.... A critic who saw far, and for the most part truly, into the proper province of literary criticism.... This treatise [sc. the de Compositione], if studied carefully, must raise some astonishment that Dionysius should have been spoken of disrespectfully by anyone who himself possesses competence in criticism. From more points of view than one, the piece gives Dionysius no mean rank as a critic.” S. H. Butcher Harvard Lectures on Greek Subjects p, 239: “Of his fine perception of the harmonies of Greek speech we can entertain no reasonable doubt.... We cannot dismiss his general criticism as unsound or fanciful. The whole history of the evolution of Greek prose, and the practice of the great masters of the art, support his main contention.” With these extracts may be coupled one from the Spectator of March 23, 1901: “In this treatise Dionysius reviews and attempts to explain the art of literature. It is a brilliant effort to analyse the sensuous emotions produced by the harmonious arrangement of beautiful words. Its eternal truth might make it a textbook for to-day.”
In the Notes and Glossary, as in the Introduction, references are usually given to the lines, as well as the pages, of the Greek text here printed: e.g. 80 7 = page 80 line 7 of the De Compositione. — The following abbreviations are used in referring to volumes already issued by the editor: —
D.H. = ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus: the Three Literary Letters.’
Long. = ‘Longinus on the Sublime.’
Demetr. = ‘Demetrius on Style.’
CHAPTER I. OCCASION AND PURPOSE OF THE TREATISE
To you, Rufus Metilius, whose worthy father is my most honoured friend, “I also offer this gift, dear child,” as Helen, in Homer, says while entertaining Telemachus. To-day you are keeping your first birthday after your arrival at man’s estate; and of all feasts this is to me the most welcome and most precious. I am not, however, sending you the work of my own hands (to quote Helen’s words when she offers the robe to her young guest), nor what is fitted only for the season of marriage and “meet to pleasure a bride withal.” No, it is the product and the child of my studies and my brain, and also something for you to keep and use in all the business of life which is effected through speech: an aid most necessary, if my estimate is of any account, to all alike who practise civil oratory, whatever their age and temperament, but especially to youths like you who are just beginning to take up the study.
We may say that in practically all speaking two things must have unremitting attention: the ideas and the words. In the former case, the sphere of subject matter is chiefly concerned; in the latter, that of expression; and all who aim at becoming good speakers give equally earnest attention to both these aspects of discourse. But the science which guides us to selection of matter, and to judgment in handling it, is hampered with difficulties for the young; indeed, for beardless striplings, its difficulties are insurmountable. The perfect grasp of things in all their bearings belongs rather to a matured understanding, and to an age that is disciplined by grey hairs, — an age whose powers are developed by prolonged investigation of discourse and action, and by many experiences of its own and much sharing in the fortunes of others. But the love of literary beauty flourishes naturally in the days of youth as much as in later life. For elegance of expression has a fascination for all young minds, making them feel impulses that are instinctive and akin to inspiration. Young people need, at the beginning, much prudent oversight and guidance, if they are not to utter
What word soe’er may have sprung
To the tip of an ill-timed tongue,
nor to form at random any chance combinations, but to select pure and noble words, and to place them in the beautiful setting of a composition that unites charm to dignity. So in this department, the first in which the young should exercise themselves, “for love’s service I lend you a strain,” in the shape of this treatise on literary composition. The subject has occurred to but few of all the ancients who have composed manuals of rhetoric or dialectic, and by none has it been, to the best of my belief, accurately or adequately treated up to the present time. If I find leisure, I will produce another book for you — one on the choice of words, in order that you may have the subject of expression exhaustively treated. You may expect that treatise next year at the same festive season, the gods guarding us from accident and disease, if it so be that our destiny has reserved for us the secure attainment of this blessing. But now accept the treatise which my good genius has suggested to me.
The chief heads under which I propose to treat the subject are the following: what is the nature of composition, and where its strength lies; what are its aims and how it attains them; what are its principal varieties, what is the distinctive feature of each, and which of them I believe to be the most effective; and still further, what is that poetical element, so pleasant on the tongue and so sweet to the ear, which naturally accompanies composition in prose, and wherein lies the effectiveness of that poetical art which imitates plain prose and succeeds excellently in doing so, and by what method each of those two results may be attained. Such, in broad outline, are the topics with which I intend to deal, and on this programme
my treatise is based.
CHAPTER II. COMPOSITION DEFINED
Composition is, as the very name indicates, a certain arrangement of the parts of speech, or elements of diction, as some call them. These were reckoned as three only by Theodectes and Aristotle and the philosophers of those times, who regarded nouns, verbs and connectives as the primary parts of speech. Their successors, particularly the leaders of the Stoic school, raised the number to four, separating the articles from the connectives. Then the later inquirers divided the appellatives from the substantives, and represented the primary parts of speech as five. Others detached the pronouns from the nouns, and so introduced a sixth element. Others, again, divided the adverbs from the verbs, the prepositions from the connectives and the participles from the appellatives; while others introduced still further subdivisions, and so multiplied the primary parts of speech. The subject would afford scope for quite a long discussion. Enough to say that the combination or juxtaposition of these primary parts, be they three, or four, or whatever may be their number, forms the so-called “members” (or clauses) of a sentence. Further, the fitting together of these clauses constitutes what are termed the “periods,” and these make up the complete discourse. The function of composition is to put words together in an appropriate order, to assign a suitable connexion to clauses, and to distribute the whole discourse properly into periods.
Delphi Complete Works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Illustrated) (Delphi Ancient Classics Book 79) Page 124