4. μιμητικά: cp. Aristot. Poet. c. iv. τό τε γὰρ μιμεῖσθαι σύμφυτον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐκ παίδων ἐστί (καὶ τούτῳ διαφέρουσι τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ὅτι μιμητικώτατόν ἐστι καὶ τὰς μαθήσεις ποιεῖται διὰ μιμήσεως τὰς πρώτας), καὶ τὸ χαίρειν τοῖς μιμήμασι πάντας.
6. For the repeated r sound cp. the passage of the Aeneid (i. 108) which begins “talia iactanti stridens Aquilone procella,” and schol. on Odyss. v. 402 τῶν δὲ πεποιημένων ἡ λέξις (sc. ῥόχθει)· τραχὺ γὰρ τὸ ρ, τὸ θ, τὸ χ.
8. Cp. schol. ad Il. ii. 210 συμφυῶς τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ τετράχυνται τὸ ἔπος ταῖς ὀνοματοποιΐαις.—In this line F’s reading μεγάλα accords with a conjecture of Bentley’s.
9. Cp. Virg. Aen. v. 437 “stat gravis Entellus nisuque immotus eodem | corpore tela modo atque oculis vigilantibus exit.”
11. Not all languages, however, have the same powers in this direction: cp. Quintil. i. 5. 72 “sed minime nobis concessa est ὀνοματοποιΐα; quis enim ferat, si quid simile illis merito laudatis λίγξε βιός et σίζε ὀφθαλμός fingere audeamus? Iam ne balare quidem aut hinnire fortiter diceremus, nisi iudicio vetustatis niterentur” (Quintilian has just before, §§ 67 and 70, referred to Pacuvius’ repandirostrum and incurvicervicum: which may be compared with Ἑρμοκαϊκόξανθος, Aristot. Poet. c. 21); and viii. 6. 31 “ὀνοματοποιΐα quidem, id est fictio nominis, Graecis inter maxima habita virtutes, nobis vix permittitur ... vix illa, quae πεποιημένα vocant, quae ex vocibus in usum receptis quocunque modo declinantur, nobis permittimus, qualia sunt Sullaturit et proscripturit.” Greek, English and German admit onomatopoeia more readily than Latin and French. Any undue restriction (such as that indicated by Quintilian when defining πεποιημένα) hampers the life of a language. Words should serve their apprenticeship, no doubt; but there should be no lack of probationers. We feel that the language itself is growing when Cicero uses ‘dulcescit’ of the growing and ripening grape, or when Erasmus uses the same word to indicate that England ‘grew’ upon him the more he knew it.—For the general question of the right of coining new words or reviving disused words see Demetr. pp. 255, 297, 298 (and cp. §§ 94, 220 ibid.). Many of Dionysius’ remarks, here and elsewhere, seem to concern the choice or the manufacture of words rather than their arrangement; but, from the nature of the case, he clearly finds it hard to draw a strict dividing-line either in this direction or in regard to the entire λεκτικὸς τόπος as distinguished from the πραγματικὸς τόπος.
13. In giving the singular, P seems clearly right here, and as clearly wrong when giving the plural in [156] 19.
βρόμον καὶ πάταγον ἀνέμων καὶ συριγμὸν κάλων καὶ ἄλλα
τούτοις ὅμοια παμπληθῆ τὰ μὲν φωνῆς μιμήματα, τὰ δὲ
μορφῆς, τὰ δὲ ἔργου, τὰ δὲ πάθους, τὰ δὲ κινήσεως, τὰ δ’
ἠρεμίας, τὰ δ’ ἄλλου χρήματος ὅτου δήποτε· περὶ ὧν εἴρηται
πολλὰ τοῖς πρὸ ἡμῶν, τὰ κράτιστα δ’ ὡς πρώτῳ τὸν ὑπὲρ 5
ἐτυμολογίας εἰσαγαγόντι λόγον, Πλάτωνι τῷ Σωκρατικῷ, πολλαχῇ
μὲν καὶ ἄλλῃ μάλιστα δ’ ἐν τῷ Κρατύλῳ.
τί δὴ τὸ κεφάλαιόν ἐστί μοι τούτου τοῦ λόγου; ὅτι
παρὰ μὲν τὰς τῶν γραμμάτων συμπλοκὰς ἡ τῶν συλλαβῶν
γίνεται δύναμις ποικίλη, παρὰ δὲ τὴν τῶν συλλαβῶν σύνθεσιν 10
ἡ τῶν ὀνομάτων φύσις παντοδαπή, παρὰ δὲ τὰς τῶν ὀνομάτων
ἁρμονίας πολύμορφος ὁ λόγος· ὥστε πολλὴ ἀνάγκη καλὴν
μὲν εἶναι λέξιν ἐν ᾗ καλά ἐστιν ὀνόματα, κάλλους δὲ ὀνομάτων
συλλαβάς τε καὶ γράμματα καλὰ αἴτια εἶναι, ἡδεῖαν δὲ διάλεκτον
ἐκ τῶν ἡδυνόντων τὴν ἀκοὴν γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὸ παραπλήσιον 15
ὀνομάτων τε καὶ συλλαβῶν καὶ γραμμάτων, τάς τε
κατὰ μέρος ἐν τούτοις διαφοράς, καθ’ ἃς δηλοῦται τά τε ἤθη
καὶ τὰ πάθη καὶ αἱ διαθέσεις καὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν προσώπων
καὶ τὰ συνεδρεύοντα τούτοις, ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης κατασκευῆς τῶν
γραμμάτων γίνεσθαι τοιαύτας. 20
χρήσομαι δ’ ὀλίγοις παραδείγμασι τοῦ λόγου τοῦδε τῆς
σαφηνείας ἕνεκα· τὰ γὰρ ἄλλα πολλὰ ὄντα ἐπὶ σαυτοῦ συμβαλλόμενος
εὑρήσεις. ὁ δὴ πολυφωνότατος ἁπάντων τῶν