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.