Readers of the de Compositione cannot fail to notice that, catholic as he is in his literary tastes, Dionysius reserves his highest admiration for two authors,—Homer in poetry and Demosthenes in prose; and that he seems to regard them as equally valid authorities for the immediate purpose which he has in view. Homer is quoted throughout the treatise, on the first page and on the last; and Demosthenes inspires (in c. 25) its most eloquent passage. That outburst is a triumphant vindication of Demosthenes’ methods as a sedulous artist. Dionysius sees that he is one of those men who spare no pains over the art they love—that Demosthenes, like Homer, φιλοτεχνεῖ ([200] 18; cp. [154] 20).
In seeming thus to draw no very clear line between verse and prose, Dionysius is at one with most of the Greek and Roman critics; and this attitude is readily intelligible in the light of the historical development of Greek literature, in which Homer (who was a master of oratory[48] as well as of poetry) heralds the intellectual life of all Greece, while Demosthenes is the last great voice of free Athens. But the approximations of prose to poetry, and of poetry to prose, which Dionysius describes in his twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth chapters should not create the impression that, in his opinion, the prose-writer was free to borrow any and every weapon from the armoury of the poet. Of one poetical artifice he says, in c. 6, “this principle can be applied freely in poetry, but sparingly in prose”; and elsewhere he calls attention to qualities which he regards as over-poetical in the styles of Thucydides and Plato.[49] Yet he did clearly wish that good prose should borrow as much as possible from poetry, while still remaining good prose. And although he agrees, in general, with Aristotle’s exposition of the formal differences between prose and poetry, he does not adhere quite firmly to the Aristotelian principles.[50]
In the Rhetoric, Aristotle insists that the styles of poetry and prose are distinct. The difference is this: “prose should have rhythm but not metre, or it will be poetry. The rhythm, however, should not be of too marked a character: it should not pass beyond a certain point.”[51] In the same way, Dionysius (C.V. c. 25) declares that prose must not be manifestly metrical or rhythmical, lest it should desert its own specific character. It should simply appear to be the one and the other, so that it may be poetical although not a poem, and lyrical although not a lyric. But, in practice, Dionysius is found to cast longing eyes upon the formal advantages which poetry possesses, and to wish to infuse into public speeches a definite metrical element, which seems alien to the genius of prose, and which would have failed to gain the sanction of Aristotle, though this appears to be claimed for it.[52] It is not here a question of the ordinary methods of imparting force and variety to word-arrangement. In regard to these, Dionysius’ precepts are, in general, sound and helpful enough; and if, now and then, the process is extolled in what may seem extravagant terms, we have only to think of the vast difference which slight variations of word-order will make even in our modern analytical languages. For example:
Cut is the branch that might have grown full straight.
Marlowe Doctor Faustus.
Killed with report that old man eloquent.
Milton Sonnets.
Schön war ich auch, und das war mein Verderben.
Goethe Faust.