[71] The more recent writers on rhetoric (οἱ νέοι τεχνογράφοι, de Isaeo c. 14) would not greatly appeal to Dionysius.
[72] Cp. [254] 23, [256] 3, [164] 22, [138] 6.
[73] The quotations from Aristotle and other writers in the Notes will serve to indicate roughly the obligations of Dionysius to his predecessors.
[74] Among the shorter fragments preserved by him are one of Bacchylides (in c. 25), and another from the Telephus of Euripides (in c. 26). Two lines of the Danaë are, it should in strict accuracy be stated, quoted as follows by Athenaeus ix. 396 E:—
ὦ τέκος, οἷον ἔχω πόνον·
σὺ δ’ ἀωτεῖς, γαλαθηνῷ δ’ ἤτορι κνώσσεις.
[75] de C.V. [214] 7. There is, perhaps, room for a book or dissertation on Quotation in Classical Antiquity: with reference to such points as the citation or non-citation of authorities, the employment of literary illustrations, the poetical quotations in the Orators or in the Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία or in the Poets themselves; and so forth. On the question of verbal fidelity, something is said in the present editor’s brief article on ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus as an authority for the Text of Thucydides’ (Classical Review xiv. 244-246); and such quotations as that from Odyss. xvi. 1-16 in c. 3 of the present treatise might be critically examined from the same point of view. A similar study of Translation in Classical Antiquity would also be a useful piece of work.
[76] de C.V. [94] 4. Of Phylarchus as a historian Polybius himself gives an unflattering account.
[77] S. H. Butcher Harvard Lectures on Greek Subjects p. 114. Cp. J. L. Strachan Davidson in Hellenica pp. 414, 416: “The Nemesis of his contempt for the form and style of his writing has come on Polybius in the neglect which he has experienced at the hands of the modern world.... He has not the genius, and will not take the trouble to acquire the trained sensitiveness of art which might have supplied its place; and thus his writing has no distinction and no charm, and we miss in reading him what gives half their value to great writers—the consciousness that we are in the hands of a master.” But, on the other hand, see J. B. Bury’s Ancient Greek Historians, e.g. pp. 196, 218, 220.
[78] Cicero (Or. 63. 212) says, with reference to the various ways of ending the period, “e quibus unum est secuta Asia maxime, qui dichoreus vocatur, cum duo extremi chorei sunt.” And Quintilian (ix. 4. 103) “claudet et dichoreus, id est idem pes sibi ipse iungetur, quo Asiani usi plurimum; cuius exemplum Cicero ponit: Patris dictum sapiens temeritas fili comprobavit.” The dichoree is condemned also in the de Sublim. c. 41 μικροποιοῦν δ’ οὐδὲν οὕτως ἐν τοῖς ὑψηλοῖς, ὡς ῥυθμὸς κεκλασμένος λόγων καὶ σεσοβημένος, οἷον δὴ πυρρίχιοι καὶ τροχαῖοι καὶ διχόρειοι, τέλεον εἰς ὀρχηστικὸν συνεκπίπτοντες ... ὡς ἐνίοτε προειδότας τὰς ὀφειλομένας καταλήξεις αὐτοὺς ὑποκρούειν τοῖς λέγουσι καὶ φθάνοντας ὡς ἐν χορῷ τινι προαποδιδόναι τὴν βάσιν. It is the constant recurrence of the same feet that is to be deprecated (cp. Aristot. Rhet. iii. 8. 1, and Theon. Progymn. in Walz Rhet. Gr. i. 169); a single dichoree would not be avoided even by Dionysius himself, e.g. νοῦν ἐχόντων ([192] 5). Cicero’s appreciation of Carbo’s patris dictum sapiens temeritas fili comprobavit may be instructively compared with Dionysius’ attitude towards the general question of good and bad rhythms. They both seem to allow too little for other considerations; one of them approves, and the other disapproves, the final dichoree; and both agree in the main point, that there should be plenty of variety: “hoc dichoreo (sc. comprobavit) tantus clamor contionis excitatus est, ut admirabile esset. quaero nonne id numerus effecerit? verborum ordinem immuta, fac sic: ‘comprobavit fili temeritas,’ iam nihil erit, etsi ‘temeritas’ ex tribus brevibus et longa est, quam Aristoteles ut optimum probat, a quo dissentio. ‘at eadem verba, eadem sententia.’ animo istuc satis est, auribus non satis. sed id crebrius fieri non oportet; primum enim numerus agnoscitur, deinde satiat, postea cognita facilitate contemnitur” (Cic. Orat. 63. 214). Hegesias’ lack of ear seems, further, to be shown in the awkward accumulation of disyllables; e.g. διὰ τῶν ποδῶν χαλκοῦν ψάλιον διείραντας ἕλκειν κύκλῳ γυμνόν ([188] 17), and τρόπῳ σκαιὸν ἐχθρόν ([190] 5). Cp. [132] 3 μήτ’ ὀλιγοσύλλαβα πολλὰ ἑξῆς λαμβάνοντα.
[79] Modern parallels are dangerous, but the detractors of Macaulay might be disposed to compare his short detached sentences (so different from the elaborate periods of some earlier English prose-writers) with those of Hegesias.