The Structure of Dionysii Halicarnas-Sensis Epistula II AD AmmaeumAuthor(s): Winifred WarrenSource: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 20, No. 3 (1899), pp. 316-319Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/287857 .

Accessed: 22/05/2014 13:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheAmerican Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.65 on Thu, 22 May 2014 13:40:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

V.-THE STRUCTURE OF DIONYSII HALICARNAS- SENSIS EPISTULA II AD AMMAEUM.

With the plan and the specifications before one, it ought not to be hard to discern how far the completed work fulfils the contract. Dionysius, in the opening of his second letter to Ammaeus, sets forth so clearly the outline of his work and his method of procedure that discrepancies and omissions in the treatise as preserved to us may be easily detected.

In response to a request of Ammaeus, Dionysius proposes first to repeat what he has previously said about Thucydides, and then to take up each point and adduce in proof examples from the historian. Accordingly, he begins with a passage from the De Thucydide Iudicium, quoted almost without change. He then proceeds to a detailed and systematic exposition of the statements made, and thereafter immediately brings the letter to a close. A careful comparison, therefore, of chapters III-XVII with the preliminary outline in chapter II (a passage fortunately supported by double tradition) should show us whether the treatise has suffered loss or disarrangement.

The theses of chapter II may be disposed as follows:

(a) 7Tt i ev Trsf EKXoyr TWrl' ovopar.cov T por,K1V TpKjV Ka'L y7XoTTr/LaTLKfv K'a

adrnrpXateouvrqv Katl ieYlV XeLv 7rapaXapf3advYv 7roXXaKis aidrt i rr KOLVoS'

Kal crvVtjovS TO S' K avr CVTV aSpC'7OLr, )

(b) Eril 86 rTiv (Xr/LarLar7&yo . .. TOT 70 EV XOyov iE OVO/LUaTOS 7rolCy,

(c) TOTri (e EiL oVOfLa o-vaycoV dov XAoyov

(d) KaL vvJ 1yEV TO p7rlAralK&oV OVOl/arTLK&Cs K)OfpOV,

(e) aivEs ae ToU1vo/Aa pr/1a 7TOUIWV*

(f) Kal avLrv yE TovTrWV 'avacarTpeiVPaW Tas Xp-eGE , t Yva rTO Ev OVO/LaraiK0V

< TrpOcrryopLKOV yevr7raL,

(g) ro ;e 7rpoU(ryopLKov ovo/1arT&LKI>1 XVylrTat,

(h) Ka T y a TEv rarlTLKa pT/aaa apacrrT7pta,

1va rbTO lv ovolzarTcov ieyr7rat PG; iva rTO' iv 36voLarTKO'v pbl7artKov, TOb d

p?i/arltKo bvoyarTiKov 2ey)rat inpudenti interpolatione CD: orationem mancam ex 0 [De Thuc. Iud., c. 24, p. 867 Reisk.] supplendam esse vidit Reiskius.- Usener.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.65 on Thu, 22 May 2014 13:40:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIONYSIUS' SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 317

(i) ra e apaoarrpla 7ra0rTi7Ka'

(j) 7Xr\8VVTLKKav 8e Kat evtLKCv adXXaTT'77 Tr ras VfETts KaL arvTKaTryopaJw TraTa

AcXX?4Xov,

(k) 0t7)vKa T dppevtKoLs Ka dappeviKa O)XVKols Kal ov8fierpa Torotri crvvcarrrTv,

e4 )>v 7) KaTa (f)v('v aKoXovOLa trXavarat

( r) ras (cE <riv> ovofiaTLKSfv q fe7o0XKCV 7 TrTTCe or yOTE v pAEV pob o'ra-

vodLevov adro roOv oa-Taivovro7s drocrpe`ov,

(m) rTOT 8e Crpos 7O 7rlaaTvov airo TOr 0r)jua&voie`vov

(n) fV $ rTOLs0 OVVseTLKOiS Kal TOS 7rpoOer0TKoLs optoLS Ial ErTL /taXov EfV TOiS

&aapOpovfcr raS' Tr&v OVOJdaTcoV hvvdpaiELS rTTO7TTOV TpO76OV eveov'tlaoCov.

(0) 7r\XeirTa '

dv rTs eVpot 7rap' aVTr, rTv (oaX77uarv, 7rpocTrcwov Te a7docrrpo-

(p) Kai xpo'vov EvaXXayais (q) Kal ro7rtKv'1 Er7).LLoaTsoW v ueTraoopaZir E'f1XXaayptva Kac aoXoLKLcriWv

XapfiavovTa Oavraa'ias'

(r) 6rtocra re yIverTa 7rpay1Aara advr a'Oo.LaTrO

(s) 7 aco,/aTa advriL pay/a-Tcov,

(t) Kal egb' v evZra7idraTov TE Kal vorl7aTalrwv aL iueraTv 7rape/LrrTTcOis 7roXXai

ywvofJ?vai i&a flaKpov Tv aKokXovOLav KOfl.tTovraL,

(u) ra TE OKOXLa Kal 7rroXv7rXOKa Kal 8vaffeiXcKTa KaL Tra aXXa Ta cvyyevrW

TOVTOLV.

(V) ivpo 8A' YV 7Tr OVKA oXsya cKal Tr&v OearpLK&v (rXqiadrTo Kefietva trap' aVTr,

hS ras pLrCioreis XEyCo Kal 7rapo/LO&wOre&s Kai lrapovouaa'las Kal adv?Teetirs,

ev as 7r\Xedva'Tr ropyias 6 SAeovTZvos Kal ol irepIL ni&Xo KaL ALKVLAVsov

Kal rroXXoi 4AXXo T iv xar'Q avrov aKJtUCaI'vrTcv.

Now, how closely do the expository chapters conform to this outline?

Chapter III deals with the first topic (a). Instead of the terms 7poT'rKoS, YXoTT7)iTLarTKOS, adrl7PXaoiLE'oS, ^EvoS, are found yXoho)fqarLKos,

adrr7pXaLop.Levo0s, avroeKa(cro', and 7roIrqTKos'; but these variations are

unimportant. The following chapter presents a difficulty. It begins, it is

true, with the subject of periphrasis (b), and ends with that of brachylogy (c); but as the text stands, the transition is not clear. The chapter reads: orav pv oWv pLav Xtrv erwe ovoularTLK7rv Er pMrJuarKL7)v

1 This is the reading of the manuscripts here and in the De Thuc. Iudicium. Kruger wrote rpoirtlKv, and has been followed by van Herwerden and Usener. It seems possible, however, to keep the manuscript reading and understand a reference to Thucydides' proleptic use of prepositions and adverbs of place, e. g. II 5, 29; V 52, II. This is favored by the coupling with Xp6vov.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.65 on Thu, 22 May 2014 13:40:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.

eV 7r\eSTlo(v ovoy',aoLv 1) paToaCOL'v eK9fepfl 7tep/paClwv T1jv aVTV ZVO'?v, TOvaVTr)V

TrOLel T7v X\eWtv ' V yap 6 e/CloToK70KXS 8efSaa0o7raTa 81 fvaceaos acrXvv 81XCo(ra

Kat 8La()pOYTrS Te ES avT6 7.aXXov e6pov aTV LOS avMaoaLa.) KaL /q7v ev T7B

EffiLrTqf)i yEypa0ev oV6 aiv KarTa revlav e'xcv 8e TL ayaBov opacra& T7jv

trdXiv, 0 SlafaTos dfaveta Ke0cXvrat. Kai yap ev TOV70TOS TO 70aifJavolevov

TroiE T6OV XOyov TOLOVTOV, WS Erl TOV AaKe?a,iooiov Bpaao'a rOrqKlCV, ore

aXAolLevos repl Iv\Xov daroo rS vewS TrpavLarilas -yevvo o of-r ev ' * rmovroTS

ae avrov frlalv "els TV 7 rape~etpeaiav 1q arrl,S rep,eppvrl'" 6ovXera, yap

6r7Xov' "reodvroo 8o avrrov TO) 7is ves erS' ri a 7rpoexovra /;ep/r TTSf elpeO'Oas.

Kriiger's proposition to read for TO ar?flAaVvouJevoo, aUxyaaT[v voboa

and regard Kara irevlav as a substitute for 7revlrs tAev cvy, according to

Dionysius' criticism, Torc 6e ElS ,voLoa o-vvaycoY rT Xoyov, is taken up by Usener, who, passing over van Herwerden's suggestion of a lacuna,1 emends 7TO rl7aLOLVoLevov to rTO Ovvropov and accepts the inter- pretation given by Kriiger to the passage. To this interpretation there are several objections. Apart from the fact that Kara Ireviav is scarcely more concise than re;v,rs ev wy, the transition from periphrasis to brachylogy is made through KicaI ijv alone; an

example is introduced before the statement of that which it illustrates; and the passage violates the usage of the writer, since roe rTO V X6oyov and similar expressions are throughout the epistle used with a personal subject. There seems to be no doubt that there is a lacuna after ro ora,uay,vo,t,ov; for (save here) up to the

long citations in chapters XV and XVI, Dionysius uniformly points out the particulars in which he criticizes the passages quoted, and gives what is in his view a more natural rendering. In the present sentence, xKa, yap ev rov7ros ro /1aar./AivoYevov is the introduction to this explanation. Compare chapter VII (p. 797, 8), Kal yap ev roTroIS; chapter X (799, 13), Kai 'yap evravOa; chapter VII (797, 4) and chapter X (799 , 4)v 6 76e o a,rfavvo,evov.

In chapters V and VI the use of nouns for verbs (d) and the use of verbs for nouns (e) are considered in due order.

The next topic in the outline (according to the emendation demanded by the text of the De Thucydide Iudicium) is the substitution of r0 Trpoor`yopKO'v for rT ovoiaTLKov and vice versa (f), (g). But since chapter VII opens with a question of voice (h), it is evident that a lacuna should be noted between chapters VI and VII.

Chapters VII, VIII and IX handle, respectively, the use of the

1 Intactum reliqui locum corruptissimum. .. neque ipse reperi quod satis- faceret. Vereor autem, ne quid exciderit post ayatlv6puevov."

318

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.65 on Thu, 22 May 2014 13:40:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIONYSIUS' SECOND LETTER TO AMMAEUS. 319

active for the passive (h), the use of the passive for the active (i), and interchange of number (j).

In the succeeding chapters there is not a little confusion. The tenth has to do with gender, yet not as regards agreement (k), but as regards word-forms involving an unusual gender, e. g. 6 oxXoS for 5 gXqor,ss, Tro 3ovX6,yvov for 7, js3ovX,io?t. The eleventh

begins with the subject of declensional forms: iv os 8e r6as 7rT.ffcEci

Trv ovo.Ldrwv Kal ri v 7pocryopiSv Kal rav T IEroX&v KCaL <r&v> crvvarro-

JevoOv rO7ros ApOfpov ?eaXXanrrE TOv awvryovs, oVTCroW Xralar1SiE Trqv opadr v'

but nothing is said here of the rpos rt6 arli,a&voevov daro 0ov arrlfalvovros of (1). The illustrative passage cited from Thucydides contains, however, an example of construction KaTa ovvEavt, as well as

examples of case-usage at variance with the customary idiom. The twelfth chapter treats of tenses; and at the close there is a slight digression caused by the fact that a citation from Thucydides contains a solecism in point of agreement in case. The thirteenth chapter takes up the subject of grammatical versus logical agree- ment, a matter already touched upon in chapter XI; but whereas gender was there concerned, the present section deals with vari- ation in number. The statement of the subject of the paragraph, however,--rav 8e rpo T ro m7uaLvov acr6 T rov rlpaLvopevov IrpadyfLaros Tr7

a7rocrpob)Pv 7roLi7rat i rrpor TO caTrr)taYvcievov o a7ro To arr7LtaovovYo, OVTraS

aX17carZiTL rov Xdyo--supplements the statement in chapter XI in such a way that the two combined repeat the phraseology of (1) and (m), but with different division. Since the fourteenth chapter considers the question of rrpdy/ara alvrl ofdraov and afrlaTa avTl

7rpayladrov, (r) and (s)-though in reverse order-it is obvious that much has fallen out between chapters XIII and XIV; and following the lead of Kriiger, later editors have marked a lacuna in the text. Transposition, moreover, is necessary in order to bring chapter XII into its proper place; for, as has been said, this treats of tenses (p), and is clearly a rescued fragment of the section lost.l The other irregularities seem the result of hastiness or carelessness on the part of the author.

The remaining chapters-XV, XVI, XVII-explain in proper course the topics given in (t), (u), (v); and, save the omission of rrapovoaoala in the enumeration in chapter XVII, there is no discrepancy in the restatement of the points of criticism.

WINIFRED WARREN.

1A hint as to the exposition of (o) may be found in De Thuc. Iud., p. 935, 15 sqq.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.65 on Thu, 22 May 2014 13:40:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions