Institutio Oratoria

Quintilian

Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria, Volume 1-4. Butler, Harold Edgeworth, translator. Cambridge, Mass; London: Harvard University Press, William Heinemann Ltd., 1920-1922.

As regards the emotions, there can be no one so illeducated as to deny that the poet was the master of all, tender and vehement alike. Again, in the few lines with which he introduces both of his epics, has he not, I will not say observed, but actually established the law which should govern the composition of the exordium? For, by his invocation of the goddesses believed to preside over poetry he wins the goodwill of his audience, by his statement of the greatness of his themes he excites their attention and renders them receptive by the briefness of his summary.

Who can narrate more briefly than the hero [*]( Antilochus, Il. xviii. 18. ) who brings the news of Patroclus' death, or more vividly than he [*]( Phoenix, Il. ix. 529. ) who describes the battle between the Curetes and the Aetolians? Then consider his

v10-12 p.31
similes, his amplifications, his illustrations, digressions, indications of fact, inferences, and all the other methods of proof and refutation which he employs. They are so numerous that the majority of writers on the principles of rhetoric have gone to his works for examples of all these things.

And as for perorations, what can ever be equal to the prayers which Priam addresses to Achilles [*](Il. xxiv. 486 sqq. ) when he comes to beg for the body of his son? Again, does he not transcend the limits of human genius in his choice of words, his reflexions, figures, and the arrangement of his whole work, with the result that it requires a powerful mind, I will not say to imitate, for that is impossible, but even to appreciate his excellences?

But he has in truth outdistanced all that have come after him in every department of eloquence, above all, he has outstripped all other writers of epic, the contrast in their case being especially striking owing to the similarity of the material with which they deal.

Hesiod rarely rises to any height, while a great part of his works is filled almost entirely with names [*]( Especially the Theogony. ) : none the less, his maxims of moral wisdom provide a useful model, the smooth flow of his words and structure merit our approval, and he is assigned the first place among writers of the intermediate style.

On the other hand, Antimachus [*]( Antimachus of Colophon ( flor. circ. 405 B.C.), author of a Thebaid. ) deserves praise for the vigour, dignity and elevation of his language. But although practically all teachers of literature rank him second among epic poets, he is deficient in emotional power, charm, and arrangement of matter, and totally devoid of real art. No better example can be found to show what a vast difference there is to being near another writer and being second to him.

Panyasis [*](Uncle of Herodotus, author of a Heracleia.) is

v10-12 p.33
regarded as combining the qualities of the last two poets, being their inferior in point of style, but surpassing Hesiod in the choice of his subject and Antimachus in its arrangement. Apollonius [*]( Apollonius of Rhodes, author of the Argonautica. The list to which reference is made consisted of the four poets just mentioned, with the addition of Pisandros, for whom see § 56. ) is not admitted to the lists drawn up by the professors of literature, because the critics, Aristarchus and Aristophanes, [*](Aristophanes of Byzantium.) included no contemporary poets. None the less, his work is by no means to be despised, being distinguished by the consistency with which he maintains his level as a representative of the intermediate type.

The subject chosen by Aratus is lifeless and monotonous, affording no scope for pathos, description of character, or eloquent speeches. However, he is adequate for the task to which he felt himself equal. Theocritus is admirable in his own way, but the rustic and pastoral muse shrinks not merely from the forum, but from town-life of every kind.

I think I hear my readers on all sides suggesting the names of hosts of other poets. What? Did not Pisandros [*](A Rhodian poet of the seventh century B.C.) tell the story of Hercules in admirable style? Were there not good reasons for Virgil and Macer taking Nicander [*]( Nicander of Colophon (second century B.C.), author of didactic poems, Theriaca and Alexipharmaca and Metamorphoses ( ἑτεροιούμενα ). Virgil imitated him in the Georgics, Aenilius Macer, the friend of Ovid, in his Theriaca. ) as a model? Are we to ignore Euphorion? [*]( Euphorion of Chalcis (220 B.C. ) wrote elaborate short epics. See Ecl. x. 50. The words are, however, put into the mouth of Gallus with reference to his own imitations of Euphorion. ) Unless Virgil had admired him, he would never have mentioned

  1. verses written in Chalcidic strain
in the Eclogues. Again, had Horace no justification for coupling the name of Tyrtacus [*]( See Hor. A. P. 401. Tyrtaeus, writer of war songs (seventh century B.C.). ) with that of Homer?

To which I reply, that there is no one so ignorant of poetic literature that he could not, if he chose, copy a catalogue of such poets from some

v10-12 p.35
library for insertion in his own treatises. I can therefore assure my readers that I am well aware of the existence of the poets whom I pass over in silence, and am far from condemning them, since I have already said that some profit may be derived from every author. [*](§ 45.)

But we must wait till our powers have been developed and established to the full before we turn to these poets, just as at banquets we take our fill of the best fare and then turn to other food which, in spite of its comparative inferiority, is still attractive owing to its variety. Not until our taste is formed shall we have leisure to study the elegiac poets as well. Of these, Callimachus is regarded as the best, the second place being, according to the verdict of most critics, occupied by Philetas. [*](Philetas of Cos (290 B.C.).)