Institutio Oratoria

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

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

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

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.).)

But until we have acquired that assured facility of which I spoke, [*](x. i. 1.) we must familiarise ourselves with the best writers only and must form our minds and develop an appropriate tone by reading that is deep rather than wide. Consequently, of the three writers of iambics [*](i.e. invective. The other two writers are Simonides of Amorgos and Hipponax of Ephesus. Archilochus ( fl. 686 B.C.). ) approved by the judgment of Aristarchus, Archilochus will be far the most useful for the formation of the facility in question.

For he has a most forcible style, is full of vigorous, terse and pungent reflexions, and overflowing with life and energy: indeed, some critics think that it is due solely to the nature of his subjects, and not to his genius, that any poets are to be ranked above him.

Of the nine lyric poets [*]( The five not mentioned here are Aleman, Sappho, Ibycus, Anacreon and Bacchylides. ) Pindar is by far the greatest, in virtue of his inspired magnificence, the beauty of his thoughts and figures, the rich exuberance of his language and matter, and his rolling flood of eloquence, characteristics which, as Horace [*](Od. IV. ii. 1. ) rightly held, make him

The greatness of the genius of Stesichorus [*]( Stesichorus of Himera in Sicily ( flor. circ. 600 B.C.), wrote in lyric verse on many legends, more especially on themes connected with the Trojan war. ) is shown by his choice of subject: for he sings of the greatest wars and the most glorious of chieftains, and the music of his lyre is equal to the weighty themes of epic poetry. For both in speech and action he invests his characters with the dignity which is their due, and if he had only been capable of exercising a little more restraint, he might, perhaps, have proved a serious rival to Homer. But he is redundant and diffuse, a fault which, while deserving of censure, is nevertheless a defect springing from the very fullness of his genius.

Alcaeus has deserved the compliment of being said to make music with quill of gold [*]( Hor Od. xiii. 26. Alcaeus of Mitylene ( circa 600 B.C.). ) in that portion of his works in which he attacks the tyrants of his day and shows himself a real moral force. He is, moreover, terse and magnificent in style, while the vigour of his diction resembles that of oratory. But he also wrote poetry of a more sportive nature and stooped to erotic poetry, despite his aptitude for loftier themes.

Simonides [*]( Simondes of Ceos. 556–468 B.C., famous for all forms of lyric poetry, especially funeral odes. ) wrote in a simple style, but may be recommended for the propriety and charm of his language. His chief merit, however, lies in his power to excite pity, so much so, in fact, that some rank him in this respect above all writers of this class of poetry.

The old comedy is almost the only form of poetry which preserves intact the true grace of Attic diction, while it is characterized by the most eloquent freedom of speech, and shows especial power in the denunciation of vice; but it reveals great force in other departments as well. For its style is at once lofty, elegant and graceful, and if we except Homer, who, like Achilles among warriors,

There are a number of writers of the old comedy, but the best are Aristophanes, Eupolis and Cratinus. [*]( Contemporaries: Cratinus (519–422), Aristophanes (448– 380), Eupolis (446–410). ) Aeschylus was the first to bring tragedy into prominence: he is lofty, dignified, grandiloquent often to a fault, but frequently uncouth and inharmonious. Consequently, the Athenians allowed later poets to revise his tragedies and to produce them in the dramatic contests, and many succeeded in winning the prize by such means.

Sophocles and Euripides, however, brought tragedy to far greater perfection: they differ in style, but it is much disputed as to which should be awarded the supremacy, a question which, as it has no bearing on my present theme, I shall make no attempt to decide. But this much is certain and incontrovertible, that Euripides will be found of far greater service to those who are training themselves for pleading in court.

For his language, although actually censured by those who regard the dignity, the stately stride and sonorous utterance of Sophocles as being more sublime, has a closer affinity to that of oratory, while he is full of striking reflexions, in which, indeed, in their special sphere, he rivals the philosophers themselves, and for defence and attack may be compared with any orator that has won renown in the courts. Finally, although admirable in every kind of emotional appeal, he is easily supreme in the power to excite pity.

Menander, as he often testifies in his works, had a profound admiration for Euripides, and imitated him, although in a different type of work. Now,

Indeed, those critics are no fools who think the speeches attributed to Charisius [*]( A contemporary of Demosthenos; his speeches have not survived, but were considered to resemble those of Lysias. ) were in reality written by Menander. But I consider that he shows his power as an orator far more clearly in his comedies; since assuredly we can find no more perfect models of every oratorical quality than the judicial pleadings of his Epitrepontes, [*]( The greater portion of the Epitrepontes has been recovered from a papyrus. The other plays are lost. The names may be translated: The Arbitrators, The Heiress, The Locri, The Timid Man, The Lawgiver, The Changeling. ) Epicleros and Locri, or the declamatory speeches in the Psophodes, Nomothetes. and Hypobolimaeus.

Still, for my own part, I think that he will be found even more useful by declaimers, in view of the fact that they have, according to the nature of the various controversial themes, to undertake a number of different roles and to impersonate fathers, sons, soldiers, peasants, rich men and poor, the angry man and the suppliant, the gentle and the harsh. And all these characters are treated by this poet with consummate appropriateness.