Institutio Oratoria

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.

Indeed, such is his supremacy that he has scarce left a name to other writers of the new comedy, and has cast them into darkness by the splendour of his own renown. Still, you will find something of value in the other comic poets as well, if you read them in not too critical a spirit; above all, profit may be derived from the study of Philemon, [*]( Philemon of Soli (360–262); Menader of Athens (342– 290). ) who, although it was

If we turn to history, we shall find a number of distinguished writers; but there are two who must undoubtedly be set far above all their rivals: their excellences are different in kind, but have won almost equal praise. Thucydides is compact in texture, terse and ever eager to press forward: Herodotus is pleasant, lucid and diffuse: the former excels in vigour, speeches and the expression of the stronger passions; the latter in charm, conversations and the delineation of the gentler emotions.

Theopompus [*]( Theopompus of Chios, born about 378 B.C., wrote a history of Greece ( Hellenica ) from close of Peloponnesian war to 394 B.C., and a history of Greece in relation to Philip of Macedon ( Philippica ). His master, Isocrates, urged him to write history. ) comes next, and though as a historian he is inferior to the authors just mentioned, his style has a greater resemblance to oratory, which is not surprising, as he was an orator before he was urged to turn to history. Philistus [*]( Philistus of Syracuse, born about 430 B.C., wrote a history of Sicily. ) also deserves special distinction among the crowd of later historians, good though they may have been: he was an imitator of Thucydides, and though far his inferior, was somewhat more lucid. Ephorus, [*]( Ephorus of Cumae, flor. circ. 340 B.C., wrote a universal history. He was a pupil of Isocrates. Cp. II. viii. 11. ) according to Isocrates, needed the spur.

Clitarchus [*]( Clitarchus of Megara wrote a history of Persia and of Alexander, whose contemporary he was. ) has won approval by his talent, but his accuracy has been impugned. Timagenes [*]( Timagenes, a Syrian of the Augustan age, wrote a history of Alexander and his successors. ) was born long after these authors, but deserves our praise for the very fact that he revived the credit of history, the writing of which had fallen into neglect. I have not forgotten Xenophon, but he will find his place among the philosophers.

There follows a vast army of orators, Athens alone having produced ten remarkable orators [*]( Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias (flor. 403–380), Isocrates (435–338), Isacus, Demosthenes, Aeschines, Lycargus, Hyperides and Dinarchus. ) in the same generation. Of these Dermosthenes is far the greatest: indeed he came to be regarded almost as the sole pattern of oratory. Such is the force and compactness of his language, so muscular his style, so free from tameness and so self-controlled, that you will find nothing in him that is either too much or too little.