Institutio Oratoria

The first great painters, whose works deserve inspection for something more than their mere antiquity, are said to have been Polygnotus and Aglaopllon, [*]( Of the painters mentioned in this and the following sections Polyglotus of Thasos, son of Aglaophon, painted at Athens in the middle of the 5th century B.C.. Zunis of Heracelea Parrhasius of Ephesus flourished 420–390, while the remainder are painters of the 4th century. Of these Palmphilus of Sicyon was the teacher of Melanthius and Apelles, the latter being the most famous painter of antiquity. ) whose simple colouring has still such enthusiastic admirers that they prefer these almost primitive works, which may be regarded as the first foundations of the art that was to be, over the works of the greatest of their successors, their motive being, in my opinion, an ostentatious desire to seem persons of superior taste.

Later Zeuxis and Parrhasius contributed much to the progress of painting. These artists were separated by no great distance of time, since both flourished about the period of the Peloponnesian war: for example, Xenophon [*](Memoir. III. x. 1. ) has preserved a conversation between Socrates and Parrhasius. The first-mentioned seems to have discovered the method of representing light and shade, while the latter is said to have devoted special attention to the treatment of line.

For Zeuxis emphasised the limbs of the human body, [*](I.e. by giving them roundness and solidity by his treatment of light and shade. ) thinking thereby to add dignity and grandeur to his style: it is generally supposed that in this he followed the example of Homer, who likes to represent even his female characters as being of heroic mould. Parrhasius, on the other hand, was so fine a draughtsman that he has been styled the law-giver of his art, on the ground that all other artists take his representations of gods and heroes as models, as though no other course were possible.

It was, however, from about the period of the reign of Philip down to that of the successors of Alexander

The same differences exist between sculptors. The art of Callon and Hegesias [*]( Callon of Aegina and Hegesias flourished in the latter years of the 6th century. Calamis of Athens and Myron of Eleutheae, first half of 5th centuryy. Phidlias of Athens and Polyelitus of Argos, the two most famous sculptors of the second half of 5th century. Praxiteles, middle of 4th century. Lysippus and Demetrius, last half of 4th century. ) is somewhat rude and recalls the Etruscans, but the work of Calamis has already begun to be less stiff, while Myron's statues show a greater softness of form than had been achieved by the artists just mentioned. Polyclitus surpassed all others for care and grace, but although the majority of critics account him as the greatest of sculptors, to avoid making him faultless they express the opinion that his work is lacking in grandeur.

For while he gave the human form an ideal grace, he is thought to have been less successful in representing the dignity of the gods. he is further alleged to have shrunk from representing persons of maturer years, and to have ventured on nothing more difficult than a smooth and beardless face. But the qualities lacking in Polyclitus are allowed to have been possessed by Phidias and Alcamenes.

On the other hand, Phidias is regarded as more gifted in his representation of gods than of men, and indeed for chryselephantine statues he is without a peer, as he would in truth be, even if he

Now, if we turn our attention to the various styles of oratory, we shall find almost as great variety of talents as there are of personal appearance. There were certain kinds of oratory which, owing to the circumstances of the age, suffered from lack of polish, although in other respects they displayed remarkable genius. In this class we may place orators such as Laelius, Africanus, Cato, and even the Gracchi, whom we may call the

Polygnoti

Callones

Among orators of the intermediate type we may rank Lucius Crassus and Quintus Hortensius. Then let us turn to a vast harvest of orators who flourished much about the same period. It is here that we find the vigour of Caesar, the natural talent of Caelius, the subtlety of Calidius, the accuracy of Pollio, the dignity of Messala, the austerity of Calvus, the gravity of Brutus, the acumen of Sulpicius and the bitterness of Cassius, while among those whom we have seen ourselves we admire the fluency of Seneca, the strength of Africanus, the mellowness of Afer, the charm of Crispus, the sonority of Trachalus and the elegance of Secundus.

But in Cicero we have one who is not,

And later, after he had fallen a victim to the proscription of the second triumvirate, those who hated and envied him and regarded him as their rival, nay, even those who had flattered him in the days of his power, attacked him now that he could no longer reply. But that very man, who is now regarded by some as being too jejune and dry, was attacked by his personal enemies on no other ground than that his style was too florid and his talents too little under control. Both charges are false, but there is more colour for the he in the latter case than in the former.