Tbe tInft     ersift?   of r~fIcaoo
FOUNDED BY JOHN D, ROCKEFELLER


EPIDEICTIC


LITERATURE


A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTIES OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOLS OF ARTS,
LITERATURE, AND SCIENCE, IN CANDIDACY FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(DEPARTMENT ()F GREEK)
IBY
THEODORE C. BURGESS
CIICAGO
Tbe dnivnreritt? of Cbtcago IPrees
1902








tbe 'lniversitt         of Cbicago
FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER


EPIDEICTIC


LITERATURE


/


A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTIES OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOLS OF ARTS,
LITERATURE, AND SCIENCE, IN CANDIDACY FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(DEPARTMENT OF GREEK)
BY
THEODORE C.- BURGESS
CHICAGO
Cbe "Universitp of Cbicago I3ress
1902




COPYRIGHT, 1902,
BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICA(;O




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE.
BY THEODORE C. BURGESS.
WHILE the following pages attempt to give a general survey
of epideictic literature, it is with certain necessary limitations.
A full discussion of this important and extensive branch in all
its phases and relations is far too large a theme for a single
paper. I have found myself compelled to treat the subject in
many parts in a cursory manner and to make what may be
regarded as a somewhat arbitrary choice among the topics which
it presents: to develop some of its features in considerable detail
and merely to touch upon others in themselves of interest and
importance. The existence of monographs on some phases of
the subject has caused these to be passed over more lightly. It
has seemed unnecessary, for instance, to treat anew the 77oXtrt'tCS
kXoyo, consolations, the WTpOTpe7TLtKO XdyoS, and some other single
features which have been amply discussed by others. The absence
of a special presentation of the Sophists and the 7rpoyvuivdoraLaTa
(see p. 108, n. 1) may seem the most considerable omission. These
influential factors in epideictic history are not discussed in a
separate chapter, because the most important names naturally
enter here and there as individuals, and because the history of
these movements as a whole has been amply treated. The early
Sophists have suffered the extremes of praise and blame. In
place of the disrespect in which they were held as a class has
come at the present day a tendency to magnify their influence.
The modern discussion starts with Grote's notable chapter and
the extended argumentation which has grown from it.' Discussions of the important Sophistic revival which began in the
See Sidgwick, Journal of Philology, IV (1873), 288, and V (1874), 66;
he continues Grote's defense and cites other writers. Cf. also statements
and references in the histories of Greek literature, notably Christ (3d ed.),
Croiset, Bernhardy; Gomperz, Griechische Denker; Dimmler, Prolegomena
zu Platon's Staat.
89




90


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


first and second century A. I5., and is called the New Sophistic.
are very numerous.'
Among the most interesting features of the subject are the
extent of the epideictic influence and the relations of other
branches of literature to this form of oratory. The chapters on
Poetry, History, and Philosophy are written from this point of
view, but are necessarily mere sketches, which may be made
more complete at some future time in separate papers.
I have adopted the following order of topics: an introductory statement; epideictic literature and its general characteristics; the uses of the word ErLeSeiivvtL in Isocrates and
Plato; Isocrates' conception of oratory; a brief sketch of epideictic oratory; the general rhetorial treatment of this department of oratory, especially in     Menander and     Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, with the main characteristics of each of the
separate forms of epideictic speech recognized by these rhetoricians; a few of these forms-the f/ao-tXtKc  Xo'yoo as a special
development of the E7Yc/GILtov of a person, the yeveOXltacos Xkdyo',
the 7rTLrdaLoq, and 7rapad8oa cyKtcoa a- are chosen for more detailed
consideration in separate chapters.  These are selected because of
their-individual importance and because they well illustrate the
range of epideictic literature.  Although much has been written
on the subject of the ErLTdaLtoS, it is difficult to find even the
familiar facts about this important form in a single paper, and
1 The literature of the subject may be found in Christ, see index; Croiset,
V (1900), 547 ff.; Bernhardy, I, 509, et passim. Compare also W. Schmid,
Ueber den kulturgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang und die Bedeutung der
griechischen Renaissance in der Romnerzeit (Leipzig, 1898); H. von Arnim,
Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa (Berlin, 1898); E. Rhode, " Griechische
Sophistik der Kaiserzeit," in Der griechische Roman, 310 (2d ed., Leipzig,
1900); E. Norden, Antike Kunstprosa (Leipzig, 1898), see index; W. Schmid,
Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern (Stuttgart, 1887); Blass, Attische
Beredsamkeit, see index; Baumgart, Aelius Aristides als Reprdsentant der
sophistischen Rhetorik d. zweiten Jahrh. der Kaiserzeit (Leipzig, 1874);
Kaibel, "Dionysius v. Halicarnassus u. die Sophistik," Hermes, XX (1885),
497-513; Wilamowitz, "Asianismus u. Atticismus," Hermes, XXXV (1900),
16. Cf. also numerous treatises on individual Sophists, e. g., for Philostratus, Kayser's Introduction; Cobet, "Ad Philostrati Vitas Sophistarum et
Heroica," Meinemosyne, I (1873), 209-32; Volkmann, "Philostratea," J Ja1r1. f.
Phil., LXXXL (1860), 702.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


91


also something remained to be (lone in the way of illustrating by
parallel passages its stereotyped character and of bringing the
extant orations into direct connection with the requirements of
Menander and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. A separate chapter
is given in each case to the relations of epideictic literature to
(1) poetry, (2) history, (3) philosophy.
The closing chapter gives a list of the more prominent epideictic orators with dates and representative works. The names
of some writers whose literary product as a whole would class them
elsewhere are introduced here on account of some single epideictic
composition. No attempt is made to include all of the Christian
writers or those of the Byzantine period. Krumbacher's Geschichte
tder )qjzattinischen LittCeralttr may be conveniently consulted for
this period, which was one with very considerable epideictic
production.
I take this opportunity also to express my great indebtedness
to Professor Paul Shorey, of the University of Chicago, at whose
prompting this work was undertaken, and to whose inspiration
and kindly criticism any value it contains may be largely assigned.
Professor G. L. Hendrickson, of the University of Chicago, has
also made most helpful suggestions and has placed me under
obligations by his discriminating criticism.
Introduction.
Since the time of Aristotle a large body of Greek oratory has
been classified under the title "epideictic."  The term, as we
shall see (pp. 97 f.), was used to some extent before his day, but
not with the definiteness of application which Aristotle's Rhetoric
gave to it.
Like many other rhetorical terms among the Greeks, the word
E7rtSeLrcTcKOSF held at different times or at the same time quite
1I use the word "epideictic" in referring to this branch of literature,
although the terms "panegyric" and "encomiastic" were also used by the Greek
rhetors; cf. Philodemus, I, cols. 30, 32, pp. 212, 213, Sudhaus; Hermogenes,
Spengel, Rhet. Gr., II, 405, et passim; Diog. Laert., VII, 42; Aristides, Sp. II,
502, 17; Alexander, son of Numenius, Sp. III, 1, 10; Menander, Sp. III, 331, 8;
Theon, Sp. II, 61, 22; Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III, 449, 13, 1. 20. Cf. also the
Latin genus laudativum gegenus demonstrativum.




92


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


different meanings; to generalize, it had its stricter and its
loose and more inclusive application.    Aristotle is the earliest
and most important authority for the former.    His triple division
of oratory1 (Rhet., I, 3, 1 and 3) is based upon the attitude of
the hearer.   He is necessarily either a Oewpdo or a KptL7.   The
xPLtT 7 has some real interest at stake and is expected to make a
decision, as in the case of one who listens to a legal argument or
a speech in the assembly.     The 6ewpod is so named from      the
analogy of the theater, where the audience are mere spectators
and entertainment is the chief purpose. He looks upon an
oration chiefly as a display of intellectual ability, and this attitude of mind on the part of the auditor distinguishes the epideictic branch of oratory from the others.   Aristotle's definition
was adopted by other writers and was long employed.2
A more inclusive use of the term   "epideictic" may be found
even before Aristotle in the works of Isocrates,3 who placed under
it symbouleutic oratory as well.4 Cicero does not confine the
epideictic class to oratory. History also belongs here.5 Quintilian's references to history and poetry (X, 1, 28, 31, 33) seem
to associate them with this division.
1 Doxopater, Walz, Rhet. Gr., II, 90 if., gives three explanations of the
triple division of oratory: one mythical, Hermes in bestowing the oratorical
gift made the division; one from the poets, who used the three forms in
writing of gods and men; one historical, by which the present division may
be traced back to the beginnings of rhetorical study in Sicily. The three
branches correspond to the divisions of man's nature, thus:
7X WVVX77
Xo\yLK6v UOVALK6V e'Tri0ULOVJTLK6v
X p1bropoKr)
aTvUL3ovXe7TLK6V 8tKaCLK6OV TCraVlYVUpK6
See Walz, Rhet. Gr., II, 73, 80, 121, 139.
2 Cf. Philodemus, I, p. 32 = Suppl., p. 18, Sudhaus; Alexander, Sp. III, 1;
Menander, Sp. III, 331; Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III, 483, 13; 450, 2; Quintil.,
III, 4, 6; III, 7, 1; III, 8, 7, 63; Auctor ad Herevn., I, 2, 2; Cic., De Inv., I, 6,
7; De Orat., I, 31, 141.
3 The use of the word e7rL6EiKvvUtL in Isocrates and his ideal of oratory are
discussed in some detail on pp. 97 ff.
4 Compare Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III, 484, 2 ff.  5 See Orat., 37 and 207.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


93


Hermogenes includes all literature except distinctively legal
and deliberative oratory. After claiming Plato as the perfect
example of an epideictic writer in prose, he adds that Homer,
though a poet, is equally to be classed as epideictic, and that
poetry, as a whole, should be placed under this division (Sp.
II, 405, 7 and 21; 408, 15 ff.).' Menander in his treatise Trepp
C7T8ESLtcTKect)v recognizes this larger definition of the word, since
he illustrates the word Vuvos from  poetry or prose indifferently.
He closes his discussion of this epideictic form with the statement
that his rules are such as the 7rotl, the     vryTypaevdt, and the
p7?jwp employ in composing hymns to the gods (Sp. III, 344, 6).
Among the hymns some forms are more appropriate for prose
and some for poetry (343, 29).
An epideictic speech in its more technical sense was regarded
among earlier rhetoricians as one whose sole or chief purpose
A like application of the term "epideictic" to poetic compositions is found
in the Anthologia Palatina, where the term is used in its most vague and
general meaning. The epigrams classed under this title comprise Book IX (cf.
also App., chap. 3, ed. Didot, which, though of much more recent date, bears
the same title). They are very miscellaneous and inclusive. The majority
are real or imaginary incidents put in poetic form. A few are purely epideictic in motive, e. g., IX, 524, a hymn to Dionysus; 525, to Apollo; 363, on
Spring, containing the same T67rot as Choricius; App., 158, Xovr'pov ETratLos; cf.
also IX, 412, and others. Some are descriptive, and many are imaginary
speeches of celebrated persons; many personify animals or inanimate
objects.
It seems impossible to trace the title historically. The scholiast to Anth.
Pal., IV, 1, indicates that Meleager's Anthology was alphabetical. Topical
arrangement first appears in Agathias' collection. The title e7rteLKrLKKd is not
among his seven headings, but apparently there was material of this nature
placed under different titles, as: I, Dedications; II, On Statues; IV, Hortatory. Cephalas (Anth. Pal., IV, 1) seems to have begun the work of classification entirely anew, furnishing the basis for that of Maximus Planudes. The
scholiast (at the beginning of Anth. Pal., IX) seems to interpret the title
"epideictic" in a strict sense and to connect with it narrative epigrams. He
says: oUr TOS 7r aXaLos?7/Aq7Trac 7TO rTtLetKTLKb6v yePos, ciXX' Eo7T Kal iv roFs e7rLypdiA/Laouv evpel Kai ep/flvelas erl6etLtV Kail rpayJcuaTcwv yevoiivwv 6VTrS A Cs yevo/ivwv
a~fjry7a-Lv. This would agree with the natural supposition that the term
frL8elKTtKai was suggested by the many epigrams which would come strictly
under that head, and that it then became a convenient title under which to
place all those not readily classed elsewhere, and this the more easily because
of the great liberty in the use of this word in its application to prose.




94


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


was display, thus agreeing with the derivation of the word "epideictic."1  The hearer is to gain pleasure, at least, if not information.2 The style is the most distinctive feature.3 This general
characteristic marks out the limits of the territory naturally
occupied by this division of oratory in its narrower conception.
Its tendency is to exclude topics of a practical nature where the
thought of the auditor centers chiefly on the subject discussed or
in the argument, or where his interests are to any extent affected
by the conclusions reached or implied.4       Since the appeal is
to the emotions more than to the intellect, form is of greater
importance than    subject-matter.    A  tendency to ornament of
every kind   is fostered, and   there is too little regard    as to
whether it be legitimate or not. Even truth may be disregarded
in the interests of eloquence.5     "A  pomp and prodigality of
words," well-balanced periods, a style half poetic, half oratorical,
are the qualities most desired.    The orations which emphasize
the qualities which come under this conception of the word
"epideictic" are happily but a fragment of the large body of epideictic literature; yet this lower usage has stood, in the minds
1 Cf. Anaximenes, chap. 35, init., OUK aywvos dA\XX' efrtetifes yveKa.
2 Quintil., II, 10, 10.
3 Cic., Orat., 61, 207; Quintil., III, 8, 7, and 63.
4Compare Philodemus, I, p. 32 (Sudhaus)= Suppl., p. 18, where he
approves the criticism of Epicurus that those who listen to displays and
panegyrics, and the like, are not under any oath or in any hazard, and do not
consider their truth or falsehood, but are charmed by the 0Xos and beauty of
style; such things would not be endured in court or assembly.
5 Isocrates, Busiris, 4, presents, as a general principle, the fact that one
composing a eulogy may invent good qualities, and vice versa with one who
makes a speech of detraction. Aristides (Sp. II, 505) says the encomiastic
division among other things makes use of 7rapadXewts and eVf7)lita. By the
former only the praiseworthy is brought forward. Eu0qita is a euphemistic
way of stating facts which are in reality unfavorable to the one praised. So
in the /'6yos, unfavorable facts are presented in a light worse than the truth
(6vofOuita). Nicolaus Sophista (Sp. III, 481) tells the orator to call ~etxlav
evtd~ietav KaO 7rpojijetarav, r6b  p pdCaos avrpeiav KCa eV/vUXiav, Kal o6ws del 7rdvaa eTrL T6
Kd\XXOV ep-yaoijievot; cf. Aristotle, Rhet., I, 9, 29; Quintil., III, 7, 25; Anaximenes, Sp. I, 186, 10-13; 188, 1-10; Plato, Phaedr., 267 B, 273 D, E; Isoc., Pan.,
8. Compare the Sophistic view of rhetoric as an " art of perversion." According to Anaximenes, this perversion of the truth belongs to all rhetoric; cf.
chaps. 29 and 30.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


of many, as representative. This fact has tended, both in ancient
and modern times, to bring the epideictic branch as a whole
under adverse criticism.
Quintilian defends a higher interpretation of the term under
discussion.  Speaking of the scope of this branch of literature,
he objects (III, 4, 12, 13) to its title as one suggestive of mere
ostentation.  In III, 7, 1 he directly states that Aristotle and
Theophrastus did not recognize fully enough the practical value
of the epideictic branch.  "Would anyone deny that panegyric
speeches are of the epideictic order, yet these have a suasory
form  and generally relate to the interests of Greece.  Though
there are three kinds of oratory, in each of these a part is devoted
to subject-matter and a part to display" (III, 4, 14).'
The propriety of introducing epideictic features in other
forms was generally recognized. Anaximenes classed all oratory
as belonging either to the assembly or the court.    Though he
discusses epideictic material in detail, it is always as an element
to be employed in either the dicastic or the deliberative form.
The point involved is discussed in some detail by Nicolaus
Sophista, Sp. III, 478, 10 ff.  He says one may take the encomium as a thing complete in itself, or as an element in some
other form.   In the former case we set ourselves the task of
praising sonething; in the latter we make use of it incidentally
in an oration whose purpose is deliberative or legal.  The Panegyricus of Isocrates, for example, has the CVFL/3ovXEVT7tlK1  eZ8oS?,
but employs encomiastic material; so, too, Demosthenes' oration
On the Crowzl comes plainly under the L&KcambVL  e1tos, but praise
and blame are its chief elements.2    It agrees with this that
Menander (Sp. III, 331-446) includes (Ipassimr) as epideictic
passages from literature of almost every kind and purpose, both
prose and poetry.   One may note, for example, pp. 334, 336,
338, 343, 360, 430, 437; Alexander, Sp. III, 4, 19; Hermogenes,
Sp. II, 405; Quintilian, III, 4, 30 ff.
Cf. Philodemus, col. 32, 7, Vol. I, p. 213, Sudhaus.
2 Cf. also Sp. III, 484, 14; Walz, Rhet. Gr., II, 410 (Doxopater); Auctor ad
Heren., III, 8, 15. This passage is as follows: "At in iudicialibus et in
deliberativis causis saepe magnae partes versantur laudis aut vituperationis."




96


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


The rhetors who treat the various forms of school exercises
(7rpofyvvdarpaTa, see p. 108, n. 1) show a like freedom in citing
examples.'
The epideictic division had always closer connection with
deliberative than with legal oratory.2 The element of persuasion
or advice, which Quintilian so clearly recognizes (III, 4, 14),
was common in epideictic compositions. It entered early. It is
a prominent feature of Isocrates' Panegyricus, and also of his
Panathclazicus. Lysias, also, in the third section of the Olympiacus, says that he does not intend to trifle with words, like a mere
sophist, but to offer serious counsel on the dangers of Greece.
To take a modern judgment: "The great epideictic Xoyot deserve
a better name. They express the drift of the pan-Hellenic sentiment of the time, and are only unpractical in the sense that
internationalism  has no executive power."  (Murray, Gk. Lit.,
p. 333.)
Thus epideictic oratory varies greatly in the themes which it
may treat. According to one conception, it had a comparatively
narrow field into which praise and blame entered as a definite
and easily distinguishable, usually far the most prominent, element. This was especially true of its earlier theoretical treatment.   Its practice was always wider than its theory.  There
was also the more comprehensive view by which it came to
include the "occasional speech" of almost endless variety in
theme and treatment.  This is illustrated to some extent in the
time of Socrates, but more especially in the period known as the
second Sophistic.3
The remains of epideictic literature, taken in a rough way, fall
into three classes: First, that characterized by elevation of subject and a certain practical application usually arising from  the
admixture of the deliberative element. Here belong Isocrates
and his immediate followers. Second, the treatment of a paradoxical theme, a mere jeu d'esprit. Third, the vast mass of
Cf. Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III, 479, 20; 455, 22, 27; Aphthonius, Sp. II,
pp. 23, 44, 45, 43; Theon, Sp. II, 66; Hermogenes, Sp. II, pp. 5, 16.
2See Arist., Rhet., I, 9, 35; Quintil., III, 7, 28.
3 Cf. also Sears, The Occasional Address, p. 110, et passim.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


97


epideictic literature lying between these extremes, presenting
mixed motives and treatment-speeches such as the circumstances of common life call for in any age of high cultivation, in
many cases of no permanent value, yet serving a worthy purpose
at the time.  The situation arises constantly where an oration is
appropriate.'  The epideictic orator is ever ready to meet this
opportunity. Speechmaking of this character —the "occasional
address"-was much cultivated by the Greeks and has formed
a large body of honorable literature from that day to this.    It
includes the widest possible range of treatment-the poetic
style of Himerius, the philosophical tendency of Themistius and
Dion Chrysostomus, the more purely rhetorical form of Choricius,
or the sober treatment of political themes in Isocrates.    Here
may be found speeches which serve chiefly to dazzle an audience,
to flatter a prince, and those which gain these ends to some
extent, but combine with this purely ephemeral interest a more
permanent value, and thus approach orations of the first class
mentioned above and the ideal of Isocrates.2
The Use of TrL6SLKV ILL in Isocrates and His Conception of Oratory.
This general statement of the scope and meaning of the
epideictic branch of Greek literature may be supplemented by a
more particular inquiry into Isocrates as an early and distinguished exponent.    Isocrates' references to oratory indicate
the triple division made so distinct and permanent by Aristotle.
I Cf. Croiset, Lit. grecque, V, 549 ff.
2 Isocrates presents specimens of each of these classes of epideictic speech.
The Busiris (cf. Sp. III, 482) was written to show what might be done with a
paradoxical theme. His Helen and Euagoras, and many passages in other
orations, are excellent examples of the epideictic speech in its more restricted
sense, but the great mass of his writings belong to a class which makes
an elevated theme, and one of practical and lasting importance, a prime
necessity. The whole weight of his influence lies in this direction. The
Panegyricus is the best example. Isocrates was the "completer of Thrasymachus of Chalcedon and Gorgias in elevating the style of prose." The errors
of his predecessors were corrected, and the possibilities for eloquence which
prose contained within itself, but which had been sought outside, were developed to a high degree of perfection. Croiset justly styles him "an artist in
speech, addressing himself to lovers of beautiful language." Though but a




98


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Incidental mention is made of each in terms which, if not already
technical, amply prepare the way for Aristotle's terminology.
In Contra Sophistas, 9, we find the term         7roXtLrKcoV  Xo'dov,.'
Section 20 repeats these words and includes StIKaVLIco1v     Xodouvo,
elsewhere termed 7rpo? arycva      (Antid., 1; Palnath., 271) and
ol 7rep     TWv Ilwv -V tv,3oXalwsv  (Pan(., 11).   The   expression
oav/L/ovXE\voTra Xdoyov (Phil., 18) suggests the later technical
phrase oUv/30ovXEVTLtKcb Xodyo9.  Both are referred to with some
disdain as compared with the higher type which forms Isocrates' ideal.2  He maintains that these call for an inferior order
of talent and    less preparation, and     possess less permanent
value.
Isocrates uses the word ETrLtEitcvVjLL 39 times; of these six examples-Ad Nic., 7; Pan., 4; Phil., 27; Pancath., 272; Helen, 15;
small proportion of his speeches are epideictic in title or technically such in
theme, all are of this class in reality. For a favorable view of his style
from an enemy of rhetoric compare Philodemus, I, 127, 153, and elsewhere;
see Sudhaus, index.  For appreciative references to epideictic oratory in
Cicero see Orator, chaps. 11, 12, and 13.
1 Brandstatter, "De Notionum 7rrXLotLKO et aows-r5s usu rhetorico," Leipziger Studien, XV (1893), pp. 129 if., reaches the following conclusions in
regard to the TroXLtrtK X6yos: Isocrates in general uses the term ToXLTtLKo \6yos
to mean an oration looking to the interests of the entire state or of all Greece.
Plato does not use the term with any technical force. It is not found in
Aristotle. In the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum the term is first used to include
speeches before the assembly or court, and this use prevailed until the time
of Aristides. With Epicurus arose a use opposed to aoq^atr-TLKS X\6yos. Hermagoras added still a new meaning. He includes under 7roX\LTK6V id "quod
in omnium cadit intellectum." This conception of the term is found especially
among rhetoricians.  Aristides still further enlarged its scope until the
7roXLrtK6S X6YOS included all three divisions of oratory and 7roXLrLK6s came to be
equal to pOrwp.
To state the conclusions still more concisely, the TroXLttKO XO6yo included at
different times in different authors the deliberative speech, or the deliberative
and judicial, or all three kinds of oratory, or these with philosophical and
historical treatises added, and sometimes even poetry. The question is also
discussed by Blass, Attische Beredsarmkeit, II, 107 ff., 208, 475; Volkmann,
Rhet. der Griechen u. R6mer (1885), and Iw. Miiller's Handbuicher, II, 455 ff.;
Baumgart, Ael. Aristides als Repr. d. soph. Rhet. des II. Jahrh. c. Kaiserzeit
(Leipzig, 1874). Cf. also Walz, Rhet. Gr., III, 366-80, and elsewhere.
2 See Panath., 11; Pan., 11, 12; Antid., 3, 48, 49, 216, 227, 228.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


9)


BLtsiris, 9-refer to the public delivery of an oration.1          The
noun e7rtSeLtLF is used 12 times; in seven cases in the combination
ETriSettv 7troLtela at, showing a well-established phrase.  The passages are as follows: Pan., 17; Phil., 17, 93; Helen, 9; Atid.,
55, 147; Ep., VI, 4.      In four cases it is with the articlePanath., 271; Antil., 1; Helen, 9; Ep., I, 5.              The noun
occurs also in Phil., 25, and Ep., I, 6.    The adverb T7rrSelTcrLC
occurs but once-Pan., 11-where it means "in ostentatious
style.' The simple verb 8E[lcvvJLt is used twice with virtually the
meaning of e7rrtSe&1vv1t-Phil., 22, 23.2
One of the earliest instances of the use of i7rtSeDclKVV/ to indicate rhetorical display may be found in Arist., Eq., 349:
etLOV o LKtK8LOV eiras eK Kara' C vov /!ETO[KOU,
l8wp re 7rTivv, Kac7rLCetKvis rObs (p/ovs 7' avitwv,
you ivvwaTbs elvat X\yetV.
Cf. Ran., 771.
2 The use of this word in Plato may be introduced at this point for convenience of comparison. Plato uses the verb 17rlSeiKvvuLt 90 times, the noun
eirSetlts 13 times, and the adverb I7rLSLKTLKijs once; a total of 104 instances. In
41 cases the word has its original and common force -"to show, point out,
prove," etc. In 17 cases there is the idea of public display more or less
prominent, but with no special reference to literature. In 46 instances it
involves the display of some literary product, sometimes in the strictly
technical sense, in other cases with various degrees of approach to this.
Plato uses the word (verb, 26 times; noun, 11; adjective, 1) in a technical
sense in the following passages: Gorgias, 447 A, B (twice), C (twice); 458 B;
Hip. Min., 363 A, C, D; 364 B (twice); Hip. Maj., 282 B, C (twice); 285 C;
286 B (twice); 287 B; Soph., 217 E; 224 B; Sympos., 194 B; Phaedr., 235 A;
Axiochus, 366 C; Sisyphus, 387 A; Protag., 328 D; 347 B; Ion., 530 D;
542 A (twice). He uses the word also in a less formal way of sophists setting
forth their views in discussion with others: Lysis., 204 E (twice); Euthyd.,
274 D (three times); 275 A (twice); 278 C; 282 D; Eryx., 398 E. Prodicus'
lecture course is called an brl6ettts in Crat., 384 B. eTrtieiKvUtj is employed in
referring to the presentation of plays by poets: Laches, 183 B (twice); Rep.,
398 A; Laws, 658 B; 817 D; 936 A; Sympos., 195 D. Ion interprets Homer,
Ion, 542 A (twice); cf. also 530 D. In the Theaet., 143 A, and Phaedr., 236 E,
it seems to mean "repeat." The passages cited indicate that the use of
47rtleLtts in the sense of an oration for display was fairly established in the
time of Plato.  Exactly half of the passages cited come from  the two
dialogues-Hip. Maj. and Hip. MIin. It is noticeable in this connection
that the genuineness of the Hip. Maj. and the Hip. Min. has been much
called in question. The results of discussion have been much more favorable::..,   -..




100


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


We may gather still further from Isocrates' use of the word
eTrrSeicvv1/Lt that he recognizes the pure epideictic speech as legitimate and worthy, though inferior to the style of speech which he
employs (e. g., Panath., 271 f.).  The word in several instances
is introduced for the express purpose of disclaiming any intention
of making a display in the speech in question. By an epideictic
speech he seems to mean primarily one prepared for a 7rav7ryvpt
(cf. Antid., 147, and Ep)., 1, 5, 6). But he also includes here
any speech whose purpose is display or whose style is polished
with especial care.  Oratory is of two kinds as regards its style,
simple and for display -ros     LeV aceX&s. TOVs 8e erFtLEtKTtEC&LtS
(Pan., 11; cf. also Ep., 6, 5); the former is appropriate for
the court-room.   Orations of these two varieties maintain just
limits, and he who can speak epideictically-which, he explains,
means with nice finish ( acpLi/3,&)-can also speak simply (a7rX&s),
with the implication that the epideictic style is higher and more
inclusive.  The master of this style is able to employ any other
at will, but the same cannot be said for the orator who cultivates
any other style.  His defense of his own elaborate style, at the
beginning of the Panegyricus, carries with it a rebuke to those
who despise orations which are carefully worked out.          His
to the authenticity of the Hip. Min., though many regard both as the work
of Plato. The conclusion which we draw is not affected by the decision on
this question, as the instances outside these dialogues amply establish the
usage. The lines of discussion may be seen in the Prolegomena of Stallbaum and other editors; Zeller's Plato and the Older Acad., p. 86; Platonische Studien, pp. 150 f.; Grote, Plato (Murray, London, 1888), I, 308, II,
33; Christ (3d ed.), pp. 435, 450; Blass, Attische Bered., see index; Horneffer,
De Hippia iMaiore, qui fertur Platonis (Diss., Gott., 1895); Rollig, Wiener
Studien, XXII. Jahrgang, 1. Heft (1900), pp. 18-24.
That its technical use is not more frequent in Plato, although so many of
his dialogues make the sophists a chief theme, may be accounted for, if in no
other way, by the fact that Plato deals with the teachings of the sophists,
their influence as professors of omniscient pretensions, rather than with their
oratory. The fact that the word is used ten times to indicate the informal
dialogue-presentation of the sophists' views on some question under discussion, and eight times for the public recitation of poetry, original or another's,
indicates a wider usage than the word usually had at a later time; the
authority of Aristotle restricted it. Gorgias turns at the entrance of Socrates
from an eIrl8ett of the technical kind to one of this less formal order.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


101


approval of the epideictic style may be learned from this passage,
and also from such statements as Phil., 27, where, after referring
to the fact that his speech will not have the charm and persuasiveness which come from    good delivery, he adds: "It has not the
rhythm and variety of style which I used in my youth and taught
to others, through which they made speech more agreeable and
also more persuasive."'
Originality is not, in his view, an essential feature of the
highest type of speech.2 To treat a topic better than others is
the form of novelty to be approved (Pan., 9, 10). Yet speeches
only for display require it.3
Isocrates' own ideal is plainly indicated.   It is defined in
Panegy ricus, 4: " I regard as the best speeches those which are
on the greatest topics and which best display the speakers and
profit the hearers."  He offers the Panegyricus as an example of
this class. In technical terms, his ideal is a mixture of the o-v/L/3ovX\evTtco Xkoyo? and the. CTLrEtITtLCS.  It is an oration on some
theme of general interest, elevated in style and of real importance,
preferably a speech of advice, to be treated in epideictic style.
His theory of topic and style is stated in Panathenaicus, 2.  He
says that he did not adopt the simple style which some advise
the youth to practice, nor did he write on mythical themes, but
"omitting these, I treated such as profited the city and all Greece
-full of argument and antithesis and balancing of clauses and
other figures which shine in an oration and which compel hearers
to applaud."'   While approving epideictic compositions as a
whole, for those who desire, he strongly disapproves of some of
the developments of this class, e. g., in Panathenaicus, 1, he says
that even when young he did not write on myths and topics
full of the marvelous or false, as many did. His protests are
1 Compare also Phil., 28; Sophist., 16; Ep., 6, 6; Antid., 45 ff.; Nic., 1 ff.;
Phil., 17, 18, 109, 110. Compare also his praise of X\6yos, Nic., 1-10; Sophist.,
17-19; Pan., 48-50; Antid., 177, 181, 183, 190, 278, 279, 291-5, 306.
2 Ad Nic., 41; Phil., 84; Antid., 1.
3 Cf. Phil., 93; Panath., 84, 85; Antid., 82, 83.
4Note also Panath., 271; Peace, 1-5; Nic., 10, 17; Phil., 9, 15; Antid., 3,
45-50, 67, 70, 84, 276, 277, 278; Pan., 188, 189; Ad Nic., 1, 2, 53, 54.




102


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


especially directed against 7rapcd8oa eycoAtLa.  In Phil., 17, 18,
speaking of the alarm felt by his friends over his purpose to send
an oration of advice to Philip, instead of an encomiastic display,
he shows incidentally the frequency and honorable position of
such speeches.
Isocrates has often been underrated as an orator, both as
regards style and theme. Many have regarded as a pretense his
assumption of a lofty aim and permanent purpose-a mere epideictic subterfuge. Recent years have brought a sounder and
more appreciative judgment.
Isocrates worked in each of the three great departments of
oratory.  His court orations are his earliest compositions; they
are few and brief. In later years he speaks in contempt of those
who write for the law courts. He wrote pure epideictic orations,
and those which he studiously proclaimed as deliberative; but
even these are so thoroughly imbued with the epideictic spirit, not
to speak of the long passages which are technically such, that it
is hardly a stretch of terms to call him    an epideictic orator
throughout.
General Sketch of Epideictic Literature.
Oratory as a recognized branch of Greek prose began not far
from the middle of the fifth century B. C. The epideictic form
attained a very rapid and high degree of development.   Gorgias,'
the "founder of artistic prose," adopted this style.  He trained
Isocrates, the epideictic orator par excellence, and the two furnish the model for later literature of this class. The epitaphius,
1Epideictic literature as a distinctive division of oratory may for all
practical purposes be said to begin with Gorgias. The ornaments of language known as the Gorgian figures belong to the epideictic branch far
more fully than any other. The rhetorical devices attributed to him are as
follows: (1) wLaKpoXo7ya, amplification (cf. Quintil., VIII, 3, 53); (2) avvTroia,
brevity; (3) an answering of jest with earnest and earnest with jest (cf. Horace,
Sat., I, 10, 14; Cic., De Orat., II, 58, 236); (4) teaching by example rather than
by precept; (5) a style characterized by flowing expression, and rhythmic
arrangement, startling figures of language, bold metaphor, poetic epithets.
His name is especially identified with six figures of language: (1) antithesis
(ciavTri8ea); (2) paronomasia (rrapovoLaa-ila); (3) repetition of sound, alliteration
(Trapx7qo0ts); (4) repetition of words (dva8l7rXwots); (5) likeness of sound in final




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


103


panegyric, encomium, and other leading types of epideictic
speech are found in this early period.      Thus the epideictic
division of oratory reached great prominence very early in the
development of prose literature.   It continued, assuming always
an important, often a commanding, place, until the Greeks ceased
to produce literature.  Taking the most comprehensive possible
view of the course of epideictic oratory -covering as it does some
eighteen centuries, if one includes the oratory of the church on
to the end of the eastern empire-.there are three periods which
stand out with remarkable prominence when compared with other
centuries. These are: the first century of its development, the
fourth B. C., to which the last years of the fifth should be added,
including such names as Gorgias, Hippias, Isocrates, Alcidamas,
Polycrates; the fourth century A. D., with a thoroughly epideictic spirit and a large production; such orators as Libanius,
Themistius. Himerius, Choricius, are representative of the period;
the second century A. D., with a large literature, and such orators
as Aristides, Dion Chrysostomus, Polemon.     There is ample evidence of abundant activity in this branch of oratory during other
centuries, though comparatively little has been preserved.   It is
difficult to judge how completely the orators, with the titles and
character of their orations, have been reported to us, and any
attempt to generalize about epideictic literature must, of course,
take this into consideration as a modifying feature.   Epideictic
oratory, from the ephemeral nature of many of its themes and its
general light and occasional character, would seem least likely to
be preserved.1
syllables of successive words or clauses (oaoLordXevrov); (6) arrangement of
words in nearly equal periods (7rapl[-was, or IToKOXa). These Gorgian figures
had great effect upon Greek prose style, especially oratory, but are nowhere
so prominent as in the epideictic branch. Compare Navarre, Essai sur la
Rhetorique grecque (pp. 92 ff.).
1 Such references as Plato, Sympos., 177 A ff., and Isocrates, Phil., 109,
and in the Helen and the Busiris, to the frequency of hymns in honor of the
gods and prose praises of heroes must imply a large body of literature of this
class before Plato or contemporaneous with him. Cf. Philodemus, col. 34, I,
215, Sudhaus, probably for a later period. He derides the practice of addressing words of praise to a deity.




104


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


The Theory.
Several Greek writers deal with the theory of epideictic
literature.  The earliest extant treatise on rhetoric is that of
Anaximenes.'    But this precedes Aristotle's by but very few
years.   Both come so early in the history of rhetoric as in itself
to render it improbable that oratory received any important general treatment before their day.2 Anaximenes divides oratory into
two classes —& trryoptlcov and 8KcavlKcd.'-  These, however, cover
the same field which Aristotle and later writers divide into three
parts.  Of these two classes Anaximenes makes seven forms:
7rpoTpe7TTrTfl   and aTroTpe7rTtlov, which are political; eyKtco/LaOt-TLtKo
and freKcT7cdv, which are epideictic; and KcaTrayoptuvo and AcroXo777lTUcv, which are judicial.4  To these he adds eferaca-TtKv, which
may be used by itself or in connection with one of the other
forms.   His analysis of the materials for encomia follows much
the same lines as are found later.   He indicates the To'rot much
more fully than Aristotle. His treatment shows how early they
1 For a discussion of the question of authenticity see Cope's Introduction
to Aristotle's Rhetoric, pp. 401 ff.; Spengel, "Die 'PrLTOptLK 7rp6b 'AX\av8pov ein
Werk des Anaximenes," Zeitschr. f. d. Alterth., 1840, 1847; idem, Artium
Scriptores, 183 ff.; Susemihl, Geschic7te der griechischen Lit., II, 452; idem,
Jahresber. ub. die Fortsch. d. class. Alterth. (1885), XIII, p. 1 ff.; Blass, Attische
Bered., II, 353; III, 353 f.; Ipfelhofer, Die Rhet. des Anaximenes unter den
Werken des Aristoteles (Diss., Wurzburg, 1889); Maas, Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 4 (1896), pp. 103 ff.; Navarre, Essai sur la Rhetorique grecque (1900),
336; Barth6lemy Saint-Hilaire in the introduction to his translation of the
Rhet. ad Alexand. The date of the treatise in question, whether immediately
before or after Aristotle, is regarded by some as open to debate.
2However, the great rhetorical activity of this period is clearly shown
from literary sources practically contemporaneous, notably Plato, Phaedr.,
266 E ff., where special mention is made of Theodorus of Byzantium, Evenus
of Paros, Thrasymachus, Polus, Prodicus, Hippias, Protagoras, Lycimnias,
with the implication that others might be named. Compare Sp. Artt. Script.;
Dionys. of Hal., De Isaei Iud., chaps. xix ff.; Arist., Rhet., III, 13, 5; Quintil.,
III, 1, 7 if.; Plato, Sympos., 177 A; Cope on Arist., Rhet., III, 1, 7; Navarre,
Essai sur la Rhetorique grecque (1900); Cic., Orat., chap. 12; Suidas.
3 See Volkmann in Iwan MUller's Handbucher der klass. Alt.-Wis., II, 3
(1891), p. 640; for a different view cf. Navarre, Essai sur la Rhetorique
grecque, pp. 335 ff.
Compare a similar division in Diog. Laert., III, 95.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


105


became stereotyped, and the presence of the same in Menander
and in extant epideictic literature indicates their persistence.
The considerable volume of epideictic writing which had preceded Aristotle's time had, so far as rhetorical treatment was concerned, apparently been connected with either political or judicial
oratory.  Aristotle, with his instinct for classification, as so often
in his Rhctoric, takes here a word which had been used in a
somewhat loose and general way by Plato, and with much greater
definiteness by Isocrates (see pp. 97 ff.), and makes it a full technical term, with distinct outlines and well-defined field. His division
of oratory (Rhct., I, 3, 2 and 3) is based on the attitude of the
hearer, who must be either a fcptrq or a Oecopo  (see p. 92). The
task of the epideictic orator is partly praise and partly blame.1
He deals chiefly with the present time.2 All of Book I, chap. 9,
of Aristotle's Rhetoric is devoted to this topic.  It is an analysis
of virtue and vice, the sources of praise and blame-the material
of the epideictic orator.   In section 38 and following he calls
attention to the appropriateness and importance of amplification
and comparison. The former, though a feature of all oratory,
is a chief characteristic of epideictic speech.3
The frequency with which Aristotle refers to epideictic orators
or quotes from them is noticeable. The most numerous references
are to the ewrtrdcLtos, 7ravr)yvptKo'd,  7rapa'dota eryEcwJiLa, and eyccoluta of
persons-the four types of pure epideictic speech best developed
at that period.4
1 Cf. Arist., Rhet., I, 3, 5; Nicolaus, Sp. III, 449, 20; Alexander, Sp. III,
1, 20; Quintil., III, 7, 1.
2 Arist., Rhet., I, 3, 4; Alexander, Sp. III, 1, 9.
3 Anaximenes, chap. 3 = Sp. I, 186, 11 ff.; Arist., Rhet., II, 18, 3-5; III, 17,
init.; Quintil., III, 7, 6; Aristides, Sp. II, 505, 11; Walz, Rhet. Gr., III, 422;
VII, 12, 74.
4Cf. 1, 7, 34 (Pericles' 7rtr-dtos); III, 10, 7 (same); III, 17, 10 and 11
(Gorgias, Isocrates); III, 14, 1, 2 (the same); III, 14, 11 (the Menexenus); I,
9, 30 (the same); III, 14, 11 (Gorgias). In II, 22, 6, he recognizes the familiar
topics of the epitaphius (and other panegyric forms). " How eulogize the
Athenians unless we are informed of the sea-fight at Salamis, the battle of
Marathon, or the exploits achieved by them in behalf of the Heraclidae and
other like matters? For it is on the real or apparently honorable traits
attaching to each object that all orators found their panegyrics." Note also




106(


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Aristotle (Rhet.. I, 5, 4 and 5) shows his general familiarity
with the chief TOTTro of epideictie discourse -ev- eveta, 7roXvLtXla,
Xpl'r7o~tXOLX a, EUTECKa, 7erc a TOSo, roXvTe/cvta, E evepylia, vyteta, Kca\Xo,
l'cxv, e70o, /eOS  VVL, /                           EV TVXa,  apr-evva, A
etc.  In III, 12, 5 and 6, Aristotle states that the epideictic style
is the best adapted for writing, for its purpose is to be read.' anld
adds (III, 1, 7): "Written speeches (ye'vo9 E&rlSeIKT7LcOJ) owe their
power more to the style than to the thought."
During the comparatively barren period from the close of the
fourth century B. C. to the beginning of the second A. D. there
is abundant epideictic product and many        rhetorical treatises
were written.2   There is no extant treatise of importance from
the time of Aristotle (350 B. C.) to Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
late in the first century B. C."'4  There is a wide gap, not only
Isocrates (Phil., 146-8), where he says that no one praises the city (Athens) for
anything so much as for Marathon and Salamis and Sparta for Thermopylae.
Though more closely identified with the epitaphius than with any other
single form, Marathon, Salamis, and earlier mythical contests, as Aristotle
here suggests, are among the standard topics of epideictic literature as a
whole. Cf. Xenophon, Meri., III, 5, 7-14, where Socrates discusses with Pericles the younger the remedies for the decline of Athens. The record of their
ancestors should stimulate them -the contest between Athena and Poseidon;
the birth and rearing of Erechtheus and the wars waged by him; the defense
of the Heraclidae; the wars carried on in the time of Theseus against the
Amazons, the Thracians, and Crete; how they fought against the Persians,
who were masters of Asia and Europe and did /ueyL-ra epya (canal through
Athos, bridge over the Hellespont); alone of the Greeks they are avroixoves;
Athens has been the defender of justice, an asylum for the oppressed.
The earliest grouping of epideictic themes taken from Athenian history
is to be found in Hdt., IX, 27, where the Athenians employ the familiar
topics in presenting their case-the Heraclidae and Eurystheus' insolence;
the renown of those who died at Thebes; the wars with the Amazons; the
part of Athens in the Trojan war; her deeds at Marathon, and in general
her distinguished services in the Persian wars.  Cf. also Lucian, Rhet.
Praec., 18.
1 Cf. Quintil., III, 8, 63, though he perhaps puts a different meaning into
Aristotle.
2 Susemihl, Griech. Litt. in der Alexandrinerzeit, treats of this period.:3Upon the much discussed question of the genuineness of the rhetoric
under the name of Dionysius of Halicarnassus see C. Brandstatter, Leipz.
Stud., XV (1893), p. 263; Blass, De Dionys. Hal. Scriptis Rhet., Bonn (1863);
Rossler, Dionys. Hacl. Librorum de Init. Reliquiis (Lips., 1873); Sadee, De




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE                       107
in time, but in treatment.      Anaximenes, and still more noticeably Aristotle, treat epideictic oratory from     a general point of
view, almost entirely    disregarding    such  special forms (c. g.,
e7rtrTaL0o, 7rpOTpEorTT7LrKO,   7rar)yvpLtKc, etc.) as had already become
established. The purpose of the earlier treatises by Anaximenes
and Aristotle was to give the general characteristics and theory
of this branch of oratory.    Their rhetoric is not a series of rules
designed to be used by students in actual composition. It is
rather the foundation upon which such rules might be based.
Menander, and still more conspicuously Dionysius, present
little or no general view of their subject.' They occupy themselves
Script. Rhet. Questiones Crit. (Argentor, 1878); Croiset, Lit. grecque, V, 333 ff.;
Usener, Dionysii Hal. quae fertur Ars Rhet. (1895). Usener thinks there
are two parts. The first seven chapters are abridgments from works of the
time of Aristides. Of the second part the fourth chapter is a work of the first
century; chaps. 1 and 2 are from different schools, and the last two are the
work of Dionysius. Cf. also Christ, Gk. Lit. (3d ed., 1898), p. 642; Jahrb. f.
cl. Phil., 115 (1877), 809; Acta Societ. Phil. Leips., V (1875), 269.
4 Among the lost works of Philodemus there is a 7repi eiraivov; see Sudhaus,
I 219, col. 38.
1 The two treatises wrepi e1rt5etKrtKWv under the name of Menander may be
found in Walz, Rhetores Graeci, Vol. IX, 127-330, or in Spengel, Rhetores
Graeci, III, 331-446. Certain difficulties presented by the title, arrangement,
and contents have been noted by scholars and discussed to some extent. The
text of the title is as follows: Mevipov ropo FpOpO  ee0\Xwv &Iaiper-s TWV e7ri8eLKTrKwv.
The word PeveOXiov is unmanageable. Walz and Spengel approve Valesius'
suggestion of rrpbs revO\iop, taking the words as a dedication; Walz sees a
lacuna between the two treatises. More extended discussion of the questions involved may be found in Nitsche's Der Rhetor Menandros und die
Scholien zu Demosthenes (Berlin, 1883). He quotes the views of Bursian
that the first part is by Menander, the second by an unknown author; but
himself holds that Menander is the author of the second half, written perhaps
in 273 A. D., and that the first part is by his contemporary Genethlius. This
view is based largely upon similarities between the second part of the treatise
and the Demosthenes scholia by Menander. The two treatises became
joined in a corpus on epideictic oratory, and through error the name of
Menander was placed before the first. There is an error, too, in the order of
the second part. Nitsche would rearrange: (1) /3ao-tXLKb X6yos, (2) roreQavmK6s,
(3) 7rpeo-eUrVK6s, (4) Zj6Yv0aK6s, (5) KX7TtLK6S, (6) Tpoo(pwvTqLK6s, (7) i7r3ar5Tptos, (8)
arvvTaKTlKOs, (9) XaXtd, (10) TpoTpewrrLtK XaXtad, (11) i7tOaX6d.tov, (12) Ka7revvaoTtK6S,
(13) yeveX0LaK6s, (14) govyqia, (15) rrapa/.uv0rtK6o, (16) e7rTra0Los.
In this order 1-4 inclusive treat of the half-deified rulers of the state and
of Apollo; 5-8 inclusive might be addressed to Roman governors; 9, the




108


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


with differentiation of forms and special directions to students.
Menander in his 7rep'i TrrSet86KTKi    gives rules in minute detail
for the composition of twenty-three varieties which the praise of
men and of things might assume, and even then leaves a considerable part of the field untouched. Dionysius treats only six. Three
of these (the 7ravr7yvpteco', yal/tcods, and 7rporpe7rr7Tco a6&X\rTa) are
not found in Menander; the other three are treated by him with
practically the same directions.    Menander's failure to include
the 7ravrqyvpttecd  may perhaps be accounted for by the changed
status of the 7ravrfyvprt and the degeneration of the speech attending it to a mere personal encomium.
Other extant rhetors add little or nothing to the treatment
of the epideictic branch of oratory.   Several confine themselves
to the practice exercises of the rhetorical schools (Vrpoyvivdcrpara).1 Alexander, son of Numenius (second century A. D.), uses
XaXAd, is a form which may apply stylistically to all; 10-16 are speeches
appropriate to private life. Cf. also Volkmann, Rhet. Griech. u. R6mer, p.
119, n., and Phil. Rundschau (1884), 643 ff.
1 The epideictic department of oratory had an important position in the
rhetorical training of the Greek youth. There is ample evidence of this in
the theoretical treatment and the topics of the 7rpoyvva^vyc-ara or rhetorical
practice exercises. The chief treatises are as follows: Hermogenes (second
century A. D.), Sp. II, 3; Aphthonius (400 A. D.), Sp. II, 21; Theon (date
uncertain), Sp. II, 59; Nicolaus Sophista (fifth century A. D.), Sp. III, 449.
Compare Walz, Rhet. Gr., Vols. I, II, for scholia, and Quintil., II, chap. 4.
Each of the extant works on the 7rpoyv/Lvdacuara discusses to some extent
the usefulness of the various divisions of the 7rpo-yvuvdo-gara for each of the
three branches of oratory. Each had its value for oratory in general, but
some forms were recognized as more helpful to the judicial, others to the
deliberative, and still others to the epideictic forms; others contributed
almost equally to each of the three. Cf. Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III, 449,
where he says, in effect, their purpose is oratory; their material everything;
their training must prepare for each division of oratory. Walz, Rhet. Gr.. II,
569, 4: " rpoyvkuvdco-Ltara are good for each part of the rhetorical art." Walz,
II, 5 (Anon. Scholia to Aphthon.): "useful for all, but not all equally for all
parts." The judgment of the different writers agrees quite closely. The
fullest discussion from this point of view is found in Nicolaus Sophista.
The usual topics of the rpoyvlvdaiogara (see Walz, Rhet. Gr., I, 127; II, 567)
were the y0v0os, or myth; the &r't7rya, or narrative; the xpeia, a maxim made
the basis of a disquisition. It is defined by Hermogenes, Sp. II, 5; Aphthonius, Sp. II, 23, and Theon, Sp. II, 96. The yvur7 (sententia) is a general
proposition treated in like manner. Aristotle (Rhet.. II, 21, 2 and 15) defines




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


109


both terms, eyKoi)LtacrTKcd and ert8SeLfKTtcdv (Sp. III, 1 if.).  He
goes back to Aristotle's division of the audience as deliberators,
judges, or mere listeners   hence the term "epideictic."  He also
gives a brief treatment to hymns. Nicolaus Sophista (Sp. III,
449) uses the term wravr^yvptKow 7yvos exclusively.  He recognizes
that other material besides praise and blame may be properly
introduced into this class of oratory, which was always more
inclusive in practice than in theory. Speaking of CeytcLta (p. 477,
20), he says the encomium is no longer a simple thing, but much
subdivided. He perhaps means to have it understood that this
extreme minuteness of subdivision is of comparatively recent date.
The origin of the word /7KCO/ljOV is discussed by several rhetors.
Hermogenes gives as an explanation (Sp. II, 11 ff.): "They say
it is called e7KcOwtiOV because the poets sang the hymns of the gods
anciently in villages (ev Kcxltu))."  The more probable derivation
is given by Theon (Sp. II, 109, 27): EyKccttov 8'e \e/eyrat Ta O ToV
7raX\aov' ev KCt[LW  lMv Kcal 7ratIa Ta~s elS Oeov evXotyia^ 7rotelv.1
The extent and variety of epideictic literature are readily
learned from the monuments and the reference to such oratory
in Greek literature. But our conceptions gain in scope and
clearness, especially for the period preceding and following the
beginning of the third century A. D., from the notable treatise
by Menander, 7rept fcTr8ScLKecti v, to which reference has already
been made. Menander (Sp. III, 331 ff.) begins with an extremely
brief statement about epideictic oratory in general-two pages
it: the ivaa-Kev' and KaTracKevI, confirmation and the opposite; the KOivbs r67ros,
locus commuznis; the lyKtSuov, a laudation; the 67yos, the opposite of eyKjAuov;
the a6'y7cprTs, a comparison; the 0oTroda, an impersonation or delineation of
character; the EKcpacts, a description; the Oelas, an argument for or against
an assumed question; the v6Aov eida-opd, discussion of a law. The rhetors
cite as of special value to the epideictic orator the eyKmUtov, p67yos, KOLVS r67ros,
r7y'yKpLclI, 0ooroda, yvY yg Oins. Helpful in training for the assembly: gcoos,
Xpela, irporpo~rh, cTrorpOTri, adVCFKECU, 7rapaaCKevU; for the court orator: 090rs, KOLP6S
T67r os, CaKC, rCpivaKv KEV, rOoapare, r0oda, o6yKpwsL, vP6/ov ei(Opop4. Quintil., II, 4, makes
a similar distinction in the helpfulness of the wrpoyvuv da-uaTa. The preparation
of model exercises of this character formed a part of the work of several
epideictic speakers, who were teachers as well as orators, notably Libanius
and Choricius.
1 Cf. Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III, 479, 4; Aphthonius, Sp. II, 35, 26.




110


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


in a total of 116. He adopts Aristotle's triple division of oratory:
ev &KacacT'rlplotl, ev fC\OtXrlaaLt i) /ovXas, and el TrplTrov TOV'o E7rtSeICTLCOKOV'. Epideictic speech deals with praise and blame (331,
15).  In 1. 18 he dismisses the latter, TO iEv TO70V  ro ov Te'pos
aTL7,Tlov.  His treatise involves praise only.  He then makes the
general division of praise (331, 19) into that directed toward
the gods and that which concerns men only. He states in a few
words the general characteristics of hymns and indicates the
many subdivisions which might be made in the praise of mortals.
7rapcdoS(a EiyKJLLCa are recognized (332, 26), but left for others to
discuss.  Following this is his treatment of the forms of prose
hymns to the gods.   He then gives detailed rules for the composition of the twenty-three different kinds of epideictic speech,
including the  /ptvOtaKco  Xo' yoS, an elaborate oration in honor
of Apollo, which. though classed as a Xd7yoS, would senem  more
properly a Vtuvos and should certainly be connected with the
e7rtOaXa/Ltov, cKaTrevvaTo'tKo, and /yaLtKcods as one of the substitutions
of prose for poetry.
His Xoyot are as follows: (1) Praise of a country, its situation, its advantages of climate, products, etc.; its race, founders,
government, history; its advancement il science, literature. etc.;
its festivals, fine buildings, and any other special attractions. (2)
Praise of a city, with Trdrot almost identical with those employed
in the praise of a country.  (3) Praise of a harbor —very brief.
(4) Praise of a bay-very brief.    (5) Praise of an acropolis
very brief.  (6) Praise of a city from its yevon, and (7 ) from its
characteristics or pursuits ( eTr7rTv8evo e).  The TO7roL here are
naturally like those in the general praise of a city, except for the
emphasis at special points.  (8) The /3ao-L\Xcb  Xo'yoos, a speech
of praise addressed to the ruler (see pp. 113 ff. for detailed presentation).  (9) Ei7t/3ar7pLos Xodyos, a speech on disembarking.  It
may be addressed to one's state on returning from a journey, or
it may be a greeting to a town or to its newly arrived ruler.
After an expression of joy over the arrival, the speech follows the
lines of the 3aoaXucotb Xdoyos, passing at its close into a praise of
the city or country involved.     These main themes vary in




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


111


prominence according to the circumstances of delivery. When
addressed to one's native land the speech may be termed a
rdcarptLo Xo'yo.  (10) XaXLt. This was the name given to a style
rather than to a topic.  It is noticeable for the absence of fixed
rules.  Several topics of the epideictic circle might be treated in
the style of the XaXtd, which was more free and easy, sometimes
conversational, yet abounding in sweetness, spirited narrative,
pictures, skilful turns, proverbs, quotations.  There are two Ei'7;
one is a c-vfL/3ovXerLcOv el8os, the other more purely epideictic.
It may be used to praise kings or states, or to advise and exhort,
or to announce some fact pleasant or grievous; it may be sportive
in character, praising or censuring something.    Brief speeches
serving as introductions were termed 7rpoXa\tai.  Menander says
(389, 27) that the history of Herodotus is full of materials and
suggestions for sweet speeches of this sort and that kaXia' should
be characterized by the simplicity and smoothness of Xenophon.
( 11) 7rpovreLt7rr'fcoLK Xo'yos, a speech to one departing; it is of three
kinds: if between equals, it is of a lover-like character; if to a
superior, laudatory; a superior may address an inferior, then advice
is prominent; when addressed to a ruler it resembles the /aoatXLcoK
Xo7yo. (12) The erWLaXac/Loi,   a marriage hymnn. (13) cKarEvvao-t/cds. allied to the preceding. ( 14) yeVveOXtaiKc, on a birthday. (15)
7rapatkvO071TcO' Xkyogs, a consolation. It begins with a lament. It
speaks of the ye'vo0, vo-tr,v avarpof), 7raLSeia, d7rtTr8elara, wrCopa$e,
etc., of the deceased.  He is in Elysium: no reason to mourn.
It is similar in many ways to the yiovT&'a, and has its close relations
also with the erL7TafLos.1  (1C) 7rp-ooSowrVTTLCo, an address of welcome to a ruler, closely allied to the /aoCrtXLKco.  (17) C'rLtadto
Xo'yoS, a funeral oration.  (18) CTEaoVWTrcb (o-TrEavLcKO) Xdyo7,
1The large literature falling under this general head is treated by
Buresch in Leipziger Studien, IX (1871), 1-164, under the title, "Consolationum a Graecis Romanisque Scriptarum Historia Critica." He discusses
the feeling of antiquity in regard to pain and sorrow, and enumerates with
more or less fulness of detail all the compositions of this character among
Greek and Roman writers. A supplement is added on Philodemus' Wrepi
Oavcdrov. Cf. also for Latin literature, Jahrb. f. cl. Phil., Suppl., N. F. (1h92),
XVIII. 445, and XIX, 319 (cf. also p. 70).




112


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


a gratiarlo' i actiO, at the presentation of a crown or in recognition
of some honor bestowed. It is a pure encomium. (19) 7rpea/3ev7TtKo( Xdyoo, an ambassador's speech, closely allied to the preceding and, like it, often becoming a 3aoiXiKco'd. In addition to
the praise of the ruler, it states the special cause for the embassy
and pictures the conditions which occasioned it.    The speech
admits of great variety.  (20) tcXyrtco'K Xdoyos, a speech of invitation addressed to a ruler.  It contains praise of the prince and
of the city, of the event to which he is invited.  It is therefore
largely a f3aaLtXtLK  Xo'7yo?.  (21) o-vvrTaKrtlKO  Xo7od, a farewell
speech.  It laments the necessary parting, praises the people left
and that to which one is going.     Homer (Od., XIII, 38 ff.)
presents a model and a text.  (22) utovo8ia, a plaint.  Its TOTOl
are in part those of the ETrrtaCtos and the 7rapauvuO~rtaKco'.  Its
style more closely resembles that of poetry. It is brief, and may
be occasioned by other circumstances besides the death of a relative or friend. An example may be found in Aristides' oration
(Or. XX) on the destruction of Smyrna by an earthquake; or
Libanius (Or. LXI) on the burning of Apollo's temple.      (23)
/uLOLaKc0o XdyoS, in honor of Apollo.  It is a hymn.  Menander
was himself the author of one (Sp. III, 335, 24).
To these may be added from     the Rhetoric of Dionysius of
Halicarnassus: (24) yakt-lcb  X'7yo?, similar to the crtOaXdLtttov
(25) vravryvpLtKo X6o'yos, delivered at a 7ravryvpts.l  Its composition is such as might easily lead to its disintegration into several
speeches. The name, however, was retained for its most distinctive feature-praise of a person, at first a king, later any
laudatory speech, delivered at a 7rav7^yvptLp; or, still more frequently, no such general gathering was required. The 7ravaOr1 -vaiKsc^ Xo'yo?, which has no rhetorical treatment, is a special type
of the 7ravriyvptKo's. (26) 7rporpeTrTt7LK  Xo'dyo, a union of the o-vp-,/ovXevrTtcov, and the f7t8SeLKtrTtLcO, eS8os. Dionysius of Halicarnassus treats one form  of it in his Ars Rhetorica —TrpoTpE7T7rtco
1Von Leutsch, Philol., 17, 357, presents the arguments which indicate
that there were prose panegyrics at Syracuse and in VEgina before Corax.
Cf. Spengel, Artium Script., 63. Cf. also Jahrb. f. Phil., XIII (1884), 417 ff.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE11


113


AOXygrat'.    The 77-poTpE/rTtKoS', Xo'yIo, was niuch    used by philosophers as well as orators, and the element of display varies.               It
has close relations also with the 77rep't /3aoLtXEt'a,. It is sometimes
called 7TrapaVeTtKo; Xo',yo,~.' Menander has a bare reference to
(27) 7rapdi8o~a &yKco/ia
'0 BA:,IAIKO:, Aoro:~.
No sinogle term represents the aim and scope of epideictic.
literature so completely as the wordl J-yicw'tov. 2      That the encomiastic feature is the most dlistinmctive~ cliaracteristic of this branch
of literature is clear fromt the fact that the title e'y tw1ttaGo-tKo'V is
frequently -used to designate the E78oS', from the discussion of its
theory by the rhetors, as well as from the examination of its
literature.
The word " encomiumn" is used sometimes in a loose way, with
merely the general idea of laudatory style.           It stands here for a
point of view and a method of treatment. It is also used for a
distinct divisioii of literature, a laudatory composition on some
assigned theme and following conventional rules. It is a presentation, with more or less extravagant praise, of the good qualities of a person or thingy.3       Encomia in the latter sense are of
1For a comparison of these two titles see, chapter on philosophy.
2Comipare Navarre, Essai sur la Rh~torique grecque avant Aristote
(Paris, 1900), p. 84, where he ends his discussion of a definition for the epideictic branch: "Au total on d~flnerait done fort exactement les diverses
varikt's de le'loquence 6pideictique en les appelent des encomia en prose."
ITheon (Sp. II, 109, 20) defines e-YK#LJ~ov thus: E-YK6,it6P &77-t Xyo'lO C v~mi~ov
g.dYE6OO T,(6P KaT' a'pEi7-v Wrpa'fEGJ Kai t'v 7-OVXXWP' diyca~cv 7rept' W'pto-vop irp6o-cvrov. For
similar definitions see Hermogenes, Sp. II, 11, 17; Aphthonius~ Sp. II, 35, 25;
Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III, 478, 25; Anaximenes, Sp. 1, 186, 11.
The encomiumn deals with 6,goXo-yowvgcov di-ya6(~P: Nicolaus Sophista, Sp.
III, 481, 29, &Z? 61wXoyovydvwv diyca&c3v j~docavov -yivscroat; Theon, Sp. 1I, 109, 28, T&a
d/yaLO& giXto7-ra eiralverat; cf. also Menander, Sp. III, 346, 9 if.; Arist., Rhet.,
II, 22, 6.
The aim of the encomium is to set forth in the best possible light the
character and virtues of its subject. Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III, 479, 17: -o
Uh POP~ )/'1V 'g(P 'T6 63'7 TOITo e'YKW/LLOP 03oVaLrx6[ueov O' EK7rovOI/AeV et's EWCaLLOP TUX6V
ciV6p6' /3eOLWK6ros 7rp6s dperh5v. Hernmogenes, Sp. II, 12, 5: 7T6 6U e'7K~b)ULOh P' 77t
dpe~ri's e~et lalprvpiap. Alexander Rhetor, Sp. III, 2, 17: e-YKW/i~d~eo-Oat... 6v
iroXXa~ dperadS KEKOO/ThLqh'OV0; cf. Julian, Or., I, init. Isocrates, Panath., 123:
7-o 6 s TOC'ErLXeLpoUvT7aS KaO' bwepf30X?55 7tLvas EWCat'e~v /)7 ToO7To gs6vop e7651EK V6 SLt, /A




114


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


the greatest possible variety in thme-igeods, men, cities, lands
animals, plants, pursuits, qualities, paradoxical themes. The encomium of a god was early made a distinct type and called a hymn.
An encomium     of the (lead was called all e7rrlTdaLo  (Theon. II,
109, 24). Of the remaining themes the praise of a person was
naturally the most prominent, and practically all rhetorical discussiol agrees with this conception of relative importance.'
The encomium appears first in poetry. It was a late specialization in Melic Song.     The earliest is said to have been composed by Simonides in honor of those who (lied at Thermopylte.
Encomia were composed also by Pindar, Bacchylides. and other
poets.  As later in prose, the word had a general application llnd
a more restricted one.     In the latter sense it was carefully
rovtpovs ovTas auVTOS, a\X' obs a7rad'aLs Tras adpTat.s KUa TWV TOTe K TWOV vv IL7jveyKav.
This element of extravagant praise in the encomium is seen in Plato, Sym.positm), 198 E: TO KaX\Ss braLvetv OTLOVV means rTO s YeylTo'ra dvaft Oevat rp Trpdy/uart
Kal Ws KadX\\oTa ed'v re 7 OVTUWS eXova, edv re 'Lu'.
The word "encomium" may be used to include the speech of censure as
well as that of praise: Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. IIl, 482, 14. This is explained
and defended by Doxopater, Walz, Rhet. Gr., II, 461, 9 ff.
The word e'ratvos is used freely us a substitute for eyKwd/,ov without difference of meaning, although a theoretical distinction is made, e. q., Aristotle,
Rhet., I, 9, 33: eo-Tt ' eraLvos; o aVyo, ea YEv O  CiP/Ee7os pe...... TO o eKWjLOV
TV ep-ywv eCO Ti. In practice, however, he makes no such distinction, as the
next section shows. The writers on the 7rpoyvlvdi'a.ra. speak of the 'TraCioT as
brief, dealing with a single virtue. The E'-KWov is detailed and includes all.
But this distinction is not observed in practice. Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III.
478, 30; Hermogenes, Sp. II, 25; Aphthonius, Sp. II, 35, 29; Aristides Rhetor,
Sp. II, 505, 6. The most extended discussion is given by Alexander, Sp. III,
2, Atdc5opa eraivov Kai eCyKw/Jov, where four distinctions are given, but the
treatise is prefaced by the remark: rtves  v oav oi'ovrTat didqopov elvat, Era.ivov,
CyKb,/Ucov elirelv.
In theoretical treatment the Kce0aXata and rules for presentation are
always (Menander excepted) for a person. At the close of the discussion a
direct statement is usually added to cover all other encomiastic themes,
stating that these are to be treated with the same heads and after the
analogy of the encomium of a person. Doxopater, Walz, Rhet. Gr., II, 424 ff.,
tells in detail how to apply the topics of the encomium of a person when one
is addressing a city or praising a thing. Cf. Scholia ad Aphthonium, Walz,
II, 45, 9 if.; Anaximenes, Sp. I, 188, 2 if.; Menander, Sp. III, 332, 20-30;
Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III, 481, 30 ff.; Theon, Sp. II, 112, 15; Hermogenes,
Sp., II, 13, 6; Quintil., III, 7, 26.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


115


distinguished from closely related forms, especially the TrtvtlIcov.
Smyth (MJclic Poets, LXXVI) gives the most recent and complete discussion of the poetic encomium: "In its limited and
specific application the encomium denotes a panegyric of living
personages illustrious for their station or deeds  kings, princes,
warriors, victors at the national games, magistrates, and, in the
latest times, the emperors of Rome."
Like so many other forms of composition, the encomium was
transferred from poetry to prose. The rhetors, in discussing the
origin of the word, imply their belief in the poetic source of the
encominium.
e~llC lllilllll.
The earliest prose encomia were of mythical charactersAchilles, Busiris, and the like.  Isocrates dealt with these theles,
but in the way of literary criticism  rather than as topics of his
choice.  The fashion of his (lay does not meet his approval.2 In
the Euaygo'ras (init.) lie declares himself an innovator.  Many
learned men had spoken on other themes, but no one heretofore
had ventured avpops aperr7v 8taL Xdoywv E'YcWOjLtd'eLv.  His innovation appears to have been in the use of prose for an encomium of
this character, in the choice of a contemporary as the subject, and
in the method of treatment.  Many of the permanent features of
the encomium were fixed before Isocrates' time.  They are seen
in the extant literature and in literary references, notably in
Aristotle's analysis of Gorgias' praise of Achilles (Rhiiet., III,
17. 11), but the most distinctive feature remained for Isocrates
to add.  He is the first to make portrayal of character the real
theme. That this is his purpose in an encomium appears from a
general perusal of the Eittf/oras and from    special passages:
Sec. 4: O6 Xo'7o.... aet/lvYfl-rov TrV apervTi rTjv Evaoypov,rapa
TraLv avOpOwrOLs' 7rotrj?7Eev.  Cf. 8, 23, 29, 33, 53, 58, (865, 73.
Sec. 76: aOpotlas Tra< aperas raE E/CElOV Kat T  XO YW KOt\ a fco 'aF
7rapa8oltl Oewopecv V'ilv cKatl vvSLarpl/3etv avra'i.  Moral qualities
Hermogenes, Sp. II, 11, 23; Aphthonius, Sp. II, 35, 26; Theon, Sp. II,
109, 27; Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III, 479, 4. The indebtedness of the encomium
to poetry, in particular that of Isocrates to Pindar, is presented in detail by
E. Conrotte in Musde belge, II (1898), p. 168.
' Cf. Euag., 6; Panath., 1 and 2.




116


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


had found a place in encomia in Pindar, but only in single sentences as a general characterization. There is no analysis of
character. To introduce the deeds as an evidence of virtues, to
bring out the character of the one praised, was a new point of
view.  Isocrates does this for the first time in the Eiltjoras.
This exaltation of character and the choice of the traditional
four virtues, appearing just at this period for the first time, are
in keeping with the more elevated view which Isocrates took of
the epideictic class of literature, and must also be due in large
measure to the influence of the Socratic teachings. The encomium in the form which Isocrates gave it, and which it maintained
ever after, could hardly have come into being apart from  this
influence.
The encomium, although closely related to it, should be carefully distinguished from history, both in aim and method.  History has for its purpose the narration of events, the presentation
of facts, usually in chronological order, and an impartial interpretation of their relation to one another.  It is not concerned
with praise or blame, and is far from having a theory to maintain for which facts must be chosen, some emphasized and some
ignored, or even the truth sacrificed. It lacks all personal bias.
The encomium does not necessarily narrate, but in most cases
assumes a knowledge of the facts. It presents them only so far
as its chief aim-the glorification of the individual-may be
best served.  To this end facts may be selected at will, grouped
in any order, exaggerated, idealized, understated, if detrimental
points must be touched upon. Although both rhetors and orators
make frequent protestation of adherence to truth, facts may be
invented in some cases. The special aim and the personal element are strong and open. The difference both in treatment and
style was recognized by ancient rhetors. Cf. Arist., Rhet., III,
16, init..* &Lrjy7vL  ' Ev ieLv TOS eE7rtStcKtL/colS EOTtLV ovKc COeerS? aX\a
caTa /kepo9.,.. oLa oe T'700       olT c Q eUKE  ES  t &L7?yelTCOat,
olov el OeXets 'AXLtXXea eraLvetv tlacOL yap 7ra'VTe Tras 7rpctSEL
athta Xpio-Oat avTrats ofe. eazv e KptTtrav, ol' ov ryap 7roXXol 'taaoatv.
Theon, Sp. II, 112, 2: vrpdtetL.... ovcK CeE:tr? 8t7yoVjf/EVOt.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE17


117


Doxopater, Walz, Rhet. Gr-., II, 413, 18: ia-Topi'a Ta-' 7rpoad'vra 'rtatv
axyaa\&?tW/r'OeTat, TO' E'YKO'Jf.LOl- aETa aV3~?7aEW~ Kat Ka-raT/KEVqq
wrpoaYeoiOac et-, and 412, 25: ~ Tz' u yt\P  tyaaXos  ov ce
xoq wpay~adawc 7rw^? TO' &6 E'yK60 Ltov KaXO wv7paryllfTWv Kcat TOD FLE"V
&4~jylia-ro, DtXX' O-KcOwT'~v T0 &3d~at SXa8,q To\V a/KpoaTrq)v r1\7v Ttpay/LtE'L  To  \ E7KW/O~L'V T\ OavLaaoqvat '7r\ 7o0L9 XEyo/~k EVoLt T\
6E7KWc~OIta0EVOV' Kat Cl LeV ~Ue 31177o7/ICaTt Kap Tra 7rpo-pOOOa7( TtVL
8&EpX60/Jae~a, aXX' oVyt icat TOP wpca'camra Oav/.dLa6O/IEP e7T' E'KEL'PoqL~
V EP  Tp6' e'yKC0)ILL( o' 0  J'vopP Ta\ 77-poo-o'r T(PL KacXa\ Xe`yo~tkEV, a'XXa' Kai
67' 2Cct'votq Oavjiafoptcv. The e'n-tTd'4toq, which is the oldest form
of prose encomium extant, shows these characteristic differences
from history. They may be seen also in Isocrates' Eutagoras,
and are directly stated a few years later in the Philipp)1us (sec.
109), where he refers to the usual rehearsal of Heracles' exploits
in encomia as historical; they merely enumerate his deeds. He
sees the opportunity to treat the subject anew in the form of a
true encomium which makes virtues-character, the determining
feature.
The connection between the encomium and biography is still
more intimate. Biography is an essential part of history, but
when made a separate composition it partakes of the nature of both
history and the encomium. A portrayal of character is the main
aim in each, so events may be treated in summary fashion; but
the encomium gives more room for choice, idealization. omission.
The encomium may be more or less fully biographical as the subject is well known or not. Achilles does not require that the facts
of his life be presented, but in praising Critias, whose deeds are
not familiar, the orator must narrate. Polybius (X, 21 (24), 8)
contrasts the method appropriate for his life of Philopoemen
with that to be employed in history: &o'jw7ep yap eCKELtVOqO0 Td`WrO9,
i'wdpywv EyK&)/Lt(1O~~~~~~~~~~TtKO'~I,.1~7TIEt TOP K cL1c~to?)I(t1LT  V47E
TOW7TC4WV '7wOXoIyt-~Uo'v OV'T&W9 0 T?7S 1ff TO' qL1, KOPq'v 7
Ica * fyov, ~'17TET VW aX17O1 Ka\ Top /JIET' '7wO8E~EW9 Ka\ T'V EKaUOS
7rapEWro/LEP(AI o-vXXoyw7to-~(P. -Compare also Dionysius of ialaicarnassus, Ep. ad Cn. Pomp. (Ie Platone, 751, 8 (Reiske). The
point in discussion is the difference between an encomium and a




its


118      ~~STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


collplete investigation: obTav aEP v ~atov wpo4'Xypat ypadoev TtS~
wFpay/.tai-os> ELTE 07(o/FaToS~ ovoto-Or/e~tvo9~, TaS? apE-raS~ av7-ov, Kat OV Ta.
aTVX?7~a7a, Et 'Tt 77-pOOCOE0Tt WO 7wpdyFLar,  T( 7  C70)/IaTL &LZ 77TPOoPELV- OTav) &E /3OVx?7y &tayi('ovat, Tt' TO' KpaTt07T0V EV 0798TWUOTE 13'~
Kat Tt To /3eXTLO-TOlJ T'OV  V\TiT\l)0~'"laW       77    'C~,E-aT)
E eTao-tv 7l-poc 'etEv, Kcat zij78ev 77apaX~t'77-1Et TrAiv 77-poCoovwv av~rots,~
EGTE KcaKiV, ELTE wtya6&wO.
The encomiuni is not to be made an apology. Isocrates is
our authority for this.   It is no true encomium    which assumes
an apologetic tone.   He says,(Helen, 14):    -iroXwydto-Oat tke  yap,
7TrpOOI77KEt 7T-Ept ToWv Ct&KICEL  aurua) EXOVTO)V, e7'tCLVEtv   TOVI~ E7Tt
a~yaOa^ 7(1)t &taoepo' a This is quoted by Theon, Sp. II, 112, 11.
in support of his opinion that faults should be concealed as
much as possible, tk\ ~Ka'OwtzEv AvoXoyi'av) APT' E1yKW,4/LV 7r0u0)-avTESQ.
Compare also Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III, 481. 28, where he says
that the question often    arises whether the encomium       admits
Of APTMEOTJL  (opposition, criticism, disputable material").   The
answer is: No; but if the case absolutely requires it, explain
away artfully.    Quintilian (III, 7, 6) provides for Occasional
apology and defense.
Rhetorical treatment of the encomium in the abstract. i. c.,
apart from   some person or thn, isnot separated fromt that of
enconilastic literature as a whole.  Rhetorical discussion of the
encomium ill its more restricted sense is abundant.3
The rhetors who deal with the 7poyv/Lvdw7liara make the E"yico3 -/io'one of its forms and add rules for its composition.     With
them the term has at least three distinct signiticaitios:    4)' It
ICf. Busiris, 5.
2 Cf. Anaximenes, chaps. 3 and 35; Aristotle, -Rhet., I, 9.
Oine would consult here Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ar-s Rhet.; Menander, rept' efl-6ELKI-LKL~V; the writers on progymnasmata-Hermog-enes, Aphthonius, Theon, Nicolaus Sophista, Aristides, together with the scholia to
Aphthonius, and Doxopater, Ad Aphthonium.
4The E'YK6cALOv and qoP-yos are treated with much minuteness of detail by
writers on the 7rpo-yvu.vd'op.~ra.. Sp. 111, 477; II, 11-14, 305, 36, 109-12. As in
Dionys. of Hal. and Menander, the 9-YKWuo',U is the theme of real importance.
Its T67rot are those found in the encomiastic X6-yot of Menander. The 7rpo-yvuJaC 0 -ia~ra as a whole are essentially stylistic. Even when their primary purpose is
to prepare for other divisions of oratory they are characterized by epideictic




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


119


is employed for the epideictic class as a whole, c. g., Nicolaus
Sophista, Sp. III, 4-77, 20, where he includes radvres a7-rX&o? ol
evqrfflbav XEovre7E  Xdyot under the title eyjcc;ltov and calls it an
eUSos.  Doxopater, Walz, Rhet. Gr., II, 415, 13: iorJeov 8e, oTrL rT
e7/COJtLOV yEVmlKOV eCOrtLV ovoxa oatpelrat yap etS rTe eC7rt3arplov...
Kcal a7Xrkt   el rdvrasv TovyL evq/juLtav 7replte'ovraS Xo'yovS. Cf. Scholia
ad Aphthon., Walz, II, 618, 10, and Theon, Sp. II, 61. 20. (2) It
is used in the ordinary sense of a speech in praise of a person
or thing. Their rules for its composition illustrate this meaning,
and Aphthonius gives examples in his 7yKcoJ/LtOV  ovJcv8i8ov and the
cootas eycoWJLLtov.  (3) The encomium    is an element which may
be introduced as a subordinate feature in other forms.     This use
is discussed by Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III, 478 (see p. 95).
From the specific statements given by these rhetors and Menander, together with the more general treatment of the subject given
by Anaximenes and Aristotle, we can readily discover the method
and the topics which by theory should enter into the encomium.
The ideal for the encomium of a person, both in theory and practice, was remarkably uniform.'    It agrees in general conception,
qualities. The most prominent among them is the use of encomiastic r7-ro
in other and apparently unrelated rrpoyvuvdao-aTra, e. g., those classified below
as especially helpful for symbouleutic and forensic oratory.
In the Xpeta praise of the author, his country, etc., are important r6rot.
Cf. Sp. III, 461-3; II, 6. Aphthonius, Sp. II, 23, gives a sample xpeia in which
the " eyKowlaaTLK6oPv" is made a prominent division. So also in the example
of the yvPW'U77; Sp. II, 26. For 'Eratvos in the KOLVOS Troros see III, 470, 471; II,
106, 107; in the V'a6KpLarL, II, 14, 42, 113-15; in the rOowroda, 1I, 115; III, 490.
The -0 rs (cf. also the bro're-ls) is defined as symbouleutic in form, but panegyric in material; Sp. III, 494, 495; I1, 120, 121. The composition of the
ao-s, a fictitious address before an imaginary tribunal, based upon laws existing only in the mind of the speaker, and its Tr7rot, directly transferred from
the eCYKw/LLOP, favored the epideictic style. Cf. Choricius, p. 205, Boiss.; Libanius, Vol. IV, R; Seneca's Controversiae. Much the same could be said of
several other forms. Thus the prominence of the eyKwiulov as a separate 7rpoyiuvaoja, together with its entrance as an element into many others, helps to
prove the epideictic character of the rpoyvuijvdorara as a whole and accounts
in large measure for the strong influence of Greek rhetorical training in
continuing and extending the epideictic style.
1 For instance, Theon (cf. also Hermogenes, Sp. II, 12,21) reproduces dSp. II,
110) much of the detail of Anaximenes (Sp. I, 186, 187). Much the same may
be found also in Aristotle, Rhet.. I, 9, 16, 18, 19, 31, 38, and Quintil., III, 7,12,16.




120


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


and even largely in details, from almost the earliest to the latest
period of Greek literature.
The main topics or divisions1 are given in the most thoroughly
tabulated form by Aphthonius' (date variously given, 315, 400
A. D.) in his brief treatment of E7yKC&/LOV. Cf. also Sp. II, 35
and 36; Walz, Rhet. Gr., II, 617, 20ff. (Scholia ad Aphthon.);
Doxopater, Walz, II, 423 ff.; 434, 30; 464, 20. His scheme is
as follows:


1. 7rpootLtov
II. yevo   -
III. dvarpoOfq


9 1. Wevos
I  2. 7rarptL
3. rpoyovot
( 4. 7raTEp~S
r 1  E7rtTroiEvf/aTa
- - 2. T EXv
K 3. vo'/ot


r 1.
IV. 7rpa$EEL
(TOr IEyLoTOV A 2.
KedXaLov)
3.
V. OVryKpPLCTL
VI. E'7royos


A'a I  K i aoV7ta
KLTGa awrua  7TXOo
Ka7a" TvxXv mko 4rXoq
(Atnot


Although Menander gives no separate chapter to the encomium, he recites its rTOrot, e. g., III, 420, 11.    The e7rm-rLdLo
1 KeacdXata, rT6ro are used, though the latter more frequently.,udpr occurs
sometimes. Doxopater, Walz, Rhet. Gr., II, 412, discusses the use of these
terms. He regards rb7rot as more appropriate for the encomium, but in II,
434, 30, and elsewhere, he uses Kfcd\XaLa for the main heads and uppvq for
subordinate.
2 This seems to represent what Nicolaus Sophista (Sp. III, 479, 26) of a
century later calls the prevailing view in distinction from that of the ancients,
especially Plato, and represented apparently by Theon.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE12


121


employs them: ye'vov, ygveOutq, Outo1, A'vaTpoquj, 7rat8et'a, e'7rtrq eV'a wpaEts? (1. 25), r'Xq (1. 28), o`ypn~(.3)         f  1,1
and the I8ao-At/cud Xo',yoq. Dionysius of Halicarnassus says (VI, 2)
that the 'rO'7wot of the &rt-ra'Ctoo9 are the same as those of the,EyKc(o/ltoV: 7rarptL9 (7wpdyovot), 4oat,, A'rywy~ (7ratSeta, e7rtrT?7eEV-_
i.aTwia), 7rpd'~Ete. With these compare Anaximenes, Sp. I, 225, 6:
(1) wpooit'ltov, (2) ycv~caXoyt'a, (3) a~a-rpoOf7) (e~pya, rpfosoo,, e7Ttmj8,EvJ~aaLra), (4) oiVJy1,pw0t,.  All discussion is from the point of view
of ap'rc~t'. The 4v6t#qlta and ryvd#',4 of the person praised are to
be brought out prominently.'
The continuity in the ideal for the encomium is best seen in
Tbeoin.' There are three sources of praise (II, 109, 29), since
yaYad are of three classes: Ta' vet.~ #vX?7' TE Kait?7909," ra,  WefJLe
o ))ua, 7- & 6~ wez'. This division, Nicolaus Sophista (Sp. III,
479, 20) says, is that of the ancients, especially Plato. Theon
presents them in chiastic order:
Ta e~(Oev are evye~vcta, 7wo'X-t,, "Ovos?, 7roXi'TE&, 70VEit9, ratrSt~a,
O~tXt'a  4a, ApX', 7WXODTO9, 1EV'T1EICVta, ev0avaa-ia.
Ira wEp t o-oju a are ul,6t  0XV, KaXX9 Evao7ta.
ra 7rp*Vyqjv are Ta ao~~        )LaKtTVOS         uoo~va
7rpcLEvL; say that one is opo 'v/oO-paw, aZJ8pe-a?, 8' atos?, 050-Lo?>
'X1EV9e`pL0S?, AE1YaX0'fp&w, and the like.
One notes especially the similarity to Anaximenes (Sp.I, chap.
35, especially, p. 225, 24ff.).  There &7a~da' are: (1 Ta 'o ri-7
apCT?,s (2) Ta eV aiTj T'y APICTv. The former are 6,ye'vEta,
KaXXoS?, 7wXoi3'Toq; the latter, o-oob'a, &tKatoa-Jvq4, atv~pet'a, gvWo~a ~t
Tyq8v/L.aTa. These are to be made more prominent. Compare
also Auctor- ad Hei-en., III, 6, 10 if., for an analysis similar to
that of Theon.
Almost all writers upon the encomium and other epideictic
forms speak directly or indirectly of the great freedom allowed in
applying rhetorical precepts. The subject and the circumstances
must determine the prominence of the various T'7orot. The situation may even demand that some be omitted altogether. One
'Cf. 227, 2 and 22; 228, 1.
2In discussion of -r6yot- he sometimes almost translates Anaximenes and
Aristotle (see p. 119, n. 1).




122


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


frequently meets such statements as that of Menander (Sp. III,
370, 9): cav 8e ruae 7} 7raTpi  rT TO eOvo' TrvyXdvY 7rEpiL/3\eTTV,
at7frEtLs kEv TOVTO, etc.  Cf. Quintil., II, 13.
The essential features of an ordinary encomium of a person
seem to have been:
1. 7rpooittov. Great freedom is allowed here; anything which
the subject suggests.1 One of the most common features was a
profession of inadequacy before a subject so vast.   Doxopater
(Walz, Rhet. Gr., II, 449, 33) says: "'It is the law of encomiasts to agree always that the subject is greater than words can
match."
2.  e'vo —the ancestry immediate and remote. Here belongs
also reference to the city, the country, or the nation of the one
praised.  Any one of the four subdivisions given by Aphthonius
may be taken to the exclusion of the others.
3. ye'VEo-v. This refers especially to any noteworthy fact preceding or attending the birth-an omen or a dream.      Pericles.
Romulus, and Cyrus are the stock examples.2
4. avaTpoc -- the circumstances of his youth.      A stock
reference here is to Achilles, who fed on lions' marrow and was
trained by Chiron.    Under this head one may refer also to
early indications of character ((Vo-~vL rTit AvXi ), love of learning,
natural ability, special aptitudes.4  Doxopater (Walz, Rhct. (rt'..
II, 429, 27) defines avatpor.: T7 8e 5varpof r T'J 7ratSevativ Ka
7rV EK 7wraiSov efS a'vpas 87Xo Twrpdo8oo. He says one must not
call it TpoIjI (1. 25), but Hermogenes does so (Sp. II, 12, 10).
5. etrLTq8evjLaTa. There is considerable variety in its definition and also in its use.   The highest interpretation is that
given by Menander, who means by et7rTLS7evJiara deeds implying
choice and so revealing character apart from T7pd4teIS  ayo/wLaTItcal.
Compare also e7rLtlqSevLaLca 7yap EOT'tv r'8ttElS  TOV 'o0ovS Kcai T' '
7rpoatpeo-'ew  TwV avSpwc v avev 7Trpdacev aeywvtOrTTctV (Sp. III. 384,
' Cf. Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III, 479, 27.
2 See Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III, 480, 31 ff.; Menander, Sp. III, 371, 3;
Hermogenes, Sp. II, 12, 8; Quintil., III, 7, 11.
3Menander, Sp. III, 371, 18 ff.
4Menander, Sp. III, 371, 25 ff.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE12


123


20, En-tflaT 'pto9~).  His reference, to it in the f8aotX~s     do
agrees with this (372, 4): Ew7LT '8Ev/paTat 8' EGo'TtV a"VEV Alyco'vcow
arpCt,~ 'tl 6ca'5 (this is Walz' reading, IX, 220, 10) Kca' a  ~~
T?783EVf~LaTa "OovSq eltoaatv 77-cptC`XEL, oiOv O'Tt 8 t'Kato9 EyEfVETO 1~ U(4op)V`
eV) Ty PCOT?jTt.' This interpretation of the term requires that in
practice the 7wpd'Ctq should be more or less intermingled with the
L7TtTJ8EvL.ka Ta. The C'wtTq8~Cl~paTa determine the 7Tpd~Et9 and-also
are seen in them. Doxopater, in explaining why EtTrp9cE4LaTa
have no place in the praise of a city, -adds as the reason (Walz,
Rhcf Gr. II 431, 32): Errt~q8EvJ/tara fAV ylap EO-Tt ICoL t-4rvy,Ea' X oyo   a   pot'       A  careful distinction  is then made
between CWLTq8Ev'LEaTat and TE`xvy. With this compare Anion. ad
Ap)didont., Walz, RMc. GUr., II. 43. 23: C'W7LT'8&vFa /LEV? To',310
atp~et~ OtZ 0   EL "XETO O-TpcaTEV'EOOat * TCXP) & TO Etq e~L  EXOV TOV
EWIT?7&Cv,1LLaTo9. ET~pot 8SC Oafxto- t TCVy 4LE\v TO\ ta' /iatO'0OEWq Utdrnq
7-pOO-yvoff~ v E77TL         \  \ lr OlJ/.O 'Cwa &  To E7T t )V 7Tpa7FLaTUM cVTOWV 77KEtV
EIS ILETaXetpLO-tP.  (96 'Aptao-TOTAy9 TVXO\) E/I1aOE /.LEV K~t 7 T7\/V
e2T fLV   E7TEI7(EV(YE &E T\/V Ot)XOGTO0f' a, 7rTu) TO\c )LOALLO
aviT?7 TpC-eJia,~
This leads to the other important meaning. One learns many
things. but some with greater zeal and 'by choice. This element of
personal choice usually decides the vocation.    So in the treatises
on the wrpoyvpkvdao-LaTa especially E'7rtLT18ev/~La comes to mean one's
profession.   E'rtL TOV1TOV9 EIC T70)P) ewtT?/&CV/La'TO, O01l) 7T'OLOV C77TETT7 -&eVJe /3Ov, fxAoa-o6P 9, p7/qTOpt/COP i7 a~paTtCOJTt/oV; TO\ &C ICV~tOJTaT0P
ai  pdat9    El  apTIS      LT/vlao-tP at 77-pca~etq. otoP a-TpaTtOA)TLKOP /3tOP EXO/.LEPO9 Tt EV TOVT60 lcaTev7pa~E;3 Hermogenes, Sp. II,
12, 1(3ff.
63. 77-pa'CtqE. It is universally agreed that this is the chief
topic: To' & /MVt(O0TaLTOV a[e 7rpd'~Cts', Hermogenes, Sp. II, 12, 18;
TO,L61YLOTOV TOMh 6C7/CW1.t0)V /CeodXatov, Doxopater, Walz, Rhet. Gr.,
I,432, 14.   The vTpd'~Ets? are treated in two great divisions
O f. Theon, Sp. II, 110, 7; Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. 1II, 481, 10; Quintil.,
III, 7, 15.
2 Cf. also IL, 430, 14; 429, 32.
-3Cf. also L. and S.; Aphthonius, Sp. II, 36, 11; Doxopater, Walz, Rhet.
Gr., II, 429, 31; Menander, Sp. III, 332, 21.




124


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


- those of war and those of peace. They are not presented in
full or in chronological order. Selectioll is made, and they are
grouped to illustrate the Socratic virtues: av~peta, 8tKatocv'/
o-(oqpooi-vy~, 4po'v0ots~. 0tXaP~pwwi'a is often added as a separate
or a more comprehensive virtue.
Theon, Sp.    II,112, 2: /4ETa' 8e Taf'Ta Ta'q 7rpdaetq Kc' Ta'
xcaTop9&o' iara  7wapaX?7 0oIte6a  oWEl  cfe~-   8tqyoV`.LEP)0L  X61yOVT-E9  yaP
aiXXa 77-pOO-T(OE)UEl /caTa' dUav E'Kd7-T?7v apET?7'V, &rrec-a T-a kpya
&tE~L'OVTEq, O'tOV Ot?j7V e7(Lopao, 77-poXecyEtv ~alt e7tcfe'PEtv EVUOVVS, T(
avT(~ To0ppOV?/TtKO'V E"PYOV 7rE'7rpactrat, 6FLok'oq ew't T-c^w aXX&) a'pEoWP.
Menander, Sp. III, 873, 5:    ta['pEt yalp a'7raVraXoV3 Ta 7rpd~EtL~
cwv  av  /LEXkqq  E'YC(KOJ/tdctEtV,  ElSq  Taq  a'pEra'q.... Kat,  pa,  TtVCOV
apETOJI)  E   tvfE   at  Wpa~E.
Aristotle (RhIe., III, 16, 2), speaking of the form of narration appropriate for epideictic oratory, adds:   ta' &E TOVT' EV'OTE
oi' OE/E-q 83E- tqyE-oOat 7rdavTa.   EK PkC OVV TOVT(o7) aV~peto9~,
8CE TOW'3E o0f09 17 U3katoSq.
Julian (Or-., I, p. 4 c, iR): the 7wpda'et are to be introduced as,yzwpto7~zaTa T(AOP T?1 *t/Vx'
Since the object of an encomium is to portray the character
of the person Ipraisedl, one must inquire into the, principles
actuating the wrpd~ets~ and show an underlying moral purpose
(wpoa~tpeut,).  Aristotle, Rhet., I, 9, 82: 6e7TEL' EK Tw) 7rpa'~Ecov
6oSen-atvos, M~OP & TOV 0-7rov&aU'OV TO KaTa 7T-poatpEo-t, 7retpaTeOv
'SELKPV ~at  wrpdTTozrra  KaTa  7r-poatpea-ti.... r Ta  e'pya  o-77,Leta  TJS'
9~E(Dq E'OTtVPIE7ret E~raLV0o/tEV aiv Kcai. /L17rTE7rpayo~a, Et 7rt0tTEVOt/JUEV
ELVat TOt QVTOV.
Anon. ad Aphihoii., Walz, Rhet. Gr., II. 44, 5: Ta' 4LLE a"XXa
VC6OE~W   i  TVX?7s~  i)7  T&')1  77-aTe'pw V C OT \ 8W0p?7,~zaTa, a?5Tat, 8SE Tq,~ 7'7,uO&
avTO)v 7VW/.L?77' Kttt 7r-poatpeo-ew,.
Doxopater, Walz, Riet. Gr., II, 433, 10 ff., in answering
the question how one can call Tias' a'pCTa\s 'wrpd~ets"~ when the latter
are more properly Ets says: 7i-pd4:Ets' TY)Sq 7poatpe'oeos' ELat, while
KCdXXos' and other physical qualities are av~rpoat'pETa.     OV. T. O
*   V9 kX   -q'\i  701)  0-o)/ aT V'cwav' a   aPEra\s'  Xe'7ELt,  a XXa  a
TOW  'a ETW)1  TOVTCOV  T 'p ctq   Kca\  IY'p   TOJV  7pd'~osc   at'  FLe'v   Ia




EPIDEICTIC LITERATUREl2


125


&F/cawToarnv'Pq, at' &E KaT a' 6pvpt'ap, at' &  Ka6' E&T'paV TOM  a"XXftw
apTO   ytVOzrrat.
Even when speaking of external and physical matters,
qualities of character are to be made prominent.          Theon, Sp.
till11 12 ff., when discnssing other goods, E'KT5V, aita?7TEpt O-w-1ia,
like 6dyeveta, one shonid speak of them ovic a'7rX O"S oV~'8 &w01 eTVXE TOiV
Xo'yov &tarL~e`1tEvOt, a'XX' E4?0' J'KdUTTOV 8SEtIVV'VTE91 OTt 1J4?7 aVol)T(09?, aX X'a,
cfpov4t'lws Ka't O'J ThEL aiv'To't eXpq'oaTO (qKto-Ta ylap e~atovoo-t /Lw7
ica'a 7rpoatpeatw aXX' C/C TVXr)Sq a e'Xovawv ayaoa') oilov OTt CVT7VXOJZI,tvle~rptos~ icat andvpwo9       0c~w~   ros   cbXv     0 av70  ict
S&cato9, Kcat TO~ TOV uo-4aTrOI 7wXeovicKrq7ftao-t oYw~po'Vw9 7rpWT —pV6XOy.
Compare also 112, 1: a~d'Xta'ra ya'p eV TOtq aTVXqLgaoctv e/CXd/~vet q
apET?.
7. o-i6yicpw-is?. This is regarded as a most important division,
bnt in application it is left to circumstances and the jndgment of
the writer.   Hermogenes states both facts in a single sentence
(Sp. II, 13, 3): tt6eyi`or &e eV Totss eCy/Ca)/t'0t9~ cafO~pU?\ q C'a7T 'rao w'
O-v1yKpiJ-ECO  7cL4ETa 9o         K   0 icto  fn~r~at.  O-yIcKpto-ts? is a
notable reliance in    all epideictic writing.    It is enjoined in
Aristotle.'
The rhetoricians indicate two distinct kinds of comparison.
There is the minor or incidental oiV"yiptO-is' (11cpt '4, Sp. ITT, 377. 5),
where some one phase of a snbject or a single quality is likened
to some other, and the final or general O1V'yKPtOTLS (7reXEtora'Tf, or
7rp'X'qv T7'79?'ro v0e.7wq, 376, 31), where a more comprehensive
comparison is made.3
All the rhetors make ov'iyiptont a separate 'n-porYv'gwao-ga as
well as a topic in the encomium.'        The o-Vyicptwt9 is a feature
I Cf. Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III, 481, 17; Plato, Menex., 237 A; Anaximenes, Sp. I, 225, 24 (" pass over rd& 'Ew r~s dper~is briefly "); Quintil., III, 7, 15.
2 Cf. Rhet., 1. 9, 38, 39; Anaximenes, Sp. I, 187, 7 and 12; 227, 9; Doxopater, Walz, Rhet. Gr., II, 446, 13; 483, 25; Scholia ad Aphth., Walz, II, 79,
20; Auctor ad Heren., IV, 33.
3In addition to Menander one may note Nicolaus Sophista, Sp. III, 481,
18 and 25; Aphthonius, Sp. II, 42, 20; Anon. Scholia ad Aphth., Walz., Rhet.
Gr., II, 45, 3; Doxopater, Walz, II, 446, 21; 479; 480; Scholia ad Aphth.,
Walz, II, 637, 14; Quintil., VII, 2, 22.
Compare also Quintil., II, 4, 21.




126


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


of other kinds of composition.'          The    Li7yrtua  may  take  this
form.2
8. e7rlXo/yos. Like the 7rpootiUtov its form depends upon what
the subject or the circumstances suggest.           It is often    a brief
summing up of the results of the life under discussion and an
appeal to others to imitate his virtues. It ends most appropriately with a prayer.9'4
Menander (7repi E7rTLELcKTLcKV, Sp. III, 329 ff.) and other writers
indicate the minuteness with which the encomium of a person
became subdivided.       The division     is artificial in  the extreme.
The titles indicate a wide range, but all the various forms rest
upon these rd7rot as the basis.        By varying the emphasis and
Quintil., III, 8, 34; IX, 2,100; Auctor ad Heren., II, 14, 21; 29, 46; 33, 44.
2Hermogenes, Sp. II, 5, 3, and 16; Theon, Sp. II, 88, 17; Nicolaus
Sophista, Sp. III, 457, 14 and 22.
Doxopater, Walz, Rhet. Gr., II, 434, 13; Aphthc,us, Sp. II, 36, 18;
Menander, Sp. III, 377, 28 (P3aoLXKb6s X6yos); 422, 3 (bernr Tos).
4It is interesting to note how distinctly these - /rot may be seen in the
Euagoras of Isocrates - the earliest instance of an e comium in its permanent
form: e. g., (1) 7rpool/tov (secs. 1-11); (2) -yvos (dcioyovos (12), rp6-yovoi (19)) (12-18);
(3) yveats (19); (4) dvaTpop>r (22), f7rtTr7re6Iara (22), Overs (23, 29). These are not
given in detail or confined to the sections named. (5) 7rpaWteLs in war and
peace. These are introduced with the preceding, but are found especially
from sec. 34 on. The virtues - cvpela (23, 65), aopia (23), &LKalocvv'- (23), rpp6vrcts
(41, 65), owcpoc-vvt (22), cLXav6pw7ria (43), 7rpa6r7is (49), /.erptor!s (49), 6o't6rTs (51)are made the occasion for introducing the 7rpdtets. Note especially sec. 34,
where he says that it is impossible to present the 7rpctetLs in detail. If we
select the most distinguished, we shall get at his character (eSer/juev) as
effectively and more briefly. At sec. 46, after enumerating various qualities,
he adds: "The evidence for these may be seen in his deeds;" and 65, " How
could one display his dvspelav, Op6bvrmrv  ar6Lzrraaav Tv v dper'v better than 8ta
Troto6TwV epywv Kat KLY6o6vwv?" An oration is better than a statue for a portrayal of
character, inciting to imitation; 73, cf. 75. Other references to the portrayal
of dper? as the main purpose of an oration of this character may be found in
4, 5, 8, 23, 33, 41, 65. (6) r6iq (25, 59); (7) OIyKpLcs. An extended comparison.
37, 38; minor ones, 23, 27, 35, 60, 64, 65. (8) eriXovyo (73-80).
In 19 we meet the phrase so familiar in all forms of epideictic speech:
dpto/LaL 6' CK rGv 6O\uoXoyovtLv \ev Xyetv 7repl avroO. The word ertrL78-q6eLaTa occurs
twice, 2, 77. In the former case it is nearly equivalent to,rpdaets; in 77 aperat
might be a fair substitute.
A similar analysis of the Agesilaus of Xenophon could be made, though
it agrees far less fully with the type.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


127


by the addition of the local coloring and circumstances which
the type or the special occasion suggests, almost any epideictic
speech can be made to result.
Among personal encomia the most frequent, the most distinctive and extravagant in praise, would naturally be that
addressed to a person in high authority-a king, emperor, or
governor of a province. Quintilian recognizes this by a direct
statement: "Fortune, too, gives dignity, as in kings and princes;
for here there is an ampler field for displaying merit" (III, 7,
13).   Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ep. ad Pomp., 783 R) speaks
of the advantage Theopompus had in topic: /3aao-tX        v TE 13/ov9
Kat TpOTw')!t!taTa O8 XAKE.1
Kca rportov r Stto/ara 8eS]XWrce.1
Rules for the composition of such an encomium are found
in AMenander's treatise (III, 368 ff.).   His title is o /3ao-tXLucL
Xdyos', and he apparently intends it as primarily, at least, a series
of directions for an address to the Roman emperor.      It stands as
the representative rhetorical treatment for this type of speech.
Although the encomiastic address to one in high authority is
frequent and belongs to all periods, Menander's title does not
seem  to have been extensively employed.2       It is, however, the
most convenient term by which to refer to a large and important
branch of epideictic literature, and as such we shall employ it in
Cf. Isocrates, Euag., 40: vvv 6' gdravres dv 6oLoXoyyr?0'eav rvpavvi6a Kai rwv Oeiwv
d&yaOv Kai T WV avOpwtrivwv FiU'YLTrot Kal areU6voTraro KaL repLtuaX7 67ToraTroT eIvat, " What
orator could do justice to the praises of a king?'
2 It would appear that the title which Menander employed, appropriate
though it was, did not obtain currency.  Even epideictic orators near
Menander's time did not use it. Libanius (Or. 60) has the title els robs
avroKpadopas Kwvao'avra Kal KwvaTo'rvrtov, f3aaSLKoS X6yos. The four orations on
royalty addressed to Trajan by Dion Chrysostomus, which possess many
features of the /aot-XLKco Xk6yos as outlined by Menander, are entitled irepl
/3atLXeias 0 X6yot f3aTLXLKOI. But in the majority, of cases the encomium to a
king is merely eis /3aiXVa, e. g., Aristides, Or. 9; Libanius, Or. 5; Themistius,
Or. 4 (eis avTroKpdropa); or with the word e&yKwLIov, e. g., Julian (Or. I), Nicostratus, Orion. Menander himself does not employ the title in the reference
which he makes to the difference between the 7rpooabwv71tKos and the PaoLXLK6b
X6yos (III, 415. init., especially ll. 6, 9). Strangely enough the reference which
he makes to the gyas /3a-t\K6s of Callinicus (III, 370, 14) cannot be verified.
Suidas speaks in particular only of a 7rpoacTwv'rrtiLKs aXt\7v4t.




128


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


this chapter and elsewhere for the encomium of one in high authority, without special regard to the period when it was written.
The /3aoatXLuck Xdo'yo  is a form  of oration which is less likely
to be found under freedom and democratic forms of government.
More than any other type of epideictic speech it belongs most
naturally to a subject people.    It exactly befits the Greece of
the period of Macedonian, or still better of Roman, supremacy,
and there it is most frequent. In the form in which Menander
outlines it, it is hardly conceivable for the Greece of the time of
the Persian wars.
The existing and reported /,aoat\XKo  Xdo'yo are numerous and
extend from the time of Isocrates to the end of the fourth century
A. D., or to the fall of Constantinople, if we include orations by
the Christian writers.  The latter usually take the simple title
"encomium," imitating the composition of the /3ao-LXtLco     Xoyo,?
somewhat, but choosing the deity or some saint to take the place
of the /3ao-LXEVt.  There are numerous examples also in medieval
and modern times. It would appear that many such orations
were composed in honor of Philip and Alexander, notably that by
Theopompus;1 that there was less activity in this as in practically
all forms of literary composition from that period until the second
century A. D., when there was a marked renewal continuing for
some centuries.   Its history is in a very general way that of
'Polybius (VIII, 10) speaks of historians who through fear or hate
laud Philip, and "as a result their compositions have the appearance of a
panegyric rather than of a history." Writers of the /3aLtXLK6s make constant
reference to Alexander as the model king. Cf. Julian, Themistius, and
Libanius. Isocrates (Phil., 17), implies the frequency and naturalness of a
speech praising the wars of Philip; cf. secs. 18, 19, 20. The whole speech has
many of the elements of the faLc-XtK6s \6yos. Occasional references in the
extant histories and biographical notices of Alexander clearly indicate the
eulogistic attitude of those who surrounded him, e. g., Plut., V. Alex., 53,
init.; Cic., De Orat., II, 84, 341; De Fin., II, 35, 116 (Alexander is the
example of a much-lauded king). Anaxarchus, who made a laudatory
address to cheer him after the death of Clitus, was one of many sophists and
flatterers who followed in his train. Arrian and Plutarch make little direct
reference to this feature of Alexander's life, but we frequently meet such
sentences as: "On his return to Babylon delegations from many Greek states
awaited him with testimonials and addresses of felicitation" (Arrian). "His




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


129


epideictic speech as a whole. There is no extant rhetorical treatment before Menander, although Dionysius of Halicarnassus in
his treatise on the panegyricus enjoins, as a last topic, praise of
the king, "the crown of the whole."'
The germ    of the   3ao\tXt/cb  Xdoyoq may be found in poetic
praises of Ze    fl3aao'tLev  and other deities seen in Homer, the
Homeric hymns, Pindar, and the dramatists, and continued by
such poets as Callimachus. With allowance for the poetic form
and the unfettered strain of the lyric master's genius, many of
the odes of Pindar are /ao-\tXtco   Xo'yot.  The very composition,2
march through Pamphilia has afforded matter to many historians for pompous
description, as if it were by some divine fortune that the sea yielded to Alexander, though always before rough" (Plutarch, V. Alex., XVII, 3).
Aristotle's irepl faaitXelas is supposed to have been addressed to Alexander.
Plutarch's repl rjs 'AXedaivpov r7i6Xs is an extravagant eulogy with many
features of the /3ao-XLKI  X6yos. The multitude of histories, presumably
eulogistic, which had Alexander, less often Philip or Macedonia, as their
topic, is remarkable and significant. Cf. Susemihl, Griech. Litt. in der
Alexandrinerzeit, passim; see index under Alexander, especially i, 537 ff., ii
378, 390 ff.; Wachsmuth, Einleitung in das Stud. der alt. Gesch., 567; cf. also
the collection of fragments (thirty-three historians) in the Didot edition of
Arrian or in the Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (Muller). The Roman
d'Alexandre, which had so important an influence on early French literature, has its origin in this period. The presence of a model po6yos tXlr7irov
in Aphthonius (Sp. II, p. 40, 19) shows that this theme had taken a place in
the Irpo'yvavcida-ara.
I It may be noted in passing that the panegyricus as sketched by
Dionysius contains the suggestions for the chief types of epideictic orations:
the paaoLK6s X6-yos (which stands for a large section of epideictic literature)
in paragraph 7; the praise of cities in 3; the prose hymn in honor of a god
in 2; the arefavpKbs \6yos in 6; such trifles as Choricius' praise of Spring
might easily come from the suggestions of sec. 4, which calls for praise
of the season at which the raviyvpts is held. Compare a like r67ros in the
rules for the yevePOXaKbs X6yos (see p. 143). Although at least two of these
forms exist parallel with the panegyricus itself, this fact would not preclude
their being specializations of r6wrot appearing originally in the panegyricus
and developed contemporaneously. Others seem to have become separate
speeches at a much later date. It agrees with this thought in regard to the
ac-iXtKbs X\6yos that so many of the extant speeches bear internal evidence of
having been delivered at a rav^yvpts.
2 Croiset, Littgrature grecque, II, 405-10, formulates the main elements of
a Pindaric ode: (1) the occasion; (2) the purpose of the writing; (3) the
myth; (4) praise of ancestors and land; (5) personal praise of the hero; (6)
exhortation.




130


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


as well as the purpose of a Pindaric ode, involves some of the
most essential features of a. /3aa-Lxtco Xoryo?. As a rule, the introduction names and praises the hero, frequently including his
native city.  The myth is apt to owe its presence to its direct or
implied praise of the hero's ancestry.  The conclusion comes
back to the hero, often with an enumeration of his qualities and
deeds, ending with a prayer.  The odes addressed to Hiero are
notable from this point of view. The second Pythian is a fair
example. It begins with an address to? 7raprpk, Syracuse. Then
follows a proclamation of Hiero's glory and a comparison of his
worth and praises with those of other heroes. His wealth, kindliness, honor; his great deeds in war and his wisdom in council;
he merits all praise; admonition; prayer. The myth in this case
has no special connection with Hiero's ancestry. Compare also
O. I, VI, VII, XIII. The second Olympian, like most of the odes,
begins and ends with the praise of the hero. He is the flower of
noble forefathers. This suggests the myth. This ode, like many
others, contains the distinctly epideictic plea of inadequacy.1
Ode XVII of Theocritus is distinctly a faoUtLctKO Xdo'yoq in
poetry. Like Aristides and Callimachus, he begins and ends
with Zeus, but among mortals Ptolemy holds the highest position.  Then follow  the customary commonplaces: the abundance of material, inadequacy; evyeveta, his parents are both
divine; the circumstances attending his birth, its omens; he is
the recipient of Zeus' favor; the extent and magnificence of his
kingdom; his rule gives peace and quietness; his noble deeds;
his piety; praise of the queen; he is a god.
Traces of the /ao-LXLKCo Xodyo? are found in Isocrates. Where
an E7riLTatos is spoken over the body of a king, it differs from a,SaaltXtKo Xo'yo? only by the addition of the Opq'voS and 7rapavOt'a,
and these are in many cases quite subordinate or much modified.
Thus the Euagoras of Isocrates is practically a /3aaoL\t/cob Xdoyo.
The relations of the Helen to this type of oration are referred
to elsewhere (p. 133, n. 1).  In addition to these we may note
that Epistle IX (addressed to Archidamus), eecs. 1-7, contains a
'f. O. III XI; N. X.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


1381


/3aLXLcoS Xo'7yo, in outline.  He begins with the familiar topics:
the abundance of material, the orator's inadequacy. Yet it is
easy to praise your virtues and those of your family; your deeds
furnish the theme.   Then follow evlyeveta, avapeta, roofpoorvvr),
4pdvrlo-t, 7rpadeL.
Like so many other epideictic types, it is well defined in Plato.
The speech of Agathon in the Symlp)Osiumtl (194-8) is a pure
epideictic speech.  Since the subject is a deity, it might technically be classed as a hymn.  Plato, however, calls it an encomium, and its rT7rot are those of this form. The importance and
power of the one praised connect the encomium most fittingly
with the 3ao-tLuc\L   Xdoyo,. The main features of this type of oration, according to Menander, are those of the encomium (see pp.
122 ff.): (1) rrpootlltov, the magnitude of the topic; the inadequacy
of the orator. (2) 7rarpis, WOvo?, y6?vo. (3) ryveaot, and any fact
connected with it which might be interpreted as an augury, c. g.,
in the case of Romulus and Cyrus; invent if necessary.  Next in
order comes the (4) acvaporj: speak of his fvotf, TraL8ela, his
natural ability, love of learning, his particular excellence in oratory, philosophy, use of arms.  (5) Ertnr1evltLaTa.  (6) VrpdaetL
divided els aperTad- avzpeLta,   ca&Loarv7 l,  aoopoavVml, f pdvr)Lo-S.
Speak of his (7) rTVx; of the queen.  (8) o-vyKcptCrl: compare
him and his government with others.    (9) CIrtXoyos: state the
advantages resulting from his reign; pray for his long life.
There is marked similarity in Plato. He criticises the lack of
the true spirit of encomium in those who have preceded. They
have missed the real point.  Every evratvo, must state the nature
of the person praised, his character, then his deeds, which in this
case are his gifts and benefits. The following words indicate the
lines along which he praises the person: fcaXXaT-ro, vwcoraTro,
a7raXo', ovf.LerTpo Ical v ypa I8ea, EVOX77a OOJvv), Xpoa7 /caLXXoq. He
speaks of his parentage, his aperrT; all are willing subjects, L8tcatoarV7,    po0avr,, avSpeia, aofla; his effect on poets and others
in all walks of life. He is the source of inventions. The Muses,
Apollo, Hephaestus, Athene, even Zeus-all are indebted to him.
All must hymn him and join in the ode. The similarity between




132


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


the ordrro of this speech and those of extant 83aartXltol Xdoyo, and
the directions of Menander representing the ideal for a speech of
this character at the close of the third century A. D.. indicate the
indebtedness of this type of oration to Plato.
A /ao-aXtlKc   Xdo'70 also usually attempted to show that the
ruler addressed was like Plato's ideal king.' Frequent reference
is also made to Homer's picture of a king.2
Among the most notable extant speeches of this class are
Oration IX of Aristides and the masterpiece of Julian (Or. I)
delivered in 356(-55 A. D. in honor of Constantius. These may
be taken as models. They follow Menander's outline very closely.
Both make inadequacy to do justice to so magnificent a theme a
main feature of the 7rpoot/itov. Menander recommends reference
to the need of a Homer, an Orpheus, or the Muses for so vast a
subject.  Both follow this suggestion, though in different ways.
Julian refers to the advantages the poet has in the inspiration of
the Muses. Aristides deals with the matter in a manner which
strongly reminds one of Isocrates' introduction to the Patnegyricius.
He says that he sets aside the matters usually spoken of in the
7rpootLLOv: the greatness of the undertaking, the brief time for
preparation. He will not even call upon the Muses for aid, as the
poets do. This is. of course, to add to the impression of speaking
impromptu and thus gain greater credit for cleverness. He then
falls into the usual formula: "though no person nor any length of
time could prepare a speech worthy of the king, yet one must not
shrink from speaking according to his power."  Julian includes
in his introduction an outline of his speech.  Aristides names
each point as he brings it up, often with a prefatory sentence, as
Menander directs. Both are simple and clear in their divisions
and follow as a rule the natural TO7dOL and largely the order of
the /3aoa\tXc  Xd0yo9, if we may accept Menander as a standard.
Their similarity to one another is rather in general outline and
impression than in turn of sentence or treatment of any particular
'Julian, 10 c, and many instances in Themistius, e. g., p. 126, ed. Dind.
2Dion Chrysostomus, Or. I, II, III, IV, XXXVI, especially I and II.
Cf. also Philodemus of Gadera, 7repi KaO0' "O/Lpov dayaeov l3a-tXws.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


133


TOVros outside of the wrpoolktov.  Julian employs the standard
topics: native land, ancestors, early training, deeds in war and
peace (the main theme), with application of the four virtues.
Comparisons are made throughout. He begins with the desire
to hymn the aper7 and 7rpat:etL of the king, and returns to this
thought at the end.  It is interesting to note the similarity of
treatment in Julian's praise of Eusebia.' He begins with an
extended defense of the praise of a woman. He compares Homer's
praise of Penelope. He then falls into the regular course of
the L3aatLLXKoLC  Xoyo': her ancestors are pure Greek, she is
daughter of a consul, wife of a noble king. He speaks of her
7rateEla, oSVEcalt, KcdakoS; the brilliant ceremonies attending her
marriage. The profession of inadequacy usually found in the
7rpoolftLov is reserved as an introduction to her deeds: "Were I
exceedingly ready to speak or compose long books, her deeds
surpass my power to describe" (p. 142). They bear evidence to
her fpdvr     Tpao'Ot,  p,  opovi, trpavOpw7ri a, e'7rLE'i/La, tXev9epLdO7rs, and other virtues more brilliant than words could match.
He makes frequent comparisons with the women of Homer, with
Evadne, Laomedia, and with the Persian queens.   Cf. Claudian,
Laus Serenae.
Aristides makes the description of his hero's entrance into
power do service in place of the rdTrot, Tarp[t and  evy6veta.  He
then speaks of his education and his deeds in war, but those of
peace form the main theme. His purpose is to present a picture
of a king thoroughly imbued with the four virtues and the crown
and summation of all, LtXavOpwow'a.  It is from the point of view
of his virtues that his deeds in war are treated.  As a result of
his noble rule all harbors are clear, mountains are safe like cities,
tolls are removed, all fear is banished, the 7ravrTyvpts is free and
1 The Helen of Isocrates conforms to this type. After a long introduction, loosely connected with the main subject, he begins at sec. 16 with her
ydvos. She is a daughter of Zeus, possessor of divine beauty; its conquest
over Theseus. A praise of Theseus is introduced here in much the same
way that a praise of the queen might be in the ordinary speech. He then
returns to Helen. The triumphs of her charms over gods and men form the
-r pdaeLs.




134


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


joyous. Cf. Horace, IV, 5, 14 and 15. He ends with an apostrophe and a prayer.
In Themistius and Libanius we find a somewhat different
type of /3aaLtXLcos Xo'yos. They are as purely epideictic, but
follow the directions of the rhetoricians far less closely. The
general outline of Menander's speech is there, but the divisions
and transitions are not sharply defined.  More liberty is taken;
topics are omitted or new ones introduced, and the order and
prominence changed with great freedom.      The flattery, too, is
as a rule less direct, and they are not so scrupulous to render the
speech purely laudatory.  Themistius is the f3aaCo-LXlo orator par
excellence.  The Dindorf edition of his works contains thirtyfour orations, and a large proportion of these are addressed to
the emperor or contain praise of an emperor as a principal
feature, such as his rTpE-E3evrTKO, XapLaTrpLol, and speeches celebrating an anniversary.   Or. V, vrrarTtKo  etl TOv avrocpcdTopa
'Io/3avov, is a fair sample.  The usual topics of the vpooit'LOV are
omitted; evuyevela is introduced to show the added responsibility
resting on the successor of such a virtuous man.   This leads to
a presentation of the noble qualities displayed by Jovian, followed by a discussion of his reign in peace and war, chiefly the
former. This is treated in general terms rather than by reference to specific instances, as illustrations.  Comparisons are
made with Alexander, Nestor, Diomedes, Epaminondas.         He
closes with a reference to the wravryrvp;; all nature joins in the
joy; spring appears before its time. Like Aristides he gives
prominence to L\Xavppwo'ria as the chief of the virtues, implying
all the others.1  fLXav0powTrLa is lauded as applied in various
relations of life.  It is the highest virtue of the supreme god.
The oration is largely impersonal, but implies that the king
addressed is the impersonation of these qualities.   Note especially the last paragraph.  Or. 19, 7r\ r   Xy JtXav0pwr('a rov avTroKcpdTopo @fo80-ool v, unites praise of tiXavOpw7rla with the ordinary
1 Cf. Themistius, Or. I, wrepl LtXavOpw7rias 0 Kcovorcivros, ed. Dind., p. 4, 1.18 -p. 5, 1. 5, ending with the words: opdre oiv 6rL rT.T/LKPOv KEZvo PjO pa 8tLaKpoLovTr;tot a.iras 0 rTW   apeTwv eo'Lobs v1ro0beOyye7Ta.  Cf.p. 8, 1. 13: ETL roivvv ot7L A\XX\o
aar\XCKwT4rpa (cptav0pwWria rto XOLrTO XopoO rTWv dperwv.




EPIIEICTIC LITERATURE


135


topics of a /arotLXLKc  Xo'yos.  Or. 7 is a similar combination.
Compare also Or. 6, 0tXCadeXcoL ) wrept OtXav0pwo7rra,, which unites
praise of the king, of his clemency, and of the city; and also Or.
3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, which, though not /ao-LXLco Xo'dyot, show praise
of a king as a chief feature and are of the same general character.
Libanius in Or. 12 and 60 adheres more closely to the type
of Menander, in minor points as well as in the general outline.
Oration 60 (Vol. III, 272, Reiske) presents the peculiar feature
of praising two kings in the same speech.' The oration unites
the two, except when speaking of their deeds.   In the wrpoot'ilov
he reminds one of Aristides, as cited above (p. 132); cf. III, 274,
12: 'rTtL L~EV oSr 'o00 To S c7 TrLXElpOVLp V Otv e7yLtdELV Tq7v  LEcv avTrv
caLa/aLe'E(ra-OatL Svva/jIY, C 7roX) XEL7roLeLrrlV TWV vrpay/jLaTo0V'  Tv
8oe TwVr rpayCdrTwo  a7ro0avJLa',dtLv v7Trp/3o0\r), &s 7roXv vltcraav
TOLs Xo'yov?. 'Ey7& oe El feat /relSer rTCTV eJ/Arrpooo70 ToV'TO VTrpXE
ElprJe'6VOv 7aCtVTcS' av Tr/u 7rapovoav Xpv pea pEtv e ypeV 7oat 7rT  Xdyov,
etc.  He treats of UyeIveta; in III, 281, 7, discussing yeveoLs-. he
says: The birth of our king needs no myth or dreams to glorify
it 06 8 T 7V 7iLETEpWv a3cLLXeCO) T'/COS, OV 5Wv0ov oVW S evvrrvtov Trp5S
Icdo-uov e8Er707r.  Cf. Julian, p. 11, 23 if. (Hertlein), where he
speaks with some disdain of such sources of praise.  Their early
training is compared with that of Achilles, as Menander directs,
Sp. III, 371, 23.  Their Tpoor) did not come through beasts, as
that of Romulus did; cf. Menander, Sp. III, 371. 5) f. Then
follow 7rat8eia, eMT?7r18e6VLaTa, 7rpa'ets, according to the four virtues,
with 7rpaorTlS and 0tXavOpw)Trla.  Through them   mainland and
sea are safe, harbors and city gates are open, islands protected,
commerce moves, the 7ravrjyvptl is held.2  Or. 12 gives a definite
outline in the vrpoolttov as does Julian.  It is more like Themistius in being somewhat general and impersonal. It discusses
the power and responsibility of a king and his need of philosophy. This feature is made prominent, though the deeds in
war are not omitted. He closes with a prayer, in imitation of
This occurs in several of the orations of the XII Panegyrici Latini.
Cf. Baehrens ed., Nos. III, VI; cf. also Choricius, A6yos els 'AparLov aoVKa Kal
ZrTpavov odpxovra, and Boissonade's note.
2 Cf. like claims for his hero by Aristides, Or. IX, p. 112, Dind. (see p. 133).




136


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Sappho, that the king may live longer than Solon. The oration
is addressed to Julian, who was devoted to philosophy, and this
fact, taken with Menander's injunction, Sp. III, 371, 29, K'av uL~V ev
Xo'yotL y Icatl tXoa'ofIta cKaI XhyCwv cyVroo-et TOVTO e7cTratLVeo-?, accounts
for the differences between this and Or. 60.
A part of this oration and several of those by Themistius
are so general and so largely impersonal in character that they
approach the form of a general treatise on the duties and
responsibilities of a king. A large class of Greek orations
under the title rrepi /3aoAXete'a' has this as the avowed purpose
-to picture the ideal prince, to lay down the principles upon
which he must base his rule, to present a code of morals and offer
precepts appropriate for his guidance under any circumstances
likely to arise under his administration of the sovereignty.  As is
noted later (in the chapter on philosophy), it has its connections
with the 7prpopeVrTtco'd.  Though cast in the form of orations and
given that title, they (lifer little from the style of the modern
essay. They largely lack the personal element. But this is almost
wholly omitted from    some orations which would receive the
title /3aoC\tcolt so that the lines of distinction become practically obliterated; cf. the four orations 7rept /3ao-LtXe'a  by Dion
Chrysostomus, addressed to Trajan.    This form   in substance, if
not in title, seems to have come from an epideictic source.  The
Ad Nicoclem of Isocrates is an excellent example of this Xoyo?.2
Four orations under the title 7repi /3ao-Xelas? are found in Diog.
Laertius' list of the writings of Antisthenes, a philosopher
notably epideictic, contemporary with Isocrates, though younger.
From this time on no single theme in the history of moralizing
philosophy is more popular or persistent than this. It is also a
favorite with purely epideictic orators.3  In many cases the prince
1 Cf. Plato, Theaetetus, 175 C, aot\Xeias rept..
2 Cf. Ad Demon. and Nic. Among his lost works'there is a 7rept avrovofias;
see Blass, Att. Bered., II, p. 103.
3Treatises of this character are very numerous. Diog. Laert. refers to
many. Others may be noted in the list of epideictic orators in the closing
chapter. The impression of frequency is heightened by the many fragments
in Stobaeus and by such references as Plutarch's Regum et Imper. Apoth.,




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


137


to whom   the 7repl 13aaLx\e'a is addressed is named il the title;
in others it may be learned from    internal or external evidence,
and we may infer that nearly all were directly connected with
some individual, and thus from     this point of view  presented a
temptation to epideictic display similar to that offered by the
f3ao-aLXico Xo'yos itself.
Or. III by Dion Chrysostomus is a good example of the
introduction of personal references in a speech of this character.
It closely resembles the /3aotXLtcK  Xodyoo.  Indeed, the full title
is 7Trpl /3aotaL\Et'a  Xo'yo  /3aatXtKtcd.  It speaks of the king
addressed as rejoicing in truth and sincerity, despising unlawful pleasures, fond of toil, patron of arts. good in war, savior
and protector of all men, surpassing all ancients, next to the
gods.   He is eulogized under the four virtues in dletail, and for
the effects of his rule.  The orator then passes to more general
and impersonal topics.   Compare also the strong personal element
in the parenetic epistles of Isocrates, Or. I, II, III.      As is
common in writers of the /3aoaXLt'cds, he sets forth Alexander (cf.
p. 128) as the model king alnd therefore claiming an important
place in a 7repl fao-tXe'ias.
Pliny, III, 18, makes a direct connection between the 7repl
/3arlo-L\aS and the f3atLXttLic  Xdo'yo.  His famous panegyric on
Trajan, in which he represents him as the model prince, is made
to serve as the basis of a 7repl /aat\et'as.  The P(cetgyricusi was
delivered as part of his consular duties.  He then enlarged the
general heads with the object of "'setting forth the emperor's
virtues in their proper light by praising them    as they deserved
and of directing future princes, not as if by a teacher, but by his
example, to the paths to be pursued to gain the same glory.     To
instruct princes how they ought to conduct themselves is a noble
II, 4S (Teubner, 189 D), where Demetrius of Phalerum is quoted: 7rapjvet ra
7repl f3ao-LXEIa Kca rhyeIovias tt3Lia KTrao-at Kal dva'tyLyvWcaKetv & yyap ol <iXoO roS i3acrtXeuo-t ov fappoOarL rapatvePV, Traua ev TOs PfitXILs y'ypa7rTat. The speech of Maecenas
(D. Cass., Book 52, 2 ff.) is a good example of this type. Cicero, Ad Att., XII,
40, 2, indicates a 7repi fpao-Xeas to Alexander by Theopompus as well as by
Aristotle, and that Cicero himself started to write one addressed to Caesar.
Cf. also Ad Att., XIII, 28, 1.




138


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


task, but difficult and almost presumptuous; but to praise the
character of an accomplished emperor and to hold him before
posterity as a light to guide succeeding monarchs is a method
equally useful and much more modest." He styles this enlarged
oration a panegyric.
The 7Tpoao wvrtuc7Lo XdyoS, as defined by Menander, is a kindly
address to a ruler (6 7rpoa-wvri7lrttc  Xdyo? earlTV Elf71,0Los esi
aPXovlTaS, Sp. III, 414, 31), and becomes almost a variant of
the 8aaOtXtLcbo Xdoyo. It is closely allied in theory, and in
practice becomes nearly identical.  The fact that it receives
full theoretical treatment in Dionysius of Halicarnassus on lines
of so great similarity to those of the /3aao-rLKco Xdryos may unite
with the prominence he gives to this element in the 7ravrfyvptKos
to account for his failure to give the Baoa-XuL/co Xo'yos separate
recognition. The TO7rTO found in Menander and Dionysius are
too similar to those of the /3aoa-XLcod to admit of repetition.
The thought of welcome is made more prominent in Dionysius,
and he also lays more stress on the praise of the city.  The most
prominent 7rpoa(-covfrttcol Xdoyot are: Aristides, Or. 22 (I, p. 439.
Dind.); Libanius, Or. 13 (I, p. 405, Reiske); and several by
Dion Chrysostomus and Himerius.      The speech by Libanius
approaches most nearly to the model. It was spoken outside the
walls of Antioch on the arrival of Julian.  After a few sentences
of welcome, in which he employs some lines of Alcaeus, he follows
the regular topics of the f3acaLXicKb  XdyoS: evyeveta, " noble
ancestry produced a nobler son and met a sweet defeat"' (cf.
Plato, Meicex., 247 A); his birth, education, youthful pursuits;
his eloquence and philosophical studies; his noble entrance upon
sovereignty; his benefits to the state; his deeds in war and peace,
in letters; the resultant peace and happiness;' God grant the old
age of Nestor. The oration of Aristides is a good example of
the extent to which circumstances were allowed to affect the
character of an epideictic speech. It departs widely from the
rhetorical outline. It was delivered before Commodus upon his
visit to Smyrna after its destruction by earthquake, and is
Cf. Liban., Or. I, p. 9, and Aristides, Or. IX, p. 112.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


139


influenced by that fact. It is, as he says, a speech suitable to
the occasion, but it has little in common with the ordinary
7rpoof)V)7lTtlUdO. After a brief reference to the situation he recalls
thq great names connected with the founding and early history
of the city, its beauties of nature and art; these are all destroyed;
vicissitude and change belong to all that is mortal; the part of
the king in its rebuilding. Like Athens after the Persian wars,
the city will rise more beautiful. The king's visit is a good
omen. May good fortune prevail.
Himerius has several 7rpoao-wv'rTlro   Xodyot. Or. 3, 4, 10, 11,
13, 14 are so classified. Or. 3 and 14 contain many features of
this form of epideictic speech. Or. 10 is a welcome extended,
not to a prince, but to certain Ionian guests. Or. 11 continues
this topic. All are characterized by his poetic style. Compare
also Dion Chrysostomus and orations of like character among the
Christian fathers.
At several different periods in later history there have been
notable revivals of epideictic activity-conspicuous among them
the early Renaissance in Italy, and the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries in England.   Symonds' Italican Rencaissance, especially the volume entitled "The Revival of Learning," gives a
clear and complete picture of the general impulse of the time to.
reproduce Latin and Greek models. The address to a king,
whether in the form of a /3aortXtco? Xo'7yo or a 7rpoo-o6V7rtCKo' or
a 7repl /aaoX\eia, forms one of the most notable characteristics of
both periods; cf. Vol. II, p. 372: "Our ears are deafened with
eulogies of petty patrons transformed into Maecenases, of carpet:
knights compared with Leonidas, of tyrants made equal with
Augustus, of generals who never looked on bloodshed tricked out
as Hannibals or Scipios."
Numerous instances are cited by Symonds, e. g., "Revival of
Learning," pp. 189 ff., Manetti's extemporaneous speech on the
coronation of Frederick III. at Florence, which won unbounded
admiration. It consisted of "commonplaces interspersed with
quotations and historical examples."  Vol. I, p. 407, speaks of a
panegyric of Pope Alexander VI. by Michael Fernus and Jason




140


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Maines quite il the style of the ancient forms; cf. also Vol. I,
p. 422, et passi o.
Romola (George Eliot, chap. 21) describes the reception of
a new ruler at Florence, November. 1494. There were excited
preparations, a platform  was erected near the gate. Luca
Corsine, doctor of laws, was to deliver a formal oration ill
Latin in honor of Charles VIII. of France. As the rain interfered with their plans, Tito improvised a few graceful sentences
with an "air of profound deference."
Nichols' Progresses an(l Public Processions of Qtuee Ellizabeth (3 vols.. 1823) describes the preparations for entertaining
the queen (preface, p. 24): Dramas, masques, and speeches in
prose and verse were presented. The entertainment at Kenilworth introduced the deities of the waters-"'an artful panegyric
on the naval glory of her reign."  It was quite common in Elizabeth's progresses to present a child to speak an oration prepared
for him, or a short poem.   Cf. Nichols, passim, and Arber's
EEnglish Gllarner, Vol. IV, and j)pssim. Nichols, Vol. I, p. 26)
"Speeches of academic students were a jumble of profane history
blended into compliment of their patroness."  Vol. I, p). 161
At the queen's reception at Cambridge, 1564, William Master. of
King's College, orator, spoke for half an hour. He first "praised
and commended the many and singular virtues set and planted
in her majesty;" he showed what "joy the university had in her
presence," etc. Vol. I, p. 549: Mr. Bell, at Worcester, spoke of
"her majesty's noble ancestors" and their benefits to the city.
It owes its origin to them. There has been distress, but now
prosperity through her. He ends with a prayer for her long life
and happiness. Another says there was "joy in heaven at the
prospect of your coming, in hell at your departure. You think
this is rain; it is the tears of the gods at your hasty departure."
Vol. II, p. 157: Stephen Lambert, at Norwich, 1578, speaks an
oration in full epideictic style with imany classical allusions:
"Egypt is watered by the Nile, Lydia by the Pactolus. your
goodness is the source of our fertility and happiness." Her noble
deeds are then detailed. Elizabeth called it the best speech she




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


141


had ever heard. The two volumes contain a multitude of such
records.  Mullinger's Histor' of the University of Cambri(ge,
p. 76: "When Wolsey visited Cambridge in 1520, the language
with which they approached him might compare for adulation
and self-a'basement with that customary in addressing an oriental
despot." Publications like those of the Spenser Society, Peck's
Desider(tte, C(rutiosa, Arber's English G(etrner, Sears' The OcctasionaJl Address, pp. 210 if., etc., abound in examples.  Cf.
Engc/lish r(l'(nler. Vol. VIII, p. 501, speaking of a progress of
James I. (1603): "When he came near Dunham the magistrates of the city met him, and behaving themselves like others
before them.... there was an excellent oration made to him,
containing in effect the universal joy conceived by his subjects at
his approach." P. 496, the recorder of Berwick made a brief
speech to his majesty, acknowledging him as sovereign; cf. also
p. 524. Spenser Soc. Ptbb.. I, 28, tells of the speeches made to
Charles II.; f. Vol. XXI, Tract 74. These laudations often took
poetic form; cf. SpenserC Soc. Pub. (John Taylor, 1647): "The
King's Most Excellent Majesty's Welcome to his own House," a
poetic rrpoo'rovp 7Tcd'. It contains many of the familiar Tr7rO: the
author's inadequacy, the king's qualities, his coming is like sun
or shower-it makes all glad.  Cf. Vol. II, Samuel Daniel's congratulatory poem delivered at Burleigh Harrington. It has the
ro7rot of the 8/3ao-tXkto. Compare also, in Vol. I of his works, his
"Panegyrike Congratulatory delivered to the King's Most Excellent Majesty'' at Burleigh Harrington.  See Arber's English
(ar(Cer, Vol. V. p. 633, for a salutatory poem    by James
Savage addlressed to King James I.: cf. also p. 651. Erasmus
in the Encomiiml Jin ori(e follows somewhat the order of the
/3aoLXLco: Xo'yo?. In the preface he shows the frequency of epideictic compositions: "One in a long-winded oration descants in
commelndation of rhetoric or philosophy. Another in a fulsome
harangue sets forth the praise of his nation."
The irept /3ao-LtXela  was also a favorite topic, and presents a
large literature. Among others we may note Bacon's Of a Kiiig;
Machiavelli, P'ilcilpe: The Prince. Pra(isc of ( Monarch and




142


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Picture of Whlt a Prince Should Be; Dr. John Poynet, A Short
Tr eatise on Political Powers (and True Obedience Wlhichl Stujects
Owe to Kings.    Instances might be multiplied indefinitely from
alny full history of the period, or such books as Blakey's Historyj
of Political Literatture.
'O FENE~AIAKO0    AOFOX.
6 yeve0X\a/nco Xdoyos is an encomiastic speech addressed to a
person upon his birthday.   The fact that such a speech receives
theoretical treatment, from Dionysius as well as Menander, might
in itself indicate its prominence, wide diffusion, and persistence.
This presumption is enforced by the importance attached to this
anniversary at all periods of Greek history and the frequent
reference to features more or less literary connected with it.
That the birthday was honored during life and after death, from
the early days of Greek history, is a familiar fact. Pindar speaks
of Oeol yeve'OXtot.1 One is assigned to every man.   'ra yeveOXLa
became the regular word for a birthday feast for one living, as
ra yeveota to distinguish the day kept in memory of the dead.2
Celebration of the day was not confined to members of the family.
Birthdays of noted men were kept by their followers or admirers.
Reference is made to such honors paid to Homer (e. g., Lucian,
E'ec. Demosth., iit.).3 Plutarch. Qitaestiones Concvivr les. VIII,3
I. 1 f., says that on the sixth of Thargelion they celebrated
Socrates' birthday, and Plato's on the day following.  Then follows a report of a conversation, suggested by the occasion. in
regard to the days on which celebrated men were born and other
noteworthy events connected with the same days. For example,
Euripides was born on the very day of the victory at Salamis.
Attalus and Pompey died upon the anniversary of their birth.
Florus was unwilling to disregard Carneades that he mighilt honor
10. 8, 16; 13, 105; P. 4. 167; Aesch., Septemr, 639 (626).
2 Compare Hdt., 4, 26; Stalb., Note to Plato, Alc., I. 121 C.
3 Compare Piiny, III, Ep. 7, for Vergil; Juvenal, Sat., V, 38, for Brutus
and Cassius; Sen., Ep. 64, 8; Mart., XII, 67, 3; VIII, 38, 9; Ovid, Tristia,
III, 13, 17; IV, 10, 11; Stat., II, 7; Diog. Laert., X, 18; Cic., De Fin., II, 101;
Suet., Doen., 10. Much was made also of the birthday of Epicurus.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


143


Plato; both were born on the same day.   This discussion gains
peculiar interest in connection with the importance attached by
Menander to the day itself, and any thought, even such as we
might term fanciful, connected with it. This chapter in Plutarch
shows still another feature made prominent in Menander's rules
for the yeveOXtatco'-the mention of any omen connected with the
birth.  Plutarch says that prophets and priests made Apollo's
birthday the same as Plato's, and so the belief had grown up that
Plato was Apollo's son.
Aside from the common birthday speech of the orator, frequently some literary composition was connected with the birthday celebration. especially of such as were themselves literary
men or latrons of learniiig.  A poet regards the birthday of
Homer as a natural occasion for a poem, and expects especial
inspiration upon that day.1 Literary work of various kinds might
be offered as a birthday gift.  Such was the wETpi avvOffeoE   OvoLaTrwov of Dionysius of Halicarnassus.   Lucian dedicated his
/atcpod/3to as a birthday gift to Quintillus.
In writing a yEVe\OXtaKcO Xdoyo both Dionysius and Menander
agree that it is of prime importance to praise the day and the
season of the year in which it occurs; note any happy omen, festival, or event of importance connected with the day or seasonl
praise the family, the city, the person's physical and mental qualities, his virtues, his special pursuits pray for his future and for
long life.
There are but two extant speeches of this character: Aristides,
Or. X, and Himerius, Or. VIII.   Himerius follows very closely
the rTO7do given above. He begins, however, with a comparison of
the present situation to that of Odysseus about to leave the court
of Alcinous.  Though longing to depart, Odysseus remained to
take part in the public contests: so I remain to sing rTOv yevo0\ta/cdv. He then enters upon an elaborate praise of the season in
which the birthday falls as the most beautiful and honored of the
Cf. Lucian, Enc. Demosth., init.
2 Cf. collections dedicated to Gildersleeve, Mommsen, Weil, and others
in our day.




144


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


year: the time when Ceres and Liber fill granaries and wine jars.
His birth associates his name with these great deities.  He then
passes to personal characteristics. He is distinguished for virtues
and intellect, rather than marked by some mere physical peculiarity, as the crobylus of the Cecropidae or the ivory shoulder of
Pelops. There is praise of Egypt, the land of his nativity:' Circumstances honor you and your birthday; add our humble muse.
which delights to honor you pre-eminently.    Impute my feeble
praise to lack of time: these are few of the many words in our
heart; may we speak some day more fully.    He calls his oration
a ze'XXos.
The oration by Aristides honoring the birthday of Apollo
(Or. X, Vol. I, p. 113, Dind.), though meeting in the main the
requirements of the theory, is of far more complex a character.
He connects with the yEeveOXaKO's proper extended reference to the
games celebrated in honor of Aesculapius, and to the god himself.
This material is introduced as honoring the hero who presides
and adding to the glory of the (lay.  In the line of ancestry several have the name Apelles; the most youthful, fourteen years of
age, is the pupil of Aristides.  His line goes back to Codratus.
Elaborate praise is given to this ancestry.  His other topics are
the personality of his hero. his virtues, moral and mental, his
training, tile city's relations to him. and his benefits to it.  He is
the care of the gods.  There is only the briefest possible reference to the lay itself and the time of the year in which it falls.
He elnds with a prayer for the continuance of his life and honors.
The fact that Latin poets, Vergil, Horace, Tibullus, and Propertius, have poems composed somewhat in the style of the yeve0Xiafco Xo'yoq, together with the fact that Dionysius treats it as a
well-established prose form  as early as the first century B. C.,
may well imply a Greek poetic model preceding, though none is
reported.
The meaning of the author is here a little uncertain. It may be that
the celebration of the birthday is in Egypt. In that case it would be
evidence that Himerius visited Egypt in his travels
2The Anth. Pal. (VI, 227, 261, 345, and elsewhere) contains many birthdaiy p)3.ns. The oldest is by C -inagora, 31 B. C.-9 A. D.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


145


Marx (NYene Jal rbuicer, January, 1898) presents an interesting and seemingly conclusive argument to prove that the famous
fourth eclogue of Vergil is composed quite strictly along the
lines of the,yeveOXtaKco Xo'yos. Tibullus. I, 7, is a yeveOXtaKcoa
addressed to Messala.  He speaks of the glory of the day.  His
hero was destined at birth to be a great warrior. He enumerates
his exploits, calls on his genius to come and receive the honors
due; nay he have offspring, wealth, glory; may this day be
celebrated many years, more and more joyous. Much is made of
the (lay and predictions attendling the birth in his other birthday
poems —II, 2, and IV. 5. So in Propertius, IV, 10, and Statius,
Carmen, II, 7 (Vol. I, p. 60, Bihrens).1
Several poems in English follow lines similar to those chosen
by the Latin poets in honoring a birthday. One may note
James Hammond's "On Delia's Birthday" (Vol. IV of Brit.
Poets, cabinet ed.) and compare it with Tibullus, IV, 5. It
celebrates especially the day and the season.2
The oration of Claudius Mamertius (XII Pan. Latini, ed.
Teubner, p. 101. Or. III)? delivered to Maximianus Augustus,
bears the title P(lnegyr'ictus GeCeet7hli(tcs and, as the name
indicates, is a union of the  LaaLtXtLco Xdo'yos and the yEveOXLtaKcS.
The former is the real purpose of the speech, but it is shaped
and  influenced  throughout by the yeveeXLaKcd'. The latter
appears in the title and the body of the speech because it was
delivered on a birthday anniversary.  While the oration is as a
whole a panegyric, the regular TOdroL of the yeveOXtaKdoS are not
neglected.  Chapter II is devoted to the (lay itself. Chapter III
connects Diocletian with Jove and Maximianus with Hercules.
This gives the opportunity to rehearse the great deeds of the
god and the hero.  He honors the deeds of the emperor by the
use of )practl'ritio and passes to what is most appropriate to
the 7yEvEXLtag/os, an elaborate presentation of "pietas vest(ra et
felicitts.'" Other virtues are enumerated: fortitldo, continenti(t,
Cf. also Horace, Odes, IV, 11; Martial, 4, 1; 12, 60.
2 Cf. also Ruskin, "May, A Birthday Address to His Father;" Dryden,
"Britannia Rediviva."




146


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


iltstiti(, srapienlti.  The four virtues of the Greeks may be seen
in his character, but these are acquired; lpiets and felicitfus
come with birth.   "Good and friendly stars looked upon you at
your nativity."
Such orations as Themistius VIII and XI. delivered at the
quinquennial and decennial respectively of Valens' rule, represent
a large class of speeches which may easily have gained their
suggestion from the earlier yeveO\XaKcoS Xkyo0.
One may note also il more recent times such orations as
may be found in Nichols' Progresses uidl Processions of Qttueen
Elizbcetlh, e. g., II, 480, an oration delivered in the presence of
Queen Elizabeth on her birthday       (1586) by Edward      Hahe,
mayor of New Windsor.
'O 'EIITADIO   AoroS.
'0 e7rtrTaLto Xdyoso, or, more frequently, "o ertT-a'tos,"' indicated
at Athens the public oration delivered as a state ceremony over
those fallen in battle. It expressed in the most formal manner, ald
with scrupulous attention to literary features, the public (and to
some extent the individual) appreciation of the services of those
who had (lied, and lamented their loss.    The Op'voo of Homer
(e. q., II., XXIV, 725 ff.. c patssiln) and the later poets (c. g/.,
Pindar, pp. 409 f., Christ; Eurip., Stippl., 780, 960, 8.57 if.) represented the same qualities of human nature, but expressed in a
far more natural and spontaneous manner.       No one can doubt
The W7rtTai(oL form the subject of an extensive literature. The following
are among the more important treatises: Blass, Att. Bered., Ipassim; Volkmann, Gr. u. rom. Rhet., 314 ff., and other handbooks (cf. also footnote on
Lysias' eL7rdCitos, p. 147); Villemain, Essai sur I'oraison funebre; Calliaux, De
l'oraison funebre dans la Grece paienne; Girard, Etudes sur I'eloquence
attique; Westermann, Quest. Demnosth., Part II; Sauppe, Ausgewdlte SchIriften,
pp. 369, 372,752; Sauppe, Die Epita)phia in dcer spditersn Zeit Athens; Momlmsen, Feste der Stadt Athen (1898); Martin, " Notes sur l'heortologie," in Reev. de
Phil., X (1886), pp. 17-37; Niisslin, Elpitap7iische Lobreden von Pericles, Lysias,
Plato, iluersetzt aunderklbdrt. Hauvette, "Les Eleusiniens d'Escljyle" in MiIlanges Henri Weil (1898): Vollmer, " Laudation um Funebrium, Romanorum Historia et Reliquiarum, Editio," Jahrb. f. class. Phil., 18, 445; 19, 319, gives a
full discussion of the funeral oration among the Romans; Buresch, "Consolationum a Graecis Romanisque Scriptarum Historia Critica," Leipziger
Studien, IX (1887), 1-164; cf. p. 111, n. 1.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


147


the direct connection between the poetic and the later prose
lament as it appears in the public and private er'TTrdoto.  But
the transition lies in the misty period preceding the sixth century, and cannot be observed.   Snell (ed. Lysias' Epiitpohios, p.
9) says: "The cause of the transformation of the threnos into
the epit(aplhios must be sought in the altered state of society at
Athens toward the close of the sixth century." He mentions the
growth of oratory and the general state of enthusiasm so prominent after the Persian wars as main factors.  The ertrCdLto? as
an annual solemnity seems to have arisen not long after the victory over Persia.'
This custom   was peculiar to Athens; cf. Demosth., Lept.,
449, 21; Aristides, P(lnlth., p. 310 (Dind.); Diod. Sic., XT,
33, 3; Dion. of Hal., A. R., V, 17; Polyb., VI, 53, 54i; Cie., Leg.,
II, 25, 26; Brut., 16, 61. The state chooses the orator: Plato
Mcnex., 231 B; Demosth., DC Coro'0a, p. 320, etc.  The custom
was annual: Arist., Patnth., 310 (Dind.); Plato. Mlcrl., 249 B;
Menander, Sp. III, 418; Arist., Pa(oati., 310.
The following are the extant ETTrdLOLt, together with some
others prominently mentioned in antiquity:
1. The Samian oration of Pericles, delivered in the Ceramicus
at the close of the Samian war, 440 B. C.: cf. Plut.. Life of P(er.,
p. 156, 18; Arist., Rhet., I, 7, 34.
2. A speech by Pericles found in Thuc.. II, 35. 46, delivered
in 431 B. C. over those who fell in the first year of the Peloponnesian war.
3. The oration composed by Gorgias, 426-420 B. C.; cf.
Philost., V. S., I., chap. 9, 3, p. 493. For fragments see Fr'tg.
Phil. Gr., II, 143 (Didot).
4. The oration by Lysias (probably spurious) in praise of
those who fell in the expedition to aid the Corinthians, 394-387.2
1 Hauvette, "Les Eleusiniens d'Eschyle et linstitution du discours
funebre a Athene," in MIelanges Henri Wteil (1898), pp. 139 ff., argues in
favor of Cimon as the originator of the law requiring this celebration and
the removal of Theseus' bones as the occasion of its establishment.
2 The genuineness of the 7rdi-Trdos of Lysias has been the occasion of much
discussion. The subject may be investigated by reference to the following:
L. L3 Beau, Lysias' Epitaphios als echt erwiesen (Stuttgart, 1S63); cf. also




148


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


5. Reference is male (Plato. Men'cx., 2-34 B-236 A) to orations by Archinus and Dion; cf. Photius (Bekk.). p. 484.      Date
380 or a little earlier.;. The Meexc)us of Plato.1
7. The oration, falsely attributed to Demosthenes, in honor of
those who died in the battle of Chaeronea, 338 B. C.
8. Hyperides' oration over those who died in the Lamian war,
323-2 B. C.
9. Menander (Sp. III, 418) speaks of three orations by Aristides, second century A. D.
The extant E7rtraLT oL conform to the same general model. The
material falls chiefly under three heads: (1) e'rawvo, about fourfifths of each oration; Opivos; 7rapaLvOtLa.  Plato, Mllcnex., 23 E,
shows this triple division.  Under these there may be many minor
subdivisions; compare Dionysius of Halicarnassus, A. R.. chap.
(), and Menander. vrepi eTTL8LtcKTtOV, Sp. III, 418, whose formal
treatment of the CTtdOttos is the chief source of our theoretical
knowledge.    The treatise of Menander applies more especially
to a private funeral.  Both agree that the Tdrrot are those of the
Jahrb. f. class. Phil., 93 (1866), 808-20, and 87 (1863), 366 ff.; Eckert, De Epitaphio Lysiae Oratori falso tributo (Berlin, 1868); Thomaschik, De Lysiae
Epitaphii Authentia Verisimili (Diss., 1887); Richter, De Epitaphii qui
sub L/siae nozmine fertur genere dicendi (Greifswald, 1881); Sauppe, Gottinger Gel. Anz., 1861, pp. 821 ff.; Blass, Attische Bered., I, 436ff.; Christ,
Gftiechische Lit. (3d ed.), p. 375; Reuss, Rh. Mus., 38, 149; Wolff, Quae rttio
intercedat inter Lysiae epitaphium et Isocratis panegyricum (DiFs., Berlin,
1896); Kruger, "Hat Platons Menexenos eine Beziehung auf den Epitaphios
des Lysias?" Hist.-phil., Studien, I, 238 ff.; P. Knoll, Sind Beziehungen dem
Epitaphios in Mienlxenos und denm sogen. Lysianischen nachzuweisel?
(Krems, 1873).
The genuineness of the Menexenus has been much debated. Where the
decision has been against it, it has been through yielding to literary feeling
against the weight of external argument, which favors its genuineness. The
question is discussed often in connection with the Hippias Major and Minor.
Cf. the Prolegomtena of Stallbaum and others: Zeller, Plato and Older Acad.,
p. 86; Platonische Stdien, pp. 144 ff.; Wilamowitz, Aristoteles zi. Athen, I,
p. 99, n..5; Bonitz, Index to Aristotle; Christ, Gk. Lit., 3d ed., 451; Blass,
Attische Bered., II, 431ff.; III, B, 346; Grote, Gk. History (Harper, 1861), I,
308; II, 33; Plato (Murray, London, 1888), III, 401 ff.; Wendland, "Die Tendenz des Platonischen Menex.," Hermes, XXV (1890), p. 171; Sauppe, GOtt.
Gel. Anz. (1864), p. 201.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


149


efrcy/Itjov-   rarTp,, 7eo, e-av, v,  tra a, 7rpad't. For the topics
compare Plato, lMculc.., 2:34 C, 235 A-B. The topics vary in
prominence accor(ding to the situation and purpose. Dionysius
says that e'ratvos means primarily praise of country. One should
refer to its size, age, glory, any happy event in its history, etc.
Compare the directions for composing a 7ravyr7vptcd', Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, Ars Rhet., V, p. 225 (Steph.). Comparisons
may be made between the panegyric and the funeral oration.
Praise of Athens forms the main theme in each.    The panlegyric lacks only the Op:vos and the 7rapajv0r7'TLco, both subordinate topics, to make it an e7rLtTa'Lo  if delivered under
appropriate circumstances. Notable similarity exists between
Isocrates' P(JIegC'ricus and the E,'pitapllios which passes under
the name of Lysias.  The impression grows, as one reads the
two in comparison, that the oration which is assigned to Lysias
was written by someone thoroughly familiar with the Pr(aegyricts. or perhaps in conscious imitation of it (f. p. 147,
n. 2).
Neither Dionysius nor Menander makes theoretical provision
for a formal introduction, but each of the extant 'T7rtTtoL has
something which answers to this.  It is technically included in
the e7ratvos. A commonplace of the introduction is the general
inadequacy of any human tongue to cdo justice to the immortal
deeds of those whose death is thus publicly honored, and in this
particular case the lack of time for preparation, which is a commonplace of all epideictic orators.  Cf. Demosth., 1389. 1-4,
7-10; Lysias, 1, 2; Hyperides, 6-10 (ed. Cobet); Pericles, Thuc.,
II, 35, 1; Gorgias, Fri',. Phil. Gr., II; cf. also Isoc., Pan., 13, in
ridicule of this practice; (f. also Isoc., II, 7; III, 27, 35; V, 10;
XII, 36, 187; XV, 11; Jebb, Alt. 0,., II, 64. This profession
of inadequacy is often again referred to later on, c. g., Demosth.,
1390, 20 ff.; Hyperides, 1. 132 (Cobet); Lysias, 54; Plato,
Mclncx., 235 C-D.  Similar is the reference to the abundance of
material and the inspiration which the theme supplies: Demosth.,
1392, 14-19; 1393, 18; Plato, AIfencr., 246 A-B; Lysias, 2;
Isoc., Pan., 18().




150


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


In the same line of thought is the reference to what others
have said: Lys., 2; Demosth., 1389, 8. Another commonplace
of the introduction is a reference to the law establishing this
public celebration in honor of those dying in battle; cf. Pericles,
Thuc., II, 35; Demosth., 1389, 10; Plato, Menex., 236 D. In
Demosth.. 1389, 23, and Plato, Mlenex., 237 A, an outline to be
followed in the speech is given.
The 'ewravot  has two chief themes, EUyeveta and TrpdCeiE.
Ezvyeveta is interpreted by all orators in accordance with the
definition in Aristotle's Rhet., 1390b, 19:  8' eSr yeveta evLdorr7?
7rpoydvwv eaO7i. With this understanding of the term it is easy
to see how an idealized record of the remote and recent achievements of Athens came to be the most important part of the
epitfaphios. The Amazons; the rescue of the bodies of the dead
at Thebes; the Heraclidae and Eumolpus; the Persian wars
and later military triumphs, formed the staple topics; cf. Arist.,
R/let., 1396, 12; 1360b, 31; (f. ridicule of these themes,
Lucian, Rhet. P'raec.. end.  Lysias gives most space to the
legendary topics, see 4-17. Others dismiss them   lightly and
pass to historic glories.  There is marked similarity in the
treatment.  In the case of legendary history the following may
be noted:
I. The Amazons: Lys., 4; Isoc., Pan.. 68; Himerius, II, 10,
11; Aristides, I, p. 89. Their signal defeat: Lys., 6;
Demosth., 1391, 4, 5; Isoc., Pan., 69.
II. There is brief reference to Eumolpus in Plato: 239 B:
Demosth., 1391, 4; Isoc., Pn., 68; Pat alth., 193; Lycophron, Lcoc., 98, 99; Aristides, P attclfh., p. 191.
III. The recovery of the bodies of those who died at Thebes:
Demosth., 1391, 13; Lys., 7 and 9: Isoc., Pan., 55'
Panatth., 169; Aristides, Paitlh., 188; Himer., Or. II,
11, 12; Eur., Slplj)l., 670 ff.
IV. The Heraclidae: Demosth., 1391, 9 and 11; Lys., 11:
Isoc., P(an., 56; Aristides, 195.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


151


A6iivawov vo/3,8ovXla': Lys., 12; Isoc., Pan., 53; Lys.,
15, 16; Isoc., Pan., 54-60; Aristides, Panath., 195; Eur.,
Suppl., 321; Plato, Metnex., 244 E. The victory for the
Heraclidae: Lys., 15; Isoc., Pan., 58; Phil., 33, 34; cf.
Eur., Heracclicdae.
V. The Persian wars treated most fully by Lysias and Plato.
Both employ the historical order.   Plato regards this
as the order of importance also:
A. The rapidity of victory: Lys., 25, 26; Isoc., Pan.,
85-8; Patnath., 175, 189, et passin; Aristides, Panath.,
20 5.
B. Their training the source of noble deeds: Lys., 20;
Plato, 3Inelx., 239 A; Hyp., 1. 127 (Cobet).
C. Few against many: Lys., 20; Plato, MJenex., 241 B;
Isoc., Ptan., 86; Hyp., 1. 103; Isoc., Phil., 11;
Demosth., 1391, 24.
D. Athenians strive to die honorably: Lys., 23; Isoc.,
Pan., 77, 84, 186; adl ic., 36; Areop., 93, 94.
E. Numbers yield to valor: Plato, 3Ienex., 240 D; Isoc.,
Pan., 91, 10; Demosth., (1., III, 23, 26.
F. The high expectations of the enemy: Lys., 21; Isoc.,
Pan., 68 (Amazons).
G. Greater than those who fought at Troy: Demosth.,
1392, 2; Isoc., P1a., 83; Hyp., 185; Himer., II, 28;
Isoc., Phil., 111; Ei (t., 65.
H. Their lives not their own: Lys., 24; Isoc., Ptan., 86,
84; Plato. ifencvx., 244; Pericles, Thuc., I, 70.
VI. The battle of Salamis.
A. The number of the enemy: Lys., 57; Isoc., Pan., 88.
B. The manner of Xerxes' march: Lys., 29; Isoc., Pan.,
89; Himer., Eel., 5, 3, 4; Eel.. 1, 7; Eel.? 2, 7;
Or. II, 35; Dion Clrys., 44, 10 (Dind.); Cic., De Finl.,
This term was used in referring to the proverbial folly of the Athenians
in concerning themselves over others' wrongs, and always taking the side of
the weaker.




152


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


34, 112. A proverbial a1t varov, Max. Tyr.. 2(S; Lucian
ridicules it, Rhet. Praec., 1<S.
C. Those who die in the ranks are not conquered:
Demosth., 1394, 25; Lys.. 31; Lye., Lcocr., 4(S;
Isoc., Pra., 92.
D. The abandonment of Athens: Lys., 33; Isoc., P(i., 9(;.
E. The horrors of war: Lys., 37-8; Isoc.. Pant.. (i. 9)7.
F. Athens most prominelt: Isoc.. P(n.. 21, (9S; Lys...7.
42, 43; Hyp., 1. 1252 (Cobet).
G. Athens the schoolmaster of Greece: Pericles, Thuc.,
II, 41, 1; Plato, Miencx. 241 B, C;.Isoc.. Panotlh.,
44; Isoc., Pota., 50; Plut., De gloriat, 2. In general
compare Isoc., Phil., 1, 47; Panafth., 195; Ie l(tac, 37;
Aesch., c. Ctesiphon, 259; Pseudo-Demosthenes. 7rept
o-vvraeco), 22  Aristides, Patahl(t., 197 ff.. Himer..
14 ff.
VII. Wars after Salamis.
A. Jealousy of the Athenians: Lvs., 4; Plato, M1cc.x..,
242 A.
B. Athens' treatment of others: Lys., 55, 50; Hyp.. 11.
2) ff. (Cobet); Gorgias (G,(rek Phil.); Isoc., Pan..
100, 104-,6.
C. Results of the Persian wars: Lys., 56; Plato. 'lcnex'e.,
241 E.
D. Defeat of the Greeks at Aegospotami: Lys., 59; Isoc..
Pan., 119.
E. All Greece mourns: Demosth., 1399, 25; 139)(f. 10 -20; Lys., (O0; Aristotle, Ret.., III, 10; Plato.
ifenlcx.., 245 E-246 A.
Demosthenes gives but eighteen lines to the Persian wars.
Pericles passes these as topics too familiar to rehearse, and
substitutes for history, both legendary and more recent, a
discussion of Athenian government-its advantages and
glory.  Hyperides omits all historical element. He mentions Miltiades and Themistocles, but only incidentally.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


153


VIII. Substitutes for the TO7ros. legendary and Persian wars.
The most 'conspicuous is that employed by Pericles.  The
main body of his oration is praise of the city, its form of
government, its public spirit, its internal affairs-Athens
the grandest city of Greece.  Cf. Lys., 18, 19; Plato,
Mlcnex.o., 238 B —239 A; Demosth., 1396, 20-1397, 9.
A. The superior form of government at Athens: Lys.,
18; Demosth., 13(1)9, 29; Isoc., Pa(n., 104; Pericles,
Thuc., II, 37, 1; Plato, JMencx., 238 D; Isoc., Pnl.
and PaCa(tth., l)(pssilm.
B. Athens does not favor enslaving many td few: Lys.,
56; Pericles, Thuc., II, 40, 4.
C. Athens engages in war on the side of right: Lys., 14,
22', 24, (; Plato, lfeex., 216 D; Demosth., 13390,
27; Plato, Melnex., 246 D; Hyp., 1. 148 (Cobet);
Isoc., P(ta., 72, 53; Sal., Cat., 29); Tac., An., 3, 2;
Ger',i., 19.
D. Athenians die for principle: Lys., 14; Hyp., 11. 84,
138 (Cobet); Isoc., Pant., 52.
E. Worthy the leadership: Lys., 47; Isoc., Pran., 100, et
)pass im.
F. Athens acts in the interests of all Greece: Lys., 42, 58;
Hyp., 11. 108, 206 (Cobet); Isoc., Pan., 98, 26;
Demosth., 1395, 1; 1396, 6; Plato, llenex., 242 A;
Aristides, Panath., 153; Philost., Apoll. T., VII, 37, 1.
One of the most conspicuous minor motives in the epitaphios
is the autochthonic origin of the Athenians. It is found in
each of the rt7rdLbLOt, though Pericles does not use the word
avdroxOorve. Cf. Lysias, 17; Demosth., 1390, 14; Hyp., 1. 39
(Cobet); Pericles, Thuc., II, 3(, 1; Plato, IMcnlex., 237 B;
Isoc., P(ta., 45, 24; Pcan(it., 125.
This topic is a commonplace among orators and poets; cf.
Dion Chrys., Vol. II (Dind.), p. 209, 1. 23; Demosth., False
Leg., 296; Himer., II, 2; I, 9, 13; VIII, 4; Plato, Timcaeus, 23,
D and E; Strabo, p. 28(i, 22 (Didot); Pseudo-Heraclitus, Epist.,




154


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


VIII, 4: Thuc., I. (; Pausan.. II, 14, 4: Hdt., 1. 171  Eur.,
Frt(., 360 (Er-cchthewts); Eur., Ion., 29, 589-, 737; Aristoph..
fWa(sls, 1(076; Soph. p ja, j, 201; Homer, II., II, 546 ff.: Quiintil., III, 7, 2:6 Aelian, T riac Hist., XXII.  Ridiculed ly
Antisthenes; cf. Diog. Laert., VI, 1, 1; Dion Chrys., Or. 064, 20().
23, Dind.  Cf. also Swinburne, Ercclthces, 1160-80. Plato andl
Demosthenes add as evidence of her motherhood that Attica was
the first country to produce the necessities of life: Plato, 11leneJt.,
237 E; Demosth., 1390, 11; Isoc., Pa(J.. 25. Athens gives
physical blessings and also those of a higher character: Isoc..
Pan., 28, 38; Menander, Sp. III, 384. 16( 440, 10-15; Diod. Sic.,
XI, 2, 4; Dion Chrys., II, p. 209, 1. 29; Himer., Ecl., 2, 7; Or.
II, 4, 5, 6; Themistius, 336 D; Callirm., H1ymn21 to D(eItefler, 21;
Cicero, Pro Flacco, 62; Lucr.. VI, 1 if. General praise of
Athens: Isoc., Areop., 74; Himer., Or. X; Isoc., Phlil.. 147'
Plut., 1V. Arisfides, XXVII, 9: 77 [Athens] OtXavspw7rria Kat
XP77adOTT'7 ro E'T 7roXX\a Kcal KaO7'!ita  r 7roXt\L EK~efepovo'a &eit/aTra
OavLaderaL tcalt 8rXovrat 8KtCa tLg.
Praise of Athens is a favorite theme of poets; cf. Eur.,
Herec., 197, 329. 314 if.; fleldea, 824; Rhesus. 941; Aesch..
Eum., 916 ff.; f Stp])l. 378  Soph..., 0.. 107, 2 68., 1003;
Pindar, Fratog., 77 (1960): -Nem., 2, 8: 4, 18: FJrag., 76 (4'))
and the parody, Arist.. Ki.. 1327; Arist., Clotdls. 30()0-313
Acemharn., 181; Clouds, 986. Anon comic poet. Kock, p. 407, 44,
and p. 471, 340, and others; Soph., 0. C., 608-720: Libanius.
13, 410 (Reiske); Horace, Odes. I, 7, 5-7; ef also Milton.
Paradtctise Rteg({ained Book IV, 23( -80.
The Atlantis story in Plato. Timcaens, 24 D ff.. is merely a
praise of Athens.  It has the 7d7roL —Athens, leader of tle
Greeks, stood against the enemy alone, vanquished them, preserved the rest of Greece, etc. Compare also Lucian. AXig.,
12-14, a(nd Plut., Lifc of A'isfides. near the endl.
The sacred olive forms a favorite theme for praise, though it is
not introduced in any extant E7iTa-Lqtot, Hdt.. S. 55, 82 ' Soph.,
0. C.. 701 ff.: Apollodoru'ts. 3. 14: Arist.. Clo(ds, 1005; Athen..
IX. p. 372 B: Dion Chrys.. p. 311, 29 (Dind.): Himer., X. 3.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


155


The ad'ectives usedl bv the Poets in connection with the
word. "Athens"' correspond with the general tend-ency to praise.
The favorite words are:
1. XL-rra pat' cf. Arist.. Achar;)n., 639; Pindar, N., 4, 18;
Frog.. 46: 0.. 2, 20; Eur.. I. T.,.1130; Ale., 45)2; Troades,
8083  Arist., Ku.. 32)9. Cl., 800; Birdls, 826; Fr-ay., 162:
Frotg.. V II, p. 469 (Didot).
2.KXcJVaL-cf. Soph., Fro(g.. 800; Eur., Frog., 221; Aesch.,
Pers.- 474; Eur., Ion., 30; H/jppol., 4283; Herace., 38; Soph.,
Frotg., (484; A4jaxl, 861;l - Arist., Kun., 1819.
3. c~aatuotes'-cf. Soph.. 0. C., 282, 260:, Eur., El., 1289;.
I. T.. 1088; Hdt.1 8. 8.
4. [ypa(t  Pindar, Frotg.. 75; Soph., Ajaox, 12221; Arist..
Kun.. 1319.
5. OcoE[Ar17Tot-So ph., El., 707; Eur., Hip pol., 974.
6. uIcYaXo7roXkee9Pind-ar, P., 7, 1.
7. OEoue/3e'0-arata Soph., 0. C., 260.
8. TL/kW'TaTat-Soph.,. 0. C., 107.
9. MXtat-Eur-. Ale., 452.
10. /Ieya'Xat-Eur., Hera-(c.. 859.
11. KcaXXL'XopoL-Eur.. Herac., 3-59.
12. ioorTjfavot  Pind.. Frotg., 76; Arist.. Ku.. 1329, 1323
18'1. a'pXa~at-Arist.. KuI..' 1323. 1827.
14. OavtaGJTat'-Arist., Ku.. 1828.
15. 7T-OXVv/LtVatL  Arist.. Ku..- 1 328S.
&f. Libanins. Or. 13. p.40aese        pXatoro'T7v Kcat ooT'       0E0E-            1O\      Ptl q 'o a\ 'ThV Kat OEc~XJaT77V Kat KOL2J 'e W~eVV aVp(7r0V TE Ka ONV
- Tas~ )A Oqvas'.
The secondl maiin (livision of b`ratvos~ is praise of the nient
over whose graves the oration is spoken. Pericles, Thuc., II,
42; Demosth., 1892. 27  1899, 10, his main theme; Lys., (47, S
Hiyp., almost the entire fragment, and- it contains the unusual
feature of reference to the (lead by namie.
The secolidl head. in the model Cwurtdotol~ is the Opi'po, or
lamentation. MNenandler. Sp.II. 4l8. says that Pericles guarded
ag~ainst causing' those wvhom hie was trying to inspire to war to




STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


weep overmuch. He therefore dwells rather upon the 7rapapuvOia.
The quotation from Pericles' Samian oration. Arist., Rhet., 136i5(t,
32, is evidently from the Oprvoo.
Lysias gives the copy-book form of the Oprvos —sorrow is
appropriate: Lys., 71; Demosth., 1399, 10. They died as became
good men: Lys., 70, 1; Per., Thuc., II, 431. The greatness
of the loss: Lys., 72, 73; Demosth., 1400, 16.   The state
cares for the families: Lys., 75; Plato, 248 D; Demosth.,
1399, 10; Per., Thuc., II, 46, 1; Hyp., 1. 148 (Cobet), and the
e7r t Xo/o.
The third topic of the epitapl)hios is the 7rapafvLOta, consolation. Lysias, 77-end. gives the commonplaces of this topic: (1)
Death is common to all.  (2) It is fortunate to die honorably.
(3) Such gain the glory of a public funeral and the honor of
games.  (4) They are to be envied.    (5) Their bodies are
mortal, but immortal their fame.  (0) Not an occasion for
mourning; cf. Pericles, Thuc., II, 44, 45; Demosth., 1399, 13 -1400, 26; Plato, Mcncex., 247 C-248 D; Lys., 77-end; Hyp.,
end.  (7) Reference to a future life may be found in Hyp., 11. 155
ff., 182 ff., and end (Cobet); Plato, 3enueox., 247 C, 246 D;
Demosth., 1399, 28 ff. On life after death in the Attic orators,
see Meuss, "Die Vorstellungen vom Dasein nach dem Tode bei
den attischen Rednern," Jahrb. f. cl. Phil., CXXXIX (1889),
pp. 801 ff.  He refers also to Nagelsbach, INachlhoiler)ische
Theologie, pp. 392 —423; Teuffel in Pauly's Rcalencycloplidie,
IV, 154-67; Lehrs, Popuidlre Aufsatze, 302-62; E. Curtius,
Alterthum ulnd Gegenwar't, I, 219-36; Leopold Schmidt, Ethik
der alten Griclhen, I, 97-118. The injunction to imitate one's
ancestors is an important topic. Plato makes notable use of this,
Menex., 246 C, 247 C; cf. Lysias, 6()-77; Demosth., 1399, 10;
Pericles, Thuc., II, 43.
Hyperides makes an elaborate series of comparisons between
his hero and other worthies of Greek history-Miltiades, Themistocles, Harmodius, and Aristogiton. Menandler makes coimparisons, both general and particular. an important feature of all
epideictic discourses.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


157


The closing words in Plato, lMecnx. 249 C; Demosth., 1400,
27: and Pericles. Thuc., II. 46, end, seem tb indicate a wellsettled formula: (:f also Himer.. II. sec. 23; Soph., O. C.. end.
Aside from the copious use of the Gorgian figures in general,
one may note certain popular word-antitheses; (e. (., that between
KrOVOyS (or 8r1da'to'J) and l'&olo, which may be found at least fortysix times in the extant E7rTa'dLtoL. Only second in frequency is
Xoyos?-epyov, twenty-five times: cf. also a&icKwo — ticalt'ol; OVjTO
-aoadvaros; o XryoL -TroXXo; apeTr — LKaKCla  reV7e-0VrK-cOV7Te.
There are also favorite words,. c.. atiov E-Tl, in Hyp., 11. 11,
1()0. 181, 191: Plato, 237 C, 241 B: Isoc., Pan., t,  1, 122, 132,
150. t17, 170, 175, 181; Lys.. 0(.,     0 61, 6(, 71, 78; cf. also
EXev0epi'a, used forty times; ticactos, ^1Xoo  are much used.
IIAPA4OaA 'EYKIMIA.
Aristotle (Rhet., I, 9, =  3 1306a, 29) makes a general division
in compositions of an epideictic character into those with a serious
purpose (JUera o-rovujs) and those which lack this element (XoplS
a-rov6uS'). Menander (Sp. III,, 34   -25) (livides E/c/jL4ta into
evrota, which deal with gods and evident blessings; aota, which
treat of dlemons and manifest evils; a ta6ota, which mingle praise
alnd blame. As examples of the latter he names the Panathenaiclus
of Isocrates and that of Aristides.  His last division is rrapa'8ota eyc&/jma, which treat of paradoxical themes.  Alcidamas'
Pratise of D)eath and an Encoltmimt on Poverty, presumably by
the same author, are among those cited as typical examples.
Menander, as we have seen, discusses in detail only the first of
these forms; rapdaota ey/cojlLta are passed over as unworthy of
extended d(iscussion.  Indeed, in general. this form of encomium
is least likely to be preserved or even to be discussed in serious
literature.
The 7rapdco:ov EiyKlcLtov is a mere dlisplay of ingenuity, a jell
(de Irl(lagce. The Athenians had a native keenness in detecting
the ridiculous and a great fondness for representing it. It is in
large part the element of comedy entering into prose which inspires
this form of composition.  The other chief motive is the desire




158


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


to startle, to win admiration and applause by a mere exhibition
of smartness. It is a mild way of displaying the sophistic ability
to make the worse appear the better reason.
The tendency to employ the paradoxical, which appears in al
extravagant form in the 7rapdao:a eycC!ofta, is a permanent one.
Aristotle (Rhet.. III, 11, 6) speaks in approval of the paradoxical
and unexpected as an element of style.  The use of paradox by
the Sophists, both in the titles of their compositions and in argumentation, is familiar; still more notable is its adoption by the
schools of philosophy.  In comedy it was a chief reliance inl
securing humorous effects. In the general rhetorical treatmellt
of the encomium there is prominent mention of some features
which lie along the line of the 7rapdao:a ecylculta. For instance,
Doxopater (Walz, Rhet. Gr., II, 432, 14) speaks of the fact that onle
often praises in an unexpected way, for the very opposite of those
qualities which ordinarily receive praise, for obscurity of birth.
for poverty, and even for lack of strength.  Aristides (Sp. II,
505) says that the encomiastic division among other things
makes use of  evf)l[ta-a euphemistic way of stating facts which
are il reality unfavorable.1  The 7rap6o:ov ETyc4,lOV is based
upon the same principle.
One might expect to find such compositions only, or at least
chiefly, among later orators when more serious topics had }beeI
long worked over and in a sense exhaustedt or in an age of
degeneracy when the lack of strong impulses, either state or private, leaves the mind idle to dwell on mere trifles or extravaganzas. As a matter of fact, however, Alcidamlas and Polycrates.
the two greatest exponents of this style reported to us. belong to
the fifth century. They are thus amongl the very earliest Greek
orators, and also belonged to an age of great national and indivi(lual activity.
HIapda8o:a eyKc'Co/a are by no means numerous.-so far as extant
or reported, when compared with the whole body of epideictic
literature, yet such topics seem to have been common and more
or less popular at different periods. Even writers of eminent
1 Cf. Nicolaus Sophista (Sp. III. 481).




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


159


ability, like Dion Chrysostomus and Synesius, turned their talents
to these insignificant topics.  In the case of Synesius, at least, we
know that he took special pride in the paradoxical composition
(E'lconmilm on Bl(ldness), which he elaborated with all the skill
and eloquence for which he was noted.
The chief references to rrapad8oa eyKiccwta, in addition to the
bare mention by Aristotle and Menander in making a general
division of epideictic literature, are to be found in Isocrates,
Plato, Polybius, Philodemus, and Quintilian.
Isocrates makes frequent reference to this class of literature,
both direct and indirect, and in each case assumes an attitude of
strong hostility. He speaks with more vehemence upon this than
upon any other topic. The most notable passage is Helle, 1 —13.
Here Isocrates does not sharply distinguish between the paradox
in general (as a literary device) and the more special usage,
applicable to the works of Alcidamas and Polycrates, who were
his older contemporaries and, to some extent at least, his rivals.
It is the former meaning, chiefly, which. he has in mind when he
says (secs. 2, 3) that this branch of literature began with Gorgias
and had been presented in its best form  by Protagoras and his
contemporaries, and continued by Zeno and Melissus.   Farther
on he makes direct reference to vrapdco:a e/Kcoj/tLa. Tried by
Isocrates' standard, writers of such compositions are found wanting.  Their topics are not such as concern the state, and they do
Inot profit life.  They must let their juggling go-this hollow
pretense of words refuted by the facts.  Cling to the truth.  It
is better to have a moderate knowledge of useful things than an
accurate knowledge of useless things; to differ a little in matters
of inmportance rather than enter into nice distinctions upon topics
which (lo not advantage life.' One might pardon such a course
in youths, for excess is their characteristic; but in those who pretend to train others it is as reprehensible to cheat in words as in
a bargain.  Good talents should not be wasted on such themes.
Compare the like sentiment in Lucian, Charidemis, 14: many pass over
subjects of real importance and profit, and take up those from which they
think they will gain reputation, though of no value to the hearers.




STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLO(GY


The love of applause and gain is the real secret. They make
these false speeches so profitable that some, seeing the gain from
such speeches, venture even to maintain in writing that the life
of beggars and exiles is enviable above that of other men. When
they display such ability on mean topics, it merely proves how
well they could speak on the good alnd honorable. How ridiculous to base a claim to influence and leadership on such productions! It is weakness of intellect. It is as though an athlete
were to enter a combat in which it was disgraceful for anyone,
even untrained, to take a part. They would not lack words in
praising bees, salt, and the like, but in attempting to speak
about acknowledged goods they would fall far below  existing
speeches. It is easy to exalt trifles, but difficult to rise to great
topics.
Similar sentiments are to be found elsewhere in Isocrates'
orations, e. fj., P dnathltcnaictls, 36): 'It is easy to amplify a
trifling subject, but difficult to equal the greatness and beauty
of an important one like this."  In Pa(tm(tcat(,[icets, 272, he
chides speeches which aim   at cheating the thought of the
hearers. In speeches it is not necessary to seek novelty,
nothing paradoxical (Adl iic.. 41). One who wishes to write
speeches worthy of praise and honor cannot treat topics which
are unjust or mean (AAntidosis, 276). It is not fit for men of
great professions to be busied with petty themes (Ptancgyricts,
187). His Bulsiris was written to show what could be done with
a paradoxical topic, but falls into the lines of the ordinary
encomium.
The abundance and well-established position of 7rapdaaoea
Eey/o/.Lta in the time of Plato is clear from his reference to such
compositions in the S/y?)ipositl, 177 B, where he says: "Many
Sophists, for example Prodicus, have discanted in prose on the
virtues of Heracles and other heroes; and, what is still more
extraordinary, I have met with a philosophical work in which
the utility of salt has been made the theme of an eloquent discourse; and many other like things have had like honor bestowed
upon them. There has been eager interest about them, but no




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


161


hymn for Eros."   This passage is notable for lack of the tone
of censure which characterizes Isocrates.
The telndency toward such displays was still an evil in
Polvbius' time. as we learn from his incidental reference to such
comipositions ill Book XII. '26. b. As one would expect, they
meet his severe censure. He cites encomiums of Thersites and
such paradoxes as that Penelope was a bad wife, as examples of
a theme and a style far too frequently employed by the school
of declaimers. In XII, 26, c, he refers to the paradoxical
element in argumentation and the training of youth in general,
and the common tendency of the times to dissipate one's energies on worthless themes. The paradoxical disputatious spirit
has brought certain schools of philosophy into disrepute. It
inspires the youth with a dislike for serious things like ethics
and politics, so that they spend their time in the pursuit of
empty reputation and useless paradoxical verbiage.
Philodemus (Col. 35, Vol. I, p. 216, Sudhaus cf. also p. 39
of Introduction) disapproves of sophistic orators who praise
such lmen as Busiris and Polyphemus. making common to all the
rewards of the good and inciting many to be base. By such
comparisons as that of Clytemnestra and Penelope, Paris and
Hector, they obliterate the virtues of the good, as far as in
them lies, and this not from any desire to honor the good and
rebuke the base. but from mere love of gain or to display their
genius. He denounces those who choose topics of no inherent
value. They weaken our minds by amplifying that which is
mediocre.
Quintilian closes his chapter on the encomium by a rapid
enumeration indicating  its variety  "There are eulogies of
places, of honorable sayings and actions. There is, indeed,
praise for things of every kind-; for eulogies have been written
on sleep and death, and by physicians on certain kinds of food."
The 7rapd8o:a e/yyKczLta thus incur no censure from him.
Like so many other divisions of epideictic literature, the
7rapadotov eycK/',LLov has had its renewed life in mediaeval and
modern times. A single notable example may be mentioned.




1062


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Erasmus in the preface to his En`comiu'm Mo iace justifies his
yielding to this diversion by citing those who have taken up
paradoxical themes in antiquity: "Homer wrote on the war
between frogs and mice; Vergil, of a gnat and pudding-cake;
Ovid, of a nut; Polycrates commended the cruelty of Busiris:
Isocrates who corrected him did as much for the injustice of
Glaucus. Favorinus extolled Thersites and wrote inl praise of a
quartan ague.   Synesius pleaded in behalf of baldness; andl
Lucian defended a sipping fly. Seneca drollingly related the
deifying of Claudius; Plutarch, the dialogue betwixt Gryllus
and Ulysses; Lucian and Apuleius, the story of an ass. Someone
else records the last will of a hog, of which St. Hierom makes
mention.... Trifles may be a whet to more serious thoughts.
Reference has already been made to the general relationship
between comedy and the rrapdao:a e    /yw La. A more intiniate
connection may be shown. The typical plan of a comedy of
Aristophanes has been thus outlined: "The protagonist undertakes in all apparent seriousness to give a local habitation and a
body to some ingenious, airy speculation or bold metaphor.
Thus the comedy is a paradox in its very foundation, not to
speak of the ingenious play of paradoxical fancy which enlivens
it throughout. Frequently in Aristophanes and the fragments
there are actual examples of rrapcdota e'yco'uLta. One of the
characters in the play starts in to "praise something as hard as
ever he can," and the fun lies in the burlesque. Examples of
this playful deliberate praise or blame may be found in any play
of Aristophanes.
The Wtasps, for example, is a satire upon the litigious spirit
so prevalent at Athens. Philocleon is thle dicast-praiser Bdelycleon opposes. Lines 85-135 state the trouble with the lover
of dicasts. After various brief references of like character, (. (1..
508-11, a burlesque encomium of the dicast and the dicast's life
begins at 548, ending with 630. This is answered (654). There
is a clever parody of the familiar laudation of Athens and
Athenians at 1070 if. The mocking tone of praise is discernible elsewhere, c. g., 1292 ff.; 1-150 ff. Excellent examples of




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


163


brief 7rapa'do!a eyK4t4na may also be found in the Plitius.  The
self-praise of Poverty (507-610) is a notable instance.'
Quotations from   two representative Trapcd3oa eYKccoWJta will
indicate the probable character of all writings of this class.
Lucian's Mvi'a 'Ey/&ic/,ov begins with a description of the
appearance and habits of the fly, intended to be humorous by
reason of its very. elaborateness.  He then continues:
I may say that the fly possesses no slight intellectual ability, since
he escapes from his insidious enemy, the spider. For he is on guard
and detects his plots and avoids being caught in his net or falling into
the toils of the monster. Of his spirit and boldness I need say nothing.
Homer, the most grandiloquent of poets, shall speak of these qualities.
For, wishing to glorify the most distinguished of his heroes, he does not
liken his prowess to that of the lion or the leopard or the wild boar, but
to the boldness of the fly and to the fearlessness and brilliance of his
attacks. Nay, indeed, the fly possesses not mere reckless daring, but
true manly courage. Drive him away, says Homer, even then he does
not retire from the combat, but returns to bite again. [Lucian cites
several other instances to prove the importance attached to the fly in
this greatest of poems.]
The fly is so strong that it wounds with its sting not merely the skin
of men, but of cattle and horses. Nay, indeed, it afflicts the elephant
with pain when it creeps beneath its wrinkles and inflicts a wound with
its proboscis proportionate to its size....
This one point Plato seems to have overlooked in his treatise on the
immortality of the soul: that a dead fly, covered with ashes, rises again,
as if newborn, and begins life anew, vwhich is ample proof that the soul
of the fly is immortal, since it comes back to its abandoned body and
recognizes it, revives it and makes it a fly again.....
Though in constant idleness and free from all labor, the fly reaps the
fruits of others' toils, and everywhere finds a table luxuriously spread
for him. For him the goats are milked; the bee toils no less for him
than for mankind; for him the cook prepares the daintiest viands. As
the guest of kings he tastes first of every dish; he lnarches about the
table and enjoys a part of each delicacy....
The fable tells us there was once a beautiful maiden by the name of
Muia, ail irrepressible chatterer and fond of singing. She was a rival of
One may note also the playful laudation of women in the Thesmophoriazasae (785 ff.; cf. Eccl., 211 ff.): the mock eulogy of the knights (Ki., 595 ff.;
1263 ff.).




1614


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLO(GY


Luna for the love of En(dymion, but she kept rousing him from his sleep
by her singing and her wanton pranks until he became angered, and
Luna, angered also, changed her into the animal which still bears her
name, and for this reason the fly is the enemy of all sleepers, especially
the young and tender, since she ever thinks about Endymion. So her
bite and her thirst for blood are not an evidence of ferocity, but rather
of love and fellow-feeling for humanity. [The position of the fly in
comedy and tragedy is then referred to, and lie closes by saying:]
I have a great deal more to say on such a subject, but I shall cease,
that I may not seem, as the proverb says, to make an elephant out of
a fly.
The following selections from Synesius' Enlcomrnit i on Baldness are taken from Smith's Dictionlry of Reli[gious Biog'rapC y:
Dion has written such an eloquent encomium on long hair that a
man is quite ashamed of being bald. When my hair began to fall, I was
quite smitten with grief. To whom of the gods, to whom of the demons,
did I not pray for help? When that did no good, I began to distrust
the existence of a providence. But now I think the treatise was so
eloquent simply because he was such a clever man. He could easily
have written a much better encomiutm on baldness. For if we look at
the matter fairly, there is an antagonism between hair and wisdom;
-when the one flourishes, the other does not. The most hairy of all
animals is the sheep, and everybody allows that of all animals the
sheep is the most stupid. The least hairy of animals is mian, and by
common consent man is of all animals the wisest.
Then consider the different classes of men. If you go into a
museum and look at the statues of the philosophers, you will see that
they are all bald. It is true Apollonius of Tyana has long hair, but
then I fear that shows that he was only a conjurer and a dealer in
magic arts.....
Besides, our hair grows most freely when we are children, that is to
say, when we are least wise. As we grow older and wiser our hair
gradually falls off. It is true some people fail to become bald even in
old age, but some people also fail to become wise.....
Then Dion says that Achilles had long hair. "The goddess seized
him by his flaxen locks."  Well, suppose Achilles had long hair. He
was then young and passionate. When a man is young it is natural
that, as his heart swarms with passions, so his head should swarm with
hairs. Had Achilles lived longer, he would have become wise and bald.
But the truth is, Dion has left out the most important part of Homer's
lines: "She stood behind him and seized him by his flaxen locks."




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


165


Stood behind him! of course, because there was no hair in front to take
hold of. Why, even with me anybody might take hold of the hair at
the back of my head. So I conjecture Achilles was already partly
bald...
The following are the most noted names in this branchiof
epideictic composition:
Alcidamas. End of the fifth century B. C. Entconitim on
DeathI, Acctsaction of P(ltmledes, Enconmiitm  of Thaeis, of
Povelty, of Xitis. Some would assign to him the encomium on
outlaws and beggars referred to in Isocrates, Helen, 8. Cf. also
Cicero, Tusc., I. 11i;, and Muenscher, Rh. Mlis., 54 (1899),
248.
Antisthenes: See Muenscher, Rh. Mlis., 54 (1899), 248, in
support of the theory that Antisthenes was the author of 7rapa'dSoa
efyKca)/La, and that many such compositions come from a cynic
source.
Dion Chrysostomus. First century A. D. WTrote in praise of
the gnat, the parrot, and of hair.
Favorinus. Second century A. D. Praise of Thersites, of
Quart(t an Fever.
Fronto.  Second century A. D. Attempted to introduce this
kind of literature at Rome. Laudles Pttt is et Pltlv)eris, L(t1ns
Ne ligenltiae.
Heraclides of Lycia. Second century A. D. 'EyKfcitov 7TOvov.
Libanius.  Fourth century A. D. Tdo'yo? 7rkoVrov.
Lucian. Second century A. D. Encomi,'m. on the Fly, De
PaL as ito.
Lycophron, a sophist, mentioned by Alexander Aphrodiensis
in his commentary on Solph. El., 15, 174b, 30. Wrote an
Encomitmn on the L/yre. Cf. Cope's notes on Arist., Rhet.,
III, p. 205.
Plato. The oration assigned to Lysias in Plato's Phaedlrits
(231-34 B) may be classed as a vrapdao3ov efyKc)Ltov. Its purpose is of this order: to prove by ingenuity and in rhetorical
fashion that the non-lover should be sought rather than the lover.
The comments whichl follow it recognllze its epideictic character,




STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


c. y.. 234 C, D, E: 235 A; 243 A.  This is followed by Socrates'
first speech. whose aim is to surpass the rhetorician in his own
line.
Polycrates.  Close of the fifth century B. C.  Encomia on
mice, pots, counters. salt, bumblebees.  All or part of these have
been assigned to him by different authorities. His exact writings
are much in dispute.  Spengel thinks that he was the author of
an encomium on Helen, sometimes assigned to Gorgias. Among
the other themes assigned to him are: an encomium   of Clytemnestra, a defense of Polyphemus, one of Busiris (suggesting the
Biasi[ris of Isocrates), accusation of Socrates, encomium of Thrasybulus, of Paris, of Agamemnon, and an accusation of the
Lacedemonians.   Compare Arist., Rhct., II, 24, 6, and Cope's
note; Spengel, A r'timl Sc'r ip)tores, p. 75; Westermann, Geschlich7e
(!er Bcrc(dsatmkeif, sec. 50. 22; Blass, Altischc Bercd(., II, 34:1,
342; Sauppe. Frac/. Ora0(. Gk. (Polycrates) and Oratt. Att., III,
220; Ca)hr'. Jour'. Cla(ss. (1(iand Sacr. Pilol., No. 9, Vol. III,
p. 281; No. 5. Vol. II, p. 158.
Synesius.  Fourth century A. D. EnIcomiiti,2 on Bal(dnss.
Zoilus.  Fourth century B. C. A pupil of Polycrates: A
speech in censure of Homer, a praise of Polyphemus, an encomium of Tenedos.
Epideictic Literature and Poetry.
That early Greek prose had close relations with poetry,
already highly developed, was well recognized by the Greeks
themselves.  Strabo, for instance. says of Cadmus (I, 2, 6'),
Pherecydes. and Hecataeus: XvoavTre 7TO ke'pov, TaX\\a 8e fvXadavTErc T'a 7roi7L)TI-a-intelnding this as a rough characterization
of early prose as a whole.1  Oratory, with its rapid development
in the early years of the fifth century. assumed prominence at a
period a little later, when. as Strabo puts it. prose had withdrawn little by little from  poetic form and influence.  But in
the department of epideictic oratory especially there was a
1 Cf. Norden. Die antike Kunzstprosa, I, 36. This chapter was in its present form before the publication of Norden's work, and I leave it unchanged.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


167


strong tendency toward the preservation of poetic qualities or
their renewed imitation.   The most prominent name connected
with this movement is that of Gorgias, who must have begun his
oratorical career not later than 450 B. C., thus placing him
among the earliest workers in prose.      He is characterized as
the first to employ artistic prose.'  He made definite selection
of those features of poetry best adapted for employment in prose,
and( formulated these into a simple and practical system     (cf.
p. 102, n. 1). Gorgias was the teacher of Isocrates, and Isocrates
was the epideictic orator l>car excellence-the founder of a school
both in style and theme.     Thus epideictic oratory was, in its
earliest stages, more intimately connected with poetry than were
the other two branches-the judicial and the         deliberative."
Poetry, too, is by its very nature and scope more closely connected with epideictic oratory than with that of the court or the
assembly, whose chief function it is to marshal facts and work
out definite conclusions by argument and close logical reasoning.
Poetry has a wide domain.    It teaches and inspires; it is profound, sublime, pathetic; it exerts a most powerful influence
upon the noblest qualities of man's heart and mind.       But to
give pleasure is also its legitimate function and in many forms
certainly its chief aim.  Aristotle,' Eratosthenes (as quoted by
Strabo, I, 2, 3), and others regarded it as the chief mission of
poetry to give gratification. though there existed earlier than
this andi persisting along with it the theory that the poet is
primarily a teacher.4  Poetry stirs the depths of human emotions,
but it also has its lighter forms which move only the surface.
lUnder its delicate transforming touch trite or commonplace
His debt to Empedocles and Heraclitus is referred to on p. 214, n. 2.
'For the general dependence of oratory on poetry, cf. Cic., Orat., 20, 66 ff.;
De Or., I, 16, 70; III. 7, 27  Hor., Sait. I, 4, 4 5 if.; Tac., Dial., 20; Quintil.,
X, 2, 21; Ovid, Ex Polito, II, 5, 65 ff.; Dion. of Hal., De Com2). Verb., 25 f.:Poetics, XXVI, 7; XIV, 2; Met., I, 1, 918b, 17 ff.; Pol., V, 5, 1339b, 32.
4 Cf. Butcher, Aristotle's Theory of Poetry an'd Fine Art, chaps. 4 and 5;
Horace, Ars Poetica, 338-44, esp. 343-4:
Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci,
Lectorem delectando pariterque monendo.




16S


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


thoughts may assume attractiveness and testhetic value through
the charm  of poetic clothing and imaginative treatment. Epideictic oratory seems far removed from   poetry.  The two are,
indeed, not comparable in power or value to humanity, and yet
these latter characteristics of poetry belong also to a certain
extent to some branches of epideictic literature.  An examination of this department of oratory indicates that poetry, especially in its lighter forms, has by its very nature alnd aim   far
more in common with it than with any other branch of prose,
if indeed one be permitted   to compare the well-founded and
enduring with that which was to a large extent hollow and artificial, possessing only occasional elements of permanent value.
A consciousness of a special connection between epideictic oratory
and poetry in theme and diction runs throughout the course of
this branch of literature, but is particularly noticeable at its
beginning and near its close-the end of the fifth century B. C.
and the fourth A. D.  The epideictic orator seems constantly to
have the poet in mind as he speaks.  Isocrates in the early stages
of this style of oratory employs what becomes a commonplace.
Near the beginning of the Euagoras he laments that orators have
not the license of poets to employ myths, meter, rhythm, figurative language, ornamentation of every form.1 However, he will
attempt "to praise a good man in prose not less effectively than
poets have done in song."   In Antidosis, 45 ff., he speaks of the
prose styles as not less in variety than those of poetry.   The
expression r&v Cera PueTpov 7rotrLidrwt is used here and elsewhere
as though the addition of ferTa /i'pov were necessary to mark the
distinction between this and a prose which might claim the term
wrovhiLa with almost equal justice.2 He compares his own speech to
poetry-"all would call them more like those made,Lera utiovuticK
cKa pvOFui&v than those spoken in the dicastery, for they present
Cf. Mayor, " Licentia Poetica," Jour. of Phil., X (1879). 260 ff.
2Cf. Dion Chrysostomus, XII (I, 214, Dind.), avyypa4eas jlSiTroU/ eL,/eTrpvPW
Katl d&i.Tpwiv X6oyw; Libanius, Or. V (I, 225, 10 R), 7roLTrO 's 'U.VOV ev jLeTpC c Kal
p),TOptKO6s vtJLVOV avev /erpov; Isoc., Ad. Nic., 7; Strabo, I, 2, 6; Plato, Phaedrus,
234 E, 236 D —both refer to the author of the first oration of the Phaedrus
as 7rotlTTrs; Pindar, Pyth.. I, 94, Kal Xo'yotS Kat aodots; lNei.. VI, 33.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


169


deeds in a more poetic and varied style, more elevated and fresh,
and adorned with more and brighter figures. The hearers are
not less pleased than with those made in meter...."  (Antid.,
46, 47; Cic., Or(r., 52, 175). Isocrates, when he saw that poets
had the advantage over orators, used poetic qualities for variety
and pleasure.  Compare with this Himerius of the fourth century
A. D.: Or. III, 1: "Gladly would I adapt these words to the
lyre and make them   poetry, that I might sportively praise thee.
as Simonides and Pindar do Dionysus and Apollo."   Or. 14, 10:
"I shall not address you in Lesbian strains, for I am not a poet,.
but shall speak without meter."  Or. 14, 5: "The art of oratory
to my injury does not grant me the lyre and barbiton, but a'
prose muse."   Ecl.. 13, 32: "Would that I could invoke the
windls as a poet, but alas I have not poetic strains to utter."
Ecl., 12. 7: "Had I the poet's power. I would show, etc."'  This
affectation of the orator's inferiority is a special characteristic
of Himerius; cf. Choricius, p. 48. 1. 7 (Bois.): "A poet would
have honored thy grave with poetic offerings, but I without,
meter, for I am  not a poet."''  Procopius. Epistologroaphi, p..
568, 37, exclaims: "Would that I were a poet; of a truth I
would call on Apollo and the muses too, saying, give me power
to speak  (eltrei).  The epistolographlers abound in similar
passages.
The epideictic orators, especially those living after the beginning of the Christian era, are more inclined to employ quotations
from  the poets.  They are frequently quoted in the ordinary
sense of that term; more often the quotation is worked in without indication of its author or of the fact that it is a quotation.3
Frequently a passage from  a poet or an entire poem forms the
theme of an epideictic (iscourse. Dionysius of Halicarnassus
enjoins upon those who compose ErLtOtXadita in prose the use of
O(d., VI. 183, as a text.  It is. perhaps. not fanciful to compare
'Cf. also like expressions in El., 13, 25; 21, 3; Or. 1, 20; IV, 3; IV, 9;
XIV, 2. 3.
2 Cf. Aristides' h~ mn to Seraliis.
Cf. Hermogenes wrepti \VKU7VT-rTO, [p. II.:32 4. anll rept Xpro-EWs E' Erv ed
rTre \oXyp; Quintil., I. 8.1.




170


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


the vagrant and promiscuous delivery of speeches, as in the cases
of Dion Chrysostomus and Himerius. with the wandering life of
the early bards.' Epideictic oratory is also directly and intimately connected with poetry in its theme.      Menander in his
treatise 7repL ErtLeIlIcrT&K   recognizes 1nearlv thirt  varieties of
epideictic speech, differing enough in theme and treatmenlt to
merit separate mention.   A large proportion of these-all tlie
leading divisions-are more or less direct continuations of
forms long before firmly established ill poetry. The suborillnate
themes are largely subdivisions or are easily derivable from
these, thus making epideictic literature in a 1)road sense delpelent upon poetry.    The V/ivoL. the E7rtLaXadULoSS. and some other
themes especially allied to the poetic, are treated in some detail
elsewhere (see pp. 174 ff. and 179 f. ). The e7rLtacLtos Xcdyos is i)probably the earliest form of epideictic oratory and one of the earlie st
uses of prose. This certainly has its analogue. if not its direct
antecedenlt in such poetic compositions as the Linus s(on, tle
lalment of Hecuba. of Andromache or Helen over Hector. or (f
Briseis over Patroclus. and the OplJvot of the intermediate periodl.
The,uopv ia is of the same nature as the eT7rLT'fdto Xodyos.  It corresponds much more closely to poetic models. Menander (Sp. III.
431, 11) calls the lamelts in Homer iovUa, aia. anl says they may
teach us, who are not experielced, how to form    such spl)eech!es.
The eyKc#ixorv in general is but a continuation of the salle
thing in poetryt   Hermogenes (1p. II. 11. '23.   tepl edy/2cwov)
explains the origin a(nd apl)licationl of the term  from the fact
that the poets sang (a8etLV) their 1vhymns in honor of tle gods
anciently in villages, Ev Kcw/xats.'
Cf. Himer., VI, 4. The troubadours have often been compared to the
early bards.
2 Cf. Sappho (Hiller, 63, 105); Sinionides' epitaph over those who died i.t
Thermopylae; Eur., Stuppl, 857 ff.; Alc., 435 ff.; Phen., 1485 if.; Bion, Lanment
for Adonis; Moschus, Lament for Biol; Hor., Odes, I, 24; II, 9; Propert..
IV, 7, 18; V, 11; and in later times "Astrophel on the Death of Sidney,"
Arber, Eng. Reprints, V, 1; Spenser Soc. Pub., Daniel's " Funeral Poem (,I,
the Death of the Earl of Devonshire;" Tenn., In Melmoriamct, etc., ((tr
infinitum.
Cf. Aphthonius, Sp. II, 35, 26; Theon, Sp. II, 10, 27; (ev Kwy), Nicolaus
Sophista, Sp. III, 479, 4; Smyth, Greek Melic Poets, p. lxxvi (see p. 115, n. 1).


AK




EPIDEICTIG LITERATURE


171


The praise of a city or country is one of the most frequent
topics, but Sophocles 1had prepared the way for such compositions by his celebrated    praise of Attica., 0. C., 668-720;
compare   also  Eur., Hcc., H 90  ff.  (Troy); Jfcdca, 824 ff.
(Athens); Odes of Pindar; Anon. Comic Poet, Kock, III,
Adesplsota, 340; Horace, Odes, I, 7 (Tibur); II, 6C    Ausonius.
ed. Peiper, pp. 144 —54; Catul., 17; Poet. Lf,. i11Jor)es.
Baehrens, l)ssi m.
Praise of a person enters into many forms of epideictic speech
besides its special development in the,3ao-tXu\ci  Xo'yo.  Such
poetry as the odes of Pindar, besides supplying the prototype for
the occasional addlress in general, anld perhalps for the 7ravr7 -yvpticds' may easily have suggested the idea (or encouraged it. if
already formed ) of making an individual, his ancestry, deeds.
virtues. and the myths suggested by the theme, the subject of a
brief (liscourse. For its connection with the /3aaLtXLcos Xdyos.
see ptp. 129 f.  Isocrates' expression in the Ewt(orul s (see p. 168)
imnllies that he had in lill(l some such poetic compositions'
compare also the KCe'a a&vopov of Achilles.  Euripides (Trotdes.
800 ff.) has a praise of Telamon.    There are also set speeches
of this character found in the Sercn AgL(tsilsft Th(s. and( in
Eur.. Spl)lp1.  Idyl 17 of Theocritus is a praise of Ptolemy. an
excellent example of a /3aaotXtco' Xodyoo.
The cX\TImtK6o Xd'yoS'  must be referred to the same origin as
the /ckTXr]7co  V/JuPOs, (. 1., pp. 174 f.  The herald's speech in the
' Peacock in his Essay on the Four Ages of Poetry (in Shelley's Defense
of Poetry, ed. Cook, Ginn & Co., 1891, p. 47) speaks of the panegyrical
o:igin of poetry: " The first or iron age of poetry is that in which rude bards
celeibrate in rough numbers the exploits of ruder chiefs. Poetry is thus
in its origin panegyrical."
2 Cf. also Idyl 16; Pindar, see pp. 129 f.; Claudian, Panegyricts de Tertio
Conssulatt Honorii Anlgusti, and several others; Lans Pisoinis; Poet. Lat.
MiJin. (Baehrens), I, 225 et passim; Tibullus, IV, 1; Propertius, IV', 11; V, 6;
Hor., II, 1; IV, 2, 1, 6, 14, 15; cf. also Southey, '; BaLXiLK6 to the Prince
Rogent;' and innumerable other medieval and modern instances.
Cf. Hor., I, 17, 20; III, 29; IV, 5; Catullus, 35; Propert.. IV, 22:
Juvenal, XI, 182 ff.; Ausonius (Peiper), ad Pauzlm, p. 228; and in modern
timls such poemn as Tennyson. "Invitation to the Isle of Wight," addressed
to Rv. F. D. Maurice.




STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Agalmemnlol of Aeschylus, 503 ff., furnishes a good model for
the address of welcome — 7ri3arr)pilop Xo'yo; compare also the
chorus in the Aga(tmemnon, 783 ff.; Agamemnon's speech, 810;
Clytemnestra's words, 855 ff.; Eur., Hertc., 297 ff.; Hor., Odes,
I, 36; II, 7; III, 14; and such modern poems as Dryden on
the "Restoration of Charles the Second:" Maxwell on "'Cromwell's Return from Ireland," etc.
The words of Odysseus on taking leave of the Phaeacians are
cited by Menander as an instance of a a-VTra/Krt7/   X\d'yo0; compare
also Euripides, Herac., 558 ff.; Hec., 444 if.; Catul., 46; Propert.,
IV, 21.
For the 7rpO7refLTTrrlOS' Xdyo compare Callimaclhus. Fr'ag., 114;
Theoc., VII, 5'2  Ennius, pp. xci alnd 165 (ed. Vahlen); Tibul.,
I. 3; III 3; Propert.. I, 17; Statins, SilcrCe, III. 2; Ausonius,
4th idyl; Hor., Odes. I, 3; III, 27;,Eode I; Epod(l X is an
avTL7rpoTref7-rrTtLKc   Poet. Lft. _Mil '. (Baehrens), VI, p. 3'23,
Pr0ol)cpipt1icon  Pollionlis; Ovid. Ari., 2, 11  compare also
Falconer. "Ode on the Departure of the Duke of York;
Dryden. "To Her Royal Highness tile Duchess on a Victory
and a Journey;" Richardson,    To a Friend Embarking on a
Voyage, etc.
For the y/eve0Xlaktco X6Oyos see pp. 142 ff.
The 7TravryvpLKOc  Xoyos and the 7ravaO7jvatKdco, though they
liffer much in theme from the grand poems, like those of Pindar
andl Bacchylides, which these or similar occasions called forth. so
far as we can judge. cannot be separated in thought. There are
even many similarities in contents. The directions given by
Dionysius of Halicarnassus approach more nearly poetic treatment (e. g.. Pindar's Odes) than existing prose specimens.  Hermogenes (Sp. II, 405. 7) lauds Plato as the model for panegyric
writing in prose. as Homer is the poet p)anegyrist. He introdluces panegyric in poetry with the remark: 7ravr'yvptfcov yap
7rpay~iJa 8j 7rov0ev er'Lt 7rolr'LotS aaTraoa Kcal rdvTr  TE Xoy' ov Trav7lVptKicTarov. Rohde (G1icechischelc Ro0mal. 335) has good foundation for his belief that the el/KdoV  of Philostratus. Choricius. a1nd
others are prose continuations of such poetic compositions as




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


173


Homer's description of Achilles' shield and the Hcracles' Siliell
of Hesiod.1
Euripides has examples of the 7rpeo-3EVTrtKO     XoyoS, c. g.,
He('tcicdac, 134 ff.  The 77rporpe7rrtKcos Xodyo  is a continuation
of the parenetic and moralizing element in Homer, Pindar, and
especially the gnomic poets; compare Cic., Ho'rtclsiits or DC
Philosophiac; Ausonius (Peiper), 259, (rporpe7Vrrtco' t (I lp)'lote)m.
With Menander's rules for praise of a country compare Callimachus' JIym1? fio Delos.
Besides this general relation to the themes of poetry, there is
also in some cases a much closer relationship.    Several special
forms of epideictic oratory do not merely find their germ      in
poetry, as in the cases just mentioned, but come by direct transference.   The early centuries of the Christian era witnessed a
most remarkable development of epideictic literature, reaching its
culmination in the fourth century A. D.   One of its most notable
features was its attitude toward poetry. We find here the antithesis
to the earliest days of Greek prose.  Then all expression tended
to employ poetic forms.   Prose had to win its way against opposition.  The fourth century A. D. presents a situation in many
respects the reverse.2  Poetry was now in a position of insignificance, almost extinction, and prose was held in high esteem. Not
content with poetic features which had always characterized elideictic speech, orators not only employed these with much greater
freedom  and frequency in highly colored forms. using "poetic
properties not as spice but as food." but also made conscious imitation and transference of themes popularly regarded as poetic
only.' Prose poenls of thrle classes were comlposed and declaimed
I Cf. also Aaacreontea, 52 (35); 55 (50); Anth. Pal., Book II; Ausonius
(Peiper), 331 ff.
For comments upon a similar relative decline of poetry, as compared
with prose, in the first half of the fourth century B. C., cf. Holm, History of
Greece, III, 153. Cf. also Norden, Ant. Kunstprosa, I, 78.
2 We may compare here similar compositions in modern times. Notable
examples may be found in Tourgueneff's Poems in Prose, translated and published by Cupples, Upham & Co., 1883, and Pastels in Prose. from the French,
translated by Merrill, with an introduction by W. D. Howells (Harper's). 1890.
Howells makes the error of claiming the prose poem as peculiarly a modern




174


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


by epideictic orators-epithalania (which existed in prose as
early as the first century B. C.), hymns to the gods, poems on
trifling or occasional topics, c.., spring, the rose, the nightingale,
and the like.    Menander (cf. pp. 110 i  f.) in his vrept E7TrSe1tuCrTtc
(Sp. III, 333)' makes a general division of this branch of oratory into two classes according to theme: orations which deal
with gods, and those which deal with men.       The former are called
VJLvot.  He defines nine varieties: KXTLIcOd, where the presence
of a deity is invoked; a'7roTr7E/TrrTOS, addressed to a departing godl
this is purely poetic; for explanation of this fact see Spengel,
Rlhetores Gr'acci, II, 336;    vlo-tKOc, a statement of the physical
qualities of a god; gLvLVCOto' (for title cf. Plato, Phlacdrlts, 265c).
relating some myth; yereaXoyt/cd', referring to the ancestry and
descendants; 7re7rXaate'vos, fictions based on myths; evKgrTtcos 'and
arrevfcLfcdo, precative and( deprecatory hymns; /LCTOS, a combiaation
of two or more of the        preceding.      In  another part of lis
treatise (Sp. III, 437 ) he gives most elaborate directions for the
composition of a oa'vtitaKco  Xo'yos, which is addressed to Apollo
and is in reality a prose hymn of elaborate character.3      Menandrl
composed one (Sp. III, 335, 24).
invention. Cf. also Prose Fancies, Richard Le Gallienne (1894); Prose lIyls,
John Albee (1892); Prose Idylls, C. Kingsley (1873); Prose Pastorals, H. S 1 -vester (1887); Prose by a Poet, J. Montgomery (1824).
Cf. also Sp. II, 13,22; 109, 24; 505,5; III, 4, 14; Quintil., III,, 7;
Philodemus, I, 219 (Sudhaus).
2 It is interesting to note the even more minute subdivisions shown in the
Greek descriptive titles prefixed to the odes of Horace in various manuscripts. They are discussed by Zarncke, De Vocabulis Graecanicis quae
traduntur in Inscriptionlibus Carnminumi Horatianorum, Diss. Phil. Argent.,
III, 215 ff. The following is a summary: apotelestice, III, 30; dicanice, II,
2; diastolice, III, 19; encomiastice, II, 2; IV, 2, 4, 8, 14; enthusiastice, II, 19;
erotice, I, 8, 1, 19; IV, 1, 10, 11; euciharistice, I, 36; II, 19; euctice, I, 30, 41;
II, 5; IV, 1; hymnius, I,,10, 12, 21; III, 22, 25; hypothetice, I, 6, 15; II, 16, 18;
III, 16, 27; lerke. I, 23; menztice, III, 15; paean, IV, 5; palinodia, I, 16;
paraenetice, I, 4, 7, 9, 14, 17,18, 33; II, 3, 9, 17, 18, 20; III, 12, 14, 17, 21, 28, 29;
IV, 7, 12, 13; pracgmatice, I. 1, 11; II, 1, 7; III, 1; p1)osagoreutice, II, 8; proseuctice, I, 2, 35; III, 13, iS, 23; IV, 3, 5, 6; carmen saeculare; prosphonetice,
I, 3, 5,12, 20, 32, 37, 38; II, 2, 4,6, 7, 12. 14; III, 11, 23, 27, 23; IV, 4; protreptice,
I, 27; II, 4; syllogistice, III, 23; sylmnoleutice, II, 3, 17; threnus, I, 24.
3Callimachus Hymn to Apollo has much in common with the outline
given in Menander. After a brief prelude he cefers to the need of praise on




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


17.)


Menander mentions models for many of the types, and in some
cases quotes.  Here, as in his detailed treatment of the more distinctively prose forms, he claims for the epideictic branch everything which he regards as of an epideictic character, however
fragmentary or brief it may be-even a single sentence-and
regardless of the general literary character of the production in
which it is imbedded (see p. 93), e. g., Plato (many hymns),
Sappho, Empedocles, Anacreon, Herodotus, Demosthenes, Sophocles, etc.  Hymns to the gods form    one of the earliest poetic
themes, and they are also the most continuous.  Menander cites
Sappho, Anacreon, and Aleman as authors of KCX\TLKco v/4VOl.
He refers to Bacchylides as author of a'T7roreF7TtlKco iVvot.
They were also called 7rpo7re/rTWrrco.  wvaOtcol Vi/Lvol are rather
poetic than prose, though Julian's hymns may be classed as
fvalcKOi. According to Menander, Plato contains several, e. g., in
the Symp)osiuml, where he refers to Ilopo9 and IHeria. He says (Sp.
III, 337. 22) that in the Critias (passage lost) Plato calls the
Timleus a hymn of the All (ro rar);2 compare also Empedocles,
Parmenides, Orpheus.    For the /,v0eo;\ ivivoso the models were
Acusilaus, Hesiod.   FeveoXooytKol vJLvoL were written by Hesiod,
Alcaeus, Orpheus, Plato.    The examples of erewrXaorevot vivot
cited are Plato, Phecdrus, 242; Sym1., 186, 189, 203; Hesiod and
Simonides. The EVuKTcCOS vi;voo is found even in orators, when
calling on the gods to witness.  Menander (Sp. III, 342) quotes
Demosth., De Corona, 225, 274; Plato, Phaedritus, 279 B; II., II,
412; X, 278; compare also, for other hymns, Soph., O. T., 151;
Electra, 1376; Orphic hymns: to Helius, p. 61 (Abel); to Zeus, p.
66; to Poseidon, p. 67; to Adonis, p. 88; Pindar, O. 1, 75, Aratus
-the beginning of his    aitvo'diva- is a hymn to Zeus; Catullus,
instrument and' in song. He is god of the bow, of healing, of oracles; his benefits to mankind, his titles.
' Other examples in poetry are as follows: Homer, II., I, 37 (cited by
Menander, Sp. III, 335, 13); Sappho, 5, 6, 61, 66, 67, 83, ed. Hiller; Orphic
Hymns (Abel), p. 82; [Eurip.], Rhes., 224; Pindar, fg. 1222(p. 219 Fennell, 87
Christ), Nemean, IX; Alcman, 21; Tibul., II, 1; Hor., I, 30; Ausonius. p.
331. Menander cites also Plato, Phaedrus, 237.
2 Grote (Plato, Vol. IV, p. 217; London, Murray, 1888) falls into the error
of attributing this to Menander.




176


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


31 (to Diana); Hor., I, 30, 31; III, 11, 26 (end); Tibullus, IV, 6.
The great majority of hymns are naturally tLLKTOI having as
their elements two or more of the preceding     forms, (. e.,
Aesch., Aganmem., 160 (to Zeus); Soph., Antig., 781 (to Eros);
Eur., Hip., 525; I. T., 1231; Hel., 1300 (to Ceres and Cybele):
Ion1, 1048 (to Hecate); Sappho, 1, 7; Orphic hymns: Proclus, to
the Sun; Callimachus, to Zeus, Apollo, Artemis; Homer, to Apollo,
Hermes, Aphrodite, Demeter, etc.; Julian, see pp. 177 ff.; Tibullus, IV, 6; Hor. I, 10 (Mercury), 12 (to several gods), 1,8 (to
Bacchus); II, 19 (to Bacchus); III, 4 (to Calliope), 18 (to
Venus), 22 (to Diana), 25 (to Bacchus), 26 (to Venus), etc.
Pindar makes a hymn of some form a part of almost every ode.
He also wrote viLZvot paeans, dithyrambs; compare also [Terpander], Hymnl to Zeuls, Alcman, Arion, Alcaeus, Poet. LOt.
li)r., IV, 434, Baehrens.
How general was the writing of prose hymns can be judged
only from the fact that Menander gives them so important and
detailed a place in his treatment, and that this form of epideictic
composition had reached such minute subdivision. We possess
hymns as separate compositions from but few orators. Aristides
is mentioned by Menander (Sp. III, 344) as an excellent model
for /tLLKCTO VJiVOt. His hymn to Zeus begins with an evc7rtLcoK v/tvos
denies the usual story of his birth and states his own belief; he
presents in detail his qualities, his work for man as creator of the
earth and source of all blessings.  — I begin and end with this
[cf. Homer, II., 9. 97, of Agamemnon; Theognis. 1-5, of Apollo;
Thuc., XVII, 1; Pindar, N. II, 1; D. Chrys.. 7irEpl /3actXEai;
Theocr., XVII, 1; Aratus. Phl)enl., 1; Hor., Ode(s, I, 12, 13:
Vergil, Eel., III, 60], calling him leader and aid in every word
and work, being himself alone primal author and completer of
all."  This hymn might easily take its initiative from  such
poetic antecedents as Callimachus' hymn  to Zeus. They have
some points of noticeable similarity.  Both start witl the question: How shall we best honor him? Both refer to the tradition
of his birth in Crete, to deny it and substitute what they believe
to be the truth.  Both employ the Td7ros of inadequacy  Zeus is




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


177


eternal (Aristides, p. 3, Dind.; Callim., 9), giver of all good (main
theme of Arist.; Cal., at end); the gods are his servants through
recognition of his superior power (Arist., pp. 9 and 10; Cal., 60 —
75); accomplishes his will with instantaneous swiftness (Arist., p.
5; Cal., 87 if.); Aristides begins, Callimachus ends, with a prayer.
His hymn to Athene opens with a prayer, stating that his hymn
shall be a mingled evXrX and ViL4vos. He dwells mainly upon her
characteristics and benefactions; ends with a prayer. The hylmn
to Poseidon was composed for a 7ravrjyvpts at the Isthmus. As in
many of the hymns. there is an introduction of a purely personal
character relating the circumstances of composition or delivery.
The hymn follows largely the lines of a panegyric.  He praises
the place as well as the god.  The hymns to Dionysus. Heracles,
Asclepius (cf. Himerius, 29), the Asclepiadae, and Serapis repeat
about the same TO'rro. Aristides includes in the title of some of
his hymns the word galvrevro', as though implyingi their inspiration.  Aristides has other writings which closely approach the
hymn in style and structure. c. g.. Or. 21. 7r'aXlvPSla ctrl /,iupvr
eal T7 ravTrrl) avoLftOLLO;' and(l 20, /Lov(la c7ri  uvpvy.  These
present more conscious elements of poetry than his other writings
except the hymns. It (Or. 20) )begins like a poem with a call of
perplexity to Zeus — roiav aplovziav applooadLevoso: p. 427. e'/1eXXec
apa Trol "EXXrtwv aSeoOal evrepw)v o-XET\XTWepv. The whole
oration is in a style which lacks only meter to make it a poem.
In Or. 21, p. 43() when lie learned of the calamity. fIovoSLaS rtvahs,8oV.... vvp v &  pa /JOL 7Tr; 0 71Ti'topovV JLe/jvoy'ao-OaL 77o raXtvSria cal tu7' ToTe a/3ovXyTra a8ovTa Ta/fc 7vT evXwv) vvv  tLoOTr7ouat.
Compare also    p. 322: Tr'v 8e 7rd\Xv aovaot /ELV 7raTvres Kca
aov-oTat.
The two hylmnls of Julian —to the sun alnd to the mother of
the gods -are far less worthy of the title "lhymns," if the defilnition is to be derived from existing specimens ill poetry and
prose. The two are usually classed as vaot/col. though the term
applies far more strictly to the hymni to the mother of the gods
than to that addressed to the sun. It is, at least, an open question whether the latter should not be called ulKTOSc. He follows,,




178


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


largely the same lines of thought as Aristides, except that the
philosophical element is prominent.  He begins with an introduction stating his interest in the subject, his qualifications. his
inadequacy (cf. Aristides). Then follow elements of the eVKcrtLKc,
y7evaXo7ycos, 7reTrXao-eua0o, LvO&tcoId. A very close parallel might
be madle between this lhymn  andl a /aactXtKo Xo'yos. The ihymn
consistently addlresses the sun as S3act\evs. and employs the
familiar TO'7ro -inadequacy, boundless influence, ancestry. deeds,
comparisons, the queen (the moon), benefits to subjects, separate
praise of each (sun and moon), prayer.      Libanius (I, 225,
10 ff., R.) calls Or. 5 a hymn to Artemis.   It is offered in
gratitude for recovery from   illness (cf. Aristides' hymn to
Asclepius). He speaks of her birth, qualities, etc., following
the TO7TOL of the /3acritX/co Xko'yo; compare Callimachus' hymn
to Artemis. The 'OXvfLLTrtaKc  (Or. 12) of Dion Chrysostomus is
a hymn and is so recognized by him, though not in the title. He
says (I, 219 Dind.): edv v7rro l[cavol yevwcleOca r 'v rE  vLo'tv avrov
Kca T71V &vvaJitv vJvo-'at Xodya /3paXel Kca' a7roSe0vTLi Tr  td, a? a'Ta
7rov Tavr'a XgeyovTES. The oration deals with the sources of our
knowledge of God, his attributes, the blessings received from
Zeus.  Himerius, Or. 7, 2, is a hymn to the sun  compare also 13,
7; 19, 3. Apuleius, Mletamorphoscs,  I, has a hymn to Iris.
He calls upon her by all her titles, enumerates her powers,
and ends with a prayer.  Plato has many passages which might
be termed hymns.
Epiphanius is said to have written a hymn to Dionysus, see
Suidas and Smith's Class. Dict.. s.. Menander (Sp. III, 355)
indicates that he was himself the author of a hymn to Apollo
and perhaps of a 7re7rXaoa e1vo? v3i1vos (Sp.L III, 341).  Philostratus, IT-i. A)pol. of Tiqta., I, 14, speaks of a hymn to
Memory.
The hymns of the early church were largely imitations of
pagan originals. Gregorius Nazianzenus composed many based
on the odes of Anacreon and his imitators.  It is an interesting
fact that among these there are two hymns in prose. Four others
of about the same period are printed in Chatfield's SogUs tnd




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


179


HI7qlls of the CGre'k Christion Chlurch (1876).  In the Eastern
church fron  the eight century on the vast mass of hymn literature was in measured prose.' These probably imitated the poetry
of the Old Testament and the hymns and spiritual songs of the
apostles.> Nerle cites Eph. 5 14 and Rev. 4: 8 as parts of
prose hymnl. But especially in the case of Gregorius the
tendency of the time to employ prose for poetic purposes may
well have been an important factor.
The epithalamium and its companion, the 7yatuto Xod7yo (Dionysius o; Halicarnassus) or 7yairXltoS (Menander), were originally
as distinctively poetic as the vi`;vos and were, to judge from the
monuments, adopted into prose even earlier, though the only
extant prose epithalamia are that of Himerius, in the fourth century A. D., and parts of one by Choricius, addressed to Zacherias.
Such compositions must have been frequent early, as Dionysius
of Halicarnassus gives detailed directions for the composition of
a yazLLK/co to precede and an ~7rtaXkdtLto? to follow marriage. He
recognizes both as being poetic in nature, by using the words
VLveLV and aeltv.  He terms the yatKc6O Xkoyo a '"hymeneal song."
Menander says (Sp. III, 405, 19) poets have poetic KcarevvaarLKcoi,
'and we shall not stand aloof. but will start out in rivalry."' He
uses the words v/tvelv and aiSev (Sp. III, 399 et pssiil) anl,
speaking of the guests contributing to the joy of the occasion
(p. 400), he adds y S     et 8e o \ ca l e aw 0- TOv yadYovf.  Here and
elsewhere the dual nature of the hymn and of the epithalamitun
is recognized.  The words V/uivelz and aSitv are not used in the
directions for the other XdooL except in the sense of "sound the
praises of," though a more indiscriminate use of those words
came in with the niext century.  It would appear (p. 400) that
Menander wishes to establish a precedent in antiquity for the
use of prose in place of poetry at a wedding celebration.  He
says that at the marriage of AMegacles and Agariste the best of
1 Cf. Anatolius and Ephraim Syrus; cf. Philologus. 44, 228 (Hanssen), and
Christ and Paranikas, Anthol. Graeca Carmiitaum Clhristianorumz; Julian,
Diet. of Hymniology; Neale, Hynuis of the Eastern Church.
2Passages may be cited as follows: Luke 1:68-79; 2:14,29-32; Eph.
5:19, 20; Col. 3:16, 17; 1 Tim. 6:15, 16; Titus 3:4-7; James 1:17; 2 Tim.
2:11-13.




180


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


the Greeks were present.    There was no poet there, but prose
writers did not fail.  The orator spoke and the writer of prose
read books, and all joined il hymning (arvvivovv) the marriage.
Dionysius and Menander agree closely in the TOTtro for this Xo'os9:
the origin of marriage, its god. its necessity, its universality, its
advantages, noted marriages, encomium of the bride and groom,
comparisons, advice, prayer.    Himerius follows the Tor'ro more
closely than most extant speeches do their'respective directions.
In his preface he says that the best rule is to follow the diction
of the poets, and at sec. 4 he refers to Sappho1 as the singer of
epithalamia p(r' excellence, ant his own model, though Apollo was
the first to sing the marriage hymn.      Menalnder cites Hesiod.'
Prose Poems on Occasional Topics.
Such compositions must have been numerous in the fourth
century A. D. Though unlike the ivJvoL and the e7rt0aXadJta. tllhey
are not recognized in the rhetorical treatises, and comparatively
few have come down to us. The following are known: Himerius.
Spring (Or. III, 1-7; also IX and XXI); Choricius, Spring (p. 173,
Boissonade); the Rose (pp. 129. 139, 143, 156, 176. 202. 282. 30,:
R. Foerster, Ph iolologys, 54 (1895), 1 14  Procopius, Spring (cited
in Belk., Ainec.. 143, 24): the Rose (Bekk.. A nec.. 146. 26); compare also Achilles Tatius, the Rose il Lenlcippe l     rt( Clitophlon.
and the reference to Spring in Themistius (Or. 260), to         tle
Nightingale (Or. 25) and to Spring in Libanius (Or. 4).         All
are brief  most are separate speecles; others, as all of those )by
1 Cf. Hermnes, 27 (1892), 249, Kaibel, noting the dependence of Theocritus,
and incidentally also of Himerius, upon Sappho.
For poetic epithalamia cf. Iliad, XVIII, 493, roXvi 5' vle/vatos 6popeiv:
Hesiotd, Shield, 272 ff.; Sappho, 48, 49, 82. 89-103 (Hiller); Stesichorus; Theoc.,
XVIII; Anacreontea, 60; Catul., 61, 62.64; Eurip., Troad., 308; Arist., Pax,
end; Aves, end; Poet. Lat. Mihn.. III, 387; Sen., Mledea, 56 ff.; Statius, Silvce,
I, 2, Eplithalamiuml in Stellacm et Uiolentillam: Claudianus, p. 93 of Teubner
text, on the marriage of Honorius and Augusta; Duodecim Panc. Ve't., VI;
Paulinus of Nola; Sidonius, Apollinaris; Dracontius; Ennodius; Luxorius;
Venantius; Fortunatus; Ausonius; Licinius Calvus (p. 84. ed. Luc. Muiller);
Lemaire, Lat. Poet., III, 337, 404.406. 407. 397. Cf. also English EpithalCmi(n.
R. H. Case, editor (London, 189G).




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


181


Himerius and some of those by Choricius, are preludes, interludes, or epilogues in other speeches.  These receive mention
elsewhere; see pp. 187 f. Several of these prose poets reveal no
slight native poetic power. Christ (3d ed., p. 808) justly estimates Himerius when he says that in him      a good poet was
changed from his natural lirection to oratory.  The same might
be said, in a less degree, of Aristides. His hymn to Zeus, which
he terms VJlvov AtoL aveV U Le'poV, and that to Athene are as truly
poetic in composition and expression as many of those which
take poetic form. The prose poems of Choricius of Gaza also
contain traces of poetic power.
In addition to the three forms of direct transfer there are
several ways in which the epideictic orator revealed his tendency
to assume the poet's task: (1) in applying to his work terms
appropriate only to poetry, and (2) in the use of poetic TO'7OL.
I. THE USE OF TERMS APPROPRIATE ONLY TO POETRY.
There is abundant evidence in the writings themselves that
these writers felt that their work was poetic in its character.
Aristides and Julian employ the word "hymnn" to designate the
orations addressed to the gods. This is true of Himerius in still
more marked degree. Although he occasionally refers to poetry
and oratory as two distinct forms of composition, he practically
breaks down all division between them except the purely formal
one of meter.  He is fully as free to employ expressions implying
that he is, in his own judgment. engaged in a poetic task when
he is addressing a speech to a ruler, or is on an embassy, or lauding a city, or even delivering a aitad to his students, as when lhe
composes an epithalamium or an ode to spring. He consciously
identifies oratory and poetry. He is the servant of the muses;
they inspire his oratory; his appeal is to Apollo and the muses;
sometimes Hermes is added.    Or. III, 9: tovclc 6jv  Kcatl /a<
KEXEVELS eepycd'crOat, auTroV; eVSClo   TO JavvOrltqa, OaTrep o 6eos rTal
ALo' 7rapOe'vo0  T'aZ; Mov'ao-.  Or. 13, 1, speaks of his EpplftJe'viv
Kcal aTtLOV tiovo'av. Or. 13, 3: OTL apa MovIoaLs XopEVEtv /ov\XoiaL.
(r. 11, 2: aeX1 3& Ta MWovOr&v XafSjvTas KceXEVELV TOtEVELV "EXXi7tv.




182


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


O r.  14, 8:  e&i8a   FtCu   To1JTo  -7Tp(#',v  'e~f-j1f3ov  7'rroo t7  -  (- COJT 7e   7  Kat
7waXtvp,8i'av  J a   /3ot'Xotkat  1a01  077rCp  TOD  Mo10Vn'qye7oV  77pos~  vl-as~
awo).o~y 'coaOat TO'v /1DOOv eKEtLvo?. avlo\V X a/%vf.  Or. 1 4, 384: 'A XXV
&)  a'  L L /1 V  / V O 8  tE   K a t  "W(Y V o-(D cOat,   /Ia'X tL T a   8 \  7ra'vron   E/110 L
Kat  X YoyVL, Ov~  icat, ev  L77ap-lavov  av-To   ir -XaTr-ot1e'vov~  iyya'7nija,~.Ay   E   8 'q'   W Tt pO V O O C  T   X O 0r V   LO  X o   K t,   To  Ka,.  ellOC -
T&~  Trp 0  at   ep  TO CV C 8E   epca. 7rTepot yap  vLaS,  0  M ovay T?Or. 14 closes withi an- EIHCTKO\~ i",tvo~ to the muses.  O r 2 26 Ta i,
Mioi'aLSt,  1'W   ais~  o0   X9"yot  7rOt/~Latl)VOVat.  O r.  IS.  8:  his  school
is addlressed as the hlionie of thie muses.      Julian. p). 1-40. 1$)
(Hertlein): akXx' ef~LoIy TOTOV 7rapao-TatU) /307100ls 1" TE XO'yO;~
JE~t~oVP,  TaZLS' M oia-av~  0 Te  M.1vo-q7yeT?71S  'A7TO0XX~oV,6r, c7T   Ka \1  OUTO)
7wpoofl1(,CL TO))) Xo/6ya, KatL 60ZOE V & E C7EZIV 07TO'o-a ToiS~ PEGoLS; jnka
-Xe`ycEa-Oa1 TE  Kai,  MGc-TEV'Eo-Oat  77Ep~t  avT-o)v.  f.  p).  206'.,  wlhere  lie
begins the hymin to the suit with: ~a'vat.          p'~o~... y.o/c
EicXaXijao-0/cv. a11( p-. '282, 11. where lie 11ses the word imYvos'. Cornplare also Dion Chry-sostoniuis. Or. 82 (428. Diind. ):7TCLV7ECS'1
a"80aVO-t  Ka~t P' 7T'7 PEi Kilt  (YOof)L7at, Kat -TraP~a  TrEpaItVETaL  &'  (98)7 0-7'l.
CEt TLv'  TTLptot 8tKa -T j 'pLov, ovK  a'v  yVoU)  pa&"On~ MWOTEpOV1  eVP8OV 7TivoivilIV
&1 8Ka'~ovTat  KIcaV  Lo 4LJtToD  &c  o L"K?//a  77TXy7lo V  0 K  JT0L yVJ)t
T?)V E3aTpt/3 'Pj. Phiflostratus. Lices of the Sophists. I. S. -: COeXyle
av'Tol,  TO?) Xo'yov  KCLL To  E7-tL 7-ao-LV,  0 EKcELVOL /1EV  (o90 1V c'Ka'XovV,  E
E' c0 LoTL/.L/cLV, E-7TEL8'7 T ZtS  a'77-O&&Lty/1 EVOLS'  E0/V)IVEiTaL  Them istius.
Or. 28 (315c)~ a&LVp Kat vpoo-a~etv.   Comipare also Or..28S (841ce
Or. 24 (301(7)'; Lihanius, Or. 18, p. 405. Such references in Himerius. Themistius. Aristides. and( other orators mighit he mlultipliedC
1in(efinitely.  Himerius compares himself with Sappho. Homer.
Simionides; see Eel., XXVII. 1; Or. I. 16; I. 4; V. 2: ef. Dion
Chirysostom-us. Or. I. p. 8, 8: Ap~ollo. Persuasion. 011(1d      thuk
Muses must assist the speaker.      Strabo (I. 122,6    argruingr that
p~rose arose as an imitation of poetry. refers to the fact that ain
ancient times A'EL8CLV was usedl for 4pa'~etv.  Himerius and other
Sophists also use a"&tp and its compounds in reference to thelii
orations.   If this word alone were usetl. it mighlt lbe regarded as
a mere affectation, but taken in comnection with other evidence it
appears that there was somne effort to present their art as incorpo



EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE18


183


rating or supplanting poetry.      It might be iioted     here that
Dionysius and Menander observe a fairly consistent usage regardnig V/ vliEtv and( aq&LEv and the like. These words are used togethier
with Xe"yctv in the (lirections for hymnis and epithalamiia, b)ut in
the othier Xo',yot, Xe',yctv alone, excelpt in a few easily exlplicalble
cases.  Himerius at least uses not only atetv, Iut the greneral terminiiology of poetry —/Ie'Xo,, vi4Lvos~, c68j.  Cf. the references noted
above, pp. 181 f., and snch as Eel.. XXXVI. 14: o-vyyv(0yV     a~j,
evlwKat ye'pw cKat veO,~. et e'wi) 0c/'Oyyoltat 018,e /a'p oLt&v e~pcos ca't
xo-yop 7,Totetv avTovo/Iov; alld Or. I. (): y/aptov ao-oyp-c.. Xo.0yov,aa3tf4aav      0 Or. I. 4: &waX'pv p-eo, eupeiv; Or. IV, 10:     6
&  &) vp-o, VOSETCO TW~ X 0PP  TOV(S E aipXctv E'77t 7TXEJ0TOV 'EXX7)wv60
Or. XI, 1:PP           L~o    77Ta'Xt  TOPV opOO  V6p-ov 7Tpoo-qtO-W-Ev
Or. XV,:2: Xo',Yos~ q'yet'Ow wpo  I Mov a ov PXEtlioJ~a, KcaL va/iaia, APTt
&1e 77X?)7/y a'7Tl7POVS'~ Ta aoj.LaTa; Or. -XVII. 1: Xo',yot 8E ~pa Ovo- Ia
Mova-(2w. (f. also Eel., 18, 3(0; Or. III. 1: Or. VII1..5: Vii. 2.
In Or. V. 83ff.. heecomipareslpoets anid orators. Note also Choricius.
p). 173. *: not to speak would be (lislionorable to the muse;178S.
end(. Eap q&ovp, and P. 200..'.Comle. XdyoL0, let us seek Somie other
theme for song(.' 2 One mlay note here EJ)/stoloyruph;i (Julian.1
1) 842, xv:"we offer our speeches to y\oul as to Hermles, god of
eloquence...If you (lislike them, cast them asi(Ie as foreign
to the muses."   Comlpare also pp. 3890. 21  3 42. 88~ 385-5. 19 38633 2
awl 40   3 72, 51; 881. 40; ()099. 88  789, 15. Procopius (.5.5.5 083
speaks of a hook beingy brought from     Alexandria by- the help of
Hermes awla tile muses    Julian (887. 2) urges Libanius to send
tiic Xd'yov in tile name of Hermes and the muses    Procopius (.568.
983): "Were I a poet, perhaps I would call on Aipollo and time
muses, saying, Give me power to speak (,EI~E~v."      C~ompare also
Thiemistius, XIX, p). 277; Lilbanius, -XIII, 1p 40.5  Mlenandler  SI).
III. 487, 18; 4388,5)
1Cf..Norden, Die antik~e Kunistprosa, I. 428.
2 Cf. also Hirnerius, Or. 1, 3; V, 9; IV, 8; VII, 2; IV, 1; JV, 3; X, 10;
VI, 05; VII, 3; VIf, 11; VIII, 6; IX, 2; XI, 1; XIII, 2; VIII. 3 (twice);
XI[[J. 7; XIII, 8; XIII, 12; XIV, 34; XIV, 36; XV. 1; XV, (twice); XIV,,
37; XVI, 1 and 2; XVI, 6GandS8; XVII, 2; XLIX, 3; XX, 2; XXI, 8; XXII. 1;
XXII, 6; XXIII, 19; XXIX. 1; Eel., XXXVI; Eel.. XIII. 8; Eel., XII, 6;
Eel., XII, 33; Eel., XIX, 1; Eel., XXXII.




184


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


II. POETIC T07rOt.
As already noted, epideictic oratory had always employed
many features which were primarily poetic. The early centuries
of the Christian era saw this tendency much increased. Frequent
use was now made of the 0Tdrro and allusions heretofore regarded
as the special and almost exclusive property of the poet. Those
most common in the higher branches of poetry, especially the
lyric and bucolic, were transferred to oratory and next to the
direct imitation of poetic themes. like hymns and epithalamia,
form the most noteworthy and easily recognizable evidence of
the substitution of prose for poetry. Moschus' lament for Bion
furnishes incidentally a good catalogue of such poetic "properties" employed by all poets from Sappho on. In his tovSi'a he
makes reference to the rose, hyacinth, lightingale, swan, muses,
swallow. flute, rivers, groves, flowers in general, Aphrodite, and
Adonis. To this list of commonplaces might be added the narcissus, the cicada, spring, the laurel, the Nile, the sun andl stars,
birds in general, painting, nature, and the like. Most of these
topics deal with nature.  The genuine love of nature so conspicuous in Theocritus. and occasionally found in earlier poets, evidently
attracted the attention of epildeictic orators, engaged as they were
in the close study and conscious imitation of poets-especially
the lyric poets, Sappho, Simonides. Anacreon. and Pindar. Their
theory of the function of the epideictic orator led to the transfer
of these from the domlain of poetry to prose. While in most
cases the imitation is in a high degree perfunctory and artificial
- merely the machinery without the art-it would be hard to
deny that Himerius presents at least some traces of a real love of
nature.  How thoroughly this practice of employing the devic,'s
of poetry permeated the writings of epideictic orators of that lay.
as well as their purely perfunctory use in most cases, may 1)e
inferred from Procopius (Eplisf. r... 1)5. lxix):  Perhaps you
will wonder why I. though I am a sophist and see the spring at
hand. when speech should be poured forth in full volume, keep
silent, and plerhaps you seek in my letters flowers and swallows and
the shifting of the sea. and Aphrodite and Adonis, and the rose."




EPIDE1CTIC LITERATURE


185


Several of these rodrot admit of more detail.   The rose is
treated in poetry and in the prose-poetry of the orators: (1) as
the special flower of the muses; cf. Theoc., Epig., I, ra poda Tr
SpvOroevTa, Kca a KaTLa7rVKcos eKEIa  pvrVXXo fKcelTat Tara  EXkuwvMdaI; (2) as connected with Aphrodite and the loves, especially
in connection with the judgment of Paris, or the myth of Aphrodite and Adonis; (3) as the loveliest flower of spring.
Sappho is identified with the praise of the rose, though her
poems on this topic are not extant; cf. Philostratus, Epist. Gr.,
481, li.
Were there no other poetic references, Homer had immortalized the rose by his oft-recurring phrase pooSdaTvcKVXO 'Hco.  He
refers to it elsewhere only in II., 23, 186, where the body of
Hector is annointed poodevTt.... e'Xaw i at/u8poaoi. The Anacr'eontea pick up Homer's stock phrase and add others from
Sappho and elsewhere, e. q.. 53 (53), Ei rO po'Sov.
ETrcfavricoopov t/ET' iypo?
je\Xo/LaL pOdSov TepElvov
pooSdoaKTvXos lev 'HO?,
po(or 7xeE? &e NvxbIat,
poodXpovV $e fcahppoitTa
7rapa Trv o0fwv IcaX\etraL.
podSov, cW cepLtrTov av0oo (42 (5)1,
poSov elapo9 /teXryLGa
[pSda Kcal Oeoift 7Tep7rva].
Cf. also 47 (37), 1; 33 (40). 2; 7 (15), 7; 4 (18), 4; 5
(59), 2.
Frequent reference to the rose is found in Theocritus and the
lyric poets.  Meleager (Headlam), IV, "the rose fairest of flowers;" XXIX, "love's favorer;" XXXVIII, " spring and the rose;"
Simonides, Bergk (Hiller), pp. 231, 6; 258, 146; 316, 21.
Compare also Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon, which




186


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


contains a rose song in prose; Bion, Adonis, 11. 15, 65; Moschus,
II, 40, 63; III, 5; Callimachus, Bath of Pallas. 28; Himerius,
passim; Johannes Secundus, I; Pervigilitinm Ti, Veiis; Ausonius,
pp. 113, 419, d(e rosis (nascctibus. Idyl 14; Horace, II, 11;
Poet. Lat. Mibh., IV. 278; innumerable passages in modern poets.
Choricius celebrates the rose in a prose poem vrept poSov, p. 129
(Bois.). This contains the myth of Aphrodite and Adonis. The
rose is supposed to gain its color from the blood of Aphrodite,
wounded in her hasty search for her slain love. Aphrodite is
often connected with the rose in poetry; compare Antrcconteat,
53 (53). For the myth compare Bion, Lamneut for Adonis. 20,
"as she goes, the brambles tear her and pluck her sacred blood;'
34, "flowers redden from grief;" 65, "Adonis pours forth tears
and blood.... the blood begets the rose, the tears the anemone"
(cf. Pseudo-Theoc., 30); Pervigilitum TVeeris, "her blood tinges
the rose;" compare Shakespeare, 1'7Venus and Adlonis. This myth
is a favorite one with Choricius. It is found in the Bois. ed.,
pp. 129, 143,, 176, 139,6, 308, and R. Foerster, Philologus, 54
(1895) 114; compare also p. 202, &LaXeELt repi podaov, where the
rose is represented as winning the prize of beauty for Aphrodite
from Paris. The myth is frequently met in the Poet. Lat. MIin.
It was also a stock topic in the schools; compare a &riOyrn/La, given
as an example, Aphthonius (Sp. II, 22, 14. and Walz, Rhet. Gr.,
II. 241).
The epideictic activity of the period took in part the form of
epistles. The specimens preserved present not only much of a
general epideictic character, but also many instances of the introduction of poetic features comparable to that of the orators of the
same period. Some of these epistolographers were also epideictic
orators. Though their orations are not preserved, the character
of their oratory may be fairly inferred from the letters. The
general tendency of epistolography to assume artificial, epideictic
form may be seen from the statement made by Proclus, rrept
C7rt-TOXealovu apaKcrTjpos. He says (Didot ed., p. 6): TO) 7ypdaeEv
/3ovXoPev w  TpOrEL pce Hj a7rrX&0 p/'S 9 o 6rTVXEV 7rtrTTeXXELV, atXXa
aV aKplC/3La 7roXX\\  ca'l TeaItV; and again (p. 7): TrrV e7rLa-T\ro X




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


187


fcaTraKoafiEL.....rL H EVTOL E 76 Trpa TOV 7pOr/C7KOVTO7O KO/jTrooXyIa
Xpo'Oat (p. 7).  Apollonius of Tyana (p. 113, end) says there
are five kinds of speeches; one of these is epistolary.  Proclus
defines forty-one classes into which letters may be divided according to contents or occasion (p. 7).   Demetrius Phalereus(?),
writing on the same subject, mentions twenty-one, giving a model
for each.  The following selections from  the titles indicate the
epideictic character: ovoTarTtLo&, commendatory, a letter of introduction containing praise of the person introduced; FLEzU7rtLcos,
reprehensive, and oveL&o-rLco9, objugatory, reproaching one who
makes no return for benefits received; 7rapacvOrpTLco9, consolatory: ev7rLTLtfJ7TLKOc, blaming for a fault; 6eratVertlo', laudatory;
ovyXapLoTfcdO, congratulatory; a7TrevaptirTLco09 conveying thanks,
a gr(tit rllrm acfio; /tjCTOC?, mixed. With the above compare the list
of topics given in Quintilian, III, 4, 3, as suitable for epideictic
oratory.  The poetic commonplaces above referred to are found
also among the epistolographers, e. f.. the rose is one of the stock
references; compare p. 468, 1, Philostratus: "roses with leaves
as though wings have hastened to come to thee. Receive them
as memorials of Adonis or of Aphrodite's loss of blood [cf.
Choricius, etc.; see p. 186] or as the eyes of the earth." 1
Spring is the rival of the rose and often connected with it.
The epideictic prose poems on this theme may easily be a continuation of such lyric trifles as Bion, III (VI); cf. also Anacrcontea, 44 (37), 62. References to spring and its joys are frequent
in poets from Homer down. Prose poems on spring are extant
in the works of Himerius, and there is evidence that Procopius
wrote one (Bekk., Anec., 143, 24); compare also Themistius, Or.
26, and Libanius, Or. 4.
Himerius says (Or. III, 1-7) that he would praise spring as
Simonides and Pindar do Dionysus and Apollo. He prays for
the power of Anacreon; quotes from him: "Spring has appeared
as Homer's breeze to weary sailors, as evening to those awaiting
Aphrodite's dance." He details the blessings of spring (sees. 3-7).
'Cf. also the other letters of p. 468; cf. 474 top (Philostratus); also 473,
xvii; 474, i; 480, xxi; 470, xx; 482, lv; 482, x; 485, Ixiii; 568, xlix; 535, lxxvi;
535, clxi; 468, xxxiv; 468, lvii, sec. 5; Libanius, Ep., 1587.




188


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


The whole forms a prelude to an address to Basileius delivered
at the Panathenaic festival at the beginning of spring.  Oration 9
begins with a hymn to spring. Ortion 21 contains a praise of
spring. More notable is the prose poem Trep ea'pos by Choricius
(p. 173, Bois.). He begins with the commonplace about the
passing of gloomy winter and silence; song comes with the
spring.  For the thought compare Theocritus, XII, 3, "spring is
sweeter than winter;" XVII, 52, "the evils of winter;" Horace, I,
4; IV, 7; compare Epistologr()phi, p. 738, Synesius: "In winter,
silence; when spring comes we write;" p. 550, end, Procopius:
"Winter is over, sing the sweetness of spring;" 535: "We break
silence with the winter" (cf.. p. 534); cf. Homer, 0(l., IV, 566,
Elysium has short winter; and VI, 44, on Olympus snow does not
fall; compare also Lucretius, III, 20 ff. Choricius, pp. 173 ff.,
speaks of the joy of birds, music, flowers, and calm   seas, the
farmer's joy, and is led into the myth of Hyacinthus and that of
Aphrodite and Adonis.     He ends with a prayer.    There is a
likeness between his oration and Anacrcontca(, 44 (37).  On the
same topic and of like nature is his 807roLt'a wotLevoS', p. 134: such
a speech as a shepherd would make as the spring shines forth
after a hard winter.  Its TOrTOL are similar-the calm sea, dance
of the muses, flowers, birds, peace everywhere, the ills of winter.
narcissus, hyacinthus, may I behold the spring again; compare
also his iro7rottla eU7ro'pov, a speech which a merchant would make
at the appearance of spring.  It runs over the same rT7rot, ending
with Aphrodite and the rose.  See also frag. /', p. 281 (Bois.),
and pc"', p. 304, which seem  to come from orations on spring.
Menander calls for a praise of spring in his rules for the yeve6 -Xlta/cO XOy7oS, and also in speaking of the climate of a city.'
The nightingale is the companion of the rose and spring.
There is reference in Themistius to orations on the nightingale.
In Greek verse its praises were sung by Sappho, 37 (36),?pos
CCf. Aphthonius, Sp. II, 36, 3; cf. Sappho, 124; Meleager, 38, celebrates
spring and the rose; Theoc., 9, 34; 8, 45; 13, 45; Anacreontea, 4 (18), 53 (53);
Themistius, 336c; 330; Hor., Od., I, 4; II, 6, end; IV, 7, 1-4. 12; Pervigilium
Veneris, init.; Ausonius, de Veri Primo, p. 164; Poet. Lat. Min., IV, 132;
cf. also Epistolog., 738, 763, 1; 783, 71; 546, 36; 372, 44; 780, 61.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


189


d,'yyeXo  i[ cp6jovavos ar8v.   Simonides, 56    (120), eVT' a7rSovE9
7roXV/coT'L\XoL XXwpavXEve, eiaptval.  Hermogenes (Sp. II, 3, 4),
discussing the,uv0oo as a part of the Trpoyvtvdoa7uara, says that the
ancients used myths: 'HoloSot p/Jv rov roti arjovo9 (,Ova  ov) eit7rwv.
Hesiod, Woorks and Days, 203; Soph., Electra, 149, calls the
nightingale Zeus' messenger, because, adds the scholiast, it is the
sign of spring.1
Associated with the three preceding is the To'7ros the swallow.
Hesiod, Works tland Days, 568: "After winter the swallow comes
with its plaint at dawn to the sight of men, when spring is fresh."
Simonides, 57 (21):
ayyeXe cKXVTa eapo? asvo'fSov,
Kcvavea XEXL8Ol. [Cf. Sappho, 86 (52).]
"The Spring Song," Hiller, p. 318:
1x0', \X0 XEXtl8(V,
KaXa? Sopas adyovaa
Kcat KcaXov evitavro6q, etc.2
I Cf. Theoc., I, 136; V, 136; VIII, 38; XII, 7; XV, 121; Epig., IV, 11;
Moschus, III, 9, 3; Callim., Bath of Pallas; Arist., Birds, 676; Theognis,
934 (939); Meleager, 38, "poets are nightingales." The same thought is in
Anth. Pal., VII, 414; Aesch., Ag., 1144, 1146; Themistius, 336c, 330; Aristides,
XX (428, Dind.); Philost., V. S., 4; Soph., O. C., 672, makes the nightingale one
of the charms of Colonus; Eur., Ion, 1482; Hel., 1110; Hec., 337; Poet. Lat.
Min., V, 363, 368; Choricius, p. 137, speaks of spring and the nightingale; cf.
p. 280, myth of Procne and Philomela; Aristides, I, 428; Themistius, 64, 32
(54a), 405, 24 (336b); Himerius, Or. III, 3 (twice); I, 5; V, 14; XIV, 11; XVIII,
4; XXII, 6; Ecl., 12, 5; 13, 8, 35; 23, 1. Eel., 12,5, the poet is compared with
the nightingale and the cicada; cf. Plato, Phaedo, 85a; Epistolog., p. 96,
sec. 9; 136, top; 580, 120; Libanius, Ep., 532: "enough for me to sing (86etv)
like the nightingale."  Dion Chrysostomus was called dar83v aopat-rcv;
Euripides called Socrates rcdvaofpov ac86va Luovrov.
2Cf. also Themistius, 336c, 330; Anacreontea, 9 (12), 25 (33); Moschus, III,
38; Anth. Pal., X, 1: "Happy sailors, for the swallow now flies and storms
are o'er;' Aelian, de Natura An., X, 34; Choricius, 172, 3; 136, 4, 14; 291, 10;
Himerius, Or. III, 3; VI, 3; IX, 1; XIV, 8; XIV, 35; XXXIV, 7; Eel., XXIII,
1; Plato, Phaedo, 85b; Epistolographi, 535, 24; 534, 39; 372, 44: "the swallow announces the spring;" 546, 36; 550, end; 557, 35: "one swallow does not
make the spring" (cf. Arist., Eth. N., I, 7, 15); Liban., Ep., p. 777a; Hor., IV,
12; Epist., I, 7, 12-43; Vergil, Georg., IV, 305; Liban. speaks of letters as




190


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Synesius (Epist. Gk., 7631) makes an elaborate comparison
between   orators and the cicada.     He says it begins its song
on the first appearance of spring; it is more tuneful at midday, as though drunk with the sun's rays; makes the tree its bema
and the field its theater, and offers music to passers-by.      We
gird  ourselves to sing your virtues.      Poets are compared to
cicadas (486 mid., 556, 40; 4, 36; 135, end; 339, 2); Libanius,
E1., 1219, compares eloquence to the cicada, and in 304 compares
poets and Sophists; Plato, Phedlru s, 259a-e; Libanius (Wolf
ed. of Ep.), p. 34; Sophists are called cicadas, Liban. (Wolf), p.
290; Arist., Birds. 1095, "divine cicada maddened by sunlight;"
783, 69; 377, 16; 780, 61; 534, 61.1
The swan is the bird of Apollo, prophetic, the type of the
poet.   Plato, Phuedo, 85b; Oppian, Cyeg., II, 548, cKVcVOL
/LavTl7rroXot; Lycophron, 426-the souls of poets become swans;
Plato, Rep., 620,; Horace, II, 20; Auth. Pal., VII, 19; Themistius, 405, 24 (336b); Pratinus, Hiller, p. 268, 5; Diogenes
Laertius, III, 7, refers to Plato's being like a swan. Socrates
dreamed of a swan and next day heard of the birth of Plato.
Menander (Sp. III, 436, 27, ljovw8ia) refers to the grief of the
swan on the death of its mate. Callimachus, hymn to Apollo, 5;
to Delos, 249-minstrels of the gods.... birds of the muses.... most tuneful of winged creatures.'
swallows (Wolf, p. 50); cf. Julian, Letters, p. 53, 536, 5; Homer, Od., XXI, 411.
Menander (Sp. III, 436, 27) refers in his vovqoia to the sorrow of the swallows.
In Greece still on the first of March children sing on the streets and carry
a wooden swallow; cf. Class. Rev., Feb., '91, Vol. V, p. 1.
Other references to the cicada may be noted: Homer, II., III, 151;
Hesiod, W. and D., 585; Shield of H., 390; Simonides, 164 (231); 166 (224);
Pratinus, 2; Theoc., I. 148; IV, 16; V, 29, 110; VII, 139; IX, 31; Anacreontea,
32 (43); Anth. Pal., IX, 372, 373, et passim; Alcaeus, 43 (28); Choricius,
p. 140 et passim, to p. 141, end; Themistius, 299, 15 (246a), 4C5, 24 (336b);
Himerius, Ecl., 10, 5; 12,5; 13,30,35; 23, 1; Or. VI, 3; IX, 1; X, 1; XIV, 11;
XVII, 3; XIX, 2; XXII, 6; VII, 4; XI, 1.
2 Cf. also Arist., Birds, 870; Eur., I. T., 1104; El., 151; Aesch., Ag., 1444;
Theoc., V,137; XXV, 130; Moschus, 3, 14; Anacreontea, 58 (fg. 1); Johannes
Secundus, 1; Julian, 236a (306, Hertlein), refers to the swan as a commonplace. Aristides, Or. XX (428, Dind.); Choricius, 173, 6; Himerius, Or.
III, 4; VI, 1; VI, 2; XII. 7; XIII, 12; XIV. 7, 20, 36; XVII, 3; XVIII, 4;




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


191


The germs or fully developed antecedents of the most important Xo'yot Ert8EarTLKot may be clearly discerned, as we have seen,
in Greek poetry preceding or contemporaneous with the birth of
epideictic oratory. When with the development of poetic features
the effort was made to supplant poetry by prose, upon a lriori
grounds one would expect that in whatever struggle arose the
most stubborn resistance would be made over the hymns to the
deity.  The hymn would be defended as involving a religious
propriety as well as through literary feeling. The strife between
prose and poetry as to the proper confines of each, if there was
one, passed almost in silence for us. The monuments show but
little trace of it, but there are indications of discussion, especially
upon the propriety of using prose for the hymns to the gods.
Strabo, of the first century A. D., discusses the relations of prose
and poetry for a different purpose —defending the poet against
the dictum of Eratosthenes, that the aim of the poet is gratification, not teaching.  He adds: "Men of our day even say that
the poet only is wise" (I, 2, 4).  This was quite in harmony
with the prevailing Greek view of the poet as a teacher.  The
most important utterance is that by Aristides (second century
A. D.).  He is the earliest writer of prose hymns as a separate
composition, and his extended defensive discussion of the subject
seems conclusive evidence that the propriety of employing prose
for the heretofore exclusively poetic theme was one of the burning questions of the day. As to how much wider the discussion
was, or how general, it is unsafe to attempt an inference.  But it
is indicative of its importance that Aristides should give up
nearly one-half of his hymn to Serapis to a comparison of the
relative merits of prose and poetry, and the defense of the former
for any purpose, even a hymn to a deity. The following is his
line of thought. He begins in a somewhat ironical tone. Happy
the race of poets (see p. 168). They can take any topic they choose
-incredible, untrue, non-existent-and deal with it as they please.
XXIV, 5; Eel., 13, 8; 13, 35; 14, 5; 21, 1; 23, 1; Libanius, Ep., 441, 40;
Epist. Gr., 260, 2; Hor., II, 20; IV, 2, 25; 3, 19; Aelian, De Nat. An., Book
II, 32; XIV, 12.




192


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Take away the accessories and their work is nothing. They live
at ease, like Homer's gods, and make hymns and paeans. They
assume supremacy, andwe hold them sacred and give up hymns
to them as though they were actually prophets of the gods.
We use prose for every other purpose-in business, in courts,
panegyrics, myths; we have a Xo'yo9 for everything.  It is
absurd not to deem it fit for use in hymning the gods who
gave it to us. We use prose in sacrifice; why not in hymns?
Do poets have need of the gods which other men do not
share?  Even poets say that all men need the gods.  Then
all should honor them. as they have power. Are poets their only
lovers? Why not, then, their only priests? Oracles, the voice of
god, use prose. Prose is more natural, as to walk is more natural
than to ride. Poets did not create language. Prose was first,
and poetry arose for pleasure. If we honor nature and the ordering of the gods, we shall honor prose, the older, the original
gift. Be not ashamed to address the gods as we address one
another, without meter. I mean no dishonor to poets, but merely
that prose is as worthy. If to follow nature pleases the gods,
they will honor us.' Meter gives poets their reputation. We
have something better-inflection, delivery. Poetic meter is no
great advantage. We have meter, too. A good physician is more
accurate without weights and measures than an inexperienced
man with them. It is true the poet's ode has advantages over
prose-greater license in form, phraseology, treatment. But we,
abiding in rank, like a well-trained soldier. will attempt an
address to Serapis.
So elaborate an apology for the prose hymn seems to imply
either a defense against attacks or, if the Serapis be his first
hymn, a preparation for the reception of an innovation.
The two chief sources of our knowledge of the theory of epideictic oratory are, of course, Dionysius and Menander. Both
provide for the use of prose in distinctively poetic themesDionysius in the epithalamium and its subordinate, the /yautKod;
Menander in these, and also in the far wider and more technically
poetic field, the hymn. A difference of attitude is discernible




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


193


between the work of the rhetor at the close of the third century
A. D. and the earlier worker in the same field. The E7rtOaXdalto
and the yaLLGo'9 admit of direct comparison, as they are treated
by both. The drroot and their order agree closely. Dionysius
gives more prominence to the ya/Ltco9, while Menander makes
this a mere variant of the E7rtOaXda/to9, not requiring separate
treatment, and enters much more into detail with the e7rtaXad/,to9.
As might be expected, the poetic character of the epithalamium,
and direct relationship between it and its poetic predecessors
and contemporaries, is more clearly discernible in Dionysius.
Menander in his much more detailed treatise employs the word
vbivelv but three times, and two of these are in a mere conventional
way.   Dionysius uses Vi4E/xv, aeUlvEwive,  etv, and  7raS6eLv, and
apparently in a more strict sense.  He makes a direct reference
to Sappho as a model for the form of composition: 'v /Le
ov  /cal 7rapa 2a7r<tot r79 i681a? 7avT7rr   7rapaSetLytaT'a E7TOraXauiot OVTI)9 c7rLypafofle'aLvai Tal~ cSal (sec. 1).  He recommends
that the orator use Homer, Od., VI, 183, as a text. He also
assumes a distinctly apologetic tone on the question of the propriety of using prose for this form of composition. He says it
might be well for the orator to state at the very outset O'r oL I E
atXot rov eTpue'vatov aSov-tvt.?1eE' 8' aLvrT Tro 'T/LEValov TO7 \0d'ov,
oX b7r' aV\XOLT i 7Tr7Tff/CTlV,  V r AX  a ca\XX\Ltwva I v t TOtaVTp aTXX'
e7ratvot Kcal VJtXvotL TWV yeyafy17JKOT'   (sec. 1, end).  In the lines
just preceding he uses the perfect, slevrvoXE, perhaps showing
that he is not speaking of an innovation, but of a practice not so
fully established as not to suggest apology and justification of
somewhat the same character as Aristides makes for his hymns
nearly two centuries later.  The treatise of Menander, however,
belongs to a period when the use of prose in epithalamia is
thoroughly familiar and meets with no opposition.  He not only
treats the marriage speeches without reference to their poetic
origin or a possible present rivalry between the orator and the
poet, but his treatise on hymns shows a similar advance over the
feeling of the second century as revealed by Aristides. Dionysius
makes no mention of hymns, but thinks even the epithalamium




194:


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


worthy of explanation and excuse. Aristides, probably of a later
date, makes an elaborate defense of the prose hymn; Menander,
coming still later, feels no such defense necessary.  He is quite
the opposite of apologetic.  He writes evidently at a period when
the rights of prose are too firmly established to require discussion.
Examples of its use in antiquity are cited; see p. 179. There
remains only a question of taste as to whether in the matter of
hymns the function of the prose writer and the poet is coextensive
or not. The nature of the hymns will dictate sometimes prose
and sometimes poetry as the more appropriate. This, he says, is a
question worth investigation, and thinks this general principle may
perhaps prevail that such hymns as relate primarily to the divine
side of the deity may well be given poetic treatment; for that
which relates chiefly to the human side one may use prose. But
in the next sentence he adds: XprfcTeov 7ye nlrv Kcatl T( a-vypaefi
^t I01Y01YP '060 Ka\ TO 'T&)V 'Ka(t`(1   Ka*\ e/10 7'  et O  Kat
KaL TO) XoayoypadCt  tcal roVroC ecdart'  elSeL cal OfO7 Triav a  OTrT caE
IHXctltva 7rep TT7V ypafr v tacpov Kal paptrov P  vat 7re7rLtrrTeVca/Iev
(Sp. III,, 33, 5). When lie comes to the detailed treatment of
the nine classes of hymns, he excludes the prose writer from but
one, and this, as Heeren explains, had gone out of use even in
poetry. The fvoLO'co, lhe says, is more suited to poetry than to
prose. This agrees with the principle cited above. Models for
the others are quoted freely from poets and prose writers. He
closes with the remark: -"We have given the rules by which
poets and prose writers and orators may hymn the gods in a
fitting manner."  The hymn to the gods as a function of prose
plainly arose later than the same use of the epithalamium, and
very likely was assisted by it not only in a general way, as a
precedent, but also in that the marriage speech, when constructed
by rule, contained within itself a prose hymn which might serve
as a model. Menander (Sp. III, 400, 31) says: ra be ieara Ta
7rpool)/ta er eoW rept TOV70 Oo  7TO ycd/aov Xoryo; an(d Sp. III. 4()2,
21: JLETera rv Trepit <ydaov Xdyov, ev  7-roPv Oov viJovr)oas. Menander's
epideictic orator is at the same time orator and poet; he deals
with a great variety of themes; he may pass quickly from prose
to poetry in the same oration-lhe is an Himerius.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


195


The Epideictic Element in History.
The earliest form   of prose was historical.   It had much in
common with poetry, with which epideictic literature more or
less consciously claimed a relationship throughout its course.
Later evidence of the direct influence of the epideictic style
upon history    appears in the careful attention     to rhetorical
beauties  which    characterizes  many    writers, and   its  more
restricted  and  technical side is seen   in  the  speeches which
form  so distinctive a feature of Greek historians.
The epideictic tendency in history is conspicuous from      the
time of Isocrates.   It is apparent in the general ornateness of
historians, and their frequent use of devices purely epideictic in
narrative passages as well as in their more natural domain-the
speech.   There is negative evidence also in the violence of
Polybius' attacks upon the historians who make fine writing an
aim.   He represents himself as almost the solitary exception
amid the multitude who devote themselves to false practices.
Norden, Die aitike Kinstipros((, I, 81 if., and Croiset, Litt.
grecqlT V, 283 if., present the prevailing conception of history
and the style appropriate for it, which Polybius so severely
condemns.1    History is represented as becoming a panegyric on
The Greeks created the two chief types of history -the pure narrative,
in Herodotus, and philosophical history, brought to its highest development
in Thucydides. Their conception of what history should be is seen rather
through its exemplification in the works of these and other historians than
through any discussion of its ideals. A historical sense arose among the
Greeks along with the development of prose itself. The content and style of
history, however, are left with mere incidental reference until the time of
Polybius, who gives his views at length in positive form and in negative,
through his criticism of others; cf. especially I, 1, 14, 35; II, 35, 56; III, 31,
57, 58; V, 75; X, 21; XII, 7, 12, 25. He is particularly severe upon Timaeus,
see XII, 3-15, 23 8. The chief other presentations of theory are by Lucian,
De Hist. Conscr., and Dionys. of Hal., chiefly in De Prine. Hist. and in De
Thuc. Iud. Cic., De Orat., II, 15, 62-4, notes the fact that the writing of
history had never received rhetorical treatment as had poetry and oratory.
For traces of a yLvos tl-roptK6v cf. Syrianus' scholia to Hermogenes' Rhet.;
Walz, Rhet. Gr., IV, 60; Aristotle. Rhet., I, 4, 8 (but cf. Cope's note); Nicolaus
Sophista, Sp. III, 483, 19; Rufus, Sp. I, 463; Sp., Artiumn Scriptores, p. 185.
The modern conception of history may be gathered from discussions such
as that by Macaulay in his essay on History, or by Thiers in the preface to




196


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


a grand scale or the opposite, according to the bias of the writer.
The aim is to praise or to blame, not to state facts in a natural and
unprejudiced manner; compare Polyb., XII,-25 3, ct passimi, c. g.
The History of the Consulate and Empire of France. Rhodes (Atlantic,
February, 1900) gives the most recent summary of the qualities required for
the ideal historian-natural ability, diligence, accuracy, love of truth, impartiality, digestion of material, compression of narrative, power of expression.
He finds all these qualities in Thucydides and Tacitus, and most of them
in Herodotus. The similarity between this latest statement of essential
qualities and the early ideal of the Greeks is noticeable; e. g., taking Rhodes'
order: natural ability is implied in Lucian, De Hist. Conscr., 4, 5, 34; diligence in 4; accuracy in 47; love of truth in 39; Dionys. of Hal., De Thuc.
Iud., 8; cf. Hecataeus, init.; Cic., De Leg., I, 1, 5; impartiality in Luc., 39, 41,
49; digestion of material in Luc., 47; compression of narrative in Luc., 56;
power of expression in Luc., 6, 9, 34, 44, 45, 49, 51, 59; Quintil., X, 1, 31;
Dionys. of Hal., pp. 941, 942, 772, 774, 776 R. To these we add utility, found in
Luc., 9; no over-laudation, in Luc., 11, 12, 13, 19, 57; discernment as to what is
important and what may be passed over, Luc., 25, 27; Dionys. of Hal., p. 771 R;
incorruptibility and freedom from fear, Luc., 37, 39, 41; perspicuity, Luc.,
55; political sagacity, Luc., 34; must write for the future, Luc., 39, 61; variety,
Dionys. of Hal., 772 R. Compare Cicero's canon for the writing of history,
De Orat., II, 15, 62 f.: The first law is that history must not dare to tell falsehoods; second, the historian must be bold enough to tell the whole truth;
third, there must be no suspicion of partiality or personal animosity; the
facts must be orderly and show cause and effect; there must be careful
attention to style. With this high ideal compare his request that Lucceius
write a panegyrical history of his deeds, ad Fani., V, 12, 3. The references
to history in Greek and Roman writers most often allude to its likeness or unlikeness to poetry or oratory. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa,
I, 91, cites for its relation to poetry Quintil., X, 1, 31: "History may
nourish the orator with a certain rich and pleasing food, but it must be
read with the conviction that the orator must avoid most of its very
excellences. History borders closely upon poetry. It is a poem unfettered
by the restraint of meter." Cf. Polyb., II, 56, 11, where he argues that
the end of history and tragedy are not the same. Lucian, De Hist. Conscr.,
8: "history and poetry are not alike." Aristides, 49 (II, 513, Dind.), speaks of
the historian as being between the poet and the orator. Demetrius, De Eloc.,
215, says that Ctesias might rightly be called a poet. Marcellinus, Vit. Thuc.,
41: " some say history is not rhetorical, but poetic; " cf. Himerius, Or. XIV, 27.
Agathias in the preface to his history (p. 135, Dind.): "history and poetry
are sister arts." To these we may add Aristotle, Poetics, IX: Verse is not
the difference between the historian and the poet. The one speaks of events,
the other of what might have happened. He concludes that poetry is more
deserving of attention than history. Quintil., X, 2, 21: This must be avoided
-an imitation of poets or historians in oratory, or in history of orators or




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE                       197
X, 21: "My present work is a history, and therefore absolutely
uncommitted to praise or blame. It requires only a true statement,
a clear and    truthful putting of facts in      proper sequence."'
declaimers. There is its own law and propriety established for each. Lucian,
De Hist. Conscr., 45: History may well have some poetic qualities, especially
in choice of noble and eloquent words.... there is need of a certain 7roLritKbS
&ve/Los to deal with war, to fill the sails and bear ship over the waves; yet
the diction walks upon the ground, is moderate and well restrained. There is
danger of getting into a poetic passion, and therefore the need of reins. Shelley,
Defense of Poetry, ed. Cook, p. 11: "All the great historians, Herodotus,
Plutarch, Livy, were poets, and though the plan of these writers, especially
Livy, restrained them from developing this faculty in the highest degree,
they made copious and ample amends for their subjugation by filling all the
interstices of their subjects with living images." Compare Rhodes (Atlantic,
February, 1900): "History requires tine constructive imagination. Therefore
the canon requires the qualities of a great poet." Dionys. of Hal. approves
of the poetic style in history to a certain extent: eyw  ' oiVr' av'XI-pdv' Kal
aK6bOL7rTOv Kai ltJTLKrV TTV T7V lirOptKV EYaL wpayjareiav dLtcatfL' &V, aCX' XOUvev TL Ka
7rOLt07TK6v' OUTe7a Ta7rdTraoCT 7rOtrL7TKiv, X' Tr' O\^yov iKf3eC3qKvZtav Tr S  ev Oe (De Thuc.
lud., 51). Compare also chap. 24. Nicolaus (Walz, Rhet. Gr., I, 287) doubts
whether to class Herodotus among writers of history or poetry. He concludes
that he does not differ essentially from a poet. Strabo, I, 2, 9: the end of the
poet and the historian is the same, to relate nothing but facts. Cic., De Leg.,
I, 1, 4: alias in historia leges observandas.... alias in poemate. De Or.,
I, 16, 70: the poet is nearly allied to the orator. Cicero (De Opt. Gen. Or.,
chaps. 5 and 6) disparages the oratorical style for history; cf. Orat., 8, 30 ff.:
nothing can be borrowed from Thucydides for the forensic orator. De Leg.,
I, 2. 5: Cicero is urged to take up history, as he has always held that it most
of all demands oratorical qualities.
The early ideals of historical writing were always maintained as the
standard, but by the time of Polybius the excessive use of rhetorical
ornament and the tendency to turn history into a mere laudation, especially where it dealt with the state or persons in power, had become offensively prominent.
On this general topic the conception of history, in addition to references
cited by Norden, we may add Varro, ad Ant. Imp., II, 6; Demetrius, rrepi
Ep/l-veias (Sp. III, 265, 3 ff., sec. 19), on the character of the historical period;
Lucian, De Hist. Conscr., 45; Cicero, De Orat., II, 12, 51-64; Sen., N. Q.,
VII, 16, 1 and 2. In this passage Seneca impeaches the authority of
Ephorus, and then charges historians in general with being inaccurate and
careless. Some are credulous, some negligent. With some, falsehoods creep
in unawares, to others the false is pleasing; the former do not avoid them,
the latter seek them.
Norden quotes Cic., Brutus, 42, and Orat., 66; De Leg., I, 5; Quintil., X
2. 21; Pliny, Ep., V, 8, 9; Lucian, De Hist. Conscr., 7; L. Verus, ad




198


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Of extant historians only Herodotus' precedes the school of
Isocrates.  He may be considered as occupying a place by himself among historians.    He represents the natural, unaffected,
unhampered style of the pure story-teller.2     His history is comparatively free from  set speeches, and such as occur are usually
simple in style, c. g., the speech of the Spartans, V, 91 ff.; of
Xerxes, Mardonius. and Artabazus, VII, 8 ff. The battles of
Marathon and Salamis, so fruitful a theme for all subsequent
epideictic treatment, call forth    no rhetorical speeches from
Herodotus.    The speech of the Tegeans and the Athenian reply
before the battle of Platea, where each claims the right to a
choice of position in battle by tracing glorious deeds of their
ancestors, show that Herodotus is familiar with the usual epideictic topics, which had become stereotyped before his day;
compare also IX, 27, where epideictic topics are enumerated
(see p. 105. n. 4).
The political changes of the early fifth century and the preeminence of Athens as a literary center, the transfer of historical
Frontonem, II, 3, p. 131; Fronto, ad Ant. Pium, II, 6, p. 107; Philostorgius, H.
Eccl., 1; Photius, Bibl. Cod., 77; Hermogenes, De Ideis, p. 417, 28, etc. The
substance of the passages cited is that history and oratory naturally differ in
style, but that history has become a panegyric.
'Thucydides, of course, composed history before the time of Isocrates'
rhetorical school, but he was to some extent under the same stylistic influences which Isocrates later represented.
2Compare Jebb, in Hellenica, pp. 269 if., where he refers to V, 49 and 92,
as evidence that even the "longer speeches in Herodotus have usually the
conversational tone rather than the rhetorical." However, some evidence of
elaboration of style of a purely rhetorical character may be detected even in
Herodotus. Jebb sees traces of rhetorical dialectic in the conversation
between Solon and Croesus, I, 32; cf. also III, 80-82; III, 36. Cf. Diels,
Hermes, XXII (1887), 424.
On Herodotus' style see Blass, Attische Bered., II, 408, 417, 476, and Rh.
Mus., XXIV (1869), 524; -Hauvette, H6rodote (1894), 65-158; Creuzer,
Herodot u. Thucydides (Leipzig, 1803) and his diss., Hist. Kunst der
Griechen; Hofer, Ueber die Verwandtschaft des Herodotischen Stiles mit
dem Homerischen (Merau, 1878); Rudiger, De Orationibus, quae in Rerum
Scriptoribus Graecis et Latinis reperiuntur, imprimis Herodoti et Sallustii
Ratione habita (Schleiz, 1875); Schweidop, Zur Moduslehre im Sprachgebrauche des Hdt. (Konigsberg, 1876); Tonder, Hdt. u. die dlteste Poesie der
Griechen (1875); Bergk, "Thuc. u. Hdt.," Jahrb. f. Phil., CXVII (1878),
177-80; and the handbooks, especially Croiset, II, 616 if.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


199


authorship from Asia to Attica, produced a radical change in
conditions, and   hence   in  style.  Here rhetoric   became an
element in historical writing, and the great majority of historians from  this time on are under its influence. Many, like
Tacitus among the Romans, were at the same time orators and
historians. Corax, Tisias, and Gorgias were founders of the
Sicilian school of history as well as of oratory. Isocrates trained
men for both professions.   Theopompus conspicuously united in
himself the two pursuits. From an epideictic point of view it is
noticeable that among the rhetoricians it was Isocrates who
founded a school of history,1 and many who regarded Herodotus
or Thucydides as the model historian, in matters of style openly
professed their imitation of Isocrates. The fact that so many
historians were rhetors before or at the same time with their
historical activity would make it reasonable to expect epideictic
qualities in all their writings.
Far more notable than the general ornate tendency of the
Greek historians is the employment of special epideictic rTO7ot
and devices.   The most specific instances of a direct relation
between epideictic writing   and history may be found in the
frequent introduction of set speeches and in the formal descriptions so often introduced into history. We may consider these
two features briefly, taking them in reverse order. The 7rpoeyvuvda'oraTa (see p. 108, n. 1, for definition and references) as a
whole had an important bearing upon history, and the fact is
frequently referred to by rhetors. There is a notable tendency
in many of its divisions to choose some historical character or
1 On the indebtedness of Ephorus and Theopompus to Isocrates see
Scala, Vortrag gehalten zu Minchen am 23. Mai 1891 in der vierten
allgemeinen Sitzung der 41. Versammlung Deutscher Philologen u. Schulmdnner (1892), where he holds that Isocrates had a strong influence upon
the style of history; Wachsmuth, Einleitung in das Studium der alten
Geschichte, p. 505. He says, in substance: As a pupil of Isocrates he
(Ephorus) made stylistic beauty his aim. History presented opportunities to
display this-panegyrics, battle descriptions, general's speeches, etc. The
fragments also prove that he could write political speeches like another
Isocrates.  Cf. also Volquardson, Untersuchungen iuber die Quellen der
griechischen und sicilischen Geschichten bei Diodor (Kiel, 1868); Ed. Meyer,
Forsch. z. alt. Gesch., II, p. 16; Blass, Attische Bered., II, 369 ff.




200


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


situation as the theme to be developed rhetorically.  This would
be in harmony with the epideictic coloring of most history
at that time, and would also assist in making the rhetorical
features of history prominent.   The forms most frequently
mentioned by rhetors as valuable for the writer of history are
the &trjy/otL (8tlr^yrla), /vOoS, KcoLVO~ T'roOS? and  'Oovrotta.1  But
the most important division of the 7rpo/yvvado'oaara for our present
purpose, the one most likely to be characterized by epideictic
qualities, was the tcfpaot (ldescripVtio).  It is given more or
less detailed discussion by Hermogenes (Sp. II, 16 ff.); Aphthonius (Sp. II, 46 ff.); Theon   (Sp. II, 118 ff.); Georgius
Choeroboscus (Sp. III, 251 ff.); Nicolaus (Sp. III, 491 ff.);
Ernesti Lex.; one may compare also Lucian (Dc Hist. Conscr.,
20), who ridicules its abuse-most historians run wild in
descriptions of landscapes and great events; they are like slaves
newly rich.  Horace, Ars Poetica, 15 ff.. is interesting in this
connection, although he does not refer directly to history. He
notes the tendency to employ dlescrjiltio for the purpose of pompous show. The ecfKpao's is a description of persons, things, places,
seasons, events, strange living objects, etc.  It is conceded by all
that f~cKpacrL is involved to some extent in all of the other forms
of 7rpoyvFvd(tacTa,   especially in the oavycpLota and eYEc&Fltov, vet
its claim to a separate place is maintained; compare Hermogenes,
Georgius, Nicolaus.  That the KfcfpaaL' is useful in all forms of
oratory, but is especially adapted to history (Theon, II, 60, 20)
and poetry, is distinctly stated by the rhetoricians.  Their citations of examples are largely from these two divisions of literature,
e. g., Homer's description of Thersites, of the shield of Achilles;
Thucydides' vvKcrtf-axta, or his description of the harbor of the
Thesprotians.  The description of the acropolis of Alexandria
is made a model theme by Aphthonius (Sp. II, 47); Herodotus'
description of the animals in Egypt, of Babylon, etc., are mentioned with praise.
Its special qualities of style are clearness (Sp. II, 16) and
vividness (Sp. II, 16; III, 251; Walz, Rhet. Gr., II, 56).  The
1Sp. II, 4; 22, 5; 60; 80-81; III, 455, 30; 456, 3; 485, 27.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


201


natural connection of the eccKpao-t? with the epideictic features
of history is also recognized (Walz, Rhet. Gr., II, 55). It is
stated here that ~"cKpaatl is appropriate for the elaborate style of
narrative; compare also II, 509.
Its epideictic character is still further emphasized by the
prominent use of the ec"kpaoaL in purely epideictic oratory.
According to Menander, it is involved in almost all of the
various forms. The /3aoCtKXo    Xo'yos has description of the
person of the king and the places where his wars were waged;
compare Sp. III, 373, 17, 20, 26; 374, 1, 3, C. The e7rt,3aiTrpto
describes the country and especially the city; compare also the
epithalamium, WTpo7retL7TtK'c7 XaXta, wpocrrovT7 lco', TrpECvrtim't,
icXr77TltCO, -VUPTaKTtKo, /Lovf,  o Lia, ao-LLvLtaKc. A great part of the
speeches in praise of countries, cities, harbors, etc., is pure
EK/cpaLct,. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in his rules for the
panegyric and the epithalamium, makes much of a description
of the gathering, the places and persons involved.
"EKcpaofLt, as a special form, was much developed by epideictic
orators; compare Choricius, flcfpaai<s WpoXo'yiov, e"KparL? ElcovoS;
the eicKdvE of the Philostrati and eKcupaEoEt by Callistratus and
Libanius, IV, 1046-90, R. It is found also in the Anthologia
Palatina and other poetry.  It became a feature of Christiaii
literature also. Examples of the legitimate and effective use of
ef:(paait in Greek historians are numerous. The charm    and
variety of description found in Herodotus form one of the
chief features of his style, e. g., IV, 71, 2; I, 24; VI, 125; VII,
210-12, 223-5.  So in Thucydides, VII, 43, 44; I, 70; II, 47;
the Sicilian expedition. Polybius assumes his best style in
battle scenes, e. g., the revolt of the Corinthian mercenaries,
in Book I, or the capture and death of the Achaeans. in VIII,
or the battle of Cannae, III. 107-17; compare also Livy,
XXII, 40-50; Appian, H(tannibhl. 17-25; Plutarch, Fob. iMax.,
chap. 16; W. Tell, Philologus, XI (1856), 101. Cicero (De
Ora0'., II, 15, 63) calls regionumt descriptionem an important
feature of history (cf. De F'i., II, 107; Ort., 20, 66).  A
notable instance of C'c4paatL actuated almost wholly by epideictic




202


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


motives may be found      in  the  descriptions of the vale of
Tempe.1
The presence of speeches in the works of the Greek historians
is not due especially to epideictic influence, though the general
tendency of rhetorical writing would be to adopt this form as
frequently as possible.' The speech often sums up a situation,
or it presents the arguments on both sides of a question where
now there would be reference to documents or other direct forms
of evidence.  It has a political, an ethical, or a mere dramatic
purpose, according to the character of the writer. The speech in
Greek history is natural, and even required by the exceeding
prominence given to speech-making in Athenian life.      It was
an almost inevitable part of any record of events.  The fact that
in its early period history, like other forms of prose, reached the
public through oral delivery rather than by reading is in harmony with the prominence of the speech in historians. But il
many cases the suspicion is difficult to remove that the speech is
introduced primarily as the most effective means of displaying
the epideictic expertness of the author.  The historian of epideictic tendency is hampered by the fact that his speeches must
arise naturally from the narrative and deal with some question of
abiding interest. This limitation partially excludes epideictic
themes, while it does not place any check upon epideictic treatment in such speeches as can be introduced.
Cicero, gaining his conception of history from Greek models,
and contrasting them with the dry and purely annalistic style of
Roman writers. exclaims (De Orat., II, 12, 57): "What sort of
an orator, how great a master of language, (lo you think it requires
to write history? To write as the Greeks, a man of the greatest
power; as the Romans, no orator.'    He then refers to the oratorical element in representative Greek historians.  He is urged
(De Leg., I, 2, 5) to undertake history himself, as "no one is
1 Cf. Aelian, V. H., III, chap. 1; Polyb., XVIII, 10,16, 19, 31; XXIII, 4;
Necander, Alexipharmica (the laurel first found there; cf. Pausanias, X, 5, 9);
Catullus, LXIV, 285; Ovid, Met., I, 568; Vergil, Georgics, II, 469; Pliny, Nat.
Hist., IV, 8, 15; Ovid, Fast., IV, 477; Am., I, 1, 15; Cic., ad Att., IV, 15;
Epist. Gr., 352, 1 (Julian, XXVI, 3), 390, 18 (Julian, Fg. IV).
2 Of. Hellenica, pp. 266 ff., esp. 277, 278.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


203


more likely to give satisfaction, since you claim that this kind of
composition most of all dlemands oratorical powers."
The Greek historians differ very greatly in the employment
of speeches both as regards the frequency and the character
of the speech.  Polybius, although his history contains a number
of speeches, proclaims it as his conscientious purpose to abstain
from them, as an element of weakness, if not of danger. Quite
the opposite is Thucydides. who makes the speech his most
powerful instrument.   He demonstrates the wonderful effectiveness of speeches whose material is truthful and of vital importance.  Dionysius of Halicarnassus represents still another class,
which employs speeches with great frequency, as does Thucylides, but chiefly for rhetorical (i. c., epideictic) ends. He shows
the danger in the use of the same instrument in the hands of a
writer of inferior vigor and judgment.
The speeches of Thucydides-their frequency, their vivid
truthfulness in facts, their rhetorical formalism of style-need
but bare mention.' All contain special purely epideictic devices,
but they are not to any great extent epideictic in TO'rot.    As
exceptions to this statement compare the funeral oration of
Pericles, and III, 53 ff.; IV, 95; see also VI, 82 ff., where
Euphemus gives a general laudation of Athens.
The position of Herodotus from this point of view is stated
on p. 198.
Xenophon" makes use of speeches to some extent in the Cyropaedeia, but'they are mostly of a non-epideictic character.  The
Much has been written on the style of Thucydides. The most notable
treatise, from our point of view, is that on the speeches of Thuc., by
Jebb, in Hellenica, 310 ff. Compare also in addition to the literatures
Blass, Attische Bered.; Wilkins, Introduction to the Speeches of Thuc.
(1873); Sellar, Characteristics of Thuc. (1857); Forbes, Greek Prose Literature Previousrto or Contemporary with Thuc., in his ed. of Thuc., Book I
(1894); Jebb, Att. Or., I, 33; Classen-Steup, Einleitung (1897); Gast, De Thuc.
Oratione (1870); Junghahn, "Die Reden bei Thuc.," Jahrb. f. Phil., CXVIII
(1878), 691; eSorgel, Die Reden bei Thuc.," Jahrb. f. Phil. (1878); Bekker,
De Sophisticarum Artiuie Vestigiis apud Thuc. (Berlin, 1864); Holm, History of Greece, II, 435ff. For further references see the ed. of Poppo et
Stahl. Vol. I (1886), 43 ff.
2 Cf. Dakyn's "' Xenophon,' in Hellenica, 324-86.




204


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


speech of Cyrus to his army, VI, 4, 12, follows the fixed usage.
Procles' speech (Hellen., VI, 5, 38 ff.) in praise of Athens shows
familiarity with the legendary TO7rot-the bodies at Thebes,
Euristheus, Heracles' children, Athens a refuge for all oppressed.1
The speeches of the Anabasis form an important and attractive
feature.  Many are formal, in ornate style, but free from    cheap
epideictic devices.  The celebrated speech of Xenophon to the
Greek army (III, chap. 2) is further referred to on p. 211 and n. 1.
Athough but few fragments of the actual writings of Ephorus
remain, and still less in the case of Theopompus, the style and
contents of their works are quite well known from frequent references in the writers of antiquity, chiefly Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Cicero, and Quintilian.    We have referred to the fact
(p. 199) that they were the pupils of Isocrates and apparently
carried his stylistic ideas into history.    The fragments seem
to bear this out.   Compare Miuller, Frag. Hist. Graecoruinm, 64
(Ephorus), a general description and laudation of the Cretans;
compare also 279 (Theopompus). Croiset (IV, 653) calls him
the creator of a new kind of history.     Among the many references to their qualities as historians compare, for Ephorus,
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De Comp. 1Verb., 23, where he
speaks of Hesiod, Sappho, Anacreon, and Simonides as excelling
in yXafvpha cat avOr1pa ov1vOeoLrt, and adds that the historians most
conspicuous for this style are Ephorus and Theopompus, and
among orators Isocrates.)
' Cf. also Meem., III, 5, 7, ff., and Procles' speech, Hellea., VII, chap. 1.
2 Cf., for Ephorus, Quintil., IX, 4, 87; Polybius, V, 33; VI, 45; XII, 4a, 22,
23, 25, 27,28; Cic., Orat., 57, 191; Brut., 204; Hortensius, fg. 12; Strabo, IX, 3,
11, praises his carefulness; Theon, Sp. II, 71; Dion Chrys., XVIII, p. 283 D;
Wachsmuth, Einleitung in das Studiurm der alten Geschichte, 537-43, esp.
538,539; Blass, Attische Bered., II, 430 ff.; Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen,
II, 16; Rh. Mus., XLII, 187, 562; Ed. Mayer, Forsch. z. alt. Gesch., I, p. 19;
Kluegmann, De Ephoro Historico Graeco (Diss., Gottingen, 1860); Loeschke,
"Ephoros-Studien," Jahrb. f. Phil., CXV (1877), 25-32; Dressier, Das
Geschichtswerk des Ephoros nach seinen Fragmi. und seiner Benutzung
durch Diodoros (Bautzen, 1873); Holm, Hist. Gr., 425, 426.
Note for Theopompus, Dionys. of Hal., Ad. Cn. Pomp., chap. vi, and elsewhere.  He highly approves his style, which he calls most like that of




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


205


In spite of his general attitude of hostility, Polybius' recognizes oratory as having a possible place in history, especially at
some critical moment when an argument is to be put vividly.
An example of his happy use of the speech is seen in his skilful
balancing of the orations of Aemelius and Hannibal, III. 108-11;
I, 27. 1, shows how Polybius often deals with the temptation to
introduce an epideictic speech.      He says: The Carthaginian
generals addressed their men saying that victory would determine the future character of the war; defeat meant that they
must fight for the very preservation of the state.      Therewith
with mutual words of exhortation they engaged in battle. For
like avoidance of a speech, cf. III, 44, 63, 64, 108, 111; XV, 11;
XVIII, 11.
Diodorus Siculus has comparatively few speeches, but several
are thoroughly epideictic in treatment, notably the oration of
Nicolaus (XIII, 20-26) to the Syracusans on their attitude
toward the Athenians. It is in general expansive and exuberant
in style, full of antithesis, rhetorical question, asyndeton, extravagant statement. In parts it has the moralizing tone which many
historians assume (see p. 206, n. 2). The latter half is a
Isocrates, uX TX7 e KC e7a\Trp'7s K /LEYTOLaXoTrpLKV EXOova To X,.... SVwro. w Kal
/LaXLaKcs jkovoa. Cf. also Quintil., X, 1, 74; Polyb., VIII, 10-13; XII, 25; XVII,
12; Cic., De Leg., I, 1; Brut., 66; De Orat., II, 57; Hortensius, fg. 12; Aelian,
V. H., III, 18; Wachsmuth, 1. c., 537-43, esp. 53S, 539; Blass, Attische Bered.,
II, 400 f.; Riese, "*Der Historiker Theop.," Jahrb. f. Phil., CL (1870), 673;
Hachtmann, De Theop. Vita et Script. (Detmold, 1872); Dellios, Zur Kritik
des Geschichtschr. Theopomp. (Diss., Jena, 1880); Hirzel," Zur Characteristik
Theopomp.," Rh. Mus., XLVII, 357; Rohde, ibid., XLVIII. 110; Holm, Hist.
Greece, III, 425, 426.
1 On the style of Polybius, in addition to the histories of lit., note Holm,
Hist. Greece, IV, 514 ff.; Droysen, Die Polybianische Lagerbeschreibung,
in "Commentationes Phil. in hon. Theod. Mommseni" (1877), 35-40; cf. also
same author, Rh. Mus., XXX (1875), 752; La Roche, Charakteristik des
Polybius (Leipzig, 1857); Lindemann, Ueber Polybius den pragmatischen
Geschichtschreiber (Conitz, 1850); Littge, Polybii Orationes (Nordhausen,
1863); Tell, Die Schlacht bei Canna; Stich, De Polybii Dicendi Genere, Acta
Sem. Phil. Erlangensis, II (1881), 141-212; Scala (see p. 199, n. 1) attempts
to prove that Isocrates had some influence even upon the political views and
language of Polybius; cf. also p. 203, and references to Norden and Croiset,
and Polybius' ideal of history (p. 195, text and note).




206


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


praise of Athens as first in  ltXavppwco7ra; the first to give means
of living and laws to the Greeks; mother of eloquence; source
of the mysteries, of learning; the schoolmaster of Greece. The
reply of Gylippus is epideictic in style, though not iln T07tr.  It
ridicules the claims of Athens, XIV, 65 ff.    Theodorus of Syracuse (XIV, 65 ff.) makes epideictic reference to deeds of the
ancestors of the people of Syracuse.
The speeches in Dionysius of Halicarnassus' are more numerous than in any other extant historian.    Some are almost devoid
of epideictic features; some have only all epideictic reason for
existence; the average of his speeches as well as his narrative
is characterized by the coarser epideictic features and shows little
appreciation of what is appropriate. The oration which he puts
into the mouth of Romulus is a weak imitation of that part of
Pericles' funeral oration in which he discusses the forms of
government.    Throughout he makes Romulus speak with all the
rhetorical devices of the sophistic age: periodic sentences, wellbalanced clauses, antithesis, isocola, homeoteleuton, parechesis,
etc.  There is an element of the preacher in this as in many of his
speeches; compare Tullius' (IV, 9 ff.) oration after the death of
Tarquin, where. he toys with the terms "justice," "gratitude.'
"right," "common freedom," etc.'     The speech is a laudation of
Tarquin along the lines of the ep)it)ltiis.  There is often a total
disregard of harmony and proportion, like the speech of C.
1 The dominant quality in Dionysius of Hal. is oratory. It is his instinctive form of expression. The similarity of his speeches to those of Livy both
in thought and occasion has been much discussed. Upon Livy as primarily
an orator see Taine, Tite Live.
2 This philosophical or moralizing tendency is common in the speeches of
historians, e. g., Dionys. of Hal., Rom. Antiq., IV, 11; Dion Cas., I, fg. 33 (p. 91);
I, fg. 40, secs. 30-34; Book XXXVIII, chaps. 20 ff., a 7rapaterTK6cs; Book LII,
chap. 2; and especially chaps. 14 ff., where the speech of Maecenas urging
Augustus to assume the monarchy is a pure treatise 7rept f3aolXeias; cf. Isoc., ad
Nicoclem. In LIII, chaps. 3 ff., Caesar outlines his policy; cf. Isoc., Nicocles;
cf. also Dionys. of Hal., II, 3 ff.; IV, 9 ff., 31, 32; VI, 19 ff.; Diod. Sic., XIII,
20, 21; Theophylactus, I, 1, 14-21, a -repi ao-iXeiasto Mauritius; Thuc., II, 35 ff.
(Pericles). See Dionys. of Hal., Ad Cn. Pomp., chap. vi, where he says that
Theopompus introduced many beautiful speeches about justice, piety, and
other virtues.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


207


Claudius (XI, 7 ff.) on the status of the plebs. It is purely argumentative in topic, but absurdly rhetorical in style. His general's
speeches are referred to elsewhere.  Other speeches marked by
epideictic qualities are VI, 72-80; VII, 40-46, 48-53; VIII,
29-35; IX, 9; X, 36; XI, 7, 26.
Dio Cassius has many long speeches, all in general epideictic
style; e. g., the speech of Pompey (XXXVI, 25, 26) recounting
his glorious deeds in behalf of Rome, il boastful, antithetic sentences, with frequent paronomasia and homoeoteleuton. Gabinius'
reply is an encomium of Pompey (XXXVI, 27-9). The speech
of Philistus (XXXVIII, 20 ff.) is an encomium of Cicero.  His
character is discussed from the point of view of the four virtues.
He is fpovrlToTraro?, &Lcato'TarcS, cavppatoraTros notable for o'opoo-vvrl.
The orator starts in a moralizing tone, which is continued in the
next oration where he consoles Cicero upon the eve of exile. This
oration soon becomes purely parenetic.  It is a moralizing discourse on one's proper bearing in adversity.  Other speeches in
ornate style are: Catulus, XXXVI, 31-7; Caesar, XLI, 27 ff.;
the speeches of Antony and Augustus to their armies before the
battle of Actium, 1, 16i ff. Caesar's speech before the battle with
Ariovistus (XXXVIII, 36 ff.), though containing much that is
not usually found in such orations, is an excellent example of the
general's speech, full of epideictic devices (see p. 212). The
funeral oration pronounced by Antony (XLIV, 36-49) over the
body of Julius Caesar follows the TO'7dO of this type of oration.
The powerlessness of the orator to do justice to the topic is
referred to three times; words cannot equal his deeds (twice);
evyve'la, 7PO,   rat(ela; Caesar's character, private and public, and
his deeds as a soldier and statesman, his OtXav0po)7rta, av&peta, XpTd-OT7S. The whole speech is in the highest degree epideictic. The
same may be said of Tiberius' oration on the death of Augustus
Caesar (LVI, 35 ff.). The speeches of Maecenas and Augustus
on state policy, especially the former (Dio Cas., Book 52, 2 ff.),
are examples of the 7rep't /aaotXeias in history; see p. 206, n. 2.
The set orations of Arrian are not very numerous, though a
number of speeches are introduced in substance.     They are




208


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


characterized by the same easy and unaffected but vigorous style
which belongs to his narrative as a whole. Few formal devices
are introduced. The address of Alexander (II, 7, 3 ff.) to the
army before Issus, given in indirect discourse, agrees with the
average general's speech.  His speech at the Hyphasis, as well
as Coenus' reply, are slightly epideictic.  The farewell words of
Alexander (VII, 8 if.), addressed to soldiers who were about to
return to Macedonia, is a eulogy of his father and himself. It
recounts their deeds of devotion and sacrifice to the fatherland,
their success in war, and the rewards it has brought to the state,
closing with the altrTE, the formula of the 7rrTadLto?, with which
it has throughout many points in common. It is notable for
isocola and antithesis, and is distinctly ornate.
Appian's narrative is too rapid to admit much speech-making.
The De Rebus Punicis contains a few, but all are very brief.
The nearest approach to an epideictic speech is found in the De
Bellis Civiliblts, Book II, where speeches are assigned to Pompey,
Caesar, and Antony, characterized by slight epideictic touches.
Pseudo-Callisthenes has many short speeches devoid of epideictic
character.
Later historians, such as Herodianus, Theophylactus, and
Zosimus, present nothing worthy of comment in this connection
further than is noted under the topic "generals' speeches."
The special epideictic devices used so freely in the funeral
orations and other more technically epideictic forms run throughout the speeches as found in the historians.  As in the e7rLTCrdtO
the antithesis IcoLVOSd-l'8tO is the most frequent.  This is especially
true of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. In order of frequency follow:
Xo yo4-epyov, TroXvP-oXtyo,, ilcKatlo-ai&cKatonL OdcivaTO-afOdvaro  (this
antithesis is also expressed in many other ways); Xe\eVep'a is a
common word and theme. Such stereotyped antitheses are most
numerous in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, but are common in
Thucydides and others.
The speeches found in the works of Greek historians naturally
deal with a great variety of themes. They grow from the situation arising in the narrative and throw light upon this situation,




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


209


or argue some question connected with the state or the individuals
involved. The conditions of historical writing preclude, as a rule,
the repeated intrusion of the same topic, or the presence of the
same speech in many different authors. The speeches connected
with the appeal to Coriolanus,' and that spoken by Nicias in the
Syracuse campaign, and orations before battle by Scipio and Hannibal, are among the few instances of speeches represented as
given by the same person under the same circumstances by different historians.  Warfare, however, furnishes a theme for
speeches common to almost all writers of history.  The most distinctive, fully developed, and persistent single type of speech
among historians is the general's oration before battle, urging
his army to deeds of valor.  Over forty such speeches are extant
in Greek literature alone. The theme and the situation present
the greatest temptation to epideictic treatment, and such a style
is universally employed even by writers who elsewhere present
little or no tendency to epideictic forms.  While it is true that
the general's speech is not one of the recognized divisions of
epideictic oratory in Menander or Dionysius of Halicarnassus, its
importance and frequence are greater, and it preserves its identity
even more thoroughly, than many of those which have unquestioned recognition and detailed rhetorical presentation.  We may
note, however, in addition to the fact that in secs. 2 and 3 it has
a direct reference to the general's speech, that the wpo7rpeTrpTTKc
a0XrvraS of Dionysius of Halicarnassus2 comes nearer than anything else in rhetoric to containing a theoretical outline of this
well-defined form.  The conditions under which this speech is
supposed to be delivered are those of an army at the moment of
conflict, and the speech of exhortation follows a similar outline.
The Vrporpe7rTLtcos atOXi7Tat is a speech at a 7ravrjyvplp, but it praises
the contestants who are present to compete for prizes rather than
Dio Cas., I, fg. 17, 7, 8, 9, p. 52; Dionys. of Hal., VIII, 39-42; Plut., V.
Coriol.; Livy, II, 40; cf. for Nicias, Thuc., VII, 61; D. Sic., XIII, 15; for
Scipio and Hannibal, Appian, De Rebus Punicis; Polybius, III, 63, 64;
Livy, XXI, 40-44.
2 The fact is noted on p. 232 that the 7rporpeTrrLK6 of Lesbonax is a general's speech; see Didot ed. of Att. Or., Vol. II.




210


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


the 7ravryvpLt.  It is sometimes made by the agonothete himself.
It considers the character of the contest.  An oration is needed,
as in war (sec. 2): Xo'yos Eyap ectk ra'va E7TrtL7'8to, Kcalt rpo 7rrav
7Trtpp0vvv0tvL OVTr  Katl c7r 7roXeL/ov Kadtal c7r Trapard4ewos  8eovrTaL
aTpaT7Lt7ra To70  rapa Twv r-TpaT7'OJv Xdo'ov cKat T7?7 TrpoTpoTr7t  Kata
avTol avw'v EppOJ/Ieve-E7pOLt yeeOV7r.  Again, in sec. 3: Oratory is
of value to spur on athletes to noble deeds, and it is compared to
that addressed to soldiers by their generals: &orTrp yap Kal ev
cr7pa7roTrE8  Ol rVt7rLWTra7rot, 7rapa T7v a-TpaT?7ywv Xdyovs aKov-ravTes,
/ldXTTcra l(f)XOT/OVV7al Trepti tv vtcrjv OV7T) KcaK ol E7fr TOS' a&ywtL
7rpTrpE7TT'7Lco  XoyOovS ocKEtlw  ava&eaa/evot' /iLdXLara yap opeyOltvT
Tov 7rapayeveo-Oat. This section sets forth the glory of the contest
and of the victory.  Sections 4 and 5 contain topics appropriate
to the vravrmyvptKcos Xdyos, as is directly stated, sec. 5, i1,i.  Section 6 refers, as in the case of the general's speech, to their
past achievements as an encouragement to victory.      Section 7
makes reference to their ancestors who have conquered in like
circumstances.   Note in connection with this the staple T7Orot of
the general's speech; see pp. 212 f.
There is also occasionally in the introduction of extant orations a reference to the appropriateness or universality of such a
speech.   In discussing the necessary qualifications for a general,
Socrates says that the general will, of course, know what words
he should speak oTpaTLorTatS' 7rapaLVovvTL better than the rhapsodist
(Plato, Ion., 540 D.). Plutarch (Pracc. Ger. RcEip., VI, 7, 803 B),
after approving a moderate epideictic element in political speech,
since it admits of sententious style, historical references, fables,
and metaphors, more than the juridical, recognizes the purely
artificial character of the general's speech by adding: "but as for
the rhetorical orations and periods of Ephorus, Theopompus, and
Anaximenes, which they made after they had armed and arranged
their armies, one may say: 'None talk so foolishly so near the
sword'" (Eurip., Aultolyculs, fg. 284, 22). Compare also Polybius,
XII, 25, who criticises Timaeus' disregard of truth in "public
1 For 7rapaiveaLs as the technical term for the general's speech see p. 229,
footnote 1.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


211


speeches, military hcaralgues, ambassadors' orations, and       all
compositions of that class."    Theon (Sp. II, 115) refers to the
general's speech under the 7rpoyvduvca'ara.     Speaking of the
proper uses of the 7rpoowrTroTrot'a he says: o'par7r'yo" ros o'TpaTtcOTraLt 7rtl rov\ KtClUV OVS.  Compare also Theophylactus, III, 14, 1:
o'vv8&ETiOE O yap 'ra? 4vxa T rat' TOv o'-Tpar'17yov rrapatveo-eo'v. Cicero
(Ortm., 21, 66) refers to exhortations (liortatiowns) as a characteristic feature of history.  Norden, Antike Knunsipsrosa, I, 87,
refers to the fact that generals icavol X\e'yet were in demand;
compare S. Dehner, Hadlriaci Reliqutitae (Bonn, 1883), 10.
Speeches after battle were of frequent occurrence.   Hermogenes,
Sp. II. 15, 27, gives as a sample topic for the     '}oo7rooia words
which a general might speak after a victory.
All speeches of this character follow with varying exactness
a well-defined series of TOrTOL and are artificial in the extreme.
This type appears very early and continues almost unmodified to
the time of the Byzantine historians.      Like almost all other
types, it may be said to have its beginning in Homer in the
words of encouragement uttered by leaders before battle.       We
see evidence of it in other poetry, e. g., Aesch., Persace, 400 ff.;
Eurip., Supp)l., 700 ff.; Hecaclidale, 820 ff.
Herodotus shows the general's speech in rudimentary form.
In the famous speech by Xenophon (Alabh., III, 2) it becomes
well developed.1   The same T7TTOL are found in Herodianus and
Theophylactus, showing its persistence.2 The general's speech is
' His speech is a model of its kind, if a few neighboring sections are included
with the main oration, e. g., Anab., III, 2, 8-32, and III, 1, 20-24, 42, 43, 44.
2 The formal and epideictic character of this type is equally noticeable in
Latin literature. The numerous and prominent examples in Sallust, Livy,
Tacitus, Quinctius Curtius are familiar. In imitation of the ancients Tasso
causes his leaders to deliver harangues quite in the style of the general's
speech as outlined here; cf. XX, 14 if.; IX, 17 ff.; IV, 9 ff.; cf. also the brief
addresses on either side in Milton's P. L., Book VI. In the time of the
crusades and later mediaeval history similar speeches may be found, but it
does not agree with modern taste to ascribe long speeches to generals in
impossible conditions. With the passing of the speech as a feature of history
this, the most purely rhetorical of them all, has also gone. The most notable
instance in a comparatively recent period is that of Napoleon I., who
addressed his armies in a style comparable to that ascribed to generals by




212


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


a compound of commonplaces calculated to belittle the enemy'spower and the danger of battle, and to make the most of any real
or fancied superiority on the side of the army addressed. The
characteristic TO7dro may be established by comparison of the
typical speeches of this class. I have chosen the following,
representing a considerable range both in the character and the
period of the historians: Phormio, Thuc., II, 89; Cyrus, Xenophon, Cyrop.. I, 4; Hannibal and Scipio, Polyb., III, 63; Postumius on the eve of a battle with the Latins, Dionys. of Hal., VI,
6; Nicias at Syracuse, Diod. Sic.. 18, 15  Alexander to the army
before the battle of Issus, Arrian, De Ex. Alex., II, 83; Caesar
before the battle with Ariovistus, Dio Cas., 38, chaps. 36-46;
Antony before Actium, Dio Cas.. 50. 16-24; Augustus Caesar
before Actium, Dio Cas., 50, 24-30; Severus to his army,
Herodianus, III, 6. The following are the usual TOrot:
1. The ancestry-their glorious deeds, how they dared zealously for the state, regarding the public interests as personal and
personal interests as public. They were few against many, but
conquered. They toiled joyously, kept the old possessions, and
acquired new. Especial reference is made to their achievements
against the very enemy with whom battle is now impending.
This TO7dTO is used by Postumius, Augustus, Alexander, Julius
Caesar, Nicias, Cyrus, Xenophon (Ancb., III, 2), Scipio.
2. With such ancestry do not disgrace your heritage; Julius
Caesar, Nicias, Xenophon.
3. A comparison of forces; Julius Caesar, Antony, Augustus
Caesar, Alexander, Postumius, Severus, Cyrus, Phormio, Hannibal, Scipio.
4. In war valor, not numbers, prevails; Julius Caesar, Antony,
Postumius, Severus, Phormio, Xenophon, Alexander, Fabius.
5. The most magnificent prizes await the victors; Julius
Caesar, Antony, Postumius, Xenophon, Alexander, Augustus,
Hannibal.
the ancient Greek historians; cf. his proclamation before Austerlitz and
that on the first anniversary of that battle, or that on the morning of the
battle of Moscow, etc.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


213


6. The auspices are favorable, the gods are our allies;
Postumius, Severus, Xenophon, Alexander, Cyrus.
7. Death is glorious to the brave; Postumius, Hannibal.
8. The disgrace of defeat; Julius Caesar, Augustus, Postumius. Nicias, Hannibal.
9. We have conquered this enemy before; Severus, Xenophon, Alexander, Fabius, Postumius, Severus, Phormio, Scipio.
10. The wrongs suffered from this enemy; the war is just;
Julius Caesar, Antony, Severus, Xenophon, Augustus.
11. An appeal to patriotism; Postumius, Alexander, Augustus.
12. Our commander is superior to that of the enemy; Alexander, Antony, Augustus, Scipio.
Other speeches of this character are found as follows:
Dio Cassius, Book XLI. chap. 27, Caesar to discontented
army; L, 16, Antony to his army; LXII, 9, 10, 11, three brief
general's speeches.
Appian, Book II, chap. 73 (De Bel. Civ.), Caesar to his army;
IV. 90 (ibid.), Cassius to his army; IV, 117 (ibid.), Brutus to his
army; IV, 119 (ibid.), Antony to his army; VIII, 19 (De Bel.
Pun.), Scipio to his army; VIII. 116 (ibid.), Scipio to his army.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Book IX, chap. 9, Fabius to his
army.
Diodorus Siculus, Book XIII, chap. 15, Nicias to army; XIII,
98, Callicratides to his army.
Herodianus, Book VIII, chap. 3; II, 10.
Theophylactus, Book II, chap. 13; cf. also 14, and III, 13, for
short speeches.
Xenophon, Cyrop., VI, 4, 12, Cyrus to his army.
Thucydides, Book II, chap. 87, a general to his army; II, 89,
Phormio to the sailors; IV. 10, Demosthenes to his army; IV,
95, Hippocrates to his army; IV, 126, Brasidas to his army; VI,
68, Meias to his army; VII, 61, Nicias to the navy; VII, 66,
Gylippus to the navy.
Polybius, Book I, chap. 27, a general to the army; III, 44,
Hannibal to the army; III, 63, Hannibal to his army; III, 64,
Scipio to his army; III, 108. Aemelius to his army; III, 111,




214


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Hannibal to his army; XI, 28, Scipio to his army; XI, 31,
Scipio to his army; XX, 10, Hannibal to his army; XV, 10,
Scipio to his army; XV, 11, Hannibal to his army.
Arrian, Book II, chap. 7, Alexander before the battle of Issus;
V, 25, Alexander at the Hyphasis; VII, 9, Alexander to soldiers
proposing to return.
Josephus, Hist. Jews, XV, 5, Herod to his army.
The Epideictic Element in Philosophy.
The investigations of the pre-Socratics were almost wholly
devoted to an inquiry into the origin and constitution of the universe.  Studies of this character have seldom found expression
in epideictic style.' Some left no written works; some employed
poetry as the vehicle of communication; those who made use of
prose presnt little which can rightly be considered epideictic in
theme or style.2  The Sophists form an exception. With them the
case is quite reversed. The rhetorical side becomes as strong as the
philosophical is weak. The interest in artistic speech which followed the Persian wars was nowhere greater than among the
Sophists. Their self-imposed task as general educators in matters public and private tended to increase the importance which
they assigned to charm and impressiveness in presentation. The
A notable instance of the employment of stylistic charm even in cosmological studies may be seen in Plato; cf. Shorey, "The Interpretation of the
Timaeus," Amer. Jour of Phil., IX, pp. 401 ff.; 408 ff. On the general topic of
the rhetorical influence upon philosophy see the handbooks, especially Norden,
Antike Kunstprosa (1898), 101 ff., 154, n. 1, and elsewhere; Rohde, Griechische
Roman (1900), pp. 344 ff.
2 It is true that some of the most permanent features of fine writing
appear already in Heraclitus and Empedocles. The former, the first great
prose writer, is justly styled the "source of a current in literature." His prose
was rhythmical. Heraclitus and, perhaps in imitation of him, Empedocles
made frequent use of the great antinomies of thought which gave rise later
to mere rhetorical antithesis. It is thought that Gorgias was a pupil of
Empedocles (cf. Quintil., III, 2), and gained from him some features later
made so prominent in his style. Diels (' Gorgias u. Empedocles," in
Sitzungsber d. Berl. Ak., 1884, 343) presents evidence in regard to Empedocles' influence on Gorgias, both in philosophy and rhetoric; cf. Diimmler,
Academica, 36, 1; cf. Norden, Antike Kuntsprosa, I, 16f.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


215


newly formed rhetoric of Sicily was turned to their uses. The
intermingling of rhetoric and philosophy was a necessary result of
the new themes which philosophy discussed and the fact that discussion became so general. The great Sophists. Protagoras, Gorgias,
Hippias, Prodicus, though classed as philosophers as well, stand
for nothing so much as brilliance of oratorical display. So, too,
with those of lesser renown-notably Alcidamas, Polus, Protarchus, and Thrasymachus of Chalcedon. Among the early
philosophers we may note here Democritus (fifth century B. C.),
who is characterized as a writer remarkable for eloquence,
impetuosity, and brilliance, with use of poetic illustrations.'
Among the followers of Socrates, not to speak of Xenophon
(see pp. 203 f.), Aeschines was well versed in the rhetorical art,
and as an orator wrote in special imitation of Gorgias.2
The Megarians are said to have devoted themselves to idle
and trivial disputations.
Taking the term "epideictic"' in its widest application-a style
of prose in which ornateness is introduced in a conscious effort to
please, Plato is a most conspicuous example of its use. Aristotle, though no stylist in his extant works, is praised by Cicero
and others for eloquence and beauty of style (see also p. 218, n. 1).
The attitude of the immediate followers of Plato toward rhetoric
and the niceties of style was determined largely by his supposed
hostility. His attacks upon the Sophists, his denunciation of that
prostitution of the rhetorical art which would employ it for
empty display or to secure an unworthy end, were interpreted as
directed against oratory in itself.  Little attention was paid to
rhetoric or style until the time of Carneades (second century
B. C.); yet this period, marked by indifference or open hostility
on the part of the schools as a whole, presents several names
associated with tine diction. For a favorable view of the Academy
see Cicero, Or. 3, 12: "I confess that I have been made an
orator such as I am, not by the workshop of the rhetoricians, but
'Cf. Cic., De Orat., I, 10, 42 and 49; Or. 20, 67; De Div., II, 64, 133;
Diog. Laert, IX, 40; Plut., Qu. Conv., V, 7, 6, 2; Dion. of Hal., De Comp.
Verb., c. 24.
2 Diog. Laert., II, 63; cf. also Walz, Rhet. Gr., IX, 559 (Longinus).




216


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


by the walks of the Academy. For that is the school of manifold
and various discourse in which first of all are imprinted the footsteps of Plato,.... for all that copiousness and abounding
source of eloquence is derived from   these men."   Compare
B'ut. 1,, 121; 97, 333; De Oral., I, 1, 55 and 56; Reid's ed.,
Acad., Introd., p. 13: "Cicero calls eloquence the child of the
Academy."   He cites Parad., sec. 2; De Fat., 3; Tusc., I, 7;
De Off., I, 3; De Fin., IV, 5. We may note also Tac., Dial., 31.
In the fourth century Xenocrates was of sufficient eminence
as an orator to be employed on an embassy.    Crantor was a
writer of choice diction and pleasing fulness. Diog. Laert., IV,
27; Cic., Acad. Q., II, 44, 135; for a fragment see Sext. Emp.,
XI, 51-8;    Zeller (Plato and the Academy, 553).    Polemo
thought philosophy should concern itself with matters of practical import only; Diog. Laert., IV, 18. He wrote on literary topics,
but was in general averse to popular display; Diog. Laert., 1. c.
Arcesilaus (Arcesilas) belongs to the third century.  Cicero, De
Orat., III, 18, 67, says: "Arcesilas employed an eminently
graceful manner of speaking,.... He was the first to adopt the
practice of not declaring what he himself thought, but disputing
what any other person said that he [Arcesilaus] thought."
Diogenes Laertius says (IV, 28, speaking of the Academy) that
he began the custom of disputing both sides of a question. Elsewhere (IX, 51) he represents this idea as originating with Protagoras. Cicero (Tusc., II, 3, 9) likes this custom as giving
scope for eloquence, and says that Aristotle first made use of
it, and later all the Aristotelians as well as the Academy.' Quintilian (XII, 2, 25) makes the practice peculiar to the Academy
and adds that it is likely to prove serviceable to eloquence.2 The
custom, wherever practiced, has naturally a strong epideictic tendency.  Carneades is a notable example. Arcesilaus is compared
with him, Cic., De Ora., III, 21, 80. Crates (third century
B. C.) left orations delivered to assemblies and speeches as
ambassador; Diog. Laert., IV, 23.
Cf. De Orat., I, 8, 84; III, 27, 107, 108.
2 Cf. XII, 1, 25; Diog. Laert., VII. 181.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


217


The second century B. C. is rendered notable by Carneades,
whose epideictic displays at Rome and elsewhere occasioned so
much discussion. He marks the entrance of a new spirit into
the Academy, a reversal of its traditional attitude. His striking
eloquence is often  referred to.1   Diodorus of Adramyttium
(second century B. C.) united philosophy and rhetoric (Strabo,
XIII. 1, 66). As in the first period when the school avoided
rhetorical display, so after Carneades there were some who
stood out in opposition to the general trend, adhering to hereditary teachings.   Clitomachus of Carthage    (second century
B. C.) was a pupil of Carneades, but a professed enemy of
rhetoric, though his coUsol(tio on the fall of Carthage would
seem to have been of an epideictic character (Cicero., Tusc.,
III, 22, 54). Cicero (Tulsc., II, 3, 9) shows that Philo of Larissa
(first century B. C.) was enthusiastically devoted to rhetoric as well
as philosophy.  He is classed (Tutsc., II, 11, 26) among those not
only very eloquent, but also fond of introducing appropriate lines
from the poets. Charmides (Charmadas in Cicero), also of the
first century, was as remarkable for eloquence as was Clitomachus
for genius (Cic., Acad. P., II, 6, 16). He held that philosophy
was the only source of eloquence (Cic., De Ortlt., I, 18, 84 if.),
denying that rhetoric was of any value in gaining it. He is
classed among those who would relegate oratory to the court and
petty-assembly tfamqanam il aliquod pistrinumm (Cic., De Orat., I,
11, 46); compare also Or. 16, 51, where Carneades compares the
diction of Charmides and that of Clitomachus. Charmides seems
a fair representative of a class of philosophers who, though
employing the arts of eloquence themselves, affect to despise
rhetoric and deny its influence upon oratory."
The Peripatetics had always an appreciation of the beauties
of language, and seemed to pride themselves upon their devotion
both to the theory and the practice. The Academy justified its
hostility by a one-sided interpretation of Plato, and the Peripatetics in their opposite position made appeal also to the founder
1 Cic., De Orat., I, 45, 49; II, 38, 161; III, 18, 68; Acad., I, 12, 46; II, 18, 60;
De Rep., III, 8; De Fin., III, 12, 41; and elsewhere.
2 Cf. Sext. Empiricus, p. 678 (Bekk.).




218


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


of their school andl his immediate successors.     Cicero (D)e O()t/.,
I, 10., 43) says: The Peripatetics hold th thtthe very aids alnd
ornamenlts of speech which you consider the pleculiar property of
orators must be sought from      t(he.    (They say ) that Aristotle
and( Theophrastus wrote more copiously andl better tlhan all the
masters of the art of speech.'
Cicero probably   refers to the general course of Peripatetic
philosoh)ly, but in the case of the Academy chiefly to his own or
the immediately preceding period, when he speaks of the "delicate
and flowing style of the Peripatetics and the Academy," and a(dds
that their language is "too diffuse and luxuriant for a spirited
contest in the forum   or a pleading at the bar" (Bs it., 31, 121 ).
In harmony with the general favor in which the Peripatetics
held graceful writing is the fact that more than the other schools
they seem    to have taken     up  literary  and  historical studies.
1 Cf. also Orat., I, 5, and Tusc., I, 4, 7: 'joined eloquence with philosophy" (cf. Heine's note), and Brut., 31, 119 and 120, where he indicates that
he regards the Peripatetic philosophy as the most proper to form the ideal
orator's style upon; cf. De Orat., III, 35, 141; Orat. 19, 62; Quintil., III, 1, 15;
XII, 2, 25; Tac., Dial., 31. For general appreciative reference to Aristotle's
style see note, Wilkins' De Orat., I, 11, 49. To the references there Grote
adds (Aristotle, I, 43), Ad Att., II, 1; Dion. of Hal., De Comp. Verb, chap. xxiv;
Demetrius (Spengel, III, 290, 27). We may add still further Cic., Tusc., I, 4,
7; De Orat., III, 18, 67; III, 35. 140-44.
2 Cicero is not careful to distinguish between the Platonists and Aristotelians in his references to the rhetorical qualities of philosophical schools; cf.
Teuffel and Schwabe, Lat. Lit., sec. 183; Cic., Brut., chap. 31. et passim. The
Academy and the Peripatetics are referred to separately as contributing
much to oratory, but in several of the more notable passages the two schools
are joined; e. g., De Fin., IV, 3, 6, where he grows enthusiastic over their
' instances of good speaking in orations," their "polish and fitness," and their
"brilliance of language." "With what splendid language have they adorned
that part of the subject which requires ornate and impressive eloquence,
discussing justice.... not like men picking out thorns-the Stoics....
but like men who knew how to handle great subjects elegantly. What therefore are their consolations? what their exhortations? " Cf. also De Orat., III,
27, 107, 108, 109: "omnem civilem orationem in horum alterutro genere
versari." Cicero's ideal orator is a combination of the orator and the philosopher: cf. De Orat., I, 15, 68; Tusc., I, 26, 64, 65; V, 2, 5, 6; De Orat., I, 3, 9;
I, 10, 43; II, 16, 60, 61; III, 143; Orat. 3,12, 13. His own power as an orator
is due to philosophy: Tusc., I, 3. 6; Oral., 3, 12, 13; De Or., I, 20, 91; P. Arch.,
VI, 12, 13.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


219


Zeller (AAristotlfe II. 451) says that no philosopher after Strato
merits the name of an independent thinker.      The school cultivated history, literature, and grammar, and dlevoted itself zealously to rhetoric and ethics.   This last statement must apply,
though in a lesser degree. to the period preceding Strato.
The successor of Aristotle was given the name Theophrastus
in recognition of the "divine character of his eloquence."
Strabo  (XIII, 2, 4) says "Aristotle made all his disciples
eloquent. but Theophrastus most eloquent of all."        Heraclides
of Pontus (fourth century B. C.) was a versatile writer in
genera] literature  and  rhetoric and   philosophy.    He wrote
histories. some in the style of comedy and some in that of
trageldy.  His writings are cda\\l Tard re cat aptL-a, Diog. Laert.,
V. 8()-90.
Of Callisthenes of Olynthus (fourth century B. C.) Cicero
says (DC Or(tl.. II, 14, 58) that his style was appropriate for
rhetorical declamation rather than history; cf. Ad Qtuinlt., XI
(XIII), 4; Plutarch (Alex., 53 and 54) shows his dexterity in
arguing both sides of a question epideictically.
Clearchus of Soli (fourth century B. C.) is styled by Zeller
(Aristotle II, 443) a man of literature rather than a philosopher.
Lynceus and Praxiphanes (fourth century B. C.) are cited by
the same authority as among those who turned from philosophy
"to history, history of literature, politics, ethics, and rhetoric."
Demetrius of Phalerum, at the very close of this century, presents
the style of the philosopher combined with the orator's strength
and impressiveness: Diog. Laert., V. 82.      A versatile writer:
"the most polished of all these orators;" Cicero, De Orat., II, 23,
95: Orat. 27, 92. 94  Britt., IX, 37; Dc Off., I, 1, 3, speaks of his
pre-eminence as a philosopher and orator.     Strato, of the third
century, was chiefly noted as a natural scientist.3  Ritter, Hist.
Diog. Laert., V, 38; Strabo, XIII, 2, 4; Cic., Orat. 19, 62; Quintil., X, 1, 83;
Cic., Tusc., V, 9, 24; De Orat.. I, 11, 49; III, 48, 184; and Brut., 9, 38; 31, 121.
2 Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, "Asianismus und Atticismus," Hermes, XXXV
(1900), 16, refers to the epideictic tendency of Aristotle's immediate friends
and pupils.
3 Gross' statement (Philodemus, LV) seems to be based upon a misinterpretation of Diog. Laert., V, 58.




2'20


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


of Phil., III, 370, says that after him came the period of affected
ornament.  Lyco of Troas (third century B. C.) is classed by
Ritter, 1. c., with Aristo of Ceos and Critolaus as one of those
who helped clothe philosophy in the mantle of oratory (Strabo,
X, 5, i).  Cicero (De Fin., V, 5, 13) speaks of him as a man
rich in eloquence. Diog. Laert. (V, 66) terms him a surpassingly
sweet speaker, and as evidence of his reputation in this regard
adds a current play upon his name.
Aristo of Ceos is fixed for us as a philosopher of strong
epideictic tendency by Strabo's (X, 5, 6) characterization: "The
oldest imitator of Bion."  Cicero (De Fil.. V, 5, 13) says he
was a "neat anl( elegant writer" of "polished style," but lacking
in dignity.
In the second century B. C. Critolaus was one of the embassy
to Rome (155) B. C.), where he gained great favor as an orator.
His style was scita et terctia (Gell., VI, 14, 10).  Cicero (De
Fin., V, 5, 14) refers to his eloquence.' Quintilian (II, 17, 15)
shows that he wrote also on rhetoric.  Sextus Empiricus (p. 677.
10, Bekk.) says that Critolaus and his followers, noticing the ease
with which rhetoric was prostituted, spoke ill of it and called it
KaKcoTEXvia.
Agatharchides (second century B. C.) wrote on grammar,
history, and geography.  Photius says his style was dignified,
clear, full of sententious passages.  In his speeches he imitated
Thucydides.   Apellicon  of Teos (first century  B. C.) was
employed as an ambassador in the war against Mithridates.
Athenaeus of Seleucia (first century B. C.) was among those
who styled rhetoric the art of deceiving.
The Stoics, like the Peripatetics, regarded rhetoric as of
great importance.  But their interest was in its formal side
rather than in rhetoric as a means of securing the more pleasing
qualities of style.  Diogenes Laertius says (VII, 42) that the
Stoics adopted the common definition of rhetoric as the art of
speaking well rept TrV ev & EenoS) XodyOw; but with them speaking
well was speaking the exact truth(Walz, Rhlet. Gr., VII, 8, 20).
1 Cf. De Orat., II, 38, 160.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


221


In spite of individuals of marked epideictic characteristics, it
is a just representation of the school as a whole which Quintilian
gives (X, 1, 84): "The old Stoics paid but little attention to
elocution. They had great power of reasoning and in enforcing
what they taught. They were rather acute in discussing their
subjects than lofty in style-an excellence at which they certainly
(lo not aim." So also Cicero, Brut., 31, 119 ff.: "They [the
Stoics] devote their whole time to the study of logic and never
trouble to acquire the free. fluent, varied style. Your uncle [Cato]
gained what the Stoics could give-the art of reasoning, but for
the art of speaking went to the masters of rhetoric."' The
Stoics use "language which is not clear, smooth, and flowing; but
meager and dry, broken and disjointed; and if anyone shall
approve such a style, he will (lo so with this limitation, that
it is not suited for the orator" (DC Ocra., II, 38, 159).2
Aristo of Chios is styled by Diog. Laert. (VII, 161) a man of
persuasive eloquence and of great popularity with the masses.
He was popularly called the "siren."  Zeller (E)picureans a d
Stoics, 60) says he was fluent and wordy, and adds that he
condemned logic.
Diogenes the Stoic was one of the embassy to Rome (155
B. C.), and there made epideictic speeches.    His style was
mod(lstf ct sobria (Gell.. VI, 14. 10).
Mnesarchus (second century B. C.) is classed (Cic., De 0)(t.,
I. i,,45. 46) among those who would relegate oratory to the
court an(l petty-assembly ttil,)1 mq(a  in aliq to(1 l)istl'illlou. In
De Orf... I. 18, 83. he is represented as saying: "Those whom
we call orators are nothing but a set of mechanics, with glib and
well-practiced tongues. No one can be an orator but the man of
true wisdom-the philosopher.' Panaetius of Rhodes (second
century B. C.) is said to have aimed at a more brilliant
rhetorical style.  Cicero (D)  Fili., IV. 28, 7(9) shows that he
was fond of quoting Plato, Xenophon, and Theophrastus. His
belief that a lawyer is justified in supporting the probable, even
Cf. also Brut., 31, 118.
2 Cf. also Brut., 31, 118, en; De Orat., III, 18, 65 and 66.




222


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


though it be not altogether true (Dc Off., II. 14, 51), may
throw some light on the character of his style. Strabo (I1I,
2, 9) speaks of an exaggerated rhetorical style as characteristic of
Posidonius (first century B. C.).  He was a versatile writer,
an ambassador to Rome in 86 B. C. He discoursed with dignity and fluency on the value of pain, while being tortured by
the gout (Cic., THtsc., II, 25, 61). His style was far removed
from the ungraceful stiffness which frequently characterized the
Stoics. Athenodorus of Tarsus (first century B. C.) won great
influence through his capacity for discoursing at great length
without preparation on any given subject.  Among the Romans
Seneca (first century B. C.) presents the epideictic qualities in
great prominence.  Quintilian (X, 1, 125) does not approve his
style; cf. Aul. Gell., XII, 12. The views of the Stoics of the
second century A. D. may be gathered from the writings of
Epictetus, who, while professing approval of skill in argument,
urges those who would follow real philosophy to make eloquence
purely subordinate.' In III, 23, he chides those who are fond
of ostentation.  Philosophy must attract by its teachings, not
through display. Hearers should leave the school with pain
rather than with pleasure. It is a school of surgery. He quotes
Rufus as saying that, if one had leisure to praise him, he was
speaking to no purpose.    His Enchiiridion, 33, 11, advises
against attending private display-recitations; cf. also 1, 26.
He does not entirely reject care about speaking, but men must
not be captivated by it as by a siren (1, 23, end). Plato's
eloquence was no aid to his philosophy (1, 8).
The attitude of the Epicureans upon the question of fine
writing is quite similar to that of the Stoics. and their theories
were fully observed in practice.  Epicurus cared nothing for
logic or literature.  He thought rhetoric of value only to give
clearness (Diog. Laert., X, 13). His writings, however, are not
characterized by this quality, and are not free from ostentation.
Diogenes Laertius, X, 2. says he was led to the study of philosophy
'Cf.I,8; 1,7; 1,17; 11,23.
2 Cf. Simplicius on Epictetus, chaps. 49, 33, 11; 44 and 45.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


223


by a contempt for the grammarians who could not explain
certain points in Hesiod.   His advice is: "Avoid all kinds of
education."' Aristophanes the grammarian (Diog. Laert., X, 13)
censures his choice of words; Cicero (Tutsc., II, 3, 8) speaks, as
though voicing the general sentiment, in derision of Epicurus
and the whole school as taking no pains to express themselves
well and therefore unfit to be read. This agrees with other
evidence that the hostility of Epicurus had become hereditary in
the school.
Hermarchus of Mitylene (270 B. C.) was his successor.
Diogenes Laertius (X, 24) says that he was devoted to rhetoric,
and that his writings were "K'XXcto\ra."   Cicero classes Metrodorus (fourth century B. C.) with Epicurus in his censure
(Tusc., II, 3, 4).  Lucretius seems checked in his natural tendency to eloquent style by his adherence to Epicureanism.2
A bitter opponent of rhetoric appears in the first century B. C.
in the person of Philodemus.      He follows and enlarges upon
the teachings of Epicurus.      His views are set forth in his
rhetoric. He is especially opposed to the claim that rhetoric
can  fit youth   for public life.   He compares rhetoric      and
philosophy, to the disadvantage of the former.     Rhetoric contributes nothing to human welfare.     Rhetors are sycophants;
they get money falsely; they destroy the people.    Philosophy is
the benefactor of the race; it is the only source of right living,
the true basis for oratory.    His position on the question, Is
I Diog. L., X, 6; cf. also Quintil., XII, 2, 24; II, 17, 15; Cic., De Fin., I, 7.
2 Lucretius, speaking of the inspiration of his theme (I, 921 if.) and the
pleasures of poetry, assumes a distinctly apologetic tone. He makes haste to
give his didactic and scientific purpose the chief prominence. He excuses for
the use of verse and for poetic beauty, and shows the estimate he would
place upon it by comparing it to the honey with which physicians smear the
cup that contains a bitter potion. The same comparison is made, Book IV,
1-25, and for the same purpose. In I, 143 ff. and elsewhere, the subordination
of literary beauty is made clear; cf. 1, 415. He puts forth lucidity as his
great aim, I, 143, 144, 415, 933. He speaks in scorn (I, 643, 644) of those who
veraque constituunt, quae belle tangere possunt
auris et lepido quae sunt fucata sonore.
The exceeding difficulty of his task is referred to I, 136-9, 920-50; III,
258-61.




224


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


rhetoric an art? is somewhat inconsistent. At one time he
makes full denial (see p. 225, end); at another he seems to
hold, against other Epicureans, that Sophistic rhetoric is an art.
There is no art of forensic or judicial oratory. Every man's
general knowledge will answer for that. The question is discussed, e. g. Vol. I, pp. 68, (69 (Suppl., p. 34, Sudhaus); Suppl.,
38, 45, 47, t61, 22, Vol. II, p. 235.'
' The conflict between rhetoric and philosophy was long and memorable.
Their rivalry had a basis in differing views in regard to the theory and
method of intellectual and moral training. There was added to this in many
cases bitter personal animosity. The periods of most heated strife were the
fifth and second centuries B. C. and the second and fourth A. D. Between these
the conflict lulled. Sometimes one side or the other seemed almost conquered,
only to revive and renew the struggle on slightly different grounds. With
such fluctuations it continued for more than eight centuries. The Greeks
traced both their rhetoric and their philosophy back to Homer. But previous
to the close of the fifth century neither had received formal study; they were
not reduced to a system, and no rivalry existed. The philosophical studies of
the pre-Socratics were not of such a nature as to come into special conflict
with oratory. The two did not occupy common territory. Then came the
conscious effort to formulate the laws of language and argumentation, and to
teach men to speak, well. Oratory also claimed to give ethical and political
culture. At almost the same time Socrates created a new meaning for
philosophy-the study of men rather than of the physical universe. His
successors followed him in this, though with less rigid adherence to his limitations. From this time on philosophy in its highest sense meant the pursuit
of truth. While this conception of philosophy was in process of formation
the Sophists precipitated conflict by the extent and character of their pretensions. They claimed to be the exponents of culture, to unite in themselves
philosophy and rhetoric. The task of educating the youth should fall to
them. In a sense their claims were well founded, but neither their rhetoric
nor their philosophy was of the higher type. Truth was not the only or the
chief aim in their investigations. The beautiful in form and the specious in
argument were in many cases the limit of their search. Their educational
aim was to produce the subtle man, the successful politician, rather than
breadth of view and nobility of character. A quibble was as important a
topic for discussion as a serious moral question. Rhetorical training sufficed
for all the needs of life.
The strong grounds taken by Plato in opposition to these defects in
sophistic ideals is familiar. The lines on which the conflict was to be waged
are already visible. It was carried on with vigor by the philosophers and
the rhetors, who in a sense were the successors of the Sophists. It does not
seem probable that this strife affected the mass of the people to any extent.
Arnim supposes that, in spite of the radical differences between them, philosophy and rhetoric were looked upon only as two means of education




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


225


The   Cynics were followers of Antisthenes (fourth century
B. C.), so noted as an epideictic orator. He was a pupil of
Gorgias, and    retained, in some of his writings at least, the
style  peculiar to   that school after he had     turned   to philosophical studies; Diog. Laert., VI, 2; cf. also, for his epideictic qualities, Diog. Laert., VI, 14. He was fond of playing
on words.     Antisthenes is the earliest writer in whose works
a 8taTpL3, is citedl.  The Cynics and the Stoics were especially
inclined to the adoption of this form, and some of its peculiar qualities are seen already inAntisthenes. Diogenes Laertius, VI, 9, may
differing chiefly in method. Socrates and Protagoras were to them men of
the same calling. With modifications, it was the present-day question of the
"practical" education versus general mental training. At the close of the
fourth century B. C. rhetoric had taken a subordinate place. It was one of
the culture topics, the yKVKXta Laf?7/LarTa. The introduction of Greek civiliza.
tion to Rome was simultaneous with the renewal of the slumbering rivalry.
Should rhetoric or philosophy gain the greater influence? Philodemus,
Sextus Empiricus, Quintilian, Cicero, and Lucian are the chief sources of
information, and the points of attack were plainly much the same as in
earlier centuries. The differences were still based on opposing conceptions
of culture. Specific charges were brought against rhetoric:
1. It is not an art. It fails when tried by the Stoic definition of a rTxvv;
cf., e. g., Sext. Emp., 10, 78, 26; Quintil., II, 17, 18, 27; II, 16, 1; II, 16, 11;
Philod., I, 22; It, 107. A true art is the same regardless of time and place;
rhetoric is not, so is not an art. A true art deals with the truth; rhetoric
makes use of falsehoods. therefore is not an art; cf. Philod., 1, 22. All true
arts have a definite end (rAXoS) which they attain; rhetoric has not, therefore is
not an art; Sext. Emp., 13; Quintil., II, 17, 22; Philod., II, 105, 125. The
three kinds of oratory (oauv-ovXevTLK6v, LKaK, 8tKavLv7rLELKTrK6v) each have a separate
purpose and each fails.
2. Rhetoric lacks practical utility. Cities have expelled rhetoricians,
notably Sparta, Athens, Crete, and Rome.   There were orators before
rhetoric existed and there are now, outside of the schools of rhetoric.
3. Rhetoric lacks a vX\1 1i6a - a materia propria.
4. There were also attacks on the hollowness and pretension of rhetoric.
It was a mere trick of persuasion. Facility in speaking must be viewed with
suspicion. Sudhaus holds (ed. Philod.) that all these arguments were formulated by one person. Critolaus. In general on this question consult Norden,
Antike Kunstprosa, I, p. 250, n. 2; p. 8, n. 2; Sudhaus, Philodemus, Suppl.;
Arnim, Dio von Prusa, pp. 4-114 (1898).
The 8LaTp7i3p was a short discourse on some philosophical theme, with a
slight dialogue between the speaker and an imagined opponent. For further
discussion see pp. 234 ff.




226


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


perhaps imply his employment of inanimate objects as speakers.
The passage represents a statue as speaking. Anaximenes of
Lampsacus, 330 B. C., was a noted rhetorician.  His history is
blamed (Plut., Praec. Pol., VI, 7) because of its many rhetorical
speeches. Menippus of Gadara was a pure satirist.  Monimus
(fourth century B. C.) mingled jest with serious themes; Diog.
Laert., VI, 83. Diogenes Laertius (IX, 110) says of Timlon the
Skeptic (third century B. C.) that he occupied himself with works
quite inconsistent with philosophy-comedy, tragedy. lyric and
epic poetry. He was witty and a satirist.  Sextus Empiricus
(beginning of third century A. D.) was strongly opposed to all
forms of rhetoric.
The vast increase in the circle of interests embraced under
the term "philosophy" not only favored the retention and rapid
increase of epideictic features, but would have rendered their
exclusion difficult. After Aristotle (the pre-Socratics and Sophists
are referred to on p. 214; cf. p. 224) there were few who devoted
themselves exclusively to philosophy in the stricter meaning.
Isocrates had used the term in a very comprehensive sense.
It became more and more inclusive. Aristotle's wider definition
of philosophy, as including all scientific knowledge and research,
became still further extended until Chrysippus styles it "the
science of things divine and human."   (This is repeated by
Max. Tyr., 32, 1; see p. 239.)  Cicero, De Ocrat., I, 3, 6-12, calls
philosophy "the originator and parent of all the arts which merit
praise;" III, 35, 142, 143 "a union of wisdom and eloquence;"
cf. also Tatsc., I, 26, 64: 65; V, 24, 5, 6. Plut., Script. l1. (de Ed. Plerormn, 10, says: The chief advantages gained from philosophy
are " to honor parents, worship the gods, obey the laws, treat others
well, restrain passion," etc., through a long list of moral and
civic virtues, at whose basis, he claims, lies the study of philosophy.
Philosophy thus becomes almost coextensive with all useful knowledge.  The relations between this expanded and popularized
philosophy and rhetoric were, from the very nature of the case,
intimate. There was an instinctive feeling of kinship. They
worked reciprocally. Philosophy had need of rhetoric to present




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


227


its principles and teachings in clear and, what was equally
important, in pleasing and impressive manner, while the orator,
who had already received a great part of his training in the
schools of philosophy-the chief educational institutions of the
time-naturally turned to it as furnishing popular material for
the exercise of his oratorical powers.  It agrees with this that
so many were at the same time, or at different periods of their
lives, philosophers and rhetors, or joined with philosophy studies
in poetry, history, and general literature. Quintilian, III, 1, 15,
says: "Philosophers have paid even more attention to rhetoric
than the rhetors since Theophrastus." Cicero (Orat. 3, 12, 13)
says that he owed less to the schools of rhetoric than to the
Academy.' In the latter passage the oratorical power of Pericles
and of Demosthenes is ascribed to their philosophical studies.
Plato (Phaedrus, 270 A) says that Pericles owes his great oratorical power to the philosophical training he received from intercourse with Anaxagoras; cf. Plut., V. Pericles. This is in proof
of the general proposition that philosophical training is necessary
for the highest excellence as a speaker.  Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ad Amnmaelum de Demiostl. et Aristot., chaps. 1-3, protests against the idea that Demosthenes gained his perfection of
style from Aristotle.  Isocrates, Cicero, and Themistius (each
living in an age of sharp discussion between rhetoric and philosophy) are conspicuous among those who regarded themselves as
embodying and reconciling rhetoric and philosophy.
With this natural affinity between philosophy and rhetoric
we must connect as an auxiliary, also epideictic in its very
nature, the relations between philosophy and religion.  Philosophy had helped to destroy the old beliefs, and now assumed to
supply their place. The entire field of morals was taken under
its care. There were those who devoted themselves chiefly to
theory, but others must pass about among the masses of the
people and publish in popular form the teachings of philosophers,
applying them to practical questions of everyday life. Some of
these philosophers were men of independent power, but the great
1 Cf. Quintil., X, 1, 81, and XII, 2, 22.




228


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


majority must have contented themselves with elaborating and
presenting the thoughts of others.   Wilamowitz characterizes
the situation in the third century B. C.: The people wanted the
teachings of the great leaders. They could not go to them. They
must depend upon the "wandering preachers."    Therefore their
compositions were reproductions, expositions, sermons from a text
furnished by some renowned philosopher, moralizing rrapatvLoELt,
all popularize(d by verses from  Homer and other familiar poets,
witticisms. quotations from  historians. and the like (condensed
from  Afi/gonlos 'r. K(irlstos, 312).
There was temptation. to which many yielded, to reduce philosophy to idle trifling, to exalt the manner above the thought.
Epideictic display is inherent in these conditions.  The hollowness and pretense of much popular philosophy are implied in
Appian. Bell. 117itb.. XII. 5, 28.
Thus the enlarged scope of philosophy, its new relations with
the masses of the people, its assumption of control over general
education. iand especially of religious instruction. the application of ethics to practical living, and in particular the relations
between philosophy and rhetoric. lead to a prominence of the
epideictic spirit in philosophy. governed il dlegree by the conditions of different periods and by individual character.
From the very earliest times we may discern a certain practical
cormmingling of the elpideictic and( the philosophical.  This is
first noticeable in a union of the parenetic and the epideictic
elements: cf. p(. 9. The fact is noted on p. 131; that the /3aoLtX/cLK
Xdoyo exists conteml)oraneously and( in close connection witll a
similar coml)osition termed the 7tepL /3aotLXE'aS, and tlat the latter
in many- cases (iffered chiefly in the more general. impersonal.
anid essay-like character of its treatmelt anld in the prominence
given to the eav/L3ovXEVTLtcoS element. Tle 7Tept /3aoLXeWa  has a
special interest here from this latter point of view. Joined with
the 7poTpeTrrtico. which. in many11  cases at least. must have differed
from it chiefly inl being less restricted in its apllicatiol. it is one
of the oldest examl)les of a combination of the epidleictic style
and popular philosophy. These two forms have a long history.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


229


The avowed purpose of the rept /3aao\XEta,     to present the principles upon which a prince should base his rule and to portray
the ideal sovereign (see p. 136))-is one which falls in easily with
the natural tendency of the philosopher to turn preacher. It
presents an honorable and attractive theme, and one, too, in which
the display element could hardly be excluded.        The origin of
this form   is epideictic (see p. 136). It is seen in      Isocrates
(e. (/., Adl Nicoclem) and in the works of Antisthenes, his contemporary (Diog. Laert., VI, 16).     From   this time on it has a
prominent place in the history of moralizing philosophy.        We
find one or more treatises under this title credited by Diogenes
Laertius to the following philosophers: Aristotle, Antisthenes,
Cleanthes, Epicurus, Ocellus Lucanus, Persaeus, Sphaerus, Strato,
Theophrastus (cf. p. 234).'
Previous to this Gorgias and Lysias in their display orations
at Olympia had made the feature of advice an important part (cf.
Isocrates, pp. 95, 96), and thus the introduction of the parenetic
element in an 67riSEtL? had received legitimization, if that were
needed.   The VrpOTrpeTrMcK, exhortatio, or wrapatveTrzcw, as it is
sometimes called,' has a long and interesting history (cf. Hartlich, Leipziger Studien, XI, 1889).      In a broad way the rrporpeTTrrTLK   is a union of philosophy and rhetoric.   The Sophists
1 For more purely epideictic orators who chose this theme see the list in
the closing chapter.
2 Hartlich, Leipziger Studien, XI, 222, et passim, discusses the meaning
of the terms 7rapaiveo-rs and 7rporpeTrrlKb X67yo. He refers to the familiar synonymious use of TporperpKbs  6 Xyos, rapadKX\7oLs, and Trporpoirr. Here he might have
added Op&dw and its derivatives, especially 7rap6ppfaqots; cf. Iamblichus, Protrep.,
ed. Pistelli, p. 24, 18 (7rap6prqoarv irl ptXoo-oitav), and elsewhere. But the unqualified assertion, "rapatveoas non est exhortatio, sed, ut Senecae verbo utar (Ep.
95, 65), praeceptio," while stating a true distinction, gives an impression of
uniformity in the use of these words which is not warranted by the usage of
Greek authors. The lack of separate rhetorical treatment in extant works
renders the exact idea contained in these two terms more difficult to determine. The TrporpeTrrtKbS daOX7raZs, for which rules are given in Dionys. of Hal.
(Ars Rhet., chap. vii), is of little assistance. It is purely epideictic, and its
connections are with the panegyric and the getnelal's speech (cf. p. 232, and
for further discussion of its relations to the general's speech, see pp. 209 ff.). It
is quite a different thing from the 7rporpe7rrTLK6 X6yos as a characteristic speech
of philosophy and rhetoric. The casual references to protreptic and parenetic




230


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


claimed that such a union existed in themselves. aind with tlhem
dolubtless this form   originated. as Hirzel argues. Her1''I     s. X,
61 if.  Isocrates ((Ad Dcmon.. 3) implies a well-settled        title.'
It has no extant rhetorical treatment as a distinctive form         of
epideictict  oratory.  Menainder recognizes it only as a concomitant
1 Cf. also Euthyd., 278 D and 307 A, and elsewhere in Plato.
speech in Menander are also of little assistance to a clear idea of the use of
these terms. In general we may say: (1) that such technical distinction as
Hartlich states can be easily established and instances of its use presented;
but (2) it is also true that in many cases the words seem to be used even by
technical writers as fully interchangeable; and (3) in the vast majority of
instances they are used in a loose, indefinite way, either with almost the same
meaning, or more frequently with a more or less noticeable predominance of
the precept character in the word rapatiuv and its derivatives. We may add,
at this point, that the lexicons(exc. Hesychius, cf. also Stephanus)fail to give
any distinctive use of the words, and the meanings given there require no
special notice. In trying to determine more fully their usage, we have consulted especially the following authors: Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, Dion
Chrysostomus, Iamblichus, Sextus Empiricus, Demosthenes, Lycurgus,
Andocides, Dinarchus, Lysias. Euripides, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Thucydides,
Herodotus, the rhetors as found in Spengel and Walz.
The narrow technical use of the words 7rapaivec-s and rporpeTrrTKo X6oos,
and the general scope of each, may be seen in such passages as Isoc., Ad
Denmon., init. (cf. also Dionys. of Hal., Trpoa-wv-TtKOS, 1); Stobaeus, Ecl., II, p.
14; Aeschines, Contra Ctes., 154; Or. I, 191; Plato, Euthyd., 274 E; and, in the
case of the rpoTpeTrr7LKO XO6yo, many others; cf. also Seneca, Ep. 95, 65. It
should be observed, however, that Seneca in Epistles 94 and 95 is referring to
philosophy only, and that the 7rapatvea-ts and TrpoTperrTtKos X6yos as technical
X6-yo had other uses as well. Technically the TrporpeTrrtKOS X6yos is an exhortation to some general course-philosophy, rhetoric, virtue. It gives a comprehensive view, setting forth the advantages and removing the objections
(Stobaeus, Eel., II, 14 if.). The rapa.ivec-s is practically without formal definition. The essentials of its technical use may readily be discovered from
Isoc., Ad Dermon., init.; Plato, Def., 413 C; Seneca, Ep. 95, 65; and other incidental references. Cf. also Stephanus, Lex., s. v. 7rapaiveots and rporperTTirKOs
X6yos. In distinction from the rpoTpe7rTLKos X6yos the rrapaivpeot presents a series
of precepts which will serve as a guide of conduct under fixed conditions; cf.
Seneca, Ep. 95, 7, where illustration is taken from the pilot. The rrapaiveots as
a part of philosophy may have a restricted and personal application, e. g., how
to manage servants; or it may be more general, e, g., how to live well. Aristo
the Stoic and Cleanthes (Seneca, Ep. 94, Iff.; 95, 1) favor the more general view.
Isocrates, De Pernewt., 67, 68, recognizes that a special style is appropriate
for the rapaoiveas. It does not require that continuity of diction which he
adopts elsewhere, but each thought is, as it were, a separate head: daroXvaas yaap




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE21


231


of some other form of oration, c. g.. an important etement ili
the XaXta' "Sp. III. 388) and           the 7WPOWEFL7t-TWLK  Xo'Iyos' (Sp. III,
89) )    In   either of these exhortation         may. unnder approtpriate
condlitionls. become the controlling motive of the oration; cf. also
the 77apaaivqTUCos', aILd the EWL7-TacjMOS. Diony-siuis of Halicarnassus
ai6roTO) irponE'pOV Ka Xwpti W`LTrep Ta' KUXOJ/uEpa Kfod)LXata iroto-as. We may add here
the fact that the technical Use Of WrPO7j0ETLKo'9 is far more frequent and well
defined than is the case \with the con trasted word; e. g.. Hesychius contains a
discussion of 7rpoTp07ri5. but none of 7rapaivcrms; so with Ernesti, Lex.; Stephanus,
alone refers to both. This prominence of the parenetic element in the word
7rapcamv5' and its derivatives agrees with the connection which is sometimes
madc between gnotmic poetry and the 7rapaiveo-ts; cf. Dion. Chrys., Or. II, p. 20,
10 (Dind.); Sext. Ermp.. 2274, 23 (660, 20 if., Bekk.); 276, 29 (662, 30, Bekk.);
Norden. Anfike Kunstprosa, I, 78; Photius has a irapavrs I&' yvwAtaoXo-yiam
cf. also Cod. Gr. Saaqerni., fol., 168SA: -yp~oat Ka.T& 0TOLXEFOP rapau'ermwal. Yet in
Walz, Rhet. Gr., 11, 392, 2, the -yvw'A-q is styled a speech, bri TL wprP0phrWm, e. g.,
that one ought to entertain strangers; cf. also II, 592, 22. In II, 291 and 297,
14 if,the -yvW'u4- is made a chief source of 7rporpoir-7.
Quite in line with this is an almost technical use of 7rapalveo-mm among the
rhetors. where it seems to mean the moral or application, Sp. 1I, 21, 11;
Walz, Rhet.. 376, 13. A irapalveats may be derived from     a myth; yet in II,
5~38, 9, it is said that the myth belongs to the O-VU~OOX6V-TmKO' -yeVOS, for by it we
irpo-rpbroliuz E'rl -TL. The Xpela (II, 388, 19) is useful for irapsieo. In II, 574, 15,
Aesop's Fables give a gLOtwOpeX  T'v 7raaEL cuE0L, ota p'-q5TOp 6ta& ~0wv wo0Com4LEV0S; Cf.
II, 577, 22. Hartlich concludes (1. c.) that the irapalmEo-ms belongs to the,yevos ou/ji4301AvUTLK6v, and his language seems open to the implication that
the lrpoTpEirruCK0 X6-yos does not. He quotes Amimonius, 132, to the effect that
the irapcsve    is a part of the cvu.40ovMi. But this is inconclusive as a distinction, as unlimited evidence mnight be produced, including the 7rpoTPrpor', under
this head; e. g., Syrianus, Walz, Rhet. Gr., IV, 763; II, 5092, 22; II, 568, 9;
Plato, Def., 413 C; Legg., XI, 933 B; Alc., I, 107 B; Dion. Chrys., Or. II,
p. 20, 10 (Dind.), and 29, 19; Demosth., Prooern., LVI, et _passim ad lib.
Instances of the interchangeable use of these words may be noted as follows:
Demosthenes, Or. LX I, 51, has 7rpo-rpl'Ow 0e 7r-po' T —7v 0Aoao4)1'av, and in the same
section uses 7rampat'63 as a substitute, 0-01 Te vacpcatvni /~oa-o4/Jetv. Walz, Rhet. Gr.,
II, 297, 14 if., under the chapter-heading T-nm 66 -yVda_03To'm r6 V edv t irporpEirruK6v,
To U ai7rOTpe7rTLK6v, irapus'E   and irapatvo0A.EP as well as 7rpoo-pe~rTLK6Y are used in
the discussion; IT, 588, 19, speaks of the usefulness of the xpEda for 7rapaiveo-ts,
and in the next line irpo~pliro/IeJ' is used to refer to the same thing-rolls U
EirLX-yots m&a Ts rapatugo-ews, IEv oim OqXoim -raura 7prplioTP~tEs; II, 568, 26, uses
w7apamvCem' in contrast with d'7rorpgirwv, where one would require irporplircu'; cf.
also II, 592, 3 and 222; 571, 23, 24; 573, 20; and Menander (Sp. III, 405, 20-23;
410, 10, 17; 453. 13; 11, 23, 20).
Menander 7rept' brtr-a-iov (Sp. III, 421, 28 if.), speaking Of the hortatory
character which the burn-ciptos may assume, says: o-V11/30VM-V Kal V'rOOhK?7PJ 7rp0'9




232


23'2     ~STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


in  sec. 3 of his M~o~os~ c'wrt~aXd'/itcow     says, "~with praise mingle
advice." He also presents details for a speech entitled 7rporpc~rrtK09I 'tOkipais; cf. p. 209.   This is of pure epideictic character.        Its
appropriate time is the 7ravi?4yvptv?.      Exhortatiuon is made the first
TO7O96ut forms only a small part of the speech as a whole.            He
has no treatment of the wpo'rpcVW'KO', except in this specialized
A1Vj -YvvaLKa Kli 7rp~ia rOIJ 7rat'aa, et' dyav dOL TVYXdVOLEV 6PTES, ThP bV.v ~tqXOuV Ta'
apXa~aS Ka captoTas TWYp -yv~atKWV Kal?'p~Upacs, T01S 3U 7rcL~la P1qXOUV rdL TOL 7raTpOE dpeTaS, which is parenetic. But Dionys. of Hal. (FdeOo6os erLa-/Uwv, 4) uses Trporp~rw
in the same situation; cf. also Plato, Menexenus, 26-3 E, where 7rapattIveTaL and
7rapaKeXEU6/.evos are used in the same part of the 6mrdtrc os. in his rules for the
epithalarniunt (sec. 3) he uses 7rporpo~r'l for the precept: live in harmony, and
like instances could be multiplied indefinitely; cf. Thuc., II, 45; Sopatr.,
Atalp., p. 338; Plato, Clit., 410 D; Euthyd., 282.) D, 283 A, B, where 7rapaK6X1EV0oTLK6S X6-yos C'r' aipeThIV takes the place of the usual phrase 7rporpfwrLK0'S Xo'yos b7r'
IpE7?5  bu    r~aeewis a recognized substitute for          rpu.Hd.         se
rporpi~rw but once (I, 31, 1), and there it ueans 'admonish by example," for
which 7rapamv~v might be used. The cohortatio to the Greeks assigned to
Justia Martyr, though a pure 7rpoTpe~rrtK6Es, has the title X6-yos rzapamVErmKoE 7rp6s
'EXX-qvas; cf. Isidore. The 7rpOTpL~rTLK6m X6-yos of lamblichus shows not only
the lack of clear distinction between the terms, but also that the 7rapat'VEa-L
had a legitimate place within the 7rpoTp1E~rTLK0'S. On p. 111, 6 (ed. Pistelli) he
has 36,vacL~ 7rcpaweV Ta' ar u m'rci, etc., though three lines before worp0ilrfmv is used in
like conditions. Chap. 21, init., he treats of the LT6)mqoXa as a source of the
T6 7rpOTpIElTLK6W 61aGE (105, 7) and the vrporpo~r~ et' c0Xoo-o4/Lav (105, 10), yet in the
further discussion he uses wapamvi (116, 4) as well as lrpOTpl~ra (1. c. 16); cf.
123, 6. CK 3U ro6-rou /Xoo-oPeLV 7rapacveF. Chap. 6, init., says one must mingle with
these 7rcapaKX'60ELS, the 7rporpor7r~ toward political and practical life. Chap. 20,
init.: It is proper to use rhsv 3ta& rGv 7rrOIOmKw~V 7rporpo~r ji related to the topics,
hok% one ought to live, how one should associate with men, how gain glory,
etc. Continuing the same topic on p. 97, 15, he adds "e ' lrapalveo-ts C'rl -ro
ab1~T6 TAXOS 09pE-that it is needful to use one's powers for good ends. He
goes on to state other precepts for whose practice philosophy is needed.
There is a use of 7rapamiveoLs in the historians, especially Thucydidens, which
becomes practically technical. Hapatveots, or some form of 7rapamVW^, is thus
used in (lirect reference to the general's speech before battle exhorting the
soldiers to valor. HpOTPE7ITLKOS X6-yos would have-seemed the more natural title
and is implied in Dionys. of Hal., 7rpOTp1E7rTtK6S a'OXmqraZs, 2, where he says: in war a
7rpoTor7~7) is needed; cf. p. 209 for outline of general's speech in Dionys. of Hal.,
lrporpelrlLK63 diGX77Ta~s; cf. Leshonax, 7rpoTp67rTLMs X6-yos els dpeThiY (valor). I n
sec. 1 he uses irapatvJv, and in chap. 3 the phrase 7rpo-rpe~rTLK6 X6-yos.  This
oration conforms fully to the type of the general's speech (p. 212). Thucydides
uses ~rapaivmo-t as a title for the general's speech as follows: II, 18, 3, and 60,
4; 88, 1; IV, 93, 1; 95, 1; 126, 1; 127, 1; V, 9, 10; 69,l1and 2; VI, 68; VII, 63.
3; 69, 3; VIII, 76, 3; Polyb., V, 103, 9; 1005, 1; Dion Cas., L., 24; Plut., P7raec.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


233


form.'   Anaximenes, Rhet. (td Alex., I, p. 174          (Spengel),
includes the 7rporperTTLKO  7ye'o  as one of the seven, but it is
used   in  a very general sense    and can    be regarded as connected only in a remote way with the distinctive type, the 7rpoTrpE7TtbKOS Xd'YO7. Among Stoic philosophers there was a TO7Tro, TrEpt
TrpoTpo7rv Te fcal a7roTpo7rw  (D. L., VII, 84). Syrianus (Walz,
Rhet. Gr., 763) says VrpoTpo7rr differs from   avL,/3ovX\r  as a part
from a whole. However, the mere fact of its existence, the
prominence of the protreptic element in other forms, and the
fact that through the history of epideictic oratory and of philosophy the title 7rporpe7rrutKed is so frequently met, seems to
point to its probable rhetorical treatment in re'xva       not now
extant.   Indeed, the phraseology of Iamblichus' 7rpoTperTtKog'
seems to imply an established protreptic method. It is suggestive
of its original epideictic character that this form is first reported
to us in the writings of Antisthenes, with the statement that in
these especially   he used   a rhetorical style   (D. L., VI, 1).
Menander, in his treatment of the e7rtrdaclo (Sp. III, 418 ff.),
turns that part of the &e7rLCdto0 called the 7rapaUv07'trlltc  into
parenetic form   in case there should be children       to address.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus       (sec. 4) makes exhortation      an
important theme.     Still more noticeable for our purpose is the
remark (Sp. III, 414) that in the 7rapat/OvOrTLcod it is not out of
taste to philosophize on the nature of life.   He adds some directions for moralizing upon this subject.   The extant erTrtcdLot and
Consolcetions prove the prominence of this moralizing tendency,
and here may begin the long series of treatises — rept 7revOovs, on
disregard of death, etc.   In Pericles' funeral oration (Thuc., II,
Ger. Reip., VI, 7; Plato, Ion, 540 D, o-TpaTrtwras 7rapatvoUvTL. Theophylactus,
III, 14, 1, uses 7rapoTpvvovTat and adds oavvierlOevro ayp r&as vXas rais ro
orpaTryyov 7rapaiveo-av. In II, 13. 16, he uses 7rporperr6Levos to introduce a similar
speech, which shows that here as elsewhere we sometimes have an interchange of words; cf. also Diod. Sic., XIII, 15. 2. and 98, 3; Polyb., I, 27, 1;
76, 2; III, 44, 11; 64, 1; 108, 1; 109, 13; 111, 1; XV, 10. 1; 11, 4; 11, 6. Still
other words are used in Arrian, II, 7, and II. 10, 2; Dionys. of Hal., Rom.
Antiq., VI, 10; IX, 10, 1.
1Cf. also Arist., Rhet., I, 3, 14, where o-v3uovX\ is divided into rporpor'7O and
d&rorporri.




234


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


43) the Bpirvo, is made an exhortation; (f. also 45.'   The earliest
title preserved to us is in the list of Antisthenes' works.       At
almost the same time Isocrates wrote his hortatory epistles, the
Ad Nicoclem, Nicoclcs, and Ad Dcmonticutm.      There is the outline
of a hortatory E7r'&ett? in the Hippias jaijor of Plato.      A v7poTpE7rTtLKcd  is assigned to Aristotle, and   from   this time on it
becomes the property of the philosophical schools. The following
authors of 7rporpe7rTTTLKO  X6yot are reported by Diogenes Laertius:
Antisthenes, Aristotle. Xenocrates (a 7rapalveo-tr), Theophrastus,
Demetrius of Phalerum, Monimus, Persaeus, Aristo of Chios, Cleanthes, Aristippus, Epicurus. Chrysippus, Posidonius. From other
sources we may add Themistius, Chamelion (Ath. IV, 184 D),
Isocrates,  Himerius    (Eel.. 14. Or. 34). Galen, Iamblichus,
Lesbonax, Aristo    of Ceus (?); Serapion       has   a  /3ovXEVTL/C6o
'AXe\av8pevDotv.   The spurious Clitoplhon of Plato is called a
7rpOTpErTTLoS in the title; the Euthydemnl  s implies the frequency
of protreptic speeches; Protagoras (Diog. Laert., IX. 55) has a
7rpoOrTa-cTtLK O  (cf. p. 241 for Christ. Fathers). It is noticeable that
many in this list are authors also of rrepl /aatLXta XdoyoL.
One of the commonest forms which the habit of moralizing
assumed was the 8Larpt,8 3.   The &tarptI3r   represents the last in
the various degrees of approach between the dialogue and the
Cf. also Menexenus, 246 A f., 248 D, and the moralizing of 247 D if., and
Lysias, ertranptos, 77 ff.
For a discussion of Aristotle's IporperrtLKOS see Hirzel, "Zu dem IIporperrtLKo Aristoteles'," Hermes, X (1876), 61 ff.; Bywater, "Aristotle's IporperrLK6OS, Jour. of Phil., II (1869). 55 ff.; Diels, "Zu Aristoteles' Protrepticos
und Cicero's Hortensius,"' Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie, I (1888),
477-97; Bernays' Dialoge. des Arist.; Heitz, Verl. Schr. Arist.; Rose, Arist.
Pseudep.; Usener, Rh. Mus., XXVIII, 396. These writers speak of the
probable style, oratorial or dialogue; an outline of thought (Bernays attempts
a reconstruction); its influence upon the Hortensius of Cicero, the HpoTpeT7tKOS of Iamblichus, and other writings of this character.
For the character and history of the 6tarptf79 cf. Norden, Die antike
Kunstprosa, I, 128 ff.: Hirzel, Der Dialog, I, 369, and note 2: Susemihl, Greek
Lit., I, 36, and note 105: Wilamowitz, Antigonus v. Karystos, Excursus 3;
Ernesti, Lex.; Suidas Walz, Rhet. Gr., III, 406; Bion and Teles in Stobaeus;
and various handbooks.  For its connection with Asianism cf. also Rohde,
Rh. Mus., XLI (1886), 179: Zeller, Epicureans and Stoics, p. 35; Hirzel, Der
Dialog, II, 51, 120, et passitm.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


235


essay.  Norden defines it as a dialogue changed into the form of
a declamation-moral philosophy in the mantle of rhetoric.
The declaimer takes the place of both persons, usually introducing his supposed opponent with (oai. Compare Quintil., IX,
2. 36 and 37, Est et iacltts sine persona seerio, and the familiar
use of "at" in Latin, e. g., Cic., De Leg. Ma3(,., 60, et passim.
Susemihl disregards the dialogue element, appealing to Hermogenes' definition (Sp. II. 429, 3 ff.): L8aTpt3r7 8' Eori /3paXe'o
&tavorijaTos 6LIcOV egKcraaC-t, LJva EfLEteiV   TO rt  0oS 7o0 Xe'yovro.  He
regards it as a brief. more or less unconstrained, essay on an
ethical theme. Hirzel speaks of it as a treatise on a philosophical
subject more literary in its character than the ordinary compositions of philosophers. and marking the decline of the dialogue
spirit.  Yet it is contemporaneous with the best types of the
dialogue.  The 8taTpt,83r frequently represents the abstract as
personified and taking part in an argument.   Bion the Borysthenite is generally named as the originator, and Teles as the
type, of this class of writings, though Norden recognizes an
example of it in Demetrius of Phalerum (Stobaeus, 1, p. 184,
Meineke), and sees the free personification of abstracts already
in Plato, P'rot(g.. 3'52 E ff., 361 A; Crito, 50 A if., etc., and in
Antisthenes as represented in Diog. Laert., VI, 9. Prodicus'
famous "Chloice of Heracles" (Xen.. Meim.I, I, 1 21 ff.), where
Virtue and Vice present their claims in human form, goes still
farther back; so, too, the personification of the just and unjust
causes in the Clo(ls of Aristophanes.
In the allegorical introduction to Parmenides' poem, where
Aurci/ opens the gates for him and the goddess Wisdom indicates
the directions in which the diverging paths of truth and error
lead. he presents the basis in which but a single detail need be
changed to give us the "Heracles' Choice ' or the argument in
the Clodls; anld so. I think, furnishes the real starting-point for
Prodicus. Aristophanes, Antisthenes, Bion, and the long list of
imitators.  For the personification and vocalizing of inanimate
objects compare Aesop's Fables.'
The extensive fable literature of Greece, extending over so many centuries and so thoroughly identified with their life, could hardly be without




236


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Bion the Borysthenite, 270 B. C.. may have been the first to
see in such compositions as the "Allegory ' of Prodicus new possibilities for popular philosophy.  Our knowledge of him coies
not so much through the direct evidence of his writings as from
Teles, Diogenes Laertius. Strabo, and stray items elsewhere.
He was one of Teles' ideals, and we infer that he imitated as well
as quoted him.    The fragments (Stobaeus, I, p. 123, Meineke)
show  that Bion employed in his dialogues the device of personifying abstracts, e. 1., 7rpdyra7a and    revt'a.  The information
from Strabo reaches an earlier date.   In I, 2, 2, he quotes Eratosthenes as saying that Bion was the first to adorn philosophy
with flowers (of rhetoric).  Compare for the same Diog. Laert.,
IV, 52. He justifies this by saying that he used every style of
speech.   Diogenes Laertius (IV, 47) calls him a man 7roXtrpo7ros
Kcatl o-o'-T1r 7roucl\Xo.  He gave great opportunity for those who
wished to trample down philosophy (IV, 52). He was ostentatious,
given to employing the ridiculous, using invidious names for
things; was fond of parody.   Seneca (De Bel., VII, 7, 1) proves
Bion's sophistic diffuseness. Diogenes Laertius, II, 77, is the
only evidence for the title 8tarpt8ri for his writings.  Susemihl
thinks that v7ro/vrjfiara (Diog. Laert., IV, 47) is synonymous
with  ia'pLt/at'.  But the term  seems to be used in the colorless
sense of "writings;" cf. Diog. Laert., VIII, 78, and elsewhere.
In VII, 163, he seems to differentiate LtarpL/,at and v7roivr7jyaTa.
Strabo, X, 5, 6, says that the oldest imitator of Bion was Aristo
of Ceos, of whose oratorical tendency we have further evidence
in Cic., De Fin., V, 5.
its influence upon other forms of literature. Its most natural connection is
with the 6aTrpLjrf and the 7rporpE7rLK6S, and one may easily believe that the
fable was one of the direct influences in the development of these two
branches of literature. We have here animal life. and inanimate objects
also, endowed with human speech, and always for the purpose of carrying
some moral lesson. It is this moral element which must have influenced
Socrates to choose the fables oF Aesop when he turned prose into poetry
during his last days in prison. Fables were much used in 7rpo-yvuuvarrlara
(p. 103, n. 1).
On Bion the chief sources are Teletis Reliquiae,.. ense (1889, Prolegom.), and R. Heinze, De Hor. Bionis imtitatore. Diss., Bonn (1889).




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


237


At about the same period lived Teles (cf. p. 236, n. 1), whose
reputation, as well as the extant fragments, prove him of the
same class, and, since Stobaeus has preserved several long fragments, he stands for us as the representative writer of the 8&aTptL/3r for the third century B. C. With Teles a favorite method
is to begin by quoting his opponent as a text; then to reply,
using the second person singular, as though the opponent were
present: compare Stobaeus, III, 200, buit. In the average case
the opponent appears at the beginning, and once farther on,
e. g., in this case at 1. 2, p. 202.1 Occasionally a regular dialogue
of rapid question and answer is introduced, e. g., IV, p. 53; II,
66. The objector appears more frequently in II, 66 ff., e.g.,
p. 66. 16( and 29; 67, 26; 68, 3 and 27. In each case he is
introduced by aXXa; compare "at" in Latin.
Musonius Rufus, a Stoic philosopher of the first century A. D.,
stands in the same relation to Epictetus as Bion, Strato, and
Diogenes to Teles. Stobaeus, III, 3 ff., Meineke, is an excellent
example of the Bion-Teles 8taTpLr,', with the objector furnishing
the text and introduced in support of his views several times
later.  He gradually grows more definite until at the end he is
addlressed as veavLarKod. In II, 70-75, he parallels Teles, in topic
as well as in style. He addresses a man who grieves over exile.
The opponent reappears at 70, 22, and again at 73, 19. Here
and elsewhere we meet a characteristic feature of the 8iarptr —
the introduction of the objection in the form of a question asked
rhetorically, c. q., IV, 70, 8; 219; II 1, 1, 8; III, 148, 27, etc.
The argument and the line of thought are similar to those of
Teles. The topic and treatment have become stereotyped, as in
the case of more purely epideictic forms-IV, 162-164, presents
nearly the features of an ordinary dialogue; so II, 336-340,
where the opponent is formally introduced 338, 21 —ab7 TVt av
'oawo. Compare for the L8arpt/L3  also I, 154 ff., and I, 303 if.
We meet the LtaTpLtrj again in Dion Chrysostomus, Epictetus,
and Maximus Tyrius.   Dion turned from rhetoric to philosophy,
but retained much of the former in spite of his declaration (Or.
Cf. also Stobaeus, III, 211, init., and 213, 1, 4; III, pp. 177 and 187.




238


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


VIII, pp. 144, 145, Dind.) that he is a physician for the morally
sick. Diogenes and Socrates are his ideals in philosophy, Alexander among men of the worll. and Homer among poets. A large
proportion of his writings assume the dialogue form. Here he
has all varieties, from the formal dialogue to the 8tarpLp3r.  Hirzel
(1. c., II, Ip. 117) makes the distinctive feature of his &aTrpti/ai
lie in their origin.  Other 8LaTpt,3al are historical. in the sense
that they go back to actual speeches or conversations; Dion's
have only a literary origin and purpose.  He also notes their
variety-narrative, dramatic, instructive, hortatory.  We may
observe also that in Dion Chrysostomus the 8taTpLt3r takes the
final step in its departure from the formal dialogue.  Oration 27
bears the title &arptp73, but presents no suggestion of a dialogue.
The same is true of Or. 12, the 'OXvutrLtaKo, which he refers to
(I, 221, 5, Dind.) as a clX\Oooos &Larpt,/3. This is a genuine
oration, or, perhaps more properly, a vi;vos (see p. 167). In the
more formal dialogues like Or. 21, 25, 30, etc., there is no identitication of the opponent.  Occasionally, as Or. 15, he begins by
saying that he met some men discussing, etc. In 28 it is question and answer with a bystander.  As a sample &aTrpt,3r both
in topic and treatment, one may take Or. 14. The opponent
enters with the words Jalev av (I, 253, 9), and his presence is
assumed by the use of the verb in the second person singular
254, 11 and 13; 254, 23 has qr6aovut. At 255, 6 the objector is
introduced by aXXd; so 255, 12; 257, 29. At 255, 19 there is
no introductory word; so at 256, 1; 256, 8; 257, 12. The last
half of page 256 is a quick    interchange of brief question
and monosyllabic answer on the part of the opponent. The
speaker's replies are introduced by TL 8qj (254, 31)),?ri  (255, 14;
256, 3; 259, 8; 257, 15). Of similar style are Or. 16, 66. 71.
Oration 74 begins with a brief formal dialogue and then becomes
a 8taTptl/3. At 257, 26 an imagined opponent enters (EpeC TL );
cf. also 257, 28; 258, 31; 259, 32; 264, 27. There are weak
traces of the 8taTpL/3 in Or. 18 and 62. The 8LaTpt,/al of Epictetus
are equally free from any characterization of the opponent. But
they contain far more dialogue than any extant &arptl3ai which




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


239


precede him. The opponent is apt to put his thought in the
form of a question, and in general seems introduced merely as a
guide in the line of argument.  In some cases he starts, like
Teles, with a remark of the opponent as a text, and he reappears
later in its defense. I, chaps. 1 and 2, are fair samples of his
&aTptl3r; I, 25 has much dialogue; I, 23 has almost none; so
II. 23. In III, 7 the objector is defined as an Epicurean governor. Many of his &arpltl3a begin: '"When a person asked him......"' The &Larpt,/3 was also employed among the Romans
in poetic form. Compare the Satires of Horace and those of
Perseus (e..., Sat. 1).
The dissertations of Maximus Tyrius stand under the title &8aXELs?, but they present many features of the &LaTpLf,7. In some,
e. y., 37, the speakers are named or characterized. In other cases
one dissertation presents an argument on one side of a question,
and the succeeding one on the other side, e. (X., 21, 22, where the
active and the contemplative life plead their causes, Prodicus-like,
before a judge. A similar strife-element is found in 36, where
he supposes the men to engage in an argument with the discourse
acting as arbiter, and ends with a series of questions and answers
which form a sort of dialogue. As we shall see, the practice of
philosophers to take the words of a master as a text (cf. Chlristian
Sermons, p. 241), and discourse upon it, has in it the suggestion
of the 8taTpLt/3. Maximus Tyrius, in 33, seems to take part of a
student's essay as his theme. Like Dion, Maximus Tyrius went
from rhetoric to philosophy, but he is a far more open supporter
of the ornate style. In his poetic qualities, his fondness for
quotations from  Homer and the lyric and dramatic poets, his
pure enthusiasm for Xoryos, he reminds one of Himerius. Compare Diss., VI, 1; XXVIII, 2, 3; XXXII, iiit.   Elegant discourse is like the melody of music at a feast (XXVIII, iit.).
Mere delight is not the sole aim of eloquence; knowledge is its
basis; it is formed by philosophical discourse; yet its absence
mars, as the omission of a part in a musical harmony (XXXI, 7).
Philosophy he defines as the accurate science of divine and
human concerns (cf. Chrysippus, p. 226), that which supplies




240


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


virtue, beautiful reasonings, the harmony of life, beautiful pursuits. Homer, the leader of philosophers, used verse. a style
acceptable to all; Plato, prose in a form  equally pleasing
(XXXII, 1 f.). He identifies poetry and philosophy (X, 1).
Like Dion, he makes its aim guidance to right living (VII, 8).
He is a combination of the epideictic orator, the poet, and the
philosopher.
A connection may be readily seen between Christian sermons
and the 7rpo'pc7rrLco:, 8&apt/37r, and other epideictic forms
In the years immediately following tie crucifixion of Christ
his teachings were spread abroad for the most part by uneducated men. But whether untrained, or, like the apostle Paul,
fully equipped with the erudition of the Greeks, the preacher's
work in these early years lay outside the bounds of Greek
rhetoric. Their task was little more than to tell the story of
Christ's life. As Christianity spread among all classes it reached
many who had been educated in the Greek schools of philosophy
andl rhetoric.  Almost without exception, beginning with the
second century, men of any prominence in the church had their
training in these schools. The following are among the more
noted of those who had special rhetorical training in early life:
Augustine, John Chrysostomus, Eusebius, Theodoretus, Jerome,
Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, Ambrose, Sulpitius, Severus, Gregory
Nazienzenus, Apion, Cyprian, Ennodius, Paulinus, Joannes
Damascenus, George Thaumaturgus, Dionysius of Alexandria,
Sidonius, Pardus of Corinth, Tatian, Justin Martyr, Athenagorus,
Arnobius, Anabolius, Clement.
In the meantime great changes were taking place in the
form of preaching. Permanent churches were organized. Something more than the simple narration and exposition of the
earlier years was needed. More extended teaching and exhortation were added. Preaching became self-conscious. Such developments are seldom independent of the past.  Inevitably the
Christian sermonizers acquainted, as all the more prominent
among them were, with Greek rhetoric, and many of them actively
engaged in it before their conversion. would shape their discourse




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


241


in form and method by the analogy of pre-existing models, and
these were Greek.   "The sermon could not have passed so
quickly from simplicity to artificiality without Hellenic learning"
(Harnack).
Doubtless most, if not all, of the highly differentiated rhetorical forms had their influence upon Christian compositions, but
some far more than others.  The sermon assumed, almost at the
very beginning, the epideictic character which is still so marked
a feature of it. Compare Hatch, Hibbert Lectures (1888), p. 114.
The Christian sermon was a special manifestation of the moralizing tendency which was not confined to Christian times or any
nationality. It characterized, to some extent, every period of
Greek literature. It is seen in Homer, Hesiod, and Pindar, and
at the same time in the extensive body of fable literature (cf.
p. 235, n.). After Socrates turned the direction of philosophy
from an investigation of the physical universe to that of man
and morals, philosophy became the natural form for this tendency to take.   It was developed along the line of popular
sermonizing until, as Wilamowitz aptly says, we have in Teles
and his class the direct forerunners of the Christian preacher.1
Another direct antecedent of the sermon is the allegorical treatment of myths (cf. p. 235, n. 1) and authors.    This began
with allegorical interpretation of Homer. It became a literary
habit. After philosophy ceased to be originally productive, the
energy of the philosopher was expended in interpretation of
the words of his master. The Christian preacher adopted this
method.
Many epideictic forms were adopted and made to serve the
purposes of the church. One of the earliest and most conspicuous of the forms transferred from Greek to Christian uses was
the VTpoTperTTtLK   exhortattio. For discussion of this important
type see pp. 229 ff.
The hortatory address was an essential of the Christian service, and was naturally affected by the similar address among
1 Compare Leipziger Studien, X, pp. 200 ff., for a like claim for Diogenes
of Sinope.




242


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


the Greeks.   The earliest of the Christian preachers to carry
the methods of the school into the church, so far as known. was
Origen (born 185 A. D.).   Gregory Thaumaturgus in his farewell address to Origen. chap. 13, says that all the pagan poets
and philosoplers were real in Origen's school, and that he educated his pupils in the Platonic virtues-justice, prudence. temperance, fortitude.  Hortatory addresses were delivered by many
of those most prominent in church history,. g., Ambrose.
Anianus, Chrysostomus, Clement, Cyprian, Ennodius, Eucherius,
Hippolytus, Isidore, Justin Martyr, Origen, Tatian, Tertullian,
etc., and, for more modern times, Melanchthon, Adhorthattio ad
Chl'[ist'(t iae Doctrhii(te )er Pau itlui )1' prodifac Stttldi(ntlm.
Other epideictic forms besides the 7rpoTpe7rTrrico reappear in
Christian guise.  The panegyric address is the most frequent.
coming in the form  of a   ao-ltXLtos XoyoS, or simple encomium.
Compare Socrates Ecclesiasticus, Ch. Hist., VII, 22, a 3aoiitK'o(
Xdyo9 on Theodosius; Syncellus, Enicomiurm Satctolr) m1 Dei Ar c1 -a(Jnelotrumn et An gelorltmn Oni illmqlie Coelestitl  Potes(tCl)il;
Ennodius, PanegIlyric to Theoldoric; Sozomenus' introd. to Eccl.
Hist. is a /3aotXt/co Xoryo? on Theodosius.  Lives of the saints
may be classed here, e. g., Eusebius' Life of Contst(atine. This
began in true epideictic style with a profession of inadequacy
(chap. i, 2, 10); praise of his ancestors (chap. ix, 13, 18); praise
of children (1. c., 18); his deeds in war and peace (1. c., 19;
chap. iv, 19, (4); his death, his honors, the universal sorrow
(chap. iv, 64-71); he surpassed all others (chap. xv, 74); he is
compared with Cyrus, Alexander, Moses-the standard epideictic
comparisons plus the biblical.  Other lives along similar lines
are too numerous to mention.  The character of the authors and
their number may be judged from the following names: Eusebius.
Athenasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, Sulpitius, Severus. Eulogies were written by almost every church father.  Several have
a 7rept /3aaLtXela, e. y., Justin Martyr, or Anon. 7rept ILovapxtal, or.
as the title more properly should read, 7rept Oeov oLovapXtas;
Synesius; Joannes Argyropolus has a homily, DC Il)pe'rio (ad
Con1istatl  i i ht Palaeolog t 1tm.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


243


The 7rporCfoVETULKO' is practically a variant of the /3aotLtKtc
Xode7o (see pp. 138 if.); cf. such orations by Gregory Thaumaturgus, Theodorus Prodromus (in verse), Theophilus.
Panegyric addresses delivered at a wravryvpspt were common,
c. g., Eusebius on the dedication of a church or the inaugural
speech of Gregory of Nyssa. Compare, earlier, the oration of
Polemon on the dedication of the temple at Athens, 135 B. C.,
and, in the sixth century, Procopius' panegyrical addresses on
the dedication of buildings.
Perhaps the most complete transference is seen in the funeral
oration. The E7rtdTcitot of Gregory Nazianzenus are the most
brilliant examples. They closely reproduce the TOTroL of the
ancient Greek; cf. Menander's rules, p. 148. In the funeral
oration over Caesarius he professes no display; frequently
proclaims his inadequacy to do justice to the subject; refers to
the law of the Old Testament in obedience to which the memory
of the (lead is eulogized; praise of the parents; comparison of
father to Moses; praise of mother; pretended omission of physical charms; story of his life.
The 7rapajtvO9rtlcos (chap. xviii) has the usual T77rot: admonition not to mourn, but to emulate; pictures him in heaven. In
the oration at the funeral of his sister Gorgonia he says (sec. 3):
Praise of her country and family I leave to another more scrupulous than I in adhering to the rules of eulogy, nor will he lack
many fair topics. For my part I will only conform to such rules
so far as to allude to our common parents. Compare a like
reference to the laws of panegyric in the funeral oration over
his father, sec. 5. There are some seventeen other speeches of
like character reported.  Cf. also Joannes Argyropolus (1453
A. D.), a Consolatio ad(l ImperfatolreC Constaltidlnlu I iln nmovte
fratris Joannis Palaeologi; also a monodia, and one by Joannes
Bessarion.
Other forms occur as follows: av7TaKTtcLKKO by Gregory Thaumaturgus on leaving Origen's school, by Gregory Nazianzenus
on leaving Constantinople, by Chrysostomus; 7rapado'a e&yKcztia,
Synesius' encomium  calvitii; compare also speeches in praise




244


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


of martyrdom. Gregory of Cyprus, enrcori, i mn tr is; eyEVEOXtaKco9
Xo7yos, Nicetas Paphlago, O)'rtio in fttivitct) atim S. JM1atri'(t, andl
birth-day poems by Paulinus.  Sidonius has a Propcepllticoul ((l
Libellutm. Ambassador's speeches were delivered by Chrysolorus,
Ennodius,   Georgius Acropolita, Chumnus, and many others.
KX\7rLtKco  Xdo'yo: Eusebius' inaugural address to Constantine
ends with one.  In the scholia to Aphthonius (Walz, Rhet. G(r.,
II, 606) there is an illustration of the 7rapaacEVr) under the title
7rapaacKev7 Xpto'-TavlKr7, rat i &XXi1opt'aLt eavTr  aKdXov0oo. The
homily often took the form of a XaXad, and like it was susceptible
of great variety.  Even the tendency to treat prose under poetic
names is seen among Christian writers, c. g., Eusebius' inaugural
address is called a "thanksgiving hymn," and his Vicenllalia an
EltcooaeTr7ptLcKO iVLvoS (pref. to V. Const.).  Gregory of Nyssa calls
his funeral oration over Meletus a funeral lirge. Joannes Damascenus and others have prose vIVot (cf. p. 174). Augustine's
City of God is sometimes styled a "prose epic."  Compare also the
hymns of the Eastern church in rhythmical prose, from the time
of Anatotolius.  Norden (Antike KIInstIpros(t, II, 556) points out
the 8LarpT/3 in the writings of St. Paul and in Barnabas' letter.
Chrysostomus and other church fathers employ it. The stylistic
letter is a form used very extensively by almost all of the church
fathers.  They fall into much the same oratorical lines as among
the Greeks.  Even the treatises like Augustine's De Ptlietiodt,
De Anliciti, and Apollinaris' De Fide, Tertullian's De Fi((l,
Basil's homilies on "Envy," "Anger," etc., have their Greek
forerunners in similar topics from Aristotle on (see p. 246), e. g.,
Clinias, Vrept O6O-OTTOd S  at Evoa-/3Elas; Hierax, rept l&Kalooavrl;7
Metopus, rept aperOF, etc.
A great variety of themes lay within the province of epideictic
oratory, even in the earliest times. Theory seemed to limit its
sphere to mere praise and blame, but in practice Gorgias already
in its infancy had gone beyond the ordinary confines of these
words.  Isocrates still further broadened its scope and made its
limitation to oratory in a strict sense a mere fiction.   The
Sophists helped in other ways to the same result. Thus themes




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


245


of general import, such as have formed the occasion for literary
activity during the succeeding centuries to the present day, early
became a part of epideictic literature.  Many forms and themes
were then included under the term "oratory " (this comprehensive
use existed still in the time of Menander, see p. 93), which we
with our more minute differentiation regard as fully co-ordinate.
It is in keeping with this that originally all forms of literature,
whether oratory, poetry, history, or philosophy, had oral delivery
in view as the means of reaching the public. While the characteristics of other divisions are clearly discernible in the epideictic branch, the correlative of this is more conspicuously true.
The epideictic division had a very marked and far-reaching
influence both in theme and style upon the general character of
other forms of oratory, and upon literature as a whole. It is no
great exaggeration to say of it in general, what in strict accuracy
may be claimed for it stylistically, that it is the parent of modern
prose literature, aside from distinctively court or assembly
oratory.  Isocrates is a proof along both lines.  His influence
in favor of variety of theme has already been referred to (see
p. 100).  Stylistically it was even greater. He trained, not only
orators, but other literary men and statesmen.  'He founded a
style of Greek literary prose which from about 350 B. C. became
the standard one for general use" (Jebb).      Cicero, whose
influence over modern prose has been most direct, adopted him
as a model, and so Isocrates, the epideictic orator, comes to have
a prevailing influence even over prose style in the present day.
While not consciously dependent upon Isocrates or inspired
by the epideictic spirit of the Greeks, a surprisingly large
proportion of mediaeval and modern literature may be classed
with that department.    It represents to a marked    degree
both the theme and the style. A good idea of the extent and
variety of this literature in modern times may be gained from
Sears' The Occ(sio(al Alddress. On p. 44 and elsewhere he
refers to its natural themes.  For exanmple, the commemoration of great events; addresses on the installation of great
enterprises, the building of new  institutions, on  inaugural,




246


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


memorial, and holiday occasions; expository addresses interpreting the topics of the hour; lectures on literary or social
questions; commencement and after-dinner speeches: eulogies
upon those in public or private life, or over the (lead; and topics
like these.
Equally noticeable with the importance and frequency of
these themes are the number and the character of the orators
who have chosen them. In our own country many of the
greatest men have devoted themselves in whole or in part to
this branch of public speaking.  Among the number no name is
more conspicuous than that of Edward     Everett, by many
regarded as the most perfect orator of the century just ended.
This most Hellenic of modern public speakers, throughout his
long and noteworthy career as an orator, devoted himself almost
wholly to themes which must be classed as epideictic. His
oration on Washington presents one of the most perfect compositions in the history of this most conspicuous form  the eulogy.
Many others, whose chief activities were in court speeches or in
the discussion of state questions, have won even greater distinction
in orations clearly belonging to the epideictic branch. Robert
Winthrop. Rufus Choate, Daniel Webster. Wendell Phillips,
George William Curtis, are notable names.
Plato was the earliest prose example of a literary man in the
modern meaning of the term. His themes came from philosophy,
but his style is epideictic in the best and highest sense. It
is in connection with topics belonging more or less fully to the
domain of philosophy, but treated epideictically, that a line of
indebtedness between modern prose and the ancient epideictic
forms is most easily traced (see p. 22XS). In addlition to the
wrept aaLxia, t, e the  rpoTperrLd7, the 7rapacLvrrL  and other
forms in which the protreptic element early entered il direct
combination with the epileictic, there were other treatises
upon abstract themes   glory, freedom. sorrow. exile, happiness. truth, the soul, riches, justice, holiness. the honorable,
on how to live well. on the fitting, etc., etc.  beginning  with
Antisthenes and Aristotle, and lasting through the history of


---




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


247


Greek philosophy.  These were more or less epideictic according
to the character of the philosopher.  The astonishing number
and variety of these discourses may be seen from     Diogenes
Laertius or from  Susemihl's Greek Literature. We may take
as examples a few of the themes most frequently chosen, followed
by the names of some of the notable philosophers who employed
them: Virtue, 7rept apeTrqs, is a favorite theme.  Among others
it was formally treated  by Aeschines, Aristippus, Aristotle,
Chrysippus, Cleanthes, Demetrius of Byzantium, Diogenes of
Sinope, Dion Chrysostomus, Plato (the MIeoo), Plutarch, Posidonius, Protagoras, Simon, Theophrastus, Xenocrates.  Justice,
rrep t &KatoO-VV7S, was treated by Antisthenes, Aristotle, Chrysippus. Demetrius Phalereus, Epicurus, Heraclides, Plato (the
Rep)tiblic), Simon, Speusippus, Sphaerus, Strato, Xenocrates;
pleasure, wrepl  8orSo, by Antisthenes, Aristotle, Chrysippus,
Cleanthes, Dionysius the Deserter, Heraclides, Sphaerus, Speusippus, Strato. Theophrastus, Xenocrates friendship, reprt txt'asl,
by Aristotle, Chrysippus. Cleanthes, Plato (the Lysis), Plutarch,
Simias, Sphaerus, Speusippus, Theophrastus, Xenocrates; the
soul. 7Trepl *vXJ, by Aristotle, Heraclides, Numenius, Plato (the
Phlte(lo), Posidonius, Pythagoras, Simias, Speusippus. Tertullian,
Xenocrates; riches, 7rep r 7rXoTOV, by Aeschines, Aristotle, Dionysius the Deserter, Diogenes of Sinope, Dion Chrysostomus,
Libanius, Sphaerus, Speusippus, Theophrastus, Xenocrates;
piety, TrEp  OLdOTrT7OS, Antisthenes  (ao-e/eia), Apollinaris of
Hierapolis (eae/3ei'a), Epicurus, Eusebius, Heraclides, Persaeus (&,e/Sela), Peter of Alexandria, Philodemus (eScre/Iela),
Pythagoras, Theophrastus. Xenocrates; love, 7rep   epwocos, by
Aristo of Chios, Cleanthes. Demetrius Phalereus, Diogenes
of Sinope, Epicurus, Persaeus, Simias, Simon, Sphaerus, Theophrastus.
The topics as well as the thoughts of the Greek writers were
reproduced in Cicero, "the great translator of Greek culture,"
and through him   chiefly to modern times.   At the Revival of
Learning his influence was the most immediate and powerful in
determining the topics and forms of literature.  To the study of




248            STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY
Cicero, as the continuer of Greek culture, we are most directly
indebted for these and kindred themes, where pure love of literature enters as a chief motive. These, together with those epideictic in its stricter sense, form the antecedents of modern prose
literature.  This comprehensive indebtedness of later centuries
to the epideictic branch of Greek literature helps to establish for
it a most honorable history.


I,




EPIDEICTIC WRITERS.1


AchillesTatius. Fifthcentury(?)A.D.
Rhetorician. The Loves of Leucippe and Clitophon.
Adrianus. 150 A. D. Rhetorician.
Funeral Oration over Herodes
Atticus.
Agapetus. 525 A. D. Ecclesiastic.
A 7repti ao-Xeias to Justinian.
Alcidamas. 430 B. C. Rhetorician.
Thoroughly epideictic. Eulogy on
Death; Ao-yos Meo-o-avlaK6s; several
encomia.
Alciphron.  170 (?) A. D. Epistolographer. His letters are character sketches in rhetorical style.
Alexander the Monk. Before 1120
A. D. Ecclesiastic. Panegyric on
Saint Barnabas.
Ambrosias. 380 A. D. Ecclesiastic.
Funeral Oration over Valentinian,
and one over Theodosius.
Anaximenes. 330 B. C. Rhetorical
historian and orator. Famous for
extemporaneous speeches. Bao-Xtwv
/lTa\XXayal.
Antisthenes. 370 B.C. Philosopher.
Wrote   rhetorical declamations;
IIepti faatXeas.
Apion.   30 A. D.    Grammarian.
Encomium on Alexander the
Great; orations for display.


Aristaenetus. 350 A.D. Rhetorician.
Probable author of an Encomium
on Panarita; love letters (?).
Aelius Aristides.  Second century
A.D. Orator. Thoroughly epideictic. Prose hymns; Bao-XiKoS X6oyos;
and other forms of epideictic composition.
Aristides of Miletus. First century(?)
B. C. Author of a romance - Milesiaca.
Aristippus. 400 B. C. Philosopher.
HpoTpeTTrrIKos X6yoS.
Aristo of Chios. 200 B. C. Philosopher. IporpeT7rrtKs 6Xo'yos.
Aristotle.  350 B. C. Philosopher.
HpoTperTTrTKb  X\dyos; Hepl Iao-AXetas;
encomia.
Basilius of Caesarea. 370 A. D.
Ecclesiastic. Panegyrical orations.
Callinicus. 260 A. D. Rhetorician.
BatXiKOis Xdoyos; Eulogy on Rome;
Encomium on Cleopatra.
Callisthenes.  330 B. C. Historian
and philosopher. Noted for rhetorical qualities. Encomium on
the Macedonians; also a derogatory speech on the same topic
(Plut., Alex. 53).
Callistratus. Third century A. D.
Rhetorician. 'EKqcpdaci s.


1 Tlis list of epideicticwriters does not claim to be exhaustive. The names are selected
from those met here and there in my reading in connection with this theme, and the result
is intended to be suggestive rather than comprehensive. Some writers are included here on
account of some single epideictic composition, although their writings as a whole are far
removed from this class; and, on the other hand, in the case of those who devoted themselves exclusively to this branch of literature, only one or two of their works have been
named. Many additional names might be obtained from such sources as Susemihl, Griechische Litt., and Krumbacher, Geschlichte der byzantinischen Litteratur. There is also a
large class of epideictic performers mentioned in the inscriptions (e. g., in the records
of the aywlvCOs ova-iKoi) which I omit in toto. See Inscrip. Graec. Sept. (Dittenberger), 418,
419, and elsewhere. Cf. also Pauly-Wissowa. s. v. agones.
249




250


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Carneades. 150 B. C. Philosopher
and orator. Speeches marked by
epideictic qualities.
Caucalus.  Fourth century B. C.
Rhetorician. Eulogy on Heracles.
Cephalus. 400 B. C. Orator. Encomium on Lais.
Chamaeleon. Fourth century B. C.
Philosopher. IIporpeT7rtKS Xo'yos.
Chariton.  Fourth century A. D.
Author of a romance-Chaereas
and Callirrhoe.
Choricius of Gaza. 520 A. D. Rhetorician  and  sophist.  Funeral
orations; panegyrics; and other
forms of epideictic composition.
Chrysippus of Cappadocia.    Fifth
century A. D. Ecclesiastic. Encomium Theodori Martyris.
- Chrysolorus of Thessalonica. 1300
A. D. Ecclesiastic. Encomium in
S. Demetrium Martyrem.
Chrysostomus, John. 400 A. D.
Ecclesiastic. Laudation of Theodosius and other panegyrical orations; occasional addresses.
Chumnus [Nicephorus]. End of the
thirteenth century A. D. Ecclesiastic. Symbeuluticus de Justitia
ad Thessalonicenses, et Urbis Encomium; funeral orations; panegyrics.
Cleanthes. 270 B. C. Philosopher.
IIepi 33acrt\eas; IIporperTTtK6 Xdoyos;
AtiarpLfai.
Clearchus of Soli. Fourth century
B. C. Philosopher. Encomium on
Plato; Erotica.
Clement. End of first century A. D.
Ecclesiastic. Aoyot 7rpOTperTTKoL.
Damascius. Fifth century A.D. Ecclesiastic. Funeral Oration over
Aedesia.
Demetrius   Phalerius.  300 B. C.
Orator, philosopher.  IlporpewrrKS
Xdyos; speeches as ambassador and
on other public occasions.


Demosthenes.   350 B. C.   Orator.
'ErtrdLbtos; 'EpwrLK'K (?).
Diogenes (Antonius). First century?
A. D. Author of a romance-ra
VT7rp 0ovXvv 4rtara.
Dion Chrysostomus. End of first
century A. D. Orator. Iepti oaa-cXeias; and otLer epideictic speeches
in great variet'.
Diophantus.   360 A. D. Sophist.
Funeral Oration over Proaeresius.
Ephraimius. 550 A.D. Ecclesiastic.
Panegyrical addresses.
Epicurus. 300 B. C. Philosopher.
HIepl 3aoXeilas; Hporpe7rrTTKs \doos.
Epiphanius of Petra.    365 A. D.
Sophist and rhetorician.   Ado'ot
cT7rtLeKTLKo; MehXraL.
Eunapius. 400 A. D. Sophist and
historian. Lives of the Sophists.
Euphantus. Fourth century B. C.
Philosopher. Iepi /3atLXeias.
Eusebius. 300 A. D.   Ecclesiastic.
HIIavrvpLKds addressed to Paulinus
of Tyre; one to Constantine.
Eustathius Macrembolita.    Ninth
century (?) A. D.  Erotic writer,
Hysminias and Hysmine.
Evodianus.   Second century A. D.
Sophist. Especially distinguished
as a panegyrical orator.
Favorinus. 130 A. D. Philosopher.
A Roman who wrote in Greek,
rival of Polemon, style epideictic.
Encomium of Thersites; Praise of
Quartan Fever; Iepi /y-pw~s.
Galen. 160 A. D. Physician. IlpoTpeTrTKos Xo'yo eirl ras rTXvas.
Genethlius. 270 A. D. Rhetorician.
Declamations and panegyrics.
Georgius (Gregorius) of Cyprus.
Thirteenth century A. D. Ecclesiastic. 'EYKWULOV to s Tri  p OcXaT7rav;
Encomium on St. George of Cappadocia, and other panegyrics.
Georgius of Laodicea. 325 A.D. Ecclesiastic. Encomium on Eusebius.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


251


Georgius Pisida. 600 A. D. Ecclesiastic.  Encomium   in  Sanctum
Anastasium Martyrum (prose);
also several poetic encomia.
Gorgias.   427 B. C.      Sophist.
Thoroughly   epideictic.  'EirTaiotos; Olympiacus; Encomium on
Helen (?).
Gorgias of Athens. 50 B. C. Rhetorician. Declamations.
Gregorius Nazianzenus. 370 A. D.
Ecclesiastic. Panegyric on Caesarius; several funeral orations;
occasional addresses.
Gregorius  Nyssenus.   370 A. D.
Ecclesiastic.  Funeral  orations
over Meletius and others; panegyrical orations.
Gregorius Thaumaturgus. 250 A. D.
Ecclesiastic. Panegyric on Origen.
Gryllus.  360 B. C.  Soldier.  Encomium on Isocrates. Was himself
the subject of many panegyrics.
Hegesias.  250 B. C.   Historian.
Epideictic orations (cf. Susemihl,
Gk. Lit., II. 465).
Heliodorus. 390 A. D. Ecclesiastic.
A romance - Aethiopica.
Heraclides of Lycia. Second century A. D. Rhetorician. 'ETyK6LAov
70 VOV.
Hermesianax.   Before 170 B. C.
Epideictic  orator.  Encomium
Athenae (cf. Susemihl, Gk. Lit.,
II, 469; Blass, Beredsamkeit Alex.
bis auf August., p. 36).
Herodes Atticus. 140 A. D. Philosopher  and orator.   Funeral
oration over Secundus of Athens;
Ala\Xets; extemporaneous speeches.
Himerius. 350 A. D. Orator. Thoroughly epideictic. Epithalamium
ad Severum (prose); AaXai; Movy61a; IIpo7reTTrTKOl, etc.
Hippias of Elis. 400 B. C. Sophist.
Wrote show speeches, especially
on antiquarian and mythological


themes; Olympiaci (Philost., V.
Soph., I, 11; Lucian, Herod,
chap. 3).
Hippolytus. Third century A. D.
Ecclesiastic. IIporpe7rTLK6S 7rpos efP5 -peivav.
Hyperides. 350 B. C. Orator. 'ETrIamblichus of Chalcis. 300 A. D.
Philosopher. IIpo0pe7rTrtKd Xoyos els
(fXo'ooilav.
Iamblichus (Syrian). Second century A. D. Rhetorician. Ba3uvXovtKc-a love story.
Ion.  450 B. C.   Poet and prose
writer.  HIpeO-fev-KdsO (authorship
questioned). His 'Trouvraara contained praise of great men, e. g.,
Cimon (Plut., Life of Cimon, V, 9,
16).
Isocrates.  400 B. C. Orator and
rhetorician.  Thoroughly epideictic.  Encomium   on  Helen; on
Busiris;  Panathenaicus;   Euagoras; Panegyricus.
Isocrates of Apollonia. 330 B. C.
Orator. Funeral oration in honor
of Maussollus.
Joannes Argyropulus.   1450 A. D.
Teacher. Consolatio ad Imperatorum   Constantinum   in  morte
fratris Joannis Palaeologi; Monodia  in   obitum   Imperatoris
Joannis Palaeologi; Homilia de
Imperio (Trepl Paa-Xetas).
Joannes Bessarion. 1430 A. D. Ecclesiastic.  Monodia in  obitum
Manuelis Palaeologi Imperatoris.
Joannes Damascenus. 700 A. D. Ecclesiastic.  Panegyrical orations;
prose hymns.
Joannes Laurentius. Sixth century
A. D. Official under Zoticus. Panegyric on Justinian; Poetic Encomium on Zoticus.
Julian.  360 A. D.   Emperor and
author.   Hepi paaLtXeas; BaatXAKol




STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Xo'yo; Encomium    ad Eusebiam;
prose hymns.
Justin Martyr. 140 A. D. Ecclesiastic and philosopher. Aoyos rapatveTiKos (authorship disputed): Hepi
jiovapXtas (authorship disputed).
Lachares.    Fifth  century  A. D.
Rhetorician. AtaXetLs.
Lamachus    Myrrhinaeus.    Fourth
century B. C. Historiacn. Panegyric on Philip   and Alexander
(Plut., V. Demosth., chap. 9).
Lesbonax.    First  century  A. D.
Philosopher and    sophist.  IpoTpe7rrTKOs Xo'yos; MeVXerT  propiKaC;O
'EpwtcKai e7rtliooXa.
Libanius.  350 A. D.   Sophist and
rhetorician. Thoroughly epideictic.  'E^yKucta; MeXeraL; Movcpia;
HIpoyvcuvaLda' rTwpv 7rapaoeiyMcyara.
Longus.   Third   century (?) A. D.
Sophist.  Daphnis and Chloea romance.
Lucian.   Second   century   A. D.
Satirist and essay writer.     Encomium on Demosthenes. Harpisos
e'yKJ5utov, 'EyKCu0tov  vfvias, IIpoXaXiai.
Lysias. 415 B. C. Orator. '0Xvt7riaKoS; 'E7nTridtios (doubtful authenticity); 'EpwrtLKoi; many regard the
'Epw7rtKos Xo'yos in Plato's Phaedrus,
230 E-234 C, as genuine.
Manuel II. Palaeologus. 14C0 A. D
Emperor. A ~repi 3paotXelas to his
son.
Matris of Thebes.     Date?   Rhetorician. Encomium on Heracles
(Athen., X, 412, b).
Matthaeus Camariota. 1440 A. D.
Ecclesiastic. Encomium in tres
Hierarchas, Basilium, Gregorium,
et Chrysostomum.
Menander. 275 A. D. Rhetorician.
Prose hymn to Apollo.
Michael   Apostolius.  1430 A. D.
Teacher.  Panegyric on Frederic
III.; Funeral Oration over Bes

sarion; Oratio ad Joannem Argyropulum.
Michael Monachus. 8S0 A. D. Ecclesiastic. EncomiumiL Ignatii Patriarchae; and other encomia.
Minucianus. 260 A. D. Rhetorician.
Hpoyv/Lcvda'/Laa; Ao/yoL 8atadopot.
Monimus.    Fourth century B. C.
Philosopher.  HporperrTLKOd  Xaoyos
(Susemihl, Gk. Lit., I, 31).
Naucrates.  350 B. C. Rhetorician.
Funeral Oration over Maussollus:
other funeral orations.
Neanthes.   240 B. C.   Historian.
Panegyrical orations; biographies.
Nicagoras. 240 A. D. Sophist. THpe —
3EUVTKOS XOdos.
Nicephoras Philosophus. 900 A. D.
Oratio panegyrica Antonii Caulei.
Nicetas Paphlago. 880 A. D. Ecclesiastic. Encomia and biographies.
Nicetas Rhetor. 880 A. D. Perhaps
the same as the above. Encomium
in  Magnum    Nicholaum   Myrobleptem et Thaumaturgum; Diatriba  in  gloriosum  Martyrem
Pantieleemonem.
Nicolaus Damascenus. Close of first
century B. C. Historian.   Eulogistic biography of Augustus.
Nicolaus Sophista.  Fifth century
A. D. Sophist, rhetorician. MAeXCrat pT7rptLKai; IIpoyvivdupa'cLara.
Nicolaus of Myrae. Fifth century
A. D. Sophist. MeX&at.
Nicostratus of Macedonia. 160 A. D.
Rhetorician.  Encomium   on  M.
Antoninus; EiKdOES; other encomia.
Numenius.   120 A. D. Rhetoric ial.
IapauvOU7TiK6s5 X6oyos addressed to
Hadrian on the death of Antinous.
Ocellus Lucanus. 400 B. C. (?) Philosopher. Ilepi fao'iXeas Kal OOaOT'TOSY.
Onesicritus. 350 B. C. Historian.
Encomium   on  Alexnder (Diog.
Laert., VI, 84).




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE  ~5


253


Oribasius. 360 A. D. Medlical wvriter.
Hept' /aot-eias.
Origen. 230 A. D. Ecclesiastic. Et's,iap7tVPIOs rpO'rp67rtrKOT O-YOS.
Orion  of Alexandria.     120 A. D.
Gramomaria n. Panegyric on Hadiian.
Palarnas. Fourteenth century A. D.
Ecclesiastic. S. Petri Athonitae
En comiurn.
Palladius of Methone.      320 A. D.
Sophist. AtaXf'~ets; A6-yot Mi6Oopot -
6'Xv~wurtas, 7ra VJyujpLKm', &LKa1JLK63.
Parthenius. 30 B1. C.() Poet. HlEpt
ePWTtKWJV 7ra0?7Ad'Twv (prose); 'Api'7r?7
CEYK4')LOV (perhaps poetic); Hpore~wri-t
KOS (perhaps poetic).
Paulus or Tyre. 120 A. D. Sophist.
MeXI-raL; Hpo-yvg~'6.ogara.
Pepagrorenus [Nicolaus]. 1310 A. D.
Ecclesiastic. Eulogy on the martyr Isidorus.
Pericles.   440  B. C.    Statesman.
'EWLtcid'(ot.
Persaeus Cittieus. 260 B. C. Philosopher. Hept' fao-Aetc's  lpor-peirT-t
KOL; Atcarpt/3cd; XpIE~at.
Philiscus  of   Miletus.   390 B. C.
Orator. Encomiastic Life of Lycurgus, the orator.
Philostorgius. 400 A. D. Ecclesiastic. Encomniumn on Eunornius.
Philostratus.   240 A. D.    Sophist.
EIK6O'IEs; llpwLncci; biography.
Philostratus the Lemnnian.      Third
century A. D. Rhetorician. EI'K6 -ves;  Hava~qvaLKO'S  Xo'yos;  TPWLK6's
\6'yos; MeXgrat.
Plato. 390 B. C. Phil6sopher. Menexenus, a funeral oration; many
epideictic passages elsewhere.
Plutarch. First century A. D. Biograp her.  Biography; essays; his
7rept 7~ 'AXe~cdv~pov r6'X-qs is a eulogy.
PoleMOn. 130 A. D. Sophist. A6-yot
97rvLrd64toL; Oration at the dedication
of the temple of Zeus at Athens,


133 A. D.; other epideictic speeches
(cf. Menandler, Sp. III, 386, 31).
Pollux.   183- A. D.   Sophist and
grammarian. tAmXf'es ~-rot XaXtat';
MeVirat; 'ErtOaXd'gtos Xi7os; a panegyric on Rome.
Polus. Fourth century B. C. Sophist.
Display speeches (Lucian, He-od,
chap. 3).
Polycrates. 400 B. C. Sophist and
rhetorician.   Hapd~o~a   f"YKrcga;
'E-yKALOP Opcau/o-voXov; and other
encomia.
Poseidonius.   First century B. C.
Philosopher. Hpo7-prrt-Kd'.
Potamon of Mytilenie. First century
A. D. Rhetorician. Bpov'Tov i-YKc'/-no P.
Proaeresius. 310 A. D. Teacher of
rhetoric. Eulogy on Rome.
Procopius. 540 A. D. Historian.
K~r io7- /Aar- a panegyric on buildings erected during the reign of
Justinian.
Prodicus.    Fif th  century  B. C.
Sophist.   Orations  for   display
(Lucian, Herod, chap. 3); Themistius (XXX, 349) implies a panegyric on agriculture; 'f2pat (Xen.,
31cm., 1I, 1, 21).
Protagoras.   Fifth  century B. C.
Sophist.   Speeches   for display.
Diogenes Laertius (IX, 8, 3) refers
to epideictic characteristics.
Psellus   (Michael    Constantinus).
Eleventh century A. D. Teacher.
IHpEo/3evrtLKO Xyo'OS~; Movq&la; Encorniurn in Metaphrastem Dominum Symeonem.
Secundus of Athens.      120 A. D.
Sophist. MeVerat,q-roptKal.
Serapion of Alexandria. 120 A. D.
Sophist. HaP-q-YVPLK6S E 17'Map~a'C~.
TcI~ )3o-AXe?; BoUXEVT-LK6S 'AXE~aVppe~oLVp.
Severus Rhetor. 470 A. D. Rhetorician. '1100710dm; AtfrygmaTt (Walz,
Rhet. Gr., I, 537, 539).




254


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Speusippus. 360 B.C. Philosopher.
Panegyric on Plato.
Sphaerus.   250 B. C. Philosopher.
Ilepi acLT\Xcias; ALaTpLJ3at.
Strato.   290 B. C.    Philosopher.
IIepl Iaao'XEas.
Syncellus   (Michael).  820 A. D.
Ecclesiastic.  Encomia   Dionysii
Areopagitae, and other encomia;
IIept f3aac\Xas.
Synesius. 410 A. D. Ecclesiastic.
Ilepl paarLelas;  panegyrical orations; Encomium on Baldness.
Themistius.    340 A. D.    Orator.
Many panegyrical orations; Hpea —
e3vr7Koi; etc.
Theodectes. 350 B. C. Rhetorician.
Funeral Oration over Maussollus.
Theodectes, son of the preceding.
320 B. C. Rhetorician. Encomium
on Alexander the Epriot.
Theodorus of Cynopolis. Date uncertain.   Rhetorician.  'HOo7rotda
(Walz, Rhet. Gr., I. 540).
Theodorus Hyrtacenus. 1320 A. D.
Teacher. Panegyrics; funeral orations; prose hymns.
Theodorus Studita. 790 A. D. Ecclesiastic. 'Ertraqstos; 'ETYKJItLa.
Theon   (Aelius).  Date  uncertain.
Rhetorician. IIpo-yvuLvd'aruara.


Theophilus of Alexandria. 400 A. D.
Ecclesiastic. IIpoc0 wvrjTK6s.
Theophrastus. 330 B. C. Philosopher. IlporpeTrLtKos; HIepl f3aaiXelas.
Theophylactus. 1050 A. D. Archbishop of Bulgaria. IIepli 3aareias to
Constantinus  Porphyrogennetus;
Panegyric on Comneius.
Theopompus. 350 B. C. Historian
and orator. Encomium on Philip
and Alexander; panegyrical orations; Funeral Oration over Maussollus.
Thomas Magister. 1300 A. D. Rhetoriciatn. Encomiastic and occasional addresses: Iepi f3aai\o-Xas;
HpeoCfeVTtKOS X6yos.
Thrasymachus. 400 B. C. Sophist.
IIa~iyvta; 'AAopcai pfvropKali; HvIOK6S;
'OX\vrLaK6s; 'E7rtrda0tos.
Xenocrates of Chalcedon. 350 B. C.
Philosopher. 'Errrd0tos over Arsinoe; [Iapaiv'eos.
Xenophon. 390 B. C. Historian.
Agesilaus- a panegyrical work.
Xenophon of Ephesus. Second century A. D. Writer of romanceEphesiaca.
Zoilus.  Date   uncertain.  Grammarian. TeveSiwv eyK(JLLtov; Encomium on Polyphemus.




INDEX.


Academy, The, 215 ff.
Achilles Tatius, 180, 185, 249.
Acusilaus, 175.
Adrianus, 249.
Aeschines, 215, 247.
Aeschylus, 172, 230 n.
Aesop's Fables, 235.
Agapetus, 247.
Agatharchides, 220.
Alcaeus, 175.
Alcidamas, 103, 157, 159, 165, 215, 249.
Alciphron, 249.
Alcman, 175.
Alexander the Great, 128.
Alexander the Monk, 247.
Alexander, son of Numenius, 107.
Ambrose, 240, 242.
Ambrosius, 247.
Anabolius, 240.
Anacreon, 175.
Anatolius, 244.
daaTpoc(6, 122.
Anaxagoras, 228.
Anaximenes, 121, 210, 226, 233, 247;
conception of epideictic literature,
95, 104, 107; authenticity of his
rhetoric, 104 n. 1, 119 n. 1.
Andocides, 230 n.
Anianus, 242.
Anthologia Palatina, 201; the epideictic element in, 93; origin of the
title, 93 n.
Antisthenes, his 7repti 3ao-Llas, 136,
165, 225, 229, 246, 247, 249; rpoTpeTrTKoS, 233, 234, 241; S&arpri, 235.
Antithesis, 157, 208.
Aphthonius, 115, 119, 129, 200, 244; on
the rb6rot of the encomium, 120.
Apion, 240, 249.
Apollinaris, 244, 247.
Apollonius of Tyana, 187.


Appian, 228; speeches in, 208, 213.
Apuleius, 162, 178.
Arcesilaus, 216.
Archinus, 148.
Aristaenetus, 249.
Aristides, 94 n. 5, 98 n. 1, 103, 130,157,
181, 182, 191, 193, 217; his fao-LXLK6
X6yos, 132; 7poo0nWVTLK6s, 138; yeve0XtaK6s, 143, 144; hymn to Zeus, 176,
177; hymn to Serapis, 191 f.; on
poetry and prose,191f.; e7rta-rdos, 148.
Aristides of Meletus, 249.
Aristippus, 234, 247, 249.
Aristo of Ceos, 220, 234, 236.
Aristo of Chios, 221, 234, 247, 249.
Aristophanes, 162, 163, 235.
Aristotle, 97, 98 n. 1, 107, 110, 119 n. 1,
124, 156, 157, 226, 229, 230 n., 234,
244, 246. 247, 249; conception of
epideictic literature, 91, 92, 104,105;
quotes from epideictic authors, 105
n. 4; epideictic r67rot, 105 n. 4, 106;
7repl 3aaotXetas, 129.
Arnobius, 240.
Arrian, speeches in, 207, 212, 214.
Athenagoras, 240.
Athenasius, 240.
Athenodorus, 222.
Athens, praise of, 154; the olive, 154,
211; favorite adjectives for, 155.
Augustine, 240, 244.
Ausonius, 186.
avTr6Xoves, 153.
Bacchylides, 175.
Basil, 240, 244, 249.
ai\KLKbos X6yos, 90, 110, 112, 123, 138,
145, 228; discussion of, 113-42; its
r76ro7, 131; in modern times, 139 -42; Julian's hymn to the Sun as a
B. x., 178; eK0pacat in, 201; and the
Christian sermon, 242.
255




256


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Biography, distinguished from the
encomium, 117.
Bion, 186, 235; and the LaTptpL, 236 ff.
Cadmus, 166.
Callimachus, 172, 176, 178, 186.
Callinicus, 249.
Callisthenes, 219, 249.
Callistratus, 201, 249.
Carneades, 215, 217, 250.
Caucalus, 250.
Cephalus, 250.
Chamaeleon, 234, 250.
Chariton, 250.
Charmides, 217.
Choate, R., 246.
Choricius, 97, 103, 172, 201; his epithalamium, 179; prose poems, 180,
181, 186, 187,188, 250.
Christian sermons and epideictic
literature, 240.
Chrysippus, 226, 234, 247, 250.
Chrysolorus, 244, 250.
Chrysostomus, John, 240. 242,244, 250.
Chumnus, 244, 250.
Cicero, 204, 211, 225, 245,247, 248; conception of epideictic literature, 92;
on history, 195 n. 1, 202; on philosophy, 215 ff.
Claudius Mamertinus, 145.
Cleanthes, 229, 247, 250.
Clearchus of Soli, 219, 250.
Clement, 240, 242, 250.
Clinias, 244.
Clitomachus, 217.
Corax, 199.
Crates, 216.
Critolaus, 220, 225.
Curtis, G. W., 246.
Cynics, The, 225 f.
Cyprian, 240, 242.
Damascius, 250.
6tarptfi3, 225, 234 ff., 240, 244.
Demosthenes, 175, 227, 230 n., 250;
7rLrdiatos, 148.
Demetrius of Byzantium, 247.
Demetrius Phalereus, 187, 219, 234,
235, 247, 250.


Democritus, 215.
Dinarchus, 230.
Dio Cassius, speeches in, 207, 212,
213.
Diodorus Siculus, speeches in. 205,
212, 213.
Diogenes (Antonius), 250.
Diogenes Laertius, 236, 247.
Diogenes of Sinope, 247.
Diogenes the Stoic, 221.
Dion. 148.
Dion Chrysostomus, 97, 103, 170, 182,
230 n., 239, 240, 247, 250;   7rept
faao(eias, 136, 137; 7rpoO-pwvr-LtK6s,
138, 139; 7rapdsota C'yKtcoLa, 165; the
'OXvurtaKOs a hymn, 178; the 6taTpt3r}, 237.
Dionvsius of Alexandria, 240.
Dionysius the Deserter, 247.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 121, 144,
169, 172, 179, 180, 183, 195 n. 1. 201,
204. 208, 227, 231, 233; genuineness
of his rhetoric, 106 n. 4; treatment
of epideictic forms, 112, 113; /3ao\LKOS X6yos, 127, 128, 129 n. 1; rpopwVjrtKOS X6yoS, 138; yeveOfXaKos Xo7os,
142, 143; poetry and prose, 192 f.;
speeches in his history, 204, 206,
213; moralizing element in, 206 and
n. 2; lrporpeTT7TLKs O\X-TraLs and the
general's speech, 209 f.;  rL7rdcLaoC,
148 f.
Diophantus, 250.
Doxopater, 122. 123, 124, 158: triple
division of oratory explained, 92;
Ke~diXata or -r7rot, 120.
Empedocles, 175, 214 n. 2.
Encomium, 90; of a country, 110, 171,
173; of a city, 110, 171; of a harbor,
110; of a bay, 110; of an acropolis,
110; definition of, 113 and n. 3; its
scope, 114; first in poetry, 114, 115;
distinguished from c'ratvos, 114; of
a person the most prominent, 114,
170; of mythical characters, 115;
distinguished from history, 116;
from   biography, 117;   not   an




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


257


apology, 118; its rhetorical treatment, 118; in the 7rpoyvuvcivao-ara,
118; may be found in other forms,
119; Tr76ot of, 120-26; freedom in,
121; of one in authority, 127; its
relation to poetry, 170.
Ennodius, 240, 242, 244.
'ralvos, 148 f., 150, 155.
Ephorus, speeches in, 204, 210.
Ephraimius, 250.
fertf3ar7ptos X6yos, 110, 172; e'K(paa't in,
201.
Epictetus, 222, 237.
Epicureans, The, 222 ff.
Epicurus, 98 n. 1, 222, 229. 234, 247,
250.
e7rLtdeKvvUL and its derivatives in Isocrates, 97-100; in Plato, 99 n. 2.
Epideictic literature, definition, 91 ff.;
epideictic applied to poetry, 93;
characteristics of, 93-7; perversion
of the truth in, 94 n. 5; relation to
symbouleutic and court oratory,
96; themes of, 96; divisions of, 96,
97; history of, 102, 103; early
abundance, 103 n. 1; rhetorical
treatment of, 104; earliest grouping of r67rot, 105 n. 4; as treated by
Menander, 109-13; the encomium
as a part, 113 ff.; 3a'tXtKos X6oyos, 113 -42; yeveOXtaK6S X67os, 142-6; CrCTraLos, 146-57; 7rapdso&a f/YKuca, 154 -66; and poetry, 166-95; may use
terms appropriate to poetry, 181 ff.;
uses poetic r67rot, 184 if.; the rose,
185; spring, 187; cicada, 190; swan,
190; in epistolography, 186 f.; early
relation between poetry and prose,
191 ff.; and history, 195-214; and
philosophy, 214-48; in modern
times, 244-8.
e7rOac\a/Lov, 111, 112, 169, 174, 193, 201,
179, 180.
7riXoyo, 126.
Epiphanius, 178, 250.
ertrd-LoS, 90, 111, 112, 117, 120, 121,
170, 208, 231, 243; discussed, 146-57;


extant 7rLraCitot, 147, 148; divisions
of, 148, 149; roTOt, 150 ff.
ert71rTqEV/xaTa, 122, 123.
Erasmus, 162.
Eratosthenes, 191.
Eucherius, 242.
Eunapius, 250.
Euphantus, 250.
Euripides, 171, 172, 173, 230 n.
Eusebius, 240, 242, 244, 247, 250.
Eustathius, 250.
Everett, E., 246.
Evodianus, 250.
Favorinus, 162, 165, 250.
Fronto, 165.
Galen, 250.
7a/.uKbO Xo7yo (7a/nXtos), 112, 179.
General's speech, 209-14.
yevveos, 122.
yeve6X\aKOs X\6yo, 90, 111, 142-6, 244.
Genethlius, 250.
7y0vos, 122.
Georgius Acropolita, 244.
Georgius Chereboscus, 200.
Georgius (Gregorius) of Cyprus, 244,
250.
Georgius of Laodicea, 250.
Georgius Pisida, 251.
Gorgias, 159, 167, 199, 215, 225, 229,
244, 251; founder of artistic prose,
102; epideictic devices, 102 n. 1;
7rrtciaos, 147.
Gorgias of Athens, 251.
Gregorius   Nazienzenus, 240, 243,
251.
Gregory of Nyssa, 240, 242, 243, 244,
250.
Gregorius Thaumaturgus, 240, 243,
251.
Gryllus, 251.
Hecataeus, 166.
Hegesias, 251.
Heliodorus, 251.
Heraclides, 165, 247, 250.
Heraclides of Pontus, 219.
Hermarchus, 223.
Hermesianax, 251.




258


STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


Hermogenes, 122, 125, 172, 200; conception of epideictic literature, 93;
origin of 7YKc&ALOV, 109, 115 n. 1.
Herodes Atticus, 251.
Herodianus, speeches in, 208, 212, 213.
Herodotus, 175, 195 n. 1, 199, 200,
201; earliest grouping of epideictic
rT7rot, 105 n. 4, 111, 230 n.; epideictic
element in, 198, 211.
Hesiod, 174, 180, 189, 241.
Hierax, 244.
Himerius, 97, 103, 170, 184, 194, 239,
251; 7rpo0LA7riJtK6S, 138, 139; yepeX0\aK6s, 143, 144; oratory and poetry,
169; prose hymns, 178; epithalamium, 179, 180; prose poems, 180,
181, 186, 187; use of terms appropriate only to poetry, 181 f.
Hippias, 103, 215, 251.
Hippolytus, 242, 251.
History, distinguished from encomium, 116; epideictic element in,
195-214; early history, 195; Polybius, 195, 205; Greek conception of,
195 n. 1; rhetorical element introduced, 199; epideictic TroIoL, 199;
7rpoyvLvdaoLaT-a and history, 199 ff.;
'Kqppatls, 200; speeches in, 202 ff.;
the general's speech in, 209-14.
Homer, 143, 162, 172, 173, 182, 185, 200,
211, 224 n. 1, 228, 238, 239, 240, 241;
contains germ of [aoLXtsKbS X6yos, 129.
Horace, 186, 200, 239.
Hymus, 93, 110, 174-9, 194; early
Christian, 178, 179.
Hyperides, 148, 156, 251.
Iamblichus, 229 n. 2, 233, 251.
Iamblichus (Syrian), 251.
Ion, 251.
Isidore, 242.
Isocrates, 97, 98 n. 1, 103, 115, 118,
146, 157, 167, 226, 229, 230, 234, 244,
245, 251; conception of epideictic
literature, 92; may invent in eulogy,
94 n. 5; symbouleutic element in
Panegyricus, 96; as an epideictic
orator, 97 n. 2; his divisions of


oratory, 97, 98; use of TtL6EIKVVU/t,
98; conception of oratory, 100-102;
an innovator in encomium, 115, 116;
Euagoras, 126 n. 4, 130; The Helen
as a 3aa\-LXKOs X6Tyos, 133; irept f3acrLXeas, 136; oratory and poetry,
168, 169, 171; and history, 195, 199,
204; and Ephorus and Theopompus, 199 n. 1; 7ravm-yvpKos and
e7rT'LaLos, 149;  rapdiooa e'yK/cKa,
159, 160.
Isocrates of Apollonia, 251.
Jerome, 240, 242.
Joannes Argyropolus, 242, 243, 251.
Joannes Bessarion, 243, 251.
Joannes Damascenus, 240, 244, 251.
Joannes Laurentius, 251.
Johannes Secundus, 186.
Josephus, 214.
Julian, 124, 135, 174, 182, 183, 251; his
f3ao-tXKbos X6yos, 132; encomium on
Eusebia, 133; hymns, 177.
Justin Martyr, 240, 242, 252.
KarTeuvvaartKs Xoyos, 111.
KX\rtKOS X6YOS, 112, 201, 244.
Lachares, 252.
XaXiLc, 111.
Lamachus Myrrhinaeus, 252.
Lesbonax, 252.
Libanius. 103, 165, 180, 182, 183, 190,
201, 247, 252; his f3aYLXLKis XoYO9, 134,
135; 7rpoo'ia)VTitKbS X6yos, 138; hymn
to Artemis, 178.
Longus, 252.
Lucian, 159, 162, 165, 195 n. 1, 200,
225, 252; uvias eyKJ/ILov quoted, 163.
Lucretius, 223.
Lycophron, 165.
Lyco of Troas, 220.
Lycurgus, 230 n.
Lysias, 229, 230 n., 252; 'Ovku7rtaK6s
96; e7-rid>L0os, 147.
Manuel II. Palaeologus, 252.
Matris of Thebes, 252.
Matthaeus Camariota, 252.
Maximus Tyrius, 238, 239 f.
Megareans, The, 215.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


259


Melanchthon, 242.
Meleager, 185.
Menander, 93, 105, 122, 124, 138, 170,
172, 179, 180, 183, 190, 193, 230, 233,
243, 245, 252; the epideictic in other
forms, 95; treatment of epideictic
forms, 107; authenticity of the Irepi
eTrLeLKTrLKV, 107 n. 1; his treatment
of epideictic oratory, 109-13; r67roL
of IVYKWLtOV, 120, 126; aGaL\XLKs X6yos,
127, 131, 132; yeveO0\XaK6s X6yos, 142,
143; hymns, 174-6, 178; poetry and
prose, 192 ff.; T7rLTd0to, 148 ff.: rapi8oca eyKJLLa, 157.
Menippus, 226.
Metopus, 244.
Metrodorus, 223.
Michael Apostolius, 252.
Michael Monachus, 252.
Minucianus, 252.
Mnesarchus, 221.
Monimus, 226, 234, 252.
opovwia, 112, 170, 201.
Moschus, epideictic    67rot in  the
Lament for Bion, 184.
Musonius Rufus, 237.
Nancrates, 252.
Neanthes, 252.
Nicagoras, 252.
Nicephorus Philosophus, 252.
Nicetas Paphlago, 243, 252.
Nicetas Rhetor, 252.
Nicolaus Damascenus, 252.
Nicolaus Sophista, 94 n. 5, 95, 109,
115 n. 1, 118, 119, 120, 200.
Nicolaus of Myrae, 252.
Nicostratus, 252.
Numenius, 247, 253.
Ocellus, 229, 252.
Onesicritus, 252.
Oribasius, 253.
Origen, 242, 253.
Orion, 253.
Orpheus, 175.
Ovid, 162.
Palamas, 253.
Palladius, 253.


Panaetius, 221.
iravaO7rvaLKOS Xo'yo, 172.
7ravTlyvpLKbs X6yos, 105, 112, 172, 243.
wapisoaa  e yKwyLa, 110, 243; Isocrates
on, 113; discussed, 157-66.
rapaLveTLKbs X6yos, 113, 206 n. 2, 229
and n. 2.
7rapauv077rLKbs X6yos, 111, 112, 148, 149,
156, 231, 243, 246.
Pardus, 240.
Parmenides, 235.
Parthenius, 253.
Paulinus, 240, 244.
Paulus, 253.
Pepagomenus, 253.
7repi f3a(aLXEas, 136, 137, 228, 229, 242,
246; in modern times, 139, 141, 142;
in Dio Cassius, 206 n. 2, 207.
Pericles, 147, 227, 233, 253.
Peripatetics, The, 217 ff.
Persaeus, 229, 234, 247, 253.
Persius, 239.
Peter of Alexandria, 247.
Pherecydes, 166.
Philip, encomia in honor of, 128.
Philiscus, 253.
Phillips, W., 246.
Philo of Larissa, 217.
Philodemus, 94, 107 n. 4, 159, 225,
247; rapdSooa ^yKlta, 161; enemy
of rhetoric, 223 if.
Philosophy, the epideictic element
in, 214-48; early philosophers, 214,
215; Megarians, 215; Plato and
the Academy, 215 ff.; Peripatetics,
217 ff.; Stoics, 220 ff.; Epicureans,
222 ff.; Cynics, 225 f.; and rhetoric,
223, 224 and n. 1.
Philostorgius, 253.
Philostratus, 172, 178, 182, 201, 253.
Philostratus the Lemnian, 253.  _
Pindar, 114, 115 n. 1, 116, 142, 73,
175, 176, 241; relations to 3ao'tXKcs
X6yos, 129, 130, 171.
Plato, 98 n. 1, 172, 175, 221, 222, 224
n. 1, 227, 230 n., 234, 235, 240, 246,
247, 253; an epideictic writer, 93,




STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY


215; his use of T7rte&KvvUUt, 99 n. 2;
3am-LXLKOS X6yos, 131, 132; ~rapdSooa
eyKwjLta, 160, 164; hymns, 178; Ertra0tos, 148.
Pliny, 137.
Plutarch, 142, 143, 162, 210, 247, 253.
Polemo, 103, 216, 243, 253.
7roXLtKOS Xoyos, 89, 98 n. 1.
Pollux, 253.
Polus, 215, 253.
Polybius, encomium of Philip, 128;
7rapdSoaa eyKAtLLa, 161; and history,
195 and n. 1, 205; eKppaats in, 201;
speeches in, 203, 205, 210, 212, 213.
Polycrates, 103, 158, 159, 162, 166, 253.
Posidonius, 222, 234, 247, 253.
Potamon, 253.
7rpdCets, 123-5.
7rpeaofevrTLKo X67yo, 112, 173, 201.
Pre-Socratics, 214, 224 n. 1, 226.
Proaeresius, 253.
Proclus, 186, 187.
Procopius, 169, 183, 184, 188, 2 3, 253;
prose poems, 180 ff.
Prodicus, 215, 235, 236, 253.
prpoyvuLvdoa7a, a, 89, 96, 108 n. 1, 118,
199, 211.
wrpootLtov, 122.
rpo7reL7rTtKos X6oyo, 111, 172, 201, 231.
Propertius, 144, 145.
Prose poems, 173 ff., 180 f.
7rpoaocwvrr77TLK  X6yos, 111, 201, 243;
allied to faaoLiXLKo X6yos, 138, 139; in
modern times, 139-42.
Protagoras, 159, 215, 225, 234, 247, 253.
Protarchus, 215.
IrpOTpeTrrtLKb X6yos, 89, 112, 172, 173,
228 ff., 246; 7rporpe7TrTKOS dOXrTrats,
112, 113, 203 ff., 232; as distinguished from  7rapatveTrKos, 229 n. 2;
1d Christian sermons, 240 ff.
PseIus, 253.
Pythagoras, 247.
Quintilian, 92, 95, 96, 118, 159, 161, 204,
221, 222, 225, 227.
Rhetoric, treatment of epideictic
branch in, 104 ff.; early rhetorical


treatises, 104 n. 2, 105; strife between rhetoric and philosophy,
223 ff.
Sappho, 175, 180, 182. 185, 188.
Secundus of Athens, 253.
Seneca, 222.
Serapion, 234, 253.
Severus, 240, 242, 253.
Sextus Empiricus, 225, 226, 230 n.
Sidonius, 240, 244.
Simias, 247.
Simion, 247.
Simonides, 182, 185, 189.
oriLYv0aKos Xoyos, 110, 112, 174, 201.
Socrates, 224 n. 1, 23S, 241.
Socrates Ecclesiasticus, 242.
Sophists, 89, 214, 215, 224 n. 1, 244;
new Sophistic, 89, 90 n. 1. 96.
Sophocles, 175, 230 n.
Sozomenus, 242.
Speusippus, 247, 254.
Sphaerus, 229, 247, 254.
oTreTpaVoTLK6S XO7os, 111.
Stoics, The, 220 ff.
Strabo, 166, 167, 182, 191, 236.
Strato, 229, 237, 247, 254.
OUVTaKTLKOS Xo7oS, 112, 172, 201, 243.
cr^yKplaLs, 125.
Sulpitius, 240, 242.
Syncellus, 242, 254.
Synesius, 159, 162, 166, 188, 190, 242,
243, 254; his Encomium on Baldness quoted, 154.
Syrianus, 233.
Tatian, 240, 242.
Teles, 236 ff., 241
Tertullian, 242, 244, 247.
Themistius, 97, 103, 169, 182, 183,
227, 254; and the Safo-tXLKO Xoyos,
134, 135; and the 7yeve0XtaKO Xoyos,
146.
Theocritus, 185, 188; and the SaoLXLKOS X6yos, 130, 171.
Theodectes, 254.
Theodectes (filius), 254.
Theodoretus, 240.
Theodorus of Cynopolis, 254.




EPIDEICTIC LITERATURE


261


Theodorus Hyrtacenus, 254.
Theodorus Prodromus, 243.
Theodorus Studita, 254.
Theon, derivation of eYK'tktov, 109, 113
n. 3, 115 n. 1, 119 n. 1, 200, 211, 254;
on the encomium, 121, 124, 125.
Theophilus, 243, 254.
Theophrastus, 218, 219, 221, 227, 229,
234, 254.
Theophylactus, speeches in, 208, 211,
213, 254.
Theopompus, 127, 128, 199; speeches
in, 204, 210, 254.
Thomas Magister, 254.
Thrasymachus, 215, 254.
0p'vos, 147, 148, 155 f., 233.


Thucydides, 195, 199, 200, 201, 208,
230 n.; speeches in, 203, 212, 213.
Tibullus, 144, 145.
Timon, 226.
Tisias, 199.
vGuvos, 93, 110, 174-80.
Vergil, 144, 145, 162.
Webster, D., 246.
Winthrop, R., 246.
Xenocrates, 216, 234, 247, 254.
Xenophon, 254; epideictic rT6rot in, 105
n. 4; Agesilaus, 126 n. 4; speeches
in, 203, 211, 212, 213.
Xenophon of Ephesus, 254.
Zoilus, 166, 254.
Zosimus, speeches in, 208.








ERRATA.
P. 148, 1. 13, add (2) before " Oprvos" and (3) before " 7apacLvOla."
P. 234, 1. 12, for "Chamelion" read Chamaeleon.
P. 239,1. 11, for "Perseus" read Persius.
P. 240, 1. 25, for "George" read Gregorius.




I