and that each should keep his own seat. Martial mentions such an officer, one Oceanus.

In the Old Comedy the subject-matter was wholly fictitious, facetious, sarcastic, abusive, so that at every word occasion was taken to deride. How much others than Aristophanes achieved in this line is not known, because nothing of theirs is extant. How he excelled in this appears sufficiently from his writings. Scarcely a word is spoken by any one which is not designed to injure somebody. Every event is reproach and censure, or derision, of the man against whom the play is directed. What laughter in the Clouds at the burning of Phrontisterius! What reversal of fortune in youth and old age for Plutus, most prosperous of men! What public disgrace for Cleon and Lamachus! Since many of the spectators favored Euripides, others Aeschylus, what intense anticipation of the decision of Liber in the choice of a tragic poet! What care by the poet not to offend the people, with whom Sophocles undeniably had very great weight! Indeed the very meaning of the sentiments is always ambiguous, so that one interpretation makes a passage complimentary, the opposite derogatory. For example, Aeschylus once said that in the death of Euripides tragedy also died. Do you ask if the statement was equivocal? Obviously it can be taken to mean that after Euripides no tragic poet remained, but that is contrary to fact. Now the Athenian people knew that after the death of Euripides the plays of Aeschylus alone were represented, so that his own poems were even then living.

Laughter is often caused by parody, when serious verse is so changed as to become ridiculous. I give as an example one line from The Acharnians. In the judgment of arms in Aeschylus Thetis is called 'mistress of fifty Nereids'; now by substituting an eel for Thetis, Aristophanes made the line read 'chief of fifty eels of Copais.' In like manner the passage where Lamachus requests arms of his servant is parodied at the expense of Dicaeopolis. Dicaeopolis was

a man who would fain deride military life for its inconveniences, and denounce it for its carnage, and would therefore exert his influence to secure peace. So in a passage of the same number of lines, and of almost the same number of words, he calls, not for arms, but for cooking utensils. You see of course a superficial similarity of deed, but an actual disparity as great as that between anxiety to live and desire to die. And now let each by himself either choose from the same author like cases for imitation, or invent new ones for others to imitate. I wrote such a play once myself, and called it The Old Man. In it I robbed a Dutch bell of its din, and invented novelties enough to suffice for not one Erasmus only, but for seven.

This old style of play largely accounts for the origin of the mime, for the difference between them is slight. The Old Comedy was allowed to introduce all kinds of characters, and there was no objection to having four characters speak in the same scene. Or you may note how Aristophanes in The Frogs revives a corpse, and makes it talk. Think how many characters appear, one after another, in the closing scenes of the Plutus, in The Birds, where even Mercury himself appears, and in others as well. Nay, not only does the parabasis, the epirrhema, or the antirrhema speak to the people, but in the colloquial parts even the stageactors themselves. Although the later comedy is more restrained, this practice is followed in The Merchant and other plays. In the plays of Plautus the actors converse with the audience, obviously without offense. Forsooth, this interchange was not to learn purity of speech, but to relax the mind with laughter and jests. So it resulted that the very choice diction and high art of Terence were less in favor than the drollery of many comic poets, Those admirers of Terence who prefer him to those poets whom Volcatius Sedigitus called his superiors, do not make the worst of blunders, though they do not altogether see the point. But why give my opinion when we have

Cicero's judgment that the speech of Atilius was iron and stone? I think it clear that each of the poets satisfied his own times as respects the art of speaking, but that, taking into account the subject-matter, Terence is clearly lacking in spirit. Why then do we make more of him than of Plautus? For the reason that to-day we are most intent on the art of good speaking. Not only has the vast extension of our knowledge given us science, but invention has also brought us glory. Consequently Cicero is to-day held in highest esteem, while few care for Seneca. And yet a modicum of wisdom far excels the highest and best skill in speaking.

In the New Comedy marriages and loves have the chief place. Rivalries abound; virgins are bought from panderers that they may be free, and those found free are bought with a ring, an amulet, or a garden-plot, of father, mother, lover, or brother; and invariably the panderer is discomfited. But each may find for himself as many examples as he will, either from authors or from real life.

Comedy also differs from tragedy in the fact that while the latter takes both its subject-matter and its chief names from history, such as Agamemnon, Hercules, and Hecuba, ↓ in comedy all is fictitious, and names are assigned for the most part to suit the connection. As to episodes, they must not be regarded as belonging either to tragedy or to comedy exclusively, for Aristotle so names whatever is introduced aside from the announced plot. Thus the description of the vestment of Ariadne in Catullus, the birth of Camilla on the shield in Virgil, the enumeration of the chiefs in the Philoctetes of Sophocles, Io in the Prometheus of Aeschylus, and the fable of Europa and Hypermnestra in Horace, are all episodes.

IV. 2.

THE GRAND STYLE

Though Hermogenes classified ideas according to another principle, and others propagated his system, we are constrained to consider certain precepts which might have hindered or helped in the education of our poet. Let us then take up the different styles of poetic utterance, so combining precept and illustration that we may become familiar with the true theory of style.

We recognize three kinds of style, the grand or lofty (altiloqua), the humble (infima), and the mean of the two, which I please to call the moderate (aequabilis). Some properties are common to all of these, some are particular. Common properties are perspicuity (perspicuitas), refine ment (cultus), propriety (proprietas), elegance or grace (venustas), and rhythm (numerositas). These qualities should inhere in every poem. Of the other common properties some are not invariably used, but subject to occasion, as smoothness (mollitia), winsomeness (suavitas), rapidity or spirit (incitatio), purity or unadornedness (puritas), acumen (acutum), sharpness or raillery (acre), fulness (plenum), and ornateness (floridum). As of the common properties, so of the particular, some should be employed always, others only on occasion. In the grand style those to be observed always are dignity (dignitas) and sonorousness (sonus); those to be used on occasion, ponderousness (gravitas) and fervency (vehementia). In the lowly style that to be observed always is plainness or artless purity (tenuitas); on occasion, simplicity (simplicitas) and negligence (securitas).1 Those to be invariably observed in the

1

1 In Chapter 25 these last properties are defined as follows: Tenuitas orationis est puritas ex communi consuetudine loquendi. Simplicitas puritas non figurata. Securitas autem est firmitas propositi ad tenuitatem. Cf. Quintilian II. 1. 93: securitas inaffectatae orationis.

moderate style are roundness (rotunditas) and fluency (volubilitas). Such is our classification, and it is complete and invariable.

The grand style is that which portrays eminent characters and notable events. The sentiments are correspondingly choice, and they are couched in choice and euphonious diction. These eminent characters are gods, heroes, kings, generals, and citizens. If inferior characters, such as sailors, merchants, tradesmen, and hostlers are introduced, it is because when men associate together they constitute a society which has, as it were, the character of an organism, the members of which, according to the nature and end of their functions, share in its nature and office. It is the nature of the kingly office to be superior to others; its end is to govern. So the king's share will be preeminent strength and wisdom, and his office to apply his strength in affording protection, and his wisdom in governing. Notable events are wars in behalf of peace and concord, deliberative counsels, judicial decisions, the pursuit of heroic deeds, and whatever else is attendant upon these. Choice sentiments are those which abhor vulgarity; choice diction, that which is not trite; and pleasing language, that which marries sense and sound. Now all this we shall treat in its proper place, after we have considered the properties of the various styles, a task upon which we now enter.