THREE MODES, OR STYLES, OF COMPOSITION
I assert without any hesitation that there are many specific
differences of composition, and that they cannot be brought into a
comprehensive view or within a precise enumeration; I think too that,
as in personal appearance, so also in literary composition, each of us
has an individual character. I find not a bad illustration in painting.
As in that art all painters from life take the same pigments but mix
them in the most diverse ways, so in poetry and in prose, though we all
use the same words, we do not put them together in the same manner. I
hold, however, that the essentially different varieties of composition
are the three following only, to which any one who likes may assign the
appropriate names, when he has heard their characteristics and their
differences. For my own part, since I cannot find recognized names for
them, inasmuch as none exist, I call them by metaphorical terms—the
first _austere_, the second _smooth_ (or _florid_), the third
[Page 210]
εὔκρατον· ἣν ὅπως ποτὲ γίνεσθαι φαίην ἄν, ἔγωγε ἀπορῶ,
καὶ “δίχα μοι νόος ἀτρέκειαν εἰπεῖν,” εἴτε κατὰ στέρησιν
τῶν ἄκρων ἑκατέρας εἴτε κατὰ μῖξιν· οὐ γὰρ ῥᾴδιον
εἰκάσαι τὸ σαφές. μή ποτ’ οὖν κρεῖττον ᾖ λέγειν, ὅτι κατὰ
τὴν ἄνεσίν τε καὶ τὴν ἐπίτασιν τῶν ἐσχάτων ὅρων οἱ διὰ 5
μέσου γίνονται πολλοὶ πάνυ ὄντες· οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ ἐν μουσικῇ
τὸ ἴσον ἀπέχει τῆς νήτης καὶ τῆς ὑπάτης ἡ μέση, τὸν αὐτὸν
τρόπον καὶ ἐν λόγοις ὁ μέσος χαρακτὴρ ἑκατέρου τῶν ἄκρων
ἴσον ἀφέστηκεν, ἀλλ’ ἔστι τῶν ἐν πλάτει θεωρουμένων ὡς
ἀγέλη τε καὶ σωρὸς καὶ ἄλλα πολλά. ἀλλὰ γὰρ οὐχ οὗτος 10
ὁ καιρὸς ἁρμόττων τῇ θεωρίᾳ ταύτῃ· λεκτέον δ’, ὥσπερ ὑπεθέμην,
καὶ περὶ τῶν χαρακτήρων οὐχ ἅπανθ’ ὅσ’ ἂν εἰπεῖν
ἔχοιμι (μακρῶν γὰρ ἄν μοι πάνυ δεήσειε λόγων), ἀλλ’ αὐτὰ
τὰ φανερώτατα.
XXII
τῆς μὲν οὖν αὐστηρᾶς ἁρμονίας τοιόσδε ὁ χαρακτήρ· 15
ἐρείδεσθαι βούλεται τὰ ὀνόματα ἀσφαλῶς καὶ στάσεις λαμβάνειν
ἰσχυράς, ὥστ’ ἐκ περιφανείας ἕκαστον ὄνομα ὁρᾶσθαι,
ἀπέχειν τε ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων τὰ μόρια διαστάσεις ἀξιολόγους
αἰσθητοῖς χρόνοις διειργόμενα· τραχείαις τε χρῆσθαι πολλαχῇ
καὶ ἀντιτύποις ταῖς συμβολαῖς οὐδὲν αὐτῇ διαφέρει, οἷαι 20
γίνονται τῶν λογάδην συντιθεμένων ἐν οἰκοδομίαις λίθων αἱ
μὴ εὐγώνιοι καὶ μὴ συνεξεσμέναι βάσεις, ἀργαὶ δέ τινες καὶ
1 εὔκρατον EF: κοινὴν PMV 2 κατὰ E: κατὰ τὴν FPMV 3 μίξιν F 4
ἦι P: ἦν F || κατὰ τὴν FPMV: κατὰ E 5 τε καὶ τὴν PMV: τε καὶ F: καὶ
E 6 ἐν om. P 7 νήτης F: νεάτης PMV 8 χαρακτὴρ om. PV 9 ἴσως F
11 ὥσπερ F: ὡς PMV 12 καὶ F: om. PMV || ὅσα εἰπεῖν codd.: ἂν ins.
Schaeferus 13 ἄν μοι F: ἂν οἶμαι PMV || δεήσειε F: δεήσει P: δεήσειν
MV 17 περιφερίας F 18 διατάσεις F 20 οἷαι F: οἳ P: οἷον MV 21
αἱ μη F: αἱ μὴτε P, MV 22 καὶ μὴ F: μὴδε P || ἀργαὶ δὲ] γὰρ αἷδε F
1. Here (and in =246= 11) it is open to question whether κοινήν does
not fit the context better than εὔκρατον.
2. The passage of Pindar is quoted in Cic. _Ep. ad Att._ xiii. 38 “nunc
me iuva, mi Attice, consilio, ‘πότερον δίκᾳ τεῖχος ὕψιον,’ id est utrum
aperte hominem asperner et respuam, ‘ἢ σκολιαῖς ἀπάταις.’ ut enim
Pindaro sic ‘δίχα μοι νόος ἀτρέκειαν εἰπεῖν.’ omnino moribus meis illud
aptius, sed hoc fortasse temporibus.”
3. =κατὰ μῖξιν=: sc. τῶν ἄκρων. —Cp. _de Demosth._ c. 36 οἱ δὲ
συνθέντες ἀφ’ ἑκατέρας τὰ χρησιμώτατα τὴν μικτὴν καὶ μέσην ἐζήλωσαν
ἀγωγήν.
4. =μή ποτ’ ... ᾖ=: a favourite Platonic usage, e.g. _Gorgias_ 462 E
μὴ ἀγροικότερον ᾖ τὸ ἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, _Apol._ 39 A ἀλλὰ μὴ οὐ τοῦτ’ ᾖ
χαλεπόν, ὦ ἄνδρες, θάνατον ἐκφυγεῖν, ἀλλὰ πολὺ χαλεπώτερον πονηρίαν.
5. The intermediate, or eclectic, styles are numerous and differ
greatly according as they relax or strain the extreme, or pronounced,
styles: cp. _de Demosth._ c. 37 init.
8. A point worth considering is how far this may seem to make for or
against the view that the Dionysian doctrine of styles is Peripatetic
in origin, being derived from Theophrastus.
10. =σωρός=: cp. σωρείτης (Lat. _acervalis_, Cic. _de Div._ ii. 4.
11), in the sense which it bears in Hor. _Ep._ ii. 1. 45-47 and Cic.
_Academ._ ii. 16. 49.
15. Batteux (p. 249) would illustrate the austere style from Rousseau’s
_Ode_ i. 2 (tirée du Psaume xviii.), “Les cieux instruisent la terre
| À révérer leur auteur; | Tout ce que leur globe enserre | Célèbre
un Dieu créateur,” etc.—With c. 22 of the _C.V._ should be compared,
throughout, cc. 38, 39 of the _de Demosth._
18. =ἀπέχειν τε= κτλ.: i.e. it (the austere style) aims at dividing its
clauses from one another by appreciable pauses.
[Page 211]
_harmoniously blended_. How I am to say the third is formed I am at a
loss to know—“my mind is too divided to utter truth”[173]: I cannot
see whether it is formed by eliminating the two extremes or by fusing
them—it is not easy to hit on any clear answer. Perhaps, then, it is
better to say that it is by relaxation and tension of the extremes
that the means, which are very numerous, arise. The case is not as in
music, where the middle note is equally removed from the lowest and the
highest. The middle style in writing does not in the same way stand
at an equal distance from each of the two extremes; “middle” is here
a vague general term, like “herd,” “heap,” and many others. But the
present is not the right time for the investigation of this particular
point. I must say what I undertook to say with regard to the several
styles—not all that I could (I should need a very long treatise to do
that), but just the most salient points.