15. οὐ γὰρ δὴ πανταχῇ γε τὸ ἐμπερίοδον χρήσιμον. For an instance of the ‘running’ style, interspersed with the periodic, see Thucyd. i. 9. 2, where Shilleto remarks: “This paragraph seems to me to convey far more than any other which I have read an exemplification of the εἰρομένη λέξις of Aristot. Rhet. iii. 9. 2 (λέγω δὲ εἰρομένην, ἣ οὐδὲν ἔχει τέλος καθ’ αὑτήν, ἂν μὴ τὸ πρᾶγμα λεγόμενον τελειωθῇ). How Thukydides, so great a master of the κατεστραμμένη, ἐν περιόδοις, λέξις, should have written it, is to me a marvel.”
καὶ γλυφὰς καὶ ὅσα δημιουργήματα χειρῶν ἐστιν ἀνθρωπίνων
ὁρῶσα ὅταν εὑρίσκῃ τό τε ἡδὺ ἐνὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ τὸ καλόν,
ἀρκεῖται καὶ οὐδὲν ἔτι ποθεῖ. καὶ μὴ παράδοξον ἡγήσηταί
τις, εἰ δύο ποιῶ τέλη καὶ χωρίζω τὸ καλὸν ἀπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς,
μηδ’ ἄτοπον εἶναι νομίσῃ, εἴ τινα ἡγοῦμαι λέξιν ἡδέως μὲν 5
συγκεῖσθαι, μὴ καλῶς δέ, ἢ καλῶς μέν, οὐ μὴν καὶ ἡδέως·
φέρει γὰρ ἡ ἀλήθεια τὸ τοιοῦτον καὶ οὐδὲν ἀξιῶ καινόν· ἥ
γε τοι Θουκυδίδου λέξις καὶ ἡ Ἀντιφῶντος τοῦ Ῥαμνουσίου
καλῶς μὲν σύγκειται νὴ Δία, εἴπερ τινὲς καὶ ἄλλαι, καὶ
οὐκ ἄν τις αὐτὰς ἔχοι μέμψασθαι κατὰ τοῦτο, οὐ μὴν ἡδέως 10
γε πάνυ· ἡ δέ γε τοῦ Κνιδίου συγγραφέως Κτησίου καὶ ἡ
τοῦ Σωκρατικοῦ Ξενοφῶντος ἡδέως μὲν ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα, οὐ
μὴν καλῶς γ’ ἐφ’ ὅσον ἔδει· λέγω δὲ κοινότερον, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ
καθάπαξ, ἐπεὶ καὶ παρ’ ἐκείνοις ἥρμοσταί τινα ἡδέως καὶ
παρὰ τούτοις καλῶς. ἡ δὲ Ἡροδότου σύνθεσις ἀμφότερα 15
ταῦτα ἔχει, καὶ γὰρ ἡδεῖά ἐστι καὶ καλή.
XI
ἐξ ὧν δ’ οἶμαι γενήσεσθαι λέξιν ἡδεῖαν καὶ καλήν, τέτταρά
ἐστι ταῦτα τὰ κυριώτατα καὶ κράτιστα, μέλος καὶ ῥυθμὸς καὶ
μεταβολὴ καὶ τὸ παρακολουθοῦν τοῖς τρισὶ τούτοις πρέπον.
τάττω δὲ ὑπὸ μὲν τὴν ἡδονὴν τήν τε ὥραν καὶ τὴν χάριν καὶ 20
τὴν εὐστομίαν καὶ τὴν γλυκύτητα καὶ τὸ πιθανὸν καὶ πάντα
τὰ τοιαῦτα, ὑπὸ δὲ τὸ καλὸν τήν τε μεγαλοπρέπειαν καὶ τὸ
βάρος καὶ τὴν σεμνολογίαν καὶ τὸ ἀξίωμα καὶ τὸν πίνον καὶ
τὰ τούτοις ὅμοια. ταυτὶ γάρ μοι δοκεῖ κυριώτατα εἶναι καὶ
ὥσπερ κεφάλαια τῶν ἄλλων ἐν ἑκατέρῳ. ὧν μὲν οὖν στοχάζονται 25
πάντες οἱ σπουδῇ γράφοντες μέτρον ἢ μέλος ἢ τὴν
λεγομένην πεζὴν λέξιν, ταῦτ’ ἐστὶ καὶ οὐκ οἶδ’ εἴ τι παρὰ
when it looks upon moulded figures, pictures, carvings, or any other works of human hands, and finds both charm and beauty residing in them, is satisfied and longs for nothing more. And let not anyone be surprised at my assuming that there are two distinct objects in style, and at my separating beauty from charm; nor let him think it strange if I hold that a piece of composition may possess charm but not beauty, or beauty without charm. Such is the verdict of actual experience; I am introducing no novel axiom. The styles of Thucydides and of Antiphon of Rhamnus are surely examples of beautiful composition, if ever there were any, and are beyond all possible cavil from this point of view, but they are not remarkable for their charm. On the other hand, the style of the historian Ctesias of Cnidus, and that of Xenophon the disciple of Socrates, are charming in the highest possible degree, but not as beautiful as they should have been. I am speaking generally, not absolutely; I admit that in the former authors there are instances of charming, in the latter of beautiful arrangement. But the composition of Herodotus has both these qualities; it is at once charming and beautiful.
CHAPTER XI
GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE SOURCES OF CHARM AND BEAUTY IN COMPOSITION
Among the sources of charm and beauty in style there are, I conceive, four which are paramount and essential,—melody, rhythm, variety, and the appropriateness demanded by these three. Under “charm” I class freshness, grace, euphony, sweetness, persuasiveness, and all similar qualities; and under “beauty” grandeur, impressiveness, solemnity, dignity, mellowness, and the like. For these seem to me the most important—the main heads, so to speak, in either case. The aims set before themselves by all serious writers in epic, dramatic, or lyric poetry, or in the so-called “language of prose,” are those specified, and I think