Landor.—You may set Xenophon down as a writer of graceful mediocrity.[57]
North.—Herodotus?
Landor.—If I blame Herodotus, whom can I commend? His view of history was nevertheless like that of the Asiatics, and there can be little to instruct and please us in the actions and speeches of barbarians.[58]
North.—Which of the Greek tragedians do you patronise?
Landor.—Aeschylus is not altogether unworthy of his reputation; he is sometimes grand, but oftener flighty and obscure.[59]
North.—What say you of Sophocles?
Landor.—He is not so good as his master, though the Athenians thought otherwise. He is, however, occasionally sublime.
North.—What of Euripides? [60]
Landor.—He came further down into common life than Sophocles, and he further down than Aeschylus: one would have expected the reverse. Euripides has but little dramatic power. His dialogue is sometimes dull and heavy; the construction of his fable infirm and inartificial, and if in the chorus he assumes another form, and becomes a more elevated poet, he is still at a loss to make it serve the interests of the piece. He appears to have written principally for the purpose of inculcating political and moral axioms. The dogmas, like valets de place, serve any master, and run to any quarter. Even when new, they are nevertheless miserably flat and idle.
North.—Aristophanes ridiculed him.