<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg040.perseus-eng2:19-20</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg040.perseus-eng2:19-20</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text><body><div type="translation" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg040.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" xml:base="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg040.perseus-eng2" subtype="section" n="19"><p>
This, however, I do say; the conditions that
govern us in these laudatory writings are such that
the eulogist must employ comparisons and similes,
and really the most important part of it is to make
successful comparisons. And success would be most
likely to be held attained, not if a man compares
like to like, or if he makes his comparison with
something that is inferior, but if he approximates, in
so far as he may, what he is praising to something
that surpasses it.</p><p>
For example, if in praising a dog someone were
to say that it was larger than a fox or a cat, does
it seem to you that he knows how to praise? You
will not say so! But even if he should say it was as
large as a wolf, he has not praised it generously.
Well, at what point will the special end of praise
be achieved? When the dog is said to resemble
a lion in size and in strength. So the poet who
praised Orion’s dog<note xml:lang="eng" n="v.4.p.321.n.1"><p>Pindar, frag. 74a (Schroeder). </p></note> called him “lion-daunting.”’
That, of course, in the case of a dog is perfect
praise.</p><p>
Again, if someone who wished to praise Milo of
Croton or Glaucus of Carystus or Polydamas<note xml:lang="eng" n="v.4.p.321.n.2"><p>Famous boxers ; see the Index. </p></note> should
say of any one of them that he was stronger than
a woman, do not you suppose that he would be
laughed at for the senselessness of his praise?



<pb n="v.4.p.323"/>

Indeed, if it had been said that he was better than
any single man, that would not have sufficed for
praise. Come, how did a famous poet? praise Glaucus
when he said : “Not even mighty Polydeuces” could
have held up his hands against that man, “nor yet
the iron-hard son of Alemene!” You see what gods
he likened him to—nay, actually avouched him
better than those gods themselves! And it cannot
be said either that Glaucus became indignant when
he was praised in opposition to the gods who are
the overseers of athletes, or that they punished
either Glaucus or the poet as guilty of sacrilege
in the matter of that praise. On the contrary, both
enjoyed good fame and were honoured by the
Greeks, Glaucus for his strength and the poet
especially for this very song!
</p><p>
Do not wonder then, that I myself, desiring to
make comparisons, as one who sought to praise
was bound to do, used an exalted counterfoil, since
my theme demanded it.
</p></div><div type="textpart" xml:base="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg040.perseus-eng2" subtype="section" n="20"><p>
Since you mentioned flattery, let me say that I
praise you for hating flatterers; I would not have
it otherwise. But I wish to make a distinction and
a difference for you between the achievement of
one who praises, and its exaggeration on the part of
one who flatters.</p><p>
The flatterer, since he praises for a selfish reason
and has little regard for truth, thinks that he must
praise everything to excess, telling falsehoods and
contributing a great deal on his own account, so
that he would not hesitate to declare Thersites had
a better figure than Achilles, and that of all who
took part in the expedition against Troy, Nestor
was the youngest; he would take his oath upon

<pb n="v.4.p.325"/>

it that the son of Croesus had sharper ears than
Melampus,<note xml:lang="eng" n="v.4.p.325.n.1"><p>The son of Croesus was a deaf-mute (Herod. 1, 34 and 85) ; Melampus the seer could hear worms in the roof talking to each other (Apollodorus 1, 9, 12). </p></note> and Phineus sharper sight than Lynceus,<note xml:lang="eng" n="v.4.p.325.n.2"><p>Phineus was blind ; Lynceus could see what was underground (Apoll. 3, 10, 3). </p></note> if only he hoped to gain something by the lie.
But the other, in praising the self-same object,
instead of telling any lie or adding any quality
that did not belong to it, would take the good
points that it had by nature, even if they were
not very great, and would amplify them and make
them greater. He would venture to say, when he
wished to praise a horse, which is the lightest of
foot and the best runner of all the animals that
we know.
<cit><quote><l>Over the top of the flowers he ran without
bending them downward.</l></quote><bibl>Iliad20, 227, of the horses of Erichthonius, sired by Boreas.</bibl></cit>


And again he would not hesitate to speak of

<cit><quote><l>the
swiftness of wind-footed horses.</l></quote><bibl>Source unknown, if δρόμον is part of the quotation. But for “wind-footed horses,” see Hymn to Venus217, Pindar, frag. 221.</bibl></cit>


 And if he were
to praise a house that was beautiful and handsomely
furnished, he would say:

<cit><quote><l>Surely like this, inside, is the palace of Zeus on
Olympus.</l></quote><bibl>Odyssey4, 74, said by Telemachus to his friend, admiring
the palace of Menelaus.</bibl></cit>

The flatterer, however, would express himself in
that way even about the swineherd’s hut, if only
he hoped to get something from the swineherd!
Take Cynaethus, the toady of Demetrius Poliorcetes ;
when he had used up all his means of flattery, he
praised Demetrius, who was troubled with a cough,
because he cleared his throat melodiously !



<pb n="v.4.p.327"/>
</p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>