8
I am fully aware that what I propose to do is difficult—to eulogize in prose the virtues of a man. The best proof is this: Those who devote themselves to philosophyReally oratory and rhetoric: for the meaning of “philosophy” in Isocrates see the General Introd., Vol. I, p. xxvi. venture to speak on many subjects of every kind, but no one of them has ever attempted to compose a discourse on such a theme.Prose encomia existed before this time, but they were mostly exercises on mythical subjects written by Sophists. And I can make much allowance for them. For to the poets is granted the use of many embellishments of language,
9
since they can represent the gods as associating with men, conversing with and aiding in battle whomsoever they please, and they can treat of these subjects not only in conventional expressions, but in words now exotic, now newly coined, and now in figures of speech, neglecting none, but using every kind with which to embroider their poesy.With this passage compare Aristot. Poet. 1457b.
10
Orators, on the contrary, are not permitted the use of such devices; they must use with precision only words in current use and only such ideas as bear upon the actual facts. Besides, the poets compose all their works with meter and rhythm, while the orators do not share in any of these advantages; and these lend such charm that even though the poets may be deficient in style and thoughts, yet by the very spell of their rhythm and harmony they bewitch their listeners.Cf. Plat. Rep. 601b.
11
The power of poetry may be understood from this consideration: if one should retain the words and ideas of poems which are held in high esteem, but do away with the meter, they will appear far inferior to the opinion we now have of them. Nevertheless, although poetry has advantages so great, we must not shrink from the task, but must make the effort and see if it will be possible in prose to eulogize good men in no worse fashion than their encomiasts do who employ song and verse.
