LYCINUS 
But it is annoying, Polystratus, that she will not
be present when I make my speech. It would be
far better if she were. As it stands, I must plead
by proxy. The phrase ἀπ᾽ ἐντολῆς means “by direction.” Strictly speaking, it is appropriate only to the action of an agent, but here it is transferred to that of the principal. Compare Aristides, vol. ii, p. 22 224-5 Dindorf, τὰ δὲ πλεῖστα ἐξ ἐντολῆς τῷ βασιλεῖ κατειργάζετο. But if you are going to be as faithful in
carrying my message to her as you have been in
carrying hers to me, I shall make bold to cast
the die.
 POLYSTRATUS 
Never fear, Lycinus, as far as that goes! I shan’t
be at all bad, you will find, at delivering your plea,
if only you try to speak briefly, so that I may be
better able to fix it all in memory.
 LYCINUS 
But I really needed to speak at length in answering so forcible an accusation. Nevertheless, for
your sake I shall cut my plea short. Take, then,
this message from me to her—
 POLYSTRATUS 
No, no, Lycinus! Make your speech just as if
she herself were present, and then I will do her an
imitation of you.
 LYCINUS 
Well then, since that is the way you want it,
Polystratus, she is here and as the first speaker,
of course, has said all that you reported as her
messenger; and now it is for me to begin my
answer. However—for I shall not hesitate to tell
you the state of my feelings—somehow or other



 

you have made the thing more terrifying to me.
As you see, I am even now in a sweat and a tremble
and almost think I really see her, and the affair has
begotten great turmoil within me. But I will begin,
anyhow, for it isn’t possible to withdraw, with her
already here.
 POLYSTRATUS 
Yes, and she shows great friendliness in her expression, for she is radiant, as you see, and gracious.
So get on with your speech boldly.
 LYCINUS 
Noblest of women, it is true I praised you, as you
say, highly and immoderately; but I do not see
what commendation I bestowed as great as the
encomium which you have pronounced upon yourself in extolling your reverence for the gods.
Really, this is more than all that I said about you,
and you ‘must forgive me that I did not add this trait
to your likeness; it escaped me because I did not
know about it, for there is no other which I should
have preferred to represent. So in that particular
at least I not only did not go beyond bounds, it
seems to me, with my praises, but actually said far
less than I should. Think what an important point
I omitted there—how very significant as evidence of
sterling character and sound judgement! For those
who assiduously reverence what pertains to the gods
will surely be above reproach in their relations with
mankind. So if the speech absolutely must be
revised and the portrait corrected, I should not
venture to take a single thing away from it, but
will add this detail to cap, as it were, and crown
the complete work.

 

There is one thing, however, for which I admit
that I am very grateful to you. After I had praised
the reasonableness of your character and the fact
that the present exalted state of your fortunes has
not engendered in you any arrogance or pride, you
confirmed the truth of my praise by censuring what
you did censure in my speech. Not to catch
greedily at such praise, but to blush for it and say
that it is too high for you betokens a reasonable and
unassuming disposition. But the more you manifest
that attitude toward praise itself, the more worth
of extravagant praise you prove yourself! Really
the thing, despite you, has come to a pass where
the remark of Diogenes applies. When he was
asked how one could become famous, he answered:
“If he were to scorn fame!” If I myself should
be asked: “Who are most worthy of praise?” I
should answer: “Those who are unwilling to be
praised!”
 
But all this, no doubt, is apart from the issue and
has nothing to do with the case; and the charge to
which I must answer is that in making my sketch of
you I likened you in beauty to Cnidian Aphrodite
and Our Lady in the Gardens and Hera and Athena.
That seemed to you extravagant and presumptuous.
I shall address myself precisely to that point. 
It is an ancient saying, however, that poets and
painters are not to be held accountable; Pictoribus atque poetis Quidlibet audendi semper fuit aequa potestas. Horace, Ars Poet. 9 sq. still less,
I think, eulogists, even if they fare humbly afoot
like me, instead of being borne on the wings of
song. For praise is an unshackled thing, and has


 

ESSAYS IN PORTRAITURE DEFENDED
no limit, whether upper or lower, prescribed for it.
The only object that it ever has in view is to excite
high admiration and to maké its subject enviable.
Nevertheless, I shall not take this course, for fear
you may think that I do so for want of a better.
 
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. 
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 Pindar, frag. 74a (Schroeder). called him “lion-daunting.”’
That, of course, in the case of a dog is perfect
praise. 
Again, if someone who wished to praise Milo of
Croton or Glaucus of Carystus or Polydamas Famous boxers; see the Index. 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?



 

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!
 
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.
 
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. 
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

 

it that the son of Croesus had sharper ears than
Melampus, 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). and Phineus sharper sight than Lynceus, Phineus was blind; Lynceus could see what was underground (Apoll. 3, 10, 3). 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.
 Over the top of the flowers he ran without
bending them downward. Iliad20, 227, of the horses of Erichthonius, sired by Boreas. 


And again he would not hesitate to speak of

 the
swiftness of wind-footed horses. Source unknown, if δρόμον is part of the quotation. But for “wind-footed horses,” see Hymn to Venus217, Pindar, frag. 221. 


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

 Surely like this, inside, is the palace of Zeus on
Olympus. Odyssey4, 74, said by Telemachus to his friend, admiring
the palace of Menelaus. 

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!