being crowned.

_Sophocles and Euripides_

Sophocles and Euripides brought tragedy to greater perfection; but the
difference in their manner has occasioned dispute among the learned as
to their relative poetic merits. For my part, I shall leave the matter
undecided, as having nothing to do with my present purpose. It must be
confest, nevertheless, that the study of Euripedes will be of much
greater value to those who are preparing themselves for the bar; for
besides the fact that his style comes nearer the oratorical style, he
likewise abounds in fine thoughts, and in philosophic maxims is almost
on an equality with philosophers, and in his dialog may be compared with
the best speakers at the bar. He is wonderful, again, for his masterly
strokes in moving the passions, and more especially in exciting
sympathy.

_Thucydides and Herodotus_

There have been many famous writers of history, but all agree in giving
the preference to two, whose perfections, tho different, have received
an almost equal degree of praise. Thucydides is close, concise, and ever
pressing on. Herodotus is sweet, natural, and copious. One is remarkable
for his animated expression of the more impetuous passions, the other
for gentle persuasion in the milder: the former succeeds in harangues
and has more force; the other surpasses in speeches of familiar
intercourse, and gives more pleasure.

_Demosthenes_

A numerous band of orators follows, for Athens produced ten of them,
contemporary with one another. Demosthenes was by far the chief of them,
and in a manner held to be the only model for eloquence; so great is
his force; so closely together are all things interwoven in his
discourse, and attended with a certain self-command; so great is his
accuracy, he never adopting any idle expression; and so just his
precision that nothing lacking, nothing redundant, can be found in him.
AEschines is more full, more diffusive, and appears the more grand, as he
has more breadth. He has more flesh, but not so many sinews.

_Lysias and Isocrates_

Lysias, older than these, is subtle and elegant, and if it is enough for
the orator to instruct, none could be found more perfect than he is.
There is nothing idle, nothing far-fetched in him; yet is he more like a
clear brook than a great river. Isocrates, in a different kind of
eloquence, is fine and polished, and better adapted for engaging in a
mock than a real battle. He was attentive to all the be