XXII

τῆς μὲν οὖν αὐστηρᾶς ἁρμονίας τοιόσδε ὁ χαρακτήρ·      15
ἐρείδεσθαι βούλεται τὰ ὀνόματα ἀσφαλῶς καὶ στάσεις λαμβάνειν
ἰσχυράς, ὥστ’ ἐκ περιφανείας ἕκαστον ὄνομα ὁρᾶσθαι,
ἀπέχειν τε ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων τὰ μόρια διαστάσεις ἀξιολόγους
αἰσθητοῖς χρόνοις διειργόμενα· τραχείαις τε χρῆσθαι πολλαχῇ
καὶ ἀντιτύποις ταῖς συμβολαῖς οὐδὲν αὐτῇ διαφέρει, οἷαι      20
γίνονται τῶν λογάδην συντιθεμένων ἐν οἰκοδομίαις λίθων αἱ
μὴ εὐγώνιοι καὶ μὴ συνεξεσμέναι βάσεις, ἀργαὶ δέ τινες καὶ

[211]

harmoniously blended. How I am to say the third is formed I am at a loss to know—“my mind is too divided to utter truth”[173]: I cannot see whether it is formed by eliminating the two extremes or by fusing them—it is not easy to hit on any clear answer. Perhaps, then, it is better to say that it is by relaxation and tension of the extremes that the means, which are very numerous, arise. The case is not as in music, where the middle note is equally removed from the lowest and the highest. The middle style in writing does not in the same way stand at an equal distance from each of the two extremes; “middle” is here a vague general term, like “herd,” “heap,” and many others. But the present is not the right time for the investigation of this particular point. I must say what I undertook to say with regard to the several styles—not all that I could (I should need a very long treatise to do that), but just the most salient points.