Moreover, the chances that any given work will be quickly and rightly appreciated, depend upon two conditions:  firstly, the character of the work, whether high or low, in other words, easy or difficult to understand; and, secondly, the kind of public it attracts, whether large or small.  This latter condition is, no doubt, in most instances a, corollary of the former; but it also partly depends upon whether the work in question admits, like books and musical compositions, of being produced in great numbers.  By the compound action of these two conditions, achievements which serve no materially useful end—­and these alone are under consideration here—­will vary in regard to the chances they have of meeting with timely recognition and due appreciation; and the order of precedence, beginning with those who have the greatest chance, will be somewhat as follows:  acrobats, circus riders, ballet-dancers, jugglers, actors, singers, musicians, composers, poets (both the last on account of the multiplication of their works), architects, painters, sculptors, philosophers.

The last place of all is unquestionably taken by philosophers because their works are meant not for entertainment, but for instruction, and because they presume some knowledge on the part of the reader, and require him to make an effort of his own to understand them.  This makes their public extremely small, and causes their fame to be more remarkable for its length than for its breadth.  And, in general, it may be said that the possibility of a man’s fame lasting a long time, stands in almost inverse ratio with the chance that it will be early in making its appearance; so that, as regards length of fame, the above order of precedence may be reversed.  But, then, the poet and the composer will come in the end to stand on the same level as the philosopher; since, when once a work is committed to writing, it is possible to preserve it to all time.  However, the first place still belongs by right to the philosopher, because of the much greater scarcity of good work in this sphere, and the high importance of it; and also because of the possibility it offers of an almost perfect translation into any language.  Sometimes, indeed, it happens that a philosopher’s fame outlives even his works themselves; as has happened with Thales, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Democritus, Parmenides, Epicurus and many others.

My remarks are, as I have said, confined to achievements that are not of any material use.  Work that serves some practical end, or ministers directly to some pleasure of the senses, will never have any difficulty in being duly appreciated.  No first-rate pastry-cook could long remain obscure in any town, to say nothing of having to appeal to posterity.