1.69. Menander, as he often testifies in his works, had a profound admiration for Euripides, and imitated him, although in a different type of work. Now, the careful study of Menander alone would, in my opinion, be sufficient to develop all those qualities with the production of which my present work is concerned; so perfect is his representation of actual life, so rich is his power of invention and his gift of style, so perfectly does he adapt himself to every kind of circumstance, character and emotion.
1.69. admiratus maxime est, ut saepe testatur, et secutus, quanquam in opere diverso, Menander, qui vel unus, meo quidem iudicio, diligenter lectus ad cuncta, quae praecipimus, effingenda sufficiat; ita omnem vitae imagine expressit, tanta in eo inveniendi copia et eloquendi facultas, ita est omnibus rebus, personis, adfectibus accommodatus.
1.70. Indeed, those critics are no fools who think the speeches attributed to Charisius were in reality written by Menander. But I consider that he shows his power as an orator far more clearly in his comedies; since assuredly we can find no more perfect models of every oratorical quality than the judicial pleadings of his Epitrepontes, Epicleros and Locri, or the declamatory speeches in the Psophodes, Nomothetes. and Hypobolimaeus.
1.70. nihil profecto viderunt, qui orationes, quae Charisii nomini addicuntur, a Menandro scriptas putant. mihi longe magis orator probari in opere suo videtur, nisi forte aut illa iudicia, quae Epitrepontes, Epicleros, Locroe habent, aut meditationes in Psophodee, Nomothete, Hypobolimaeo non omnibus oratoriis numeris sunt absolutae.
1.71. Still, for my own part, I think that he will be found even more useful by declaimers, in view of the fact that they have, according to the nature of the various controversial themes, to undertake a number of different roles and to impersonate fathers, sons, soldiers, peasants, rich men and poor, the angry man and the suppliant, the gentle and the harsh. And all these characters are treated by this poet with consummate appropriateness.
1.71. tamen plus adhuc quiddam collaturum eum declamatoribus puto, quoniam his necesse est secundum condicionem controversiarum plures subire personas, patrum, filiorum, militum, rusticorum, divitum, pauperum, irascentium, deprecantium, mitium, asperorum. quibus omnibus mire custoditur ab hoc poeta decor.
1.72. Indeed, such is his supremacy that he has scarce left a name to other writers of the new comedy, and has cast them into darkness by the splendour of his own renown. Still, you will find something of value in the other comic poets as well, if you read them in not too critical a spirit; above all, profit may be derived from the study of Philemon, who, although it was a depraved taste which caused his contemporaries often to prefer him to Menander, has none the less deserved the second place which posterity has been unanimous in awarding him.
1.72. ille quidem omnibus eiusdem operis auctoribus abstulit nomen et fulgore quodam suae claritatis tenebras obduxit. habent alii quoque Comici, si cum venia leguntur, quaedam quae possis decerpere; et praecipue Philemon, qui ut prave sui temporis iudiciis Menandro saepe praelatus est, ita consensu tamen omnium meruit credi secundus.
1.73. If we turn to history, we shall find a number of distinguished writers; but there are two who must undoubtedly be set far above all their rivals: their excellences are different in kind, but have won almost equal praise. Thucydides is compact in texture, terse and ever eager to press forward: Herodotus is pleasant, lucid and diffuse: the former excels in vigour, speeches and the expression of the stronger passions; the latter in charm, conversations and the delineation of the gentler emotions.
1.73. multi scripsere praeclare, sed nemo dubitat longe duos ceteris praeferendos, quorum diversa virtus laudem paene est parem consecuta. et brevis et semper instans sibi Thucydides, dulcis et candidus et fusus Herodotus; ille concitatis hic remissis adfectibus melior, ille contionibus hic sermonibus, ille vi hic voluptate.
1.74. Theopompus comes next, and though as a historian he is inferior to the authors just mentioned, his style has a greater resemblance to oratory, which is not surprising, as he was an orator before he was urged to turn to history. Philistus also deserves special distinction among the crowd of later historians, good though they may have been: he was an imitator of Thucydides, and though far his inferior, was somewhat more lucid. Ephorus, according to Isocrates, needed the spur.
1.74. Theopompus his proximus ut in historia praedictis minor, ita oratori magis similis, ut qui, antequam est ad hoc opus sollicitatus, diu fuerit orator. Philistus quoque meretur, qui turbae quamvis bonorum post eos auctorum eximatur, imitator Thucydidis et ut multo infirmior ita aliquatenus lucidior. Ephorus, ut Isocrati uisum, calcaribus eget.
1.75. Clitarchus has won approval by his talent, but his accuracy has been impugned. Timagenes was born long after these authors, but deserves our praise for the very fact that he revived the credit of history, the writing of which had fallen into neglect. I have not forgotten Xenophon, but he will find his place among the philosophers.
1.75. Clitarchi probatur ingenium, fides infamatur. post intervallo temporis natus Timagenes vel hoc est ipso probabilis, quod intermissam historias scribendi industriam nova laude reparavit. Xenophon non excidit mihi, sed inter philosophos reddendus est.
1.76. There follows a vast army of orators, Athens alone having produced ten remarkable orators in the same generation. Of these Dermosthenes is far the greatest: indeed he came to be regarded almost as the sole pattern of oratory. Such is the force and compactness of his language, so muscular his style, so free from tameness and so self-controlled, that you will find nothing in him that is either too much or too little.
1.76. oratorum ingens manus, ut cum decem simul Athenis aetas una tulerit. longe princeps Demosthenes ac paene lex orandi fuit; tanta vis in eo, tam densa omnia, ita quibusdam nervis intenta sunt, tam nihil otiosum, is dicendi modus, ut nec quod desit in eo nec quod redundet invenias.
1.77. The style of Aesehines is fuller and more diffuse, while his lack of restraint gives an appearance of grandeur. But he has more flesh and less muscle. Hyperides has extraordinary charm and point, but is better qualified, not to say more useful, for cases of minor importance.
1.77. Aeschines et magis fusus et grandiori similis, quo minus strictus est; carnis tamen plus habet, minus lacertorum. in primis et acutus Hyperides, sed minoribus causis, ut non dixerim utilior, magis par.
1.78. Lysias belongs to an earlier generation than those whom I have just mentioned. He has subtlety and elegance and, if the orator's sole duty were merely to instruct, it would be impossible to conceive greater perfection. For there is nothing irrelevant or far-fetched in his speeches. None the less I would compare him to a clear spring rather than to a mighty river.
1.78. aetate Lysias maior, subtilis atque elegans et quo nihil, si oratori satis est docere, quaeras perfectius. enim est inane, nihil arcessitum; puro tamen fonti quam magno flumini propior.
1.79. Isocrates was an exponent of a different style of oratory: he is neat and polished and better suited to the fencingschool than to the battlefield. He elaborated all the graces of style, nor was he without justification. For lie had trained himself for the lecture-room and not the law-courts. He is ready in invention, his moral ideals are high and the care which he bestows upon his rhythm is such as to be a positive fault.
1.79. Isocrates in diverso genere dicendi nitidus et comptus et palaestrae quam pugnae magis accommodatus omnes dicendi veneres sectatus est, nec immerito; auditoriis enim se, non iudiciis compararat; in inventione facilis, honesti studiosus, in compositione adeo diligens, ut cura eius reprehendatur.
1.80. I do not regard these as the sole merits of the orators of whom I have spoken, but have selected what seemed to me their chief excellences, while those whom I have passed over in silence were far from being indifferent. In fact, I will readily admit that the famous Demetrius of Phalerum, who is said to have been the first to set oratory on the downward path, was a man of great talent and eloquence and deserves to be remembered, if only for the fact that he is almost the last of the Attic school who can be called an orator: indeed Cicero prefers him to all other orators of the intermediate school.
1.80. ego in his, de quibus sum locutus, has solas virtutes, sed has praecipuas puto, nec ceteros parum fuisse magnos. etiam Phalerea illum Demetrium, quanquam is primus inclinasse eloquentiam dicitur, multum ingenii habuisse et facundiae fateor, vel ob hoc memoria dignum, quod ultimus est fere ex Atticis, qui dici possit orator; quem tamen in illo medio genere dicendi praefert omnibus Cicero.
1.81. Proceeding to the philosophers, from whom Cicero acknowledges that he derived such a large portion of his eloquence, we shall all admit that Plato is supreme whether in acuteness or perception or in virtue of his divine gift of style, which is worthy of Homer. For he soars high above the levels of ordinary prose or, as the Greeks call it, pedestrian language, and seems to me to be inspired not by mere human genius, but, as it were, by the oracles of the god of Delphi.
1.81. , ex quibus plurimum se traxisse eloquentiae M. Tullius confitetur, quis dubitet Platonem esse praecipuum sive acumine disserendi sive eloquendi facultate divina quadam et Homerica? enim supra prosam orationem et quam pedestrem Graeci vocant surgit, ut mihi non hominis ingenio sed quodam Delphici videatur oraculo dei instinctus.
1.82. Why should I speak of the unaffected charm of Xenophon, so far beyond the power of affectation to attain? The Graces themselves seem to have moulded his style, and we may with the utmost justice say of him, what the writer of the old comedy said of Pericles, that the goddess of persuasion sat enthroned upon his lips.
1.82. ego commemorem Xenophontis illam iucunditatem inadfectatam, sed quam nulla consequi adfectatio possit? ut ipsae sermonem finxisse Gratiae videantur et, quod de Pericle veteris comoediae testimonium est, in hunc transferri iustissime possit, in labris eius sedisse quandam persuadendi deam. reliquorum Socraticorum elegantiam?
1.83. Why should I dwell on the elegance of the rest of the Socratics? or on Aristotle, with regard to whom I hesitate whether to praise him more for his knowledge, for the multitude of his writings, the sweetness of his style, the penetration revealed by his discoveries or the variety of the tasks which he essayed? In Theophrastus we find such a superhuman brilliance of style that his name is said to be derived therefrom.
1.83. Aristotelem? quem dubito scientia rerum an scriptorum copia an eloquendi suavitate an inventionum acumine an varietate operum clariorem putem. in Theophrasto tam est loquendi nitor ille divinus, ut ex eo nomen quoque traxisse dicatur.
1.84. The ancient Stoics indulged their eloquence comparatively little. Still, they pleaded the cause of virtue, and the rules which they laid down for argument and proof have been of the utmost value. But they showed themselves shrewd thinkers rather than striking orators, which indeed they never aimed at being.
1.84. indulsere eloquentiae Stoici veteres; sed cum honesta suaserunt tum in colligendo probandoque quae instituerant plurimum valuerunt, rebus tamen acuti magis quam, id quod sane non adfectaverunt, oratione magnifici.
1.85. I now come to Roman authors, and shall follow the same order in dealing with them. As among Greek authors Homer provided us with the most auspicious opening, so will Virgil among our own. For of all epic poets, Greek or Roman, he, without doubt, most nearly approaches to Homer.
1.85. nobis per Romanos quoque auctores ordo ducendus est. ut apud illos Homerus sic apud nos Vergilius auspicatissimum dederit exordium, omnium eius generis poetarum Graecorum nostrorumque haud dubie proximus.
1.86. I will repeat the words which I heard Domitius Afer use in my young days. I asked what poet in his opinion came nearest to Homer, and he replied, “Virgil comes second, but is nearer first than third.” And in truth, although we must needs bow before the immortal and superhuman genius of Homer, there is greater diligence and exactness in the work of Virgil just because his task was harder. And perhaps the superior uniformity of the Roman's excellence balances Homer's pre-eminence in his outstanding passages.
1.86. enim verbis iisdem, quae ex Afro Domitio iuvenis excepi; qui mihi interroganti, quem Homero crederet maxime accedere, Secundus, inquit, est Vergilius, propior tamen primo quam tertio. hercule ut illi naturae caelesti atque immortali cesserimus, ita curae et diligentiae vel ideo in hoc plus est, quod ei fuit magis laborandum, et quantum eminentibus vincimur, fortasse aequalitate pensamus.
1.87. All our other poets follow a long way in the rear. Macer and Lucretius are, it is true, worth reading, but not for the purpose of forming style, that is to say, the body of eloquence: both deal elegantly with their themes, but the former is tame and the latter difficult. The poems by which Varro of Atax gained his reputation were translations, but he is by no means to be despised, although his diction is not sufficiently rich to be of much service in developing the resources of eloquence.
1.87. omnes longe sequentur. Macer et Lucretius legendi quidem, sed non ut phrasin, id est, corpus eloquentiae faciant, elegantes in sua quisque materia sed alter humilis, alter difficilis. Atacinus Varro in iis, per quae nomen est adsecutus, interpres operis alieni, non spernendus quidem, verum ad augendam facultatem dicendi parum locuples.
1.88. Ennius deserves our reverence, but only as those groves whose age has made them sacred, but whose huge and ancient trunks inspire us with religious awe rather than with admiration for their beauty. There are other poets who are nearer in point of time and more useful for our present purpose. Ovid has a lack of seriousness even when he writes epic and is unduly enamoured of his own gifts, but portions of his work merit our praise.
1.88. Ennium sicut sacros vetustate lucos adoremus, in quibus grandia et antiqua robora iam non tantam habent speciem quantam religionem. alii atque ad hoc, de quo loquimur, magis utiles. quidem in herois quoque Ovidius et nimium amator ingenii sui, laudandus tamen in partibus.
1.89. On the other hand, although Cornelius Severus is a better versifier than poet, yet if, as has been said, he had written his poem on the Sicilian war in the same style throughout as his first book, he would have had a just claim to the second place. A premature death prevented the powers of Serranus from ripening to perfection, but his youthful works reveal the highest talent and a devotion to the true ideal of poetry, which is remarkable in one so young.
1.89. Cornelius autem Severus, etiam si sit versificator quam poeta melior, si tamen, ut est dictum, ad exemplar primi libri bellum Siculum perscripsisset, vindicaret sibi iure secundum locum. Serranum consummari mors immatura non passa est; puerilia tamen eius opera et maximam indolem ostendunt et admirabilem praecipue in aetate illa recti generis voluntatem.
1.90. We have suffered serious loss in the recent death of Valerius Flaccus. Saleius Bassus showed an ardent and genuinely poetic genius, but, like that of Serranus, it was not mellowed by years. Rabirius and Pedo deserve to be studied by those who have the time. Lucan is fiery and passionate and remarkable for the grandeur of his general reflexions, but, to be frank, I consider that he is more suitable for imitation by the orator than by the poet.
1.90. in Valerio Flacco nuper amisimus. et poeticum ingenium Saleii Bassi fuit, nec ipsum senectute maturuit. Rabirius ac Pedo non indigni cognitione, si vacet. Lucanus ardens et concitatus et sententiis clarissimus et, ut dicam quod sentio, magis oratoribus quam poetis imitandus.
1.91. I have restricted my list of poets to these names, because Germanicus Augustus has been distracted from the study of poetry on which he had embarked by his care for the governance of the world, and the gods have thought it scarce worthy of his powers that he should be the greatest of poets. But what can be more sublime, more learned, more perfect in every detail than those works to which he devoted himself in the seclusion to which he retired after conferring the supreme power upon his father and his brother? Who could sing of war better than he who wages it with such skill? To whom would the goddesses that preside over literature sooner lend an ear? To whom would Minerva, his familiar deity, more readily reveal her secrets?
1.91. nominavimus, quia Germanicum Augustum ab institutis studiis deflexit cura terrarum, parumque dis visum est esse eum maximum poetarum. tamen his ipsis eius operibus, in quae donato imperio iuvenis secesserat, sublimius, doctius, omnibus denique numeris praestantius? enim caneret bella melius, quam qui sic gerit? praesidentes studiis deae propius audirent? magis suas artes aperiret familiare numen Minerva?
1.92. Future ages shall tell of these things more fully; to-day his glory as a poet is dimmed by the splendour of his other virtues. But you will forgive us, Caesar, who worship at the shrine of literature, if we refuse to pass by your achievements in silence and insist on testifying at least that, as Virgil sings,The ivy creeps amid your victor bays We also challenge the supremacy of the Greeks in elegy.
1.92. haec plenius futura saecula, nunc enim ceterarum fulgore virtutum laus ista praestringitur. tamen sacra litterarum colentes feres, Caesar, si non tacitum hoc praeterimus et Vergiliano certe versu testamur,uictrices hederam tibi serpere laurus.
1.93. Of our elegiac poets Tibullus seems to me to be the most terse and elegant. There are, however, some who prefer Propertius. Ovid is more sportive than either, while Gallus is more severe. Satire, on the other hand, is all our own. The first of our poets to win renown in this connexion was Lucilius, some of whose devotees are so enthusiastic that they do not hesitate to prefer him not merely to all other satirists, but even to all other poets. I disagree with them as much as I do with Horace, who holds that Lucilius' verse has a “muddy flow, and that there is always something in him that might well be dispensed with.”
1.93. quoque Graecos provocamus, cuius mihi tersus atque elegans maxime videtur auctor Tibullus. qui Propertium malint. Ovidius utroque lascivior, sicut durior Gallus. quidem tota nostra est, in qua primus insignem laudem adeptus Lucilius quosdam ita deditos sibi adhuc habet amatores, ut eum non eiusdem modo operis auctoribus, sed omnibus poetis praeferre non dubitent.
1.94. For his learning is as remarkable as his freedom of speech, and it is this latter quality that gives so sharp an edge and such abundance of wit to his satire. Horace is far terser and purer in style, and must be awarded the first place, unless my judgment is led astray by my affection for his work. Persius also, although he wrote but one book, has acquired a high and well-deserved reputation, while there are other distinguished satirists still living whose praises will be sung by posterity.
1.94. quantum ab illis tantum ab Horatio dissentio, qui Lucilium fluere lutulentum et esse aliquid, quod tollere possis, putat. eruditio in eo mira et libertas atque inde acerbitas et abunde salis. est tersior ac purus magis Horatius et, nisi labor eius amore, praecipuus. et verae gloriae quamvis uno libro Persius meruit. clari hodieque et qui olim nominabuntur.
1.95. There is, however, another and even older type of satire which derives its variety not merely from verse, but from an admixture of prose as well. Such were the satires composed by Terentius Varro, the most learned of all Romans. He composed a vast number of erudite works, and possessed an extraordinary knowledge of the Latin language, of all antiquity and of the history of Greece and Rome. But he is an author likely to contribute more to the knowledge of the student than to his eloquence.
1.95. illud etiam prius saturae genus, sed non sola carminum varietate mixtum condidit Terentius Varro, vir Romanorum eruditissimus. hic libros et doctissimos composuit, peritissimus linguae Latinae et omnis antiquitatis et rerum Graecarum nostrarumque, plus tamen scientiae collaturus quam eloquentiae.
1.96. The iambic has not been popular with Roman poets as a separate form of composition, but is found mixed up with other forms of verse. It may be found in all its bitterness in Catullus, Bibaculus and Horace, although in the last-named the iambic is interrupted by the epode. Of our lyric writers Horace is almost the sole poet worth reading: for he rises at times to a lofty grandeur and is full of sprightliness and charm, while there is great variety in his figures, and his boldness in the choice of words is only equalled by his felicity. If any other lyric poet is to be mentioned, it will be Caesius Bassus, who has but lately passed from us. But he is far surpassed in talent by poets still living.
1.96. non sane a Romanis celebratus est ut proprium opus, sed aliis quibusdam interpositus; cuius acerbitas in Catullo, Bibaculo, Horatio, quanquam illi epodos interveniat, reperietur. Lyricorum idem Horatius fere solus legi dignus. et insurgit aliquando et plenus est iucunditatis et gratiae et varius figuris et verbis felicissime audax. quem adiicere velis, is erit Caesius Bassus, quem nuper vidimus; sed eum longe praecedunt ingenia viventium.
1.97. Among writers of tragedy Accius and Pacuvius are most remarkable for the force of their general reflexions, the weight of their words and the dignity of their characters. But they lack polish, and filed to put the finishing touches on their works, although the fault was perhaps rather that of the times in which they lived than of themselves. Accius is generally regarded as the most vigorous, while those who lay claim to learning regard Pacuvius as the more learned of the two.
1.97. scriptores veterum Accius atque Pacuvius clarissimi gravitate sententiarum, verborum pondere, auctoritate personarum. nitor et summa in excolendis operibus manus magis videri potest temporibus quam ipsis defuisse. tamen Accio plus tribuitur; Pacuvium videri doctiorem qui esse docti adfectant volunt.
1.98. The Thyestes of Varius is a match for any Greek tragedy, and the Medea of Ovid shows, in my opinion, to what heights that poet might have risen if he had been ready to curb his talents instead of indulging them. Of the tragic writers whom I myself have seen, Pomponius Secundus is by far the best: his older critics thought him insufficiently tragic, but admitted his eminence as far as learning and polish were concerned.
1.98. Varii Thyestes cuilibet Graecarum comparari potest. Ovidi Medea videtur mihi ostendere, quantam ille vir praestare potuerit, si ingenio suo imperare quam indulgere maluisset. quos viderim longe princeps Pomponius Secundus, quem senes quidem parum tragicum putabant, eruditione ac nitore praestare confitebantur.
1.99. Comedy is our weakest point. Although Varro quotes Aelius Stilo as saying that if the Muses wished to speak Latin, they would use the language of Plautus, although the ancients extol Caecilius, and although Scipio Africanus is credited with the works of Terence (which are the most elegant of their kind, and would be still more graceful if the poet had confined himself to the iambic trimeter), we still scarcely succeed in reproducing even a faint shadow of the charm of Greek comedy.
1.99. comoedia maxime claudicamus. Varro Musas, Aeli Stilonis sententia, Plautino dicat sermone locuturas fuisse, si Latine loqui vellent, licet Caecilium veteres laudibus ferant, licet Terentii scripta ad Scipionem Africanum referantur (quae tamen sunt in hoc genere elegantissima et plus adhuc habitura gratiae si intra versus trimetros stetissent), vix levem consequimur umbram, adeo ut mihi sermo ipse Romanus non recipere videatur illam solis concessam Atticis venerem, cum eam ne Graeci quidem in alio genere linguae suae obtinuerint.
1.100. Indeed, it seems to me as though the language of Rome were incapable of reproducing that graceful wit which was granted to Athens alone, and was beyond the reach of other Greek dialects to achieve. Afranius excels in the purely Roman comedy, but it is to be regretted that he revealed his own character by defiling his plots with the introduction of indecent paederastic intrigues. In history, however, we hold our own with the Greeks. I should not hesitate to match Saillst against Thucydides, nor would Herodotus resent Titus Livius being placed on the same level as himself. For the latter has a wonderful charm and transparency in narrative, while his speeches are eloquent beyond description; so admirably adapted is all that is said both to the circumstances and the speaker; and as regards the emotions, especially the more pleasing of them, I may sum him up by saying that no historian has ever depicted them to greater perfection.
1.100. excellit Afranius; utinam non inquinasset argumenta puerorum foedis amoribus mores suos fassus. non historia cesserit Graecis, nec opponere Thucydidi Sallustium verear, neque indignetur sibi Herodotus aequari T. Livium, cum in narrando mirae iucunditatis clarissimique candoris, tum in contionibus supra quam enarrari potest eloquentem; ita quae dicuntur omnia cum rebus tum personis accommodata sunt; adfectus quidem, praecipueque eos qui sunt dulciores, ut parcissime dicam, nemo historicorum commendavit magis.
1.102. Thus it is that, although by different means, he has acquired no less fame than has been awarded to the immortal rapidity of Sallust. For I strongly approve of the saying of Servilius Nonianus, that these historians were equal rather than alike. Servilius, whom I myself have heard, is himself remarkable for the force of his intellect, and is full of general reflexions, but he is less restrained than the dignity of history demands.
1.102. immortalem illam Sallustii velocitatem diversis virtutibus consecutus est. mihi egregie dixisse videtur Servilius Nonianus, pares eos magis quam similes; qui et ipse a nobis auditus est, clarus vi ingenii et sententiis creber, sed minus pressus quam historiae auctoritas postulat.
1.103. But that dignity is admirably maintained, thanks to his style, by Aufidius Bassus, a slightly earlier writer, especially in his work on the German war: he is always praiseworthy, though at times he fails to do his powers full justice.
1.103. paulum aetate praecedens eum Bassus Aufidius egregie, utique in libris belli Germanici, praestitit genere ipso, probabilis in omnibus, sed in quibusdam suis ipse viribus minor.
1.104. But there still survives to add lustre to this glorious age a man worthy to be remembered through all time: he is appreciated today, but after generations shall declare his name aloud. The bold utterances of Crenutius also have their admirers, and deserve their fame, though the passages which brought him to his ruin have been expurgated; still that which is left reveals a rich store of lofty animation and fearless reflexions upon life. There are other good writers as well, but I am merely selecting from the different departments of literature, not reviewing complete libraries.
1.104. adhuc et exornat aetatis nostrae gloriam vir saeculorum memoria dignus, qui olim nominabitur, nunc intelligitur. amatores nec immerito Cremuti libertas, quanquam circumcisis quae dixisse ei nocuerat. elatum abunde spiritum et audaces sententias deprehendas etiam in his quae manent. et alii scriptores boni, sed nos genera degustamus, non bibliothecas excutimus.
1.105. But it is our orators, above all, who enable us to match our Roman eloquence against that of Greece. For I would set Cicero against any one of their orators without fear of refutation. I know well enough what a storm I shall raise by this assertion, more especially since I do not propose for the moment to compare him with Demosthenes; for there would be no point in such a comparison, as I consider that Demosthenes should be the object of special study, and not merely studied, but even committed to memory.
1.105. vero vel praecipue Latinam eloquentiam parem facere Graecae possint. Ciceronem cuicunque eorum fortiter opposuerim. ignoro quantam mihi concitem pugnam, cum praesertim non sit id propositi, ut eum Demostheni comparem hoc tempore; neque enim attinet, cum Demosthenem in primis legendum vel ediscendum potius putem.
1.106. I regard the excellences of these two orators as being for the most part similar, that is to say, their judgment, their gift of arrangement, their methods of division, preparation and proof, as well as everything concerned with invention. In their actual style there is some difference. Demosthenes is more concentrated, Cicero more diffuse; Demosthenes makes his periods shorter than Cicero, and his weapon is the rapier, whereas Cicero's periods are longer, and at times he employs the bludgeon as well: nothing can be taken from the former, nor added to the latter; the Greek reveals a more studied, the Roman a more natural art.
1.106. ego virtutes plerasque arbitror similes, consilium, ordinem, dividendi, praeparandi, probandi rationem, omnia denique quae sunt inventionis. eloquendo est aliqua diversitas; densior ille hic copiosior, ille concludit adstrictius hic latius, pugnat ille acumine semper hic frequenter et pondere, illi nihil detrahi potest huic nihil adiici, curae plus in illo in hoc naturae.
1.107. As regards wit and the power of exciting pity, the two most powerful instruments where the feelings are concerned, we have the advantage. Again, it is possible that Demosthenes was deprived by national custom of the opportunity of producing powerful perorations, but against this may be set the fact that the different character of the Latin language debars us from the attainment of those qualities which are so much admired by the adherents of the Attic school. As regards their letters, which have in both cases survived, and dialogues, which Demosthenes never attempted, there can be no comparison between the two.
1.107. certe et commiseratione, qui duo plurimum in adfectibus valent, vincimus. fortasse epilogos illi mos civitatis abstulerit; sed et nobis illa, quae Attici mirantur, diversa Latini sermonis ratio minus permiserit. epistolis quidem, quanquam sunt utriusque, dialogisve, quibus nihil ille, nulla contentio est.
1.108. But, on the other hand, there is one point in which the Greek has the undoubted superiority: he comes first in point of time, and it was largely due to him that Cicero was able to attain greatness. For it seems to me that Cicero, who devoted himself heart and soul to the imitation of the Greeks, succeeded in reproducing the force of Demosthenes, the copious flow of Plato, and the charm of Isocrates.
1.108. vero in hoc, quod et prior fuit et ex magna parte Ciceronem, quantus est, fecit. mihi videtur M. Tullius, cum se totum ad imitationem Graecorum contulisset, effinxisse vim Demosthenis, copiam Platonis, iucunditatem Isocratis.
1.109. But he did something more than reproduce the best elements in each of these authors by dint of careful study; it was to himself that he owed most of, or rather all his excellences, which spring from the extraordinary fertility of his immortal genius. For he does not, as Pindar says, “collect the rain from heaven, but wells forth with living water,” since Providence at his birth conferred this special privilege upon him, that eloquence should make trial of all her powers in him.
1.109. vero quod in quoque optimum fuit, studio consecutus est tantum; sed plurimas vel potius omnes ex se ipso virtutes extulit immortalis ingenii beatissima ubertas. enim pluvias, ut ait Pindarus, aquas colligit, sed vivo gurgite exundat, dono quodam providentiae genitus, in quo totas vires suas eloquentia experiretur.
1.110. For who can instruct with greater thoroughness, or more deeply stir the emotions? Who has ever possessed such a gift of charm? He seems to obtain as a boon what in reality he extorts by force, and when he wrests the judge from the path of his own judgment, the latter seems not to be swept away, but merely to follow.
1.110. quis docere diligentius, movere vehementius potest? tanta unquam iucunditas adfuit? ut ipsa illa quae extorquet impetrare eum credas, et cum transversum vi sua iudicem ferat tamen ille non rapi videatur, sed sequi.
1.111. Further, there is such weight in all that he says that his audience feel ashamed to disagree with him, and the zeal of the advocate is so transfigured that it has the effect of the sworn evidence of a witness, or the verdict of a judge. And at the same time all these excellences, of which scarce one could be attained by the ordinary man even by the most concentrated effort, flow from him with every appearance of spontaneity, and his style, although no fairer has ever fallen on the ears of men, none the less displays the utmost felicity and ease.
1.111. in omnibus quae dicit tanta auctoritas inest, ut dissentire pudeat, nec advocati studium sed testis aut iudicis adferat fidem, cum interim haec omnia, quae vix singula quisquam intentissima cura consequi posset, fluunt illaborata, et illa, qua nihil pulchrius auditum est, oratio prae se fert tamen felicissimam facilitatem.
1.112. It was not, therefore, without good reason that his own contemporaries spoke of his “sovereignty” at the bar, and that for posterity the name of Cicero has come to be regarded not as the name of a man, but as the name of eloquence itself. Let us, therefore, fix our eyes on him, take him as our pattern, and let the student realise that he has made real progress if he is a passionate admirer of Cicero.
1.112. non immerito ab hominibus aetatis suae regnare in iudiciis dictus est, apud posteros vero id consecutus, ut Cicero iam non hominis nomen, sed eloquentiae habeatur. igitur spectemus, hoc propositum nobis sit exemplum, ille se profecisse sciat, cui Cicero valde placebit.
1.113. Asinius Pollio had great gifts of invention and great precision of language (indeed, some think him too precise), while his judgment and spirit were fully adequate. But he is so far from equalling the polish and charm of Cicero that he might have been born a generation before him. Messala, on the other hand, is polished and transparent and displays his nobility in his utterance, but he fails to do his powers full justice.
1.113. in Asinio Pollione inventio, summa diligentia, adeo ut quibusdam etiam nimia videatur, et consilii et animi satis; a nitore et iucunditate Ciceronis ita longe abest, ut videri possit saeculo prior. Messala nitidus et candidus et quadam modo praeferens in dicendo nobilitatem suam, viribus minor.
1.114. As for Gaius Caesar, if he had had leisure to devote himself to the courts, he would have been the one orator who could have been considered a serious rival to Cicero. Such are his force, his penetration and his energy that we realise that he was as vigorous in speech as in his conduct of war. And yet all these qualities are enhanced by a marvellous elegance of language, of which he was an exceptionally zealous student.
1.114. C. vero Caesar si foro tantum vacasset, non alius ex nostris contra Ciceronem nominaretur. in eo vis est, id acumen, ea concitatio, ut illum eodem animo dixisse, quo bellavit, appareat; exornat tamen haec omnia mira sermonis, cuius proprie studiosus fuit, elegantia.
1.115. Caelius has much natural talent and much wit, more especially when speaking for the prosecution, and deserved a wiser mind and a longer life. I have come across some critics who preferred Calvus to all other orators, and others again who agreed with Cicero that too severe self-criticism had robbed him of his natural vigour. But he was the possessor of a solemn, weighty and chastened style, which was also capable at times of genuine vehemence. He was an adherent of the Attic school and an untimely death deprived him of his full meed of honour, at least if we regard him as likely to have acquired fresh qualities.
1.115. ingenii in Caelio et praecipue in accusando multa urbanitas, dignusque vir cui et mens melior et vita longior contigisset. qui Calvum praeferrent omnibus, inveni qui Ciceroni crederent, eum nimia contra se calumnia verum sanguinem perdidisse; sed est et sancta et gravis oratio et castigata et frequenter vehemens quoque. autem est Atticorum, fecitque illi properata mors iniuriam, si quid adiecturus fuit.
1.116. Servius Sulpicius acquired a great and well-deserved reputation by his three speeches. Cassius Severus, if read with discrimination, will provide much that is worthy of imitation: if to his other merits he had added appropriateness of tone and dignity of style, he would deserve a place among the greatest.
1.116. Servius Sulpicius insignem non inmerito famam tribus orationibus meruit., si cum iudicio legatur, dabit imitatione digna Cassius Severus, qui si ceteris virtutibus colorem et gravitatem orationis adiecisset, ponendus inter praecipuos foret.
1.117. For his natural talents are great, his gift of bitterness, wit and passion remarkable, but he allowed the sharpness of his temper to prevail over his judgment. Moreover, though his jests are pungent enough, this very pungency often turned the laugh against himself.
1.117. et ingenii plurimum est in eo et acerbitas mira, et urbanitas et fervor; sed plus stomacho quam consilio dedit. ut amari sales, ita frequenter amaritudo ipsa ridicule est.
1.118. There are many other clever speakers, but it would be a long task to deal with them all. Domitius Afer and Julius Africanus are by far the most distinguished. The former is superior in art and in every department of oratory, indeed he may he ranked with the old orators without fear of contradiction. The latter shows greater energy, but is too great a precisian in the choice of words, prone to tediously long periods and somewhat extravagant in his metaphors. There have been distinguished talents even of more recent date.
1.118. alii multi diserti,(quos persequi longum est. quos uiderim Domitius Afer et Iulius Africanus longe praestantissimi. ille et toto genere dicendi praeferendus et quem in numero veterum habere non timeas; hic concitatior, sed in cura verborum nimius et compositione nonnunquam longior et translationibus parum modicus. clara et nuper ingenia.
1.119. For example, Trachalus was, as a rule, elevated and sufficiently clear in his language: one realised that his aims were high, but he was better to listen to than to read. For his voice was, in my experience, unique in its beauty of tone, while his delivery would have done credit to an actor, his action was full of grace and he possessed every external advantage in profusion. Vibius Crispus, again, was well-balanced, agreeable and born to charm, though he was better in private than in public cases.
1.119. et Trachalus plerumque sublimis et satis apertus fuit et quem velle optima crederes, auditus tamen maior; nam et vocis, quantam in nullo cognovi, felicitas et pronuntiatio vel scenis suffectura et decor, omnia denique ei, quae sunt extra, superfuerunt; et Vibius Crispus compositus et iucundus et delectationi natus, privatis tamen causis quam publicis melior.
1.120. Julius Secundus, had he lived longer, would undoubtedly have attained a great and enduring reputation. For he would have acquired, as he was actually acquiring, all that was lacking to his qualities, namely, a far greater pugnacity and a closer attention to substance as well as form.
1.120. Secundo, si longior contigisset aetas, clarissimum profecto nomen oratoris apud posteros foret. enim atque adiiciebat ceteris virtutibus suis quod desiderari potest; id est autem, ut esset multo magis pugnax et saepius ad curam rerum ab elocutione respiceret.
1.121. But, in spite of the untimeliness of his end, he occupies a high place, thanks to his fluency, the grace with which he set forth whatever he desired, the lucidity, smoothness and beauty of his speech, the propriety revealed in the use of words, even when employed figuratively, and the point which characterises even his most hazardous expressions.
1.121. interceptus quoque magnum sibi vindicat locum; ea est facundia, tanta in explicando quod velit gratia, tam candidum et leve et speciosum dicendi genus, tanta verborum etiam quae adsumpta sunt proprietas, tanta in quibusdam ex periculo petitis significantia.
1.122. Subsequent writers on the history of oratory will find abundant material for praise among the orators who flourish to-day: for the law courts can boast a glorious wealth of talent. Indeed, the consummate advocates of the present day are serious rivals of the ancients, while enthusiastic effort and lofty ideals lead many a young student to tread in their footsteps and imitate their excellence.
1.122. , qui post nos de oratoribus scribent, magnam eos, qui nunc vigent, materiam vere laudandi. enim summa hodie, quibus illustratur forum, ingenia. et consummati iam patroni veteribus aemulantur et eos iuvenum ad optima tendentium imitatur ac sequitur industria.
1.123. I have still to deal with writers on philosophy, of whom Rome has so far produced but few who are distinguished for their style. But Cicero, who is great in every department of literature, stands out as the rival of Plato in this department as well. Brutus was an admirable writer on such themes, in which he distinguished himself far more than in his speeches: he is equal to the serious nature of his subject, and the reader realises that he feels what he says.
1.123. qui de philosophia scripserint, quo in genere paucissimos adhuc eloquentes litterae Romanae tulerunt. igitur M. Tullius, qui ubique, etiam in hoc opere Platonis aemulus exstitit. vero multoque quam in orationibus praestantior Brutus suffecit ponderi rerum; scias eum sentire quae dicit.
1.124. Cornelius Celsus, a follower of the Sextii, wrote a number of philosophical works, which have considerable grace and polish. Among the Stoics Plautus is useful as giving a knowledge of the subject.
1.124. non parum multa Cornelius Celsus, Sextios secutus, non sine cultu ac nitore. Plautus in Stoicis rerum cognitioni utilis. Epicureis levis quidem, sed non iniucundus tamen auctor est Catius.
1.125. Among the Epicureans Catius is agreeable to read, though lacking in weight. I have deliberately postponed the discussion of Seneca in connexion with the various departments of literature owing to the fact that there is a general, though false, impression that I condemn and even detest him. It is true that I had occasion to pass censure upon him when I was endeavouring to recall students from a depraved style, weakened by every kind of error, to a severer standard of taste.
1.125. industria Senecam in omni genere eloquentiae distuli propter vulgatam falso de me opinionem, qua damnare eum et invisum quoque habere sum creditus. accidit mihi, dum corruptum et omnibus vitiis fractum dicendi genus revocare ad severiora iudicia contendo.
1.126. But at that time Seneca's works were in the hands of every young man, and my aim was not to ban his reading altogether, but to prevent his being preferred to authors superior to himself, but whom he was never tired of disparaging; for, being conscious of the fact that his own style was very different from theirs, he was afraid that he would fail to please those who admired them. But the young men loved him rather than imitated him, and fell as far below him as he fell below the ancients.
1.126. autem solus hic fere in manibus adolescentium fuit. non equidem omnino conabar excutere, sed potioribus praeferri non sinebam, quos ille non destiterat incessere, cum diversi sibi conscius generis placere se in dicendo posse iis, quibus illi placent, diffideret. Amabant autem eum magis quam imitabantur, tantumque ab eo defluebant, quantum ille ab antiquis descenderat.
1.127. For I only wish they had equalled or at least approached his level. But he pleased them for his faults alone, and each individual sought to imitate such of those faults as lay within his capacity to reproduce: and then brought reproach on his master by boasting that he spoke in the genuine Senecan manner.
1.127. enim optandum pares ac saltem proximos illi viro fieri. placebat propter sola vitia et ad ea se quisque dirigebat effingenda quae poterat; deinde cum se iactaret eodem modo dicere, Senecam infamabat.
1.128. Seneca had many excellent qualities, a quick and fertile intelligence with great industry and wide knowledge, though as regards the last quality he was often led into error by those whom he had entrusted with the task of investigating certain subjects on his behalf.
1.128. e multae alioqui et magnae virtutes fuerunt, ingenium facile et copiosum, plurimum studii, multa rerum cognitio; in qua tamen aliquando ab his, quibus inquirenda quaedam mandabat, deceptus est.
1.129. He dealt with almost every department of knowledge; for speeches, poems, letters and dialogues all circulate under his name. In philosophy he showed a lack of critical power, but was none the less quite admirable in his denunciations of vice. His works contain a number of striking general reflexions and much that is worth reading for edification; but his style is for the most part corrupt and exceedingly dangerous, for the very reason that its vices are so many and attractive.
1.129. etiam omnem fere studiorum materiam. et orationes eius et poemata et epistolae et dialogi feruntur. philosophia parum diligens, egregius tamen vitiorum insectator fuit. in eo claraeque sententiae, multa etiam morum gratia legenda; sed in eloquendo corrupta pleraque atque eo perniciosissima, quod abundant dulcibus vitiis.
1.130. One could wish that, while he relied on his own intelligence, he had allowed himself to be guided by the taste of others. For if he had only despised all unnatural expressions and had not been so passionately fond of all that was incorrect, if he had not felt such affection for all that was his own, and had not impaired the solidity of his matter by striving after epigrammatic brevity, he would have won the approval of the learned instead of the enthusiasm of boys.
1.130. eum suo ingenio dixisse, alieno iudicio. si oblique contempsisset, si parum recta non concupisset, si non omnia sua amasset, si rerum pondera minutissimis sententiis non fregisset, consensus potius eruditorum quam puerorum amore comprobaretur.
1.131. But even as it is, he deserves to be read by those whose powers have been formed and firmly moulded on the standards of a severer taste, if only because he will exercise their critical faculties in distinguishing between his merits and his defects. For, as I have said, there is much in him which we may approve, much even that we may admire. Only we must be careful in our selection: would he had been as careful himself. For his genius deserved to be devoted to better aims, since what it does actually aim at, it succeeds in achieving.
1.131. sic quoque iam robustis et severiore genere satis firmatis legendus vel ideo quod exercere potest utrinque iudicium. enim, ut dixi, probanda in eo, multa etiam admiranda sunt, eligere modo curae sit; quod utinam ipse fecisset. enim fuit illa natura, quae meliora vellet; quod voluit effecit.
2.1. II. It is from these and other authors worthy of our study that we must draw our stock of words, the variety of our figures and our methods of composition, while we must form our minds on the model of every excellence. For there can be no doubt that in art no small portion of our task lies in imitation, since, although invention came first and is all-important, it is expedient to imitate whatever has been invented with success.
2.1. his ceterisque lectione dignis auctoribus et verborum sumenda copia est et varietas figurarum et componendi ratio, tum ad exemplum virtutum omnium mens dirigenda. enim dubitari potest, quin artis pars magna contineatur imitatione. ut invenire primum fuit estque praecipuum, sic ea, quae bene inventa sunt, utile sequi.
2.2. And it is a universal rule of life that we should wish to copy what we approve in others. It is for this reason that boys copy the shapes of letters that they may learn to write, and that musicians take the voices of their teachers, painters the works of their predecessors, and peasants the principles of agriculture which have been proved in practice, as models for their imitation. In fact, we may note that the elementary study of every branch of learning is directed by reference to some definite standard that is placed before the learner.
2.2. omnis vitae ratio sic constat, ut quae probamus in aliis facere ipsi velimus. litterarum ductus, ut scribendi fiat usus, pueri sequuntur, sic musici vocem docentium, pictores opera priorum, rustici probatam experimento culturam in exemplum intuentur; omnis denique disciplinae initia ad propositum sibi praescriptum formari videmus.
2.3. We must, in fact, either be like or unlike those who have proved their excellence. It is rare for nature to produce such resemblance, which is more often the result of imitation. But the very fact that in every subject the procedure to be followed is so much more easy for us than it was for those who had no model to guide them, is a positive drawback, unless we use this dubious advantage with caution and judgment.
2.3. hercule necesse est aut similes aut dissimiles bonis sirus. raro natura praestat, frequenter imitatio. hoc ipsum, quod tanto faciliorem nobis rationem rerum omnium facit quam fuit iis, qui nihil quod sequerentur habuerunt, nisi caute et cum iudicio apprehenditur, nocet.
2.4. The first point, then, that we must realise is that imitation alone is not sufficient, if only for the reason that a sluggish nature is only too ready to rest content with the inventions of others. For what would have happened in the days when models were not, if men had decided to do and think of nothing that they did not know already? The answer is obvious: nothing would ever have been discovered.
2.4. omnia igitur imitatio per se ipsa non sufficit, vel quia pigri est ingenii contentum esse iis, quae sint ab allis inventa. enim futurum erat temporibus illis, quae sine exemplo fuerunt, si homines nihil, nisi quod iam cognovissent, faciendum sibi aut cogitandum putassent? nihil fuisset inventum.
2.5. Why, then, is it a crime for us to discover something new? Were primitive men led to make so many discoveries simply by the natural force of their imagination, and shall we not then be spurred on to search for novelty by the very knowledge that those who sought of old were rewarded by success?
2.5. igitur nefas est reperiri aliquid a nobis, quod ante non fuerit? illi rudes sola mentis natura ducti sunt in hoc ut tam multa generarent, nos ad quaerendum non eo ipso concitemur, quod certe scimus invenisse eos qui quaesierunt?